1f. Minutes of
—P
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler
and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt, Charles
Foich and Roger Knutson
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Johnson wanted to
make a public announcement regarding the bus collision today and under Council
' Presentations, comment on water concerns at a new home on Bluff Creek Drive;
Mayor Chmial wanted to add under Administrative Presentations, National League
of Cities in St. Peter and a letter from Met Council. All voted in favor of the
' agenda as amended and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Councilman Johnson: I spent most of the morning this morning with the children
from the bus collision. Don and I went out, Don Ashworth and I went out. Since
I knew a lot of the 'kids, I got on the bus. I'd like to share something with
the audience here. This was a really close to a tragedy we had here in town.
Fortunately due to the skillful driving of Miss Faye Robertson who was the bus
driver here, she kept the bus upright as she was hit by the van and forced into
the ditch. If she had rolled that bus, we would be now with a lot of children
still in the hospital but as it is, we had some 50 children be processed and out
of the hospital by noon today. I'd like to beyond thanking Miss Faye Robertson
for excellent skills, also thank the Carver County Sheriff, Minnesota State
' Patrol, Chaska Police, Eden Prairie Police, Chan Fire Department, Chan Public
Safety, Chaska Fire Department, Excelsior Fire Department, Waconia Ridgeview
Medical Center's emergency staff and St. Francis Medical Center and the DNR who
' had an officer at the site helping to do traffic. This shows the cooperation
that we have between our neighboring cities and the effectiveness. I was very
impressed with Waconia Hospital. A small regional hospital having SO patients
show up on their door at 10:00 on a Monday morning and how well they took care
1 of them. Kept track of them. It's hard to keep track of 50 1st thru 5th graders
under any circumstances but in a hospital with all this going on. The funny
part is they were going to have a drill with about 10 to 20 casualties on
' Thursday of this week. They've now canceled their drill but they did an
excellent job and everybody involved should be commended for their hard work on
this. Especailly Faye Robertson, the bus driver.
Mayor Chmiel: I also understand that there was 1 adult for every 3 children
which is sort of neat too. To take care of them.
•
' Councilman Johnson: Yeah. The volunteers came out all over the place. It was
amazing how many people they were able to get from the cafeteria staff, the
physical therapy staff. Everybody from the hospital, director on down was
1
1
,' City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
•
Iworking with children out there. It>was really great and when one of the
mothers who happened to be hospitalized that day and her 2 kids were involved in
the wreck and they were able to get the information right up to her room that
Iher kids were okay and stuff. It was really a well run, fortunately in this 1
case almost a drill because the injuries were so minor. I'm really impressed. t
IIMayor Chmiel: Right. I think we all are.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
I approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Approve Plans and Specifications for Lake Susan Hills West 4th Addition,
IProject No. 90-14.
e. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval for Summit at Near Mountain, Lundgren
IBrothers.
f. Approval of Accounts.
Ic. Approval of City Council Minutes dated August 27, 1990
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 15, 1990
IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
B. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR AUXILIARY TURN LANES ON TH 101 AT
ICHOCTAW CIRCLE AND SANDY HOOK ROAD AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't need the paperwork on it. I mentioned this
before to Gary Warren. I've had an extensive discussions and we've worked on
Isome water drainage problems out on Cheyenne. The plan calls for auxiliary turn
lanes on TH 101 at Choctaw and Sandy Hook. I have no disagreement with that. I
just feel we grossly missed an opportunity to maybe take care of Cheyenne also.
I Specific concern that I brought up was one, cars traveling north on TH 101
making a left into Cheyenne are getting rear ended because cars feel they can
get around and to what extent we can put a passing lane there, I think that's
I part of the problem we had at the major accident. Cars.trying to pass each
other. But I am looking at a map. Cheyenne is so close to both of these roads
coming onto TH 101, I'm kind of unsure why we didn't go ahead and look at that
intersection also. And I did ask Gary Warren, the City Engineer to look into
I that for us with the help of MnDot for the future and I don't know where he's at
with that. I wanted to re-emphasize that if we're spending $32,000.00 or so,
total project for both those turn lanes, that doesn't sound like a lot for
I safety and maybe we need to look a little close at Cheyenne. I'm just
re-emphasizing that and I'd move approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
II
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Plans and
Specifications for auxiliary turn lanes on TH 101 at Choctaw Circle and Sandy
I Hook Road and authorize the advertising of bids with direction for the City
Engineer to look into Cheyenne. All voted in favor and the motion carried and . ,
the notion carried unanimously.
II 2
II
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
1
D. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY UPGRADE.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll hit it real quick for some of the concerns I have. First '
concern that I have is that a portion of this road is also within the city of
Victoria. My concerns are whether or not we've had discussions with the city
and knowing what position they may be taking on that. That's the first thing.
The second thing that I have here is it's saying that the timing schedule, in
1991 the City Council initiate a feasibility study to look at the upgrade of
which I don't have any concerns with. In fact I fully agree with that. One
part that I do have is in here, the concerns of the project design, the
recommendation is the firm of Bill Engelhardt who is a good engineer, handle as
he handled the Frontier Trail project. I guess some of the things I thought
with the new engineers that we had on board, Charles. A question I have is, why 1
can't the city do this without the involvement of a consulting engineer? Being
that winter's coming on, there might be some timeframe there that this might be
looked at as a particular project. I guess that was the only concerns that I ,
had on that particular one. Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: I didn't pull this one. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom.
Councilman Workman: I did have a point. Don, you covered the one about the
Victoria. I think that's a very important portion of the parkway. And you
touched on the magnitude of the project. My specific question would be, is this
a bid situation for services ever? Are we going to be spending a, I guess I'm
not expecting you to answer right now but what the cost of that is and if that
should maybe be looked at and I'd prefer Don's suggestion that we do it in house
if we can. That's all I had.
Councilman Johnson: I think the first part of this is in the resolution. The
last sentence of the report. The City shall contact the City of Victoria for
their input and participation. Do you have a page missing? '
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's on page 2. ,
Councilman Workman: I guess are we, should we go ahead and do with this with
that missing? '
Councilman Johnson: With what missing?
Councilman Workman: If in fact that is not agreed upon by Victoria, is that '
something that's going to affect this or not?
Mayor Chmiel: This is a County Road for one. Of course they're within the city '
so it still has to be done and that does need that upgrading.
Councilman Workman: But are our State Aid dollars going to be used to repair
, - that portion?
3
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Johnson: It's not on our State Aid map.
Councilman Workman: It's Victoria's. So you're committing Victoria's funds?
' Councilwoman Dimler: If Victoria doesn't agree, what then?
Councilman Johnson: We only improve to their border.
Councilman Workman: That's what I'm asking. Are we going to go ahead with this
project?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we'll do it as far as our responsibilities are.
Councilman Johnson: I think Victoria, we've gained a good working relationship
' with all of our cities lately and I think we won't have much problem and this is
one of the most important street projects we've got going. I wish we could have
done it this year but we just didn't have the State Aid money this year to do
1 it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that I'd like to move, are you going to say something?
Don Ashworth: I was going to say, the Council's asking good questions. I see
no reason this item couldn't be tabled to the 24th to resolve those questions.
IMayor Chmiel: Alright.
Councilman Johnson: Especially about the in house capability. This is a fairly
large project. Frontier was a lot shorter. Maybe what, a fourth of this
II project in length but it was very complicated too. A lot of surveying going
into a project like this. That's one of the hardest parts.
IIMayor Chmiel: I'll make a motion to table this particular item.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
IIMayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to table authorizing the
preparation of a feasibility study for Minnewashta Parkway upgrade until the
next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried
Iunanimously.
H. SET BUDGET WORKSESSION, SEPTEMBER 17, 1990.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: On item (h) the only thing is that I am not available on
the 17th and if you would agree to another date that I would really want to make
it. I'm available on the 18th.
' Mayor Chmiel: I'm open on the 18th.
ICouncilman Johnson: Is the 18th a Tuesday?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
' 4
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Councilman Johnson: I might be a little late coming in from
9 re fang a soccer
game.
Councilman Workman: 7:00 in the morning works.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, 7:00 in the morning works for me too. '
Councilwoman Dimler: That's fine.
Councilman Johnson: Our City Manager is not an early riser. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, shall we move it to Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.?
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I move approval.
Councilman Workman: At what time? '
Councilman Johnson: 7:00 p.m. .
Councilman Workman: I was serious about 7:00 a.m.. '
Councilman Johnson: Oh, you're not available in the evening?
Councilman Workman: Yeah, but I'd just as soon get it over with.
Don Ashworth: That's fine. I had proposed to bring in Barton Aschmann who had
been the consultants on TH 5 and to continue their, they're ready to bring back
some of the design elements that we had talked about from a month ago so I had
hoped to take and combine this potentially with a meeting with the HRA or at
least invite them to it. I don't know how their morning schedule would be with
Barton Aschmann's.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it'd probably be better in the evening. I don't like
giving up any more evenings than you do Tom.
Councilman Johnson: Would it be better earlier in the evening? '
Councilman Workman: Doesn't matter if it's in the evening what time.
Mayor Chmiel: 7:00. Okay, do you want to move that? '
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval with changing the date to September 18th
at 7:00 p.m.. '
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to set the budget '
worksession for September 18, 1990 at 7:00 p.m.. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
5
11
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
I. COMMUNITY CENTER REFERENDUM. RESOLUTION APPROVING BALLOT QUESTION.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Item (i) has to do with the Community Center referendum
resolution for the ballot question. Especially on page, let's see. They're not
numbered. Well the back of the first page there. It's 1(a). The City Council
finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the health, welfare and
' safety of the City and the residents that the City acquire, construct, and equip
a new municipal community center (Project). I guess I don't like that wording
because it does not take into account all of the things that we said earlier.
That being that we would make sure that the citizenry was well informed as to
the facts regarding the center and I don't believe that that states my position.
Don Ashworth: I agree. As you can see, this was faxed over late on Thursday
and I did not get a chance to proof this before it went out in the packet. The
wordage as it would appear on the ballot is pretty set by State Statute. It's
going to be difficult for Council to change that. The resolution however, if
' the Council would wish to delete 1(a) in it's entirety. Relabel (b) to (a).
Change (c) to simply state that the question of placing the question onto the
ballot in the amount of $4.1, just change that to the factual position as to the
' amount that would be placed. I think (d) is alright is it not? (e). The rest
of it should be fine.
Councilwoman Dimler: The other concern is that it doesn't give the location.
Councilman Workman: Should the ballot question have the location Don? Is that
possible?
Don Ashworth: You can place it into the referendum. You are then bound by that
location.
' Councilman Workman: We are anyway aren't we?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Workman: I mean there's no, other, real other options anyway.
' Don Ashworth: In all likelihood, probably not. The more you put into the
ballot, you are then set with what it is you put in.
Councilman Johnson: There's been cases in the past, which this may not be too
appplicable to that, where by using general statement in it, that when there was
I think there was something about building of parks and we were able to purchase
a park less than what the bonds were for but instead of saying specifically what
' park we were going to do, we were then able to use that money to purchase some
other parklands. Here if somebody comes up with a donation of land or something
that's in a better position, we may be $4.1 million be able to build it
elsewhere or for less. By being more specific all you're doing is tying your
hands and there's no use in tying your hands at this time. Is (a) necessary by
State law?
Don Ashworth: No.
' 6
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 II
Councilman Johnson: I mean it sounds like one of those legalies type of things
that lawyers have to throw in here in.order to meet State Statute.
Don Ashworth: Roger? To the best of my knowledge, Dave Kennedy who drafted
this was solely attempting to embellish the resolution as much as possible.
Roger Knutson: There'd be no legal requirement to have (a) in there.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, if there's no legal requirement in there, then
scratch that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess one other things is how are we going to ,
address the concerns then? We were going to have a fact sheet that was from the
Council and the staff to the voter. Is that going to be separate from
this? Are we still going to do that?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: The fact sheet didn't come through.
Don Ashworth: Well no. The Council suggested various changes to that and asked
that that be submitted back to the City Council before it was sent to the
voters. I did send a notice to community center task force members. I suggested
that we sent out information approximately 2, and I believe 2 and 4 weeks in
advance of the referendum. I would hope to have to the Council the revised fact
sheets prior to that deadline.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So this is separate from this? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to make sure that we're still doing that. '
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Then I would move approval. Did you want to
•
discuss it?
Mayor Chmiel: No. You covered everything I wanted to. Go ahead. '
Councilman Johnson: I'll second.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of 1(i) with the deletion of item 1(a).
Councilman Johnson: And modifications to (c). '
Councilwoman Dimler: And modifications to (c).
Resolution 190-107: Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilaan Johnson seconded to '
approve the resolution for.the Community Center Referendum ballot question
amended to delete item 1(a) and modifying item 1(c) per the City Manager's
recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1
' City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Conrad Fiskness: Mayor Chmiel, I'm Conrad Fiskness. President of the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. If you'd indulge me with about 30
' seconds here I would like to present a check to you in the amount of $757.00.
Something in excess of a year ago there was identified down on the bay on the
southwest side of Lake Riley a build up of a rather substantial amount of
sediment creating an unwanted delta in Lake Riley and between the City of
Chanhassen and the Watershed, a plan was worked out to have that situation
corrected. Not only to remove the silt but also to correct the sedimentation
' basin so that we would be able to eliminate the problem in the future. At least
control it and we have now been certified by your city that that work has been
completed. It was a 50-50 cost sharing project in the amount of $1,514.00 and
so I have a check of $757.00 that I'd like to give you and point out that within
the limited constraints of our budget, where we can work with the City on
solving problems, we like to do that and also show you that we also try to put
our money where our mouth is when water issues are involved.
Mayor Chmiel: Great. Thank you Conrad. On behalf of the City we'll accept
your check.
' Councilman Johnson: . Is there any more checks out there?
Mayor Chmiel: Could you put a few zeros behind this? Thank you. Any others?
Loren Habegger: Member of the Council, my name is Loren Habegger and I'm a
representative of Wanegrin, Incorporated out of Bloomington, Minnesota. I
' appeared at your last Council meeting and the final conditions for mining and
excavating permit, our grading permit were finalized by you people. We received
the letter here last week and I'll make this brief. The conditions, after we
' reviewed them with our attorney, we do feel there's a big problem here and
there's some discrimination on the part of what was passed. At this time I will
turn the podium over to Mr. Wanegrin who is in charge of operations. We did
' meet with our attorney this afternoon and he will brief you on the situation.
Blackie Wanegrin.
Blackie Wanegrin: If there's anybody in here that don't like the construction
' language, I'll give you a couple minutes to excuse yourself.
Councilman Johnson: Is that related to Marine language?
Mayor Chmiel: We are on TV.
Blackie Wanegrin: Good. Let everybody know. Shut your TV off because you
' don't dare put it over the air. This letter should have never been sent out
without your City Attorney looking at this. You're acting as the County here.
You're acting as everything. We had a permit for this job. We spent months,
' thru Watershed and everything. We had a permit. We went out there. We was
doing our work. Somebody got excited and wanted to shut us down. Your
engineering staff cannot go out on a -job and poke a little stick in there and
' say job, shut down. 1972. Wanegrin vs. Edina. They haul us all into jail. We .
got reimbursed handsomely for that mistake. When they don't like something
that's doing and we've got a permit out there, it's up to the City Council to
1 8
i
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 1
hold an emergency meeting and shut it down and put up a bond because that job is
committed for another job when I got 'that permit. If you want to cut her down,
then give us a few hundred thousand dollars and we'll move elsewhere. We shut
it down because I didn't want the harrassment. We had a meeting in there and
said we'll shut it down for 30 days. All you've got to do is bring in a plan
that shows how you're going to cut the hill off. Now it's 3 months. We showed
them the plans. And then they come up with all this bullshit on top of it. Now
I don't know if your attorney is misrepresented you or what but this is the most
discriminating thing against the WBA contractor I've ever seen in my life. I
work in the 5 state area. We have never had this. $43,000.00 letter of credit.
You guys have got to be sick up there. Then you've got to haul roads by County '
and City staff. You want to charge for a permit and then you want the guys to
come out there and pay around $30.00 an hour on top of it. I mean look at this
thing. And you've got the County. You've got nothing to do with the County.
We're not hauling one ump of dirt on a city street.
Mayor Chmiel: We realize that.
Blackie Wanegrin: And we're licensed for that County road. I've been hauling
on it most of the summer. No complaints is there? I hauled 100,000 yards from
another site. If I go half a mile that way, you guys got no jurisdiction over
it and then you're worried about the wetlands. Go look at that farmer across
the road we're hauling that's got dune buggies in there on weekends just going
like mad down in that bottom. Nobody says nothing about that. Then you want a
professional engineer all the time. Professional engineer. That's another
$20,000.00 you want just to level a hill off. I've probably got later equipment
than you guys have in this shop of yours here And you're, Paul Krauss and those
•
guys. On vacation all summer when this is supposed to get done. There's a
$5,000.00 a day deal on it. If you don't pull all of this junk out of here and
give us the permit like we had that meeting that day to give you the plans which
you got to level the hill off, put the erosion control, put the black dirt on so
the farmer can get on it. You're in a lawsuit for discrimination on about 6
different charges. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Roger, did you have an opportunity to review that? '
Roger Knutson: I've not seen the letter.
Councilwoman Disler: Could we see copies?
Roger Knutson: But I'm very familiar with the situation. '
Mayor Chmiel: Good. That's our only concern. Some people get a little
excitable. We want to protect the city as best we can. Therefore we moved on
that particular one as we did. At that particular time we were very content..
End of gospel. Anyone else wishing to make a formal presentation?
Oon Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, as long as there were various charges made and
allegations that the City may be in some legal problems, I would suggest that
you have the City Attorney respond to the City Council with his opinion as to
whether or not there is a problem and include with that the letter that was
referred to by Mr. Wanegrin.
9
1
II ' City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: Did we get that in our administrative packet?
Don Ashworth: No. And I would further suggest that as potentially, at least
' the statement was made, that we may be in court, that the City Attorney use his
client/attorney privledge in writing to the City Council so that opinion would
go directly.
' Mayor Chmiel: I agree. Paul, did you want to say something?
Paul Krauss: Well just a point of clarification. I believe the letter that's
being referenced is the letter with all the conditions that were approved by the
Planning Commission and then yourselves. The $43,000.00 was a recomputation of
the original $30,000.00 proposal for the letter of credit which you asked us to
' take a look at. There is an itemized sheet that was attached to that letter as
to why it was $43,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Roger, we'll wait for a response from their attorney.
' Likewise, get back to us and let us know. Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's interesting they're still claiming this is for
' agricultural purposes.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a lot more to the story than meets the eye. Any other
Visitor Presentations?
' PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY OF KIRKHAM ROAD LOCATED
JO THE EAST OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. WAY AUDITION. (3801 RED CEDAR POINT). MICHAEL AND
' CYNTHIA WENNER.
Public Present:
' Name Address
Kathy Paradise 3755 Red Cedar Point Drive
Louis & Gladys Zakariasen 3861 Red Cedar Point
Claudette Way 15490 Morraine Way, Eden Prairie, MN
Michael Wenner 101 Canary Avenue, Mayer, MN
Anthony Ebert 4500 Viking Road, Waconia, MN
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicants are requesting vacation of 30 foot right-of-way to
' Kirkham Road in this location. It is part of the Way Subdivision and a part of
that subdivision, a 50 foot right-of-way located in this area was provided for
future street improvements may be necessary. Kirkham Road as it's located is
not servicing any land that can be future subdivided. It's all wetland back
here which is protected by the City and the rest of it has single family
residence on it. We could not find any reason the City would want to maintain
this right-of-way. We feel that any future street access can be provided by the
. ..as part of the Way Addition so we are recommending approval of the street
vacation.
•
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I said, this is a public hearing. Is there
anyone wishing to address this specific issue? Please state your name and
address?
10
1
City -Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 1
Kathy Paradise: Kathy Paradise and I live at 3755 Red Cedar Point. When I had
checked with the City about the Kirkham Road, they had said that 15 feet would
be divided among each property owner. Basically I want to check with that and I
also wanted to know if the property line would actually be changed on both of
our properties or if the 30 feet would be vacated...?
Paul Krauss: Can we refer that to the City Attorney?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Roger?
Roger Knutson: First the City is not in a position to tell people after they
vacate a right-of-way, who owns it. They can tell them what the general rules
are. Generally speaking it divides at the center line. One half the property
owner on one side and one half the property owner on the other side. That's the
general rules. There are a few exceptions. What we're doing, to vacate an
easement we're repelling our use of it. Our right to use it. So the fee
ownership underlying real estate title goes back to where it was before
essentially and we cannot give anyone a quick claim deed. We just give up our
right to use it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions on that? 1
Councilman Johnson: Is this an easement versus a right-of-way?
Roger Knutson: Right-of-way is an easement for a specific reason. '
Councilman Johnson: Okay. So the City in effect owns this property and their
property lines are adjacent to it? '
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Roger Knutson: We own an easement. A right-of-way. '
Councilman Johnson: Where does their property line begin?
Roger Knutson: It probably goes down the center line. I don't know anything
about this particular property but- it's probably down the center line. One half
one way and one half the other way. '
Councilman Johnson: That's not the way it's shown on our zoning per se. Do
they have to apply to the County or something then to get that done? To get
that 15 feet if they want it?
Roger Knutson: No. They can do certain things if they want to depending on how
they own their land. They could start a quiet title action. If their land is
registered already, torrens on it, they could try and bring that up into their
torrens legal description. There are processes they can door they don't have
to do anything. ,
Councilman Johnson: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you understand that? ,
11 1
1
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' Kathy Paradise: Do the property lines.change or just stay as is unless you go
through the legal. ..?
Roger Knutson: They would probably change.
Councilman Johnson: But nobody's going to come out and put any survey stakes
' unless you hire somebody to do such.
Kathy Paradise: Okay. In building on that property then, would they need to
build 15 feet from the property line or from the middle of the road?
Councilman Johnson: The middle of the road will be the property line.
I Kathy Paradise: Okay, but that won't change, legally...there's no problem in
building beyond that line?
Mayor Chmiel: For whatever setback requirements are. Whether that's your back
yard or your side yard or whatever.
Councilman Johnson: That'd be the side yard.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address that? This is as I said,
a public hearing.
' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
' closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'll move approval.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I have some discussion on this. Looks like we're
going for a 60 foot right-of-way with taking a 30 foot right-of-way off of Red
Cedar Point on one side and there's 20 on the other side so it looks like we're
working towards trying to get a'60 foot right-of-way there but then on the small
drawing it shows, it looks like we're going from the corner up to the corner of
the other property which is a transition to a 40. I would say that we should
take our right-of-way. Continue it in a straight line to where we actually have
a jog in the right-of-way so we maintain on Red Cedar Point the full 50 foot
width all the way across what we're giving up so that sometime in the future we
don't end up haggling with somebody over 20 square foot of land in that corner.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but you presently have that now Jay. ...Red Cedar Point
Road is now is 30 feet.
Councilman Johnson: There's 20 foot too on the other side. So it's 50 foot.
Mayor Chmiel:- Okay. Right.
Councilman Johnson: With this resubdivision we're going to 30 feet. It
probably was less than 30 before this subdivision?
' 12
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: But the only thing we're doing is vacating Kirkham Road of that t
30 feet and I'm not sure whether that extends all the way up into there or not.
Jo Ann Olsen: ...keep it down here rather than...
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, alright.
Councilman Johnson: See, as is they had a diagonal line going across the 30
feet up to the 40 foot right-of-way which then gave us a little triangle. That
if we ever resubdivided some other land we'd want that corner.
Kathy Paradise: The reason there was that line was when...so that was Kirkham I
Road.
Councilman Johnson: That's our effort to try and get to a full 60 foot ,
right-of-way which is the normal right-of-way for a city. If other people
subdivide, we'll do the same thing.
Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that with the change.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any distances at all there Jo Ann as to what that
would be?
Councilman Johnson: Will they have to bring in that to us?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We can still work on the legal description. ,
Resolution *90-108: Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded
approval of vacating a portion of Kirkham Road located along the westerly lot
line of Lot 2, Block 1, Way Addition with the following condition: '
1. The applicant shall provide the City with the legal description of the
portion of Kirkham Road vacated and shall maintain any required drainage and
utility easements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION AND RELOCATION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED AT 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE. RICK MURRAY.
Public Present:
Name Address I
Rick & Bobi Murray i5 Choctaw Circle
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant went through an adminstrative subdivision. He
proposed a property with his home on it and then the outlot. He shifted the lot•
line over to meet the sideyard setbacks for an addition to his garage. But
prior to that there was a utility easement that would need to be relocated. He
has added that to the new lot line but he has to go through the public hearing
13 '
I
II ' City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
jto vacate the existing one so we're recommending approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone wishing to address that?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
' closed.
Resolution 890-109: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve Vacation Request 890-4 to vacate a 6 foot drainage and utility easement
adjacent to the easterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates as described
in Attachment 81. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' PUBLIC HEARING: METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO DIVIDE A 1.8 ACRE
PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS OF 1.1 AND .7 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE SUSAN AT 8528
GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. WALTER AND MARIAN PAULSON.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Walter & Marian Paulson 8528 Great Plains Blvd.
Al Klingelhutz 8500 Great Plains Blvd.
Jo Ann Olsen: This ert is located ro on
P P Y a TH 101 just south of Lake Susan. The
applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into two by a metes and bounds
' description cutting it essentially in half... Apparently TH 101 runs through
the south and the existing parcel is being serviced through a private drive and
a 20 foot private drive easement. There are 3 other lots that are on that for a
I maximum of 4 lots on a private drive permitted by the ordinance has been met.
There currently is a 33 foot easement crossing the southerly portion of the lot
that are being served by a private drive. They are proposing...an additional
' new 20 foot roadway easement be provided that would connect up to the 33 foot
easement to provide private drive access to Parcel B. Then it would be on it's
own private drive. We are also...actual entrance from TH 101 be the same. We
don't want a traffic area going onto TH 101 in such a dangerous location. Other
' than that, the two lots do meet the zoning codes. The applicant does have to
extend the sanitary sewer line from where it's located now to Parcel B. It has
to be enlarged from a 6 inch to an 8 inch and the applicant understands those
conditions.
Mayor Chmiel: That's all part of the recommendation.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: With 7 specific items on it. Is there anyone wishing to address
that issue? As I said, this is a public hearing. If seeing none, is there a
motion to close the public hearing?
' Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Markman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
14
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
II
Councilman Johnson: I'm a little confused on this access. We're adding 20 foot
easement into Al's property, which I don't know if he agrees with yet. But
we're saying nobody's going to use that. Use the other 20 foot easement that's
already there. What's the purpose of the second 20 foot easement if we're not
going to use it?
Jo Ann Olsen: Just using the curb cuts. ...using the curb cut. Not actually
the same easement.
Councilman Johnson: So there are currently 3 houses on that.
Jo Ann Olsen: 4.
Councilman Johnson: There's currently 4 houses on the driveway? ,
Jo Ann Olsen: On the driveway and there will be 5 on the curb cuts and the rest
will be on the second driveway. ,
Councilman Johnson: We're splitting some hairs pretty fine here. Saying that a
driveway doesn't start until after the curb cut. If you share a curb cut, you
know the curb cut's part of the driveway. Basically you're putting 5, the
purpose of 4. One of the purposes of 4 houses on a driveway is to limit the
amount of cars going out onto the road at one given point. Also for wear and
tear on the driveway I assume. We're now going to have 5 houses served by this
driveway or curb cut, depending upon how you cut that definition today. I have
a little quandry there that this is...
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you have something? '
Councilwoman Disler: Has this been looked at by Public Safety?
Mayor Chmiel: You look like you want to say something.
Paul Krauss: Well not really but given the opportunity. The new private
driveway ordinance allows up to 4 homes on a private driveway and you're right.
There is a little bit of hair splitting on this. We have an existing situation
where you have 4 -homes on a private driveway. This new home, which would be the
fifth and therefore, if it used the same driveway, would be inconsistent with
the new ordinance. Now the new ordinance did not really effectively anticipate
existing situations where the status quo already exists. Also, we don't see
that this is the long term solution over here. With the relocation of TH 101,
which has been officially mapped, that will shift to the east away from this
area and one of the reasons we're taking right-of-way off of this property is
that we anticipate improving that to a public street standard. Now if you, 11 here's the hair splitting part. We could theoretically say that this is a
variance situation. If it's using the same driveway as those existing 4 homes
because you're only allowed 4 on a private driveway. Skirting that, we're
moving this driveway over except at the curb cut. We also looked at the
possibility of paving the thing for the first, I guess it's about 40 or 50 feet
to a 7 ton standard 20 feet wide which is what the ordinance requires but that
doesn't go anywhere. It wouldn't serve anybody. It really wouldn't satisfy the
goal of the ordinance. So yeah, there is a modicum of hair splitting here but
we felt that this will provide a legitimate driveway into this home. It also
15
I
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 .
II provides for the future -construction of .a public street that will wipe out the
need for many of these private drivewayI In- the -future.
Councilman Johnson: Two things to follow up on that. Dne, I see the property i
1 _f
owner who has to grant this easement's in the audience. I wonder if he's got a ; }
problem.
IIMayor Chmiel: We'll ask anyone if they have any specific concerns. No one
indicated at the time.
I Councilman.-Johnson: Yeah, he didn't and he had the public section. Then also
ask our attorney. I don't like setting a precedence of this kind of hair
splitting to mold the definition to fit the circumstances. I'd rather go for a
I variance on this personally and call it a driveway if it's a driveway. I mean
you know. Do we get in trouble with this Roger? The first 2 feet of these 2
driveways overlap. -
IIRoger Knutson: If you had a similar situation, precedent means you treat it
similarly so if the same thing happens again, I would assume you would probably
consider it in a similar way. .. If this one is in trouble, I guess you could
I say the next one wouldn't be troubling either because you found it acceptable.
Does it appear that you have a section anyway, yes where S homes are using a
little bit of this driveway, -I would guess I'd say yes but there is such a thing
I as a diminimus rule that if it's too small to bother about, I guess that's your
judgment call.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom, do you have anything?
Councilman Workman: No I don't.
II Councilwoman Disler: I have one question. If we call that a separate driveway,
is there a possibility in the future for 3 other homes along there?
Paul Krauss: For 3 other homes?
Councilman Johnson: To get to 8 on that curb cut? -4 for each driveway on the
curb cut?
IIPaul Krauss: Well we did look at the potential for future lot divisions in that
area and several of those lots have already been divided in half in a similar
I manner. Additional subdivision of some of those properties is possible if you
go down to 15,000 square foot lots which is somewhat unlikely given the layout
of the homes. Mr. Klingelhutz also retains property on the south side of that
I easement area. That's available for subdivision but probably the best time to
subdivide that is in the future when TH 101 relocates at which time we envision
having a public cul-de-sac back in there anyway which will eliminate the
concern. To be honest, we did look at the practicality of providing a
1 completely removed driveway to eliminate that shadow of a doubt type of thing
and we could put it, I mean Mr. Klingelhutz would probably grant a different
location on TH 101 but then you have a safety hazard so you're satisfying the
letter of the ordinance but you're developing a new problem.
' 16
7
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Councilwoman Disler: I'd rather see us be safer and not have another cut on
TH 101.
Councilman Johnson: Well I don't want a cut on TH 101 but I think we could, due
to the safety problems, due to the uniqueness of the situation, I'd be more in
favor of the variance and I'm on that board too. But I would, that to me would
seem to be the standard solution versus calling a curb cut not a driveway. The
same thing's going to happen in an industrial area then you know. Well we've
got two driveways here but only one curb cut and we may not want industrial
clients to do that same thing. But we do it here, then we're opening up that a
curb cut is different than a driveway and that we will allow more than, so I
really think that we ought to go the variance route on this.
Paul Krauss: If I may, I guess we wouldn't be opposed to that. I think there's '
some rationale to support what Councilman Johnson's saying. We did consider the
possibility of a variance. Depending on how you perceive it, hardship exists in
this case in that the 4 homes that currently use that private driveway are on 3
different lots. All under different ownership from the party that's before you -
tonight with this subdivision and given the lay of the land, there really are
few options to providing service, hence the hardship criteria. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, in lieu of what Jay has said, do you have a second
opinion?
Roger Knutson: It's a close call.
Councilman Johnson: Good opinion.
Roger Knutson: No, I will stand by what I said. I think you could call it a
diminimus situation. u
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. A small portion of it which is...okay.
Councilman Johnson: Would it transfer into our IOP or anything like that when 1
we're calling for 2 driveways and they put in 2 driveways with 1 curb cut?
Actually we already do that in the IOP at some time. We have people share like
Mr. Burdick's sharing some driveways there. I
Al Klingelhutz: How long would it take to get a variance? You have the names
of all the property owners in the area already.
Mayor Chmiel: We're not sure whether we're going that way yet Al.
Councilman Workman: I'm not sure I understand at this stage what the variance
process is going to do. I don't know that it's going to change my mind on where
I'm at.
Mayor Chmiel: No, we'd probably go along with the same thing. I think the only 1
thing that Jay is saying is that a variance would sort of clarify it but I agree
with what Roger's saying too. Being minimal with that portion being that
insignificant, I don't know whether that's a requirement of either.
17 I
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' Councilman Johnson: -What we're doing is granting a variance without granting a
variance. If we vote on it tonight as such, we're granting the variance but we
didn't go through the formal variance process. And being a diminimus case, I
don't know. I don't know, maybe our variance rule should have a diminimus
statement in it that there's such a thing as a diminimus variance. That we
don't go through the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the 4 of us or the 5
' of us, when we get 5 again, just do it.
Roger Knutson: I think the, I haven't even 'discussed this with staff but I bet
' there is. If someone comes in and you require a 10 foot setback and they're
really 9 foot 11 1/2 inches, you know I bet that's rounded off.
Councilman Johnson: Here we're 25% you know. 5 is 25% more than 4 you know.
We're not rounding off and edge here. I think it's a good way. It's the only
way I would say, if I was going to do it for safety purposes and for that curve,
if someone's going to build that lot, it should exit at that point. And with
that area with multiple houses and a lot of the driveways are like that. I've
got a friend on this particular property, I believe.
Mayor Chmiel: They may not be after you get done. Let me throw it open for a
' motion of some kind. One or the other and I guess I don't feel too
uncomfortable in going through this. I think you've got a valid point.
Councilman Workman: I guess I would feel uncomfortable if there were a shadow
of a doubt that what we're going to probably approve wouldn't be approved anyway
eventually. It would be simply putting these folks through a hoop that would
' help to make up the budget shortfall with their fee.
Councilman Johnson: I think on variances we lose money.
' Mayor Chmiel: You're right.
Councilman Workman: I think we're looking at something that's going to be done
' anyway and common sense would tell me to dispense with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make a motion Tom?
' Councilman Workman: I'd move the staff recommendation with the 7 conditions.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd second that.
11-
Councilman Johnson: The only discussion is, is there anything in here that
prevents any further, I mean prevents Al from subdividing his little corner off
' there and saying I've already got a driveway there and put a house in in that
little low area?
Paul Krauss: There's nothing in there that would•prevent that, no.
Councilman Johnson: That's already a bad corner. It's not really one of the
•
best places in the world. Now we're at 4. If we went to 5. Go to 5. Go to 6. -
' Creeping up there.
Al Klingelhutz: Can I say something?
' 18
1 .
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 II
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Why don't you come up here Al.
Councilman Workman: Al, you know I get down to those county meetings and
I never say a peep.
Al Klingelhutz: He has got the 30 feet... It don't come out in the best place
and it probably wouldn't be a good viable place to put a driveway. That 32 feet
for an easement runs all along the bottom of those lots out to TH 101. It comes
out on this little hill where 86th Street comes out and it isn't the best
intersection. '
Councilman Johnson: It crosses two more driveways.
Al Klingelhutz: When this driveway here was put in, originally the driveway was
over here. They came to my dad and purchased this little triangle piece of land
in order to have a better place for a driveway. This is the extent of the
driveway going to this point where it will be more than 5 houses. More than 4
houses going up. Then you take it over to this property. The rest of these
people live up in here. This is where Bud lives up here. So it's this little
piece here from TH 101 to his 33 foot easement that gets. .. Anyplace else in
here, we looked at this. I didn't care for that because it's pretty nice land
in there for future development. Looked at this. Bud and I agreed on what
could be done there.
Councilman Johnson: See what I'm saying is that land you talk is good for
future development. Now you divide that into two lots and put them out on that
driveway, we're up to 7. '
Al Klingelhutz: If I divided them out, they would come out on the old TH 101.
I don't know. If I decide to subdivide my land, it's... '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Gisler seconded to approve the Metes and
Bounds Subdivision Request B90-13 with the following conditions:
1. Parcel 8 shall use the existing access to TH 101. No additional access to
TH 101 shall be permitted.
2. The applicant shall dedicate the 33 foot ingress/egress easement through
Parcel B as public right-of-way.
3. A 15 foot sanitary sewer easement extension to the newly created southerly
parcel shall be acquired.
4. The existing 6 inch sanitary sewer shall be replaced with an 8 inch sewer
and be extended west to the proposed southerly parcel. Future development
of this parcel will require connection to the sanitary sewer.
5. The proposed southerly parcel shall gain access rights through the existing '
shared driveway easement to the point of the existing 33 foot ingress/egress
easement.
19
1
II 'City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' 6. Both of the proposed parcels shall connect to city water when it becomes
available.
I 7. The applicant shall provide the City with necessary securities to ensure 1
proper installation of the sanitary sewer line.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
IIPUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS:
' Public Present:
Name Address
Bob Haak 770 Pioneer Trail
Chuck Magnuson 274 Highwood Drive
John Cowley 8080 Marsh Drive
I Tom & Lori Krueger 7136 Utica Lane
Peter M. Held 8201 Grandview Road
Richard Martens 2955 Regent Avenue No, Golden Valley, MN
Clement Springer 3601 Minnesota Drive
Bob Worthington Opus Corporation, Minnetonka, MN
B.C. "Jim" Burdick 426 Lake Street, Excelsior, MN
Herb Bloomberg 7008 Dakota
I.
Clayton Johnson Bloomberg Companies
Doug Hansen 17001 Stodola Road, Minnetonka, MN
John Ward 5916 Hanson Road, Minneapolis
IIA. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT, PHASE II - PROJECT NO. 86-11B.
I Gary Ehret: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The item you have before you
tonight is the proposed adoption of the final assessments for three projects.
Phase II as you mentioned. The north side parking lot and Lake Drive. These
projects were all ordered previously. Have gone through construction. Most of
I them are in the completion stages of construction. The bonds were issued in
general last year and call for the projects to be assessed this year for
certification on payment next year. For a way of bookkeeping the projects were
' all advertised in the local paper, the Villager approximately 3 weeks ago for
the first time and 2 weeks ago for the second time. Individual notices were
sent to each of the affected property owners in mailed, stamped envelopes and I
think your packets contain copies of those mailings. Procedurally I would
I concur and recommend as you do as described Mayor in terms of handling each
project on it's own merit. What I'd like to do is just briefly describe the
first project, Phase II. Hold the public hearing section. Discuss the project
I and ask for Council action. The one other thing I'd like to stress. The
assessments must be certified to the County by October 10th. There's a 30 day
pre-payment period which essentially needs to start today or tomorrow so
' adoption of the roll is quite important. There may be issues that come up which
would affect the assessments. I will do my best to answer those as I can but
the assessment rolls are pretty complex and there's a lot of parcels so there
may be a need, Mr. Ashworth may have some input on this. There may be a need to
consider some of these assessments with staff and the property owner later on.
With that I'd briefly describe Phase II. Phase II assessments primarily involve
' 20
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 II
parcels adjacent to West 79th Street. What we called Phase II of the downtown. '
South of the railroad tracks, north 'of TH S. Your packet or the previous
packet, when you accepted the rolls 2 weeks ago, had diagrams which illustrated
each of the assesments and how they were to be handled. In general, the items
that were assessed or are to be assessed are sanitary sewer, watermain, storm
drainage, roadway, street lighting and landscaping. The sanitary sewer is
proposed for assessment only against Lots 1 and 2 of the Crossroads Plaza which
is going to affect the property on the northeast corner which was discussed as
the Crossroads Bank property. Watermain is similar. There are no other
assessments for either sanitary sewer or watermain to any other properties.
Storm drainage is proposed for assessment against all of the properties within
the area. A 50% credit which is consistent with the downtown policy was given
so the cost of storm sewer was reduced by 50% and then the assessments
calculated. Street lighting is proposed for assessment against all of the
adjacent parcels as well as landscaping. Landscaping similar. to the storm
sewer. The cost of the landscaping was reduced by 50% and then the assessments
calculated. There are a couple of peculiarities I just want to point out
relative to the Phase II assessment. The first is that two corner properties,
the Sorenson-Enright property, which is on the northwest corner of Great Plains
and West 79th and the Holiday station are in the assessment roll but only for
street lighting and landscaping. Roadway and storm drainage were assessed last
year, or 2 years ago under the downtown projects so they have already paid for
storm drainage and roadway. The second is that this project also carried out
improvements to the parking lots around the Ginner Theatre, the Hardware store
up north of that complex and those assessments to the Bloomberg properties or
the current property ownership are also included in this project. That includes
parking lot lighting. Storm drainage improvements which were built specifically
for the lot and then the parking lot repair itself. With that I guess I would,
with a brief description of Phase II of the project.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Gary. Is there anyone wishing to address this ,
one specific item on the downtown redevelopment Phase II, Project No. 86-11B?
Clayton Johnson: Thank you. I'm Clayton Johnson representing the Bloomberg
Companies and I have filed with the Mayor previous to the meeting tonight our
notice of objection on the special assessments. Quite lengthy but I think that
I don't want to bore you with it but I think the only concern we have is we have
not been able to satisfy ourselves with the amount of the assessments and the
allocation between the parcels is consistent with the original feasibility
study. We have not had a chance to review that with staff.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Would you like to address that before we address
someone else?
Don Ashworth: I'm not concerned that the engineer will be able to sit down with ,
Bloomberg Companies and make the splits as they have requested. I know of
nothing in the project that in any way has changed. Staff would recommend that
the Council adopt the roll, at least in this particular case, subject to the
right of Bloomberg Companies, or that staff would re-present the item on the
24th if we are in any way incorrect.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. After discussions?
21 '
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Don Ashworth: Right. We have spent the majority of our time calculating the
Y 9
rolls and it would be nice to be able to get back to each individual parcel
' owner and go through the mechanics. I see that this is the question on this
particular one and I feel comfortable that we can do it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? If not, I'd like to
have a motion to close the public hearing on 86-11B.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
' Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? I would like to say that I'd like to see this
moved as to what Don Ashworth had said previously. Adopting subject to staff
review and come back with something on the 24th of September.
Don Ashworth: As it deals with questions presented by Bloomberg.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
' Councilman Workman: Have we gotten the concerns of Mr. Burdick straightened
out?
Councilwoman Disler: That's next.
' Mayor Chmiel: Next item. If I could have a motion to just what I had said.
Resolution #90-110: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to
adopt the assessment roll for Project No. 86-118 for Phase II of the Downtown
' Redevelopment with the condition that staff review with Bloomberg Companies and
report back to the City Council on September 24, 1990. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
' B. NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT - PROJECT NO. 87-17,
Gary Ehret: I would like to again give a brief review of this particular
' assessment roll. The project, I believe as you're aware, essentially runs from
the Riveria restaurant down to Great Plains Blvd. on the north side of West 78th
Street. Proposed for assessment under this project are sanitary sewer,
watermains, storm drainage, the parking lot, landscaping and sidewalk
improvements. The parcels proposed for assessment are all within the project
area. There are no residential properties included. The dry cleaners,
' McCarville property on the northeast corner is also not a part of this
assessment. It does include the Colonial Center, the Medical Arts building, the
Riveria, Town Square Apartments and the Heritage Park Retail Center. Relative
to the assessments themselves, the sanitary sewer is installed primarily to
' serve the Medical Arts building so the assessments for sanitary sewer are only
to the two medical arts properties. Watermain is assessed to several parcels.
The watermain was hooked up behind the Heritage Park Retail Center. Run through
' the project area and tied into West 78th Street. Storm drainage is assessed to
the adjacent parcels. Landscaping and sidewalk are also assessed. Landscaping
was given a 50% credit. Sidewalk is assessed in full but on a percentage basis
and the same with the parking lot improvements. Just spending a minute on that.
22
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 ,.
The parking lot improvements to the north side were a little unique. Typically '
we try to do them on a front footage basis or an area basis or something like
that but because of the mixed use we found those to really be what we felt would
be not necessarily fair so the parking improvements are set up on a basis of
supply and demand. If there's questions on that basis, I would have to refer a
little bit more to Fred who did the peculiarities of that particular approach
but it is a little different than normal but it's not a normal situation. The
landscaping and sidewalk are also on a percentage basis not necessarily by land
area but more by attributable sidewalk and/or landscaping to an individual
parcel. With that.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know if it makes any difference but one minor
correction. Heritage Park is the apartments and Town Square Center is the
shopping center. Whenever he was saying Heritage Park Retail, it was Heritage I
Park apartments.
Gary Ehret: I apologize there. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address the north
side parking lot Project 87-17?
Richard Martens: My name is Richard Martens. I reside at 2955 Regent Avenue in
Golden Valley. I'm a partner in the Chanhassen Retail Limited Partnership which
is an owner of Town Square. I have a letter which I'd like to file the top copy
here. . .
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 1
Richard Martens: Our center of about 18,000 square feet was completed about 2
years ago. We've been in operation for around 2 years. The center itself
requiring by city ordinance 5 parking spaces per 1,000 requires about 89 parking
stalls and we have provided 102 on site. During the time of the development of
the center we supplied by agreement with the city, and I believe by agreement
with the Riveria, temporary parking until the east side parking lot was
developed and even during that time we really didn't have any overall excess
parking requirement. We could provide all the parking requirement on our site.
I have with me Clem Springer who is with Weise Asset Management Company who
managed the property and he has indicated that in his relations with the tenants
and in managing the property, we've never had excess demand for parking. Town
Square, as we point out in the letter, is a convenience oriented center. It has
a mix of uses but in fact that mix of uses serves to provide a situation that
allows our parking to be more than adequate because of the balancing out between
tenants. But for the most part, the tenants are convenience oriented coming
there 2 or 3 at a time to individual stores and turning over very quickly. And
at any given time, I've been out there many times and I've never seen that
parking lot more than half full. We're also saying that because we're supplying
adequately for the demand for parking on that site that we really can't see any
benefit from the parking to the east of the Riveria. Our people are convenience
oriented. They're not going to park there and shop over at the Brooke's or over
at the florist or the gift shop. If we didn't have enough parking, they
probably wouldn't shop there. On the storm sewer, there's no question that we
receive some benefit although the front part of our parking lot drains through
' catch basins. The rear does utilize that drainage system so we're prepared to
23 1
1
' City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
acknowledge and accept that portion of the assessment but we do want to
' officially appeal the balance of it. , Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this specific
item?
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? For the record we should acknowledge that I did
' receive a, I don't want to call it a protest but a concern raised by Lou and Tom
Krueger. I consider it very similar to the question raised by Bloomberg. It's
not necessarily being against the assessment. They simply want to verify that
that is the same as had been presented to them a year ago, 2 years ago. So they
did not come in to protest. They simply did ask that we re-verify that amount.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Jay?
' Councilman Johnson: I guess we might as well continue the public hearing.
' Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If not, can I have a motion to close the public
hearing?
Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilman Johnson: Just one. On Town Square, assessed units. They say 23. Is
that like 23 parking spots? The only thing I see, and I get over there quite a
bit and I also drive through that whole north parking lot quite a bit, is
there's I don't know, maybe 5 or 10 spots added to the east side behind the Riv
and besides the parking and beside this particular lot that is probably directly
utilized by employees or whatever of the shopping center. I can't see 23,
there's just a small section right there that to me appears to be used by the
people in the shopping center from, basically from the hours that I've seen cars
' parked there, the Riv probably isn't the people using those parking spots but
it's probably employees of the shopping center but I don't see a full 23 there.
5 or 6 cars parked on the end of the shopping center.
' Fred Hoisington: Jay, do you want me to explain that?
Councilman Johnson: That and rationale. I think somebody from the group has an
explanation too.
Clem Springer: Clem Springer, Wise Asset Management, 3601 Minnesota Drive.
I manage the center for the partnership. The parking that's going on behind the
Riveria is the Riveria employees. Our employees and our owners have been
directed by letter where the parking is to be done for our center and it's in
the front rows of the center. They have no reason to be on the lot to the east
of our center. Thank you.
Fred Hoisington: This is a little different situation and one really that was '
not contemplated when the first assessment rolls were done and they were done a
long time ago. When we first started there was an agreement between the Riveria
I
II24
I
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
and Town Square Center interests that indicated that 68 of the 100 spaces that ,
are provided on Town Square would be'used by Town Square and the remaining 32
would be useable by the Riveria. What happened was, in the intervening couple
of years, the Town Square Center ended up with Anh Lee's and the parking demands
changed. The parking demands went up to 91 instead of 68 leaving only 9 still
available for the Riv. Now if you subtract one from the other, you can see that
it's 23 spaces and so the impact is, or the effect is that we do not have 23
spaces that we originally thought we would have attributable or useable by the
Riv so it's a little different. Something that we had not earlier anticipated
and something that resulted later because we simply didn't have the parking
available that we thought we did. ,
Councilman Johnson: Fred, can I ask you a question? I don't know if you know
the answer. Maybe Don would. In the original agreement for the 68-32 split,
was that a perpetual agreement or was that up until what time that the Riv had
it's own parking lot because the Riv, we were basically had a gravel lot and a
door on the opposite side of the building. Was that a temporary agreement with
the 68-32 or was that a permanent agreement?
Fred Hoisington: Jay, we never understood it to be a temporary agreement. Now
I don't know the answer to that question but we did not understand it to be
temporary.
Councilman Johnson: During your analysis? When you say we? '
Fred Hoisington: ...analysis, that's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Don? Go ahead. ,
Don Ashworth: I guess I would like to hear what Mr. Martens has to say.
Richard Martens: I don't know the answer to that either for sure. I know we
always anticipated that the Riveria wouldn't continue to use parking on the east
side of our parking lot the way they did for a period of time. Jim Winkles, one
of the other partners in Town Square would know that better than I. He's not
here tonight. But the other thing is the ratios. I don't know where those
numbers come from. To say that now we require 91 parking stalls. The fact of
the matter is, the real world that we live in says we don't need the amount of
parking that we have out there. The Codes say 5 per 100. We are more than
meeting that. The Codes as I understand them, but I'm not an expert on that,
really anticipate a mix. Some uses. I mean you take the Brooke's Superette.
3,400 square feet. You would have about 17 or 18 parking stalls. When do they
use 17 or 18 parking stalls?
Mayor Chmiel: The other night that I was there. ,
Richard Martens: 17 or 18?
Mayor Chmiel: I had to park far enough away to walk over to the end of the
store. It was just probably a coincidence but.
Richard Martens: Regardless it's still a balancing kind of situation and I had '
been there many times. You know, we know in a center like this, we know if we
25 '
I
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' even have remotely close to a parking, problem. We do not have any kind of a
parking problem so to suggest that we need 91 parking stalls, I don't know where
that comes from. We don't need that amount of parking. That's the practical
reality. That's the practical fact. And we can't afford it.
Mayor m'
y Chmiel: I think what we should do is pretty much what we had discussed
' with Bloomberg's. Accept the assessment roll as we have them right now subject
to Mr. Marten meeting with staff and see what can be resolved with a report back
to the Council on the 24th.
' Councilman Johnson: But that doesn't get, if we get rid of the 23.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm saying accept it tonight with some resolve. And if there is,
' then that can just be.
Councilman Workman: I'm a little confused as to why, I think this has been
published twice right and we're kind of in the eleventh hour now and now we've
got all these major objections to this and Gary says we have to have this done
tomorrow and now we've got, we're going to approve and we're going to have
adminstration take care of all this maybe?
' Con Ashworth: The intent would be to take and come back to the City Council to
inform you as to our recommendation. You could make any changes at that point
in time. The only reason that you'd want to start the clock this evening is
each of those owners have 30 days, under State law, to pay off an assessment
prior to the time it's certified down to the County. You take 30 days from now.
You're up to October 10th which is the date we have to certify. So if we start
the clock this evening, you can turn around and modify it on September 24th or
on October 6th and we could delete it at a future date but we can't go back and
restart it tonight.
' Councilman Workman: So maybe we need to, rather than to even have discussion,
have this looked at by staff in further detail.
' Councilman Johnson: No, we have to certify it tonight.
Councilman Workman: Right. I understand that but certify it and get the clock
' going and then discussion on these particular points made the next time. I
don't, I have a little difficulty understanding how we can get a project up and
now we're going to decide, now we can decide how many parking spots you need.
. That's kind of looking at it from the backwards. I don't think we're going to.
go and pave them over and put grass in there. I mean I think a half a lot is
advantageous to a shopping center. It looks like there's room there. Whether
there is or not, I don't know. Those things need to be looked at by staff I
guess.
Councilman Johnson: We would, if we took the $23,795.00 and took that off, it
' would then be spread against the other properties and that would change
everything because we're increasing rather than deleting or would we be, would
the City be or HRA or somebody looking to eat that $24,000.00 because we've
already certified?
Oon Ashworth: I don't like that alternative.
26
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
11.
Councilman Johnson: No, I don't either. ,
Don Ashworth: It's difficult for me to answer that question. Again, with the
Bloomberg questions, I think it's simply a matter of clarification. Splitting
of the roll. Krueger, it's simply a matter to pull the sheets that we have from
a year ago and show those to Tom and Lou. I am a little concerned with the
questions as presented by Mr. Martens. I'm not sure if staff will have a good
solution for you on the 24th or not. But I guess we'll just have to meet with
them.
Councilwoman Dimler: What would you propose to do? Would you just go back to
the development or the original plans?
Don Ashworth: I'd have to total back up the sheets that Fred is talking about.
In other words, the orignal computations that were completed. Mr. Martens is
correct. There was a special assessment agreement that was entered into between
the HRA, City and his shopping center development. I'd like to see if there was
any leeway as a part of that document to resolve some of these problems. '
Councilman Johnson: Would they be qualified for special assessment reduction
where the HRA's going to pay this $23,000.00 anyway?
Don Ashworth: As a part of their development within the downtown, they did see
a special assessment reduction and they did enter into an agreement with the HRA
to that. But into that type of agreement.
Councilwoman Dimler: Does this assessment reflect that? Reflects that already?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Don Ashworth: This assessment is not included in anything that had been done
and the question is, is that alternative still there. Mr. Martens has opened
the door, if I correctly read his letter asking that we do that and I can't
answer that question this evening as to whether or not it's possible or not.
Councilman Johnson: If we certify this roll tonight, and then it comes out
logical that we don't add the $24,000.00 basically to Town Square and that has
to be split against everybody, do we then since we're increasing the amounts of
these assessments, not deleting them, does that mean they don't get assessed
until another year?
Don Ashworth: No. It would mean that if staff were making that form of a '
recommendation, we would have to contact each of the property owners likely to
be affected notifying them that on the 24th the Council would be considering
actually increasing the assessment roll from what they saw here 4 weeks ago and
2 weeks ago.
Councilman Johnson: And they would then have 30 days from then to pay it? '
Don Ashworth: Well, the 30 day clock literally would be starting as of today,
the 10th.
27 ,
ICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' Councilman Johnson: If they paid it tomorrow, and then we increased it on the
24th?
Don Ashworth: You're starting to get into some bizarre.
' Councilman Johnson: Has anybody ever paid it tomorrow?
Don Ashworth: The fact remains that I do not think that that's going to become
one of the alternatives.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We've discussed this. I think what I'd like to see is a
motion for the adoption of that assessment roll for 87-17 with the condition as
I indicated previously.
' Councilwoman Disler: I so move.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution X90-111: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve adoption of the assessment roll for the North Side Parking Lot, Project
87-17 with direction to staff to meet with concerned parties and report back to
the City Council on September 24, 1990. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
C. LAKE DRIVE, TH 101 TO CSAH 17, PROJECT NO. 88-220.
Gary fhret: Mayor, the roll before you for this project reflects assessments
for the Market Blvd./Lake Drive project which runs from CR 17 on the west to new
Market Blvd. on the east and from TH 5 to about 1,000 feet south. The
' assessment for this project as proposed in the final roll are consistent to the
best of our ability with the preliminary assessment roll with a few exceptions
which I'll go through briefly. The assessments are based on the final
construction costs as were the assessments for the other projects. On the Lake
Drive project, the sanitary sewer is assessed on an area basis against all of
the adjacent properties who will be served by sanitary sewer. Watermain is
' assessed on a front foot basis. Storm drainage is assessed against a
contributing area and I will touch on a couple of other items on that but the
storm sewer is assessed at a 50% rate similar to the other projects. The
roadway assessment is on a front foot basis as well as street lighting and
I landscaping. On this project there are a few peculiarities I guess is the word
I will use. Probably the biggest anomaly if you will is the Lutheran Church of
the Living Christ on-the-hill. They had a very large-portion of frontage and at
' the time that we went through the initial public hearings about a year ago, the
church expressed a number of concerns about this project and specifically about
the assessments. The roll that you have in front of you has given the church 2
I particular credits. The first is that the watermain assessment was reduced the
equivalent rate of a normal or what we would expect to see as a normal
residential rate. The useage of the church is very limited as compared to the
businesses in the area. The church also received a credit to the extent that
I the rate is consistent for roadway, more consistent with a local residential
type street rather than a 36 foot commercial. And to be quite honest, I can't`
28
11
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 I.
remember. I believe we also gave them a credit on the sanitary sewer because of
the reduced useage. The other major credit if you will is that the cost for
Market Blvd., because Market Blvd. is such a large section, the assessable cost
for Market Blvd. were reduced. The properties abutting Market Blvd. which
specifically are Lot 1, Block 3 which is on the northwest corner of the Market
and Lake Drive intersection. The Rosemount property and the Ward property.
Those assessments were figured based on a 36 foot collector type street section
compared to the 100 foot or more section that's out there right now. The last
two items I mentioned briefly. This project essentially built the trunk storm
sewer from Lake Susan. The large pond we built in the corner, southeast corner
of Lake Drive and CR 17. The system goes up Lake Drive. There's also a 36 inch
pipe that goes north on the east side of the Empak property up to the tracks.
That pipe serves drainage that comes from the Instant Webb property and the
property's primarily Burdick plat properties on the north side of TH S. So
there is a drainage area accounted for in this assessment roll that is not
immediately adjacent to the project. That's briefly a synopsis of that roll.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Gary. As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Project I
No. 88-22A, Lake Drive, TH 101 to County State Aid Highway 17. Anyone wishing
to address.
Bob Worthington: Mayor, members of the Council, I'm Bob Worthington from Opus
Corporation. I'm here this evening representing not only Opus but also the
Alscor Joint Venture Partnership which is the owner of what we show on our
subdivision maps as Outlot A and I'll refer in the hearing notice that property
was described as Parcel No. 25-1890050. When we were in with the, well our
needs are relatively simple. We would like an opportunity to sit down with
staff to get clarification on what assumptions were made relative to the
developability of that parcel and if indeed as a part of the assumptions that
were made, the benefits that were assigned to that lot were apportioned
accordingly. When we were in with the Rosemount development, this parcel came
up for extensive discussion principly because half of it's covered by a wetland.
As a matter of fact, in the Planning Commission presentation by the staff, it
was indicated that this property is probably undevelopable. We protested that
language and requested that it be striken from the staff report because we felt
that there was value on this property and that indeed we should be able to come
back with a plan which would allow the City to evaluate and then make a final
deterimnation as to who much of the property is developable versus how much is
not developable. We have not done that as yet. We were over last week to see
if we couldn't have that clarification. Unfortunately the people who were most
knowledgeable about the project were not available. We did send a letter late
Friday indicating our interest in further clarification. We're not asking you
to hold up the assessment roll this evening but we certainly would like
clarification on the assumption that was made relative to the developability of
this site and if indeed adjustments in the forms of credits or reductions were
made as a part of the assessment. So that's our case.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Bob. Anyone else? I
Bob Haak: My name is Bob Haak and I'm President of the Lutheran Church of the
Living Christ in Chanhassen. My address is 770 Pioneer Trail. In December of
1988, the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ received an estimated assessment
for the Rosemount construction of $170,000.00. We thought that was very high.
29 I
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
It was completely out of the question and we met with BRW, the City staff and
members of our congregation and we tried and thought we had a reduction in that
assessment. The only question that still remained was the city had proposed
that they might buy Outlot A on our property to further reduce our assessment.
Well to this point we really haven't seen anything from the City as far as a
formal offer on Outlot A. Just last week we received once more the notice of
' assessment for $108,000.00. I must point out again that we've met with BRW,
with the City staff and we thought we had some sort of a ballpark agreement
which was in the neighborhood of $20,000.00 to $40,000.00.
' Councilman Johnson: What'd you say your notice was for?
Bob Haak: $108,000.00.
' Councilman Johnson: Okay. Because we've got $50,000.00 here plus there's two
lots. Are there two lots?
' Bob Haak: The one I received says $108,000.00. I'll bring it up when I'm
finished here. So we don't understand the difference and we would like it
resolved and we do hereby officially and strongly protest the special assessment
88-22 for our parcel 25-0136200.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Bob.
' Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: I did suggest to Bob that they submit the letter that you have in
front of them. Staff continues to work with the church. The Council did give
' staff basically instructions to work with the church and to bring that
assessment down to a more reasonable level. The $40,000.00 figure that Bob did
refer to is one that we have continued to look at. A delay that he referred to,
' if you recall there was an original division of the property. In the meantime
Robert's Automatic came in with the rear portion of that property. In fact, if
you look at the map that was presented by Mr. Worthington you'll see that part
' of what was the old Robert's Automatic hooks around the back side of the church
and it solely made it more or better for both the church and whoever would own
that property directly to the west to consider some type of a division where
each would get part of that property. Negotiations basically occurred between
Opus, Alscor, Roberts Automotive and the church. The City was not really part
of that but recognizing our interest in seeing the overall plat complete, the
timing was delayed simply to resolve the issue as it arose with Roberts. So
' I do not see where there is any difference in the negotiations from basically
where the Council had instructed staff to be in late 1988, early 1989. It has
simply taken that long a period to get all of the plat issues resolved. But
' again I did advise the church to present this letter. That preserves their
options if for any reason the City does not meet the obligations that we
previously have stated we were willing to enter into with them. Does that make
sense?
Councilman Johnson: To get it down to the $40,000.00 range, we're looking at
buying part of their property.
' 30
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Purchasing Outlot A.
Don Ashworth: Well part of it also gets dropped off as a result of Roberts.
And then the second factor, the proposed roll in front of you already has taken
off that portion that has been purchased by Roberts. Correct Gary?
Gary Ehret: Yeah. I
Don Ashworth: And the remaining portion shows the distribution between the lot
proposed to be purchased by the city and that proposed to be retained by the
church. The amount to be paid to the church for that piece that is being
purchased would then drive down their assessment to the amount that was looked
at by the City Council in late 1988, early 1989. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I had one quick question. We have a lot of Outlot
A's but the one that you show here Bob, that is your Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park portion? I
Don Ashworth: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: That is not part of the Lutheran Church?
Don Ashworth: No. A new plat comes something like this with this piece here
now going back, my line should be over here a little bit further. But this
portion would go over to Roberts. This portion behind goes to the church. And
this section in here that does deal with the wetland area, under the new plat is
something like that. It's that piece that I believe Bob is referring to as the
outlot that we're proposing to purchase from the church.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Now it makes sense. See that Tom? Jay? ,
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. And on here the outlot is what's being assessed
$50,308.00?
Don Ashworth: Correct Gary? They're both about the same right?
Councilman Johnson: One's 58 and one's 50. '
Gary Ehret: The Outlot A is the one that would be split off and would not go
back to the church. ,
Don Ashworth: And is that the 50 or 58?
Gary Ehret: 50. ,
Councilman Johnson: So we would be purchasing an outlot of wetland or whatever
that's being charged $50,000.00, so we would take .that $50,000.00 as the
property owner?
Don Ashworth: Yes. You have to realize that the street construction did occur
in it's entirety along that entire length. I mean that is a cost factor.
31 r
t
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
II Councilman Johnson: And that was one of the most expensive parts right in there
because of the poor soils.
Don Ashworth: The surcharging.
IMayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anyone else?
I B.C. Jim Burdick: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. B.C. Jim Burdick, 426
Lake Street, Excelsior. On the lot on the north side of TH 5 I'm being assessed
about $42,000.00. Now I heard a previous speaker up here from BRW say this is
I the south side of TH 5 project and I most certainly agree and assessments should
be based on benefit, it's my understanding and benefit only. Now I had a nice
discussion with Gary Warren. Very capable on his part and he did show that some
water goes down that way from my property and I believe I'm willing to accept
I that but my protest is based just on benefit. If I can be shown I get
$42,000.00 worth of benefit, fine. $52,000.00 is better because I'm $10,000.00
ahead of the game. $142,000.00 would be still better. That'd be great but I
I just don't think I'm being benefitted by $42,000.00. So they can say your water
goes down there. Okay. But so can the Minnesota River area. Say your water
goes down that Minnesota River so you must pay for improving the Minnesota
River. Then we get to the Mississippi. Well pay for improving the Mississippi.
Then get down to Iowa, the. ..locks and things, assessed for that. Pretty soon
there'd be no. . .so I just don't think that water business is valid. And a semi
protest is only just that I'm not being benefitted.
IIMayor Chmiel: Thank you Jim. Anyone else?
I Doug Hansen: I'm Doug Hansen. I have the office/warehouse down here in
Burdick's, I think it's Lot 4 and 5 so I'm in a similar situation with Jim
Burdick and I wondered, number 1 I had a question. I guess I was supposed to
give you my address. 17001 Stodola Road, Minnetonka. I had question about
II
square foot cost assessments. Is that the same over all the watershed area in
this project? Is that right?
I Gary Ehret: The project, all properties within the project area were all
assessed, I think it's 7 cents a square foot. It's a uniform rate. Mr
Burdick's property, Mr. Hansen's property, Rosemount, Empak.
IMayor Chmiel: 7 cents per square foot?
Gary Ehret: Yes.
IIDoug Hansen: I guess being on top of the hill I also question what value I get
out of that for that amount. I realize that there's an assessment there in the
I watershed and it seems like it shouldn't be the same all over but that's just my
question I guess. Thanks.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Doug. Yes sir.
John Ward: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is John Ward, 5916
Hanson Road., Minneapolis regarding the M.J. Ward Estate. Two years ago we were
I presented with a feasibility study regarding the roadway that's been completed
and in that a figure in the $60.00 range was used for our portion of the
I32
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 .
assessment which we have been planning on for the last 2 years and we were quite I
•
surprised a couple of weeks ago to receive the letter from the City indicating
that the actual assessment would be a little over triple that. We feel that the
{ street that was put in is actually, well it clearly is, it's a highway and it
serves no additional benefit to our property over the existing TH 101. If a
street was to be put in on that end that would benefit our property, a standard
street would create the same benefit as putting in a highway of the standards
that were put in. Obviously it was put in to service the Rosemount property and
we don't feel that the benefit to our property is anywhere near what has been
assessed against it. We would ask the Council to defer action to give us more
time to discuss this with the engineering staff and the consulting people that
the City's using. Having them discuss it with our people because we do think
there's some real problems here as reflected by the fact that the actual
assessment is 3 times higher than the feasibility study that we've been planning
on for 2 years. So I'd like to .present a letter to that effect to you
Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Anybody else?
•
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this public hearing? If
seeing and hearing none, I think I'd like a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: I see quite a bit of discussions going here with all these
• • additional items. Don, what could we do if we just basically tabled this until
all these things are really done? I know there's a clock started on it but I
think potentially maybe this is something that should be done.
Don Ashworth: With the number of owners involved, it goes back to a question
from the previous one, what if there's an adjustment and we have to notify the
other owners? I felt quite confident in the prior two that that would not be
the case. I think with the number of owners who have questioned the roll and
the potential that there may be changes in this particular instance, you may be
better served tabling the item. Having staff research the issues that have been
presented with the idea that\adopting would occur on September 24th. We would
still certify by the October 10th deadline and if an owner then paid after that
timeframe, the County Auditor could remove that particular parcel. I know this
sounds different than what was done in the first two but again with the number
of owners involved, I would feel more comfortable doing that. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion?
Councilman Johnson: Well, a little bit on the property lying north of TN 5. ,
There were previous agreements that we had two options in designing the property
north of TH 5 and the storm sewer system. We chose either to run it to the
pond. Option A I believe was run it to the pond at Eckankar site that the City
is going to be developing and trying to acquire. Or running it to this site.
The choice was to run it to this site versus the other site so I mean this isn't
33 r
I
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
anything new that the storm water system for this area was going to include
being run to Lake Susan through this series of systems. You can't build just
the north half of the sewer and not build the south half and say we're through
' building the sewer. So in this case I believe everybody within the watershed
need pay their fair share on that. As far as the Ward's property, it does
concern me when you go 3 times. I think we've answered the Church pretty well.
But 3 times the feasibility study is a lot but we do need to point out at this
' point like we did earlier that it was not assessed for the 100 foot wide
right-of-way but a standard 36 foot wide right-of-way was what was actually
assessed against the Ward property. So in comparison to what that big street
' was, you're only paying for one lane of it. So those are my only comments. I
think tabling would be a good idea at this time.
' Mayor Chmiel: I do too. Rather than having other discussions, is there a
motion to table?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table adoption of the
' assessment roll for Project No. 88-22A, Lake Drive, TH 101 to CSAH 17 until the
next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: This will be back before us on the 24th so you'll have at least
another opportunity to come in and enjoy our company here.
PUBLIC HEARING; AMENDMENT TO THE YEAR XV STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.
Paul Krauss: As you're aware, our Year XV Block Grant allocation had provided
1
$17,000.00 and some odd dollars for housing rehabilitation. I reported to you
' last spring early on that nobody had sought those funds. We speculated at the
time that it was probably because the income cut off is so low that Chanhassen
residents didn't qualify for it. I still believe that's the case but based upon
' your request, we republished that in both newspapers. The newspapers cooperated
with us. Ran stories about the availability of funds just to make sure that
everybody had a last shot at it. We had no takers which tells us that it's
encumbant upon the City Council to reallocate those funds because with Block
' Grant dollars you either use it or lose it. I think you're all aware that
there's very limited categories that are fundable under Block Grant funding.
It's for low income projects, projects for elderly and projects for handicapped.
' What we've proposed to do for you is to reallocate that funding into two
separate projects in the same park, Lake Susan Park. Under a different Block
Grant category we've already allocated $7,500.00 in funds to construct a fishing
pier. A handicapped accessible fishing pier in Lake Susan Park. This would be
1 similar to the one that's recently been completed in Lake Ann which I believe is
quite successful. We've since found that the actual cost to build the pier
that's desired for Lake Susan is something on the order of $18,750.00. Now
' that's a pier that's approved or designed by the ONR and it's built at
relatively low cost through Minnesota, and I forget what it is but it's the
prison industries over in Stillwater. They build it as a rehabilitation
' project. So what we'd like to propose doing is taking a portion, $11,250.00 of
that $17,000.00 and change. Allocate that in combination with the $7,500.00
we've already appropriated would be used to get the 84 foot fishing pier which
' 34
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 '
we think is warranted for Lake Susan Park. That leaves us with a balance close
to $6,000.00. If you read the report, my math was wrong. I had thought I had
found an extra $3,000.00 that we could spend and I listed 9. I was wrong. We
have $5,890.00 in the balance. What we've proposed to do and we talked to our
parks people about this, is in Lake Susan Park there is a recreational facility
in there and Mark Koegler, of course who works with us on our park design, has
suggested that we use it to begin work on a handicapped accessible play
structure. Now with $6,000.00 we can't build the ultimate one but we can build
a useable one and these things are modular and if we get some block grant money
in the future years, we may be able to add to that. With that, both projects we
think are kind of unique. They're targeted for handicapped people but both the
fishing pier and the play structure are equally utilizable by able body children
and adults. We think it will provide a unique amenity and a unique facility in
our park system. One that's going to be useable for many of our residents who
right now cannot access the equipment that we have. Therefore we're
recommending to adopt a resolution reallocating those funds to those projects.
Mayor Chmiel: I like the idea of both. Accessibility of the fishing pier but I
also like the part about for the handicapped. I think that's a neat idea.
There's only one question that I have. Is it. legal?
Paul Krauss: You mean will they allow us to transfer the funds? Yes, they 1
will.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I was just going to throw it open for discussion. '
That's all I was going to do and if you had something to say, go ahead Tom.
Councilman Workman: Yeah. I don't think like a handicapped person so it's very
difficult to imagine what's needed. Are we running out of ideas a little bit?
Paul Krauss: Well to be honest, you know they keep coming up with more and more
guidelines under the Block Grant program that are used to restrict communities
from being real flagrant about this. In the early 7O's there were cities that
built golf courses with these funds. It gets tougher and tougher to find
fundable programs for them particularly since we're not talking about a
tremendously large allocation of dollars. We only get, I think last year we got
$35,000.00. Of that we spent $7,000.00 for the South Shore Senior Center. We
undertook a seniors need study. I guess that's funded out of our previous year
and we've got something on the order of $26,000.00 sitting for as yet unnamed
senior activities and hopefully the senior group has been working on the study
is going to have some ideas as to how that money should be allocated. In the
past we've tried to be creative and come up with ideas. I recall Councilman
Boyt was interested in a book mobile. I found out that was not fundable and at
different times some of this stuff, some of this money was funneled into
planning efforts. One section of the comprehensive plan was funded under
allocations several years ago but that is now not allowed any longer so yes.
The long and the short of it is, it's getting tougher and tougher to find
fundable projects. '
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just interject something. As you're talking I was
thinking a little bit more of that fishing pier as we're proposing. Will that - 11 be handicapped accessible?
35
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' Paul Krauss: Yes sir it will. It will be just like the one we have in the park
right now which is, when you go out there it's over wide so that you can
wheelchair access out there. The fishing positions have cut down bollards so
' somebody sitting down and unable to stand can still cast.
Mayor Chmiel: The second question I had is, should it be within the big park at
Lake Ann Park for the handicapped accessible for some playground equipment or
' should it be at Lake Susan? I'm trying to determine as to why would we be
looking just to Lake Susan being that we have more numbers going to Lake Ann
Park and accessibility there would be pretty such the same.
Councilman Workman: We can charge them a fee at Lake Ann.
' Paul Krauss: That is a point. One is a fee for service. I don't know the
answer to that honestly. This was done in consultation with our parks people
and I'd defer to their recommendation on that.
' Councilman Johnson: Can we make this non-specific that the funds would be used
either at Lake Ann or at Lake Susan because I had the exact same question. Lake
Ann is used by so many more people, it makes more sense to me to put a
I - handicapped accessible at Lake Ann which is used by more people than Lake Susan
which you know. It's like saying okay, let's take our handicaps and send them
over to Lake Susan here and everyone else can go over to Lake Ann. As long as
our primary focus is developing Lake Ann and then Susan and these other parks
' are secondary, I'd like to see handicap accessible at City Center Park. At Lake
Ann Park. At all the parks eventually. City Center I'd like to see more.
' Paul Krauss: Well at this point I don't believe that you'd be hamstrung by the
Block Grant regulations. I mean it's a fundable activity. I don't think they
care which park we put it in as long as it's a public facility.
' Councilwoman Oimler: Okay but that brings up the point that Lake Ann already
has the pier.
' Councilman Johnson: I'm not talking the pier. The play structure.
Councilwoman Dialer: Oh, the play structure? Okay.
' Councilman Johnson: Any pier we put in should be handicap accessible on any
pier on any lake, in my opinion.
Councilwoman Dialer: Alright so you're leaving number 1 as is? You're just
talking about 2?
' Councilman Johnson: Exactly. Giving us a little more option in where we put
it. Has Park and Rec seen this or just park staff?
' Paul Krauss: I believe just their staff. We can ask them to resolve this for
us at their meeting on the 24th I believe.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's do that. Let's refer it to them. I'd like to move staff
' recommending that City Council approve resolutions supporting the
recertification of Hennepin County and authorize staff to enter into a Joint
I . 36
/-
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Cooperative Agreement. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Resolution X90-112: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve
a resolution supportung the recertification of Hennepin County and authorize
staff to enter into the Joint Cooperative Agreement. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Johnson: And your motion did include at either park?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I should back up. I should have asked if there was anyone
that would like to interject anything in on this? I moved a little too quickly.
Councilman Johnson: We never closed the public hearing did we?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I didn't do that either. I got a little excited.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public thearinglwas
closed.
AWARD OF BIDS: MARKET SQUARE 72 INCH STORM SEWER EXTENSION. PROJECT NO. 90-13.
Councilman Johnson: I move we approve Northdale Construction for $87,290.00.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Councilman Workman: Discussion?
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Tom? '
Councilman Workman: Does this need to be done regardless of what happens out
there?
'
Don Ashworth: I was going to suggest that the Council, as we had received a
request that this be re-considered is that correct Charles?
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Don Ashworth: And I would like the City Attorney to verify that there will not
be a problem associated with potentially assessing it. In addition.
Councilman Johnson: Who requested the reconsideration besides me? ,
Councilman Workman: We don't have anybody to assess, do we?
Councilman Johnson: If there's no shopping center, we don't do the project? '
Don Ashworth: That's what I'm basically saying. I just want the City Attorney '
to ensure that that in fact happens. '
Roger Knutson: I'll take a look at it.
37 ,
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
' Councilman 3ohnson: So if we award the bid, we don't necessarily have to award
the contract?
eRoger Knutson: No.
Councilman Johnson: Us approving the award of bid does not mean it will be
built.
Don Ashworth: Does not mean that it would be signed. The City Attorney has to
ensure that the requirement that we just put on there is met. He would then
' advise the Mayor and myself that we can or cannot sign that document.
Roger Knutson: Approve it subject to.
tMayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. I modify my motion therefore to approve the award of
bid subject to those conditions.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
' Resolution 990-113: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to
award the bid for Improvement Project No. 90-13 to Northdale Construction in the
amount of $87,290.00 subject to approval by the City Attorney. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO ONE AND FOR AN
11,822 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL MALL BUILDING LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND
LOCATED ON LOT 2. BLOCK 1, BLOOMBERG ADDITION FRONTIER RETAIL CENTER, BLOOMBERG
' COMPANIES.
Paul Krauss: The applicant's requesting approval to construct a 16,116 square
' foot retail addition to the Frontier Center complex. It would contain 11,822
square feet of new space with the balance being contained in the existing Animal
Fair building which would be incorporated within it. The Center as being
proposed fits into a long established concept plan of anchoring retail in this
' Frontier complex with the hotel at the west end and the Ginner Theatre at the
east all of which would be connected by a pedestrian, weather enclosed hallway.
At the completion of this project a reconstruction of the remaining portion of
the existing Frontier building or some rennovation of that structure would be
required to achieve that concept which would require a skyway connection or at
least it would appear so at this point and that's something that Mr. Bloomberg
has talked conceptually about but there's not a time schedule for that at this
point. Staff supports the general concern being proposed. The retail component
we believe is important for the well being of Chanhassen's central business
district and also to support the planned addition of a 5,000 square foot
' restaurant believing it to be a benefit to the CBO as well as to the hotel
itself. Architecturally the building is consistent with surrounding structures.
Our primary concern with this proposal has been with parking adequacy. -Since
' 38
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 t
relatively few parking stalls will be created on this particular parcel, cross ,
parking on adajcent sites is required if the plan is to function. The City
retained Fred Hoisington to undertake a parking study on this project and he is
here tonight to present his findings. Fred has been involved with parking on
this site for several years and we believe he was best placed to help us resolve
these issues. The Planning Commission reviewed this item on August 15th and
shared many of staff's concerns and did recommend approval with a number of
revised conditions that have been proposed. Staff is recommending approval with
appropriate conditions. We should note that we've further revised some of the
things that, some of the things have changed since the Planning Commission
looked at it. We are recommending some of the Planning Commission conditions be
changed themselves based on merits being discussed. I'd also note that there's
been some omissions in corrections. Basically the Planning Commission and staff
agreed that there would be no conditions placed on the Dinner Theatre proper
since that is no longer in the control of Bloomberg Properties and we had agreed
to that but the conditions were not appropriate worded. Staff is recommending
approval with appropriate conditions. Fred's also been working with the city
and the developers to gain agreement on several outstanding conditions that have
been points of contention and hopefully he's worked out most of them and can
describe them a little fully in his presentation. With that I'd like to defer
to Fred.
Fred Hoisington: Your honor, members of the Council. I can go into the parking
calculations and so forth. I won't spend much time unless you'd really care to
have us do that. What I can tell you in sort of a summary fashion is that there
is a potential parking problem on the south side of West 78th Street but you're
not going to see it for a long period of time. What we're telling you is you
' have some time to work out the kinds of problems that we've been trying to work
out with the Bloomberg Companies in this particular case. However, there are
some things and I guess I'm sort of the objective third party in resolving some
issues that have been difficult to resolve. A couple of them which were simply
oversights and really don't amount to anything but let me just summarize those
quickly for you. The cross easements question for parking was only an oversight
in the sense that we were also requiring that they be over the Dinner Theatre
and of course no commitment can be made for Dinner Theatre properties. There
was a question however as to whether we should have those easements included in
the chain of title and what we found from the City Attorney today was that we
did not have to do that in that we could require that those remain in effect for
as long as the project is there. He's very comfortable with that so I think we
needn't worry about including those easements in the chain of title. Including
the City as part of the chain of title. As far as the second item is concerned,
Paul was recommending that the 40 additional parking spaces behind the building
and that they be paved. I agree with that but it's a very difficult kind of
situation. What we're suggesting to you in lieu of that is to accept Paul's
other recommendation which is to require leases, require that the Bloomberg
Companies require leases that require employees to park behind the building and
that there be an acceptable pedestrian access or way for those people to get to
the front of the building or to get to the building itself. Another thing that
was merely an oversight was that there be no food establishments, additional
food establishments and of course no commitment can be made for the Dinner
Theatre and that was purely something that we needed to work out so really what
it boils down to is the fourth one.
39 '
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
IIMayor Chmiel: Fred, on that 3. No new food establishments?
Fred Hoisington: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: What's being proposed in this for the 5,000 square feet?
I Fred Hoisington: No. In the Dinner Theatre itself your honor. The 5,000 is in
the shopping center so.
ICouncilman Johnson: Do we want to discuss number 4?
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we'd better let Fred get into it first.
ICouncilman Johnson: Well, I'm not sure.
Fred Hoisington: Jay, let me just cover this one just briefly before you get
II into that. This is a tough one. It seems like a very small matter to me and
yet it's not as small apparently as.
I Don Ashworth: Maybe Councilman Johnson has a point in that we get into
discussion, are we not to a point where we then might be forced into acting one
way or the other? I mean maybe the issue is not worthy of discussing at this
point in time.
IICouncilman Workman: Good point.
ICouncilman Johnson: It's going to resolve itself very quickly.
Don Ashworth: The City always retains it's right to take care of whatever the
I issue may be at such future time.
Councilman Johnson: It's not germane to this property anyway. It's a
neighboring property.
IIDon Ashworth: ...germane to this particular issue at this point in time.
Fred Hoisington: You don't have to argue with me over that.
Don Ashworth: You did an excellent job on 1 thru 3.
I Councilman Workman: I do have a problem with 2 if you want to go with it
quickly. The minimum of a gravel surface. How visible is this walkway? Is
that something we want to allow downtown? A gravel path.
ICouncilman Johnson: No, it's the parking that will be gravel isn't it?
Paul Krauss: If I could explain that. You know we're not exactly sure how it
Iwill lay out because it's something that Clayton and I have to come to agreement
with but what we're talking about is the probability of using parking stalls
that are in Bloomberg's control either here or over here. Now one of the
earlier conditions pertained to repaving this driveway. That's being done under
the City parking lot improvement right now. In fact it's paved down to this
point. The question is, how do you get from there to these stalls or these
1 40 1
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
stalls? Right now there's loading docks over here. There's trucks parked that
are blocking it. There's a bit of a muddy area down in here that makes it
impassable whenever the weather's inclement. I think we've come to an
understanding that Clayton is willing to put in the lease that they'll obligate
employees to park down there and we just want to make sure that it's a
reasonable place for them to park. So we're looking to have some sort of a
better surface connection between the parking stalls and the paved driveway. '
Councilman Workman: But using gravel as a minimum is something that we're?
Paul Krauss: Well, it's in a very concealed location. It's not something '
that's going to be visible to anybody unless they happen to be driving around in
the back area.
Councilman Johnson: There's no internal connections where they could come into
the Filly's and make their way back through there somehow or another?
Paul Krauss: Not effectively, no. That gets to one of the things that we '
discussed in our report . Long term it's our goal to see this entire area come
in in some sort of an overall concept where those kinds of things could be
addressed and I believe that Bloomberg Companies has indicated as their long
term goal as well to develop such a plan. We don't have such a plan right now
so we're left with what is basically a more temporary arrangement.
Councilwoman Dimler: Boy I don't like that when it snows and stuff. I mean I
feel sorry for those employees having to go through those kinds of conditions in
inclement weather.
Councilman Johnson: I'd hate to have to walk up that little roadway when it's
snowing and cars coming down sideways.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Paul Krauss: Well the concern we have of course is that there is insufficient
room to have the employees take up the upper parking lot because that's where
the customers are going to be. When you're, you know you can make, well you
have a lot more flexibility making employees park where you'd prefer than you do
a customers. And clearly if somebody's going to be hassled with having to park
behind a building, we'd prefer it be employees and not customer traffic.
Mayor Chmiel: That may also be a condition of their employment. '
Councilman Johnson: Well if they hurt themselves in the parking lot, they apply
under Workmen's Comp. The employer's pay under Workmen's Comp and they sue the
City for, because we tell them to park back there.
Councilman Workman: Yeah I guess, you know we're talking about trying to clean
up that area back there. This might be a good place to start. I .just don't see
that as a minimum standard for downtown. Let alone the industrial park or
anywhere else.
Fred Hoisington: We don't disagree at all except that if you look at what's
back there, we can't figure out where to pave 40 parking spaces for example and
41 1
I
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
1 make it work and connect it up. It just doesn't work. It's all going to work
itself out as a matter of fact over time but in the short term, it's already
substandard on the back side. On the other hand, it is possible they could park
a little bit to the west and there may be an access through and to the building
I through the courtyard. We've looked at that. We don't like that particularly
but if they can encourage their employees to park there and then walk through !
that area. It will be hard surfaced, even the walkway so what we're saying is
I have them deal with their employee problem now and it will correct itself over a
period of time.
I Councilman Workman: I guess I don't follow that quite. I mean we do have
ordinances that say how much parking this should have correct?
Paul Krauss: We do have ordinances that have specific standards for parking.
I The problem is when you get into multi-tenant centers and multiple ownerships
which is what you have over here. It gets very difficult to figure out exactly
what you need and what you normally do is you undertake a study such as the one
II Fred's performed that tries to assume when you're going to have peak traffic at
say the hardware store versus peak traffic in a restaurant and figure out that
those same parking stalls will be used at different times of the day by
different tenants. Cross parking plan.
ICouncilman Workman: But if we've got a blighted situation with semi-trailers
parked back there. Who's semi-trailers are back there and who's getting the
rent to park the trailers there? Maybe the trailers should be removed to let
I.
some parking is freed up back there. I don't know. We're allowing the
unfavorable situation to continue and there may be some remedies but we're not
II going to, I think we're saying we're not going to go after those. You know what
I mean? I don't know how many trailers are back there but they've been back
there since this spring.
II Paul Krauss: There were about 8 this morning. I fully understand your concerns
and I guess to be honest, working in this area is always kind of frustrating
because you've got different ownerships and different overlapping interests and
IIdifferent previous arrangements from redevelopment proposals.
Councilman Workman: But there's really only one owner in this whole complex
IIisn't there?
Paul Krauss: Well apparently not. You have the Dinner Theatre which has been
sold to different parties.
IICouncilman Workman: Yeah, but the building hasn't has it?
I Paul Krauss: Well I believe Mr. Johnson can explain that. And you've got the
hotel that's in a different parternship. Then you've got the bowling alley.
I Councilman Workman: I'm just thinking of Herb and that's all. I'm thinking
Herb and work it out somehow. That's the simple theory of it all so there's all
sorts of situations going on back there that can be remedied too you know. .
1 Paul Krauss: Well in past discussions, we didn't raise that point on this
project but we've looked at that warehouse use of the building which has been
II 42 '
II
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 1
it's historic use but long term clearly it's desired to have that removed and
replaced by something that legitimately belongs in the central business
district.
Councilman Johnson: In fact we want to get the whole south side of the building
to a more retail/commercial aspect. Not industrial aspect as it is now. Hooked
on Classics is probably the first attempt on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's something that they've not gotten into as yet.
It's hard to determine.
Councilman Johnson: There's also in the past been some talk about a parking ,
garage on the Dinner Theatre site if they expand there. I guess that's getting
too far away to be germane on this issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: What is the possibility of putting in a temporary parking 1
lot? I've seen that done before. You know to be dug up later if we don't need
it there anymore.
Paul Krauss: I think it's a real possibility but then you get into conflicting
interests you know. When we originally started talking about this and it may in
fact work out this way but one of the easiest places to put in the parking lot
is in front of Hooked on Classics. I'm not sure how their lease arrangement
works though but I know that they use some of those exterior stalls in front of
the former lumber yard, hardware facility down there and I don't know how many
stalls they're entitled to use but again, you deal with all these overlapping
interest and different lease agreements and everything else and it gets rather
cumbersome.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: If I may. Maybe there's another way to look at that. I look at
it from the standpoint that I don't think that there's going to be a parking
problem there. At issue is, we've taken some very conservative positions
regarding the number of parking stalls that would be used by the hotel and the
availability of those stalls back for the restaurant facility. I think that the
developers would like to take and hope that they have 100% occupancy on Friday
and Saturday nights which would probably be your biggest demand for a
restaurant. The fact is is that probably won't happen. Daytime type of use,
which is where you might have employees, etc., is not the time that you're going
to have high parking associated with the hotel. I guess my point is, and then
we look to those same type of standard statements as they would deal with the
parking that may be associated right now with the Villager space and some of
those other tenants that right now really do not put a high demand on parking.
I think the only thing that we need to be worried about is insuring that through
potential sales that if one of the merchants or group of merchants that end up
owning this facility, the individual, that if they have a problem that they can
go back to Bloomberg and potentially look to employee parking at another
location. i don't know that we necessarily have to define exactly where that's
43
11
IICity' Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' going to be at this point in time but I think we can place it into writing that
if a problem does develop, that Bloomberg will help in finding the solution. My
point is that I really do not think that there's going to be a parking problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I agree with some of that analyzation.
' Councilman Johnson: In the short term I don't think there will be a parking
problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Johnson: 10 years from now that might be a parking problem.
' Mayor Chmiel: I was going to say 15-20.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, well either way I'm not sure if tying it to Herb
' Bloomberg 20 years from now. Herb's going to be still kicking around here in 20
years but he may have sold off all of his assets at this point. Who do you tie
it to?
' Councilman Workman: So with the parking issue resolved, we don't have any
problem. By the way, the hotel looks really nice. I've gotten compliments on
it so, for you guys it looks really nice. . .
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you just talking about the parking?
' Mayor Chmiel: Parking. Yes, we're still at the parking.
' Councilman Johnson: Only discussing the parking.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my feeling is, it's time to look at the longer
term because the downtown redevelopment is at least halfway done if not further
and we need to start thinking about the longer term rather than saying in the
short term. I guess I feel that there is a parking problem there. I think
there is already traffic movement problems. I really think that our ordinance
' spells out what we need and I think we should try to get as close to that as we
can.
' Mayor Chmiel: One of the things that I think Don was eluding to was the fact
that a lot of these businesses close at a specific time. Therefore those needs
are not there. There's one day out of the week they stay open, those needs
' would be there and how's that really going to be addressed.
Councilwoman Dimler: My other question I had is, with these new requirements
are we really meeting state standards on handicap accessibility and parking?
IIPaul Krauss: Yes we are. That's researched every time a building permit's
pulled.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: Okay. Right now we have the 2 in front of the pharmacy.
Now is there any others.
' 44
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 1
Paul Krauss: There will be more handicap parking with this proposal. I believe
there's one. . .
Councilwoman Dimler: Any other handicap considerations such as inside? ,
Paul Krauss: Building Code requires that all construction, it has for a few
years, be fully accessible so there will be ramps, yeah.
Councilman Johnson: Through the skyway would be the only problem. Boy are we
really going to get someplace if we get a skyway. '
Councilwoman Dimler: We'll be on the news.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussions? Jay? Ursula? Tom? '
Councilman Johnson: You mean just parking or everything?
Mayor Chmiel: Well anything now. Let's move on from there. I think we have
some of those specifics pretty well addressed. Anything relating to the
landscaping or. '
Councilwoman Dimler: How about the subdivision?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, let's talk about the subdivision. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: We need to talk about the subdivision. I guess my comment
was, you've indicated Paul that Bloomberg Companies have not been very 1
responsive. Could you explain that? You've gone through some processes here?
Where are we at with that subdivision?
Paul Krauss: Well basically we've indicated for quite some time that some sort 1
of reallocation of property lines is required here since we've actually got an
existing property line that will go down the middle of this restaurant and for
building code reasons and for planning, ordinance reasons, you can't have a
negative 18 foot setback. You can have it come down a common building wall and
then there's building code adjustments you have to make. When this issue was
raised at the Planning Commission, Mr. Bloomberg's attorney indicated that they
were willing to do a metes and bounds division but did not want to go through a
formal subdivision process. I indicated that they should get us a copy of what
they're proposing to do so we could run it past the City Attorney and see if
it's satisfactory. We've not been given that. I still believe it's a
relatively simple matter but it's one that you're going to have to approve so
that item will have to be brought back to you.
Councilman Johnson: Since we have no application before us from the applicant,
there's no way I can see that we are going to approve a preliminary plat
tonight. I don't have a plat drawing in front of me to approve. Until we get a
metes and bounds description or anything, I think we should, I don't think we
should do anything. We have no application. It was published as a preliminary
plat but there's never been applied so no building permit can go up until it's
done. I don't think we should take any action. There's nothing to table because
it's not even. It as a published issue but show me the application on what
45
11 City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
we're acting.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we have one Paul?
Paul Krauss: No sir, I don't believe we do. We took the liberty of publishing
it anticipating that it would be required but I could be mistaken. I see the
application form in here but I don't believe there's a plat.
' Councilman Johnson: So basically what we'd be doing is making a condition that
a preliminary plat be applied for or that a plat be applied for and at some
future meeting we should approve the plat but there ain't nothing to approve
tonight.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying we should table the whole thing until we
get it?
Councilman Johnson: No, we can put it as a condition to the site plan approval
that the area be replatted before any kind of construction or anything can go.
I don't know what that does to their time table. Well we can make that as a
motion and there's other. I don't remember what I had to say about lighting.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right on page, signage and lighting is on page 9. It goes
into page 10. The number of signs is excessive as I can see here. ..currently
only 5 tenant spaces. There's really no detail provided for a total sign area
Ito be acceptable as a sign style and that is not normally part of preliminary or• is it?
Paul Krauss: Well of course they're asking for site plan approval so that would
be the, and normally that would be the final action to be taken. When we raised
that concern with the Planning Commission, they asked that a formal sign plan
come back before them so they could act on that separately.
Mayor Chmiel: And also regarding site lighting. We don't have any details on
that at all.
Paul Krauss: No we don't but typically we don't and lighting is a relatively
minor issue here. Most of the lighting in the parking lot is part of the city
project. We just wanted to get a handle on anything additional that was being
proposed.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: And another concern was the detail on the trash storage
and the truck access. How is that coming along?
' Paul Krauss: Well the applicants agreed to that. That's typically, a lot of
times it's a detail we get at building permit.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul there was also something regarding some brick, as I remember
reading this and I can't quite find it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Condition 1?
' . 46
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Face brick.
Paul Krauss: It was a condition that I had proposed to the Planning Commission
that they had asked to knock out. Basically there's 3 different architectural
styles running across there from the existing Animal Fair building to the new
section to where it turns into something similar to the hotel which is the
corridor. There's face brick along the Animal Fair building below these windows
here. We had originally proposed that that be extended under those windows
there to provide some continuity. We do have architectural review in the site
plan but it's something of a subjective issue. The Planning Commission again
deleted that condition and we went along with their wishes.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there anything else?
Councilman Johnson: What specifically are we saying on the signage? You really
think it's too much? y
Mayor Chmiel: Well it seems excessive.
Councilman Workman: It hasn't changed has it? I
Mayor Chmiel: Not unless somebody can.
•
Councilman Workman: That sign is there now I thought.
Councilman Johnson: We're almost talking about denying signs on the front of
the building.
Mayor Chmiel: . . .I think that's a little excessive. I think you should have
one per each tenant rather than. I
Councilman Workman: What's the justification for 9 signs I guess?
Clayton Johnson: Is there 9? On the facia? I
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Paul Krauss: I believe they're up on the mansured. I don't know if they show
very well. Here's the sign panels here.
Mayor Chmiel: If we were to say 1 for each tenant, I wouldn't have any problem. ,
Being 5 tenants, that means 5. If they have 6 tenants, it'd be 6.
Paul Krauss: We would still like the Planning, well the signs on the rear. '
Councilman Johnson: There's a few details on the signs we'd like to know about
too. I
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they have to be consistent with the rest of downtown I
think.
• Paul Krauss: Yeah, the signage on Town Square being an example of where they're
all in uniform type but they're different colors and somewhat similar size but
47
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
they suit the individual tenants and -that would be acceptable. But it's a sign
package that you approve so when you issue permits, you know what you're issuing
it against.
Councilman Johnson: Of course in certain cases like a restaurant, if it's a •
chain type restaurant, they're going to want their type of sign out front.
' Paul Krauss: Typically you give some sort of recognition to the fact that you
have a major tenant and they get more signage than the other folks do.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Clayton?
Clayton Johnson: On the signage issue. The agreement at the Planning
Commission is that we would come back with a new sign package for the whole
center. Everything stretching from this new development and including all the
Frontier Center. In our submission we had asked to move the pylon sign that's
' already there. The one you're referring to. To move it to the center so it
really designates the whole center and then put two entrance monuments
indicating the entrances but we agreed at the Planning Commission that we want
to come back with a sign plan for everything on the north side of West 78th
Street. South side, I'm sorry.
Councilman Johnson: So you're moving that sign?
Mayor Chmiel: Move it from the present location farther to the east. I don't
have any problem with that.
Paul Krauss: I don't have a problem with that from a design standpoint either
but for some reason our sign ordinance, which is one of those things that needs
to be redone, prohibits monument signs in the central business district.
Councilman Johnson: Monuments or pylons?
Paul Krauss: No, pylons it allows. I can't figure it but that's what it does.
Councilman Workman: What are you saying?
Paul Krauss: Well we may support what Clayton wants to do but it may take a
variance to the sign ordinance.
' Councilman Workman: Doesn't the Medical Arts have a monument?
Paul Krauss: The Medical Arts had a separate sign and it wasn't supposed to be
a monument. There's something of an issue with that right now.
Councilman Workman: Wasn't a monument approved?
' Paul Krauss: I don't believe it was and I believe that Mr. Johnson's going to
be coming back before the Planning Commission to get that resolved. There were
10 signs approved on the building.
' Councilman Workman: I remember the monument though.
48
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
II
Councilman Johnson: I can remember it too. The sign package. 11
Paul Krauss: I'll update you on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good.
Councilman Johnson: The pylons are, is moving this one or putting in a nicer
one with a shopping center more appropriate?
Paul Krauss: You know I guess I'd like to withhold judgment on that until we
get an overall package and see how we want to.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that we should move this unless there's some other
discussions. If I'm not getting any, I would like to have a motion for the
preliminary plat and site plan review with some of those conditions also that
you had indicated Jay plus some of these that are here with staff.
Councilman Workman: I would move that. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Move what? I
Councilman Workman: Basically the only condition was that Jay wanted the.
Councilwoman Dimler: That we need a replat of the property. I
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was one of them.
Councilwoman Dimler: And that something about the signs. A new sign package. 1
Councilman Johnson: That's already in there.
Mayor Chmiel: They're going to bring that.
Paul Krauss: Although you should clarify condition 6 that the revised sign plan
for all of Frontier Center for Planning Commission approval.
Councilman Johnson: Do you want to modify item 2(c) by deleting the bold type
at the bottom and removal of 2(d) altogether.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And we're going to go with the existing parking
requirements?
Clayton Johnson: Can I speak to that?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1
Clayton Johnson: I haven't been heard on that one. Paul, can you put up the
map showing all the parking spots downtown? It's not a matter of not agreeing
to build another 40 spots. I guess it's our feeling that our primary concern to
satisfy our tenants and their employees. We have, and if somebody can tell me •
where to build these 40 spots, we're open to it. I guess if you're going to
look to the rear of the building for employee parking, if you're going to do
that, then the situation where parking is a problem. Right now if you go talk
49 1
I
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' to those tenants over there, they all encourage their employees to park in front
of the building because it creates activity. But if at some future point in
time we have a parking problem, we're going to encourage our employees to park
to the rear, we own this building. As the owners of that building, we have
cross parking easements on 313 spaces. We have in the immediate rear of the
Frontier building, there is a hard surface area that's currently covered by the
' lease agreement with Hooked on Classics. Now there are all of these parking
spots over here that are accessible now through the new' stairway, directly into
the building. All of these parking spaces are available by the hard surface
driveway up there. If somebody could tell where these 40 spots are to be built
' and they're going to have merit long term, we'd be happy to consider it but I
don't know where it is.
' Councilman Johnson: Clayton, you keep saying you've got cross parking easements
and we keep saying show them to us and you haven't shown them to us yet.
' Clayton Johnson: That's not an issue. All the cross parking. The City owns
the building. Who on the city staff wants to verify that? These cross parking
easements exist.
' Councilman Johnson: What about for the bowling alley where you pointed at their
parking?
Clayton Johnson: Yeah, all of this area here is covered by a cross parking
easement between the hotel and the bowling center property. I mean Paul puts in
his letter that it hasn't been produced. Well, we've been working on this
since July 2nd. If it's going to find it's way into the Council packet on
Friday noon, I guess I'd like to know about it sometime prior to Friday noon.
There's no problem. We'll furnish those cross parking easements. And as far as
the boundary. . .
' Councilman Johnson: You said that at the Planning Commission too.
Clayton Johnson: Pardon?
Councilman Johnson: Didn't you say the same thing at the Planning Commission a
month ago? That you'd provide those cross parking easements.
Clayton Johnson: To the extent that they have been requested, we will provide
them.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it was in the Planning Commission Minutes Clayton.
' Clayton Johnson: Sure, and what are you missing Paul?
Councilwoman Dimler: There aren't any.
Clayton Johnson: There aren't any?
Paul Krauss: I don't have any.
Clayton Johnson: Rice hasn't? 1
I
' 50
City Council Meeting September 10, 1990 -
Paul Krauss: No he hasn't and I'd also say that when Clayton lays claim to the
privledge of parking over 300 some odd parking stalls (a), I'm not so certain
that's the case. (b), those parking stalls are being used by somebody else.
(c), they're awfully inaccessible to this shopping center. I mean this is a
very complex issue which is why we brought Fred into this. I mean if you're
going to enlarge the universe of available parking, there's probably enough
parking someplace inside that whole complex from Market Blvd. to Great Plains to
resolve all these situations but the fact of the matter is, people will not park
a quarter mile away from where they want to go.
Clayton Johnson: Well if you want to get into the analysis of the parking, we '
did an extensive analysis of the parking and the parking on the south side of
West 78th Street is a mirror image of what we have on the north side. A mirror
image. We have 18,000 square feet of retail. 5,000 square feet of restaurant.
What you have on the north side of the street is 18,000 square feet of retail,
5,000 square feet of restaurant. We have 149 spots. On the north side they
have 158 spots. We don't envision a parking problem but if there is a parking 1
problem and somebody can identify where those 40 spots should be, we'd be happy
to consider it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Fred. '
Fred Hoisington: We continue to argue over those 40 spaces.
Mayor Chmiel: We're not arguing, we're discussing.
Fred Hoisington: Yeah, I know. Clayton does a little bit more than that. My
concern is that in calculating parking demand, we don't need those 40 spaces.
We have enough parking that we don't need them. The fact is, the only concern
I have at all is that the employees, if they park right in front of this retail
center will use parking that the customers should be using and really that's the
only thing we're trying to accomplish is get those employees someplace else.
The parking is there. We're just not convinced it will work very well someplace
else. But our recommendation in that case is strongly to you to approve the
parking as it is. The beauty of how this all works is because it's shared
parking and that's what makes downtowns work.
Mayor Chmiel: But if your employees were to park out there, you'd be 40 spots ,
deficient so we've got to make sure that those employees are parking somehwere
else?
Fred Hoisington: Yes. And that's what we're saying your honor. To include as
a condition that the leases that they enter into with those folks require that
that parking be behind. '
Mayor Chmiel: And who's going to police that once that takes hold?
Paul Krauss: That's a tough problem. We frankly rely quite a bit on the '
cooperation of the building owner. If there's a shortfall in parking out front
there, we're going to know it. Anybody who drives down 78th Street is going to
know it. We'll have complaints by the Fire Marshall. Then we will have to go
into a sorting out process trying to figure out what's gone wrong. If we
conclude that employees aren't parking where they're supposed, we'll ask Mr.
51
1
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
IIBloomberg for his cooperation because he'd be obligated to do that. If it goes
beyond that, at that point we've got a difficult situation. But it's been my
experience that it becomes a self-enforcing situation. If we provide the
II ability for people to park back there their employers, if there's a parking ■
shortfall up front, their employers are going to make darn sure that their I
employees are not taking up their customer spaces.
1 Councilman Workman: That's the bottom line. Well not specifically but the
bottom line is that private business doesn't provide enough parking for their
I employees, they're going to take up valuable customer space and that's to their
detriment so I don't see Clayton wanting to do that. But the worry is is that
there's going to be quite a walk for some employees up a.gravel path behind 8-15
old trailers. That's not maybe very lit and that's the only concern I have but
I the concern, I've got a concern about our parking ordinance. I don't get
excited about our parking ordinance. If there's a daycare center and you want
to provide 1 parking stall, you're clientele are going to have a serious problem
I and they're going to go somewhere else. And so I'd let the private business
kind of decide that. But ultimately that back area, because of some of the
clientele that frequent a night club, it's got to be the number one spot for
I thefts and problems and everything else and so we're going to have employees or
somebody parking back there. Is that our liability or is that the business'
liability? I don't know but it's not the best situation in the world but I
think the bottom line is, we have to decide whether or not this business wants
Ito allow their employees to use up front customer spaces on top if they've got a
problem or don't feel comfortable parking back there. And if they don't, that's
what they'll do. And that's money out of their pocket and not our worry. But I
II don't like the aesthetics of it back there and that's a long range plan which we
need to fix up and I think the HRA and the City Council should all take a walk
back there and see what we can do. But if the safety issue is the problem, the '
lack of space is their problem. '
IICouncilman Johnson: I think the main thing you say is self policing. Everytime
I've worked in retail, they have been very strict on where the employees parked.
II I was in a major shopping center in Omaha working as a youth and you had to give
them your license plate numbers and son of a gun if Parking Sam wouldn't catch
you out there. He knew who the employees were and he knew your cars. They
1 would get you and almost lose your privledge of even parking there at all so.
When they start losing sales because of employee parking, they do something
about it.
I Mayor Chmiel: Let's not keep hashing this back and forth. Let's either move on
one thing or the other as far as the parking requirements are concerned or leave
that to the discretion of the individuals.
IPaul Krauss: If we could clarify a few things. Fred's got some revised
language in his conditions that I think is appropriate and they can either
I incorporate Fred's or modify the language that's in there. I think we know what
the intent is.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we do that so we get some clarification.
ICouncilman Johnson: So we're going to leave cross easements but delete Dinner I
Theatre from 2(a)? 1
1 52
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Paul Krauss: The Dinner Theatre language is eliminated from 2(a) and from, they
were talking about the restaurant.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I
Paul Krauss: Oh, in 2(c).
Councilman Johnson: Right. Okay, we're getting close here folks. 1
Paul Krauss: And Fred had the revised language for 2(b).
Councilman Johnson: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Where on 2(b)? '
Councilman Johnson: Fred's number 2. Replaces 2(b). Okay, so should we start
a motion here? I'll move approval of Site Plan Review and not the preliminary
plat. Just the Site Plan Review #90-70 under the following conditions.
Condition 1 as shown. Is that correct? Condition 2(a) with the deletion of the
Dinner Theatre in the list of cross easements. Condition 2(b) is replaced with
leases will require that employees park at rear of buildings. Acceptable I
. ..access should provide minimum gravel surface. 2(c), the bold area at the
bottom will be removed and the section indicating that the Dinner Theatre will
be in that should be removed. 2(d) removed in it's entirety. No changes to (e)
or (f). (g) is okay. (h) has been removed by staff. Condition 3 as revised by
staff. Condition 6 revised to say, revised sign plan for the entire complex.
Of course condition 4 as stated. Condition 5 as stated. Condition 7 as stated
in the staff report. Condition 8 as stated. Condition 9 was that the applicant
submit their preliminary plat.
Councilman Workman: Second. '
Clayton Johnson: The issue on the preliminary plat I thought was addressed at
the Planning Commission. I thought the word was that our attorney was here at
that time. Said that this could be accomplished by a metes and bounds
description. I want you to be assured that the property that this building will
be built on will be one piece of property and we did not want to go through the
formal platting process. And Paul, I thought that was going to be. '
Councilman Johnson: Metes and bounds is fine but submit it.
Clayton Johnson: Submit what? '
Councilman Johnson: The metes and bounds subdivision request. '
Clayton Johnson: To?
Councilman Johnson: To the City. '
Clayton Johnson: Okay. And what happens after that point?
Councilman Johnson: Then we do a subdivision. • 1
53
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Paul Krauss: We either, depending on how it lays out, we either have to approve
it adminstratively if it conforms to the limited ability we have to do that, or l
we'll do as we did earlier tonight which is bring it back to you under that
metes and bounds division for the second home.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, we did one tonight.
' Clayton Johnson: Where are we at on the building permit then?
Paul Krauss: We can't issue a building permit until that property line's
relocated.
Clayton Johnson: Okay, and how long is that process?
' Councilman Johnson: It could be at the 24th meeting right?
' Paul Krauss: We'll schedule it as quick as possible. It's a fairly simple
routine.
Councilman Johnson: But your lawyer has not submitted what he said he was going
to.
Clayton Johnson: Well I don't know Jay. I'll accept that but I guess the
discussion at the Planning Commission.
Paul Krauss: Not here.
' Clayton Johnson: Well the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting was
that you were going to discuss it with Roger if in fact it could be accomplished
with a metes and bounds survey.
' Mayor Chmiel: But yet we have not received that Clayton so you can't base any
judgment until you have that in hand.
Clayton Johnson: So it comes back to the Council for further action on the 24th
of September?
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can possibly schedule it back onto the 24th.
Paul Krauss: If we get something.
' Mayor Chmiel: If we have that information.
' Don Ashworth: There's no hearing requirements where it's got to go to?
Paul Krauss; I've got to look at that Don. No, metes and bounds divisions we
can either, there's a limited capability for us to do it adminstratively which
would hasten things along or at the very worst we'd have to bring it back to the
Council.
Councilman Johnson: But before Roger can see if it's adequate, he has to see
the document.
' 54
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Paul Krauss: Well, we've already held a public hearing. I don't know, this '
gets complicated but the Planning Commission already held the public hearing on
the plat. Now I don't know if that satisfies if that comes through as a metes
and bounds. ,
Councilman Johnson: Without a plat in hand or an application, they held the
public hearing? I
Don Ashworth: Just so everyone is aware, the concern from Bloomberg Companies,
as we look over there there's a large pipe structure that's exposed. That's the
primary fire service line for the bowling center and that entire structure. If
we in any way are going to get into fall, winter, freezing, they need to start
thinking about burying that pipe or doing something different. If they can get
through the approval process, it would be housed in this new structure. '
Clayton Johnson: It's got to be accomplished by November 1st.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that could probably be done. '
Councilman Johnson: I think it's going to be extremely simple. It's one of
those public hearings where nobody says anything and it gets approved rather
quickly if it has to go the full public hearing route. I have no problem with
even calling a special meeting on that and getting it done. But it's hard to
act without any. '
Councilwoman Dimler: It has to be done.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. We have to take the proper and legal steps. ,
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Site Plan
Review X90-7 subject to the following conditions: ,
1. Revise architectural plans to carry face brick below the window line to the
west end of the building. Demonstrate to staff that adequate trash storage
facilities are being provided in an acceptable location. Exterior trash
storage facilities shall be screened by a masonry wall designed to be
compatible with the new construction.
2. Parking requirements:
a. Permanent cross access and parking easements shall be filed over all '
properties that comprise of the Frontier Center/Bloomberg/hotel complex.
b. Leases will require that employees park at rear of building. Acceptable
pedestrian access shall be provided, (minimum of gravel surface.)
c. No new food establishments shall be considered over and above the '
current restaurant, anywhere in the Frontier Center and the hotel
complex. This condition will be enforced until an overall development
plan described below has been prepared and accepted by the City. '
d. Deleted.
55 '
1
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
e. The owner will ensure that no snow will be stored in the parking lot.
As necessary, snow shall be removed from the affected area.
' f. No new additions or modifications to buildings or uses of any of the
involved properties will be considered unless they are part of a
' coordinated development program that addresses the design, access and
parking needs of the entire complex.
g. No truck delivery parking will be allowed anywhere in the north parking
lot of the Frontier Center between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on
weekedays.
h. Deleted.
3. Revise parking plans in accordance with staff's recommendations.
' 4. Revise utility plans as follows:
a. A separately metered, privately owned and maintained water service shall
be installed and connected to the existing 8 inch watermain under the
proposed parking lot (see attachment). The proposed building facility
shall disconnect and remain permanetiy disconnected from the existing
water service extending from the building to the east.
5. Provide final site and building plan s'
9 as P consistent with the recommendations
of the City Fire Marshal and Building Official.
6. Provide a revised sign plan for the entire Frontier Center complex for
Planning Commission approval.
' 7. Provide details of any proposed exterior lighting for staff approval.
' 8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the site must be given final plat
approval and the plat filed with all required easements unless city staff
and the City Council determine that metes and bounds subdivision is
acceptable.
' 9. Applicants shall submit their Preliminary Plat.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Paul Krauss: You may not want me to ask this but I guess I've got a point of
clarification and you can tell me to drop it if you wish. But it concerns the
' issue about the rental equipment. The Planning Commission directed staff to do
something about it.
II Councilman Workman: Isn't it an issue that can be brought up at the next
meeting?
Councilman Johnson: I think it's an enforcement issue. It's not.
Don Ashworth: I think Councilman Johnson is absolutely correct. So everyone is
' 56
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
aware, we're all aware of the fact that we're attempting to move Mary Mervyn's I
over to a new structure. We have no• intention of going out and trying to put
out of business an existing businessman so to the extent that we can monitor
things and ensure that we can help him move over to a new facility. Not have
the outside storage or at least the type of problem that exists right now, fine.
The necessity to immediately go out and start issuing citations in that
particular instance. He's been there for a long time doing what he's doing. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Johnson: But we don't want to see it increased any. It seems like
in the last year it's really increased.
Paul Krauss: I spoke to Kent Ludford and he indicated that over the last couple
of months there's more equipment out there than there was formerly because of
the construction activity in front of the store. Some of the stuff that
I believe he had on the sidewalk or in a graveled area has been displaced. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I think we can handle that next time too. Thank you.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR TELEPHONE FACILITY (TOWER AND EQUIPMENT
BUILDING) TO BE LOCATED JUST EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN
BOULEVARD AND THE CHICAGO MILWAUKEE. ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD. MINNEAPOLIS
SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
Paul Krauss: The applicants are coming before you to get conditional permit
approval to build a cellular telephone antenna over on the Volk property which
is near the intersection of the railway tracks and CR 18. The antenna itself it
used for cellular telephone transmissions. There's a lot of background
information provided in the staff report by the applicant indicating how the
system works. I've had some experience working with these things before and
have concluded on my own that they are, or appear to be what's represented which
is relatively benign. Very low powered structures. They also have a fairly
good ability to withstand storms. The question for staff in reviewing this
before the Planning Commission was whether or not this was an appropriate use.
We became concerned that the area being proposed for this tower is designated as
future residential on the draft land use plan. Of course now that draft land
use plan has not yet been approved but that is the determination at this point
and since it's been this way for quite some time, we didn't feel it was likely
to be changed. We did not feel the tower was terribly appropriate given a '
future land uses of residential. We did concede however that if one had to pick
a site for a tower, that this is not altogether a bad one. It's relatively
secluded. It's up against a railway tracks. It's fairly far removed from
virtually all residential properties and it's been our experience that when you
view these things on the great expanse of the horizon, they tend to visually
disappear. They're relatively skinny. The height is significant but there's
not much on them. They're not lighted. They don't have to paint them red and
white or anything else. They're not tall enough to require that. We took this
before the Planning Commission in August and the Planning Commission essentially
disagreed with the staff's position. They concluded that yes, they have been
working on a comprehensive plan for quite some time but two things. That the
ordinance does not state that you cannot, what the ordinance states right now is
57 '
I
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
that towers are a permitted conditional use in agriculturally zoned property. It
doesn't say anything about potentially guided something else in the future and
they indicated that in fact that isn't even the case. That it's not potentially 1
guided until that plan's adopted. They looked at this site and believe it was
an acceptable one based on the various impacts or potential for impacts that
were cited and they recommended on not quite a unanimous vote, almost, that it 1
be approved. We are passing forward their recommendation for approval. We
added some conditions. The Planning Commission in reviewing this tried to
develop conditions with staff that evening. We would like to provide an
' additional condition though and in reviewing this we realize that there was
always an implication that they would be subdividing off property, a parcel to
surround the tower and in fact we have a survey of how that might be done but
there has been no plat application for that and we think that it needs to be
' platted to subdivide it off. It's probably also going to take a variance
because it's in the agricultural district and only going to be a 3 acre lot. Or
4 acre lot. They have to enlarge it somewhat now because the tower's a little .
taller than it was originally proposed to be but since the only use on this
thing would be for non-residential type of structure and the 1 per 10 ratio only
applies or is supposed to apply to residential structures, we'll have to read
' the language but it may take a variance to do that. So with that we are passing
forward the Planning Commission's recommendations with that one additional
condition pertaining to platting.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul.
John Uban: My name is John Uban. I'm here to represent U.S. West. I'm a
' consulting planner with the firm of Dahigren, Shardlow and Uban. We've been
working on this property for some time and with me tonight is Dave Kellerman,
who's the engineer with U.S. West that can answer any technical questions you
might have and also Merle Volk that is the land owner and he is here and can
' answer any questions you might have. In talking about the platting, it is our
intent to lease the property and so in that case we are not anticipating a
platting off of a separate lot. I have put together just a quick response to
the various conditions that the Planning Commission asked and part of the
approval and we agree with every one of them. This is just to confirm that
agreement. The primary issues that we wanted to confirm was basically that we
' would be building a building that conformed with other buildings the city had
put together. In other words, it will be brick. It will hay some lime stone
trimming. It will have a gabeled roof and will be then compatible with all the
aesthetics of the other structures that the city has produced. It will be
' landscaped quite nicely and what I'd like to do is answer any questions you
have. I know that this has been looked at very thoroughly at the Planning
Commissio level but you may have some very specific questions. We have located
it in such a fashion that it follows within the search area. I have slides here
if you would like to see them that shows the process of finding a site. Why the
sites work together. Cellular phone systems are unique in how they locate
' antennaes because they are based on a grid system rather than just a single
tower that broadcasts over a very large area. They're very low powered.
They're really intended to provide use to all citizens and that way they are
licensed and meet very specific criteria and only two companies can operate in
' any one area. So there's some concerns with how it operates. It has to fulfill
it's license requirements of serving all the people in that area and that's why
we're here. To locate another antenna. To add capacity so more people can use
' 58
I
•
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
it. To make the system work better so you get better reception and so that the
whole system is completed. Cellular'phones are changing. Many more people are
going to what is called a hand held. A small pocket telephone. They actually
pull out. Although many people have units in their cars. The small ones have
very low wattage so they don't have much power and this antenna will help create
a better pattern of coverage for those types of phones. And we are also
interested and why we're here today is that we would like to get the tower
erected and operational by the spring of 1991 which happens to be the time the
U.S. Open is happening at Hazeltine. We just want the very best service we can
possibly give at that point. There are going to be a lot of people fully
communicating out on that golf course. You can imagine 100 of these phones
running around and everyone talking to each other and so we really want to make
it something that people don't complain about on television and so forth. U.S.
West is out there to make the best name possible for the community and
themselves of course. And that is one of the things that has brought us here at
this point to ask for your approval. I have a picture of the site. First the
location. I don't know if this is the best way for you to see this. Maybe
should I bring it closer?
Mayor Chmiel: No, it's fine.
Councilman Johnson: We've got a stand usually. ...50 our cable viewers can see
this.
John Uban: This is the general area in which it's located. And part of the
area is Chaska with a great deal of industrial development in the area to the
west. The area all around at this point is agricultural. There's a railroad
tracks of course that runs through and here's the basic site. There's a long
row of trees. What we wanted to do is locate the tower right on the edge of the
trees so it would tend to blend in and become a little more obscure. Also it's
right at this intersection of the railroad tracks and the CR 18. It's quite
busy. There are trains through there and trucks and it really isn't appropriate
we think for residential. So this is a good buffer so that Mr. Yolk who owns
all these woods and pasture through here, in the future will develop this as
single family and he feels comfortable and actually wants to have a buffer of a
quiet use in this corner. In looking at all the criteria the City has, the
ordinance, we feel it's an appropriate use. We've met all the conditions so
we're here asking for your approval tonight. If you have any questions, we're
here to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: John, I have just a first question that always keeps coming into
mind. Being that the U.S. Open is coming to Chaska, this is going to provide a
better kind of communication for the use of those phones. Why don't you locate
it closer to Chaska? I know you're saying that because the United Telephone in
that particular area. The other question that I ask is, that there's nothing
that really governs either or as far as a public utility commission or anyone
else so why can't that specific tower be located more in that direction where
you have more concerns?
John Uban: Perhaps some of the slide show might help answer that but maybe I
can try quickly to see if that will suffice. Number one, we can't just move '
these towers around anywhere. We have looked throughout the area.
59 1
11
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: What's the radius that .you have to go to?
John Uban: The radius that we were working on was about a quarter of a mile and
' this was just about in the center. And in that radius, which is on the, it's
more fully developed in the handout that we gave you. This locates the site
within the center of a cell and the cell then is matched together. We have a
site in Shakopee. There's another site in Eden Prairie so these cells match in.
It's like a honey comb system where the center is quite precise. This is not
just to meet the needs of the U.S. Open. That is just why it came before us at
' this particular time. We want to make sure that we do have good coverage at
that particular time next year. But this is to serve traffic on TH 5. We want
it to be in place so that it's equally spaced or almost equally spaced to new
212 that will come through in the future. It can't be too close to Eden Prairie
' or too close to Shakopee because then you start getting interference. You want
them evenly spaced. When you look at all the criteria, you look at the
elevations. They do computer runs looking at the coverage and how it operates, ,
' this turned out to be the best place to locate it. Obviously we can move it
somewhere else but we really get hindered in the kind of coverage we can produce
and we might have to do other towers instead and it really is not efficient. It
really won't meet the needs of the community or U.S. West to try and move this
' out of the search area. This really is the best place for that. U.S. West, why
can't you do it somewhere else? For the Open itself, obviously being closer to
it would help but this really has to be here for another 20 years plus. 40
years. However the life of that system's going to handle and so we're here to
' serve a much greater area than just that Open and that's why we need it in this
specific spot. The other issue which is really outlined on this drawing by a
' red line, this is United Telephone. This is a different telephone company. We
want to stay within the U.S. West because they've basically a competitor and we
want, we have to be in our own region. Our own telephone system because they
interconnect ground lines. Ground line systems with the radio broadcasting to
' each individual towers so it's a combination of both the ground line,and the
antennaes and mobile phones.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. Did you look at the west side of Merle's existing
property which is slightly outside the half mile area?
' John Uban: In here?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, in there. Towards the back of this property line.
Behind this tree. Behind his big pile of black dirt and go behind that and
behind the trees right on the Chaska border there.
John Uban: I'll have Merle answer that. It's his property. We cannot tell a
' landowner exactly. He tells us where he wants the facility. How it's going to
work with his future plans. We don't have the right of emminent domain. We
cannot go out and bid.
' Councilman Johnson: We understand that but you're more compatible within an
industrial use which is what that property probably will eventually be versus
the property you're looking at. Elevation wise you're, geographically you're so
' far, so close to your half mile ideal that you're 99% of your ideal. I don't
think your engineer's going to leave you too much trouble. You sight be
actually topographically a little higher there. Not need as high of an antenna.
' 60
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 II
Merle Volk: The question I had on that was, where would we put it? You know '
that's for future development. What would you put on that spot by the railroad
tracks and 17? I certainly don't want a home in that corner. With the trucks
and the traffic going over a railroad tracks. And the other side, you're
talking in the future of maybe going industrial. Now you've got a tower right
below there. So what are you going to do?
Councilman Johnson: It's compatible with industrial though. Put a building
down next to it.
Merle Volk: We have industrial right across the street all the way around and
in that particular corner with this tower and with landscaping around it, I
think would be a good barrier between the railroad tracks and the highway there.
I just can't visualize anybody building a home on that corner. ,
• Councilman Johnson: No, but I can.
Merle Volk: And what are you going to use the property for? '
Councilman Johnson: A quarter mile north of that corner in that big cornfield
there.
Merle Volk: What would you use the corner for though?
Mary Harrington: Houses.
Councilman Johnson: Some places, Eden Prairie put a whole mess of houses and
there's a lot of satisfied people living right on that same railroad track right
across from Lyman Lumber. Same track. Same kind of location. You know where
Lyman Lumber is on TH 5?
Merle Volk: Down here?
Paul Krauss: Building Components by The Press. ,
Councilman Johnson: The Press. All those.
Merle Volk: That's Chanhassen. '
Councilman Johnson: That's Chanhassen but the other side of the railroad
tracks, which is the same track I believe. ,
Merle Volk: But you don't have a 9 ton road there either do you with trucks
running by all hours of the night? '
Councilman Johnson: You've got TH 101. You've got the industrial park on the
other side. It's similar. It's not exactly you know. No two things are going
to be.
Merle Volk: See we've got County Road 18 where they come off. Trucks going by '
and they end up at Preferred Products and back and forth pretty much all week
long. There's a lot of truck traffic. A lot of activity in there. It's an
industrial area and farther back I could understand. I mean by the tracks. That
61 1
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
I can understand but right on that particular corner, there's got to have to be
something come up for that use and I feel that this tower is a good use. And a
good barrier. It will generate some tax revenue for the City and what does the
City, they don't have to do nothing. No street to maintain. No nothing.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know what kind of tax revenue it generates.
Merle Volk: Pardon?
' Councilman Johnson: It will be interesting to see what kind of tax revenue that
generates but.
Merle Volk: . . .tax generates?
' Councilman Johnson: I said I'd be interested to see how much it would because.
' Merle Volk: Well every little bit should count I would think.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I would think that in the other location it would
generate just as much and it'd be in a future industrial park like most their
towers are. A lot of their towers.
Merle Volk: But what happens down the line when you want to develop that
industrial park?
Councilman Johnson: Then it's there and it's compatible. Industrial users
don't care. -
Merle Volk: Right now what's there in the building, you push them over and you
start over with a decent industrial park. Now we're going to put in something
that's not going to fit. I just think that. ..
Mary Harrington: Houses would fit.
Mayor Chmiel: You'll have an opportunity to discuss this.
Merle Volk: But my feeling is that the buildings out there really don't allow
for that much on the other side of the street. And at the time that it's
developed, you have a clean piece of property. We get rid of them and you have
a clean piece of property. Here you're setting with a tower. I wouldn't even
have the slightest idea where to put the tower because there's water retainage
to work out. There's drainage problems. There's streets. All them things down
the line. I run into that once before on a lot that I wanted to keep. It
didn't work out right on Mitchell Lake. That was a bad one and I am not for
breaking out a little chunk of land.
' Councilman Johnson: We're not going to subdivide this at all. It's only going
to be leased to them and he's going to lease a portion of your land.
Merle Volk: We're going to lease the corner. I'm leaning for the lease because
' I still have control of it. If the thing doesn't work out, we still have the
land. And a lot of that property could be left as green area.
r 62
1
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
II
John Uban: I think it really is a goad site. We have a substation down here in
industrial. And this really can be done nicely so that it holds as open space
as a buffer on that corner. Especially when in the future Mr. Volk will be
developing or selling for development this piece for residential uses. And he's
very comfortable with this and that's...into these large trees on the edge, we
think it really is not an obnoxious visual impairment to development. To put it
back in some interior portion on this other property, number one we'd have to
build some sort of access road back there that doesn't exist today. Here we
have straight off the existing county road and it would be long. It has to be
paved by your ordinance so it's expensive. The. ..has to be locked in also by an
easement and so those are the kinds of things that to impact on his portion or
his property over here is harder for him to produce because he has other plans
over there. And we, as U.S. West, really have to go where the landowner wants
us to go and those are the concerns that we've had to address and this is really
the spot that he wants us and we really do feel it works out quite nicely for
him and for us also.
Mayor Chmiel: John you keep saying we, as U.S. West.
John Uban: Yes. 1
Mayor Chmiel: My understanding is that there's no affiliation between U.S. West
and Cellular is there?
John Uban: U.S. West New Vector is a sub-company of U.S. West.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a separate company though is my understanding. I
John Uban: The actual ownership of the tower is yes, is a separate joint
venture. The operation and equipment and that part is U.S. West. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to address on it?
Councilman Johnson: The ownership is under a joint venture that's not U.S. 1
West?
John Uban: It's a limited partnership. I
Councilman Johnson: Between U.S. West and who?
Dave Hellerman: There are some other minority partners. My name is Dave
Hellerman. I'm the project manager for U.S. West. We're the managing and
operating partner. There are some other minority partners.
Councilman Johnson: Other corporations?
Dave Hellerman: Other phone companies basically. Centel is one of them. To be
honest with you, because each of the territories that we serve has a slightly
different partnership mix, I don't know them all by heart but they're all phone
companies. The license that we have is reserved for wire line operation
companies and so the wire line companies and phone companies are partners in it.
We're the majority partner, the operating partner.
63 I
I
II
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
11 Councilman Johnson: But United's not in there?
Dave Hellerman: I don't.
Councilman Johnson: Since you can't cross that magic line. If they were a
partner, I would think you could somehow cross that magic line.
Mayor Chmiel: If there's nothing more, I'd just as soon throw this open for
some of the people here who may like to address this specific item. Anyone that
wishes may get up and please state your name and your address.
Mary Harrington: I'm Mary Harrington. I live in Timberwood which is the
' development just north of that proposed problem. As you know there is a
petition out with 85 signatures on it. Only less than half of them are actually
in Timberwood. The rest of them are in the western area. You'll have to excuse
' me. I'm going frog tonight. Among our concerns is that we do not wish to see
any more industrial or non-residential uses in the area that is existing already
for residential. And as I talked to you know Jerome Carlson's wife and the
neighbors who are next to that and what not, a few of us showed up at the
Planning Commission meeting and went away very cynical, Nobody spoke in favor
of it and the Planning Commission decided, except for 1 descenting vote, to pass
it on. One of the things that we feel is very inappropriate is that this should
be earmarked for residential people who live along highways and people live
along railroad tracks without any difficulties. If you look in history, people
have lived along busy highways first and the businesses showed up later.
Traffic does not bother that many people. There are people who will not live on
it but people live there. We live near the railroad track. The railroad track
does not go by that often and it doesn't deem to be a nuisance or anything by
the people in Timberwood. This is an industrial use. It belongs in an
industrial area. That is not an industrial area and we do not even want to see
this property across the street south of Jerome Carlson's house turn industrial
either. Needless to say we would not be in favor of that which I'm sure the
Planning Commission probably is aware of. We'd like to see residential stay in
there. People are mentioning that these things are not noticeable and that's
true. They may not be noticeable where they're presently planted in other
cities but you remember that they're planted among the ugly eyesores of cement
block buildings with flat top roofs with condensors and pipes and your brain has
already said, these are ugly. I'm not going to look at it anyway so you don't
pay attention to the tower but you plunk it in next to some beautiful
' landscaping and trees where houses are going to be, it's going to stick out like
a sore thumb. This is a private enterprise and we don't have to have it in
Chanhassen. Why do we have to have an ugly tower sitting uglifying our
town? I'd rather have something pleasant looking and a house would sit there.
Maybe it'd be a twin home. With Chanhassen's tax structure the way it is, we'd
probably. ..lower taxes on a house if you're going to look at it from that
perspective but there were no residents in the area who were in favor of it and
' we're the people who live in the town and we care about our town you know.
What's going to be here. These folks, obviously they have a business enterprise
and they care about their business and I understand that but I could not get any
' of our disgruntled, cynical neighbors to show up anymore to meetings. .. I do
care about the place even though I don't live down in that corner, I just don't
think it's an appropriate use in residential. We have such little residential
land that they're planning for. I'd like to see it in an industrial area. And
11 64
11
II
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
he did mention that yes, sure we could possibly move it someplace else. He did
make that statement. Maybe we can find him someplace else to put it. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mary. Anyone else? I
Merle Volk: Yes. As part of the tower that she brought up. i
Mayor Chmiel: If you could just state your name and address.
Merle Volk: Merle Volk. There's a lot of houses next to towers. Next to water
towers. Now to me a water tower is a lot more bigger to look at than one of
these little towers and I really urge you to, if you could come up with some
better use for that property, I would like to know. I really urge you to give
it a good consideration. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, if hearing none. i
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Jay? I
Councilman Johnson: Since I took the earlier attack, I should now go in my
efforts to move this thing a little bit. I think these guys really know where
we're at. Our current ordinances allow it. It's a conditional use. They meet
all the conditions. We have a future plan of this being residential but
currently it is not planned residential. I prefer to see it elsewhere. I think
I've got a good idea of several different places but they don't seem to be
working for various reasons. I think our hands are tied on this one as they
have been on a few others where, I don't know where our attorney had to leave it
looks like tonight. Either that or he fell asleep and fell off his chair. I'm
not sure which.
Don Ashworth: He's within shouting range.
Councilman Johnson: Oh, he's within shouting range? But I think several times
it's been, in conditional use permits as I remember, if they meet all the
conditions, we're pretty well tied to granting the permit. I think that is
basically they've done their homework. They've come in. If they came in a year
from now, this would probably be planned as residential in the future and we
could accept staff's ideas that we can deny this based on the planned future use
but we have a proposed future use. We don't have a planned. Planned future use
in our documents is agricultural. We have a proposal that in the future it will
become residential. At this point we don't even have an inkling from Met
Council as to what they will allow or not allow in our new comprehensive plan.
If we were in the final weeks of this comprehensive plan rather than the final
months, I think we might have another leg to stand on but we're pretty short of
legs to stand on right now. So with that I think that we probably don't have a
choice.
Councilman Workman: You're not committing my vote are you?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I have a choice.
65 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' Councilman Johnson: No. In my considered opinion, isn't that what legal
beagles say?
ICouncilman Workman: You're saying we.
Councilman Johnson: Well me and the mouse in my pocket believe that our hands
' are somewhat tied if we're going to follow the rules by which we're supposed to
govern this town. Or if we're going to make up our zone up as we go, that's
something else.
' Councilwoman Dimler: If I could, I do have a few questions. I wonder if John,
could you answer. Do you have any plans for future expansion or could you
explain to us as your system grows, the tower could possibly get smaller and do
you have plans to do that?
John Uban: Dave could answer some of the what's been happening in some of the
other areas but as the grid system matures, in other words, more users, you need
more cells. The cells get smaller and the actual tower, or the antenna gets
less because if it stays the same, they start interfering with one another so
' the tower gets smaller. And it's to the point that in downtown areas and so
forth, that the towers could range 60 to 80 feet tall. In England they're
putting together a system where they're getting rid of most of the lines, normal
telephone lines and they're going to almost a complete cellular system in which
' they'll have some power almost on every block and that's about like a light post
or something so it just starts blending away and the technology is changing
considerably too. So what happens in a mature system, the antennaes get smaller
and I think Dave could tell you of a few that are happening right now in the
Twin Cities where they're reducing the size of the tower. And there will be
more towers but much less noticeable.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you'd have more towers on this site but they'd be
smaller?
John Uban: Not on this site, no. They'd have to be somewhere else.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And this particular tower could get smaller?
John Uban: Yes.
' Councilman Johnson: If we held our breaths, how long would we have to hold our
breaths before it got smaller?
Councilwoman Dimler: Long time.
' Dave Hellerman: It depends on the growth rate of the system. To give you an
example of one that we just lowered. We just lowered one in Arden Hills that we
' have that was at about 430 to 450 feet. In that range and we dropped it to,
this was a rented tower. We didn't actually own this tower but we want on a
rented tower. We dropped to 150 feet so we dropped more than half of the height
' went away. Originally when the system was originally built, we liked that
height because it allowed us to cover a lot of ground with a single antenna. As
we get, as the system gets more dense and there are more facilities, not on the
same place but spread is different. Yeah, excuse me. It's late. My mouth is
66
1
•
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 II
tired. What happens essentially is that as you start out with big cells and '
then you divide them up into little,. smaller sub cells as you have more and more
traffic. So to answer your question specifically as to how long it would take.
If the growth rate continues as it has, I would think we're looking at 5 years.
You know that's.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's a long time to hold your breath. '
Councilman Johnson: For an individual but not for a city.
Dave Hellerman: We've been surprised by how quickly our business has grown 1
frankly. We're scrambling to keep up with it. That might continue and we might
get a shock and next year the bottom might go out of it you know. We sometimes
feel like we've got the proverbial tiger by the tail just trying to keep up and
that's the way things are going now. Who knows.
Councilman"Johnson: Until some new technology comes out that beats you out.
Everybody I turn around there's somebody with one of these stupid things in
their briefcase.
Dave Hellerman: Well that's possible although a lot of the new technologies
that are being proposed would still require some kind of tower structure like
this and we might end up changing out the equipment in the equipment building to
a new technology without any real apparent changes and provide the service with
the physical facilities that we'd have. That would be my guess.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Okay, then I have one more concern and I ,
guess I don't quite agree that our hands are completely tied. I think this
comprehensive plan has been in the working for quite some time. Our intent has
been stated and I guess I'd just like to check with Roger how do you see that.
As far along as we are in the process, how does that hold up? '
Roger Knutson: It gives you something to talk about but like the legislature
you know. The bill hasn't been passed. You haven't adopted that comprehensive ,
plan yet so right now it's an idea that's being.
Mayor Chmiel: It may become a reality. It may not. ,
Roger Knutson: Yeah, discussed at staff and Planning Commission level and
worked on there but it is not the policy of the city at this time but it is some
indication, as Paul and I have discussed of what the plans are for that area. I
would be concerned about. ..
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we change our plans as a result of this? Is that a
possibility?
Roger Knutson: Change your Comprehensive Plan?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah.
Paul Krauss: We looked at bringing an ordinance amendment to the Planning ,
Commission last week and couldn't do it for time reasons and the Planning
Commission then asked us not to rush into this. But I think there's some
67 '
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' loopholes in the existing ordinance. -Even if we had adopted our comprehensive
plan, if we had not changed the ordinance, this tower would still comply because
the ordinance simply says land zoned for agricultural use. It doesn't say
anything about guided for something else.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Thomas.
' Councilman Workman: Can these towers or antennaes be mounted on water towers?
' Dave Hellerman: Oh yeah. We can do that.
Councilman Workman: Wouldn't the Hazeltine water tower be kind of convenient?
' Councilman Johnson: United Telephone.
Dave Hellerman: That's the one that's southwest. . .?
' Councilman Workman: You can see it for miles.
' Dave Hellerman: They're in the United Telephone service.
Councilman Workman: That can't be done absolutely?
'- Dave Hellerman: Well the other problem with that one, in addition to it being a
United Telephone is it's right next to a cellular telephone tower. . .
' Councilman Workman: Where's that tower?
Dave Hellerman: I believe just north of the water tower.
' Councilman Workman: In the Chaska Industrial Park?
Dave Hellerman: It is in Chaska, yeah.
' Councilman Workman: Who's is that?
' Dave Hellerman: That's Cellular One. That's our competition. They provide a
similar service using their bi-frequencies so we have to maintain some
separation from them.
' Councilman Workman: Well you're probably just as close?
Mayor Chmiel: But isn't there filters you can put on that too?
' Dave Hellerman: To some extent. We haven't had, the results that we've wanted
using the filters that are commercially available. It can be done. It's
something we prefer to avoid. I wouldn't tell you it's impossible. We like to
try and stay away from them.
Councilman Johnson: But they're allowed to go into Chaska because they are not
a hard wire telephone company.
Dave Hellerman: They're not associated with the phone company, right.
' 68
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
II
Councilman Johnson: So they can go anywhere.
Dave Hellerman: Yeah. '
Councilman Workman: Sounds like red tape. Merle, anything you can do to get us
more taxes, more power to you.
Merle Volk: Well, there's going to be. . .on the building and the thing is I
guess that I want to point out. I'm leasing the property so I feel I still have
control. '
Councilman Workman: I guess the Council has been tough on developers and
organizations that have come into town on how things look to neighborhoods.
That's my, well one of my few concerns about this. I think these towers are
necessary evils and someday I'll get me one of them thar things but it's, I
guess the ultimate concern is Timberwood. I drove by this site. It seems
fairly low and probably sheltered and shielded and everything else. My concern
is what is this going to look like from Timberwood. What are we going to, if
I owned a home in Timberwood, would I see this? This is 175 foot?
Mayor Chmiel: 175 feet.
Councilman Workman: If I owned a home up there and Mary Harrington says she has
the highest elevated home out there, what would that look like to me? How high
would that be sticking out over the trees? Now we've asked other groups,
developers that have come into the city to get us an idea of what it would look
like say from a view from TH 5 or from CR 17. This is a high, this potentially
can be a high impact thing. Should we be requesting that of this group so that
we all know? Are we all taking kind of an imaginary guess about how this will
look. And Jay, you say our hands our tied, it sounds to me like it's ambiguous
at least in one area. I don't have the right handout here, as to how does it
look. Is it detrimental to the aesthetics of anybody? Do we know that for
sure? I don't know that. That along with the actual building itself at the
base, I think the construction of that is a little bit ambiguous. I guess I'd
be more inclined to number one, see exactly what that's going to be on the plan
or ask that it be built at least comparable to the one on TH 101. Are we saying
that?
Paul Krauss: Yeah. That was the Planning Commission's.
Councilman Workman: Okay, and then that's the only, that point I'm not worried ,
about but if I do own a home in Timberwood or anywhere else, and this is 175
foot tower and there's no hiding that. What's it going to look like? I don't
think we have any concept. I
Mayor Chmiel: Look at a building 12 stories high and give you a good idea.
Councilman Johnson: Not really. 12 stories and 10 feet wide. '
Mayor Chmiel: I'm talking just strictly height. ,
Councilman Johnson: Strictly height...
69 ,
I
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Councilman Workman: This is a high impact thing and that's no offense but it
is. You know that and you've got this' problem wherever you're putting up a
' tower. It's not a happy thing but we do have the ability in here to ask that
question I guess. The facility will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
I agree that it will be landscaped and maintained and that there will be a
buffer and eveything will look fine down here but from a distance you can't
buffer 175 foot tower unless you have low clouds. And so that would lead into
the lower one, the proposed facility will not depreciate surrounding property
values. I don't know that that would be true or not. It seems some distance
' from the homes. That seems to slope down lower and so you're losing maybe a
little bit of a height right there. But as we look over the top of those trees
to the south of Timberwood, what do we see?
John Uban: I can answer that question.
Councilman Workman: Okay.
John Uban: Number one, the tower, the width itself is very narrow when it gest
to the top. You have to understand that when you look at it, here's Timberwood.
' Here's the lower portion of it up in here. There's a significant amount of
woods you have to look not only through but over and that really intercepts all
the views. When you're down in here, you really don't see what is going on to
the south at all. This is down at the lower spot. This rolls down and it will
be right against the existing trees here. So in essence what you will see, from
a very long distance. For instance this house is 1,900 feet away. This house
is 1,900 feet away right here and this is right into the trees. From this
' property you'll have absolutely no view of it at all. It will be impossible to
see even in the wintertime.
•
Councilman Workman: How about further back to the center?
' John Uban: This will be over, about a half mile or more and at that point part
of this is about 12 to 16 feet wide with a few little antenna things on the top.
' You will not be able to pick it out over the horizon and the tree branches. I
mean you just won't see it at a half a mile distance.
' Mayor Chmiel: John, just driving today going to Monticello on Hwy 25 I checked
the distance to make sure because I come back that way. It's 2 1/2 miles and
there are 5 towers that are depicted in the skyline.
John Uban: Those were. . .
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think they're much more than 175 feet. At least they're
' not marked with any aerial so they have to be under 200 feet MSL because that's
a requirement. But those were very, very visible from that distance.
Fortunately I got new glasses. Maybe that helped but I could really pick them
' out as I was driving through that particular.
John Uban: I'm talking of only from a specific vantage point. Timberwood.
Obviously on some of these roads you'll have a much longer view and you can see
I it more clearly when you don't have trees intersecting that view. You're
talking about an angle and just a portion of that tower up over the crown of the
trees. That's what we're saying. The very minimal and the impact is really not
' 70
1
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
significant. And you find it everywhere in the metropolitan area. And we gave ,•
in our submittal to you, in the report on studies that towers do not have a
detrimental effect on adjacent properties. I know you can say that's not right
but we've given you, an official appraisal of that situation to show that it
doesn't happen. I have slides and pictures of many other communities here and
I'll show you if you'd like or we can give you copies of that for the record of
other towers in neighborhoods. Towers that existed before neighborhoods.
Towers that came in afterwards and everyone is co-habitating quite nicely. It's
part of the urban fabric and quite acceptable and part of the conditional use
process that we've met here. It's zoned appropriately and so forth and we
believe we have the right to be here and we hope you will continue with the
approval process.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Tom? 1
Councilman Workman: Yeah. We're saying to the city that what the MSP
substation down here and how this tower, that's where we're going to put this
stuff. No doubt about it. It's not going to be pretty. We need highways are a
part of the social fabric of America but that don't make them pretty. You know
we need a freeway through town. We're going to get one eventually but that
don't make it pretty and so those are the concerns of the neighbors and it's
going to change somebody's view somewhat and I'm not going to be the judge of
how much or how little that disturbs them but if we're saying, you know we're
kind of saying that we're going to put substations and towers and everything
else. See it's not going to bug Chaska but with the Comp Plan hanging in the
balance, this is going to be one more thing. Maybe it's best to have all the
stuff here before you build. I'd like to have Redmond Products build before we
get the neighbors across the street. I wish Timberwood wasn't there so, we
wouldn't have some of these problems but they're there so we've got to addres
those concerns and if Council feels comfortable that we've fully addressed those
concerns and we're going to say well, cellular phones are a part of our American
fabric, then that's all there is to it and we're going to so to speak, roll over
or tie our hands or any other euphemism and that's the way it is, then that's
what we've got and we're going to continue to get it. I don't know if that's
good or bad. That's not a judgment but that's another big move I think. I
don't particularly care. I've got a ticket to the U.S. Open and I don't
particularly care if they can talk on their phones or not out there. As long as
the beer's cold out there. You know so they probably won't see it up there.
Maybe not but I don't know if we know that. That's the concerns that I think I
have to voice and now I have and Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear what you have on
your mind.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I have one, well I have several questions.
How are these cells, originally on the concept coming in it used to be 125 feet.
That increased to 150 feet. Why?
Dave Hellerman: . . .the application got made before we completed our
engineering...detailed engineering that we needed and we got it done before the
hearing and realized that we needed a few more feet to do what we intended to
do. It was just a timing situation: We do some computer runs and some
studies. . . I think the specific thing that maybe caused us to underestimate
with our first guess is that some of the hillier terrain to the south of the
site. In order to fill in those, you have to get up a little bit and look down.
71
1
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: How much are we looking ,up above to looking down into with the
additional amount of footage?
IIDave Hellerman: There are quite a few of the little lows there. Some there and
a couple out on TH 5 where it goes up and down where it makes the difference
between a useable signal and not useable signal. That came out pretty clearly
once the computer runs were done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can you address to me about fiber optics as to the useage
' of those in comparison with your subject. There are so many things that fiber
optics can do in providing connections and line locations and hospital to just
about anyplace that you wanted.
Dave Heileman: Yeah, we do use fiber optics to do the connections into the
cell sites in a lot of our locations but fiber optics now is a technology that
still requires the physical fiber. There is no, we are using fiber optics more
' and more for the circuits in but those are circuits that the phone company, U.S.
West, the mother company provides us so when they get ready to start providing
fiber optics, we'll certainly be using them. We do use some fiber links out of
' our main switch downtown into some of the local substations.
Mayor Chmiel: One of our optics are right now available within the city of
Minneapolis and also St. Paul.
' Dave Hellerman: Yeah. Well we are using them. We have fiber links into
Orchard Substation and 24th Street. Is that what you mean?
Mayor Chmiel: I guess communication channel as to bring the voice across. In
other words, having your towers. They're necessary because of the heights in
order to get you directional of your transmission going through space. Okay.
My other question is, can it be done through fiber optics being under the
ground?
Dave Hellerman: Well not and get to a moving vehicle just because you have to
connect to the vehicle direct.
Mayor Chmiel: It's something that's really catching on.
Dave Hellerman: I'm sure if there's a way to do it, we'd like to do it. The
' problem that most systems have that have tried to use optics to go through the.
air is that rain and things like that, you know they block light and they block
optical systems. So that's been a problem. You need something that's going to
get through it. You'd also have to, you'd still have to put the light source up
high. Now we're talking science fiction here at this point but it's an
interesting subject for sure.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well, I've worked on a fiber optics, that's why I'm asking the
question.
Dave Hellerman: Yeah. We certainly, we'd still have to put the fibers up high
' to get the line of sight.
' 72
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
II
Mayor Chmiel: Well, that's the question I had. That was never explained to me. 11
Whether it did have to go high or it could be contained within duct work in the
ground and still have that probability of getting those signals out. '
Councilman Johnson: Fiber optics doesn't receive a signal unless it's directed
directly into the end of the line. It can't come in perpendicular to the line
through the ground.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it can. You bet it can. You'd be surprised at what it can
do. ,
Councilman Johnson: Through the ground?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. The other question I have. Being that that tower is going ,
to go up in that particular area, if there is a failure within that tower, how
close would that tower be to the railroad? In the event it fell in that
particular location.
Dave Hellerman: I think some of the material that John distributed has some
information from an engineering firm. ,.
Mayor Chmiel: I know. It talked about the property owners. Paul?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the ordinance requires that it be the height of the 1
tower from the property line. The original proposal was 125 feet away from the
property line. I believe Mr. Uban indicated at the Planning Commission that
they would increase that setback for the higher tower.
Councilman Johnson: To the railroad?
Paul Krauss: Now strictly speaking, the ordinance talks about tower's designed
to topple or designed to break and this tower probably fits. The information we
have is that it fits into that progressive falling type of design. It doesn't II shatter catastrohpically. It typically kind of bends at a point in the middle
so it probably conforms to that standard that doesn't require the full setback
but they indicated they would meet it in any case.
Councilman Johnson: 165 feet to their property line, the railroad beyond that ,
probably another 50 feet.
Dave Hellerman: The failure point of this type of tower is about 80 to 100 feet '
above so everything should fall within 80 feet of it. That's the way it's
designed. I should say that we've never had one of this size fail nor do we
know of one that's ever gone. It takes a tremendous amount of ice load. Where
you can get it go is if you load it up with ice and then get the wind and that's
a pretty rare circumstance.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the other question I have in relationship with that
proposed tower. What additional things could be connected onto that tower at a
later date? • '
Dave Hellerman: Well one of the conditions is that we'd have to come back and
do that.
73
1
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: But what I'm saying is, what additional things could be attached
to that tower or be self contained on it. I'm thinking of a microwave system.
Dave Hellerman: Well anything that requires an antenna. A tower is just an
antenna support structure so technologically it's anything. Our normal policy
is that we don't rent tower space. We're just not set up to do it. We don't
like to do it. It's more grief than it's worth basically.
Mayor Chmiel: I look at it from a city standpoint. If you can have maybe 2 or
3 kinds of communication channels on it, it'd be much better than putting up 2
or 3 more towers.
Dave Hellerman: Well technologically there's no barrier to that. I guess
that's a business question.
Mayor Chmiel: Had you ever considered putting up a steel pole structure rather
' than the lattice tower structure that you proposed?
Dave Hellerman: On a pole? Yeah, at this height they get a little bit iffy.
You're kind of getting to the upper limit of what we like to do with them on a
pole. It can be done. You don't have as much excess strength. You're getting
closer to the design limits of the tower and it gets quite expensive but it's,
we have used them. You generally around 140 or 150 feet is what we feel is the
limit of where we like to use that single steel monopole structure.
Mayor Chmiel: I was thinking from a standpoint of structures as such with
' tornadoes. They have a better change of remaining standing than what a lattice
would and the type you're proposing.
Dave Hellerman: I haven't seen those studies.
Mayor Chmiel: I've seen those specific studies with tornadoes and with
electrical pole structures. Steel structures. And they have withstood the
' tornado aspects of it. In fact it happened in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park
area.
' Dave Hellerman: That could very well be.
Mayor Chmiel: So was there any consideration in using a single steel?
' Dave Hellerman: Our normal procedure is we don't go to, we don't use monopoles
much above 140 or 150 feet. We just found they haven't been efficient. So the
lattice tower is our normal way of going for this height. I suppose it could be
' considered.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's all, those are the only questions I have. Any
further discussion? Do I have a motion?
' Councilman Johnson: As I said, I don't love the site but I think it's as
obtrusive as a lot of people think it's going to be. I know that when I built
' my house, just to digress slightly, I had a beautiful farm behind my and the
farmer told me that he'd be taken out of there feet first. He now lives over by
St. Hubert's and I've got 4 houses built on a hill that was raised up behind me j
' 74
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
several feet. Now instead of a view of a farm at sunset, I have a view of
houses at sunset and I've gotten fairly well used to that. It's a fact of life.
The tower's not nearly as intrusive as having those houses built behind me at a
higher elevation than my house.
Councilman Workman: Are you making a motion Jay? ,
Councilman Johnson: So, moving in towards the motion, I also believe that they
meet all the requirements of a conditional use permit given our existing
comprehensive plan and the existing wording of our ordinances in order to follow
the rules by which we're supposed to operate this city, that I move approval
with staff conditions as stated. Were there any other additions?
Mayor Chmiel: The one on page 7 or page 8? Or 9?
Councilman Johnson: And 9. Page 9 conditions I believe are the conditions. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: I'll second it. '
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit 990-3 for SMSA Limited for a cellular transmission subject
to the following conditions:
1. Staff will approve the aesthetic design of the tower and building and the
building should be consistent with other recently constructed telephone and
public utility buildings in the area.
2. Staff will approve and document the tower shape and structure and that it's
construction will follow that approval.
3. No other radio uses shall be approved without an addendum to the conditional
use permit #90-3 which will come in before the Planning Commission and City
Council.
4. Landscaping shall be installed as part of the approved landscaping plan. A
letter of credit guaranteeing improvements will be required before building
permits are issued.
5. No lights or signage be placed on the tower or elsewhere on the site.
6. The tower shall be painted a flat color so that it blends in with the
background.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Workman: I'd move adjournment.
Mayor Chmiel: We have two quick ones here. '
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, are you willing to suspect Council rules?
75 ,
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, let's suspend Council rules.
Councilman Workman: I'm not making that motion.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll make the motion.
Councilman Johnson: We have a motion and second before us. No discussion's
' allowed on a motion to adjourn.
Mayor Chmiel: It was a joking one.
Councilman Johnson: It was a joking motion?
Councilman Workman: But it was spoken.
Councilwoman Dimler: And I seconded it.
Mayor Chmiel: We have just two more.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to suspend Council rules to
continue the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ESTABLISHMENT OF 1991 PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES.
Councilman Johnson: I move approval.
Councilman Workman: Second.
' Resolution $90-114: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
set the park dedication fees at $2,500.00 per acre for commercial/ industrial
property; $500.00/unit for residential single family/duplex units; and
$440.00/unit for multi-family and maintain the trail dedication fee at one-third
of the cost of the park dedication fees. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR LAREDO DRIVE AND MARKET BOULEVARD AT WEST 78TH
STREET INTERSECTION.
Charles Folch: I'd just like to make a brief summary of the report contained in
your packets. It's come to staff's attention that many vehicles are
' experiencing problems accessing and crossing West 78th at the intersections of
Laredo Drive and Market Blvd. at various times throughout the day. In an effort
to try and determine the severity of the problem, traffic counts were taken at
pertinent locations on West 78th, Laredo Drive and Market Blvd.. It was found
' that the traffic volume at the intersection of West 78th and Laredo Drive is
high enough to meet the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control requiring
full signalization. However, the intersection with Market Blvd. did not produce
' this high of volume at the present time. Nevertheless, it may be premature to
signalize the intersection at Laredo Drive and incur an estimated cost of
approximately $80,000.00 to $100,000.00 at this time. Major improvements to
' TH 5, TH 101 and the vacant property west of Market Blvd. in the near future
will likely have a significant impact on trip generation and traffic volumes at
these intersections. In fact the complete traffic control plan on West 78th
' 76
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
Street from TH 101 to Powers Blvd. may be needed in the future pending ultimate
development in the area. However, it is the general consensus that something
should be done at this time to try and improve the situation. Thus the option
'• of a multi-way or 4 way stop installation was investigated. In evaluating the
data acquired, it was again found that only the intersection of West 78th at
Laredo Drive was able to meet any of the 3 common warrants for a multi-way stop
as described in and governed by the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. In fact this intersection at Laredo Drive met at least 2 of the 3
requirements including the warrant for serving as an interim solution at
intersections meeting warrants for signalization. A multi-way stop at Laredo
would also help to stagger cars westbound on West 78th, thus allowing easier
access for vehicles at Market Blvd. . Thus it is staff's recommendation that a
multi-way stop be installed at the intersection of West 78th and Laredo Drive as
an interim solution to the traffic problems currently being experienced and that
further, no U turn signs be installed throughout West 78th between TH 101 and
Kerber Blvd. to discourage these types of hazardous movements that are presently
occurring. Also, please note the City Engineer's comment on discretionary
solicitation of the Public Safety committee's review and comment on this issue.
Councilman Workman: I'll start. Are we still in the process of getting our
traffic study? Complete traffic study which was generated by the Target/Market
Square development, are we still in the process of that?
Charles Folch: The exact status of that I'm not sure at this time. I know that
there was some work being done on that. I'm not sure if that program's on hold
right now or exactly what that status is. I know at least in the interim it was
desired to try and provide some sort of temporary solution to the problem out
there.
Councilman Workman: I think this is another one of those rub things. I don't ,
disagree that we need something somewhere on West 78th but those is one of those
rubs that the problem's been created and we're going to, I think try and put on
a lot of bandaids on it and then it's going to go away. We created a situation
where people have to U turn. If you come out of Anh Le and you want to go east,
you've got to go out Laredo so we've kind of funneled people into that area
and/or, and I've done it. I've gone out right by the Riv there. I've gone west
and I've made a U turn and it is difficult even with my car to make that turn so
we've make it too narrow and we've been harping on this for a long time. There
are those in the community who feel that that median should be removed and that
might take care of a lot of the problems. I think we need this traffic study
done because we are funneling traffic. I don't know if we did this study on
Kerber but I think we need just as much of a stop sign at Kerber because there's
going to be an accident there if we aren't already having it. We're funneling a
lot of traffic down Kerber, at least as much as Laredo and it's a huge
intersection and traffic is coming up from Powers. Taking a short cut through
town like we've funneled people. We're not funneling them out to TH 5. And
you've got to make this big wide sweeping corner and then it gets sharp at the
end up West 78th. We've created a situation with these' medians that makes it
totally uncomfortable and impractical to move on this road. I think it's bad
for businesses. It's bad for visitors. It's bad all around. It looks nice but
it's bad and I think we need to take some quick action to take, at the minimum,
the ends off of these medians. Move them back so people can make these
movements without doing this. You know what I mean? Come out of Laredo, you've
77
II ' City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
' got to make it sharp and it's the old story from dozens of people in town that
there's no way that hook and ladder can' get around that corner without wiping
out everything on it. So I'm frustrated. It's late. I think we need to do
' something but I again, like earlier, I said we missed an opportunity at Cheyenne
to fix that intersection on TH 101. I didn't see anything in there on Kerber.
Maybe we're going to get that but we're funneling a lot of traffic down Kerber
and there's no way that I'm going to go. It just seems so strange to me that
' we're funneling people down Kerber and then we've got another major road over at
Market Square. If Kerber connected right up with something that went to TH 5,
maybe people would go right up to TH 5. You'd have a situation there but people
are not going to go down Kerber and take a right and go out to TH 5. They're
going to go right down main street. They're not going to go down Market Square
to get out to TH 5. They're going to go all the way through just like I do down
' to the Taco Shoppe. And so we're funneling these people through there and now
we're going to put stop signs, which we need to do obviously but we don't have
enough room down there for what I think a situation that we created. We created
a funnel down there and now we're going to fix it with U turn signs and stop
signs and it's going to further aggrevate the problem. We have a grave
transportation problem on that road that this is just really going to be a
temporary fix.
Councilman Johnson: And staff admits it's going to be temporary. We don't have
the full study.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think we should give it to Public Safety and have them take a
look at it.
' Councilman Johnson: I think so too but I think that if Public Safety believes
that a stop sign is warranted there, that they have our pre-approval to put it
in because I'd like to see a 4 way stop at that intersection as soon as
possible.
Councilman Workman: But we don't know what Public Safety's going to decide. I
don't want to give pre-approval. We do that all night here administratively.
Councilman Johnson: I don't want it to have to come back to us and wait another
2 weeks. That's an accident waiting to happen. As people get less and less
' patient on there, they go out in smaller and smaller holes.
Councilman Workman: I'd like them to look at Laredo. I'd like them to look at
Kerber and anywhere else. One stop sign's not going to stop people from coming
through downtown but it's going to give people an opportunity to jump out at the
bank. To me that's a minor fix. That can wait 2 weeks.
' Councilman Johnson: You don't drive Laredo every day. Ursula and I do.
Councilman Workman: I drive Kerber every day.
' Councilman Johnson: You drive Kerber every day. Kerber is nothing. I spent
half my time doing Kerber and about half my trips. If I'm going to Chaska, I do
Kerber. If I'm going east, I do Laredo. I'll guarantee you.
78
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990 �,
Councilman Workman: When you go to Chaska you're taking a right out. You're ,
not making a left. That's a whole different ballgame.
Councilman Johnson: But I never see the line up of 3 and 4 cars waiting to turn
left on Kerber that I do on Laredo.
Councilman Workman: But I see near accidents of people who are going to 45-55
up from Powers and it's very difficult because now people are accelerating out
of town also so it's an even faster situation than Laredo.
Councilman Johnson: I agree. I think the long term solution here is going to
be, and I'm predicting the traffic report, is that we're going to signalize
Market with a 4 way stop light eventually with all the new shopping centers
going in. And when TH 101 in about a year gets pulled off of West 78th Street ,
and put on TH 5 where it belongs, even though I wish they would do it earlier,
that's one thing I requested that we check with MnDot and see if they will
actually reroute that now. I don't know if we've ever made that inquiry. Then
we would again have control of the St. Hubert's intersection and so the 3 way
stop sign will go up there again like it used to be. With this combination,
it's going to, as the original traffic studies many years ago were indicating,
is going to try to funnel the people to TH 5. When they have to start hitting
these stop signs and these other barriers, they're going to go on down to TH 5
on Market instead of playing going through.
Councilman Workman: No way. No way. Go through the stop sign and then go s
down, go through 3 or 4 stop signs versus sitting at a light at Market and then
hitting 3 more lights on TH 5, I don't believe so. '
Charles Foich: I guess our initial intent here is not necessarily to discourage
the use of West 78th. It's just to allow easier access out Laredo and help to
stagger the cars so that people at Market and even as far down as Kerber,
although Kerber seems to have a little bit easier access. I'm not sure if the
distance allows for more spacing of cars and more time to be able to turn in
front of them but it doesn't seem to be as much of a problem.
Councilman Workman: When people are traveling west on West 78th, and I'm guilty
of this. Oh yeah, I'm going to make a turn. You signal. Cars are trying to
judge and they're kind of coming out and then all of a sudden somebody will come
around and pass on the left. It gets wide there and so they go around you on
the left. That's what we had happen at Galpin today. And so it's a whole
different situation than Laredo I think and it's only a block away but it's a
whole different situation.
Councilman Johnson: But we don't have the traffic counts or anything at this
time on Kerber. We're going to have to set up and do all the traffic counts,
etc. before we can do anything on Kerber. We've got them on Laredo. It's
justified the use so I don't want to wait another month. We're just waiting for
an accident to happen. I'd like to prevent an accident for once instead of
being reactive to it. We're being proactive here. We've looked at this
intersection every 6 months and finally the volumes were up there and it
warrants the stop sign. When the Minnesota Uniform whatever actually warrants
something, it's warranted. It's not one of these things that's, we've got a lot
of places we've looked at them where we thought stop signs were warranted but
79 '
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
the State requirement said they weren't and we were very frustrated with that.
Now we've got intersection that the State requirements say is warranted.
There's a large portion of the population that are yelling for this and we're
' saying let's delay it another month?
Councilman Workman: Yes. I'd like to.
Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion is we send it back to Public Safety and let them
review it. Let it come back to us and then move from there.
Councilman Workman: If that's a motion, I'll second it but I'd rather, if we're
going to have 3 stop signs, I want them all at the same time. Not part and
parcel. I think Public Safety needs to look at the ends of those medians, if
' not removing the medians completely and so that people have a freer turning
movement because I find those turning movements totally unnatural.
Councilman Johnson: So are we referring only Laredo at this time or are we
doing everything? Are we putting a package of everything that Tom's suggesting
together? Is that, what's your motion Mr. Mayor?
' Mayor Chmiel: My motion was to present it to public safety. Let them take and
review this.
Councilwoman Oimler: Just Laredo.
Mayor Chmiel: Excuse me, Laredo and have them review the Minutes, or a copy of
' the Minutes be provided with the discussion that Tom had.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like them to separate out Kerber and everything else
from Laredo and let's get Laredo decided on as quickly as possible and not delay
1 it with looking at Kerber and median cuts.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think we should look at Laredo first and review those
others as well. I would make that motion. Is there a second? You seconded it.
Councilman Workman: I'm not sure I understand. So they can't discuss any other
intersection besides Laredo?
' Mayor Chmiel: No, no.
' Councilman Johnson: No, they can take action on Laredo.
Councilman Workman: And we're going to allow them to make the decision? It's
not going to come back to Council?
Mayor Chmiel: It will come back to Council.
' Councilman Workman: I'd second that.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to refer consideration of
' traffic controls at Laredo Drive at West 78th Street first and then the
remainder of West 78th Street to the Public Safety Commission for their
consideration and recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
80
I
City Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
II
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
1 Mayor Chmiel: Jay, you had something on new homes, Bluff Creek Drive. ,
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I don't know if you guys have had a chance to get
out there. There's a new home about a half mile down Bluff Creek Drive from
where it hits Pioneer there on the left side. It's I believe Mr. Redmond's
daughter's home. They've got a stop work order right now from our Building
Inspectors because it doesn't meet the original blue prints but Conrad hit me up
Saturday at the Post Office. He says you've got to go look at this place. I
think everybody should. It's right over the edge of Bluff Creek. If you can
imagine all the water that's going to be coming off the roof of this and hitting
the hill in the back, we're going to be washing out this hill. We need to do a
little additional engineering study on it. I think Chuck's already involved in
this or Dave is or somebody is. That side of it, the erosion control is already
failing on the side of the hill. There's some areas without erosion control
that need to be there. The watershed's going to be out looking at it but I want
to tell the other Council. You go out there and see this foundation. It's one
big house that's going to go in there and it's just right up on the edge. It's
a disaster waiting to happen. '
Charles Folch: Excuse me Jay, what is the location of that?
Councilman Johnson: It's down, well basically it's the first home as you go '
down. The first new home that's being built as you go down Bluff Creek
from Pioneer. Maybe a quarter, half a mile down.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think that should be reviewed. We've had it known where
homes in Eden Prairie have slid down considerable distance and depending upon
1 what soil conditions and what the soils are, that would dictate whether it was
needed.
Councilman Johnson: People were talking about planting and stabilizing but this
is in woods. You're not going to get much grass to grow on the side of this
hill. It's mostly just dead plants and a few vines and stuff. You start
putting 4,000 square foot of roof up there.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: I have just two things I wanted to bring to your attention. The
regional breakfast meeting for local official in Carver County is being held
by Metropolitan Council, Steve Keefe. He's going to present the Council's
priority projects for next year and some of the metropolitan issues the Council
thinks the legislature may address in 1991 and it's going to be on Wednesday,
September 26th at 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. at Jay's Family Restaurant in Chaska. Costs
are $5.00 and if you'd like to, you can RSVP by on or before September 21st.
The number is 291-6500 and I'll give this to Don. I plan on going to it and
maybe you can have Karen. Anyone else who'd like to go?
Councilwoman Oimler: I already did. I RSVP'd today. ,
Councilman Workman: So did I.
1 81
11
IICity Council Meeting - September 10, 1990
rDon Ashworth: Did everyone receive a copy of that?
Councilwoman Dimler: You bet.
Mayor Chmiel: The other thing is, we had the League of Minnesota Cities
regional meeting which is going to be at the City of St. Peter and they're
looking for councilmembers and mayors to come to this specific meeting which is
going to be on Wednesday, September 19th. It's going to be a dinner beginning
at 6:15 and what are they going to talk about? They don't say too much in here.
' I think what they're going to have is some discussions as to what the city of
St. Peter's done with some of their water if I'm not mistaken. Somewhere I had
seen it but it doesn't say here. There are dinner ticket applications if you
choose on going. I'm going to leave this all with Don.
' Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00
midnight.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
It
i
I
1
I
r82
I
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION1 ,,,
I REGULAR MEETING UNEHIEP,
SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 ii....„
IChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 37 p .m . .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad , Tim Erhart , Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson ,
IBrian Batzli and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth
ISTAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior
Planner ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner 1 ; and Charles Folch , Asst . City Engineer
IPUBLIC HEARING:
JERRY PERKINS OF POPE ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE
PARK AND LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PARK ROAD AND PARK PLACE:
IA. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AND CREATE STANDARDS FOR A VEHICLE
INSPECTION STATION;
IB. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 3, BLOCK 1 , CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS
PARK 5TH ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS;
11 C . SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 4 ,042 SQUARE FOOT VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION.
Public Present:
IName Address .
I Barb & Russ Murphy
Roman Roos 6451-59 Park Road
10341 Heidi Lane
Ned V . Rukavina 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd .
Dennis Palmer 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd .
I
Jerry Perkins 1360 Energy Park Drive
Stanley 3 . Krzywicki 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd .
David Breslau 1313 5th St . S .E . , Suite 322 , Mpls . , 55404
I Al Iverson 1500 Park Road
James Fischer 1500 Park Road
Richard Andreasen 1500 Park Road
ISharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order .
I Dennis Palmer : I have a brief slide presentation if I may . 'My name is
Dennis Palmer . I 'm the general manager for System Control and I 'm here
tonight with Stan Krzywicki our manager for the project . Systems Control
I is . . .clean air company. We 're proud of our reputation. Our presentation
tonight is to the community of Chanhassen and we're asking tonight for
permission to locate one of our vehicle testing facilities in the
I community . First I 'd like to give a little background if I can . The State
of Minnesota exceeds the federal requirements for carbon monoxide . Carbon
monoxide is a hazardous pollutant with long term exposure that could be
harmful to people . It 's been determined by the federal government that
I carbon monoxide is mainly produced from automobiles. So in an effort to
.improve local air quality , the State of Minnesota is adopting a vehicle
inspection program . The program is designed to identify vehicles that are
II
1.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 2 '
the gross polluters . As I said , it 's goal is to improve the air quality .
Systems Control has designed a fast automated test . The test involves just
light duty vehicles . Diesels , trucks , heavy duty trucks , tractor trailers ,
heavy duty buses , motorcycles will not be involved in this program . Just
automobiles and light duty vehicles . The stations are operated by Systems
Control . Systems Control is a Minnesota Corporation , private corporation .
We do pay taxes . We 're not tax exempt . It 's administered by the MPCA , the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency . They 're the agency that Systems
Control has their contract with . With over 20 years experience , Systems
Control has become the industry leader in this business . This is our only
business . We test cars . We don 't repair cars . We don 't sell cars . We
test cars . It 's our only business . We operate similar programs in
California , in Alaska , in the State of Washington , in Illinois and in
Maryland . We 're starting a program for the State of Florida and of course
the program here in Minnesota . We 're proud of the contribution we 've made
to these communities . In Maryland alone , their program which is similar to'
this program in design is credited for cleaning up or reducing carbon
monoxide by 209 tons a single day . This is a facility in Maryland . This
station is 7 years old . We started our program there in 1984 . We take a
lot of pride in construction . In the maintenance and the landscaping of
our facilities . We have clean facilities . I started in this program in
1983 . I started with SC in 1983 as a station manager for this program . As,
Sharmin said , a vehicle inspection station is not listed as a use because
it 's new so if I could take a minute and explain some of the comparisons to
some common uses that we 're familiar with . It 's a service business . We
just test vehicles . We 're a service business . Now this facility located
in Chanhassen will , their traffic flow will be somewhere between 1/3 and a
1/2 of the average sized McDonald 's in a single day . It 's similar to an
auto bank where you drive through . You stop for 2 minutes and you drive
on . It 's strictly drive thru . Most facilities are built larger than they
need to be to assure that there 's no back ups in traffic . We 're not like
gas stations because we do no repairs . There 's no repairs at this
facility . It 's strictly testing . There 's no underground tanks . No
problems with disposing of oil from crank cases . It 's strictly testing .
It 's a house of computers . This is the network design for the State of
Minnesota . One of the requirements or one of the criteria we use when we
locate a facility is convenience . Most people will not have to drive
greater than 5 miles to a facility on an average . That 's our goal when we
locate a facility . This is an aerial photograph of the Chanhassen site .
North is to your left . The lower portion of the photograph is Audubon Road
and the site is located , I 'm afraid the arrow is kind of dark but it 's
located in the lower right hand quadrant of the photograph . This is a
street map location . The location is on Park Road . This is an artist
rendering of our facility . This is a generic drawing . The facility
located here is 3 lanes . The facilities are brick construction and fully I
landscaped . Here 's a landscaping plan Sharmin had shown at the entrances
on Park Road . Again it 's strictly drive thru . There 's 3 lanes . The front
part and half of the left hand side is bermed . Again , an elevation of the
facility . Three lanes . The section without the garage doors are the
managerial section . There 's a manager on this site . This is a picture of
our operation again in Maryland . One of our rather larger facilities .
Again , it 's strictly testing . Exclusively testing . We do no repairs . The
motorist simply pulls in without appointment . Pulls into the bay . Is
greeted by an inspector . The inspector puts in the driver 's license plate .
Information is called up and in 2 minutes , less than 2 minutes actually ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' September 5 , 1990 - Page 3
the test on average is completed . These facilities are basically houses of
' computers . That 's all that exist in these facilities . Computers and
paper . Approximately 10% of the folks will have to use our information
office . Most people though will pull in , receive their inspection results
and pull out . A little bit about our operations . Again , it 's drive thru
testing . The average test time is less than 2 minutes . We do recruit
locally . This facility will employ approximately 10 to 15 people . Our
' operating hours are Tuesday thru Saturday . We 're not open Monday and we 're
not open on Sunday . Tuesdays and Thursdays we close by 7:00 p .m . and on
Wednesdays and Fridays we close at 5:30 p .m . . And on Saturdays our hours
are from 8:00 to 2:00 . Also before we select a site we consider the impact
' on communities . We 've employed Dr . David Braslau . Contracted with Dr .
David Braslau , a local environmental impact engineer , to perform air
quality and traffic studies and all these studies have to be favorable
' before we select the site . In this case again they 're all favorable . With
respect to noise , noise also is favorable . A little comment . One of our
facilities in Maryland , after the operation the stations in no way effect
' negatively the local area development . We 've got doctor 's offices , retail
outlets , even a nursing home had been built after the operation . The folks
from the nursing home are always over having coffee and complimenting our
manager on how clean and neat the facility is so we are good neighbors .
We 're confident that we can do good here and help improve the air quality .
The federal EPA says that we can , they expect in the first year operation
to reduce emissions by 36 ,000 tons and by 1995 , 136 ,000 tons in a year . We
' are good neighbors and we hope that you accept your staff 's recommendation .
Thank you .
Conrad: Thanks for your report . Okay , we 'll open it up for other public
' comments . Are there any?
Richard Andreasen: I 'm Richard Andreasen . I 'm the facilities manager at
' the PMT Corporation . I 'd like to state in the past I 've noticed the City
of Chanhassen has had a great concern with new projects and how it affects
others and how it fit into the community . I believe with the increased
amount of traffic , exhaust fumes , noise , that the inspection station does
not fit into the Chanhassen Lake Industrial Park . I believe we should
leave the Chanhassen Lake Industrial Park an industrial park . Thank you .
' James Fischer : My name is James Fischer and I 'm representing on behalf of
the employees of PMT Corporation . I have spoke with several PMT employees
and we feel that the inspection station would be a demoralization of some
' of the people with , well the employees . We go outside on break . It 's
quiet . There 's no cars . The air smells nice and now there 's not going to
be that if this goes through . There 's going to be noise . There 's going to
' be the smell of car exhaust . I know the smell . I lived in California for
4 years while serving in the military . I had to have my car inspected
every year . I know what it 's like to sit in line and wait and wait . 4 or
5 cars deep . I don 't believe that . I 've seen it and I 've been in 20 plus
' cars deep waiting for an inspection on my vehicle . It 's going to smell .
The employees aren 't going to be going on their walks on lunch . They just
won 't like it and they don 't . Thank you very much .
Batzli : When you were waiting 20 in line deep , was that just a safety
-check or just an emissions check?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 4 '
James Fischer : Just emissions . To get a certificate .
Conrad: Thank you . Other comments?
Russ Murphy : I 'm Russ Murphy . I own Murphy Machine Company across the I
street from the proposed site and somebody had mentioned the noon walks .
There 's a lot of people walking on Park Avenue and it 's becoming a race
track . I bought the first lot out there and I 've watched each building go I
up and half the traffic going through McDonald's is probably 10 times the
traffic we have right now . I don 't think it would fit in very well . Thank
you .
Conrad: Thanks for your comments . Other comments? Anything else?
Al Iverson: My name is Al Iverson . I 'm President of the PMT Corporation
I 've listened to a pretty heart warming presentation . We 're all intereste
in the environment and air pollution . I have a responsibility to my
employees as well and we came out to Chanhassen Industrial Office Park bac
in 1986 and we were told it would be an industrial office park and we
manufacture medical surgical products . We have clean rooms . We cater to
our employees . We 're putting up a new building . By the way I was never
told about this presentation . I 'm putting 1 .4 million dollars into a two
story building . It will have , it 's built for the employees . There 's an
exercise room . We have an additional 10 ,000 square foot clean room . We
are and we 've been working with Paul and his staff and we feel that they 'v�
really been concerned about the industrial office park but this is not
fitting . You have to rezone to put it in there . This is not going to be
conducive to an industrial office park . This will not be conducive to
future developments . I 'm anticipating as Paul knows , two other buildings . '
Our company is growing very rapidly . We have over 100 employees . We all
want to take the pollutants out of the air but this isn 't the location for
it . Drive into there . See how difficult it is to , we have people having 11
rough time finding it and they 're going to be knocking on our door , bang
into our areas . I have employees who walk down the street . They enjoy it .
They take their breaks and so forth and we like the Chanhassen Lakes
Industrial Park . I have 10 acres there . We 're putting in clean buildings .'
We 're listening to the city . We 're working with the city . This isn 't
conducive to what 's going on and I take grave exception to the fact that
number one , we weren 't told about it . I have a project that 's now 2 months'
old . I have 2 1/2 more months into that project . I feel very offended
that I wasn 't , we were never notified about this . There are other sites .
There 's a lot of land around there . Right off TH 5 . This good gentleman
mentioned McDonald 's . That 's right off TH 5 . Put it where McDonald 's is .
Somewhere close by . There 's plenty of land . Not in the industrial office
park . Please . I have a lot of good employees . I want to entice good I
quality people to come into our company . This isn 't going to do it . My
construction consultant Mr . Dick Hellstrom wrote a list of things that
would happen . He 's 23 years , Mr . Dick Hellstrom's been working 23 years i
building buildings for Control Data Corporation . I suspect he 's got
probably the best reputation in the Twin Cities . He indicated that he
would see that property values would fall . Those beautiful pictures up
there did not show anything about the surrounding area . I was a resident
of Florida for 4 years . The inspection stations were a mess . I think we
should really seriously go visit some of these areas number one . Number
two , the traffic . The traffic for my employees is just going to be
11 .
Planning Commission Meeting
' September 5 , 1990 - Page 5
' ridiculous . Come on . Let 's put it out on TH 5 someplace . There 's a lot
of lots out there . Plenty of land . This is ridiculous . It will
negatively impact future development of your property to the north . The
' two buildings we 're anticipating . The office buildings . Traffic through
the area will be greatly increased . Air pollution in the area will be
greatly impacted . Cars are the greatest contributors to air pollution in
this area . Hey we 're trying to clean up these cars but does that mean that
our company and our employees and everybody else has to suffer? Let 's get
it close to the highway . I mean gee whiz . What are we doing to all these
people in an industrial office park where we came to have a manufacturing
' facility and we treat our people well . The area will be much noisier than
it is at the present . There is no doubt . My office customer service
manager , Sue Crankee has told me that she 's very concerned about the number
of people presently who confusingly walk into our offices and ask where are
they . I can imagine a whole lot more people doing that . We are a good
neighbor here . We 're a good manufacturer . We 're a clean manufacturer . We
manufacture clean , quality products . I don 't think we need this . Property
' values will be negatively impacted . Top quality firms and individuals that
might have been interested in locating or buying in this area will be
debtered with the emissions facility in the area in this place . It will be
IF more difficult to sell properties that are directly adjacent or rent
properties that are directly adjacent to this special use facility .
Special use facility . This is not part of the industrial office park
complex . The proposed uses not compatible with existing zoning and planned
' development for the area . Planned development . We came in here . We 've
been working with Paul Krauss . I mean I don 't care if it 's a space
station . You can 't really plan ahead for things like this . I 'm sure you
' can say well it didn 't exist before this . Hey , this is an industrial
office park complex and I think we owe something to our employees and this
• is where we have to stand pat . This is not conducive to our business . For
' anybody . I mean manufacturing is a carreer . We go to great strives as a
listings of the FDA and GMP and we 're a good neighbor . You know in 11
years we 've never been sued in the medical business . Think about it . In a
letituous society . We go to great strides to keep up and with what is
' necessary to be a good manufacturer . This is , we 're manufacturers and
we 're office parks out there and this is not conducive for what we 're
doing . Possibility exists for owners site to be used as unauthorized
' parking or dumping . People will just come through . You haven 't seen these
inspection sites . And the traffic alone is just not conducive to my
employees . I am really shocked that we were not notified about this and I
' will go to great strides to just say hey , this isn 't fair . I 've really
stood behind Paul Krauss and the Planning Commission for a long time and
we 've listened to them . We 've bent over backwards . We 've made changes to
planning to make our facilities fit and I feel really somewhat personally
' assaulted here because we 've listened . We 've bargained . We 've
communicated . We 've , I shouldn 't say bargain but compromised . I mean the
world 's a compromise but this isn't conducive to what we came to the
' Chanhassen Lakes Industrial Park for and that 's to have a clean environment
for our employees to work and this is not going to fly . Period . I thank
you for your time . We have a growth company . We have over 100 employees
now . We 're doubling annually and I hope you understand we want to be a
good neighbor but this isn 't right .
Conrad: Thanks for your comments . Other comments? . Anything else? Is
there a motion to close the public hearing?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 6
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Conrad: Just a quick comment before we open it up for Planning Commission II
comments . What is the projected traffic count per day?
Dennis Palmer : We average approximately 400 vehicles .
II
Conrad: And does that grow over a time period?
Dennis Palmer : That 400 vehicles is our . . .and that 400 vehicles is the
II
estimate for . . . Yes it does grow so the first couple years . . .
Conrad: So maximum capacity is 400?
II
Dennis Palmer : No , that 's not the capacity . The capacity is approximately
250 per . . .
II
Al Iverson: Is that 1 ,000 cars?
Dennis Palmer : That 's the capacity , yes sir . I
Al Iverson: So you 've designed it for 1 ,000 automobiles a day?
Dennis Palmer : That 's to assure that there are no log jams . People will II
come in every 2 minutes for their test .
Conrad: Joan , we 'll start at your end . Any comments? I
Ahrens : How was Chanhassen chosen for this? It seems to me that it would
be more logical to locate a center like this in an area that was more
easily accessed by highways and maybe like closer to Eden Prairie Center or
something like that . I know there was an extensive study where it was
. mentioned in the staff report where it was determined that the 11 sites
were going to be located strategically in places around the Twin Cities but
this doesn 't seem like a real great site to me .
Dennis Palmer : Well we typically locate in industrial parks and I II recognize the concern of the neighbors . I hear it all the time . I don 't
know how to prove to the commission that that 's not the way it is . Traffic
and air pollution . It is a quiet facility . It is clean . We locate
convenient to large population areas . Cars exist in this area . That 's why'
a station is located in this area . It 's not intended to draw cars from
other areas into a community . We are near TH 5 but we avoid major highways
to assure there are no traffic problems . I
Ahrens: We don 't have a lot of people out there . I mean we will be
drawing a lot of people into this area but locating . If this facility is
located in Chanhassen , it will be drawing a lot of people to this area . We 111
already have problems with TH 5 . Big problems and so that may be contrary
to what your intent is . The result may be contrary to what your intent is . '
.Dennis Palmer : We use the Metropolitan Council 's TAZ counts which is
traffic zones to locate where pockets of population , people exist . They 're'
I .
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 7
' fed into a computer and the State 's requirement is that we locate
facilities where 90% of the people have to drive no more than 5 miles . Our
goal is 100% and that is to service the folks to the west as well as to the
immediate east of the area . There are facilities located north of this
' facility and also east that will draw about midpoint .
Ahrens: Where will they be located?
Dennis Palmer : Minnetonka , Savage and in the Bloomington/Richfield area .
' Ahrens: Where 's the Minnetonka location?
Dennis Palmer : I don 't know exactly . Stan could help you .
Stan Krzywicki : It 's right off of Hedberg Park which is right off
of . . .Hopkins border . Off of 169 . Probably the nearest crossroad would be
Excelsior .
Ahrens : What kind of area is that? I can 't picture where that is .
Stan Krzywicki : Cedar Lake Road .
IFKrauss: It 's a major intersection . There 's residential development . High
density residential development to the north and east . There 's an
' industrial park to the south . There 's a nice residential area in Hopkins
across Minnehaha Creek further to the south . To the west is an operating
gravel quarry .
IAhrens : Is that down by 169 and Excelsior Blvd .?
Krauss : No it 's old , that 's Hopkins Crossroads and Cedar Lake Road .
' Ahrens: Okay . You know I 've been through these before too . I lived
in Illinois and my experience with them was terrible . I mean there were
' long waits . There were always lots of cars and frustrated drivers because
they did have to wait so long and that 's from what I 've heard from some of
the other people tonight , have experienced the same thing and I wasn 't sure
' if that had just happened in Illinois but it sounds like that happens all
over the place with these sites . This looks very small to me . You have 14
parking spots here . You 're going to have 7 employees and 10% of the people
who use this facility will be parking to use the information center right?
Dennis Palmer : That 's an estimate , yes ma 'am . They stop in . 5 minue
visits and they leave . Most people will drive through .
' Ahrens: What happens when , I think the parking , I mean I haven 't seen any
of the studies of which this report refers so I don't have any information
about that but it looks too small to me . Considering what my experience
has been in the past , there 's never been enough room . They 're always over
crowded and there 's always long lines of cars .
' Dennis Palmer : I can't speak for your experiences . I 'm sure that that
happened . These facilities , like I said , are built to accommodate 2 or
-more times the number of vehicles anticipated on an average . We meet the
Codes with respect to parking and to the State 's guidelines .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 8 I/
Stan Krzywicki : As far as the parking is concerned , typically what we 'd
have , the 3 bay staff with 1 person being a manager so you really only have
4 staff people at a time . The 10 people that we had talked about , because
we 're running 12 hour days , 7 and 7 on 2 days , we actually have part time
people working at the stations so our staffing level is 10 . The people
that work in the lanes will be part time people .
Ahrens: Are those projects based on the number of cars you anticipate I
going through if it started up tomorrow? Not on 400 cars or more . Then
you 'd have to have more employees right?
Stan Krzywicki : No . No , that 's not correct . What we 'd actually do is ,
well you 're right . There is a mode of testing which makes the testing
faster which is a tube position test so that staff would . . .6 people plus 1 II
station manager .
Ahrens : So you could have 7 employees .
Stan Krzywicki : And that would be the maximum .
Ahrens - Then yo..: 'd have 400 perhaps , approximately 400 cars going through
a day?
Stan :rzy:,:icki : The 400 cars is the absolute peak . Normally , as you
recall in Illinois , there were certain days that you could go in and you
could just breeze through . There are 3 weeks .
Ahrens : I don 't know when that was . I
Stan Krzywicki : There are 3 weeks during the month that are like that .
The last week is when we have , when we test most of our vehicles .
Ahrens : I don 't know about that but if you have 7 employees and you have
400 cars , let 's say 400 cars going through a day and I 'm focusing on that
number because that 's what you anticipate in a few years . Right?
Dennis Palmer : Yes Ma 'am .
Ahrens: And if 10% of those people are parking their cars , go into the
information center , that 's 40 vehicles over a 12 hour period . Is that it?
Dennis Palmer : That 's less than 4 an hour , yes ma 'am . ,
Ahrens : Less than 4 an hour . I don 't know . I just don 't , the parking
seems , I have a real problem with that . It doesn 't seem big enough and
what happens if you need to expand? Can you expand in this? I mean can
you expand the parking?
Dennis Palmer : I don 't see the need to expand either lanes or parking , but "
yes we can . Yes ma 'am , we can .
Ahrens: I 'm still thinking about this . Why don 't you move on . t
Conrad: Brian?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 9
' Batzli : While we have the applicant up here , I might as well ask those
questions first . How long is your contract with the State?
Dennis Palmer : 7 years . The program starts in 1991 and expires in 1998 .
Batzli : Have you ever conducted a study on the environmental impact of the
location of one of your test facilities?
Dennis Palmer : Yes . Actually we 've done studies on what this facility ,
the impact this facility will have to the community in terms of
' environment . We 've done studies on existing facilities in our other
states . In Baltimore for example , OSHA is very concerned with the
pollution levels of the actual inspectors in the facility and they place
monitors on the inspectors to determine whether or not there 's a health
' hazard . Their conclusion was that it 's more dangerous to walk down the
streets of downtown Baltimore than it is to work in the inspection
facility . Now this wasn 't their official conclusion but there was no
' harmful effect . I mean that was a comment . I mean that wasn 't written but
I mean I 'm trying to explain how little impact it really is and I don 't
know how to .
Batzli : I think any congregation of traffic is going to concentrate the
air pollution in that area so that although it may be within certain
guidelines , it will increase it in that given area and that 's the concern ,
of the people here .
Dennis Palmer : Dr . Braslau is with us this evening . He 's done a study on
what that hour concentration would be . If you 'd like to address that
question with him , I 'm sure he 'd be happy to .
' Batzli : Do you guys want it addressed?
Conrad: You 're in charge . It 's your question .
Batzli : Yeah , I would like to hear it addressed .
Dennis Palmer : Okay .
Dr . David Braslau: My name is Dr . David Braslau . I 'm President of David
Braslau Associates , Minneapolis . My address is , company address is 1313
5th Street S .E . in the old Marshall U High School . I prepared a report
which is entitled Carbon Monoxide Analysis of 5 Vehicle Inspection Sites in
the Twin Cities Metro Area for System Control Inc . dated August , 1990 and
in the report I looked at 5 of the sites which are being proposed including
the Chanhassen site . What we look at is carbon monoxide . The Pollution
Control Agency since the testing site is intended to reduce carbon monoxide
emissions , they are very interested in knowing whether or not the location
of the site itself will cause problems with carbon monoxide concentrations .
' Carbon monoxide is a gas which is prolematical only in high concentrations .
It 's very localized and it is easily dispersed so that the primary intent
of the vehicle inspection is to reduce overall emissions of carbon monoxide
' so that a hot spot such as 7th and Hennepin , Lake and Hennepin , Snelling
and University which are the spots where the standards have been exceeded
in the past , that if the inspection stations . . .overall emissions by 20% ,
that will then bring the levels at these sites down below the standard .
1
Planning Commission Meeting -
September 5 , 1990 - Page 10
The standard is 9 parts per million over an 8 hour period . The standard i
intended to insure that people , including infirm people are not adversely
impacted by carbon monoxide . We assume that for the carbon monoxide
analysis at the site , we assume that there would be a capacity of 80 cars
an hour going through the , this is the expected, actually the capacity of
is 105 . That is absolute maximum capacity but the normal expected maximum
level that would be going through this site in the last 5 days of the month
when people have to , in other words people will procrastinate for the firs
3 weeks and then in the last 5 days they feel they have to go in and so
that 's when there 's a push to have their vehicles inspected . And so we
looked at 81 cars per hour . We projected the 8 hour levels to be less than
2 parts per million at receptive sites that were about 10 meters away from I
the roadway and that was about 30 feet . So anybody that 's further away is
going to have a lower concentration . We 're assuming a fairly stable
atmospheric conditions . We 're assuming 1 meter per second wind which
really doesn 't disperse the pollutants very much . So that we really did
not , at this particular site , project any significant concentrations of
carbon monoxide . I should point out that carbon monoxide is not a , it 's
strictly a gas . The gas is pollutant . It 's not a dirty pollutant like
diescl exhaust are like particulates that come out so the projected levels
were actually quite low . The highest levels that we projected for any site
was at a 4 or 5 lane site where because of the background level that we ha
to assume , the PCA requires that we assume a certain background level to
add onto the roadway concentration and the roadway concentration generally
is on the order of 1 1/2 to 2 parts per million . The background level the
we estimated is about 1 part per million so we 're talking about at the most
3 parts per million in the area which is about 1/3 of an 8 hour standard .
Now I don 't know , I 'd be happy to answer some specific questions on this
hut we don 't , at any of the sites , project that the levels will be above
the standards . In fact in Chanhassen we 're looking at , because we only
have 3 lanes , we 're looking at about 30% of the 8 hour standard even with
the worse case traffic . Thank you .
Batzli : Paul , could you explain to me why this type of a use should be a
permitted use in an IOP area? '
Krauss: We looked at this from several different viewpoints . First of all
we note that this is a State program . They 're under a State contract .
There 's only one of these . It 's almost a quasi-public utility for , if you I
want to view it that way . Rightly or wrongly they 've selected Chanhassen
as a receptor site based on their analysis and we looked at where else this
could go in the community and decided that a TH 5 location was not optimal ..
That we would rather keep that traffic on a roadway that was designed for
it which Park Drive was and hopefully in an area where it could fit in
visually and we think that this was designed to do that . We note that
there are some fairly unusual uses that could go in that area . For example'
truck transfer terminal is allowable by conditional use permit and in fact
we did have a terminal developer who was looking to develop the site just
north of there last fall . We tried to discourage that and in fact did so II
but that is allowable under conditional use and that is of course much
heavier traffic with diesel trucks . We 're proposing that this thing be
located in an area that we think is suitable for it . We think it was
designed appropriately . As a State operated facility and the ordinance
change is worded so that this only applies to State contracted facilities .
It 's a one off type of project . It 's basically a somewhat tough one to
,
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 11
' locate . We felt that this proposal though was reasonable given the
guidelines that have been established . One of the concerns we had was what
happens to this site if 8 years hence this contractor loses the contract
and somebody else -gets the bid . I believe there were two people bidding on
the contract originally . The way we 've worded the ordinance is if that
happens , it 's their problem . That investment may well be lost because the
only thing that is allowable in that building is a State contracted vehicle
' testing facility . So we tried to cover our bases in that regard too . So
again I guess all things being considered , we felt it was a fairly
reasonable site . It could be , well we had approved the Rome office
building which was approved on the corner . Has not been built to date .
' This site was originally conceptually approved or reviewed at any rate for
a 17 ,000 square foot office building which this would replace and we felt
that the Rome site plan could be modified to accommodate it .
' Batzli • Has he agreed to withdraw the site plan?
' Krauss: He has in conversations with us and I believe he 's here tonight
and can address that specifically .
Conrad: Do you want to speak Roman?
11 Roman Roos : This site plan review process , staff did advise me of that
last week and in view of what we 're trying to get accomplished , I have
accepted and told staff that we would go ahead and resubmit a smaller
building on that particular site . There 's about 2 .25 acres left . I have a
user in mind and we are in the process of redrawing the site plan itself
' and the parking for same . I have heard a lot of conversation this evening
and I guess I feel both sides of it because I 'm also in the park . I think ,
and I have to go back quite a. ways . I started working with Systems Control
before Chanhassen was even selected as a site and I had the opportunity to
' look at quite a few of the different projects that they have now
accomplished throughout the United States and I guess if we could have told
the future as to what is going to be required in the State of Minnesota , or
in this case in Chanhassen , we might have been able to address that issue .
But when I look at the facilities they 've done to date , and I 'm talking
about the architectural styles , I have to say that in the Chanhassen area
right now , knowing how staff and Council feel about TH 5 , the corridor , and
looking at the transportation system . Looking at the traffic control if
you will on CR 17 . Stop light controlled intersection there and I 'm sure
all of this is coming out in Dr . Braslau 's report , and it is my site . That
' is true . I 'm very concerned about what I put next door to that particular
facility . I think if it 's done in the context that I 've been led to
believe over the last 6 months , that you can make it a very desireable site
' for another type of office building . It has to be controlled . That is the
Planning Commission 's responsibility . Their charge if you will to City
Hall , to Council , and I think with the proper controls from staff , I think
this can be done . It 's not , as far as PMT and Murphy Machine across the
' street and my building which is right behind it , yes I had concern . I 've
thought a lot about that . There 's just not the economics on it . As I
said , I have a 2 .25 acre parcel left next to it . Believe me I 'm vilely
' concerned about that but I think it will work if it 's held in the geise and
the different views that I 've seen in the other states that System Control
has accomplished in the past . I 'm open for any questions you might have .
11 And yes I did ask for a resubmittal .
I.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 12
II
Batzli : Do you want me to comment on the amendment to the zoning
I
ordinance?
Conrad : Sure .
Batzli : If we get that far I think we should broaden the paragraph ( c ) . No
gas or other flammable or parts are sold or stored on the site . I 'd also
Like to take a look at making it potentially a conditional use rather than I
a permitted use . If we think that they should belong in the IOP , I guess
looking at what IOP is supposed to be , I don 't really view something that
generates a lot of traffic as something that should belong in there .
Whether it 's 400 cars a day or 800 cars a day . I was actually surprised to
see as a conditional use the truck transfer use as a conditional use .
Conrad: Annette .
II
Ellson: Let 's see . I don 't mind having Chanhassen be the site for a
testing facility and I really doubt with so many drive up and things all
around that it 's going to be really a pollutant to neighbors and things
like that . I 'm concerned about a couple things . One , this thing could be
temporary . 7-8 years you know . What do they do with them? I mean do you
have a history of ever closing one and what do they turn into?
Dennis Palmer : We don 't . . .
Ellson: And what sorts of things? Do they become drive-up banks or what II
kind of things do they do?
Dennis Palmer : Generally , I think that this program and I 'd ask Stan . . . I II
think the State does have the option to manage it themselves .
Ellson: So changes are it pretty much would stay?
I
Dennis Palmer : Like I say , the building is mostly computers . Without
those computers , the value of the building is minimal .
I
Ellson : But you know it is a brick construction . Fairly substantial and
yet there ,is a potential of it being temporary as far as having the
Icontract renewed or whatever and I see the nice Chanhassen saying well
let 's work a way of making this building work for something ,else someday
later down the road and I was wondering if it 'd never had been done before .
What it could possibly become and it really seems like we should be looking'
at it short range as well as long range . When I look at it short range I
think it might not even be this in 9 years . Then what could it potentially
be or have them ever become is one of my concerns . I
Krauss: Well I did discuss that with the applicants on occasion because I
had the same concern when I found out the duration of the contract . But
you know it 's clear to me as a staff person interpretting the ordinance ,
I
the only thing it can become is what 's permitted or conditional in the
ordinance . It can 't become a Hardee 's or a gas station because we don 't
allow those things in there . If there is an economic loss to be absorbed
because the building is unbuyable as anything else , that 's the developer 's '
-problem .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 13
' Ellson: Okay , and then the long range concern I would have is the traffic
and I 'm not convinced as to why you chose this location out of convenience
yet you don 't want it in a location that we normally have convenience type
of facilities . Both Paul as well as the applicant talked about that . You
' didn 't want the same kind of place that we 'd have with convenience center
or a Hardee 's or something like that which are built , as far as traffic for
. quick in and out yet this one is going to be a quick in and out just like a
' convenience store or just like a drive up bank so why aren 't we thinking of
putting it where those other kinds of places would be? Can you shed some
light on that?
' Krauss: Yeah . You know I also work with the HRA and those other sites are
typically in our central business district . Our central business district
has a precious little supply of land . Recently we discussed the
' possibility of a Hardee 's behind the Amoco station and there was a great
deal of concern as to whether or not that was an appropriate site for a
high volume use . Arguably , squandering a few suitable high volume sites
' you have for a vehicle testing station which offers services once a year to
people in the community instead of once a week as a fast food restaurant
might do , might be a waste of that site . I would have concerns locating it
McDonald 's for Square shopping center
next to �.�,��Jna_�. � o, that reason or in the Market
' for that reason . Possibly those sites are suitable elsewhere . I would
think that the city would be best served though by protecting those sites .
' Ellson: Yeah , I can understand the standpoint from our resources but if
resources aside , I guess I 'm thinking there are a lot more logical places
of quick in and out that people could potentially see from a major road
' and . . .testing ground or whatever . I 'm taking it from the fact that they 're
testing year round right? You don't just have seasons of testing .
_ Dennis Palmer : There 's a 10 month testing period , I understand that most
vehicles are not registered in January or February . If you buy a new car
it 's registered in those months but then they 'll assign you a sticker for
another month . The . . .you need the inspection facility to run the test .
' Given that , there would be very little traffic thru January and February .
The facility is based on operation of 10 months but it will be open 12 .
' Ellson: I don 't think it 's as convenient in that IOP . I guess I could see
it more in a business fringe or something like that or like I said , more of
a convenience center type location . And I guess I can 't prejudice it by
knowing that there 's only like 7 sites left and I 'm probably sure it 's a
' lot more expensive for an applicant to go into a place there than it is
here but I don 't think 950 of the people are going to be going there are
going to know that it 's easy to get to .. SO I guess I don 't see it in the
1 IOP .
Conrad: Steve .
' Emmings : I think we finally found something that belongs in business
fringe . No , I don 't mean that . Let 's see . As far as where this might go
in our community , when you look at what the IOP is , this doesn 't quite seem
' to fit in a way . And yet on the other hand , I can 't imagine where else it
would go . I don 't think it belongs in a commercial area in the central
business district or anything like that but I guess I 've come around to
thinking that maybe the IOP is the right place for it if it 's going to go
,_
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 14
II
somewhere . I 've got a few questions here . Tell me that this is a mistake
on page 3 where it says that the rooftop equipment extends 33 feet above
the roof .
Krauss: Inches .
I
Emmings: That makes me happy . Tell me too, it says the Planning
Commission does not have to take action on the subdivision request as it i
a metes and bounds subdivision . It will be acted on by the City Council .
Maybe I was just unaware of that . Is that the way we 've always done those .
Krauss: Yes . It 's a little bit unusual procedure but that 's the way we 've
done it .
Emmings: Okay , so if we 're going into lots and blocks , if the subdivision '
into lots and blocks or something , we do it .
Krau: :: You ' ll have to do preliminary plat .
Emmings: Fine . On the elevations it shows there are 3 garage doors and I
one of the higher than the other two . Why is that?
Dennis Palmer : That 's to accommodate oversized vehicles . II
Emmings: Then I 'm not clear on what , it was sort of my understanding that
we 're having mostly cars in here and pick-up trucks .
Dennis Palmer : It 's vehicles under 8 ,500 gross vehicle weight . There will
be soma vehicles with refrigeration , air conditioners or something on top
that can 't fit in the 10 foot door . Glass trucks . We always had one lane
that wa . . .
Batzli : So for instance there are step vans and construction boxed trucks ,'
things like that are going to be running through here as well?
Dennis Palmer : If they 're under 8 ,500 gross vehicle weight and they 're gas'
powered .
Emmings: When I read this I didn 't have any strong feelings about it but I,
guess the thing that 's bothering me right now is primarily the comments
we 've heard that people that have had experience with these stations in
other places have said that traffic tends to back up and cars sit for long
period of time and that bothers me a lot I guess . If I could be satisfied II
that didn 't happen , I think I 'd support the plan and frankly I think it 's
important enough that it ought to be tabled and we ought to find out what
the experience has been in other places or- else that ought to be found out II
between us and the City Council or something because a lot of cars backed
up there are sitting for very long . I mean if cars are coming in and
getting out in 2 minutes-, I 'm not too much bothered by it really . But if
they 're sitting there backed up , then I think that 's different so that 's a I
piece of information that I 'd like to have before I 'd really feel
comfortable voting on this .
Conrad: Tim. II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 15
' Erhart : Well , I was kind of excited about this before I came in here
tonight . How convenient this would be for me just to drive across the
street to get my vehicle tested every year . However , the more I listen to
it , I was really surprised that anybody have negative comments from the
' neighbors . I 'm glad you came in but I think it brings some issues to light
that I guess I hadn 't thought about . Fundamentally , I guess there 's some
questions I had to kind of decide the issue . So I 'll start out with why
isn 't , can you shed some light on this other use that we do permit that 's
most like a gas station . When you 're dealing with retail people and
people have a requirement to do something with their cars . They go in and
take the 2 minutes , about the same time it takes to fill up . The frequency
' of traffic on the average would be about 1 to 2 cars a minute and more cars
at peak time . The question then is , why don 't we allow gas stations in the
IOP district .
Krauss : I don 't know that I could answer that effectively . The IOP
district predates me . I know there was some desire at points in the past
to offer services that would be utilizable by residents of the industrial
park s,,ch aS restaurants , that sort of thing . Chanhassen has always been
rather restrictive on where gas stations locate . In fact ordinance
amen- ents were approved last year that made it even more restrictive with
' an eye towards limiting the number of intersections there found that . So
I 'm afraid I (Don 't have any specific information for you .
Erhart : So there 's no conflict with having a gas station in the industrial
office park in your mind as a professional planner , if I can use that term?
Krauss : If you had an industrial park that 's large enough where you 're
sel= generating demand , like an Opus II sort of situation , I think it 's
very -easonable to locate specific facilities tailored for that population .
Opus II his 12 ,000 people working there every day and there 's people that
live there . We don 't have anything like that . We have 6 ,000 employees in
the city as of the count that Sharmin completed last week , which is a
goodly number but they can adequately be served by our central business
district and I think our business community would prefer that they be
serviced there .
Erhart : So you 're saying you would expect a gas station to serve the
people in the industrial park as opposed to outsiders coming in?
Krauss: Yeah . What it boils down to is I don 't think it 's really
' appropriate in our context .
Erhart: I didn 't understand . Take a look at the general business district
which is the fringe commercial development . What 's the other one?
Krauss: Highway business .
' Erhart : What was the •reason why this use couldn't be in there along with
gas stations?
' Krauss: Well , there 's not a specific use but if you look at where those
districts lay in our community , they 're in and around the central business
-district and the available sites are very limited . They oftentimes have
exposure to residential neighborhoods . As you recall , McDonald 's itself
1.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 16
was very controversial when it first came in . That site next to McDcnald '='
is presumably one of the possibilities here . It 's available . It 's on the
market I believe . It would presumably generate lower traffic levels as
we 've heard tonight than McDonald 's would . The other sites might be the
ones that we considered for Hardee 's or the Burdick property on 78th
Street . All of those are areas that the City has spent a great deal of
time , effort and money in getting it to coalescent to a real central
business district offering services needed by the community on a daily of
weekly basis . I 'm not sure that this fits the bill .
Erhart: It 's required by the community isn 't it?
Krauss : Once a year .
Erhart : Kind of like a dentist . You should go more often but it cornea
down to once a year . I don 't know . I would think that , I would think a
great location would be next to Gary Brown 's station and then Gary could go
over and recruit business . Going right out the door . The business
highway . Fast food restaurants . Automotive service stations . Do we have
a service station or an auto repair station in the business park now?
Krauss : There 's one in there by a conditional use permit . Jo Ann , the
auto repair use that we have in the business park , do you have the
background on that?
Olsen : It was before me . The radiator store? '
Erhart : Auto Unlimited?
Olsen: I don 't know .
Russ Murphy: That service center or whatever you want to call it is '
. . .building . They have two automotive places in there and the other
tenants in the building can 't even park there . . . You 're going to mix 400
cars with semi trailers trying to manuever in here .
Erhart : The other concern I have with the thing as we go along here is a
couple and I 'm not sure , you know it 's sort of described as a place where
cars come in and go through their 2 minutes and leave and at 10% , that 's II
only 4 cars will be parked there so I 've calculated that out and that 's not
a problem but you know , is somebody going to want to come along and expand
the program to include diesels at some time? How do we know? Isn 't it
natural? It 's well gee , you 've got your facility . The State 's got a
contract with you . It would be natural to include that testing too .
Dennis Palmer : That 's a different testing entirely . That 's a test for
particulate matter . Diesel 's create dust particulate . We 're not equipped
for the testing resources .
Erhart : Do they test diesels now someplace? Is there a . . .to test diesels"
Dennis Palmer : Yes , they do . They 're typically tested at the factory .
Most of the pollution from the diesel is inside the particulate or . . .and
nitrous oxide is very difficult to do any repairs to .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
' September 5 , 1990 - Page 17
' Erhart : Do you have any facilities that test diesels anyplace that you
own? All gas? I guess if we proceed with recommending approval on this ,
and I still haven 't decided so I 'm having a hard time but I think there 's
some other requirements we should add in here . Number one , I think we
' should strengthen both the conditions here and the ordinance to say that
there is no outside storage of material or waste materials or anything else
at any time . I think we ought to specifically prohibit testing for diesel
powered vehicles and I think we ought to draw , perhaps we could draw on the
line how big of vehicles we want coming in here . It 's one thing having
some cars parked next to us in a line but then we have to have trucks and
industrial trucks that are allowed , then I think there 's some very real
' legitimate concerns on the behalf of the people from PMT so I guess I
personally think we ought to look at cutting the line someplace . Vans or
something where they 're relatively quiet . Again , I think we 've already got
' permitted in there no retail sales . The other thing is that this is , at we
pointed out before , this is under a 7 year or 10 year -contract , I 'm not
sure which . What happens at the end of that period? I can see visions of
' that gas station down on TH 5 sitting there empty for many years after it
was ,E andor,ed and they really become unsightly then . I would think that
since this thing is under contract and there 's not that much investment in
the building , that if this facility is not used for 1 year , that perhaps
maybe we should require in the conditional use that it 's dismantled and the
lot be returned to it 's natural state or something . I think this is a
whole new area and I think those laws are going to be changed and updated
rapidly and I think with the lack of investment in this facility , I think
we ought to be protecting ourselves from a sudden change . And I. agree with
Brian 's or someone stated this should , if we 're going to go ahead and make
' an ordinance change , it ought to be a conditional use as opposed to a
permitted use . So I have some concerns with this . I maybe agree with
Steve . Maybe we need to get a little bit more information . I guess my
feeling is in general , again I wasn 't opposed to it but when you have an
' area and your neighbors come in and object to a change of use in it , I
think there 's a lot of meaning to that and so I 'm real concerned about it
so I guess I ' ll make my decision when someone makes a motion .
' Conrad: So you 're waivering? You could go either way?
Erhart : Yes .
Conrad: I don 't know that I 'm going to be able to persuade anybody one way
or another . Definitely I have no problem with it being located in
Chanhassen. I think it 's great that this site would be here . I don 't have
any problem with pollution . It 's improving pollution . I think it 's
terrific again . The pollution aspect just doesn't ring with me at all .
' It 's improving the problem . There 's no difference between cars going
into McDonald 's and cars going into this site . I just have no problem with
that whatsoever . The question in my mind is where it 's located in
Chanhassen and which is what I think everybody has been sort of hammering
on here . Highway business without a doubt seems appropriate for me . -
100 ,000 cars a year seems like a highway business type of use and that 's
sort of what it 's designed to take . Industrial park , it gets marginal and
I think we 've gone through those exercises of is it the right use . I think
Paul 's comments are trying to , he 's trying to find a site that 's
appropriate for it . I think the bottom line for me right now is it 's a new
use . It 's a use surprising the neighbors and Tim , as you said , those new
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 18
uses have to be reviewed carefully because neighbors kind of look at the
zoning to see what 's permitted . I don 't think it 's a permitted use . I
think it has to be a conditional use which means standards . So my basic
feeling right now is to table it and to have staff take a look at the
standards that would be applicable based on problems from other
communities . I 'd be very concerned if somebody said if the traffic is
backed up 3 and 4 deep , as a resident or as a neighbor business , I don 't
think that 's appropriate . That 's not what they 're doing . And I also hear
that these are not scheduled and that bothers me . I prefer to have
scheduled maintenance where we have a day , an hour , whatever and they
probably looked at that and found it 's practically impossible but in my
mind I think we need the standards to drive this thing . I don 't have a
problem being a permitted use in highway business . I do have a problem
with it being a permitted use in an industrial and therefore would
recommend that we search it out . The governing or the methods of allowing
it as a conditional and also having staff review any kind of controls that
Chcn aspen would like to place on it . I had one other question with the
staff report and it said on page 5 , under grading and drainage . The
app1 ic -,nt is proposing to use Type I silt fence for erosion control to the
southe at . Is that during construction? Those are my comments . If
someLody would like to make a motion .
Emmings : I 'm going to move that we table the application to allow staff to
do two thine . . Dne is to acquire information from other communities that
have these facilities to find out what their experience has been . And
secondly , and it 's related , to allow staff time once they 've had a chance
to contact these communities , to develop some standards for this use as a
conditional use .
Conrad : Is there a second?
Erhart : I 'll second it . '
Conrad: Discussion .
Erhart : Another thing :that I wanted to have the next time this comes up , I'
assume there 's some other facilities in the Twin Cities area right?
Dennis Palmer : Well not in operation . The program will begin , all
facilities will open January 1st .
Erhart : Oh , alright . So there isn 't any addresses that we could go visit"!
Ellson: But Joan can give you an Illinois address .
Erhart : There 's no testing stations in the Twin Cities that is owned by
anybody?
Ellson: It 's not required yet . I think we should be able to do this
between now and going to City Council . I don 't know that it needs to be
tabled and come back .
Emmings: Not if we 're going to establish standards . 1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - -Page 19
' Conrad: If we wait standards , we should take a look at it . If your
posture is not to allow it , then you 're right . Any other discussion?
Batzli : Is part of your motion considering it to be a permitted use in the
' highway business or should it be conditional use in any district that it 's
located in?
' Emmings: I guess after looking at this I agree with Ladd 's comments that
it does seem appropriate to the BH and if .
Batzli : Wouldn 't you rather have these standards apply no matter where it
was located?
Conrad: Yeah , it should probably be conditional in both .
Batzli : I guess I 'd like information on , I kept on thinking that this was
going to be pretty much limited to common folks , car traffic but 6 ,500
gross vehicle weight , if that 's the correct number , might be a lot of
different construction type delivery vehicles and things like that as well .
I guess I 'd like to know from staff , because I don 't have a clear idea of
what kind of vehicles we 're talking about anymore I guess . What kind of
vehicle:, are king to be going through this facility .
Emmings: Yeah . And that 's particularly important if it 's going to be down
in the IOP .
Batzli : Well maybe , maybe not but the interesting thing is , there 's going
' to be 40^ tripe maximum someday and that 's true . If you do have a lot of
larger vehicles going through there it might but if this is going to be a
permitted use , I actually think it changes the reflection of what I
consider an lop district because I guess I didn 't consider a use like that
' generatin; that kind of traffic to be appropriate before tonight and I
don 't know if I still do but .
' Conrad: That 's tough because a lot of your industrial , if you take a look
at your industrial users , they have 2-3 shifts and they 're generating that
many traffic counts .
' Emmings: But you know they 're a lot bigger Ladd . I guess I was thinking
about that too . Like Rosemount , they 've got , if they have 1 ,000 employees
and they do don 't they? So they 're generating that kind of traffic but
11 it 's also a how many acre site .
Conrad: But what does that have to do with it?
' Emmings : Well I think it might have a lot to do with it . I don 't know . I
was first thinking gee , that 's less than Rosemount and then I 'm thinking
' wow , that 's a big site and this is just a little one . I think maybe the
impact is a lot more .
Conrad: If you put a lot of little uses like that together , then you may
have some impacts .
'Krauss: If I may , that gets into the question of whether or not this
precedence setting and as we viewed it it 's not . You 're talking about an
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 20
one off type of licensed used through the State of Minnesota to satisfy a
new State law .
Batzli : But you know safety inspections might be next . A federal
inspection might be next . You know it might not be a one type deal .
Conrad: See that would worry me . What we 're saying right now is , 400 cars
but then the feds can dictate some other things and pretty soon it 's there . '
Emmings: The proof is that we didn 't foresee this one so I guess we can 't
foresee .
Conrad: Well you know this type of' use has to be , it has to have a place .
We 're trying to find a place for it . That happens to be Roman 's property , I
that 's fine but you know , it 's trying to sort it in logically where it 's
best served in Chanhassen .
Betzl don 't know that anybody on the Commission , and I 'm kind of
speaking broadly here , is against having this type of facility and even
potentially in Chanhassen somewhere . The question is whether it belongs
where they 're proposing I think . I don 't know if you feel that way . There
is concern , I mean we are drawing a lot of traffic into the area on roads
that are already congested and we 've gone over that time and time again .
In the comprehensive plan , that TH 5 's already busy , well you 've got 400
more cars a day' here . Small matter on a big ship maybe but hey , it 's 400
more trips .
Conrad: Maybe we should stop development . '
Batzli : This isn 't development .
Conrad: What is it? ,
Ahrens: It 's a semi-quasi public use .
Batzli : That 's development .
Ellson: But 400 cars could come just easily with a new office building .
Conrad: Absolutely .
Erhart : You know the flip side of that whole thing . We 're worrying about II
some 8 ,500 pound trucks here and on the other hand we also allow as a
conditional use concrete mixing .
Batzli : Yeah , I saw that and the transfer- terminal . 1
Erhart : So , the fact is it exists next to this building is some kind of a
firm that has trucks , I don 't know what they do in that building . Do you
know? They have trucks there all the time .
Audience : . . .It 's construction . ,
Batzli : But I mean are they going in and out? Generating a couple hundred
trips . I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 21
11
Audience: Well , they 're out in the morning and back at night . But you 've
got a lot of . . .
Erhart: On one hand we 'd all like to have it to be some real pristine
industrial , office industrial park like Baker Park you know but it 's not
there . PMT 's got a nice building . We have a nice building but then right
across from us is a service station . Two service stations and a
contractor 's yard with a potential concrete mixing plant so I don 't know .
This is a tough one . I don 't see it as a big problem but .
Conrad: Again , I don 't see it as a big problem today . I 'm really worried
about the future . I 'm worried about traffic . I 'm worried about what other
stuff goes in there .
Erhart: The one thing I said I 'd never do as a Planning Commissioner is be
11 wishy washy .
Conrad: the motion has been made and seconded to table this and for staff
review . Is there any more discussion?
Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to table action on the Vehicle Inspection
Station for Jerry Perkins of Pope Associations for further study of other
existing uses and directing staff to study this application as a
conditional use permit . All voted in favor except Annette Ellson who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1 .
Conrad: And your reasons Annette?
Ellson: I think that it shouldn 't be in the industrial office park and not
that they shouldn 't be looking into that but I think they could have looked
into the typical neighbors and what people 's reactions are by the time it
got to City Council . And I think the other districts are better for it .
' Conrad: Paul , have we given you enough direction in terms of what we 'd
like to see when this comes back?
' Krauss: Well I think we have enough direction to come back and get you the
information you 're seeking . What 's not clear to me is if fundamentally
' they come back in , let 's say we come up with revised ordinance standards .
It 's processed as a CUP , is it still going to be objectionable from the
nature of the fact that it 's on this site in the IOP district? If it is ,
I think that the applicant should be aware of that so they don 't waste
their time on it .
Conrad: I think there 's a lot of swing . We 're balancing right now and
something that could be a condition might satisfy me to say yes . And
therefore I don 't think there 's anyway to read the Planning Commission
right now to say if all the conditions are right , are we going to vote for
it? We don 't know but I think it 's one of those things where we have to
say it is a conditional use . What are those standards and if were still
not comfortable that we have control with those standards in that district ,
then it won 't be turned down . It 's not a waste of somebody 's time . We 're
not toying with people . We 're taking a good look at what we think should
be done .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 22
I
Krauss: And Paul , if I could interject . If you could get some idea on •
what the truck traffic would be , it would help me . A car a minute isn 't s
bad but if you 're talking about a lot of trucks , what kind of traffic are
we talking about here?
Conrad : Okay . Might this come back when Paul? I
Krauss : Well it seems to be your intent to wherever it goes to process as
a conditional use permit which requires publication so it could not be at II
the next meeting . I would anticipate 4 weeks from today .
Emmings: That 's true if we just leave the public hearing open . Just
continue it?
Krauss: We have a publication requirement for the CUP 's and I 'm not sure
that we 've satisfied that by posting it as a rezoning . I
_ Conrad: Everybody comfortable with that?
Emmings: I 'm comfortable letting him worry about it . 1
Conrad: Sorry for the delay but I think that 's what we have to do . We ' ll
definitely make it on the agenda as soon as we can . Thank you all for
coming in . You had a comment?
Al Iverson : I was curious . There 's no date given for the next place for
this to show up or the next meeting .
Conrad: We haven 't right now . We 're guessing not next meeting . We meet
every 2 weeks . Not next meeting . The meeting after . It will be
published .
Krauss: We 'll renotify . ,
Conrad: Neighbors will be communicated to .
Al Iverson: We did not receive the previous . I didn 't have very much
warning about this meeting .
Conrad: Notice go out to everybody? 1
Krauss: Yes . And Mr . Iverson talked to me about it last week .
Al Iverson: Last when?
Krauss: Last week . ,
Al Iverson: For me it was . . .7 days isn't much notice and I don't knots why
Paul . . .tell us earlier .
Krauss: The fact of the matter is , we 're not clairvoyant . We don 't know I
when these things are going to come up and we notify people on the schedule
that we 've been adhering to for years which gives them about a week and a II
half to 2 weeks notice .
11
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 23
PUBLIC HEARING:
' SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE PARKING LOT RESULTING IN VARIANCE
TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN PROPERTY ZONED IOP , INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK
AND LOCATED AT 18930 WEST 78TH STREET , REDMOND PRODUCTS .
Public Present:
Name Address
' Eugene Strobel Redmond Products
Sandra Reitsma Redmond Products
Larry Perkins
Randy Patzke Redmond Products
Redmond Products
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order .
Eugene Strobel : My name is Eugene Strobel . I 'm the engineering manager
' with Redmond Products . What we 're proposing to do is increase the parking
from 175 parking spaces to 279 . This is to meet the current needs and some
future needs that we 're looking at for the site . A few things that were
mentioned in the staff report that I 'd like to clarify . One , we are asking
for a variance for the percent of impervious paved area and that 's
increasing it from 70% to 79% . However , this is based on the adjusted
square footage of the site . It doesn 't take into consideration the entire
' site which extends beyond the frontage road . And if you incorporate the 1
acre plus property that sits south of the frontage road , that would drop
that percentage down below 70% . Secondly , the berm on the south edge of
' the property that we 're cutting into , we will not change the height of that
berm . What we 're doing is terracing the north side of the berm which is
the building side so the view from TH 5 will be as it is now . The height
won 't change . We should not make the parking lot more visible . We are
' proposing to move the entrance , the easterly entrance to the property
further east and the center line of the driveway would be 40 feet from the
property line . Our adjacent neighbor , his entrance is very close to his
' property line so there is a close proximity . However , I 'd like to point
out that this is 1 of 3 entrances to our site . It 's not for truck traffic .
It 's a secondary entrance to the employee vehicle car parking and where we
' expect traffic in and out of the parking lot would be during shift change
or at the start and close of the business day so we don 't feel that that
would represent a hazard to other traffic on the adjacent property . Also ,
I 'd like to point out that the variances that we 're asking for are not
' temporary as indicated in the report . We 're not looking for a short term
solution to a problem that we have currently . So the amendments to , if it
should be approved , of putting it back into original condition in 3 years
' is not something that we 're looking for . We have other spokesmen from
Redmond Products to talk about other issues .
' Conrad: Go ahead .
Sandra Reitsma: Hello . My name is Sandra Reitsma . I 'm Director of Human
Resources at Redmond Products and I just had a few comments after looking
' through the staff report . What I 'd like to do , you 've gotten a little bit
of history of our growth at Redmond Products and I 'd like to address some
of the demographics of our work force in that growth . In 3 years we have
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 24
more than tripled the number of employees that we have working there .
We 've gone from 75 employees to over 250 employees . We are aware we have a
parking problem . We do carpool but it 's not enough . We have currently 253'
employees . 53 of those work on the second shift. Our day is from 7:00 in
the morning until midnight . Our office hours are from 8: 00 to 5:00 so
we 've got different times that people are coming in . We have 175 parking
spaces . At any given point in time we may have up to 60 temporary
employees working there so we may have over 300 employees there over the
course of a work day . The average age of our employees is 32 and over 56% I
of our work force is female and those two figures can show you one of the
reasons that we have problems with our carpooling . We have a daycare
issue . We have people who are coming in and wanting to drop off children
different places in the morning . We have them picking up different places 111 in the evening . We have people that are coming from as far away as Anoka ,
St . Paul , Roseville . I personally live in Elk River . We come into
Chanhassen . We work here . We spend our money here during the day . We I
need places to park . 35% of our employees live right in the Chanhassen/
Eden Prairie/Chaska area but over 30% of the employees come from these
distances that I 've talked about . We wouldn 't normally be coming into
Chanhassen . At year end we anticipate about 260 employees . If we 're able I
to continue our growth , we 're looking at the possibility of 300 employees
at the end of next year . We 're a successful company and we would like to
keep that success here in Chanhassen . Thank you .
Larry Perkins : I 'm Larry Perkins , the Chief Operating Officer at Redmond .
I 've been here 5 months and probably should take the blame for some of the
changes in the strategic planning at Redmond . As most of you know we had a
site plan and some things that we were going to do , in fact starting this
summer out on a site . I think it 's a 54 acre site out in your industrial
park . After coming to Redmond I caused us to do some strategic looking
down the road 5 to 7 years as to just where we would be in sales and where
we might want to be located to manufacture those items . Basically what it
amounts to is that 's too large of a facility that we had planned . If we 're
going to get that large , we would have to look at all kinds of other issues'
including sites , other states and that sort of thing . We like it very much
here and would like to stay in Chanhassen . We 'd like to develop this site a
little bit more so that we can maximize the possibilities on this site and I
we think that it has considerable opportunity to us and also to the City of
Chanhassen . By the way I should mention I was a City Councilman myself and
put 3 years in that position so I can appreciate some of the things that I
you folks have to go through and some of the things you have to wrestle
with . It 's not easy all the time . We want a long term solution . We don 't
want short term approaches or band aid approaches because that doesn 't do '
either one of us any good . We can't plan long term if we have short term
solutions or band aid approaches . Our growth , as Sandy mentioned , has been
phenomenal . We 've had a 50% compound growth rate in the last 5 years and
we expect to continue to grow , probably not quite at that percentage rate
but I 'd like to point out we're the number one selling hair conditioner in
the nation today . We 're the 5th largest hair care manufacturer in the .
nation and every bottle , about 3 1/2 million bottles has Chanhassen ,
Minnesota on the bottom of it so we 're proud to be here and consider
ourselves partners with you folks and hope that you may be amendable to
some of the things we 'd like to do .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 25
1
Emmings: Can we get a little royalty off each bottle since our name is on
' there or not?
Larry Perkins: We pay $160 ,000 .00 in real estate taxes of which I know the
City doesn 't get all of it .
Emmings: Let me say thank you .
' Larry Perkins: But we hope that we 're good coporate citizens and I think
have a decent reputation in the city of Chanhassen . What we say we 'll do ,
I think our record would show that we have done . In terms of landscaping
' and that sort of thing , I think we probably go overboard and certainly
would in this area as well . 5 years ago we had 40 people . Today we have
250 people and we 'd like to be able to max this site out at 325 to a
maximum of 350 people . To do that of course we need parking and
' strategically we think we need a minimum of 300 parking spaces . The
investment that we would be making . There are so many things that fit
together . Strategically this is a very important part of it . The parking
' issue . There are other important issues that we 're studying and it 's kind
of a chicken and the egg type thing but they all have to fit together . As
soon as they do fit together , we would like to invest some 6 million
dollars here at this site . About 2 1/2 million of that would be in
I. building modifications and the rest of it would be in equipment . All of
the modifications would be inside the building footprint . There may be
about a 2 ,500 square foot external expansion which would be very minimal
' but most of the expansion will be done inside the building without effect
to the exterior . If we are not able to get these variances , I don 't say
this in any way in a threatening manner . Just you have to understand where
' we 're coming from and what we 're going through for a decision making
process . We need to expand . We know that our growth plans call for that .
We will have to look at other sites . Having been a president of a public
company in Minnesota , I 've gone through this process before . Was in the
' food processing business and have looked at many different sites . I can
tell you that unfortunately , as much as I love this state , it 's not the
best stat to do business in in the manufacturing environment . For
' example , if we went to South Dakota , this facility with about 200 people
and it would be about 2 million dollars a year more profitable to be in
South Dakota . That 's $10 ,000 .00 per employee per annum in terms of
' Workmen 's Compensation , property taxes , income taxes and that sort of
thing . So that 's why we chose not to develop this site out west of town in
the industrial park . We would not ever get to the size that was previously
comtemplated on that site but we do think we can get a little larger here
I . and then our plans would call mostly likely for another site someplace else
in the United States . But we 'd like to expand and put this other 50 or 75
jobs into the economy here and invest in these other assets . Other things ,
' we 'd like to have a fairly quick decision . We 'd like to do this before
winter because as Sandy had pointed out , our growth rate is such that we
need to plan ahead . We 're flying a fast moving airplane and you need to
plan those approaches well in advance of the airport so to speak . I think
that 's sort of a summary of where we 're coming from . We appreciate your
consideration and we are asking as Jo Ann pointed out , for these variances
but we will do them very , very carefully such that they don 't change the
' look or appearance and I can assure you of that , both from the east and
from the south and we 'd try to hold every commitment that we made to you
and then some and that 's our intention . Thank you .
Planning Commission Meeting -
September 5 , 1990 - Page 26
Conrad: Thanks for your comments . Are there other comments? Any other
perspectives on this? Anything?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: I 'm having a hard time maintaining my wishy washy nature . Let me
verify two things . We 're talking about a variance to go to an impervious
surface area of 79 .3% still? And a variance to the setbacks from , the
front setback of 30 feet to somewhere between 9 and 14 feet . With that I
can find no reason at all to support the proposal and agree with staff 's
recommendation to deny it . And I do say that we welcome very much Redmond 11
into the village but I don 't think we have any precedent for allowing that
kind of surface area for any industrial site in the city . Correct me if
I 'm wrong . Ourselves and everybody else sticks to the regulations and we
do that to essentially protect each other . That 's my comments .
Emmings: When one of these fellows spoke he said that if we computed it a I
different way they came up below 70% . Can you tell me what 's going on
there .
Olsen: What they 're talking about is , I don 't have the surveys out here
but there 's , you have West 78th Street , the frontage road and then there 's
also some property . . . It 's essentially separated and I believe isn 't that
under MnDot 's control?
Eugene Strobel : That would be my question is why , I don 't understand why
we 're only taking the property north of the frontage road when we pay taxe
on the property south of the frontage road also . If you include that greer�
space south of the frontage road and north of TH 5 , it changes the
calculations so even with the additional paving we 'd run below 70% .
Krauss : I don 't have the tax statements here and I 'd like to look at it
but I 'd be astonished to find out they were paying property taxes on
right-of-way for Th 5 and for the frontage road . That 's controlled by
MnDot . What this appears to be is a fairly common occurrence where right-
of-way is taken by easement instead of right-of-way dedication . You often
times have residential lots that are platted to the center line of streets .'
You measure the setback from where the easement line is that establishes
the city 's authority to build a road . That gives no difference in this
case . As with the homeowner that lays claim to the center line of his
street , we normally say no . We have an easement for that and that 's just I
not the case and they don 't pay property taxes on that either .
Emmings: So you 're satisfied that the 79% number is correct?
Krauss: Yes .
Larry Perkins: I think our point is to have drainage and to have • '
impervious or non-impervious land , I think our point is that it is there
and if you 'd just expand your horizons and take a look at it , you 'd find
that it is there . So if it 's intent that we're after , we think we comply I
with that .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 27
Emmings: Well yeah , I suppose if we could expand our horizons we could be
doing a lot of things but I suppose we calculate these things the same way
' every time on each lot , or try to and by the way we do that apparently you
come up short . I guess based on that I can 't see any ground to grant a
variance . Like Tim , I agree with the staff report that it should be
' denied . I also , I may be dead wrong about this but if the alternatives is
moving to South Dakota , I don 't think it 'd be the parking lot that makes
them move to South Dakota . It will probably be the 2 million bucks so
' anyway , that 's the way I look at it .
Conrad: Annette .
Ellson: How many parking lots are on the Lotus think that they wanted?
Olsen: 78 . That 's if they .do the mass parking .
' Ellson: Right . That 's the one idea . And then this is another 200 plus or
whatever .
Olsen: Yeah , right .
Ellson: And they want City Council to look at both proposals so they 're
actually looking for close to the 300 right there? Additional to what they
' have right now?
' Olsen : No . It 's a total of 200 .
Ahrens: 357 total .
' Elle.on : Okay . I was getting those numbers mixed up .
Randy Patzke : One thing to remember is that we 're talking , Redmond 's
requesting . . .only on their site plan for the setback variances in terms of
the surface area . The issue at Lotus is only a temporary and maximum of 3
year solution . Where a variance is permanent solution to their parking
' needs .
Conrad: But including the Lotus .
Randy Patzke : No .
Conrad: So Lotus is no longer needed?
1 Eugene Strobel : Lotus is an option .
' Ellson: You wouldn't do both?
Larry Perkins: We maybe would . We maybe wouldn 't . We 'd like to have as
many options as we can . We 've also learned that when you plan , you over
' plan . •
Ahrens : But you have 279 parking , you 're proposing 279 paved parking
' spaces .
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 28
Larry Perkins: That we would own and control and know that we have those
assured forever .
Randy Patzke : The parking spaces on the Lotus property . . .owner of Lotus .
That 's only a temporary situation .
Conrad: Annette , anything else?
Ellson: Well , I like the idea of the alternatives and maybe it 's not I
carpooling becauase of people at daycares but I believe it was brought up
before about using some of the open lots and shuttling people or doing
things like that . I think it 's like Tim said , it 's a pretty huge
precedence and in my opinion it is a band aid . It isn 't the long term
solution for them . It 's their short term band aid and then heaven forbid
that it gets only worse and ooh , it 's just such a precedence for anybody
else who wants to do this that it really concerns me . I guess I 'd like to I
know that they 've tried this shuttle and that they ',ve done other things . I
mean people who work downtown certainly walk a long ways to their offices
at times . I can 't go along with it . Sorry .
Batzli : Jo Ann , has there been any effort by the applicant to show a
hardship to get these variances other than they 're expanding and they need 11
additional parking?
Olsen : That 's the hardship .
Batzli : That 's the hardship? I guess I can 't support granting variances
based on that as the hardship so that 's where this is .
Ahrens: We31 it doesn 't seem to me like this proposal really solves your I
problems . You have temporary parking spaces . 70 temporary parking spaces .
You 're anticipating employing over 300 people right? And you only are
proposing a permanent solution for 279 parking spaces .
Sandra Reitsma: It 's a 2 shift operation .
Ahrens : Right . But you have overlapping shifts which create a need for I
all of those parking spaces at least temporarily .
Larry Perkins: We do have some carpooling that occurs already . We have 1
175 spaces now . . .maximum of 300 with the temporary employees now.
Ahrens: Right but you 're using , you 're right now using your temporary
parking 78 .
Sandra Reitsma: No . . .
Ahrens: Well you know , I don 't think it meets the requirements for
granting a variance either . Bottom line , that 's how I feel . There 's not a'
hardship . Except I can see where they think there 's a hardship because
they don 't have enough parking spaces but I don 't think under our ordinance
it meets the requirements .
Conrad: Your truck parking area seems to be huge and there 's only a few I
parking spots . I drove it the other day . It seems like you just have a
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 29
I
huge area for your truck turn around and there 's no way you can convert
' that to employee parking? It 's just humongous . Like I think I could
drive one of the big semi 's in there and turn it around with one hand .
Seriously . Well , that wasn 't a serious comment but it 's huge and I 'm
surprised you haven 't looked at that for additional parking . You 're •
' talking about doing some things on the Lotus property . I 'm just kind of
amazed that you haven 't considered in your own parking lot . Isn 't there
something that you can do there?
Randy Patzke: Not really because at . . .are required . . . When you do get a
trailer in there , backed up to the door . You get another one pulling in
and one pulling out , you will find that area gets to be quite congested .
Conrad: I was in there the day there were no trucks . I guess I just hit it
wrong.
Randy Patzke : Was it by any chance a Friday?
Conrad: I don 't know . No . It was yesterday . No trucks and it just
looked huge . But anyway , that 's your business .
Panel; Patzke : . . .when you gets trucks in there , you 'd be surprised at how
fast it L_.ill fill up .
Larry Perkins: I guess that what occurs to us . It does look huge and it
' sounds like a lot of cars . 179 cars is not that many cars . . .look at that
plan , in many , many cities that would be just a very , very acceptable
situation . We just hate to have this be the criteria that forces us into
another mode when you look at the elevations , the side views , the trees and
all the other sorts of things . The pond is already there and so on , we . . .
to have something like this cause us to have to go elsewhere .
Conrad: We were hopeful you were going to move out a little bit west and
satisfy that need . Yeah , I hear what you 're trying to do . Certainly
understand that and I appreciate the problem that you 're trying to resolve .
' I have a tough time with the variances myself . I guess we are looking for
the long term and I think if we got within a 1% or 2% variance , I think
we 'd do some real , we 'd be interested . Or at least I 'd be looking at it
seriously . When we 're talking about 10% variance to the impervious surface ,
it 's defeating some of the things that we kind of hold dear to our
industrial development and it 's tough . I don 't know that the Planning
Commission 's going to be real receptive as you heard and we 're pretty , you
know our job is to make sure the ordinances are right in the first place
and kind of adhere to them . When' we see problems , we try to change the
ordinance . That 's really what our job is . Granting variances makes a lot
' of people upset . Especially the other business neighbors and then it
basically says your ordinance stinks to begin with so take a look at it and
that 's what we try to do . Real carefully and come up with a better
ordinance if that 's what 's needed . The City Council probably would be more
receptive to your concerns and your business perogatives and alternatives
and I think they may pay a little bit more attention to your . I sure like
to see a long term solution . I guess I 'm really not satisfied that we have
a long term solution hearing your numbers . I think you 're trying to get
some alternatives out there that do anything because the employee 's have
got to be irritated . They can 't be pleased you know and I can empathize
I
Planning Commission Meeting 11
September 5 , 1990 - Page 30
I
with that . We have to deal with employees occasionally and that 's tough .
But I guess I have a problem with the variances in this particular case . I
really like our 70% . It typically controls amount of use and there 's a lot,
of reasons for that 70% . I 'd like Paul to make sure that we 're calculating
it in the right way in terms of what the applicant brought up across the
street . If that can be calculated in , then I think I 'd take a different I
look at it . I don 't think it would meet the intent of what our 70%
impervious surface is but still I 'd have to take a different . . .I sure would
hope we could use Lotus . I think we are pretty flexible on how you could I
use Lotus and I have no idea what City Council will come in on that one .
It 's not a long term solution and I understand that . I wish we could help
you find a long term solution for your employees . I don 't have it . I just
don 't have it yet you can see I 'm not bending a whole lot on our standards 1
so I 'm probably of no use to you right now .
Larry Perkins: The 70% versus 80% , that I understand your concern on
that . . . Let me assure you on the employee issue , we don 't have unhappy
employees . We have a waiting list . We have very , very low turnover . You
can talk to anybody that works at Redmond and see that it 's a very , very
desirable place to work . It 's an extremely successful company . It shares
it ' wealth with it 's employees . Also , we have lots of balls in the air
as to our long range planning . This is one of them . It 's a very , very key
one . We will design that facility to the size of the parking stalls . Now I
bear in mind we have 175 now . That 's . . . The impervious one , that 's a
little bit tougher one . I understand that . . .
Conrad: I didn 't want to apply that . I just didn 't to always be a human 1
resources person . Concerned with your shift changes and problems of where
to park but yeah , I wasn 't insinuating they weren 't happy . I 'm hopeful
that you can do something on the site next to you . Other than that ,
I don 't have any good solutions for the problem other than my drive thru .
Is there a motion?
Erhart : I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend denial of Site Plan
Amendment. Request #85-1 as shown on the plans dated August 21 , 1990 .
Batzli : Second . '
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denia
of Site Plan Amendment Request #85-1 as shown on the plans dated August 21 ,
1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Conrad: We thank you for coming in and we like you being in town and you 1
are a good neighbor but I think in this case we 're holding to some
standards . Again , when you talk to City Council., they probably have a
different perspective on things . Thanks for coming in .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 15 , 1990 as submitted . All
voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion carried. I
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Conrad: Report from the Director . Has everybody read that? Great report .'
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 31
Erhart :
Can I ask a couple questions on it?
' Conrad: Sure .
Erhart: Guess what the questions are on? Storm water utility fund .
' Batzli : Hey , nice quote in the paper .
' Erhart: Thanks . I appreciate that . I was surprised I didn 't get fined
for getting my name in the paper . Usually that 's an automatic . I have a
couple questions on this Paul . Quickly , I guess we talked last time about
.updating the wetland ordinance . Okay , why do we have to do that again?
Remind me .
Krauss: Well there 's a number of reasons . First of all our wetlands
' ordinance , from staff 's viewpoint , was very innovative and forward
thinking . Over time we found that it 's very difficult to administer for a
number of reasons . It also does not incorporate current technology if you
' will , of wetland preservation and that 's one that consider not only what
plant species is out there , which is what all the classification system now
does , but what 's it 's intrinsic value? Is it good wildlife habitat? Is it
good filtration for pollutants? What purpose is it serving? We have made
decisions in the past , most recently the one that comes to mind is with
McDonald 's . We told you with McDonald 's that the wetland that was next to
McDonald 's , while it was a Class B wetland , was essentially worthless and
that it was more valuable if you had the authority to transfer that
requirement elsewhere , and we sort of did that but we had a pond over by
the Eckankar site that we had some credit on . We have no formalized
' process ef-doing that . We have no wetland , very critically we have no
d'
wetlans maps . We don 't know where a wetland is . We have a generalized
set. of maps that Fish and Wildlife prepared . That 's their view of where
wetlands are . We have a very generalized set of maps , very small scale
' that the DNR has prepared that nobody can read anyway and the DNR only
protects wetlands that are 10 acres and larger that they identified 10
years ago and I can show you some 50 acre wetlands that they 've missed .
Erhart: What would we do with more maps? A more detailed map?
Krauss: Well a number of things . We had problems in a number of
' subdivisions where there were wetlands that were located during a
subdivision process but there was never any clear evidence of those things
existing . When residents , if the residents did call up the city and they
' say do I have a wetland on my property , well I don 't know . When developers
work with us . When they come in , we sit down with whatever information we
have and we talk about the potential opportunities and liabilities of a
' site . The presence of a wetland is extremely important . We want to know
what the contour of the thing is . Where exactly , what 's the exact
perimeter . Where it outlets . What it 's conditions are . We have no
information on that .
Erhart: The developer gives you that .
' Krauss: No , they don 't and we don 't trust them to give it to us frankly .
We want to get that ourselves .
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 32
Emmings: Doesn 't it also require you to go to the site to figure that out
in that detail? •
Krauss: That 's the thing . Every time this comes up , whether it 's a
homeowner who wants to place some fill in their backyard or it 's a
developer or it 's the city who wants to develop a park , everytime we have II
to call up somebody from DNR or somebody from Fish and Wildlife . Come out
and walk the site with us and they do it out of the goodness of their hears'
theoretically because these are not wetlands that they all protect . We
protect a lot more wetlands than they do . And if you ask a DNR official
where the wetlands are , you get one answer . If you ask the Fish and
Wildlife guy where it is , you get another . If you ask the Army Corps , you II
may get a third . What it boils down to is the city embarked on a procedurdl
where we determine that we would protect many more wetlands than the
federal or state agencies wanted to protect . That it was in the
community 's best interest to provide the best available wetland protection !'
we could . That tells us that we can 't rely on their staff people on a hit
and miss basis to locate these things for us because they interpret them
differently than we do . It 's real important too that wetlands_ be
considered as part of a system . When you consider a wetland on a one off
basis , we may preserve a wetland on one program and then on another
program , like a storm water management program , destroy it because we 've
pumped' all kinds of storm water runoff through it that 's going to sediment
the thing over or nutrient load the thing . We have no real understanding
of how these interrelationships work because we have no overall storm water
management plan . Every property is taken as it comes on a one off basis .
Erhart : Did Met Council require that we put together a water management
plan? 1
Krauss: The State is . There 's a state law . I think they adopted it about
3 years ago . I think the deadline gives us another 2 years to do one . So
that element of it , the storm water management element of it is in a state
mandate . We 've estimated , I forget the exact dollar amount but it 's in the
$150 ,000 .00-$175 ,000 .00 effort . Now there 's 3 programs of the storm water
utility fund and that 's a misnomer calling it an utility fund . What the I
State 's enabling legislation requires that you call it . We 'd rather call
it a surface water management program and I won 't get into semantics of
whether or not a utility fund is a tax by any other name . It 's clearly a 1
financial liability against whomever it 's posed but the program as we
envision it is an interrelated program that deals with storm water
management . It deals with wetland protection and throwing in an element
that 's becoming a major concern . It deals with water quality and very few 11
communities , in fact only one community so far has done that and that 's
Eagan . We 're under a great deal of pressure from the Metro Council . From
the PCA . From the Metro Waste Water , MWCC and the federal EPA to work on 1
water quality in the Minnesota River . There 's a lot of discussion groups ,
we 've volunteered with the Metro Council to serve on the task force when
they put that together to address that issue. Critically the EPA is saying.
that the State or the Metro Council cannot expand the sewage treatment
plants that serve us because water quality in the river 's deteriorated too
much . Nobody knows what the answer is but they know what the problem is
and that 's basically coming off from non-point source pollution so every
time it rains , stuff gets flushed off the streets . Stuff gets flushed off
the lawn . It gets flushed off the farm fields and winds up down the river .
' Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 33
We 've experienced local problems . Local concerns that you know we 've got
people on Lake Lucy complaining about water quality deteriorating and that
the lake 's eutrifying . We 've got the people on Lake Riley concerned that
lake water quality has been deteriorated . We 've got the Metro Council
hydrologist that have been doing testing that seems to indicate that
there 's some degregation of lakes . The professionals , and I don 't claim to
be one in this area , argue about the statistics of exactly the nature of
the problem but it 's clear that there 's a problem that hasn 't been
' addressed . Gary Warren and I talked to the City Council about approaching
these issues in a comprehensive way last year . We attempted to get funding
for it out of the. general fund . Understandably the City Council was loathe
to raise property taxes to generate the income that would be required- to
' undertake this work . They did give us sufficient money to look at funding
sources which is where this storm water utility fund came from . We think
it clearly behooves the city to do this in a comprehensive manner . We
1 could do it piecemeal . I 've already talked to hydrologists , if we can get
them or Wildlife folks to work with us on a wetland program . I think we
could do that as a one off program . It would be as effective either from a
' cost st.andpont or from an environmental standpoint . If storm water
utilities raised a lot of issues , you know the tax by any other name . It
clearly , as I said , is money that will be paid . For a lot of reasons
though it was felt , and we 've discussed this with the City Council in work
sessions , it was felt to be fairer , or more fair than property taxes . A
lot of people have indicated a concern that property taxes are regressive .
To the extent that the average home these days , I mean you buy a home for
' your family , it 's $160 ,000 .00-$200 ,000 .00 . If we raise property taxes to
generate the revenues we need , 40% of it would go into fiscal disparities .
The school district would get x number of dollars . The County gets x
number of dollars . When it boils down to what we get , you know you have to
have fairly significant revision in taxes to do that . The storm water
utility is a 5 year program . I 'm not going to say that after , at the end
of 5 years that some sort of continued effort isn 't going to be anticipated
' because it is . But the level of effort is extremely high in the first 5
years because there 's so much work to be done . There 's the planning work
that we think we need to do . There 's the ordinance work we think we need
to do . There 's also deferred maintenance that we 've never done on storm
water systems . The storm water ponds that need to be dredged because they
sediment over . We simply don 't have the manpower to do it . We 're not , I 'd
have to say from a staff standpoint , we 're not looking to be expansive .
' We 're not looking to add staff in some sort of willy nilly fashion . We
anticipate using consultants so that when the work is done or the planning
efforts , that they 're out the door . We 're not hiring anybody long term to
' do that . And ideally the ordinance is one that 's tailored so that we can
handle it in-house . We don 't need a lot of additional assistance . If
there 's some desire on the City Engineer 's staff to have a storm water
' engineer as one of their staff people . But the level of effort in the
first 5 years is quite high to accommodate all these things . At the end of
that period , and it 's sunset . It 's a 5 year program . At the end of that ,
if it 's continued , the level of effort would be quite a bit less . The idea
' of doing it as a utility is under new state law , that I believe is several
years old , it allows you to consider this as a system . Much like the water
utility . Much like the sanitary sewer. We had some developers at the last
' meeting complain that they feel they 're being doubly hit . That they
installed storm drainage ponds in their subdivision so why should they have
to do anything else . Well , there 's several answers to that . First of all ,
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 34
they don 't have to do anything else . It 's encumbant upon the people who
live there in the future who are using the system to pay for it 's upkeep .
When a developer puts in a storm water pond , there 's nobody maintaining
that but our street crews and we only have 4 guys on the street crew .
There are many things that aren 't done because they just don 't have the
bodies to do it . Maintenance of those ponds is one . We don 't do that
until one fails . We just don 't have the wearwithall to do it . Water
quality efforts , one of the things that improves water quality
significantly is regular street sweeping . Particularly in the spring so II
that you don 't get that flush of organics into the system . We can 't do it .
We just don 't have the manpower . You know so I guess this is really an
attempt to again attack this in a comprehensive way and we don 't know how
else to do it . We don 't see the City Council raising property taxes to do
it . A lot of communities have adopted these things . About 6 or 7 of them
that I 'm aware of in the last couple years . The cost per homeowner is
rather nominal . It distributes costs as a utility distributes costs , i .e .. 1
the user if you will pays . A home is assessed a relatively small amount
because a home occupies a relatively small amount of surface area . Redmond
or Rosemount is assessed a commensurately larger amount because they have
80% of impervious surface or 70% or whatever . You know , there are a lot of
concerns . I understand that . Nobody 's trying to pull the wool over
anybody 's eyes . We do realize that this is an additional cost factor . Th
Council as1-ed us to look at several things . They asked us to look at the
impact on agricultural property . We 're calling around to other communities
to see what they 've done with that and that 's rather tough to do because
most of the communities that have adopted these things don 't have any ag
land anymore so we may have to set the trend on that . But there 's a lot of
data that I 've seen that indicates ag land , is not necessarily part of the
solution . It 's also part of the problem . That• the nutrient runoff in II cultivated ag land . Now this might not apply to your property Tim with a
tree farm but when you cultivate a field , the data that I 've seen from
several hydrologists in the Metro Council is that it 's producing greater
levels , about twice the weekly amount of nutrient runoff that we 're
experiencing in single family subdivisions .
Erhart : Do you have a copy of that?
Krauss: Yeah . As a matter of fact I do . I have it upstairs .
Batzli : Really you 're assuming a lot of different things because you 're
assuming a certain crop and fertilizer and a lot of things .
Krauss: Yeah. I didn 't assume it Brian . It was information that was
given to me . In fact .
Batzli : Well if a guy has 20 acres of alfalfa and he 's not cultivating it II
and he 's not fertilizing it , you 're not contributing to the problem .
Krauss: Right . They gave us several figures for ag land . One was under
active cultivation . A corn crop type of thing where you have exposed rows .,
Clearly if it 's all pastureland , you 're talking about something else
entirely .
Batzli : Then you 're talking about their minimum tillage?
•
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 35
Krauss: Yeah . There 's a lot of' detailed issues that I think are going to
be worked on between now and the time this comes back to the City Council .
' We 're going to look at the ag land issue . We were asked to look at the , to
give the Council some assurances that this is not a redundant effort . That
this is not something that the Wateshed District would do if we didn 't do
it . Or if the PGA has some funding source or a program that we 're not
exploring . We 've contacted all those agencies . We 've asked them to review
this program and let us know what they think .
' Conrad: What 's the City required to do by law for storm water management?
Krauss: Well , for storm water management we 're required to develop a storm
' water , comprehensive storm water management plan .
Conrad: A plan .
' Krauss: Now that doesn 't deal with water quality to a great extent and it
doesn 't deal with wetlands . In fact the DNR would argue that it 's
destructive to wetlands .
' Erhart: What 's their purpose then? What 's their purpose . . .
Krauss: The DNR?
Erhart : No , the State . The State requiring a plan . To prevent flooding?
' Krauss: Yeah . Basically and also to promote agricultural with your drain
fields and there 's a state board , they keep coming up with these
organizations that I 've never seen but there 's a group called Bowser . An
acronym that 's , all the Watershed districts in the State are required to
review plans developed by local units of government and they 're supposed to
develop their own comprehensive document and then all that gets forwarded
' to the Bowser Board and they have the right to approve it up and down . And
it 's all under this State law that requires the communities to undertake
these plans . The long and the short of it is , at local government , we 're
on the front lines . We do the work . We pay the freight and we set the
standards , especially if we want standards higher than those that would be
guaranteed by the State and the Feds . I think that in the past the City
has said that they wanted that .
' Erhart: Have you got a sense here . Do you see that , acquisition of
wetlands in need of protection . Don 't we have protection now of wetlands
in our ordinance?
Krauss: We do but there may well be a condition , and this is the kind of
thing that we need to have explored when we do a wetlands ordinance . We
11 may well have wanted to say something like to McDonald's saying look , that
wetland you have there is really unnecessary . It 's not an ideal one .
We 'll let you fill it but you 've got to pay into a fund so that we can
' acquire a better wetland an improve it downstream or wherever else it. was
appropriate to do that . -A lot of communities operate their storm water
utility like that . I 'm sorry , their storm water management plan .
Erhart: What you 're saying here is that you may acquire land to create a
wetland?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 36
Krauss: Create . Preserve . Expand .
Ellson: Improve? '
Krauss: Improve . Yeah .
Conrad: Well the ordinance really has to be gone through . I think it 's
just really worthwhile . And in terms of what wetland and the storm water
management does , all I can do is relate to the lake that I live on and
over , this year is the worst . Maybe we can see 4 inches under the surface .
Maybe .
Erhart: See 4 inches of what? '
Conrad: 4 inches under the sur'face . If you do a segidisk reading .
When I moved out there it was , Lotus was always dirty but when we moved out
15 years ago you could , the segidisk was about 2 to 3 feet . And I ran it
this summer , it 's a couple inches . That 's primarily , Lotus is sort of like
a septic system of Chanhassen . Everything drains . It 's got a big
watershed and it 's just real indictative of rains and there 's just no
doubt . You take another lake like Christmas Lake . The watershed is
minimal . It 's up on a ridge . Nothing flows into it . It keeps it 's clarity
but in terms of Chanhassen 's lakes and the watersheds around the lake , it 's,
embarrassing . The development has , in my mind really , and we thought we 'd
been doing the right thing as new developments come in and we put in the
ponding and all that stuff . All you 've got to do is take a look at the
lake and it 's really pretty pathetic . That bothers me because I spent a
lot of my time thinking how we preserved the quality and we haven 't done
it . i
Ellson: Well would it be a lot worse if you hadn 't done what you 've done?
Conrad: Who knows but storm water management is a big factor . You know
all the nice wetlands in the world are not going to preserve Lotus Lake
that I live on . It 's really storm water management I believe that has a
major , major impact .
Erhart: Are the nutrients coming from fertilizer do you think?
Conrad: Lawns . ,
Erhart: Lawn fertilizers?
Conrad: Yeah . And you 've got a lot of creeks that are flowing in . We
used to have the farms where Brian lives . That used to be all agricultural
and I don 't know , it 's got to be an improvement since residential went in II
down there over the farms but .
Batzli : I wouldn 't count on it . I mean you 've run through the
development . Everybody 's out there fertilizing every weekend in that
development .
Conrad: Nice green grass , yeah . '
Batzli : It looks like a fairway .
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 37
Conrad: So I don 't know . I 'm going to get involved in the storm water
management . I don 't know the right way . It 's interesting to hear Paul
talk about it because I haven 't heard much about the funding and how to do
it . I just think it 's really important that we look at it . I know we can
' look at , I think what Paul has been saying about mapping , if I go back , the
environmental protection committee always wanted to map but it was never in
the budget . It was always a standard . They said you can 't protect what
you don 't know . If you don 't know what you 've got , you can 't protect it .
And you also can 't measure whether somebody 's hurting it or not and that 's
the other side of things . We really don 't know what 's there . And some
' other little issues . I think the original intent of the wetland ordinance
was to force the applicant to prove to us that they weren 't hurting
anything . We 've taken responsibility on to get governmental bodies
involved to help the applicant prove that . That was sort of , it 's a whole
different . You know basically the City Council at that time , and the
committee , really wanted to put the burden on the applicant . Say hey , you
prove to us that you 're improving and I don 't know that we 've ever done
' that . So there 's a few issues that I think are significant in reviewing
that ordinance is probably pretty valid . How to fund for this whole thing ,
you know an appropriate way of doing it , I guess I 'd be real interested in
asking the City Council what other items come prior to this . I think there
would be a whole lot of folks that are , especially in a political year that
would be willing to vote this issue as a priority . I have no doubt that a
lot of homeowners on lakes are concerned and I would hope that people who
' are using the lakes are concerned too . Because my front yard is flooded
with a whole lot of people . They 're not necessarily residents . I think
the lakes are being used I guess is what I 'm saying and with all the
accesses , I think they 're probably overly used but on the positive side ,
they 're being used as a recreation source and I think most people should
care .
' Erhart: Those were the only questions I had .
Krauss : I ' ll get that stuff for you tomorrow .
' Conrad: Anything else on Paul 's staff report?
' Batzli : My only question is something that isn 't on there . I haven 't been
here the last couple times . Has Moon Valley come in for a permit?
Krauss: No they have not and I 've sent them two registered letters stating
that the ordinance says that you will have a permit in 6 months .
Batzli : How many months has gone by now , do you know?
Krauss: That was in May we adopted the ordinance and I told them
repeatedly , I said you 've got to figure on about a 3 month review process
so let 's get working on it and I 've received no response to either letter .
Which doesn 't surprise me because I guess when Roger and I got into this ,
we were fairly sure that it would come down to some sort of litigation .
Now they may be just using this as a tact . I don 't know . As I say ,
' I haven 't talked to Zwiers . They may come in at the end of 6 months and
start the process and say well we 're working on it . But the ordinance
'clearly required them to have the permit at the end of 6 months . Along
those lines too , I think you saw that the Council approved the Jeurissen
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 38
program . They were equally relunctant . Expressed many of the concerns II that you did . For example the applicant wanted to have a lowering of the
letter of credit . The Mayor said well how about doubling it instead . So
the Council was very supportive I think of the way it was handled . They 'd '
almost like to , they expressed a preference almost to see the ordinance
looked at again to see if it could be made more restrictive . I guess I 'm
not sure what will come of that . We 're trying to explore that .
Batzli : I think its nice it 's being used . It would demonstrate to Moon 1
Valley that there are other people that this encompasses and not them .
Elison: Right . I think that was their big pet peeve was that you were
picking on them .
Erhart: I 've got a question on tonight 's agenda . Actually the one that
was deleted . Requiring ordinance amendment for the placement of antennaes .
Did we ask for that or is this something that you just did?
Krauss : No , it isn 't . It falls into the realm of when I get to look at a 1
section of the ordinance , I have problems with interpretting it and
understanding what it was intended to do . What I 've told , in fact in the
City Council memo , I said that we wanted to , there was supposed to be
definitions that were incorporated into that ordinance that never were .
There 's some specific requirements I think you 'd want to see . . .application
and those aren 't in the ordinance . I told the City Council too it 'd be my I
recommendation that you adopt an ordinance that says clearly that antennaes
not be allowed on agricultural land guided for other uses but I said that
that would not , I mean the Planning Commission 's rationale is that that
does not apply today regardless of what it says because that 's not guided II
that way . Until the new Guide Plan is adopted .
Erhart : Well again I guess my feeling is , we have a number of work items
and we get a copy of this . . . Just a whole lot of issues on there that have
been on there for going on 3 years I think . Just a long time and I see new,
issues coming up but we 're not attacking the old . So we don 't lose site ofl
them . . .
Krauss: Can I update you on a couple of other things too?
Conrad: There was one comment that I had Paul and it related to your
report .
Batzli : I have one that 's unrelated while you 're looking for yours .
Conrad: Go ahead . I
Batzli : Are we going to do anything on the business fringe down here on
the comprehensive plan?
Krauss: In the land use language , which Mark and I are working on to get
the final drafts done , I added a description of discussions that we 've had
on that area and some indication of a desire as to what you might want it II
to be and then the implementation section , we 're talking about looking at
that ordinance and looking at changing it and such but it 's not going to be
resolved as I see it by the Comprehensive Plan . There 's just not enough
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 39
' time to tackle that . What the comprehensive plan does is provide the
rationale for doing what you had discussed doing .
Batzli : I guess I 'll be interested in seeing what you 've done on that .
Erhart: Yeah again , I 'd like to see progress .
' Batzli : That 's a good step because if we issued the next comprehensive
plan and we don 't change the focus and the direction , I think in 10 more
years it will be too late to do anything down there by the time we look at
it again .
' Ellson: I didn 't even know the State was going to this . . . .now we 're
going to be doing this in '91? '
' Ahrens: They had a big thing on public radio today on this .
' Ellson : Oh did they?
Conrad: Go ahead Paul . I just realize what I wanted to talk about . You 've
got some minutes here . The comprehensive plan update was what I was
interested in .
Krauss: As Ladd is aware , and I think if you read the memo in the packet ,
' the Metro Council laid something of a bombshell on us 3 weeks ago . I had
given them our population projections in December . They neglected to
comment on it until 3 weeks ago at which time they said , by their
1 computations they figured we 're entitled to 95 acres to the MUSA line . To
put it mildly , I called up the staff member and read them the riot act for
about a half hour , 45 minutes . I spoke to , well I didn 't speak to his
supervisor . I spoke to our Metro Council representative and the Mayor .
The upshot of that is is the response that 's in the report to the Metro
Council giving them all the data that we have which I think quite clearly
says that we know what we 're talking about . We know what 's on the ground
' here . We updated , Sharmin called all the employers in town . We got a
current employment count which is 2 ,500 employees higher than they 're
saying we should have 10 years from now . We 've been saying that we have
about 12 ,000 people . As Jo Ann said when we got it , there is a God because
the data came up . We got the preliminary census counts which confirmed , by
the way we 're bigger than Chaska . I don 't know if that 's good or bad .
We 've outgrown them in population , not in number of households but
' according to their counts there was 11 ,700 people in Chanhassen in April .
Sharmin 's checking their counts and believes that they missed some homes .
We 've 119 building permits since last year . I assume somebody 's living in
' some of those someplace so we're over 12 ,000. All that data was presented
to the Metro Council along with a recurrent theme that says let 's not play
statistical games . Let 's look at reality and here 's the reality of how
we 've been developing in this community in terms of how many acres we 've
I been taking down a year for industrial growth . Even at the relatively
modest or moderate rates of growth that we 're anticipating over the next 10
years , which are about 50% or 60% of what 's been happening in the last 2 or
' 3 years , at that rate we need 150 acres a year available of residential
land . Some interesting things have happened at the Metro Council . Ann
-Hurlberg who manages the comprehensive planning section , for reasons that
have not been fully explored , pulled the staff member that was working on
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5, 1990 - Page 40 1
the project off . They have assigned a new staff member to it that Jo Ann II
and I and Mark met with him today . His name is Rich Thompson and I 've met
him before . He comes from local planning as does Ann Hurlberg which is a
breath of fresh air over there because it interjects a little reality
that 's been missing from the Metro Council . It kind of blew me away
because he offered to meet out here and in fact did come out here . I 've
never had that happen before with a Metro Council person .
Emmings : They 're setting you up .
Krauss: Yeah , that could be . That 's what Don Ashworth indicated after
that . Other interesting things that have happened though is Savage
requested a 2 ,400 acre MUSA line addition that was initially opposed by
staff . Rich Thompson worked on that and they agreed that while they were
relunctant to see it , that it didn 't require any new additional regional
facilities . That any impact was basically a local one and that they
admitted that the regional model was defective there and they authorized
it . And we 're a larger community than Savage is and we 've got 6 ,000 jobs II
that Savage doesn 't and his initial reaction , take this with a grain of
salt but his initial reaction was that that represented a different way of
handling MUSA line amendments and he didn 't see why the way they handled ,
that wasn 't applicable to the way we are processing this . He agreed that
our approach in terms of dealing with this in a comprehensive way instead
of piece mealing it was the optimal way of doing it and I guess it was very'
receptive . We 're going to follow that up by a meeting that we 're going to
have Mike Munson and Ann Hurlberg and some other of the top staff people
there is coming out here in the next week or two . We 'll give them a bus
tour- . We ' ll give them our dog and pony show and how them our statistics . II
I think we 're on very good ground . The census coming as it was was really
fortunate . I mean it really backed up everything that we 've said . The
Metro Council model is so far out of sync . So far off the wall that it 's
outrageous to think that anybody would put any credibility at all to the
thing . And Metro Council staff pretty much has always admitted that . They
haven 't changed anything but they 've admitted that . The long and the short
of it is , I 've got very good expectations that our process can stay on '
track . Now a decision may well have to be made if in fact we can 't reach
some sort of acceptable compromise position on this , that you may want to
re-evaluate it and you may want to decide , you may decide to change the
plan . You could decide that the plan was right and ask us to carry it
forward at the Metro Council . I 'm certainly not unwilling to do that
because I 've maintained since I 've gotten here that the Metro Council is
way off base on this one and I think we have the statistics and the data toll
prove that .
Erhart: The question is , do you feel the plan is , where we have it today ,
is it right? We can 't expect to sell you something that you don 't believe
in.
Krauss: Oh Tim , I 'm very comfortable that this represents a reasonable '
rate of growth . Not an excessive rate . Not anything like we 've been
experiencing that is so tough to get a handle on in the last 3 years . But •
one that is cognizant of the fact that we may be going into a recession .
The fact that the rate of household formation is diminishing . On the other
hand , there 's every reason to think that the 1990 's could be a real
exciting decade in Chanhassen . I 'm very comfortable with that plan. I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 41
' Batzli : Are you comfortable with the fact that many of the landowners
north of TH 5 probably won 't develop and so we 're putting the wrong land
into the MUSA line?
' Krauss: Brian , I 'd prefer to be pragmatic with that . We 're talking about
a 10 to 15 year time horizon here . I will never dispute what somebody
tells me at this point in time what they 're feeling but that 's an awfully
' long time . If they don 't develop it in 10-15 years , that 's their business
but there 's sufficient land available that there are other opportunities .
We projected a rate of growth to the Metro Council and then came up with a
' land supply that 's somewhat significantly under shoots the amount of land
that we could have rationalized putting in there so we may run out . It 's
not impossible or improbable that in 1997 we 'll have run out of land again
' but yeah , I 'm not uncomfortable with the homeowners positions . Nobody 's
trying to force their hand .
Batzli : F•;om a city perspective of if these people don 't develop , do you
' have enough land if a majority of the people in that area don 't develop in
the next 10 years?
' Krauss: Well you know you 've got a letter in here from a property owner
who 's in the study area who wants to be included . I 've heard , we 've had
other letters come through . I 've heard through the grapevine that one of
' the better known developers in town is putting together a series of
properties inside and outside that study area . I don 't know which ones
they 're talking about but I 've got to believe that there are enough
parcels . We 've had people here testifying that they want 20 acres here , 30
' acres there that they were willing to do something today . If that happens
over the next 5 years , I still think you have enough .
' Batzli : What does Eden Prairie 's recent pronouncement that they want more
land in the MUSA line do to our request?
Krauss : Their announcement was kind of interesting because it was one that
' was made to the newspaper and not to the Metro Council . I spoke to Ann
Hurlberg about it and she had never heard about it . In fact I sent her
that article . We have never envisioned ourselves in a competition with
' Eden Prairie like if they get it we don 't . Eden Prairie for some reason
envisions it that way . I 've spoken to their planner , in fact I made you
aware last November I went over there as a professional courtesy to let
' them know what we were doing and he maintained that Chanhassen and Chaska
never would have grown at all had Eden Prairie been less responsible and
opened up their MUSA line further . I think that that is a facetious
argument . I don 't see that it holds water at all and in fact during the
II 1980 's , Eden Prairie had plenty of land to develop and developed at a
dramatic rate and Chanhassen and Chaska managed to eek out their share as
well . So I don't see that as competition .
Conrad: I told Paul not: to hold a public hearing on the comprehensive plan
until we knew what the Met Council was thinking about our plan . We didn 't
II go to the public and present a 2 ,000 acre addition when Met Council was
saying no , we 're only going to give you 400 . And we 'll never know . As
Paul said , you can go in and fight and try to battle but I think from the
standpoint of presenting to the community , I think I 'd like to present to
IIthem something that we think 's going to float and that was my directive to
. . U
Planning Commission Meeting II September 5 , 1990 - Page 42
Paul . Now Paul , originally we were scheduled to have a public hearing
II
when? It was this month wasn 't it?
Krauss: We had set two , well we had called you to see if you were II available on two separate dates . One was September I forget what and the
other 's October 10th . Right now clearly the September option is out . Mark
and I are shooting to have the material all completed for a meeting on II October 10th .
Conrad: And you 're meeting with Met Council people?
Krauss: That hasn 't been scheduled but we 're going to try and do it this II
week or next .
Conrad: And what will , out of that meeting , what sense will you get for II
their flexibility?
Krauss : Well they will not give us , I mean I don 't expect them to give us
and they 've indicated that they 're not going to give us a letter that says
this is fine and dandy . What I 'd like to come out of this is an
understanding of what we 're proposing . An agreement on their part that
it 's reasonable and rational . They may have some details . When they do a
formal review , which they have not been asked to do of course , that they
• may COME. up with items such as water quality which was one of their II concerns . That they may feel we haven 't approached this from the way
they 'd like us to . But that there 's a basic understanding that what we 're
requesting is reasonable .
Conrad: But it seems like the numbers . You know what I 'm talking about ,
they could debate a lot of things I suppose in there but the premise for
land use is growth . And don 't you have to come out? This is one of those
absolutes . Where are you today and what 's the projected , well where are we
today should be an absolute . You should be able to come out with agreement
on that . Then the only place to disagree is percent of growth over the II next 15 years . Are we going to get a sense of their agreement to our
numbers? Why should we go through the planning process when they 're
totally , when they may be totally against the projections . It makes
everything downstream from those projections invalid. I
Krauss: It does and that 's why we went to them in December with those
numbers before we got into it .
II
Conrad: And they rejected them .
Krauss: Well they didn 't . They said we agree . In fact Mike Lundston I
who 's been . . .been around forever , agreed that their regional model was way
out of whack . He agreed that at the very least they were willing to accept
the TH 212 EIS- numbers which were considerably higher than theirs , although,
they 've still never made an official change and that they would take a
review of what we had . The reasons for proceeding forward though Ladd are
several . First of all , we 're handling ourselves with the Metro Council in '
the manner in which we want to be dealt with when a developer deals with
us , i .e . we sit down ahead of time and try to work issues out . Most people
don 't do that . Most people just go ahead with their MUSA line amendment
and slap it on the desk in the Metro Council and see what happens . So I
II
•
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' September 5 , 1990 - Page 43
' wouldn 't want us to be unfairly prejudicing ourselves because we 've gone an
extra step with the Metro Council . A reasonable step but an extra step .
In addition , staff is sometimes , their staff is sometimes bound by policies
that are wrong and in their professional capacity , they 're still defending
' a policy . Then they 'll tell you on one side this is silly . On the other
side they say I 've got to write the thing up this way . We 've kept Marcy
Waritz , our Council representative informed of this -the whole time . We 're
in the Southwest Community Government Association where they 've been
working on similar issues . Dirk DeVries is a councilmember who represents
some of those districts who I 've known for a while . Both Dirk and Marcy
' are highly supportive of what we 're doing . Marcy can be extraordinarily
persuasive for those of you who haven 't met her . I think there 's every
reason to the extent that we 're convinced that this is right . If this is
the right plan , and I 'm comfortable with it but the more important question'
is whether you 're comfortable with it . If this is the right plan , then we
should have the willingness to carry it forward .
' Conrad: Well see that 's not a problem . The willingness to carry it
forward but you don 't carry it forward against a wall that 's not going to
bend . If we 're close . You know if we 're suggesting 2 ,000 acres coming
into the MUSA because it 's projected and they 're 1 ,500 acres or whatever it
' is , we 're close . But if they 're saying 400 acres and we 're 2 ,000 , we 're
not close . We 're not in agreement so , you know and I don 't know that I
want to present a public hearing to people when you think that there may be
' that roadblock and you 're saying no . We 're working on that roadblock but I
guess the question is , how do we , what I 'm hopeful of is you , out of those
meetings you have a sense for , are we just being foolish in this request .
Although I think most people here believe that what you 're carrying
forward , I was always more agressive in terms of the numbers . I know that
and I felt those were conservative numbers . So I think the City and we are
comfortable with them but if you can 't get a feeling for their
' receptiveness to flowing or increasing , then I think we have some strategy
to figure out here . Do we present to the community our plan or do we
present to them two different plans? One that the Met Council will accept
and one that we want to go after and you know , the last time we did this ,
the Met Council didn't , we presented two plans and they took theirs and we
lost .
' Batzli : I think the danger of doing that is they 'll accept lower numbers .
You have to go in there with these are the minimum numbers and you have to
confident and comfortable those as minimum numbers . .
' Krauss: I think you also have to realize that the Metro Council staff
opposed the Lake Ann Interceptor and that was only built through a
' coordinated program by several communities with legal assistance and
everything else . If there 's a higher ground on this , I mean ethicly and
professionally , I 'm very comfortable with where we 're at on this . To give
' you an idea of the kinds of policies the Metro Council is bound by , they
actually had a committee recommendation that TN 212 go from 4 lanes , from
Eden Prairie to TH 101 4 lanes . TH 101 it dives outside the MUSA line so
they thought that should only be a 2 lane highway . When it gets back to
. ; Chaska it 's back in the MUSA line . They felt that should be a 4 lane
highway . Now can you imagine putting yourself in a position where you
stand up in front of people and say something like that? Well their staff
did that . Right now they 're telling Chaska that okay , they ' ll agree to it
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 44
being 4 lanes up to Chaska but it 's going to end at CR 41 because out the
other side of Chaska it would promote development where they don 't want it .
And Chaska 's saying well that 's absurb . You 're going to dump all these
trips down through our downtown . Their position is , if that 's what you 're II
going to do , don 't build a highway .
Erhart : What are we going to do , close 35 down to 2 lanes for anything
north of the MUSA line going up to Duluth?
Krauss: Well it sounds like that would be conforming to their policy and
these are absurd positions that their staff is forced to take and I guess I,
certainly don 't want to assist them in that .
Conrad: Well , we 're going to need your guidance as a result of that
meetin_ . I want to challenge you Paul to really get a feeling for , you
know if it was a corporation . The corporation will dictate numbers that
the> 're going to perform to . I liken it to that . They ' ll tell every
operating department where they expect to be in the coming 5 years . Then
those operating departments have to come back and tell the corporation how
they 're going to get there . We 're doing the bottoms up approach and
saying , and we don 't have the corporate goal , whatever and so it 's a little"
bit different from the corporation world and it 's not necessarily in sync
which is obviously what you 're finding . I guess I 'm nervous that you 're
going to come back and say we 're recommending 2 ,000 and we 're going to hold
a public hearing and we 're going to hold that public hearing yet we have a
real good chance at really missing the mark and therefore telling the City
of Chanhassen that all these public hearings , we 're not even close to the
ballpark that 's going to be accepted . That bothers me a little bit . I
That 's just not a position I want to be in . I would hope we could massage
numbers a little bit but not be that far off after going through our public
hearing . I 'm not looking forward to going through our public hearings and II
then to be totally with a plan that 's not acceptable . I want to have a
real good feeling that we 're going to win when we go in to the Met Council .
Emmings: I don 't look at it that way number one . On the other hand , I
• think maybe you 're right . See I would not approach this problem that way
at all . I would say we have to draft , we 're required to draft a
comprehensive plan and in the plan we 've got to give them our numbers on
our growth .
Conrad: And they don 't agree .
Emmings: And we 've done all of that speedwork and it leads us to these
conclusions . Here 's the plan you asked us to produce . You tell us where
we 're wrong on our assumptions , if we are . You tell us where we 're wrong
in our math because this plan is right .
•
Conrad: But you know it 's all wrong because the numbers should have been II
agreed . If the process is worked right , you agree on the numbers and then
it 's our job to figure out how . All the planning stuff . After those
projections are agreed to , then you can do all the stuff that we 've been
doing but see , all the stuff we 've been doing is invalidated if they
disagree with those up front numbers which we did a year and a half , how
many years ago did we do those numbers? Year or two or whatever .
Planning Commission Meeting
' September 5 , 1990 - Page 45
' Emmings: I worry Ladd that you 're putting yourself in a position where ,
it 's sounding a little bit like you want to know not the results but at
least that you 've got a good chance before you take something down to the
' store and I guess I 'm saying , to me that 's , you wind up being inactive
because you 're sitting here guessing about something . Just like the staff
member change last week , the Met Council may change in a month before we
get our public hearings done . You 're putting yourself in just an
' impossible guessing situation . I think , I guess I trust that Mark and Paul
know the field well enough that they 're not going to give us numbers that
are going to embarrass us . And that we can take those numbers and say
we 've done the best job we can . We think we can back up everything that 's
in here and it leads us to this result of 2 ,000 acres or whatever and there
you go . And go down there and support the hell out of it . Now that 's the
way I 'd go because it feels better to me .
Conrad: Well you 're doing it the rational way . Which is the process way
you know and we have a plan . We go through public hearings . We present it
' to Met Council . I 'm just saying , based on the original reaction that Paul
got , you know we weren 't in the ballpark based on the reaction that he got .
Now maybe with new people on , maybe we are and that 's not to say we 're
wrong because I think we 're absolutely right .
rEmmings: If you think we 're absolutely right , then I don 't think we change
the plan .
' Conrad: Yeah , I 'm not suggesting that we change the plan . I 'm suggesting
that we know the process .
Emmings: I don 't think there 's anyway you know it . I think a lot of the
stuff winds up being kind of arbitrary . If they 've got policies they have
' to support that are not rational , we 're put in a real funny position trying
to figure out how they 're going to react . You said something else earlier
too anc: you said , I don 't want to go and ask for 2 ,000 acres and have them
tell me it 's 400 . Well , is that going to happen? Can that happen or are
they just saying no to the 2 ,000? Isn 't it an all or nothing deal?
Krauss: No , it 's not all or nothing . They can come up with a different
number .
Emmings: Does it get negotiated at that point more or less?
' Krauss : To be honest , I don 't know if there 's a fail safe mechanism built
into the Metro Council as there is with local government . You know , you
make a recommendation . The City Council approves something . If somebody
feels disenfranchised by that decision and they think they have some
grounds to pursue it , they can take it to court . I don 't know that there
is any higher ground with the Metro Council . What their past practice has
' been is to weigh you down with this morass of endless meetings and not
making decisions and giving you a little here and not there and nit picking
and making you sign contracts for the Lake Ann Interceptor that almost
punitive in some regards . We 're trying to put all that behind us and take
' a fresh look at this . I think they have some fresh faces there and that 's
a. very good sign . I 'd be willing to say that as I see it , this change in
staff people is very indicative of their efforts to be more responsive to
local government . They have a serious problem over there with people that
•
II
Planning Commission Meeting II September 5 , 1990 - Page 46
have never worked in the real world . Who never get out of St . Paul . Who II
believe statistics that are generated that are based on 10 year old data
that may have been wrong when it was first generated but becomes gospel .
It 's refreshing to talk to people like Ann and Rich today who are saying II
look , we 've really got to deal with what 's out there . As I say , I 'm real
- hopeful that it can move forward . But if we don 't and again this- is , we 're
doing this as , I think it 's the right way to handle this but this is not
the way most communities have handled it . Again , I don 't want to prejudice'
ourselves unfairly by the fact that we 've tried to work this out at a staff
level . If we can 't , I think there 's other mechanisms to pursue it , at
least at the Metro Council . Lobbying efforts or whatever and we would not II
be unwilling to do that if that 's what you want us to do . So I hope we can
work it out .
Batzli : But realistically , even if we go . We get their staff 's approval , I
they have to present it then as well .
Krauss: It 's true and then they have a subcomittee that reviews it and
I
then it ' s the whole Metro Council that reviews it .
Conrad: See , that 's what bothers me . If their staff can 't accept it , and I
they should be literally looking at the numbers . I don 't understand . I
guess it really bothers me Paul that we could have had that turned down to
begin with after we put in a couple years and then they go back and debate
the numbers . It 's just like , why didn 't we get some kind of consensus on
the numbers in the first place . And I realize that 's not the system .
Krauss: And in fact , even though it 's not the system , we tried .. That 's
why we gave them the stuff 9 months ago .
Conrad: Yeah , and that 's real bothering because we 're putting in a lot of '
downstream time assuming that they might. agree with these numbers . If they
don 't agree with the numbers .
Batzli : I guess I 've never assumed that they 're agree with them . I have a'
much more fatalistic viewpoint perhaps . Murphy 's Law . If something 's
going to go wrong , it will .
Krauss: One thing I 'm beginning to get concerned with is , we held our
public information meetings early in the summer . Now maybe there would
have been optimal timing but we had enough public interest that we really
had to do them then and get them out of the way . We had hoped to hold the I
public hearings in September and when we do hold public hearings , we 're
going to talk to both papers . We 'll get articles in there . We 'll renotify'
everybody we 've notified in the past . The longer time elapses from those
public information meetings until whenever we hold this public hearing ,
we 're losing momentum . Issues that we hoped to be resolved , may not be
because people , I don 't know , they had a chance to rethink them but new
people become involved . - We 've had examples of land changing hands and the II
new owner wants to do this and that . I 'm very leery, of taking a protracted
amount of time before we get back to folks who are looking to us for some
answers . I get calls periodically saying well , where 's it at? I thought
you guys were going to do this one way or the other .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 47
' Erhart : Are you saying that we 're waiting because you 're looking to get
some agreement on this population estimate?
Conrad: Not at this point in time .
' Erhart : I never expected them to agree with what we 're saying . In the
end , they 're going to come back and not agree with everything .
' Conrad: But they 're disagreeing with your up front numbers Tim is what
they 're doing .
Erhart : Who 's disagreeing?
Ahrens: It was just one staff member .
Batzli : We21 that staff member , according to Paul .
' Eilscn : Plus we just got our proof from the census . We 're on stronger
ground .
Batzli : . . .project is my sense . Now that 's probably totally wrong .
Conrad ' For whatever reason . We don 't know what reasons .
Emmings: How long have we been working on this stupid comprehensive
plan? I think we 've just got to get it done .
Batzli : They have to tell us officially that it 's worng . I mean I don 't
think we can wait for them to unofficially tell us it 's right .
Ahrens: I don 't think any staff member is going to agree with us . They
' don 't have the power to do it anyway . Whatever they say has to go to a
subcommittees and then like Paul said , there 's so many rungs on that
ladder , they 're not going to commit themselves to anything .
' Emmings: I bet the staff members can 't even do a real good job of
predicting what 's going to happen to it .
Conrad: Well they can 't but they sure what policy is .
Krauss: They can 't but they apparently thought of a new way of handling
' Savage . And as their staff member indicated today and as I 've concluded
having looked at it , we 're no different than Savage is and I think we 're in
a lot of respects , we 're in a better position because we 've done . Savage
l had a piecemeal plan . Savage didn 't even go the whole route of doing a new
comprehensive plan . We 're larger than they are . They have more room to
grow . So I will keep you posted on that but I guess barring my and Mark's
inability to complete the draft ' in time , we 're shooting for that October
' 10th meeting which is an off night for us . I think at the very least- we
have to have a clear agenda for a public hearing . What I would envision
too , is after we hold a public hearing , you may want to hold more than one .
That 's going to be your call , that you then reconvene the issue at a
following meeting and you tell us if there 's any changes that you want
based upon the testimony you 've heard .
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 48
Batzli : Would that open us up to another public hearing then if we made a
change?
Krauss : I don 't think so . I mean you 've held the public hearing . You 've ,
got the input . Then it 's up to you to make the decision . I mean you can
make it that night if you chose but I envision a rather late meeting and
you 're probably going to want to do it when you 're fresh the following
week . ,
Emmings: I hope it doesn 't go into November .
Ahrens: Is there any bigger place to hold it than this? 1
Conrad: Yeah , that would be the thing to take it out of here and have one
meeting . I
Krauss: We looked at holding it in the school and apparently the school
charges us $500 .00 a night . Well , we have to rent audio/visual equipment
for that place . As a meeting room , it 's not the best . You know it 's
difficult for people to see things . This room has capacity constraints .
That room has functional constraints . I don 't know . I mean yes , we could
hold it over there .
Batzli : The Eckankar meetings over there weren 't too bad .
Ahrens : We can hold it at Eckankar . They 're almost done .
Batzli : Yeah , how many seats do they hold there? 400 seats? '
Emmings : I get the pulpit .
Ahrens: They don 't have pulpits . . .
Conrad: Let 's think about the process . One or two meetings? We already
would be bringing everyone together . I think it should just be one . And I'
think we should make our decisions . The last time we reviewed these , the
issues , I think we almost have to take the people through the issues , the
key issues that we 've looked at since those informational hearings and who I
what 's changed or show what we didn 't change . To address specifically
point by point address them and flat out tell the people what we didn 't
change and then we have to be prepared to tell them why.
Ahrens : No , you will Ladd .
Batzli : You will . We 'll just sit there the whole meeting . ,
Conrad: There 's nothing more frustrating , let me tell you folks , there 's
nothing more frustrating than these people to show up to these nice little
informational meetings and then not believe we considered them . Or for us
to say well I 'm not sure why we did that .
Emmings: But that 's going to happen . '
Conrad: Oh , absolutely but we should try not to let that happen . We
should try to persuade people that we really thought about those issues .
Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 49
' Right or wrongly , we considered them . But to sit up here and ignore the
issues that they brought up or not know why we decided to do something
defeats their perception . No , it reinforces their perception of how
' government operates so it 's a big deal .
Emmings: Just tell the truth . We just finally got tired of looking at it .
' Conrad: It was 11 : 00 and Steve wanted to go home and we just didn 't have
more time . And a lot of the time , you know , it was late .
Emmings: You know what you ought to do is put one of those little things
they have in the taxi cab on your back door .
Conrad: But Paul , in preparation for that , I think we need a listing again
' of the issues that were raised and how we directed you to respond to those
issues and then every one of us , you can disagree with the direction and I
think you can certainly , every debate , every item we could have had a vote
on I think we all were in consensus on most every . Well I 'm not sure if it
was consensus but we had a pretty good majority on every issue but you sure
should know why you were on one side or the other because they 'll he
asking .
Krauss: One reason you may want to have a final crack at the plan is we 've
been rewriting all the text and completing sections that you haven 't seen .
Basically they 're consistent with what you did review in draft form but you
haven 't reviewed the final language . As Brian had a concern for how we
worded the business fringe stuff . You may want to clarify what we do with
those things .
Conrad: And when do you want us? •
' Krauss : That 's why I thought a follow-up meeting might be .
Batzli : Well at this meeting , is the entire text going to be reviewed or
' are we looking at the map because I know like Rivkin for instance wanted to
tear apart the whole plan .
Ellson: Yep . That will be his chance .
Conrad: But what we present really is the land use art . They see the
P Y
map . In terms of the copy .
11 Batzli : But Rivkin is going to want to discuss the entire document .
' Krauss: He may have a point there . He won 't have enough time to review
it . I mean we 're not going to get it to you until 2 weeks before the
meeting .
' Conrad: And so what are we going to tell people . Anybody who wants to
review it can come to the City Hall and get a copy . For a price?
Krauss: We could give loaner copies is what we do usually .
Conrad: So that has to be in the public notice . I don 't want to hear Eric
say that . I want there to be a definite comment about the ordinance is
II
Planning Commission Meeting II September 5 , 1990 - Page 50
available at City Hall and I think we should find a larger site than this II
Paul .
Krauss: I will try and arrange for the school . That may change the dates
some but we ' ll try .
Conrad: The City Council should be there too . They should be there . They
will be there .
Ahrens: What about the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre?
IKrauss: They don 't have enough parking .
Emmings: Do we need all this , does she have to tape all this Paul on the I
record?
Conrad: So far it 's been okay .
II
Emmings_ : Do you think so?
Conrad: Yeah . 1
Krause : Can I just touch very briefly on . . .
Conrad: Yeah . I have to be home by 9:30 . 1
Kraus : I responded to , Chaska sent us a copy of a guide plan amendment
update that they had . This is part of the obligation that we have to
respond to the Systems statement . Chaska is expressing the same concerns
we are . That the Systems statement numbers , regional model numbers for
Chaska significantly underestimate what 's on the ground today and don 't
accommodate growth in their. community . The magnitude of difference between
us and them is , they have a lower magnitude of difference . But it 's the
same concern . In my response to them , I said we agree and we have similar
concerns . We are looking for , because they raised the Chaska sewage
treatment plant issue . That we think that that 's an issue that affects not
only Chaska but also Chanhassen and we want to be a party to whatever II resolution and studies are undertaken with that . We 've talked to Shirley
about this in the past and their staff and I told Shirley we were going to
comment in that way and she understood that . So unless you have some other
comments on what they had , we 're just going to pass that along . The last II
item is our response to the Metro Transit Commission 's study that Fred
Hoisington presented . They were actually looking for a response from us to
convey to their board . Basically what I indicated is we support the
program . We 've been involved with it . We are working with them to improve"
park and ride facilities and would continue to do that . I did raise some
concerns though with the level of emphasize that Fred , in working for the
Southwest Metro put into transportation trip management strategies . Those II
are very complex issues that deal with some community perceptions .
Community values . Development values . Equity issues . One of the
recommendations was that you charge for' parking or that you make developers
pay for , you know Redmond would have paid so many dollars because they 've
want to build parking instead of park and ride or ride sharing . Well that
may be a valid way of limiting traffic on Thy 5 and I 've been a supporter of
that in the past and would continue to do so but the proper context for
i
11 Planning Commission Meeting
September 5 , 1990 - Page 51
that to be evaluated is not in a recommendation attached to a transit
report in my view . It 's to set up a joint community effort , Chaska/Eden
Prairie/Chanhassen at the very least working with Carver County , Hennepin
' County . Working with RTB . Working with MnDot . Working with the business
community to approach this because this is something that will have a great
deal of impact on everybody . And we 've conveyed that fact to the Southwest
Metro that we 'd be willing to participate in such a group if it came off
and we 'd encourage it doing that . We just didn 't want any unilateral
action coming out of the Southwest study in that regard . They 're valid
concepts and we ' ll explore them but just not in that context .
Conrad: A lot of response after 11 :00 . Any comments? I liked the staff
report . The letters in it . It 's fun to see . Anything else? I think one
issue that Tim brought up and that 's , it 's real valid and I think we need
to get in the practice of it . It 's amazing how we can get two items on the
agenda and shoot 3 1/2 hours here but reviewing once a month Paul I think ,
' to review the work , the tasks outstanding . I think it 's just appropriate .
Just to see where we are and provide priority . Tim 's issue is valid and we
want to make sure you 're working on the right stuff based on our minds so
you can sort it in with all the other stuff you have to do .
Batzli : Are any of our projects cut for the cutting block given the City 's
forecasted shortfall in revenues?
Krauss : Well , the Planning Department 's rather fortunate anyway . We don 't
have much budget to begin with . There 's nothing to cut . No .
Olsen : A car ,
Krauss: The staff car that we never got . I told Don he could have it
back . No , except to the extent that we 've , like I touched on earlier ,
we 've tried to fund storm water management , wetland efforts out of general
fund revenues . We were not able to do that last year inasmuch as at the
' present time that fund is $350 ,000 .00 in the hole . It 's unlikely that
we ' ll be able to do it next year too . But that 's the only new program or
series of programs that we had anticipated .
' Erhart : I think that 's one of the reasons to keep moving on this comp plan
thing is that the city is staffed up to handle a certain level of
development . That brings in a lot of money .
Krauss: That 's a real valid point .
Erhart: And all of a sudden now we 're finding ourselves . . .all of a sudden
we 're going to get this dip in there before we get our plan approved and
it 's going to create a lot of hardship . It is now already . We don 't know
how much of an , impact it 's going. to the economy and how. much . . .
' Conrad: Anything else?
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
11 Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
N A I c P
��.F 'a f
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION '.__ x
• REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 21 , 1990
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p .m . .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady , Jan Lash , Curt Robinson , Jim Andrews , Dawne
Erhart , Wendy Pemrick and Larry Schroers
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman , Recreation Supervisor ; Jerry Ruegemer ,
Program Specialist and Mark Koegler , Consulant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Schroers moved , Lash seconded to approve the Minutes
' of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 26 , 1990 as
presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously .
' TRAIL SEGMENT CONNECTING SADDLEBROOK AND BUTTE COURT TO MEADOW GREEN PARK.
Public Present:
Name._. Address
Steven and Polly Gammaun 930 Butte Court
I
Hoffman: This was reviewed briefly by the City Council after a petition
' from residents of Saddlebrook was presented to the City Council requesting
that that trail segment which is identified there , be completed so those
folks can have access which is identified and paved down that short segment
of trail easement . Down into the new triangle section of Meadow Green Park
and then eventually down into the play areas of the park . As stated in the
report there , I did go on site and visit as many of the neighbors which are
adjacent to the trail as possible . I talked to two personally and they
' were not opposed to the trail . I have since found out that the other two
are not opposed to the trail either which are directly adjacent to it . The
folks there at lot , as indicated Lot 16 on Butte Court did stop back into
' my office and discuss some concerns about safety of children and their
thoughts about the pond . The depths of the pond and running this trail
down along side that close to that retention pond . Those types of issues
so basically at this time I 'd like to open the meeting up to comment by
' persons in the audience . Get their reaction and then again see what the
Commissioners think about this issue .
' Mady: Is there any residents here for this item tonight? Okay , I guess
we 'll just open it for commission discussion then . Anybody got any
thoughts?
' Lash: I have a couple of questions . Just to get my bearings here a little
bit Todd . Now Outlot A as shown on here , that 's where the holding pond is
right?
' Hoffman: The holding pond is the black line which goes over into Powers
Blvd . in the back of the lots along Butte Court . The thin line . Outlot A
is the new strip of parkland which is added with the Saddlebrook
development . Connects right down into the ballfields there in Meadow
Green Park .
1
11.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 2
Mady: Todd , are we cutting the weeds there in the outlot now?
Hoffman: Outlot A , yeah . That has become . It 's active .
Mady: That 's flat now?
Hoffman: It 's flat and maintained as part of the active portion of Meadow
Green Park .
Erhart : Todd do we know what the price of constructing this trail will
be? I see you have the funds that we 've collected as $30 ,000 .00 so far but
do we know what costs for construction would be? 1
Hoffman: In consulting with the engineering department , again this
estimate included clearing and grubbing and subgrade prep which they I
included $400 .00 and which would be minimal in this case . They included
the reseeding of $280 .00 . If we take those two figures off the total and
the total would be somewhere around $2 ,800 .00 to complete this segment
including Class V gravel for the base and then the bituminous surface .
Erhart : Okay , and does it have to bituminous at this point?
Hoffman: It does not have to be . I 'm not sure it would be desireable to 1
put in crushed rock and leave it at that point .
Andrews: There 's no sidewalks in that neighborhood in there?
Hoffman: Sidewalks? In all of Saddlebrook there are some sidewalks in
Saddlebrook yes but not this piece . 1
Andrews: Would it be connecting sidewalk to sidewalk here?
Hoffman: No . 1
Robinson : $2 ,800 .00 did you say?
Hoffman: $2 ,800 .00 .
Robinson: How many feet is that do you know? 1
Hoffman: 400 feet .
Robinson: Sounds cheaper than what I thought it would be . 1
Hoffman : The Class V is $738 .00 . Rock , or bituminous is $714 .00 and the
bituminous material would be $468 .00 . And that 's the cost of material and 1
that would be installed with the regular public works crews as they
complete other asphalting projects throughout the project .
Erhart: That 's why the cost is down?
Hoffman: Down , sure . Normally the cost which we deal with with installing
asphalt trail would include the cost of installation or labor .
Robinson: I see .
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 3
Mady: Any other discussion? A motion 's in order .
Schroers: I 'll move that we recommend to complete this project .
' Erhart: I 'll second .
Schroers moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to complete the trail segment connecting Saddlebrook and Butte
Court to Meadow Green Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW VACATION OF LAKE LUCY ROAD.
Public Present=
' Name Address
1 Barb Peshek 6480 White Dove Drive
Clarence Schmidt 6450 White Dove Drive
Aadnu & Kari Eliassen 6460 White Dove Drive
Glenda Hoo 6470 White Dove Drive
Hoffman: This has basically come about , it 's a portion of old Lake Lucy
Road as indicated on the map there . Lot 6 of White Trail Ridge Court .
11 That owner I believe wants to build a garage or an out building or
something of that nature . Is that the reason why? That 's what I heard .
If somebody has different information , we can certainly .
' Resident: I think he wants it to be a lot for his home . It 's not a big
enough lot .
Hoffman: Lot 6 he does not .
Resident : Yeah , he kind of squeezed in Lot 6 . It was a pond lot . . .
I don 't know how they approved it because it wasn 't big enough for a home
and that 's why he wants to take .
Hoffman: Currently there 's no home there? Okay . Clears up that portion
of it so the City Council at the July 23rd meeting approved this vacation
with two conditions . One of those conditions was provision of any trail
easement as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission . Do you have
the maps in front of you , it shows that segment which we would be taking
the trail easement at this time . It would just be the cross hatched area
in Lot 6 of White Tail Ridge . The whole question in area is labeled there ,
would be the entire segment of old Lake Lucy Road which really as you
' address this one small segment , you look down into the future of what that
would mean in the eventual future of the remainder of old Lake Lucy Road
being vacated . The question at hand is really then if we just want to
' retain a trail easement along the one portion of Lake Lucy Road which is
being vacated . If that is desireable at this time .
' Mady: Todd , so we get this straight . All we 're talking about for vacating
is the cross hatched area?
Hoffman: Correct . -
II
'.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 4
Mady : Now , what about the rest of Lake Lucy Road? I would guess Lots 5 , II
4 , 3 , 2 and 1 on Lake Lucy Road , which is part of Lake Lucy Highlands ,
those all front on Lake Lucy Road or do they front onto White Dove Drive?
Resident: We front on White Dove Drive . ,
Mady: So you don 't need .
Resident: We 're in Pheasant Hills .
Mady: So you 're part of Pheasant Hills? Then Lake Lucy Highlands , no one ll
fronts onto the right-of-way there?
Resident: No . The person behind us . . .wetland. ,
Lash: Oh really? That road isn 't really there?
Resident : No . We 're there now . I
Mady : It used to be there .
Resident : But it 's been graded as part of . . .
Resident : What they did is they stripped all of the blacktop off . . .and
just let the weeds grow .
Resident: Yeah , we 've been maintaining it for . . .
Resident: For a year .
Resident : We don 't want no trail there .
Robinson: So is the next thing for people to come in and want that same
piece of land on Lots 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 and 1? And would we do that? I don 't
understand why we 're taking one piece at a time now simply because the lot "
number 6 owner asked for it .
Hoffman: Normally the vacation of the remainder of the old Lake Lucy Road ll
would not normally be pushed forth by the City . It would be something
coming from those homeowners or if the City was interested in completing
some sort of project in that area and wanted it .
Robinson: I see . If we do vacate this piece on Lot 6 , would his tax base
change accordingly?
Hoffman: Correct , yes . Then it goes back onto the tax rolls and that
portion has been , as stated earlier , has been approved for vacation at the
past City Council meeting and just one of the conditions of approval .was I
that , take it to the Park and Recreation Commission to look at any trail
easement which would be desireable .
Lash: Who owns this where the road used to be? ,
Hoffman: The City .
1
IIPa rk an d Rec Co mmis sion Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 5
' Lash: The city owns that?
Schroers : Well if we own it , why do we have to get an easement?
Hoffman: We 're vacating it back . We 're deeding it back to the owner of
Lot 6 .
Mady: All we 're trying to do is protect our opportunity .
Resident: We started this a long time ago , 3 years ago and then they got
real busy here and they dropped it .
Schroers: In our overall trail plan , is this little section at all
significant?
Hoffman: As stated in my report , this section is somewhat significant to
people to the west of here as the park is developed in that area . It 's not
' designated on the overall trail plan as a segment .
Schroers : Is it being used by anyone for anything right now?
' Resident : No . It 's kind of rough terrain actually .
Resident : What it is , is we , did you get the letter or copy of the letter
that we sent . . . It 's our 5 homes , our back yards basically is what it is .
It 's real steep . . .and all it would be is access for the 5 homes that . . .a
trail so that those 5 homeowners can get to the main park if there 's a
park . . .
Robinson: How do you feel about this?
Resident: That 's why we 're all here . We 're all homeowners and we don 't
want it .
Resident : No we don 't .
Resident: I 've lived here for many years but I see where all the trails
are and I see how they are according to the homes and usually there 's some
sort of , the back of the home is down or it 's along the side which we 're 3
stories up plus there 's another about 10 feet drop so it 's totally in view
of our homes and then there 's all woods . There 's like a wooded line
behind . . .so there 's going to be a lot of problems with snowmobiling , kids
going back there because it is private . And it 's just like a 500 strip of
land . You know feet . I feel that if they want to walk to the park , they
' can just walk through here or walk up and down the street or whatever or
even if they walked through the back of our yard I guess that wouldn 't be
the end of the world but a lot of us have small children . We have swing
sets back there . When our kids , our 3 and 4 year olds go back in the back
yard I can kind of watch from the deck but I 'm not concerned that
somebody 's going to be cruising by and snatching up one of my kids . So
there 's security concerns and we bought that property primarily because it
was a very private and we checked with the city . We knew that it was going
to be vacated . That Lake Lucy Road wouldn 't be there . That there was not
a trail to be planned through there and then as we caught wind of all this
11,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 6
II
happening , we might be a little late on this now but we didn 't find out
until . Well we found out the man who was pushing for the vacation of his II
piece of property and kind of bringing all this up was telling each of us
homeowners a different story about what each of us thought . Everybody else
thinks it 's okay and we hadn 't even talked to each other .
II
Resident : Then all of a sudden we talked to each other and find out ,
because we 're all friends , that we didn 't say this to him so he was lettin
it all on that we all thought this was find . It was great . He came right
out and told my husband . . .wants to make the lot sellable and especially
saying that there might be a trail will make the lot sellable . . .
Mady: You 're saying that Lot 6 is not sellable? It 's as big as Lot 5 , f
it 's just simply a flag lot . We have many of them in the city .
Resident: I guess the way it 's situated , it has to curve . . .so they can 't II
get a garage on it .
Mady: It 's a flag lot . We have those all over the city so I find it hard
to believe it 's not sellable . I guess that 's not an issue though for us .
Resident : We don 't really care if he builds a house there . I mean that 's"
find , if it is sellable lot but we don 't want a trail easement or a trail
being put in there , being pushed through for that single reason to make it
a more desireable . . .
II
Mady: I don 't see that as being a question for us . Whether he wants a
trail there because it makes his house more sellable has no bearing on it
okay? Unless somebody else feels it does . I don 't see how it could ever II
be a bearing . All we have to do as a commission though is make sure we
protect the future development of the city . That 's the question I have to
look at . I don 't foresee us building a trail here but there 's a very real
concern that I have that because Lake Lucy Highlands , all this area is not
in it 's final development . I mean 30 years from now it 's going to look
different than it does today . These 5 acre lots aren 't going to be 5 acres
lots 5 years from or 20 years .
Resident: I know the gentleman behind us with 7 acres with 3 buildable
lots and the rest of them have 2 buildable and so on like that . They don 'll
have , they can 't completely develop . They have so many wetlands . It
actually is swamp back there so I know how many buildable lots . They have
told us . . .and he doesn 't want the land developed behind us but we feel
we 're willing to go on the tax roll and keep doind what we 've been doing II
and take care of the land . But for myself , if there 's a trail easement
there , I don 't care to pay taxes on the rest of the .
Lash: Is this something that if the city owns it would we be , if we wante11
to , I mean this is just kind of hypothetical but could they buy it from us?
Mady: No we just simply , we own it already . We just vacate it . They just
get it .
Erhart : Can we sell extensions on it? 1
II
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 7
Mady: I guess that 's usually not how it works . There 's no reason for them
to want to buy it from us . A need to buy it and the City has no need to
have the land because there 's never going to be a road through there .
That 's why they 're vacating it . All we 're looking at here is , there 's two
' questions . Does the City maintain an easement for their utilities which
the engineering department says we have to . We need that and do we need to
maintain an easement to protect the future interests of possibly needing a
trail there at some point in time . That 's the only two questions . Is 20
years , 30 years from now when the City is completely into 15 ,000 square
foot lots , or 50 years , whenever that becomes , is this going to be
something we might need . That 's really what the question is . Chanhassen 's
not going to be a 10 ,000-15 ,000 person community 50 years from now .
Resident: I 've lived here for many years and I 've lived in . . .we pay
minimal taxes and had a nice park and we 're paying mucho taxes in this
neighborhood and we don 't have parks so I know you 're looking at 30 years
down the road but we 're kind of looking just for now for us because we
don 't have anything else . This is all we have is our lots and privacy . . .
Mady : Okay , I don 't think the question here is simply , I don 't foresee us
building a trail there in the next 20 years .
Schroers : If we just choose to have an easement there , it 's not really
going to change the area at all . It 's going to look the same . In order to
11 build a trail we have to acquire an easement along all the rest of it and
get it all connected and that could take forever .
' Resident : This is our area . We 're it . This is all that has to be
connected is these 5 lots . . .so the question is why does there even have to
be an easement only if that 's 5 households anyway?
Mady: Simply because you 5 households are here today . 5 years from now
you may not live there . The 5 people who live there 5 years from now may
want something else . We have to look at the whole picture . The whole
' scheme of things and protect it .
Resident : You guys can come over to our homes you could see that nobody
would want a trail behind those lots . Nobody would because it 's right back
there and all you 've got to do is walk out and walk out into the property
you own now .
Mady: We don't know that . You see you 're saying it 's an absolute but 30
years from now it might not be an absolute . Okay? So all we 're simply
doing is protecting the interest of the city . That 's what I 'm looking at
' is protecting the future opportunities of the city without having , because
if that becomes a need for whatever reason , then we have to go out and buy
it . Then we have the same problems we had trying to get a park for
Pheasant Hills . You know back when your development came in , this
commission , the City Council should have put a park there but they didn 't .
That was 8 years ago , whatever . Now we 're paying $140 ,000 .00 to put a park
in . We shouldn 't have had to pay anything for that . And that was only
' probably what , 8-10 years ago? So now we 're looking at something here , we
have the same type of thing . It 's not the magnitude of it but we 've still
got to try and protect those interests and that 's kind of what we 're here
for to make sure that we don 't make a mistake today that 's going to cost us
' 1.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 8
money 20 years down the road . And we can do something here that 's not
going to affect anybody . It really doesn 't . This easement because to put ll
a trail in there , this commission 's going to have to look at it . The
Council 's going to have to vote on it . Approve the funds and I don 't see
that happening because the need doesn 't exist today . But we have to look II
at what the need may be 30 years down the road , 40 years down the road , 50
years down the road and those needs may be there so we 're not causing a
problem by taking the easement now .
Resident: Maybe it would help us to understand how the whole process
works . We just listened to that one you just talked about a minute ago . . .
checked with all the homeowners and there was only 1 that had an issue .
Let 's say it is 20 years from now . Let 's say that there 's we 5 are there II
or 5 new families like us that don 't want a trail there . The easement 's
there . What would the chances and I know you can 't look in a crystal ball
but I mean if the 5 homeowners who it immediately affects in their
backyard , would that be something that would go through?
Mady: You can 't say for absolute . I
Resident : I know but you guys have experienced that .
Mady: What has happened in recent history , no it wouldn 't go through .
Okay , but I can 't guarantee anything . But as it works right now , if it was
these basically 6 homeowners here and the one guy wanted it and the other 11
didn 't , it probably wouldn 't happen . But from my point of view , what I 'm
looking at is protecting 25-30 years down the road that 5 say yes and 1
says no , well then maybe we have something that we need to do . That 's all ,
Resident: There 's an easement through there already? There 's gas through
there and sewer through there .
Lash: So we own it already .
Hoffman : We own it already and there is a utility easement running .
Mady: It 's the same strip of land .
Lash: So if we decided we wanted to do it , we wouldn 't have to pay 1
anything for it later anyway?
Mady: Right . The question to us is , do we want to maintain that easement "
or do we want to just give it up?
Hoffman: And all we 're talking about tonight is the one small segment
across this .
Resident: . . .easement because I do eventually want to get on the tax rolls
because eventually we're going to pay . If you keep an easement , because I ,
know the guy behind us doesn 't want it because he 's got 7 acres that he 's
paying taxes on but I know that if the city keeps . . .taxes are high for
where we are . We would get the 60 foot road or whatever and then we I
would . . .or whatever because I know eventually they 're going to want to do
that and that 's I know what . . .
I
i .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
11 August 21 , 1990 -- Page 9
Lash: So really the only easement you 're talking about is on this little
' shaded block so it 's not affecting their homes at all?
Hoffman: No , not at this time but .
' Mady : But it will .
Hoffman: Why don 't we run down commission comment just briefly on this
item and move for a motion? Any other comments?
Erhart: I ' ll just say that I did visit the area tonight and I know what
you 're talking about and I know how steep it is .
Pemrick: You mentioned earlier you were willing to keep a foot path . That
wouldn 't cause you any problems with these other lots connecting at some
point to use it?
' Resident : Not for a foot path but I mean if a kid wants to run through the
yard , there isn 't anybody that 's going to say .
Resident : The grading would be a problem for a foot path even because
you 'd really have to level off the lot . It 's also very wet back there . . .
Really wet .
Resident : There 's a lot of wildlife back there and over the years what 's
been changing . . .and we know the people . . .that 's family land . . .
' Pemrick: I can appreciate all the comments and I did read the letter from
the neighborhood and they were all valid concerns . That 's why I said , just
to keep it an informal , run across if you want I think is generous and I
think that 's fine . That 's all I have to say .
Robinson: If we 're just talking about vacating that one piece , I guess I
would have to go along with that .
' Andrews: If I could clarify , this does not fit into our current
comprehensive trail plan , is that correct? This piece of land?
' Hoffman: The issue which you bring up is the new park which is located
just to the east of this area .
' Andrews: Do we have another east/west connector there on the trail system?
Just to the south of there right?
Hoffman: On the street on Lake Lucy Road .
Andrews : . . .so we don 't really need an east/west connection . We 'd be very
close to an existing one already .
UHoffman : Well Lake Lucy bows down quite a bit here and the type of road or
the type of traffic which would be on Lake Lucy would be . . .different .
1 There 's some accessibility issues there . Larry or Jan? Anything else?
Schroers: I just don 't see that getting an easement there is really going
to have any adverse affect to the neighborhood because my feeling is that
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 10
nothing will be done with it anyway . '
Hoffman: Again , as I highlighted in the letter , we 're not talking about a
trail element . We 're specifically talking about saving the possibility for
sometime in the future and that would be in the City 's best interest and
the best interest of all the residents now and in the future of the City .
Schroers: And it would have to fit into some kind of a trail plan . Some '
kind of an existing scheme . I mean the other portions of the trail would
still have to be acquired and that 's just not likely to happen .
Resident: What do you mean by that? I
Schroers: That little section that we 're talking about right now does not
constitute a trail . That 's not a trail . It doesn 't go anywhere . It
doesn 't take you from one point to anywhere else so what we 're saying is
that you don 't have to worry about having a trail going through your yard
because in order to do that , we would have to have it going from one point
to another point and this would be a little section in the middle . I don '
see it happening .
Lash: Somewhere I think we 're riot , we still have some gray areas here . I�
don 't think we 're communicating . I think that , are you thinking that we 'r
talking about taking an easement all the way along the old Lake Lucy Road
that was through your backyard?
Resident : No , we understand that right now you 're just talking about Lot
6 .
Lash: Okay .
Resident: But as Todd mentioned in the letter , that eventually it would bll
for consideration to have an easement for all of those lots if they 're
vacated if that 's the route it was supposed to go . So if you vacate one
and leave an easement , then the precedent is set that you can vacate we 5
homeowner 's lots and the same thing will happen and then . . .
Schroers: But there would have to be a reason for us to want to put a
trail in there anyway . It 's got to lead you from somewhere . It 's got to II
take residents from the neighborhood to a park or it would have to have
some purpose . We don 't just put a trail in because it would be a nice
place to have a trail .
Resident: Well there 's eventually going to be someday . I mean I know
you 're paying a lot of money for that park and it 's going to be a little
while before it 's developed and that 's what we 're afraid of is 5 years . . .
Mady: Well then that becomes , .1 guess that becomes a legitimate reason to
even maintain the opportunity then . If those homes would benefit . . . . At II
this point in time we 're not talking a construction issue . We 're just
saying that we have to protect the interests of the City the best we can
and those interests go beyond a particular homeowner or 5 homeowners . If
we do something today that costs us money down the road that we didn 't hay
to do , then we didn 't do a very good job .
I
• Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 11
1 Schroers: I think Jim explained it best by how he put it in regards to why
Pheasant Hills didn 't have a park area in the first place and that 's what
happened . People didn 't seize an opportunity when they had one and then
when you come back after the fact , it 's much more difficult . It costs you
' 10 or 20 times more and all this is right now is an opportunity to gain an
easement so that we have it should we decide that we need it or want it for
any reason but it certainly doesn 't indicate that we have any plan to do
anything with it .
Andrews: Jim , I hear everybody saying we have no interest in this and this
is probably not going to be a trail . More than likely if the residents are
against it , it will never be . The lot is steep . It 's wet and then I hear
us saying let 's keep an easement just in case something changes .
Lash : That 's what I 'm hearing too . I 'm getting such a mixed message here .
Andrews: I 've got 2 questions here . First of all , do we agree it should
be vacated and I think we all agree it should be vacated but I think the
' question is here , do we really want , do we need an easement here and my
personal feeling is that we don 't need an easement .
Hoffman : In the not too near distant future it was a road base . It is a
fairly , it would be a fairly nice place for a trail being it was a road .
' Resident : You 've never been back there . You haven 't been back there .
Mady: Trails are 8 feet wide at the most . And if you 're concerned about
wetlands , travel the Chan Pond Park trail . That 's a turf trail and there 's
some fairly steep grades in there .
Resident : . . .grade in our backyard is like it 'd be , we 'd be wide open to
1 whoever was walking back there . There 'd be no privacy fence and there 'd be
no way that we could have any privacy at all back in there .
' Mady: If you want to see how that works , walk the pond trail okay?
Because there are homes now there and they have a fairly steep drop down to
the pond .
' Resident : The trail . . .
Mady: The pond park has existed for a number of years . The trail went in
last year as a turf trail .
Schroers: And the homes were already there and they 're just exactly like
' you're talking about . They 're elevated up on a hill and the people from
down below , it 's not private . You can look at the back of the person 's
house if you want to but neighborhood trails don 't draw an influx of
undesireable people .
Resident: . . .woods on the other side and well . . . kids are in the
neighborhood . . .young kids who we 're worried about . And being a nice , it 's
11 like a heavy duty woods line . . .between our homes and the trail . You don't
know what 's going to be happening or who 's back there .
I
' I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 12
Schroers: Well one thing is that ATV 's to my knowledge are not allowed on
any city trails and if it is designated as a trail , you can enforce it .
I know what you 're saying .
Resident: I 've seen things change real fast here . I 've lived here over 1
years so things always make me nervous .
Lash: Well I was there too and looked at it and I don 't know , maybe I ten
to put myself in the other person 's position and if I lived there , I 'd be
real nervous . I would not want it . I wouldn 't even want to have to think
that someday there 'd be a trail going through my backyard .
Resident: . . .property value and we 've been hurt here and that 's what 's
scaring my husband and I because we really got hurt in Chaparral and we
lived there when they built , the City let them build junk that 's falling
and that 's why we moved out . It 's falling down now and then now that this,
trail . . .winter and hopefully well have a good heavy snowfall .
Lash : I 'm saying I understand what your feelings are . I really do and
I agree with Jim Andrews ' comments that I don 't know , I hear what
everybody 's saying and it 's coming out kind of mixed like well , we ' ll never
put a trail in there anyway so what difference does it make . You shouldn 't"
be worried but then yet we take the easement . That 's sending a real mixed
message and I 'm getting kind of confused where people are standing but I 'm
feeling like well , if we never figure we ' ll ever put a trail in there , the
I don 't really understand what the point is of taking an easement .
Mady: Because the crystal ball simply is always cloudy . If your reasoning
was that way Jan , we shouldn 't take easements in any part of the city until
we were actually ready to do something .
Lash: Well I don 't know . I guess when it 's , I always figure if it 's
something new going in and you take the easement and the people who are
moving in there know you 're taking the easement and they know what they 're
in for , you know that 's okay with me but where I run into the problem is
where there 's somebody that 's living there .
Mady : What you 've got in Curry Farms Park .
Lash: They think they know what they bought . l
Mady: We do that in Curry Farms Park and you voted against the trail and
that was in the development contract .
Lash: The sidewalk? II Mady: Yes . It was in the development contract . There was no surprises
there .
Lash : Well they said they were surprised . They said they were not l
informed .
Schroers: I don 't know if it would make it less confusing or not but I
think just as , it 's more of a matter of policy . When we have something
l
II '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 13
that 's available , we just don 't pass it up . It doesn 't make any sense to do
that .
Resident : We don 't have . . .
Mady : We have lots to say . We 're not building a trail . All we 're doing is
protecting the interest of the city in the future . That 's all we 're doing
' here .
Andrews: Could we put this to a motion?
' Resident : How big is the existing utility easement? 6 feet? 8 feet wide?
Mady: It 's a 20 foot easement .
Resident : Utility?
Mady: Yeah , it 's the same as the utility . 20 foot easement and typical
' construction of a trail is 8 feet wide . That allows you the flexibility if
you have to go around a big tree or if there 's a depression over here ,
you 've got to kind of go around it . It just gives you enough flexibility
' so that you can move it as you need to . That 's why you go 20 feet instead
of just 8 .
Lash: And we 'll always have the utility easement there?
Mady : I would assume so .
Lash: So eventually if we wanted to do something we could do it .
Mady : I would guess they 'd be the same piece of land .
' Hoffman: Well , not necessarily because it 's less than ideal to take the
same 20 feet and then you 're starting a trail on top of a utility easement
' and at some point have to access the utilities and disturb that trail .
Koegler : The easement document is probably written also specifically for
utility purposes which would not legally allow a trail unless there 's a
' trail easement also .
Lash: Okay .
Resident: Does that mean it would be a 40 foot easement back there then?
20 plus 20?
' Hoffman: Correct .
Robinson : It 's currently how much?
' Hoffman: Currently 20 for the utility easement .
' Mady : Right now we own 60 feet for the street .
Resident: But Jan like you said , when we bought , the main reason we bought
those , we were the first people to build there . . . .we paid because
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 14
Lake Lucy Road was going out . There was no trail planned for that . Nothin
was going to be there and now , I don 't know but as a mother of small
children that 's a concern to me you 're right . In 10 years they 're not
going to be so small anymore but it 's not what we bought . It 's not what we
planned for . . .
Resident: . . .or possibility that there 'd be a trail back there .
Schroers : All 5 of you are the homeowners? ,
Resident: We 're missing one and he was here at the last meeting .
Schroers: And none of you want it?
Resident: No . 1
Resident : And we are the 5 on the lot there that 's . . . They 're really
tight lots but they go straight back to nothing which is why we like it . 11
We 're close together but .
Resident: They 're narrow but we all get along as you can see . I don 't
think anyone 's planned on moving .
Andrews: I 'd like to make a motion and see if I get a second for it , if
that 'd be okay?
Mady : Okay .
Andrews: I 'd like to move that we agree with the vacation as proposed by
the City Council and that we do not take a trail easement at this time .
Lash: I 'd second that .
Mady: Any further discussion?
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission agrees
with the vacation of old Lake Lucy Road and recommends not to require a
trail easement at this time. Andrews, Erhart and Lash voted in favor .
Pemrick, Robinson and Mady were opposed and Schroers abstained so the
motion failed.
Mady: Another motion then . The opposite I guess . Move to approve the
vacation with a trail easement taken on Lot 6 , or however that area is
designated in the crosshatch . A second?
Robinson : Is that the end of your motion? I
Mady: Yes . Because that 's all we 're looking at is that little Lot 6 .
Robinson : Okay , but Todd 's recommendation is to pursue continuation of
this trail easement along Lake Lucy Road .
Hoffman: That would be a future time Curt . '
Mady: I 'm not party to that .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 15
Robinson: Okay . I 'd second your motion .
Mady: Any other discussion?
' Mady moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
accept the vacation of old Lake Lucy Road with a 20 foot trail easement in
' the vacation portion of Lake Lucy Road at Lot 6 , Whitetail Ridge Court .
Mady and Robinson voted in favor . Andrews, Erhart, Lash and Pemrick voted
in opposition and Schroers abstained and the motion failed.
Andrews: We 're defeated again?
Mady : We 're defeated again . Is there a motion that people will vote for?
' If not it goes to Council without recommendation I guess .
Resident : And it could happen anyway?
' Mady: Well , the City Council 's the one who makes . No matter what we did
here wasn 't a final decision . The Council 's the one that has to make the
decision . All we do is make a recommendation . What we do is not hard and
' fast . It 's just 7 people telling the City Council that we looked at this
item and we think this is what makes sense and that 's what we do . We don 't
do anything that 's hard and fast , Everything we do has to be approved by
' Council .
Hoffman: Jim , excuse me . In this case this has been approved by City
Council . The written document approving the vacation is just pending being
' written and Karen would like to complete that tomorrow morning following
tonight 's action at this meeting so if we could reach some type of
agreement this evening that would be most beneficial instead of sending
this back to City Council .
Andrews: I think we had a misvote .
' Pemrick: I was misunderstanding what was said . I was in favor of taking
the easement but not putting a trail in . So do we want to?
' Mady : Oh? Why don 't you voice the motion the way you anticipated it
being . You 're talking about my motion which was to .
Erhart : No , your 's was fine . It was Jim Andrew 's motion . Jim , voice your
motion again .
Andrews: My motion was that we approve the vacation of the land but at
this time do not take a trail easement . Do not have an easement which
means that we 're saying that we are not intending to put a trail in . Is
there a second for that?
Lash: Second .
Erhart : Jan seconded it and I voted with you .
Andrews : We 've got to redo it .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 16 i
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission accept
the vacation of Old Lake Lucy Road and not require a trail easement .
Andrews, Lash, Erhart and Pemrick voted in favor . Mady and Robinson votedll
in opposition. Schroers abstained and the motion carried.
TRAIL SECTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Hoffman : Item number 6 , Mark Koegler is present to discuss item 6 . Item II
and item 9 . I 'll turn it over to Mark at this time .
Koegler : In the June meeting the. commission went through and spoke kind o ll
in generalities about the trail plan and what changes you wanted to see
made . Hopefully we 've attempted to take a first cut at doing that . The
essence of the comments were that there was support for protraying what II would be an ultimate trail system for the kind of situation you ran into
this evening so you knew in advance where you 'd be wanting things but to
look at a much more scaled back approach in terms of phasing . What could
maybe be accomplished in phases 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 . Whatever . What we brought"
you tonight is the language of the document which would be a part of the
comprehensive plan to review . The dollar side of this will still be coming
back to you . We were in a meeting today on a capital improvement program
which is part of the comprehensive plan also and which will focus on the
trail plan as well as all the other park improvements and that will be
coming back to you at a subsequent meeting so I don 't have dollars for you,
tonight . We 've got the text of the plan to quickly go through and see if
you have comments or if that 's the direction you had intended I think when
we last spoke in June . I ' ll go through it pretty quickly because I 'm sure
you 've had a chance to look at it . The plan does depict an overall trail II
plan for the City and part of your comments last time were show connectionll
points to . . .and we 've added those . That 's what those semi dark dots are .
Those are in accordance with I think the most recent copies we have on II file . The city of Chaska 's trail plan and the plan for the city of Eden
Prairie so the system is not necessarily dissimilar from what you 've seen
before . I think there have been some links that have been removed . Again
you had directed and probably are not feasible . The break down then on thil
text comes in looking at a phasing situation and essentially it 's one that
begins to fill out the existing system that 's in effect right now and that
is the dark lines on that particular map with the dashed lines being what
could be first phase trails . For now we 've hypothetically said that maybe
that 's a 5 year period . 1990-1995 . I think we 'll quantify that a little
bit more when we get into the CIP and have some numbers correspondingly ton
what kind of expenditures . If they put this together , what funding
sources . This particular segment though , probably the biggest question in
terms of funding would be the TH 101 loop up to the north . TH 5 segment
will be done as part of the TH 5 construction so that is shown as part of II
this phase . The other segments that are shown on here become more
connections so we try to begin to build some continuity around the existing
network that 's there right now . If you have questions anywhere along the II
way , yell at me and I ' ll shut up for a minute and respond . The second
phase is built off of the first phase . What this particular exhibit shows
is the dark lines which . . .with the existing and the phase 1 trails . It
makes an assumption that phase 1 trails have gone in to effect and are
actually in place . This is labeled as a 1995 to 2000 time period right
now . I would emphasize , at least from a planning perspective those time
.'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' August 21 , 1990 - Page 17
frames are not as important as maybe the overall sequencing of when you
think those should happen . Either the funding sources or other factors of
what you hope to accomplish in the first 5 years . It may take 7 years . It
may take 4 years but the important thing is that you have a plan that shows
' the progression of where you want to move after you 've gotten through the
first phase . Second phase then builds off of that network that is kind of
around the center , the population center at least in Chanhassen . Begins to
' make some of the connections . TH 5 improvements hopefully occurring during
that time period going out towards TH 41 and ultimately to make a
connection to the trail segment that 's been requested by the residents on
Minnewashta Parkway . Beginning to make some linkages to the south in the
' second phase . The attractiveness there being able to provide some kind of
separated movement for Jr . High , High School type kids . Middle school kids
that would bike to school or want to go to school for recreational
activities . To make a linkage with Chaska system where that occurs down in
that area.. Phase 3 builds again off of Phase 2 . In this particular case
we said maybe this is a 10 year period because I think the amount of trail
' segments is more ambitious than it is in the first two . Again , the same
comment on the sequencing . Maybe that starts in 2000 . Maybe it actually
starts in 2010 but the important thing is to keep in order of the sense of
where things are going . Again this assumes phases 1 and 2 have been built
along with the existing segments in the dark lines . The dash lines then
become the other connected points . Now you ' ll notice that the original
trail plan , the ultimate if you will , had the nature trails on it . We have
not shown that at least to date on this particular system . Primary reason
being that the nature trail segments are more the subject of when property
develops . Where the bikeway segments are probably more a factor in
addition to that , what road transportation improvements may occur . TH 5
being a prime example . Minnewashta Parkway maybe an example next year if
that route is rebuilt . That 's the time if you 're ever going to accomplish
some kind of a separation for pedestrian bicycle routes so that nature
' trails have been shown still as a part of the plan . They 're not sequenced
to a large . . .because they 're in the southern area of the city which is
going to be in a development timeframe much further out than the area north
' of TH 5 . So that is an attempt to respond to the comments that the
commission made . The text of the plan I think has been modified in
accordance again with some of the comments that you made . Even down to the
point where I was looking at the typical section have been modified to
' indicate that in many areas it will not be an 8 foot trail . It maybe a 5
foot concrete trail . It may be a 6 foot concrete trail . Just depending
upon the circumstances . The rural versus more of the urban type of
setting . So again the intent is that this will be part of the
comprehensive plan . What will be another portion of this will be the
capital improvement program which will be assembled within the next couple
of weeks . So with that Mr . Chairman I 'd certainly entertain any questions
that you might have .
Mady: Just thought I 'd comment on the existing trail map . I know that
' there 's a number of areas where we do have sidewalks in existence now that
aren 't showing up on the map . We just need to get a little bit more
accurate in what we 're presenting . Specific areas are , it 's a short
' sidewalk but there is a trail that exists on Pleasant View Road through ,
what do you call that? In any event , it 's on the north side of Pleasant
View Road and I 'm not sure if it goes all the way to the park and then it
crosses a street and it goes along in front of Bloomberg 's small
' ,.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 18
development but there is a small piece there . On Lake Susan Hills , there
are some sidewalks in there and also in Saddlebrook there 's some sidewalks
Those are the only ones I could remember . There may be more .
Koegler : Lake Susan Hills West? '
Mady: . . .sidewalks . Trails .
Koegler : That brings up a good point . The segment that 's on the north
side of Lake Lucy , and I think that line got a little carried away on the
west side of the lake but that is indicative of the improvement project
that was recently approved and is under construction now so we 've
categorized that as existing . That will be in .
Hoffman: Lake Susan .
Koegler : Yeah . Did I say something else?
Hoffman: Lake Lucy . ,
Koegler : I meant Lake Susan , excuse me .
Schroers: That basically just follows that interceptor right? That centell
line?
Koegler : Yes , it does . '
Lash: ITI reading through this Mark , I saw a couple of things that I just
wanted to point out . On page 5 where you have the one on Kerber . It says
the trail consists of a 6 foot wide bituminous pathway along one side of
the street and concrete pedestrian walkway along the other side . To me
that leads me tc think that it 's that way all the way along and it 's not . II
Koegler : Yeah , it does terminate .
Lash: Right . So I don 't know if you think that needs to be clarified or II
not .
Koegler : That 's a good point . '
Lash: I think it 's kind of misleading . And then on page 6 where you have
the map , the 1990 one , there are ones shown as I 'm assuming existing but II
then there 's no description of them . As an example , the one along TH 5
from Lake Ann to Powers and the one along Main Street and the one by Lake
Susan . I saw those 3 right away . I don 't know if there's others . Do the,
need to be listed individually in here like you have the others?
Koegler : Yeah , they probably should since that 's the tone of the others .
The TH 5 one , I don 't know . I think probably has been under some
discussion from the maintenance aspect right now with the city . I don 't
know if that one will continue . I would hope that would be replaced by the
TH 5 trail when the construction comes through because that one 's about 4
feet wide and somewhat overgrown and probably not in the best of condition
Lash: Okay . I had one other comment in here somewhere .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 19
Schroers: I was on that tonight and half of it 's new and half of it 's old .
The newer part is kind of okay but the older part is really tearing apart .
It 's really scares .
' Lash: On page 12 . number 2 . Up at the top . They 've also listed on the
bottom of page 11 . I was wondering if this was going to be your final
thing it should probably be corrected .
Koegler : That 's easy to take care of .
Lash: Yeah . And then I guess for your phase 1 thing here . One of the
' ones that 's listed is , I don 't know . I guess we were working on
prioritizing and putting them where we thought were probably our highest
demand area and personally I would not think Tecumseh would be a real high
' demand area . It 's a very quiet street . I walk on it almost daily and
I don 't know if you 're talking about an off street one where you 'd have to
then go in and have to put it in people 's yards but personally I just don 't
' see that as a high on my priority list . I understand your reasoning for
wanting it because of Kerber and the trail at Lake Ann . I understand that .
Kids walk there but it 's just such a quiet street and it will never have
any more development there .
Koegler : No . That should probably be discussed because the way I
personally would envision that is it 's nothing more than signage . That
' this is a route . There would be no pavement markings . No intrusion into
the private yards or anything . Just some warning signs so drivers know that
they can be on the lookout for bicycles and pedestrians .
Lash: Well something in black and white on paper like that is enough to
get people excited if it doesn 't say it 's just signage .
' Koegler : That should be clarified .
Mady : Then maybe the wording should be in there .
' Koegler : Yeah .
Mady: But what you had said earlier on the pieces that were missing on the
existing , in the verbage . I 'm wondering if maybe when we start talking
about each individual piece in the existing that since this is a plan . A
concept plan for the future that by 2 months after this thing gets
' published it 's out of date with this piece anyway . But these may not be , I
like to see them on a map as existing but I don 't know if I want to see
verbage in because the verbage gets out of date real fast .
1 Koegler : To be honest with you , I have a problem too . How many sidewalks
do you discuss? Granted sidewalks are an important part of this overall
plan but I think what you 're really focusing on more is maybe the more
people mover kind of routes .
Mady: Connectors or even nature trails or something but I have a problem
' with listing each , because some of these are , like on Pleasant View Road ,
that 's maybe only 2 blocks long . If we keep updating this every 3 to 5
years and keep adding to it , this thing 's going to end up being 20 pages
long and just in that piece and it 's just going to be ridiculous .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II August 21 , 1990 - Page 20
Koegler : That 's a good point . I think this was a carryover from the last II
plan but at that time there were only sure , 3 or 4 segments .
Mady : When you 've got 5 segments and this is kind of your crown jewels , II
you want to make sure everybody sees them but they 're not anymore so maybe
we 're kind of out of touch with that piece .
Koegler : Does anybody on the commission have a problem if we remove that
verbage altogether? No?
Mady: I guess to me what you need to do is maybe some verbage and I mean II
it 's already there to the extent that we do have trails and here they are
on the map and some of these are bituminous . Some of these are , that 's it ' ll
Otherwise they 're out of date right away anyway .
Lash: Another question I had . If I look at the whole overall map on page
8 , it 's so teeny it 's hard sometimes to tell exactly which roads you 're ,
talking about . Like up on the top on the north , is that supposed to be
Pleasant View that kind of goes up north of Lotus Lake?
Koegler : No , that goes through the Near Mountain development . I
Hoffman: A portion of that road is not even existing yet .
II
Lash: Oh . No wonder I don 't know where it is . Okay , and then it curves
and comes down . Then there 's kind of a straight shot right on the west
side of Lotus Lake . Where is that supposed to be?
I
Koegler : That 's Carver Beach Road where you 've already got a substantial
segment in place .
I
Lash: The one going east/west?
Koegler : Yes . I
Lash: Okay , but how about the one that looks like it 's going more north/
south? I
Koegler : Well that becomes , to a certain degree this represents a desire
line to make a connection . And in that particular area , there 's a street ,
and I don 't have a blow up but it probably in reality will end up jogging
around to make that connection due to grade and everything else . Again ,
that 's a segment that in all likelihood is not going to be detached from a I.
roadway but just will be a signed segment .
Lash: I guess I 'd be interested in , when I look at that I don 't see a
point for having it be. off road but when I look at it on the map , I 'm
II
assuming that 's what the intention is so if there 's a way that we can
clarify which ones . If you want to just have a signage where people know ,
if they get off of the trail or off of a sidewalk and then they can kind of.,
take this street over and they can connect up somewhere but when you look
„at this whole thing , you can 't tell what 's what and I think it 's confusing .
II
II ,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 21
' Koegler : That 's a valid criticism and I think maybe the way to help get
around that is in the final plan , particularly this kind of exhibit would
be better if it was twice this size . We 're wrestling with the constraints
of 8 1/2 x 11 and you do lose all the streets and if we go a little bigger ,
we 'd call out those segments which will be proposed at least to be
separated from the roadway versus part of the roadway which may be helpful .
Lash: I know it 's hard to come up with enough codes to cover all the
different .
' Erhart: Can we color it? Color different trails?
Koegler : Yeah , in the final , that may be feasible in the final plan
depending on printing budgets .
Mady: Staff , can you do that?
' Koegler : We can certainly get a black and white version now I think that 's
twice this size that will be a lot more readable .
Andrews: I 'd like to express my appreciation for the plan , I like the
concept of breaking into phases . . .
( There was a tape change at this point . )
Robinson: I see you put a time frame in there , 1990 to 1995 on Phase 1 and
1995 to 2000 on Phase 2 and I 'm not disagreeing with that but it seems like
we should , I don 't know how we 're going to get there if there 's not
something in the plan itself that says , how we 'll implement that in that
timeframe .
Koegler : The Capital Improvement Program that I spoke of a moment ago
and I wish I had an example , I had it up until I left the office in my
briefcase , is a chart type form that if you remember it all from the old
plan it shows , this is just a map so don 't get excited . It shows 5 year
columns . What you 're doing in 1990 , 1991 , 1992 , 1993 , 1994 , 1995 . Costs
beyond 1995 . We have a little place where we put a graphic for what that
' particular project is so let 's say it 's Minnewashta Parkway trail or
whatever . That will show up on there . There will be text about the
project itself . The justification for the project and the timing then of
the anticipated project . The dollar figure will end up in the
corresponding year and there will be key to funding sources that are
envisioned . So it will be tied to the State Aid street construction and
assessments or tax increments or whatever it might be . . I think that will
' put it a lot more into perspective and that may necessitate some changing
of what right now we look at as being a phase . Obviously if there 's not
money in 10 years to do what we say is hopefully going to happen in 10
' years , we have to push that time line out a little further . That 's part of
the CIP that we 're working on at present and I think that will bring this
all into light .
Mady : It brings up maybe , this might be off the subject a little bit . I 'm
going to spend 2 minutes on it anyway . One of the jobs as a park
commissioner , the way I 've always viewed the job is to look towards the
future . Is how things are happening . And if any of you guys have read the
•
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11 August 21 , 1990 - Page 22
•
paper lately , the city budgets are really stressed. We 're not building as I
many homes as we did earlier . That means the money 's not coming into the
city coffers in permits which affects a lot of departments . More so than
ours but it just means that next year we 're not going to have the money to II
be developing . We 're seeing all these parks and I don 't know how many
people have looked down the road , we 've got a ton of neighborhood parks
sitting here open right now with people coming in here weekly asking us .
They 're calling staff every day . When are they going to get their
swingset? When are they going to get their ball diamond? When are they ,
I don 't know if anybody here has been thinking about it but we 're going to
have to find a way of building that stuff pretty soon . The only one I know"
that exists is through , going the referendum route and I don 't know of
anybody here who 's willing to say it but I fully see a referendum for
neighborhood park development , trail development and community park
development in 2 years . We 're going to have to find a way to put a large II
sum of money into the south park . We 're going to have to find money for a
lot of neighborhood parks and we 've got some trail accesses that we 're
going to need to make , specifically Lake Minnewashta Parkway . We don 't
have the money to do those things . I guess that 's my sermon for tonight
but as a park commissioner , I hope you 're looking down the road . We can 't
sit here and react to things . We have to be proactive and we were 'a II reactive body 5 years ago . We got to be proactive a little 3 years after
• that . We 're starting to become a very reactive body again . I don 't like
being a reactive body . Waiting for people to come and tell us things . We
have to be here looking to the future and if we 're not looking to the
future , we 're not doing our job . Okay . Did I break the spell a little
bit .
Lash: What were we talking about?
Mady : We started talking about the capital improvement program . We don 't
have any money and by golly we 've got to start thinking about it because no
one 's going to dump a million dollars on our lap and say here , go do
something . It 's just not going to happen so we 've got to start thinking
about , if that spurs some thought , that 's great . That 's what it was
intended to do .
Jay Johnson: Mark , on the maps , on Audubon , I heard we 're putting a trail I
through the industrial park on Park Road up to TH 5 next year and that we
maintain a park trailway from Lake Susan Hills West along Audubon up to
Park Road . . . We may not have that trail section as shown in the future I
plans . . .and it doesn 't go all the way to TH 5 either . It only goes up to
Park Drive .
Koegler : I can check on that Jay because I know that was developing and all
the time the text was put together , didn 't know what the outcome of that
was . ,
Jay Johnson: Actually there is a trail going on TH 5 but it 's on the other
side .
Mady: I think you 're right Jay because I remember we talked about it
when Lori was still here and Lori was pushing very hard to get something
done and it was not getting support and we may have just seen that
evaporate .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 23
' Jay Johnson: Well what happened , the final vote is that I got a reversal
on some of it and we did get a trail starting at Lake Susan Hills on
Audubon running up to Park Road . Connect to a trail running through the
' industrial park and up to Lake Ann so the people living on the west side of
Lake Susan Hills don 't have to go all the way over to Powers to go to Lake
Ann . So they can just go out to Audubon and go north to get to Lake Ann .
The other thing is , is there anything in here about trailways within
industrial areas because you see more and more people out jogging and
running and if you ever worked at Opus , they have a whole trail system
within the Opus complex that is , there must be 100 people out there during
' the summer every day at lunch . Jogging , walking , whatever and I 've noticed
in our area too , that we have people out walking along the industrial
streets so the industrial trail segments are working too , especially since
you 've got all the trucks trucking around there . Semis and pedestrians .
Mady: It 's like bugs and volkswagons .
Koegler : There is nothing in here now addressing that and that 's probably
a good point that at least verbally it should be addressed . Those issues
becomes to a certain degree site planning issues , as Opus was . Is was done
' as one contiguous PUD in an industrial sense and there 's no reason that
can 't happen in other areas of Chanhassen if and when industrial expansion
occurs with the blessing of the Met Council . But sooner or later that will
' happen and that 's probably a good point . It 's not going to happen in the
existing phases of the Chan Lakes Business Park but it could happen in
other ones . We ' ll look at some text .
Mady: Good point .
Koegler : We 've always looked to Lake Susan Park in terms of users with
that in mind . That that 's going to get a lot of industrial , people over
their lunch hour and so forth so that 's a real valid point .
' Lash: One quick question that crossed my mind last night and now I just
thought of it again . When you have the implementation system phasing and
then you say that the Park and Recreation Commission evaluted each segment
considering the following factors and you 've got like 9 of them . That 's
not in any particular order is it?
Koegler : No it 's not .
' Lash: I just wondered . Do you need us to do something with this now?
' Koegler : I 've been noting your comments and we 'll make those changes and
you 'll see this again before it 's ultimately adopted by the Council . It
will be back to you again along with the CIP information .
Robinson: That looks good .
Erhart: You 've done a nice job Mark .
Mady: I 've got one other question . On Lake Susan Hills Park . My mind has
I 've gotten lost off of that . Let 's see . That 's why . On Park Drive a
sidewalk exists yet it 's not showing up . Maybe that 's what touched it off .
Lake Susan Park , there 's no trail running into it and the sidewalk , the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
August 21 , 1990 - Page 24 .
concrete sidewalk that 's on Park Drive is not showing up on the trail plan .,
I knew there was something that bothered me about that but I couldn 't
figure out what it was . It 's on the trail plan . No , it 's not . It 's not on
the trail plan either . I
Hoffman: Is that . . .industrial park Jim?
Mady : On Park Drive , where the new Park Drive runs in front of Rosemount . II
Between Rosemount and , Lake Drive East . In any event , there 's a sidewalk
on that and it 's not showing up . Shall we move?
I
LAKE RILEY HILLS PRELIMINARY PLAT , SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Koegler : The Reverend Jim set this one up so nicely . Taking a look at
park requirements potentially for Lake Riley Hills I think you very II
accurately summarized what probably are concerns that , I don 't think the
City wants to add additional parkland unless it 's absolutely necessary II because you 're having enough trouble just developing the property you 've
got now . So I think that was a strong tone looking at this particular
development . However , in going through it and I ' ll be very brief , it 's
• outlined fairly significantly in the context of the report . The 1
comprehensive plan addresses a deficiency of neighborhood parks in this
area and identifies it to be handled in one of two ways . Either through
the establishment of a new park or by providing better access to Bandimere
Heights Park which ultimately will be expanded by another 30 acres . The
concern in looking through this is for the 75 homeowners that would be in
here plus the property lying both east and west of this , that in the long
term Bandimere Park is probably suitable to handle the adult oriented kinds II
of recreation . If somebody wants to play tennis and they want to get on a
bike to go do it , they can do that . If there 's a trail that gets them
there , fine but the little kid who wants to go play on a play structure ,
it 's not suitable to send them to Bandimere Park and so our recommendation
is that somewhere in the form of this development there needs to be a 2 to
3 acre site identified for a neighborhood park purpose which would be
primarily to accommodate some flat space . Some play structures . Some sand
equipment and so forth oriented really towards smaller kids . It 's not to
say that there wouldn 't be some picniking or open field area that adults
wouldn 't use either . I think this is classically could be another
Pheasant Hills situation if you don 't acquire some land . Normally we look II
to 5 acres as a neighborhood park and we 're not saying that that 's
necessary here but something maybe along the lines of 2 acres would be II appropriate . In conjunction with that , securing the trail easement along
this portion of Lyman Blvd . , which is part of the future trail plan , to
hopefully someday allow a linkage to the Bandimere Park as well as the
balance of the trail system . So the recommendation is that the Park
Commission recommend to the Council that they require dedication of 2 to 3
acres . We 've identified that the most appropriate location is somewhere in
�
the vicinity of this Out.lot C . It 's wetland area in here . Probably more
along this side so it 's accessible to the apartment complex on the east as
well . So with that .
Jay Johnson: There 's a pretty steep hill over there . II
Koegler : Yeah there is along there but along the wet area . . .This is vacant"
property over here . The actual apartment units sit further over to the
11 •
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 -- Page 25
' east . It is developable property however and presumably someday it is
zoned multi-family may have some more units on it .
Schroers: Is it owned by the developer that built the apartments?
Koegler : I believe so . It probably has changed hands since those were
' originally built but I think it 's under contiguous ownership to the east .
Pemrick : Do you know when they plan on beginning this development or it 's
just in the planning stages?
' Koegler : Yes .
Andrews: Well my comments are . I agree with the recommendation exactly as
made .
Erhart : I do too . I 'd make a motion .
Schroers : Looks good to me .
Hoffman: Again , you may want to specify a little more specifically to the
Council or to the developer as they go back and relook at this plat as to
whether we would like 2 or 3 acres . In taking a look at the park
' dedication , or if we took 2 to 3 acres of land , there still would leave
about 50% to 70% of the park dedication fee left to be collected so
$300 .00-$350 .00 per home . Something of that nature . If we took the 2 to 3
acres . 2 acres is somewhat small . May not be ideal for what we want to
take a look at here so at this time it would probably be wise to discuss
what type of facilities we would like to put there potentially and how much
level land that would take . If that would be closer to 3 acres , if you
' want to shoot for that figure or if we think we could get by with 2 acres
in this area and shift the rest of these down to Bandimere .
Mady: I had a comment . In here you 're saying that access to Bandimere
Heights Park via Kiowa Trail is approximately 1 .5 miles . Right now access
to Curry Farms Park from Pheasant Hills is less than 1 mile . That was
deemed not acceptable distance for those people to go so if you ever talk
about 1 .5 miles , I don 't think 3 acres is enough .
Koegler : Well let me discuss it .
Lash: It will eventually be reduced to about a mile .
' Mady: We 're talking about 3/4 of a mile to Pheasant Hills .
Koegler : That number is calculated . The development parcel is right in
here . Using Lyman to get over to TH 101 , down TH 101 and in and over -to
Kiowa and access to the park here . The comprehensive plan called , you know
you 've got the additional acreage as a part of Bandimere Park right here at
the present time . 30 acres required . The comprehensive plan says that
ultimately this piece is going to be required also . When that occurs
you 're looking at a very short distance to hopefully get access interior to
the park and be able to get into the rest of it so the 1 1/2 mile or
whatever this site . . .to get all the way around , cutting off about a half
mile when you actually develop this piece you get this corner and you ' ll
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 26
reduce it even further to probably like a quarter of a mile by the time you
ultimately get that park developed . I think that 's . . .resources right now
is you 're going to have to look but that 's going to occur and that 's going
to be able to supply the . . .recreational facilities that are needed . So
that was really the reasoning behind looking at a 2 to 3 acre site . 2
acres will accommodate a flat area where you can have a ball diamond or
backstop or open field area . It will accommodate a small picnic area and a
play structure . 3 acres gives you a little more elbow room for all of
that .
Mady : How much do we have right now at Bandimere neighborhood park? I
Koegler : In acres?
Mady : I didn 't bring my book so . 1
Hoffman : 33 .
Mady : No , no . Bandimere neighborhood park .
Hoffman : Oh , neighborhood park . How many acres there? 2 maybe . I
Mady: 2 to 3 . I 'm thinking it 's 3 . That 's my concern is it 's so small .
It 's large but it 's not .
Erhart : But just for our street you know .
Hoffman : Exactly what we 're trying to meet here is the need for that 10
and under group where the parents can have them safely ride their bike or
walk up the street in their development to a totlot area . To an open play
field area . The older kids and the adults can pursue their activities at II
Lake Ann and down at Bandimere Park . If we successfully do that with 2 or
3 acres , I think that 's the real need here .
Andrews : So we have to balance the age old problem of land versus money .
Hoffman: Correct .
Mady: Well you can always get money . You can 't get land . I
Pemrick : Now does that trail system connect with the Eden Prairie trail
system to go to the Eden Prairie Park?
Koegler : Hopefully . Eden Prairie has a link that 's probably a quarter of
a mile into their city but I can 't imagine they wouldn 't work with the city '
to bridge that gap in the future .
Pemrick: There 's a real nice park there too . I mean not that that would II
be our park but .
Koegler : Just speaking to the Bandimere Park for a moment . If you focus
on the existing developed park which is 2 acres or whatever that number is .
-If you take organized play out of there , that 's a pretty good sized piece
to accommodate just neighborhood uses . I think that 's what we 're stressing
here is that it would be identified for neighborhood uses because you 've
II ,
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 27
I got a large activity park that 's going to be located within the same
vicinity when the park is ultimately developed at Bandimere .
I Lash: So really all we 'd be talking here is probably some playground
equipment . Maybe an open field .
IHoffman: Basketball .
Koegler : Basketball . Backstop . Maybe just for casual pick-up games .
That kind of thing .
Lash: And that 's about it?
I Koegler : Yes . That 's the scale of the facilities given the proximity to
Bandimere Park .
' Lash : So what do you think is the most comfortable acreage to get to do
that?
Schroers : I like 3 acres ,
IHoffman: Again it depends on what , the lay of the land of what piece we
would ultimately .
IRobinson: Can 't we leave a. little flexible , 2 to 3 acres and work with the
develop er on it?
ILash : Put minimum?
Robinson : Yeah , minimum of 2 .
IKoegler : If it was a different site I would sit here and tell you that 2
acres is plenty of land but this site has a fair amount of relief on it and
I it may be such that you need 3 just in order to get enough flat space to
accommodate these uses . So I think that is one of the charges back to the
developer that you need a strong 2 acres of useable ground and if that ends
up being 3 because of side slopes and so forth , fine . If they can
Iaccommodate it with 2 , that 's fine also .
Lash : So can we leave it 2 to 3 minimum . Can we say that?
Andrews: 2 useable acres .
IKoegler : Yeah , useable is probably a good term to put in there .
Jay Johnson: And we don 't want Outlots A and B .
IHoffman : Or C .
Koegler : Not for this purpose anyway .
IRobinson : Maybe we should talk about the location too . I think that was a
good point you made Mark . Right there by the apartments .
IHoffman: Okay . Is there a motion?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 28
Robinson: So moved .
Mady: Please state your motion .
Hoffman: Curt Robinson moved to require the developer to identify 2 to 3
acres of land in this area for park purposes with 2 acres of that area I
being useable for flat surface type of play structure as well to designate
the site of that land to be somewhere north of the vicinity of Outlot C to
accommodate the future development to the east .
Robinson: Couldn 't have said it better myself .
Andrews: I second that motion . That 's a good motion .
Mady : Can we add to the motion please?
Hoffman : Sure .
Mady : I 'd like to see us require the developer to rough grade .
Hoffman : Final grade . I
Mady: Well whatever . At least rough grade . I 'd like to see us talk about
dedication . Is this going to come back to us before we start talking about
dedication fees?
Robinson: Oh I 'm sure it would wouldn 't it? '
Mady: I want to make sure it does . We 're only talking about we 're only
going to get 2 to 3 acres of land . What I fear is we 're never going to see
this thing again . This is going to Council and the developer 's going to
slip three things through the Planning Commission and all of a sudden it 's
a 2 acre and half 'of it 's hill and goes onto the wetland like we got in I
Lake Susan Hills and all of a sudden what we thought we had , we don 't have
and now we 're saying well maybe we can get a ballfield if we kind of do it
this way .
Hoffman: Planning is concerned enough where once they .
Mady: They 've always been concerned but things seem to happen . I 've been
here long enough to know it .
Lash: Do you want to put about the trail easement in there or does that
have to be separate? '
Koegler : That should be in there too .
Mady: Yes . '
Lash: Did you want to add that Curt?
Robinson : Yes .
11
I '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 29
Mady : I 'd like to hear the motion again .
Erhart : Trail along Lyman?
Hoffman: The motion includes the developer to identify 2 to 3 acres of
land for park purposes with 2 acres of that to be useable somewhere in the
' vicinity of north of Outlot C to be accessible from the east for future
development and to maintain a 20 foot trail easement along the border of
Lyman Boulevard . That will be included in this plat .
' Lash: Do we want with the provision for access to the site from Lake View
Hills property? You did say that? Okay .
' Mady : Okay . Now we can call the question .
Robinson moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the plat for Lake Riley Hills be amended to include a 2 to 3
' acre neighborhood park site , with a minimum of 2 acres as useable to
accommodate an open field area , play structure and other park facilities in
the vicinity along the north side of Outlot C with the provision for access
' to the site from the Lakeview Hills property. Addition it is recommended
that a trail easement along Lyman Boulevard be secured to allow the
eventual construction of a trail to provide access to Bandimere Park . All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mady : And one last point of information , it 'd be really nice if we had at
least something to go by besides the verbage . I mean I don 't know what
' this thing looks like at all . I mean I don 't know if I should be asking
for trails along the streets . I don 't know nothing right now . We will be
seeing this again?
' Hoffman: Correct .
' Mady: I really didn 't feel comfortable voting on this tonight because
I just , I had no idea what the thing looked like .
DISCUSSION OF PARK PLAN OF OUTLOT_F, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST .
Koegler : I tell you , you 've been doing an excellent job tonight
introducing the next item by your comments on the previous item . This
' follows suit . This is kind of an update I guess of the status . This is
now known as Outlot D in their platting scheme . It was Outlot F under the
original Lake Susan Hills PUD that you looked at long ago . Probably
starting back in 1984-85 and we did a go around in 1987 which the
boundaries were different and there were some parameters that were
different at that time created a little thumbnail sketch as we called it of
how the park might work . We've been dealt a dose of reality in terms 'of
' what . . .actually look like . Some of the slope constraints and ponding
requirements and so forth look like and that changes the picture a little
bit . The park property boundaries now , you can kind of make out and go
' around here behind this tier of lots and back over . There 's the Willian 's
Pipeline that comes right through here . That 's what that easement is .
It 's shown right there across the back of these lots . The predominant flat
space on the site is right up in here . Of that , most of that is in pond .
' There are two drainage ponds . One in this area . One in this area that are
•
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 30
linked with a culvert . Both of them have a normal water level of about a
contour of 918 so they are anticipated to have water in them . They 're not
dry ponds . They certainly have a lot more capacity to handle storm water .
There 's an outlet pipe that comes down here and into this low area that
sits down in this area . In looking at it and comparing it what was
originally envisioned , realistically the site is wonderful for a sledding
hill . There 's great slopes on this site . There is room to accommodate
some tennis over in this area where it orignally was shown on the concept
plan . There 's room to come in with the typically small parking lot that
may handle 4 vehicles or whatever that chosen number might be . And then
back on this end of the site , there is room for what we 've identified as a I
playfield . We don 't want to call it a ballfield because the intent is
certainly not to ever have organized play there . The City may have just a
plain simple backstop for neighborhood kids to play in that area . All of I
that would be linked with some kind of a trail that probably would be a
turf trail as it came through here . Maybe a bituminous trail from the
parking lot getting down to the tennis court . The sliding hill opportunity'
really exists in this area . It also could occur over in this area and
given maybe some parking and so forth we 've shown on this particular site .
So the plan can be very much in conformance with the other sketch that was
done earlier except it will no long accommodate the numbers of facilities
that we looked at previously . Will not accommodate soccer . Will not
accommodate organized ballfields as a part of that . So this grading scheme
will work for the facilities that are shown on the board right now .
Mady: Can I step right here? Right off the hand here we are looking at ,
this development came in and we first looked at it , I believe it was '87 .
We were talking about 3 ,000 people in this development . At that time it
was a third of the City 's population . When the concept plan got drawn up
we had 2 ballfields and we had a soccer field , tennis , picnic area because
we knew we had a lot of people . Now I 'm looking at this thing , all this
land and it 's not going to do anything for us and I 'm really
disappointed . Somehow or other , when the developers got changed and
everything else happened , the ponds went in and the park went out and I 'm
really disappointed . I 'm totally dissatisfied with this developer and this I
development . We lost all our play area . He saw open area and decided to
put ponds and everything . Maybe that 's the way it has to be . Maybe it
isn't how it has to be but I 'm just totally dissatisfied with this whole
development right now because we really worked hard to make sure we had
enough park area in this thing 3 years ago . Now we don 't even come close
to the number of people that are anticipated to be in here .
Lash: I have a question . Is this the one that not too long ago the
developer was here and he wanted to change where , okay .
Mady: Yeah . Oh yeah .
Lash: I just wanted to know if we were talking about the same . '
Hoffman : . . .park and trail fees .
Schroers : We 're supposed to have 18 acres of parkland in this development I
aren 't we?
Mady: Yeah , it 's a PUD too . '
I . .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 31
•
Schroers : 17 acres? 17 or 18?
Hoffman: Yeah .
Mady: Up by the apartments , or multi-family rather . It 's just this was
going to be the main block of homes in this thing and all I 'm seeing is ,
' it 's great but it 's kind of telling me like we did up in Pheasant Hills .
We lost a lot of natural area and not a whole lot of play area and all of a
sudden that 's kind of what we got here . We got a lot of natural area and
we 've got a nice sliding hill but it 's going to be awful tough when you 've
got that many people up there and you want to get a pick-up game of
anything going and you don 't really have a place to put them . I 'm just
' really kind of disappointed with the whole thing .
Lash: Do you have shown on here a place for playground equipment
somewhere?
Koegler : No . There is room to accommodate that . Let me look because I
asked . I don 't think that got added to the drawing before it got shot
' down .
Pemrick: There 's a playfield up here .
' Lash : A playfield , that 's more for like a big open area .
Koegler : The intent was to have it in the vicinity of the parking and
' picnic and tennis . In this general area of the site . There is plenty of
room to accommodate that but we should add that to the plan .
' Lash : Okay , and then another question I have , where the sliding hill. is , I
mean obviously it 's a pretty steep grade so this turf trail that 's going to
be used , is this going to be like a real tough thing . . .
( There was a tape change at this point . )
Robinson : . . .so we 're really stuck with this , like it or not I guess .
Koegler : I think the biggest impact is that you really lose the potential
to do any kind of organized activities on this site which in all reality
' were probably going to be somewhat difficult to do anyway just because of
the penetration into the neighborhood and so forth . But you do lose some
of that useable open space that 's now ponding and so forth . That will have
to be accommodated at the other parks .
IISchroers: Were we just short sighted in regards to the ponding when we
were originally looking at this area? Did we not realize that it was going
' to require so much ponding? Is that what happened?
Hoffman : Since that time there 's been some redesign of this entire area .
The streets and that throughout the development , etc . so I 'm not sure what
I occurred in the interim there but we have been , since this original plan
was brought forth here , the whole street configuration has been switched
around in that area .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 32
Lash: I find that frustrating that you start out with what you think is a I
really nice plan and then the developer has the power or the opportunities
to switch it around to suit him the best and then we get stuck with
something that we feel is unacceptable and somehow it just happened and .
Mady: I don 't know if we still have the opportunity or not . I don 't know
where the development contract is with this thing but when this thing
changes as it has , my impression is it 's changed drastically , we 've lost a
lot of useable area . To me it tells me that if we forgave park fees in
this situation , we should get them back . It 's changed so much from what we
saw . Maybe the Council approved it and they liked it . I don 't like it . I'
don 't like it at all .
Robinson: Can we see the original?
Hoffman: On the back of your report .
Mady : What we envisioned . I mean we went out and walked this parcel . '
Jay Johnson : Where it should be softball fields , that 's still in the park
is it not? There 's just too much slope . It shows slope inbetween but the I
thing you had up there shows slope right on both of these fields are .
Mady : But there 's ponding in the bottom part . If water 's going to be at II
the 918 level , the 285 foot softball field 's half under water .
Koegler : The drainage pattern precludes that one and the soccer field .
Mady : Yeah , they 're both under water now .
Koegler : The street arrangement of Flamingo Drive changed a little bit and'
that other softball field was probably somewhat questionable to begin with .
Mady : Well we knew it was going to be low .
Schroers: We had anticipated a lot of grading .
Mady: Yeah , but what was going to be the ponding area is now a playfield . II
Everything that was large playfield is now ponding so it 's like we got a
little playfield up in the north side and we gave up all the play area in
the rest of the park . '
Lash: We had a sledding hill up in one corner which didn 't affect anyone
and now they have to walk up and down it to get from one part of the park
to another .
Mady: This has all changed .
Erhart : I think part of the problem was that we didn 't have a map that
showed the slopes on it .
Schroers : . . .require the developer to supply . . .water scheme . 1
Erhart: We didn 't have a map that showed the grade of the slopes .
.,
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 33
II Robinson: Well if this is drawn in proportion , this is a. lot different
than this .
IIMady: That 's because the street 's changed too .
Koegler : They 're not the same scale drawing .
II Lash: But why didn 't they , when they changed all that , why didn 't it have
to come back to us so we could look at it and decide if we were willing to
accept that?
IRobinson : Good question .
I Jay Johnson: Quite frankly , if you look at it , there wasn 't that big of a
change . You see where William 's Pipeline is? That used to be the edge of
the park . Okay? So it 's moved , those houses have moved in from . . .there
isn 't a scale on it but those have moved , we 've lost 20 foot on the side of
I the parkland . Maybe 30-40 foot along that pipeline . So if you look where
the one softball field could still sit over there . There 's no reasonable
way to get to it . The first plan to me , now that I see the topography in
Ithere , wouldn 't have worked anyway .
Mady : Well we knew it was going to be low . We were going to be low. but
1 the ponding was going to , I 'm going to use the term the active ponding
where water was actually going to be was up in the very north part of this
thing so everything was going to drain over to that . That 's the way the
whole thing got presented in the development . And developers have changed
Isince then and the wetlands have changed since then .
Jay Johnson : They decided to drain it downhill instead of uphill .
IIMady : Well I don 't know if that 's the case . They decided they were going
to put the water in the middle of the park . Back then it was feasible to
drain it that way .
11 Andrews: Have we still got a ballfield on the bottom of the sliding
hill? I mean it looks like .
IIMady : There 's going to be water down there .
I Koegler : Yeah , the drainage outlet is into that area now and realistically
it would be so soggy .
Mady : It 's wet to 9-8 feet .
IIJay Johnson: . . .clear through that area?
I Koegler : You might be able to do that . It becomes fairly remote from
everything also that way . It was before also .
' Andrews: We 're talking about 50 feet of grade . That 's about the only
piece of flat land we have any chance of doing anything with .
Hoffman : The north farthest most notherly part of the park is designated
ilas playfield .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 34 II
Andrews: But that 's even more remote really . There 's no way we could even,
try for any .
Mady: You 've got to remember , the rest of this whole western portion is
developed with homes too . II
Lash : How about up by the tennis courts here . That 's like a 20 foot drop
over . I 'm not real good at looking at these things and figuring it out but il
is that something we 'd be able to maybe to bring in?
Andrews : A 20 foot drop for about 230 feet . I
Lash: So that won 't work .
Schroers: I 'm not even sure why we 're discussing this . It seems like the I
contractors are in there . The grading is going on . I don 't know what
options we have at this point anyway .
II
Koegler : That 's why I indicated at the beginning that this is really to
update you on the status more than anything . That this is what can he
accommodated .
I
Erhart : In other words no action .
Robinson : Next item . I
Mady: I think Jan put it appropriately . We got hosed .
II
Jay Johnson : Remember it when they come in to develop the northern park .
Erhart : That 's a good point Jay . I
Mady : Thanks Mark .
Hoffman: What has taken place between the first time this came to you and II
now is a .
Mady : A lot of developers . I
Hoffman: Things have progressed in both the planning department and
engineering department .
Mady: We 've had 3 planners in that period of time and that 's what happens .
And a new Council so things change .
II
Hoffman: Lack of a person in the coordinator 's position in our department
so it 's easily understandable how things have happened .
Mady: So the City is poorer for it . Next item . II
.
I
II
. 1 '
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 35
IIPARK DEVELOPMENT UPDATE:
A. LAKE ANN PARK
I B . HERMAN FIELD PARK
C. CHANHASSEN HILLS PARK
D . CURRY FARMS PARK
I Hoffman: This is basically brought to ,you for your information just to
keep you up to date . We haven 't discussed as a group for a couple of
months and a lot of projects are ongoing and just to keep you abreast of
I the progress there . As Jim eluded to earlier , we do get daily phone calls
on Curry Farms , Chanhassen Hills , Lake Susan Hills West and we are going to
have a job to meet the demands of those neighborhood parks as those
II continue to develop within those lands that are currently there .
Lash: I have a question . On the Chan Hills Park one? So the new magic
marker lines are the new?
IIHoffman - That 's the new layout .
I Lash : Okay . Are we comfortable with the play area , that 's the playground
equipment , that close to the pond or is that something that we need to look
at? I don 't know if there 's any other options or not .
IHoffman : The pond originally was , they have dredged it out so there will
be water within the middle of it instead of muck and weeds so water . . . But
as you 're well aware , somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 feet from the
I edge of it as shown there . Again , this is just real rough . If you have
dire concerns on being located 100 feet from the edge of that holding pond ,
I would certainly look to move it on top of the hill which at that time be
I a little bit less convenient to the people walking through there . The
trail segment of the park and also taking into consideration the ballfield
and losing the safety aspect up there .
I Mady: The other option , you just put a 4 foot chainlink fence along that
edge or something .
I Lash: Okay . Well , you can 't tell from here how far it is from the pond
either .
IMady: It 's a good point .
Hoffman : The figures are rough . . .
I Lash: Well if you 're comfortable with it , that 's fine . I just wanted to
double check .
I Schroers: I don 't see that those ponds are much of a. threat anyway if it 's
not a maintained area because cattails and mosquitoes and all that aren 't
all that attractive .
IRobinson: Todd , the new grass at Lake Ann and the new fields . Are you
satisfied with the way they look at this time of year?
I
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 36 1
Hoffman: At this point I 'm fairly satisfied with what we 've had after the II
long struggle to get to where we 're at . Being seeded in basically the
middle of summer , we were fortunate enough to have fairly ideal weather
where in the past 2 years we would have just had nothing there so . The
fields are green . They 're growing . They 're patchy but they 're coming
along nicely .
Schroers: The infields are growing a nice crop of weeds . I
Robinson : We ' ll be able to use them next year?
Hoffman: We won 't be able to use them full force as a normal field but we II
will surely do some scheduling there . If there 's wet weather , we ' ll just
have to pull the games off of there so it will be a difficult schedule to
work with on those fields next year but . . .
Robinson: Good . It really looks nice out there .
Mady : A question I have Todd on Lake Ann Park . Two weekends ago I played II
in a softball tournament at. Round Lake Park . Eden Prairie
put a warning
track in along their fences and they 've got 280 fences out there and it 's all
very attractive park . It 's nice . Being an outfielder I understand the
problems when you don 't have a warning track . Lake Ann Park at 268 fence
lines , as an outfielder , fortunately in the over 35 league there aren 't
that many people putting it over the fence . But as an outfielder it 's
awful nice to know that when your feet tell you you 're within 8 feet of
that fence or what 's going to happen . You don 't always have the luxury of
being able to check back . And many of the players in our league aren 't
familiar enough with playing with fenced fields that they know how to go
back on a ball and find the fence . I 'm wondering if we may not , at least
if not this year , in the future be looking to coming in and strip the sod
out of there . Utilize it somewhere else and putting in ag lime in there to
give that warning track that we probably should be putting in . I think
from a liability standpoint and just from an aesthetics point of view for a
park that might be a good idea . ,
Hoffman: We 've discussed that in the past and again it 's one of those
in-house projects that we just need to take the time or the maintenance
staff and some dollars to install that . Again we want to look at if we 're II
setting a precedence to do it on the fields 1 , 2 and 3 which are currently
there . Is it necessary or is it then just a pre-requisite that we put it II in on the 3 new fields which are 300 foot fences and will play quite a big
differently than the shorter ones .
Andrews : I think from a liability standpoint , if you do it one field , II you 'd better do it on all because if somebody got injured on one that was
not fixed , you 'd be wide open for a lawsuit .
Mady: I think for future park reference , when we 're doing ballfields with '
fenced fields , we probably should just be doing it . I was probably remiss
in not pointing it out when we did approve the concept at Lake Ann the
first time around . Since we 've got Lake Susan to go , and then ultimately II
the new south park , we should probably just be doing that . It doesn 't
require any additional maintenance really to maintain a warning track so
it 's just something that is just smart development .
IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 37
Hoffman: Yeah , Dale Gregory did bring that up and discuss it with me as
' well in reference to the new fields at Lake Ann .
Mady: You know it 's not that difficult to strip the sod so it 's maybe
something we should be looking at .
Hoffman: Any comments , questions on the updates?
AMENDMENT OF 1990 PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF 1991
FEES .
Hoffman: Item number 10 . Taking a look at the current park fees . Some
changes which have occurred and then establishing new fees for the year
1991 . As Mark has spoken to earlier , this is a timely subject as well .
Looking to the shortfall in building permit revenues we 're having this year
' and looking to the future , just being uncertain on what will happen in
those cases . Again , it would normally be reviewed a little bit later in
the year but there was a recent challenge to this resolution which resulted.
in a passage of a resolution amending fees for commercial and industrial
properties . If you 've all read through that , as I eluded to , I tried to
briefly explain it . We have in the past discussed this and last time it
was discussed to amend the fees , we discussed it for 3 meetings at length
and so what I tried to do is be brief as possible yet explain it concisely .
If you have questions on my report , I would gladly address those at this
time and open it up for commission discussion on the report and on the
' future of park dedication fees and trail dedication fees within the city .
Erhart: So other communities charge 10% you 're saying and it 's taken out
Iat the time that we come in for a building permit?
Hoffman : Correct .
Lash: And Council just changed it to $1 ,200 .00 and acre?
Hoffman: Correct . The last time , before the last time the Commission
changed the fees , the commercial/industrial park fee was at $1 ,200 .00 per
acre for developments under $12 ,500 .00 per acre . Then the Commission
initiated or wherever the sliding scale portion of the fee resolution was
' initiated for industrial/commercial land over $12 ,500 .00 . Then it went to
a sliding scale . 10a of the total land cost which in the one instance
which was there was under an acre of land . .9 some acres of land for 140
some thousand dollars which results in park dedication fees of $14 ,000 .00
for less than an acre of land which is being used for a parking lot which
is not generating any more use and is exorbinate . So what they did was
just take out the sliding scale portion of it since it hadn 't really been
' used and proven in any other communities but it was discussed at length
there for those 3 meetings . It was thought at that time that it would work
but it is showing that it does not work so they just bumped it right down
to the original fee of the $1 ,200 .00 per acre until the commission could
' take a look at it and see what they would want to do with the fees for the
future .
Schroers: Todd can we ask , what are you using to justify the increase?
The rationale there .
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
August 21 , 1990 - Page 38
I
Hoffman: Okay . The 10% of raw land value or true land value is a factor
or a percentage which is being used in just about the entire metropolitan
area . In the past the commission has looked at a flat percentage between
the land cost for residential . Residential within the MUSA line .
Residential outside the MUSA lind . Industrial and commercial and taking
that and taking an average of all those land costs and basically what that II
figure , magic figure has been in the past is $10 ,500 .00 . That had
increased a little bit to $12 ,500 .00 so ' the 10% at that time was taken of
$12 ,500 .00 of the average so that 's where the $1 ,200 .00 for industrial fees
came about at that time . The other communities don 't do that . They take a'
look at if you 're paying , the industrial developments are paying higher
costs for their land , they should be paying a higher park fee . Paying
their share , their one time fee . They 're only paying that once . They
should be paying a higher share of the fees than the rest . Actually what II
you 're doing in taking that average is taking a little higher fees maybe
from the residential and then giving the industrial a break . Giving the
multi-family a break which really is representative of what is going on so ,
the $2 ,500 .00 per acre in the industrial land is based on a fair market
value which is at the low end for industrial land at $25 ,000 .00 per acre .
It 's increasing . At that rate currently it 's more up to the $30 ,000 .00
market at this time .
Mady: Todd , your costs for land costs . Do we get those from the County I
Appraiser this time?
Hoffman: Yes . The County Appraiser and basically just taking a look at
what 's been going on in industrial/commercial developments and residential II
developments within Chanhassen and Chaska . The County Assessor was taken
into consideration there . His figures were somewhat higher than this on
the industrial/commercial . Up over $30 ,000 .00 with $30 ,000 .00 per acre
being the low end of the figure .
Mady: Okay . I guess in looking at what we paid for the south park , what
we paid for Pheasant Hills , the residential number looks like it 's probably
reasonable in relation to those two items . The industrial number , my
feeling is it is low .
Hoffman: Currently at the $1 ,200 .00 per acre .
Mady: No , even at $25 ,000 .00 . I think it might be 20% low . I 'd feel
better at 30 . But I definitely agree with bumping the industrial up to at
least $2 ,500 .00 . I don 't have any problems with that . Did you do any
checking on what Eden Prairie 's is at right now? I
Hoffman: Eden Prairie 's industrial/commercial is up around $2 ,800 .00 .
Mady: I would want to be more than them but we should be close to them .
At $1 ,200 .00 we weren 't even approaching what we should be at so .
Hoffman: Basically what we 're looking at is , with these last two
developments which we originally tried to base the fee on the resolution
which was in place , it was exorbinate . It didn 't work so we did lose the
$2 ,500 .00 to $3 ,000 .00 to $5 ,000 .00 in the interim so what we want to do
now is correct that . Do it at a quick pace . Get this back to Council .
'Get it approved so all the new industrial development just coming in which
I
'Park ' and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 39
•
at some point very near in the future will begin to slow down . So we just
' get the fair share at this time . Again it 's just a one time fee . It 's
based per acre and they are generating the need which those dollars are
spent meeting .
Schroers: Well would you have a problem Todd asking for like $2 ,600 .00 or
$2 ,700 .00 as long as we stayed underneath Eden Prairie? Would it be worth
while to go for an extra $100 .00 or $200 .00 on it?
Hoffman: Again , with the recommendation at $2 ,500 .00 , it 's $100 .00 over
doubling currently . It is to our fault that we have been sitting or we had
to go back down to the $1 ,200 .00 . If we were currently at , oh say
$2 ,000 .00 , bumping it to $2 ,600 .00 may not appear to be so drastic . But
again moving any closer to say Plymouth , Eden Prairie , some of those
communities that are up around the $2 ,700 .00-$2 ,800 .00 mark , may be
premature at this time . $2 ,500 .00 may be a safer figure to go back to the
Council with to get approval on .
' Schroers : You 've got me sold .
Andrews : I was coming under the multi-family portion of the fee . I feel
that , I don 't see the sense to have a lower rate per unit for multi-family
' versus single family . I think that multi-family units are going to
generate much more use on our park facilities . I think that the rate
should be the same at the worse . Persons living in an apartment complex
' have no yard to play in themselves . They have to go to a park if they wish
to have any outdoor recreation facilities normally .
' Hoffman : Yeah , I strongly took a look at that because in my initial
figures they came out closer to the $500 .00 , about $480 .00 . Taking a look
back to any other communities , that would be setting a precedent . No other
community in the survey which I had , which included about 60% of the
' metropolitan communities had a fee which was the same as single family
residential . A number of them were this close to that . If you followed
the formula which I used to come up with that $440 .00 per unit , you can
' take a look back at what is used for single family and you just can 't do
that because there are so many more units , so many more people packed in
there per acre that we can 't take a look at it per acre . So what we fall
' back on is the commission 's and the department 's 75 people per acre of
parkland and that is the method which was used to generate this fee and
then the persons per unit which is fairly standard so that $440 .00 is
defendable where if we just arbitrarily say that obviously you don 't have a
yard . They 're out there using parks , which is very true by the way . That
was discussed as well in coming up with these figures , but again we needed
to have something to back it up . Back those types of thinking up with .
Mady: If there 's not any other discussion , I ' ll make a motion that we
recommend to City Council that they accept the 1991 park and trail
dedication fees in line with staff 's recommendation on their report dated
IAugust 16 , 1990 .
Andrews: Can I add to that? That we bring this up for review of these
Iagain next year .
Mady: We do every year . Every year this is one the things we do .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 40
I
Andrews: Okay .
Robinson: I second that .
Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend the following park dedication fees for 1991 . Keep the current
residential single family/duplex park dedication fee at $500 .00 per unit 11 and raise commercial/industrial to $2,500.00 per acre and multi-family to
$440.00 per unit . It is further recommended to discontinue the sliding
scale method of determining fees for both commercial , industrial and
residential developments and to continue reviewing fees on an annual basis.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VEHICLE PARKING AT BANDIMERE HEIGHTS PARK .
Hoffman : Some of you may recall that have been around on the commission
for a while that this has been a reoccurring issue . We 've always talked
that eventually someday down the line we ' ll be able to pull that soccer
field out of there . We won 't need to use it because we 'll have other
facilities to fall back on .
Mady: 20 years from now .
Robinson: It 's a lousy little soccer field anyway . ,
Mady: But it sure saves us .
Hoffman: As we 've painfully aware , that has not occurred and probably will
not occur in the near future . Meaning probably 5 to 7 years . So really
what we 're taking a look at , if the soccer groups definitely have the
interest . They need the facilities . They may not be that interested in
labeling this the ideal location but nevertheless they certainly .would like
to use the fields that they do have . So what we 're faced with is just
coming up with some sort of solution to appease the neighborhood there .
Not only appease the neighborhood but come up with a safe solution so we
don 't at some point occur , run into some problem down the road . Public 11 safety vehicles not being able to access that or even people drive home
being able to access their homes . . . Again , I 'm glad Jay is here . I would
like to just ask for some comments from Jay at this time . I 've never first
hand been down there during one of the soccer events . Some of the I
neighbors call me and say yeah , the cars are parked for a block and a half
on both sides of the road and it 's difficult to get through so if Jay has
some comments on what does occur . What he has experienced down there .
Jay Johnson: The soccer club plays are under 10 teams . Last year was the
first year we had an under 10 team . Previously we used it as a practice
field for the other teams before the regular fields . In 1989 we had our
first under 10 team . In 1990 we have two . We 're predicting three under 10
teams next year which means we 're going to need another one of these fields
because we play on a 50 yard by 70 yard field here . . . .supposed to be a
fairly decent field . They 're supposed to be grading it right now .
Regarding it . Reseeding it . To say that it 's dangerous to have cars back
•
1
Park . and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 41
out onto the street , we 've got that already . I mean at the beginning and
' end of the games , the cars are doing everything . Mostly they park two
wheels on the road and two wheels off the road on both sides of the street
when we have a game there . And I usually , when I pull in , I pull in all
the way perpendicular park all the way in because I 'm usually first there
' and last to leave . I set the fields up and then I ref the game and then I
leave after everybody else and then people usually park behind me . And
then people are doing U turns in the middle of the street and everything as
' is . If you had perpendicular parking where you just made the thing and
pulled straight in facing the park and then back out onto the street , you 'd
probably be as good if not a better situation than you have now
Schroers: Just make temporary parking right on the edge of the field?
Jay Johnson: Yeah . But if it 's raining , you can 't do that .
' Robinson : How many households are beyond the park on both sides?
' Jay Johnson: 4 on the right and 2 on the left .
Pemrick: There are about 5 .
Jay Johnson: On the east side you can 't do much . You 've got about 3-4
foot and then it drops . You 've got a drop off so the cars that park on
that side don 't get very far off the road . I think you could make a lot on
' the west side by just expanding the street or just drop gravel in there
behind the asphalt curb fur whatever it takes and just have a gravel patch
that people would just pull onto and park in . And then true , they are
backing out onto the street but then no parking on the other side of the
street .
Robinson: I mean you 're talking a dead end street .
Jay Johnson: And they only play 1 night a week . Only Monday nights
because under 10 's are only allowed to play 1 game a week . They do come
' down and practice 1 night a week but then you 've got half the cars and a
lot of the kids do car pooling , you may only have 7-8 cars when they come
down to practice .
' Schroers: Jay , would head in parking there , is there enough room to
accommodate the cars that need to go there for the time being?
' Pemrick: No .
Jay Johnson: If you parked the entire length of that straight in?
' Schroers: Yeah .
Jay Johnson: Probably .
Schroers: And why does there have to be gravel? Why can 't it just be on
the grass?
•
Jay Johnson: If you have a year like this year .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 42
I
• Schroers: Is it very wet there? That 's what I 'm asking .
Jay Johnson: Well I took a shovel when I dug a drainage ditch through ,
there this year in order to drain the fields one Saturday afternoon so we
could play on the fields . We have real bad drainage problems . We started
getting wetland , in fact we had aquatic animals in the mud and stuff in thell
middle of the field . If we left it much longer it would be designated as a
wetland .
Pemrick: I had calls from neighbors . I 'm the very last house on that
street off the dead end and I 've had times trying to get through and you 're
almost clipping people 's rear view mirrors . Now that 's how close some of
the cars are .
Jay Johnson: The ladder truck 's not going to make it through there .
Pemrick : My neighbor 's a paramedic and he 's called me a couple times and I
he 's said .I could not get an ambulance through there or a fire truck and a
couple of people that live beyond that point do have heart problems and it
could be very serious . The thing that I think is really irritating people 11
is that they 're parking on their lawns . The cars are actually parking on
these people 's lawns and then they dig up grass when they try to move out
and leave and it 's just not suitable so I think everyone would be pleased I
if they 'd all just park perpendicular on the field and be told , stay off
the yards and give room for vehicles to get through .
Jay Johnson: The worse situation we had this summer , there was a party ,
going on at the top of the hill before you go down to the park and the
people were parking both sides of the street , all 4 wheels on . I had
trouble getting my Plymouth Horizon through . We had a game that night so
we had people coming in in vans and everything else .
Schroers : Well it doesn 't seem like there are many options . Do you need 11
some kind of action on this Todd? A recommendation .
Mady : Public Safety has to review the no parking issue correct?
Hoffman: Yes .
Mady: And you 're only talking about the soccer league . This has nothing ,
to do with the CAA soccer in the fall?
Jay Johnson: No . We were thinking about using this field for CAA soccer
this fall but being the CAA soccer commissioner too , besides being on the
soccer club , knowing that they 're reseeding it , we 're going to Meadow Green
Park . We 're going to play at Meadow Greens instead .
Mady: Is there room Jay to put the under 10 's in like North Lotus?
Jay Johnson : The under 12 's play at North Lotus opposite nights from
Little League . Little. League has it Tuesdays , Thursdays and we have it
Monday and Wednesdays for the boys and girls under 12 .
Schroers: Why don 't you guys just forget soccer and play Little League? 1
I
Park .and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 43
I
Mady: Wendy , has the neighbors indicated a preference on the side of the
street because obviously if we put no parking signs up , it precludes
parties and things of that nature . Families come to visit and all this
type of stuff .
' Andrews: The east side is lake .
Pemrick: But you can park beyond that . They park beyond that .
Mady: This isn 't going to solve the whole problem . If you 've got a block
and a half worth of cars , you 're going to maybe fit 20 cars in here but
you 're still going to have some on the street .
Hoffman : Some of those residents probably remember back when it was all no
parking due to Prince 's residing there so it 's a revolving door this issue .
Schroers : Do you think by hauling in some ag lime in there and just the
portion closest to the road , bring it in deep enough , 20 feet or whatever
' you need , would that be the solution?
Mady : Maybe some bollards too .
' Hoffman : Again , we 're talking about money again .
Schroers : See the thing is , if it 's too soggy or too soft underneath , just
' dumping ag lime isn 't going to help anything because all you 're going to do
is drive on it and it 's going to sink down into the mud .
Jay Johnson : Well I don 't know what the base is like there . The road
seems to be holding up .
Robinson : Yeah , I don 't think it 's that bad .
Jay Johnson: You know we had a lot of rain this year .
Pemrick: But it does get wet in there .
Mady: That 's where the water is meant to stand though too because the park
drains toward the street and the street drains into there so it 's kind of a
ditch there . It 's not real deep but it does .
Jay Johnson : It 's about 6 inches deep now .
' Mady: Maybe we need a culvert under the road directing it to that outlot .
' Jay Johnson : There is a culvert under the road .
Mady: What we should have done maybe Jay , right after we bought the land
on top of the hill , we should have bought that large parcel next to the
lake and put a parking lot in there .
Schroers : If we recommend putting ag lime in there , who pays for it? Do
we have funds for that and is that a reasonable solution to this problem?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 -- Page 44
Hoffman: Again , as Jim eluded to , later any additional expenditures at
this time are scarce to come by but ag lime to solve a , or potentially
solve a problem here is going to be something that we can come up with .
Again you notice that. I did not make a recommendation because I do not
think there is an all in one solution here . There 's potential to shuffle
the problems and the opinions around . If we pull off parking , a gravel lot'
there , sign the opposite side of the street or the lake side of the street
no parking . Go a block up one way , a block up the other way . If we enter
into somebody 's yard , they may be opposed to that no parking sign because '
it 's in front of their yard but they may want it there because there won 't
be any soccer players parking there .
Schroers: Is there a car pooling option? Are there a couple of parents ,
that own a van that can .
Erhart : They can park at the Bandimere Farm and then just drive them in?
Lash : Is there an option of putting the no parking signs up during the
soccer season so they don 't have to suffer with those restrictions all year
round .
Jay Johnson: That 'd be Monday nights .
Mady: Well yeah it 'd be Monday night but ultimately within 2 years that
field 's going to have to be used for soccer . I mean this problem 's not
going to go away . We 're not going to be developing the south park for a
number of years . We 're going to be using this thing and we do play kids
soccer there 2 nights a week .
Lash : I 'm just saying for the months . If it 's like July and August or
whatever for those two months .
Mady : You 're talking about summer and fall .
Jay Johnson: We start in April and go to August .
Mady: For summer and then the fall one goes until November . '
Lash: Oh it does?
Jay Johnson: But we don 't play there in the fall . We 've never played
there in the fall .
Hoffman: Currently we don 't . '
Mady: My daughter played there . Girls soccer played down at Kiowa for 2
years . I coached down there .
Jay Johnson: That was before I was involved with the CAA then .
Mady : Yeah , that was the CAA .
Hoffman: Fall soccer may go down there again . '
11
°Park' and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 45
Mady: We simply have a field shortage so what we need to do is find a
solution and we 're not talking about 1 or 2 years . We 're literally talking
about more years because the City 's growing and our parks aren 't as fast as
we need to so whatever we do , I think we 're going to have to bite the
bullet and put ag lime down here . I don 't think we 've got the money for
' probably bollards .
Schroers: The entire distance across the frontage , like 20 feet in .
Jay Johnson : Have engineering look at it .
Lash: It can go in next year when we have our new budget so if we try to
put the money in our budget .
Mady : Well next year 's budget is going to be lower than this year .
' Robinson : We don 't need it this year I don 't think because it 's done .
Lash : It 's done now .
Jay Johnson : It 's over with .
' Hoffman: Yeah , but it would probably be wise , it be the work schedule of
the park maintenance crew this fall . They can work these types of . . .
' Mady: Actually it 's the street crew that dumps .
Hoffman : . . .all the way up into November whereas in the spring they 're
' very , very busy and rushed so we 'll have that installed this fall . Again ,
it 's a minimal cost item . If we do some signage , park up to signs or
something of that nature and then discuss the no parking signs on the
opposite side of the street with the Public Safety Commission . Have those
installed . I think Jan 's comment about possibly having them removed is an
idea but again , taking up and putting down signs every 6 months for every
year just creates more hassle in the area .
Mady: It 's confusing for the residents too .
Lash: Or if the sign said no parking April thru November or something . We
' have some of those that say that anyway don 't we?
Jay Johnson: See a lot of times when people park down there , they 're maybe
half a car 's length between cars . It 's a very inefficient way . The first
person gets there . I mean there 's been places where I 've wanted to get my
little Horizon in and stuff because I figure I could probably fit in there
' and then I just went and took a different spot .
Pemrick: How many cars Jay do you think we could fit there perpendicular?
IIJay Johnson: Perpendicular? 30 .
Andrews: That should be enough for , are there 2 fields there?
IIJay Johnson: There 's only 1 field there .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 46
t
Robinson: It 's 175 feet it says .
Andrews: That should be plenty . I
Mady: That 's 17 cars .
( Everyone was talking at the same time at this point . )
Jay Johnson: There 's very rarely that we have 2 games . 3 times a year we II
have double headers there . We 'd like to have it more often because it 's
the best .
Schroers : Todd , did you pull one together?
Hoffman: Yep . There 's a motion on the floor to install Class V aggregate
along the frontage of Bandimere Park at a width of approximately 20 feet in
consultation with the engineering and park maintenance division to
accommodate pull in parking during the soccer season and to consult the
Public Safety Commission for the installation of the no parking signs on
the east side of the street .
Robinson : Second .
Hoffman: Who made the motion?
Mady: He made the motion . I seconded it . Any further discussion? ,
Robinson: I 'd just like to see this brought back before us either late
this fall or early next spring to make sure that it 's been accomplished .
Mady: Wendy lives there . She 'll tell us .
Andrews : Have they started the new grading there Wendy? I
Pemrick: Yes . They brought in dirt and they 've been spreading it out .
Schroers moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
pursue installing Class V aggregate along the frontage of Bandimere Heights
Park at a width of approximately 20 feet in consultation with the
engineering and park maintenance division to accommodate pull in parking
during the soccer season and to consult the Public Safety Commission for
the installation of the no parking signs on the east side of Kiowa Trail .
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I
REQUEST FROM MCGLYNN'S BAKERIES FOR COMPANY PICNIC AT LAKE ANN.
Hoffman: Again , as I stated there , just since this is somewhat unusual ,
because of the magnitude of the .persons employed with McGlynn 's , I just
brought it forth for the Commission even though I think it is only
appropriate as a large firm and business within the community which has
treated us well that we do the same for them . But just to discuss some
ideas about the potential conflicts . I think we can basically handle it .
Obviously we won 't schedule other picnics , softball tournaments and those II
types of things . Inform the life guards and all of those necessary
precautions but just an item of interest for you .
11
IIPark 'and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 47
Lash : Do you get to collect a fee for this?
IHoffman : Sure .
ILash: Like how much?
Hoffman : The fee is for reservation picnics in the park , we collect a
II $2 .00 per vehicle as they enter so they either pay individually or the
majority of the companies provide them with a picnic card or a picnic pass
which we collect and then bill the company for .
ILash : There 's no other fee?
Hoffman: There is a $100 .00 damage deposit to ensure that litter is picked
Iup , Things are not damaged . . .responsibilities .
Mady : This damage deposit may need to be , and not just for McGlynn 's , I
II think it should be maybe a minimum of $100 .00 and it 's based on the number
of people anticipated .
Lash: Will they be requesting any additional services from the City like
IIadditional tables or additional Satellites or any of this kind of thing?
Hoffman: Basically they would need additional tables in the area which
II they are using which currently we do for a larger picnic . That morning ,
the time before they mow they just push the picnic tables up there as they
mow . Additional Satellites , those types of things , we would need to
I address at that time if they felt it was necessary . We could charge them
for them . Other than that they would have it catered and take care of those
things on their own .
IIMady: Do you need a motion or was that just an update?
Hoffman : Just an update .
1 ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION..
Hoffman: Administrative Section , any questions? Comments? You received
I one addition to the Adminstrative Section . Those two pages there . Just to
confirm the purchase of the parkland in the Pheasant Hills area . Also to
confirm the meeting schedule for the rest of 1990 and the rotating chair .
1 Any questions?
Mady: It 's not really , on your letter or actually it 's Dennis Unger 's
I letter on the city trail easement on Chan Hills Park . The one for Kellee
Lowdermilk . I thought that was Curt Lowdermilk or is his name
different? His legal name different? I 'm positive , when we discussed that
thing , everybody kept saying that 's Curt Lowdermilk . His wife 's an
II attorney and that 's how this whole thing came about so that one hit me as
funny .
IlHoffman: Robert? Curt?
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
August 21 , 1990 - Page 48
Mady: Whatever , yeah . I brought up the deal on the warnin g tracks . On
Lake Susan Hills Park , is that something we can do when we put it in?
Since that 's going to be a baseball field , it probably should be . I don 't II
know if it 's in the plan . I don 't remember that specific but it 's
something we should probably address right away because that 's going to be
a fence and a baseball field , it should just be that way . I
Hoffman: . . .we talked about earlier and pre-construction meeting was just
held on Lake Susan Park on Monday . You should start seeing earth moved
down there on Thursday-Friday of this week .
II
Mady : Great . Because I 'm real anxious to see that is a nice location .
Couple of things . How long do we have Jerry as an intern?
I
Hoffman : Potentially now extended through the end of the year .
Mady : Great . I was concerned since we 're short staff . Jerry helps out a II
ton . Thanks Jerry . Since basically Todd had to assume most of Lori 's
responsibilities , we 've lost our recreational person and you 're it guy .
IIHoffman : He knows it .
Mady: We appreciate it . I
Schroers: There was a lot of very positive feedback in regards to the
tournament this weekend also . It was well run . Everybody had a good
I
time . It was a good tournament and so .
Mady : His team won that 's why . Our team lost 2 games and I thought it was
a terrible tournament Larry . We played the worse ball we have all year .
We won 't talk about the umpiring we had .
Andrews: One question for you . I don 't know if you 're aware of it or
maybe the City did it . One volleyball net is missing from North Lotus Lake .
I don 't know if one of the neighbors just needed one or what . The other
thing I wanted to say was that the Chanhassen 4th of July event this year I
was really great . It was a lot of fun to work there and it was really fun
so .
Lash: Todd was wonderful at bringing us water on the verge of passing
II
out . I had something I wanted to ask . I don 't know if this is a
possibility but somebody suggested this to me the other day . I thought it
was kind of a neat idea and it could be a nightmare for you , I don 't know 1
but I 'll just bounce it off you and see what you think . A lady expressed
an interest , she thought it would be a really neat idea if the City or
someone could try to coordinate a skate exchange .
II
Mady: The Hockey Association does their own . I think it 's a nightmare .
That 's why most of the skating stores that sell skates have pretty much
stopped doing it . You have the potential liability of a disease through
the skates . It is a nightmare . That 's why you 've kind of seen everybody
go through . It 's a nice idea but it just .
Lash: I thought it would be great . I mean I sit with the skates my kids II
outgrow and each year I have to go buy new ones .
II
Park' and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 49
I
Mady : At $150 .00 a pair for hockey skates .
' Lash: Well no . I just sold them at a garage sale and this lady said you
know we should have a skate exchange and then people could just bring a
' pair of skates and get a pair of skates .
Hoffman : I 've had that question raised before and I 've sent them either
to , I know the Waconia Hardware Hank has a skate exchange where you can
bring your old skates in there and then either buy new ones or sharpened
used ones . I 've thought about some larger departments which have a little
nicer facilities do have skate rental . You have that option as well would
be probably not a failure but more a lot of work for what you would
accomplish in that short month and a half , 2 month skating period . The
Hockey Association does their , for that group they do their equipment
exchange type of thing which I have received in the past . I 've referred to
the hardware store which do that . They advertise that during that time of
the year anyway . There 's one in Excelsior . A little farther north .
' Lash : Maybe even in one of our winter brochure , fall and winter brochure
something . Even list something and say some of the places where people
could do it . I mean I would have no idea where to do that .
Mady : Find a room and say okay , if you want to exchange something , bring
them in and leave them and come back in a. week and take whatever you want .
Find somebody 's garage .
Jay Johnson : You could run a special want ad section just for skates at
some time of the year- .
Robinson: Todd , I noticed there was a small discussion , a short discussion
last meeting about the acting chair . The reason I declined tonight was
because I 've changed my opinion on that . I was in favor of that in the
past . Based on our joint meeting with the City Council in May I believe it
was , the Mayor sounded like he was opposed to that and I would agree with
' him .
Hoffman: I 'll take you off . Okay .
' Lash : Did we talk at the last meeting about maybe , did we just decided to
wait until the end of the year and discuss it?
' Mady : The rules are in place for the meetings as they were voted on
earlier in the year . They would have to be amended to do that .
' Hoffman : Last time it was discussed Jim , Curt , Jim and Larry were
interested in maintaining that schedule .
Mady : I don 't see a reason to change it now since there are only maybe 4
meetings left in the year . Depending on when reappointments are done ,
I may not even be here in November so . One last question , unless somebody
else has anything . DataSery fields . With the new road going in , did we
11 lose or maybe we 've lost the use of them anyway because of DataSery but did
we lose a field there?
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 21 , 1990 - Page 50
Hoffman: Basically the Field 1 was not used this year because of that
road . Ideally we would like to just dissolve the use of those fields next
year and pick up the slack on the new fields at Lake Ann . It 's a less than
ideal circumstance . We have to send crews over there to try to maintain ,
sketchily maintain . Try to keep them above being terrible in order to use
them . We do not own them . We do not have any interest in putting a whole
lot of dollars in there so as quickly as we can , it 's been great that they
let us use them but as quickly as we can not use those fields any longer ,
the better . So possibly what we 're looking to next year is just not to
schedule it at DataSery and to pick up the slack in the new fields at Lake II
Ann .
Mady: Thanks . Any further discussions?
Andrews moved, Schroers seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. .
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Recreation Supervisor
Prepared by Nann Opheim
•
•
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
r ` I
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 9, 1990
' PRESENT: Dave Dummer , Bill Berhnjelm, Barb Klick, Brian Beniek,
Craig Blechta, Bill Boyt
' STAFF PRESENT: Scott Harr , Acting Public Safety Director
Dale Gregory, Fire Chief
The meeting was called ' to order at 7 p.m.
Barb motioned, Craig seconded to approve the 7/12 and 7/24
' minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion passed.
No visitor presentations .
' FIRE DEPARTMENT: Dale mentioned the commendation his department
received from the State Patrol for their assistance with the
head-on accident on Hwy 212 . Brian stated the aerial ladder will
' be the 2nd truck out on structure fires .
CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF ' S DEPARTMENT: Sgt . VanDenBroeke discussed
' the ongoing complaints received on speed, noise and weights on
the be4lly dump trucks hauling in the southern Chanhassen area .
The County has been assisted by the State Patrol with . coverage.
Discussion followed of future problems with the Hiway 101 and
' Pioneer Trail intersection.
Brian Beniek mentioned the problems with kids playing hide & seek
' with CB radios during the evening hours - resulting in speeding
and going through stop signs mostly in the Laredo area. The
County is aware of the problem.
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT: Scott mentioned the resignation of
Building Inspector Mark Cooney and the interviviews , recommen-
dation for the replacement .
' Scott also mentioned the reduced heating permit fee schedule to
go on the consent agenda for the City Council meeting of 8/13 .
' Lake Restoration has treated Lake Minnewashta for milfoil in the
amount of $12 , 000 - $15 , 000.
' A letter with radon information has been sent to all residents
who expressed an interest in the program. Through the Mayor ' s
efforts , test kits were available for residents to order .
' Scott expressed his thanks to all people who called, visited and
gave their support to him during the transition after Jim Chaffee
' left .
I
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 9, 1990
PAGE 2
NEW BUSINESS '
Scott discussed the letter of commitment and resolution for the
Southwest Metro Drug Task Force going before the City council
meeting on August 13 .
The City Council has directed the CSO' s to patrol the Chanhassen '
lakes concerning the jet ski issue. Scott explained the liabil-
ity problems possible with this situation. Scott wold like to
have Chanhassen support the state legislature ' s efforts in this
area. He would like to see a representative from the State at a
future meeting. Bill Boyt explained the Council ' s intent on
asking for the CSO' s help. Craig mentioned the need to educate
the citizens and let them know someone is watching their activi-
ties on the lakes .
Scott asked the Commission for their support in issuing no excep-
tions to the shooting permits in the no shooting areas . He will
put this item on the next agenda for the Public Safety Com-
mission' s recommendation to change the ordinance. Scott will 111 talk to the City Manager and the City Attorney for their appro-
val . Scott will be attending a meeting with the State Patrol ,
Capt . Pagelkopf and Steve Walter from the DNR to discuss the
upcoming goose hunt .
Barb Klick asked about the civil defense siren in the City and
would like to have this issue on a future agenda for discussion. ,
Scott discussed the organizational chart of the Public Safety
Department and his proposed time line for the reappointment of
the Public Safety Director . Dave Dummer asked about the City
Manager ' s role in the reorganization and Bill Boyt explained that
the City Manager directs staff , but asks for City Council input .
Scott mentioned the need for a part-time code enforcement person
to assist with the complaints . Discussion followed from Barb
Klick, Bill Bernhjelm and Dave Dummer . Bill Bernhjelm stated
that the City has lost a day (8 hours) of a full-time police per-
son with Jim Chaffee ' s resignation.
Bill Boyt discussed what the City must ask itself - what police
levels do we need, monetary/coverage issues , contract or city
police. The residents need to be educated as to the cost of a
city police department vs . contract . A public input meeting
could be planned for 1991 .
1
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 9, 1990
PAGE 3
A mission statement of goals and tasks of the Public Safety
Department should be prepared by the Commission and Staff .
Barb motioned, Craig seconded, for Scott to submit the budget-
with the usual increases and to approach Don Ashworth for
temporary personnel as needed. All voted in favor and the motion
passed.
•
Craig motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to adjourn the meeting at
1 10: 30 p.m.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1