1p. Minutes 7 45
11 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL `�
REGULAR MEETING
IF- JUNE 27, 1988
II Acting Mayor Geving called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with
the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Johnson
IIand Acting Mayor Geving
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara
IIDacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee
II APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to
approve the agenda as amended with moving item 11, Preliminary Plat Extension
for Sever Peterson to item 1(r) on the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
I
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Boyt moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve
I the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
Ia. Final Plat Approval, Colony Point.
b. Final Plat Approval, Minnewashta Meadows.
d. Resolution #88-61: Approve Resolution Authorizing Execution of Public
Service Agreement for South Shore Senior Center.
If. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-714 to Permit Retail Garden Centers
as a Conditional Use in the BH, Business Highway District, Final Reading.
g. Curry Farms, Second Addition:
II1. Approval of Plans and Specifications.
Ii. Approval of Development Contract, Lake Susan Hills West.
m. Approval of Temporary Three Day Beer License, Chanhassen Rotary.
Io. Resolution #88-62: Revised Assessment Hearing Date for Trunk Sanitary
Sewer Project #86-13.
IIp. Approval of Accounts Payable.
q. City Council Minutes dated May 31, 1988
II City Council Minutes dated June 6, 1988
City Council Minutes dated June 13, 1988
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 14, 1988
ILr. Preliminary Plat Extension, Sever Peterson.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
1
II
4 .
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 r
CONSENT AGENDA: (C) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, HERITAGE SQUARE ADDITION.
Councilman Boyt: In the conditions of approval, I would like to see item 4
changed. It currently reads, detailed facia, signage. I would like to see I
lighting and sound proofing. That basically collapses 6 into 4 and adds sound
proofing which we discussed in some detail and I was surprised to not find it in
the conditions. I
Barbara Dacy: Number 6 is lighting. That has to be submitted to staff.
Councilman Boyt: That's why I moved it to 4. I just thought we might as well 1
make them all. Sound proofing is my real issue. I don't really care how we
handle lighting. It seems like it's already covered but as long as they were
looking at everything else they can include that. I
Acting Mayor Geving: Any other comments on item 1(c)? We are deleting condition
6 and moving condition 6 to amend condition 4 to include lighting and sound II proofing.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the final plat for I
Heritage Square Addition with the change of deleting condition 6 and amending
condition 4 to include lighting and sound proofing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
II
CONSENT AGENDA: (E) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1255 2(A)
AND 2(C) TO PERMIT LARGER ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRED 4
SQUARE FEET, DATASERV, FINAL READING.
Councilman Johnson: I simply pulled this off so I could vote against it. You
II
can't vote against it in the middle there. I'm just against going from 4 square
foot to 12 square foot. It's just too big of a jump and I thought the 9 square
foot or some other compromise was a little better off than what we're doing. I
Councilman Boyt: As long as we're discussing this, I thought that one of the
concerns of a 40 acre piece of property was that however big the sign was, it
could be bigger because it was less visible. Yet I see nothing in here that
II
indicates that their 12 square foot sign is back on the property.
Councilman Johnson: That wasn't the vote. The vote was just give them 12
II
square foot.
Councilman Boyt: So my question is, on the one hand is it appropriate to amend II this at this stage? That's one question Roger.
Roger Knutson: I believe the answer is yes. It takes a four-fifths vote.
Councilman Boyt: Well, we can't amend it if we wanted to then. It's not going II
to pass tonight.
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
[E!'
Acting Mayor Geving: Are you opposed to the amendment? I
2
, . _
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 47
Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest two things. One, that we change this
so that it indicates the signs have to be a certain, if they're going to be 12
square feet, they have to be a certain distance into the property to take
advantage of the 40 acre size. Two, I would suggest that we table this because
if we vote against it, it has to start all over and if we table it we have a
' chance.
Acting Mayor Geving: Would you offer a compromise Bill, on how far you recommend
into the property this sign would sit on the 40 acres? Do you have any thoughts
on how you might improve this so you could send it back to staff?
Councilman Boyt: What we were discussing was the apparent size of the sign to
' people who passed by say for instance on TH 5 and how they have a nice sign with
their logo and name on it up there now and I think that would be detracted from.
I would suggest a ballpark of a couple hundred feet.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Do you have any staff input on this Barbara?
Barbara Dacy: Maybe we should, if the Council is going to table the item, maybe
' staff should investigate that a little further because I think typically what
you could expect is a lot of these directional signs are placed at driveway
entrance from the public street right into the site. For example, the McGlynn
I site I can envision some type of directory sign right at one of the entrances so
the setback may cause some problems and we may have to incur some additional
headaches in the picture of who chose 100? Who chose 200 and what did you base
it on?
14—
Acting Mayor Geving: Would
you be satisfied Bill if we tabled this item,
directed staff to go back and give us input?
' Councilman Boyt: Sure.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Your only objection is that one point whereas Jay is
strictly opposed to the amendment for the 12 foot.
Councilman Johnson: I suggested several things last time which none of them
came through. One of them was just what Bill was suggesting. A 4 square feet
per so close to the road and further back you have different sizes on a
graduating scale. The other one was that you can only have the larger signs for
multiple facilities so if you've got a McGlynn's and CPT and 3 or 4 different
facilities that you need a larger sign for but you've only got one facility with
one dock and stuff, staff proved that the 4 square foot sign is adequate. If
it's a multi-establishment facility of greater than 40 acres, I don't have a
problem with the 12 foot sign but carte blanche, 12 foot I've got a problem
with. I'll move to table this thing.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to Amend Section 20-1255 2(a) and 2(c) to permit larger on-premise
directional signs and to direct staff to come back with a compromise on the
setback of the sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
3
"' ity Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Councilman Horn: My only comment is I agree with Barb. I don't think it's
reasonable to have an entrance sign sticking way in the back of the property.
It defeats the whole purpose of it. That suggestion won't work.
Councilman Johnson: However it would have worked at this site that the
applicant had.
CONSENT AGENDA: (G-2) CURRY FARMS, SECOND ADDITION. GRADING EROS '
PLAN APPROVAL. GRADING/EROSION CONTROL
Councilman Johnson: I really don't have a lot of problems with the Grading and
Erosion control plan. I had a discussion with the Remmers today. They're
getting real close and Curry Farm folks are compromising and they've come very
close to an agreement between them, just so everybody knows what's happening
here because this is one of our last swipes at it. I think that Curry Farms,
the folks, Centex worked with them. I actually feel they're asking for a little
much when they want sod installed on their back 25 foot. I suggested that they
get seed but I just want to encourage Centex to continue working with than and
that we are watching that. I guess they do still have an easement that Centex
needs to acquire. I'll move that we approve item 1(g) (2) . I just wanted to
make a statement about the Remner's.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'll second your motion.
Councilman Boyt: ,
yt: I have a question. One, I think we should specify Type II
erosion control and not just erosion control but the best.
Acting Mayor Geving: Under what condition is that?
Councilman Boyt: That would be under condition 3. Let me make one other '
comment because it's related to this. Maybe it's covered in the development
contract but are we now setting up this situation where the City is responsible
for removal of all erosion control? So even though that's not on here that's
s
Gary Warren: It's in the general conditions. I just want to make a note that
haybales are getting more and more scarce, as you may be aware of the farmers
trying to get bales for feeding dairy cattle and such. Wye been trying to be
a little bit more lenient. Maybe going with a double deck of silt fence when we
can't get the haybales. We'll get the bales when we can. '
Councilman Boyt: How about Gary if we went with the equivalent and then however
one has to reach the equivalent.
Gary Warren: That's what I'm saying. The equivalent and we'll go with a double
layer of silt fence or something of that nature if we can't get the haybales.
Councilman Boyt: My point is simply that I want something more than a single
silt fence.
Councilman Horn: Don't you really use straw bales? These are not feeding type
bales that you're using for erosion control.
4
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Gary Warren: There's been a general shortage, at least the way it's been
explained to me, in both areas.
' Councilman Johnson: Straw would have the same order.
Councilman Horn: Straw may be a problem but you're not taking away from a food
' for cattle. You're not going to keep cattle alive feeding them straw.
Gary Warren: If we go with the equivalent I think...
' Acting Mayor Geving: The point is though, that the City Engineer is making
every attempt to...construction. I think he's making a good effort in doing
that.
Councilman Boyt: Can we amend to Type II equivalent?
' Acting Mayor Geving: Yes, the item 3 has been amended to Type II equivalent for
erosion control.
Councilman Johnson moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve the Grading
and Erosion Control Plan for Curry Farms, Second Addition with the amendment to
condition 3 to add Type II equivalent erosion control measures. A11 voted in
favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: (H) LAKE RILEY WOODS SOUTH:
1. APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
2. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT APPROVAL.
Councilman Horn: I just had a question on that. I see you're recommending on
this a 3 inch bituminous layer. It would seem to me that on the Centex property
' you said all that was necessary was a 2 inch layer. I'm wondering why the
difference in this.
' Gary Warren: The roadway, our standard section for a rural roadway is a 3 inch
bituminous surface. In Centex, you're talking about Teton Lane? In there, the
decision was made that because that roadway is basically servicing the Natole
property and not a full highway traveled roadway, that 2 inches was an
' acceptable compromise to the City.
Acting Mayor Geving: Do you have any problem with that Clark?
rCouncilman Horn: No.
Acting Mayor Geving: You pulled off (h) . Is that both 1 and 2?
Councilman Horn: No, just 1.
Gary Warren: The developer requested that he be able to comment on the
development contract if you would allow him.
5
5P Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Councilman Boyt: Are we also making the same erosion control conditions on this
development?
Acting Mayor Geeing: On this development contract and all others. I think we
should make that amendment and you will catch that for us Gary, we would
appreciate it.
Councilman Horn: I did have one other question on that. This is a public
street, correct?
Gary Warren: Correct. '
Councilman Horn: Is it typical that we require the developer to sign a public
street? ,
Gary Warren: Yes. This will be turned over to the City after it is built to
our standards and all subdivision signs are. ,
Councilman Horn: Okay, that was one question. The other question is, I don't
really see why we want to put that kind of a sign on there. Warning? To me
advisory speeds are just totally irrelevant because they're not enforceable.
Acting Mayor Geving: What item are you speaking of Clark?
Councilman Horn: I'm looking at number 6. We're saying that we're putting a
curve warning sign with a speed advisory.
Gary Warren: This is the Uniform Traffic Manual and I guess enforceable or not,
it is a standard I think from a liability standpoint that protects the City in a
certain regard when they do have a cautionary sign up.
Councilman Horn: Even though it's unenforceable?
Gary Warren: Well, it's an advisory sign and it's up to the judgment of the
traveler I guess to take it into consideration.
Councilman Horn: Okay, if it helps in the City's liability, I can buy it but
I don't think it will do anything.
•
Acting Mayor Geving: We do have a request by the developer under this item, the
development contract. Is the developer here? '
Jim Peterson: I'm with George Nelson Associates. As we originally proceeded
through this, I went over this last time when we went through the Planning
Commission recommendations. The latest item that concerns me is, as we got into
this future street connection. We debated the merit of this connection to some
degree and we talk about doing this connection and it was always my impression
that we would do this connection as a public improvement project or through the
429 process, is that correct?
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Jim Peterson: Nothing ever to the contrary was ever presented, proposed, or
suggested to me until Thursday afternoon of last week. To my way of thinking '
6
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
II
you're now asking us to provide a $50,000.00 letter of credit or whatever, cash
I= equivalent for a year and a half in case the road ever might possibly be built.
To me that's changing the rules after the game has been established. When we
I talked about the easement, we. ..the easement and we wanted the road to stand the
test of the public improvement hearing. We doubted the merits of the road and
felt that that public improvement hearing could possibly strenghten your
convinction or strengthen ours on the approval. Now escrowing this amount of
I money for a road Mr. Halla plats, through my documentation will not be built and
if he does plat, or excuse me. If he does plat, he would not build a road
according to this and if he doesn't plat, he would build the road for 10-20
I years, who knows how many years down the road. Without the public improvement
process, I spoke last time to the value of the houses adjoining where this road
will be and how it will affect their property value. I felt that was important
I to the process and I feel that after the last meeting that basically we had an
agreement. That we would provide the easement. If the road ever got built we
would be assessed through the 429 process and I feel that this is kind of
drastic change from what we agreed to. I don't know how else to really put it.
II I think this is, it was a surprise to me to hear this. I don't think it's, to
involve this amount of money for that period of time. I look at us as being a
business in the community and I don't know that you would require this of any
I other business in the community. At this point we pay the taxes and hopefully
have contributed in some ways. I think it's unnecessary. Any questions I can
answer?
IIT Acting Mayor Geving: The only comment that I could make, I don't believe that
we've treated you any differently than we would have done on any other project.
III Jim Peterson: Not any other development, no.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think you can be assured of that. I know we agreed, or
II the Council agreed to this language. Could you explain a little bit Gary of why
we put in December 1, 1989 rather than July 6, 1989?
Gary Warren: The reason being that if, I believe the July 6th being the
I deadline for the Halla property. December 1 was to give the City the
opportunity to process the authority for the road. In other words, if he
platted before his July 6th deadline or at the last minute, that we had a couple
I of months there where we were going to be able to come back into Council to get
authorization to go ahead with the project which as you're aware takes some
time.
IActing Mayor Geving: And in your view Gary, the request for the $50,000.00 as a
reserve, that's nothing unusual for us to request that, isn't that true?
I Gary Warren: It's really a method of backing up the credibility for payment of
the assessments even if it does go on a 429 project. I guess I would look at it
as if the developer had petitioned the City to put in a public roadway in his
1 subdivision similar to Minnewashta Meadows. For example Gary Carlson where
we've got this year going in as a public improvement. He is providing a letter
of credit to back up the assessments for the cost of that installation and that
li__
letter of credit will be reduced as the assessments are paid off.
Acting Mayor Geving: Isn't this a little bit different though where we
requested the easement ourselves rather than the applicant?
I
7
52
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 '
1111 Gary Warren: The City is requesting the easement and in looking at what we had
after the last Council action, staff didn't feel comfortable that we had the
ability to construct a roadway out there with the conditions as they were
approved. That's why we were recommending an additional deposit.
Acting Mayor Geving: Councilmembers have any comments to Jim? '
Councilman Johnson: i see this, I was one of the people who really are for the
easement and I see the easement as something in the future. As far as I see in
July 6th, if Halle doesn't make his deadline by July 6th, or if he does make the
deadline the road doesn't go in. If he doesn't make the deadline, he goes back
to the replatting and we could possibly get a future road in there but probably
not, he won't be replatted in 1989 anyway. To go back and replat that he would
have to replat it 1 in 10 and platting just doesn't happen that quickly. If he
doesn't make the July deadline, he's in no hurry. He's already stated he
doesn't want to build houses. He wants to grow trees so I don't see us building
this road in 1989. I don't necessarily see us releasing the easement if
everything falls through but I don't see the reason for the $50,000.00 myself
because the chances of building this road by December 1, 1989, I can't see any
possibility of it happening.
Councilman Boyt: I think the easement is very important and I was under a
little different understanding Jay. I thought that we took that for a certain II
period of time but maybe not. The developer shall provide the City with a 60
foot, no that's a different one. Gary, do you remember how long we took the
easement itself for?
Gary Warren: I believe there was the same restriction on the easement. I know
the discussion in particular from you Bill was trying to set up a deadline that
was sort of a compromise position but the actual easement was taken without any
time restriction on it.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that maybe one reasonable change to this would '
be if it is, if the plat is carried through, that as of July 7th we release this
in terms of both the easement and the $50,000.00. If it's not, I'm inclined to
agree with Jay that I doubt seriously that we're going to build this road and
aren't we just charging the developer the interest on $50,000.00? Is that how
that works? Explain a bit about the cost of a letter of credit.
Gary Warren: A letter of credit, depending on the bank, they charge from 1% to
2% of the dollar amount as a fee for the letter of credit.
Councilman Boyt: So we're talking $500.00? ,
Gary Warren: $1,000.00 maybe.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is that about right Jim? Is that how it works?
Jim Peterson: I think it's similar. I would say 2% to 3% but more important
from our standpoint is it just lost $50,000.00 off our line of credit which we
use in our business. I don't know if any of you use your lines of credit but
it's important to us so it's not the cost of the letter of credit and we'll
8
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
gladly pay $500.00 or $1,000.00 but that's kind of the minor issue of the letter
of credit.
Acting Mayor Geving: What's the real issue here? The fact that we wanted to
get that easement? I don't believe we ever spoke about the need for the
$50,000.00 or any dollar figure for a reserve to assure the City that we had
that money in a reserve account. I was kind of surprised to see it on my notes
' personally. I would be in favor of dropping the $50,000.00. We have the
easement and that's really what we wanted. That's what we were after.
' Roger Knutson: The reason that was suggested is if you want to build, the
developer suggested that you can have some very tough going proving benefit. If
we took the developer at his word and said do we want to fight the good fight
' later or do we want to win the battle and the war and have it all solved right
here, which it can be? So rather than have us fight the good fight later in
trying to prove benefit, we decided why should the City put themself in the
position where it has to fight. If you really want the road, this provision
says there's not going to be a fight. This provision says we win. It's over
with. That was the rationale for it.
' Councilman Horn: I think the Attorney gave us good advice. I don't think
there's anyway we can prove benefit when we take 9 out of the 16 lots and take
them off of a cul-de-sac. It's absolutely a negative benefit to putting that
through from the Council's standpoint.
George Nelson: I'd like to comment on the Council's comments. This is not a
hypocracy but a democracy and why not let this thing rest until you need the
I L road? We'll give the easement. We've given it to you already until some point
later should you need the road and then let the public decide whether they're
against it or they want to pay for it. Because you're asking us to pay for a
' road that we have no damn use for. It just depreciates the value of our
property.
Acting Mayor Geving: But we would release that $50,000.00 letter of credit on
' July 7th.
George Nelson: I understood now that you're not asking for a letter of credit.
' Acting Mayor Geving: That's what we've gotten down. I understand that we do
have a request in our briefing package here tonight for $50,000.00 security for
that easement. That's what it says in my packet.
George Nelson: And you will release that July 1st?
Acting Mayor Geving: July 7, 1989.
George Nelson: I still stand on my ground that.. . I don't see why the Council
' needs to put themselves in a position where it can't lose if something that is
of interest to the people in the community.
Councilman Johnson: I just see this road easement as an essential piece for us
to give future councils and future subdivision of this land, whatever years from
now, that they say we're going to add another 20 homes into this area, 30 homes
into this area or whatever, that then we've got enough traffic that we want to
9
1
54
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 '
cut back this cul-de-sac. Your rural cul-de-sac is a little different than an
urban cul-de-sac. That's why I'm pushing for the easement. As far as the
$50,000.00, I don't think it serves any useful purpose at this time.
Acting Mayor Geving: And I would agree with that. I think our whole discussion
when we got on this subject was for the gaining of the easement and we got that.
This document gives us that. I would be in favor of releasing the $50,000.00
from this document here. Removing it entirely. I'll make the motion to do that
although this is not my item. I would like to refer this to Clark.
Councilman Horn: My issue is not even that. My issue is we shouldn't have this I
in there in the first place.
Jim Peterson: It was my issue. '
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to make the motion to approve the development
contract with the deletion of the $50,000.00 requirement as security under item
6 whether a future roadway connection reserved regarding the Halla plat. Do
I have a second to that motion?
Councilman Johnson: As long as it does include 8(1) also. ,
Councilman Boyt: That's the one we've been talking about.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm looking at the security and remove the estimated
construction cost of $50,000.00. I'm amending that item (1) , removing the
estimated construction cost of $50,000.00 and credit acceptable to the City of
$50,000.00 from that statement. Is there any comments in regard to my motion?
Is there a second?
Councilman Boyt: I would. '
Acting Mayor Geving: Any comments?
Councilman Boyt: Yes please. I would suggest that what we're talking about
here is a public safety issue and it's contrasting and somewhat opposed to an
individual privacy issue. The cul-de-sacs are now and will continue to be a
problem in Chanhassen and that we really should probably decide the issue. I
agree with Roger that if we give up this $50,000.00, we are giving up our chance •
to build this road as a public safety statement and we're coming to grips with
the privacy side of people wanting to live on cul-de-sacs. If we either want
the road to go through, and if we do I think we hang onto the $50,000.00. If we
don't want the road to go through, than let's face up to it.
Acting Mayor Geving: We would only be holding $50,000.00 until July 7th. '
Councilman Boyt: Unless it's approved.
Acting Mayor Geving: Unless it's approved.
Councilman Horn: I think Bill hit it right on the head when he said it's a
public safety issue but I think he meant it backwards. The reason people build
on cul-de-sacs is for safety. People with little children want to live on
10
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 5 5
cul-de-sacs because that cuts down the traffic flow through their area. It's
not a privacy issue. It's a safety issue.
Don Ashworth: This item was originally presented as a 429 project and as a part
' of that we had looked to a waiver by the developer of his right to object to a
special assessment for this roadway. We took that back to Roger, as the City
Attorney, and he had suggested at that point in time that we look to the letter
' of credit as a means to insure that if we went through a 429 process, we assess
the lots still owned by the developer, we may not have any lots left by that
point in time. The City would be in a better position again if we had that
letter of credit in there. If we make the amendment to (1) that basically
waives the necessity for the letter of credit, I would hope that we would add
back in the right for us to again move ahead with that as a public improvement
project and that the developer would literally waive his right to an assessment
at that point in time if the Council determines that that roadway should be
built.
' Councilman Boyt: Waive his right to an assessment hearing?
Don Ashworth: Waive his right to protest that assessment.
Acting Mayor Geving: Any comments from the Attorney?
Roger Knutson: I don't want to beat this to death but the question we asked
ourselves when this came up the first time, what lots are you going to assess?
You could say you're going to assess it against all the lots in the plat. That
was the first thing that came to mind. Then we thought what your reaction would
be, or a buyer's reaction. Any buyer is going to look at that provision and
say, this is a pending assessment. That's true and so each of the lots in
there, they're going to have to, it's not a legal requirement but a requirement
of lenders, they're going to have to escrow at least 150% probably of the
' pending assessment. That isn't going to make a lot of folks very happy on
something that may never happen. The other possibility is just to go against
the lots you own at the time the improvement hearing goes. Being creative we
' thought, what happens if he owns one lot? I asked Gary, what's a lot going to
sell for out there? Is it likely these are going to be $100,000.00 lots? No.
So if you have the oddball situation where at the time this is ordered, you have
' one lot left and we put a $50,000.00 assessment against that lot, it won't work.
If he owns half these lots at the time, it may very well but we don't know.
That's why we came up with this solution.
' Don Ashworth: But what I'm suggesting is, if we're dropping this solution, I
think that it's still a better chance to assume that he might have half of the
lots left on July, 1989.
' Roger Knutson: I would wholeheartedly agree. That is certainly better than
leaving it with nothing.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to read into this the language that you're
proposing Don so we get it proper and we'll add a new item. If we drop item
(1) , the requirement for the $50,000.00 which we have a motion on the floor for,
that we would add an item (n) which would be this waiver of the right to appeal
a protest of a future assessment.
' 11
Sri;• �,:..,:-:.,firda..•-`.-
56
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Don Ashworth: I would suggestion that wordage. Right now you have (1) . Leave
that in place and right after the $50,000.00, add the wordage that you just
stated.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay. Have you got that Barbara?
Roger Knutson: We have standard waiver language that we can use.
Acting Mayor Geving: If we can have the standard waiver language that you could
put in at the conclusion of item (1) . We have a motion on the floor to include
that but to delete the $50,000.00 as a letter of credit payable to the City.
That is the motion on the floor and we have a second.
Acting Mayor Geving moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Development
Contract for Lake Riley Woods South as amended on condition 8(L) to delete the
requirement for the $50,000.00 letter of credit and including the City's
standard waiver language at the conclusion of (L) . All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to back up and pick item h(1) . I don't
believe we really approved item h(1) .
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the plans and '
specifications for Lake Riley Woods South as presented by the City Manager. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Horn: I did have one other issue on h(1) , plans and specs and that's
the addition of a deadend sign. I think we're really misleading people if we '
put up a deadend sign and they go in and buy the property and then later we come
and put a road through there. I think if the City wants to put up a deadend
sign, they should have it deemed that that's going to be a permanent cul-de-sac.
Gary Warren: We have in the development contract a covenant requiring that the
property owners be notified of the City having this easement for the potential
connection of that roadway into the Halla so that they would be notified... '
•
Councilman Horn: Does that come in for subsequent buyers or just the first time
buyer?
Roger Knutson: The development contract is recorded against the property.
Councilman Horn: So any subsequent buyer would be notified? '
Roger Knutson: Yes.
CONSENT AGENDA: (J) AWARD CONTRACT FOR UPDATE OF UTILITIES SECTION OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilman Boyt: Just a couple of questions. One of them is, I see that the
amount of money that we applied for from the block grant was $2,000.00 short.
That's accurate right?
12
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Barbara Dacy: Right.
' Councilman Boyt: Why didn't we save enough money from the Block Grant to cover
the whole process?
Barbara Dacy: You might recall, or maybe you don't recall, from the March 28th
meeting the Council did discuss at length the amount that should be given to the
senior study and other projects that were under consideration at that time.
Prior to the March 28th meeting, the Council had already allocated some for the
South Shore Senior Center. Then it was at the 28th meeting, decided this type
of split between the remaining two projects so that was just the decision at
that time. In fact, I think the $7,500.00 was a minimum that you could allocate
' for such a study according to CBGD rules for a senior study. You have to
allocate at least $7,500.00 so the remainder...
Councilman Boyt: My other question is, why did we only see one bid?
Gary Warren: We actually had two bids. That's where the price range of
$6,000.00 to $11,500.00 came from.
' Councilman Boyt: Okay, and you considered the $6,000.00 bid so inappropriate as
to not put it in the material?
Gary Warren: It has the same scope basically but I did not have confidence that
they had a firm understanding of what was involved with this. The firm of Rieke
Carroll Muller has done two that we noted and we're looking at entering into it
I as a per diem contract so we're not talking all sub here. They would be
reimbursed as the effort dictates but I believe in all honesty to the Council,
the $11,500.00 is more presentable...
' Councilman Boyt: And that is the cap? They can't exceed that?
' Gary Warren: We would establish a contract not to exceed that.
Councilman Boyt: That's all the question I have.
' Acting Mayor Geving: The only comment that I had, I had planned on pulling this
one out myself. I definitely wanted to see the other bid that we got. In the
future bids of this nature, I'd like to see all of the bids in the package
because I personally feel that unless we have a chance to see the other bid, we
really don't have anything to compare it to. I felt for $200.00 of work, which
involves 37 hours for a professional project manager, 121 hours for an
engineering technician, 38 hours for a draftsman and 11 hours for a secretary,
' even at a very unreasonable $60.00-$80.00 per hour and then doubling it, I came
up with something like a reasonable bid would have been maybe $7,500.00. That's
what I thought would have been a reasonable bit on this particular project.
' Even including a fair amount of overhead and profit but since I didn't have the
other bid to compare it to I wasn't sure. I have no other comments.
Councilman Boyt moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to award the contract for
the update of the Utilities Section of the Comprehensive Plan to the firm of
Rieke Carrol Muller Associates in an amount not to exceed $11,500.00. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
13
6Eiaty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 ,
CONSENT AGENDA: (N) CITY CODE AMENDMENT, SPRINKLING RESTRICTIONS, FINAL READING.
Councilman Horn: I was curious, we did hold a public hearing on this? It seems
to me that something like this we should have a public hearing on whether it's
required or not.
Acting Mayor Geving: Would this be normal Barbara?
Councilman Horn: No, I don't think so.
Acting Mayor Geving: This would not be a normal operation?
Barbara Dacy: No, the public hearing isn't required because it's not an
amendment to the zoning ordinance. However, it's up to the Council.
Councilman Horn: I think any ordinance change that affects how people live
should have a public hearing. One of the complaints that we've gotten is that
this thing was totally mismanaged in terms of informing the public and I totally
agree with that. I think one of the ways we as a body counteract that is by
having public hearings when we have an ordinance change. I'd like to suggest
that we do that.
Acting Mayor Geving: Any comments? Bill, do you agree with that?
Councilman Boyt: Can't argue against a public hearing.
Councilman Johnson: I don't have a problem with a public hearing. I do have, I
was going to pull this one also. The wording in here, it says whenever the
City Council or on a temporary emergency basis, the City Manager or Fire Chief
shall determine that a shortage of water supply threatens the City, they may, by 11
resolution. Now, how is the Fire Chief and City Manager, by resolution, going
to call for a sprinkling ban? I think we have to reword this to where we have
that the City Manager and Fire Chief do have the temporary emergency basis to do
this. They can do it on a temporary emergency without having a resolution and
then it shall be followed up within some set time frame to have a resolution.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would agree that those two words, by resolution, are '
meaningless in this context.
Councilman Johnson: With the City Council side of it it's okay but it probably
needs to be broken into two pieces.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is that all you had there?
Councilman Johnson: Yes and I agree with the public hearing. The other thing I
was going to talk about was the lack of good communication on this one. We are
guilty of poor communications with the citizens quite often. It's not that
tough, I believe you can get a postcard type thing to go through Xerox machines.
We could publish and print overnight cards to go to every citizen in the City if
we would stock the stuff. The concept is there. We didn't really communicate
this well enough. On Monday after the emergency call, we should have had a
mailing go out and when we switched back last Thursday, we should have had
another mailing go out. A lot of people don't know what's going on. Not
14
IICity Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 59
I everybody reads the newspaper so we can't depend upon only the newspapers.
Especially something as important as this, as our only communications. I think
this also points to the need for a public information officer for the City as a
part time duty for somebody that is the focal point for desiminating this kind
I of information. The other thing was, we had mass confusion up front. Something
needed to be typed up and handed to the receptionist just from hour to hour on
that Monday and Tuesday. It seemed that everything was changing and that
I actually was what was happening is that the emergency was maturing. We were
getting a better understanding of it. By later in the week the ground rules
were well enough known but I had a friend who for several weeks carried buckets
II of water to her garden just after she had her gall bladder surgery. She was
told she couldn't get a permit just because she has stitches in her side but she
can carry her buckets. She didn't actually tell anybody she had stitches in her
side. She's just that kind of person. I think there's a lot of mice in the
1 world that don't create waves and when they don't get clear instructions, they
don't know exactly what's happening, they don't protest and they go carry their
water buckets out there to water their gardens with buckets but that's all I've
Igot to say on that.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we all learned a great deal from this emergency
and it wasn't really an emergency. I think that the Fire Chief and City Manager
Iacted in good faith to take care of a situation that I believe at the point we
probably should have had a City Council meeting. There should have been some
I/ better semination of clearcut information as to what was really happening.
Possibly even hand carried flyers from door to door. I think we finally caught
up by using the television and of course we had very good coverage from the
local papers so we've learned a lot from this effort and hopefully the crisis is
somewhat past. Not to say it isn't going to happen again in a different way
I 1 with a different means but I do think we do have an area now. We have an
ordinance amendment where we can handle this. The Fire Chief, City Manager is
involved. Certainly the Public Safety is involved. One of the things that I
' wanted to include in this ordinance amendment was a means by which the public
safety department would be totally responsible for getting out to the media what
these levels of water useage restrictions would be in this particular case. So
I we have to place the responsibility someplace and I believe that that's where it
should be. That it should be with the public safety department in getting the
media attention and information. As far as Clark's recommendation in terms of a
II public hearing, I can see nothing wrong with that. I think it's a good idea.
If we get the information out first and then can have a public hearing. This is
important. It's one of the more important things that we've talked about in the
last couple of weeks. I think we've got it solved here or at least got a handle
Ion it. No further questions or comments. We're going to direct staff to add
whatever comments that were made tonight to this. My specific comment was that
I would like to see the public safety department be totally responsible for the
I media attention and dissemination of information and Clark Horn's suggestion
here that this be placed in terms of the public hearing.
ICouncilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the table the
final reading of the City Code Amendment, Sprinkling Restrictions until a public
IL hearing can be held on the matter and to include having the Public Safety
Department responsible for informing the public. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
15
.ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mary Bernier, 8155 Grandview Road: I have a few photographs here and what I'd
like to air is, when they changed the planning on Hidden Valley Two, we were not
notified. Only the original plans. They have put up homes that have completely
blocked our view of the lake. At the time this originally, I have it
highlighted, I got the transcript of all the Council meetings we attended and it
says that we're going to be looking over the roofs of these homes. Well, we're
looking right in the front door. May I show some pictures?
Acting Mayor Geving: Sure. Why don't you start down here with Jay.
Councilman Johnson: Actually I was up there this weekend looking at it. We've
talked before. I was noting those two story homes there.
Mary Bernier: They were supposed to be split entries. We are looking directly
at the first and second stories.
Councilman Johnson: You've got the big red deck there don't you?
Mary Bernier: That's right. We have nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Acting Mayor Geving: Why don't you just give us a couple minutes Mary. I'm
fairly familiar with your pictures but we'll show it to the rest of the Council.
Mary Bernier: We were never notified of a change of plans. They have dug
another hole. Now there's one left.
Councilman Boyt: Is there anything we can do about it?
Acting Mayor Geving: Well, go ahead Mary.
Councilman Johnson: Was there a restriction in the development contract
restricting those lots?
Mary Bernier: It said split entry. I talked to the City Engineer last August.
He assured me that they would be split entries and I would be looking over the
roofs. I have it highlighted in the transcript where the question was asked and
they assured us that we would be looking over the roofs. That's fine except we
have nothing to see except, we can't even look at the roofs. We're looking at
the main level and they're right in our front yard. It also states, from the
May, 1985 Council meeting, the deed restrictions require that no two of the same
color package and house design can be located directly adjacent to each other or
across the street. There are four gray houses in a row. There are two exact
identical homes next to each other and across the street to others. These are
not small homes. They are monsters. They've got big peak roofs. Great big
chimneys. We have nothing left to look at. We live in an area where there are '
only five homes. We are in the same tax base as the rest of the City. We don't
have sewer. We don't have water and we don't have streets. They always told us
we were paying for the view. We have nothing now. We have no view. We have no
nothing. I want to know how this could go through.
Acting Mayor Geving: Did you talk to Gary?
16
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
I
Mary Bernier: I have been up to City Hall. I have called Barb Dacy. I have
talked to her last year. I've talked to the City Engineer. I've talked to
everybody and they just keep building and building and building. It's not at
' all what they said they were going to do. Our property value has gone down and
we intend to retire in a couple years and sell. We have nothing left to sell.
Our view was part of it. We have no sewer. We have no water. We were assured
that we could hook up to the sewer and water eventually. Now they say no. We
got a letter. No way he says.
Acting Mayor Geving: No way what Mary?
Mary Bernier: That we can hook up to this development.
Acting Mayor Geving: Those would be public utilities. There would be no reason
why they could.
Mary Bernier: Our hook up is right out our front. It would be nothing just to
go over to theirs. It's right out our front.
Acting Mayor Geving: Maybe you want to comment on that Gary.
Gary Warren: There's a series of 4 or 5 properties, I don't remember exactly
how many that are not connected there on Grandview Road. That the City sometime
in the future would have to look at bringing in an extension out to the Hidden
Valley sewer to service this property.
Mary Bernier: Our neighbor was put in already.
Gary Warren: We had one exception that allowed for that where we allowed to
connect his own lateral into the sewer with the understanding that he, that they
' were executing a waiver of assessments in the future to bring in sewer and
water.
Acting Mayor Geving: Who's home was that?
' Mary Bernier: Harvey Will.
' Gary Warren: Will's were connected to the block and then there was another one,
8801.
' Larry Brown: Al Sinnen I believe.
Acting Mayor Geving: Al Sinnen? So there's two up there that have been
connected.
' Mary Bernier: Al Sinnen's not connected.
' Gary Warren: I think there's only one that's connected.
Larry Brown: If I may clarify. There is one home that is connected out there
right now with the possibility of a second one being connected on the assumption
that we sign an agreement stating that they will pay the assessments incurred by
bringing sewer and water up there. At the time that I received several
' 17
O��L ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
inquiries as to being able to hook up to sewer and water through the Hidden
Valley subdivision, I went back to Hidden Valley, Merritor Development and asked
him if they would provide us with the easements to allow us to connect up to
your subdivision. At that time, Ron Helmer had stated that no. He said I've
been through that process once and I will decline any further easements so he
refused us that easement and therefore staff decided that what was left to
possibly go to a Chapter 429 feasibility to investigate bringing the lateral
sewer up to that. 1
Acting Mayor Geving: That's semething we'll have to look at. Mary, what
action can we take?
Mary Bernier: I don't know but I think something should be done. It isn't
fair. We've lived in the City for 23 t
y years and all we've had is gotten crapped
on. We just sit there. We're small. There are only five houses. I think
we've been taken advantage of. We have nothing left. We're sitting there, what
am I going to look at now? Right in the living rooms and bedrooms of all these
stupid houses. Right off my big deck.
Councilman Horn: I think we need an answer to how this happened. Why this
development differed from what they were supposed to...
Mary Bernier: We were never even notified. They just went ahead and built it.
These are not split entries.
Gary Warren: We'll have to do some research.
Acting Mayor Geving: We'll bring this item back Mary. Now that you've
addressed it for us, we'll have the staff determine why it deviated from the
plan. The houses are actually built. I know they're there. There is still one
or two houses to be built.
Mary Bernier: Our land is ruined. We've got nothing left. I would like to
invite the Council to drive up there and look if they would.
Councilman Boyt: You might want to contact the County Assessor. I would.
Acting Mayor Geving: We'll take a look at it. Mary, I assure you that most of
the Council members will make it up to visit.
Mrs. Palmer, 1670 Lake Lucy Road: I've got just a little matter to talk about. '
Acting Mayor Geving: Are you here to talk about the assessments Mrs. Palmer?
Mrs. Palmer: Well, the assessments but that road.
Acting Mayor Geving: You want to just talk about the road for now?
Mrs. Palmer: Yes. The road, they built the road so it comes out in front of
our house in a big arc like and goes into our driveway. What is happening now
is the people come...from Chanhassen and they go over the curb and when it was
wet, they kept tearing out the curb and tearing out the turf but now it's dry
and they go right over it. The thing is, it doesn't bother me, I drove slow but
18
f
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 63
II
lir- somebody's going to get hurt there and I think when they designed that, I have
no idea why they did it. We never had trouble before but in the middle of the
night we hear cars going up on our yard, they miss and there's screeching of
I brakes and everything. Something's going to happen there. You've got put up a
sign. A slow sign or I don't know, 20-30 mph or something like that. We old
ladies, we drive slow enough but these young people, somebody's going to hurt
IIthere and I don't know why they ever did it that way.
Acting Mayor Geving: Jim, do you know where Mrs. Palmer lives?
1 Jim Chaffee: I'm gathering you're on the west end of Lake Lucy Road?
Mrs. Palmer: Yes. Not way on the west end. You know where that little old
I brown house that goes in like that and they made that real fancy curve going
into our place. Well, you know when somebody comes with a boat, they have to go
way out in another lane and it's dangerous to come into our place. I don't know
why they put that big curve there but if they could cut off some of that bulge
I they've got in the road, a lot of that danger, someday somebody is going to get
hurt.
I Acting Mayor Geving: Mrs. Palmer, I'll have Jim look into that and he will
respond back to you.
IIPUBLIC HEARING: LAKE LUCY ROAD ASSESSMENT HEARING.
Public Present:
Name Address
II Larry and Kathy Kerber 6420 Power Blvd.
James and Doris Mielke 1645 Lake Lucy Road
Warren Phillips 1571 Lake Lucy Road
II Ted Coey 1381 Lake Lucy Road
Elizabeth Glaccum 1510 Lake Lucy Road
Don Mezzenga 5816 Dickens Avenue
Reinhold Gutmiller 1801 West 67th Street
II James and Cecelia Palmer 1670 Lake Lucy Road
John and Dana Hennessy
IIActing Mayor Geving called the pubic hearing to order.
Gary Warren: Bear with the scale on this. I just wanted to show the overview
I of the project area for the purposes of discussion. Lake Lucy Road improvement
project was authorized, the feasibility was authorized December 2, 1985. We
accepted the feasibility April 21, 1986 with a public hearing on May 19, 1986.
I Plans and specs were authorized on May 19, 1986 and approved July 14, 1986 and
the contract was awarded for construction on August 18, 1986. The project was
basically completed, for all intensive purposes, early this year. The Council
packet at the last meeting we prepared the assessment roll in accordance with
the criteria that was established in the 1986 feasibility study. Total
construction dollars for the total project is going to cost around $810,293.00.
II75% of the project is proposed to be funded through State Aid and the assessment
19
64ity Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
roll was prepared based on that criteria. The assessment roll cost is quite
complex because we have a series of different assessment approaches. One, which
calls Phase 1 and Phase 3 of the project were reconstruction along the original
I!!
Lake Lucy Road assessment so the assessment for this area, seeing it was
rebuilding an existing road, was based on upgrade of an overlay at an assessment
rate of $11.25 per foot. Front foot was established which the Council also
reconfirmed at our last meeting. Phase 2 of the project follows the new
alignment of Lake Lucy Road through the Stellar Plat, Lake Lucy Highlands and
they we were basically putting in a road from scratch and therefore we had a
$22.20 assessment rate for front footage plus right-of-way credits were given to
the platted properties along this way to recognize the fact that the developer
was dedicating the right-of-way as a part of the platting process. Stellar
Court, which was Phase 4, which came off of the realignment of Lake Lucy Road,
was separate installation also. The cost for that improvement was assessed
directly to the abutting properties here and those properties also shared in the
Lake Lucy Road assessment in accordance with their frontage along Lake Lucy
Road. I distributed, we received six letters today so I haven't had the chance
to digest than and prepare responses necessarily but I have distributed those to
the Council here prior to the meeting and I think I should just read in the name
and property to our record here. A letter from Larry and Kathy Kerber, 6420
Powers Blvd.. A letter from James and Doris Mielke, 1645 Lake Lucy Road. A
letter from Tom and Jean Kraker, 6441 White Dove Drive. A letter from
Don Mezzenga which is basically the Greenery. A letter from Warren Phillips.
Acting Mayor Geving: How about the letter from Elizabeth Glaccum? ,
Gary Warren: That's the last letter, from the Glaccum's, 1510 Lake Lucy Road.
One adjustment to the preliminary roll that was done as noted in the staff
report was the Coey property. Through additional research we found that two
units were established in the feasibility study for assessment and therefore,
360 foot assessment rate was established for that property and the roll was 11 modified accordingly.
Acting Mayor Geving: First of all, I'd like to say that I think we would
appreciate the kinds of letter that you sent to Mr. Gutmiller. Gary, I think
you did a good job responding the very next day to Mr. Gutmiller and I don't
know if he responded back to you as a result of that letter but it will well
written and very timely. I think at this time I'd like to hear from the various
people who have submitted letters and I'll start with the one of the six that
I have in front of me. Mr. and Mrs. Larry and Kathy Kerber. Would you like to
speak to that Larry or Kathy?
Larry Kerber, 6420 Powers Blvd.: I own the parcel to the south
of Lake Lucy
Road and the west of Powers Blvd. and my concern with this project was, there
was a blacktop road with adequate base, graded shoulders, put in approximately
10 years ago. 6 inches thick of blacktop. Not one patch made on it or repair
made on it at the time it was tore out. It ran past my property. I have
approximately 300 feet on Lake Lucy Road. Now this road was removed along with
the rest of the makeshift road. I guess- it was a gravel road with sealcoated.
The road past my place was a regulation city street at the time it was put in
approximately 10 years ago. This was also removed. Why I don't know. Why it
couldn't have just worked in with the regular roadway but it was removed and now
I am asked to pay the same assessment that people who had virtually no road are
paying and I don't believe I've got any benefit fran this new road. The old
20
• City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 65
road, the 10 year old road was driveable. It wasn't deteriorating. It was in
good repair. It had shoulders on it. We were able to mow and maintain them,
which I did and now that road was taken out. A new road was put in and I'm
asked to pay for a new road when I had one in and I just don't see any benefit
' to my property. It was safe. Police could get to my property. Fire. Traffic
can go by. Granted they didn't go much further than my place because after that
there wasn't much of a road but I just don't feel I received any benefit from
' this new road and the old road was in good or excellent condition past my place
so I just don't feel that I should have to pay for the new road.
Acting Mayor Geving: I do believe though that the road was widened considerably
' and the old road did not have a concrete gutter. Is that correct? Concrete
gutter or any kind of a curb. There was no curb on that whole road.
' Larry Kerber: No. The new one has a blacktop curb. I don't know, if a curb
necessary? Did I really need one?
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know. It's part of the standards that we had to
put in when we built that road. We needed the curbing. It's a State
requirement.
Larry Kerber: Okay, but I guess what I'm asking is, it was a State requirement
so we had no choice?
' Acting Mayor Geving: Basically the City had no choice.
Larry Kerber: Had the old stayed, I would have had to put a curb anyway?
Acting Mayor Geving: Probably never would have updated it except that the whole
length of that Lake Lucy Road had to be removed and rebuilt. That was the
decision of this Council.
' Larry Kerber: Yes, I know it was but at the time I asked and I was told that I
should bring it up at the assessment hearing. I questioned it at that time and
I was never given an answer and they said this is something you bring out at the
assessment hearing. So I guess if I was supposed to have a curb, assess me for
the curb.
Acting Mayor Geving: There's more to it than that though. I think you'll find
that there's an awful lot more gravel underneath that base. I think you'll find
that the road is wider than it was at the time that you had the old road there.
To me there's considerable benefit to that corner lot.
Larry Kerber: Is my lot worth or.. .
' Acting Mayor Geving: I would say it is.
Larry Kerber: Who's going to pay that more? They had a blacktop road there
Dale that was in good shape. It didn't have potholes. It wasn't broken up like
the rest of that road and I actually don't see a benefit. Like I say, if curb
is a benefit, assess for the curb. I can't see an assessment for the whole road
being I had a road that was useable.
Acting Mayor Geving: Any Council comnents?
21
ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Councilman Horn: I remember that question coming up and it seemed to me that
there was some engineering decision as to why that had to be included. I know
I!!
the question came up. '
Gary Warren: Jeff Roos is here from McCombs and Jeff, maybe you could answer
that.
Jeff Roos: If I can your honor. That question did come up. As a part of the
design of the new roadwaybwe did have to have to remove the old blacktop because
the new roadway is a wider roadway with a distinct crown in it. As you
mentioned, in order to quality for the State funds, we did have to put a
vertical faced curb on the entire roadway so we had to excavate to put proper
base in because we not only had to design the curb to State specifications, we
had to design the pavement thickness to State specifications which required ,
completely removing the entire old roadway and starting from scratch.
Acting Mayor Geving: How much length was there from CR 17 to the end of that '
pavement? What was the extent of that?
Jeff Roos: There was approximately about 200 feet I suppose of blacktop that '
had been put in and stood up well but after that, it was gravel and the City had
made attempts several times in the past to try to put some sort of more
permanent surface or sealcoat type surface on Lake Lucy Road, the remainder of
it, but it never stood up.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay Jeff. Thank you very much. Any other comments on
the Kerber's comments? If not than I'm going to move onto item 2. This is a
question of us, Mr. and Mrs. James and Doris Mielke.
Doris Mielke, 1645 Lake Lucy Road: There were two issues at the original
hearing that we were very concerned about and one was the drainage on Lake Lucy
Road. Where this water would flow when we had the curbs and everything and the
second one was safety for our driveway. We believe that the original hearing
gave us some assurances that the water would drain to both the north and the
south side but in fact it doesn't. We have all of the water from both the east
of our place and the west of our place coming down. If you ever want to see
what happens, come out with a water truck and poor a little water out by Betsy
Glaccum's house and it will run right down to our property. From the west, the
same thing happens and coming from the west it will wash out our driveway. It
washed out very badly last year. This year we've only had one major rainfall
about six weeks ago and it was starting to wash out again so we have a real
problem with our driveway washing out. Secondly, the safety issue is one that
I'm most concerned with. It's very difficult to go in and out of our driveway.
Even with cars coming around that corner at 30 mph, we are in a very vulnerable
position. We have especially a lot of trouble with the trucks that are going to
all the different construction sites now. They're coming around that corner at
40 mph. We can not see as well. There is a huge hill to the west of us and the
curve right on that hill and so we can not see going in and out of our driveway
very well at all and I'm really concerned about that issue. I don't think it
has improved our property at all.
Acting Mayor Geving: Jim, could you comment on that? Jim Chaffe, our Public
22
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
ISafety Officer.
Jim Chaffee: As far as the speed goes, we can get the deputies out there to run
some radar and hopefully slow the people down. Especially the construction
II
traffic. As far as coming out of your driveway, we can't be out there every
time you're coming out of your driveway so we ask you to use caution.
' Doris Mielke: Is there a possibility a stop sign could be put on Lake Lucy Road
to make everybody stop west of us?
' Acting Mayor Geving: I think the answer to that is no. I would say.
Gary Warren: We did install a hidden driveway sign to warn westbound traffic of
that.
IActing Mayor Geving: We'll have Jim take a look at that.
IDoris Mielke: I hear what Mrs. Palmer is saying too. We hear these cars
screeching around the corner and really whizzing by in the middle of the night
and it's not a safe road anymore.
IIActing Mayor Geving: It wasn't the one road that we had a number of complaints
on though Jim. In your report in our Council packet, I don't believe Lake Lucy
Road was listed.
IIJim Chaffee: It was not. This is the first I've heard of the complaints
on Lake Lucy Road but what we'll do is we'll get a traffic survey, radar survey
Icompleted out there by next Council meeting so we'll have an accurate log of the
speeds and vehicles.
Doris Mielke: In conclusion, I don't think it has benefitted our property at
IIall. In fact, I think it has deteriorated our property quite a bit.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to just respond to the comment from our City
IEngineer regarding that drainage. Gary, are you aware of any, of course we
haven't had any rain so it's pretty difficult to determine that but what about
the washout that they were talking about last year? That's before the
Iconstruction right? ,{
Gary Warren: We were out last year more than a couple times working to address
their concerns on the driveway and one was to install a swale on the west side
Iof the driveway so that the water could actually get caught before it got into
the right-of-way and go down underneath the culvert that's in their driveway and
out to the east where it was traveling before and that was the solution that we
Ihad implemented. Now I haven't been out there today but a month or so ago that
swale seemed to have been modified and filled in somehow so I don't know if the
Mielke's were filling it in for grass or just what but I think if that swale
were kept open it would drain properly and keep a majority of the water out of
the driveway.
Acting Mayor Geving: Would you take a look at that this week? And would you
Ialso get back with the Mielke's please?
Councilman Johnson: I just wanted to make a quick comment when the Public
' 23
.s.l.i.r ,, •� ..'4 t_._ ' Wit.
.4ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Safety Director brought up putting a radar patrol out there to get what the
average speed is. When you take a marked police car and set it where people can
see it from a mile away, which they did when they did the survey on West 78th
Street, they didn't find anybody speeding. I suggest that you don't be so
obvious if you're trying to make a count to see what the real traffic is.
Pretend like you're actually trying to give then a ticket or maybe actually do
it. Anyway, that was the last, we had directed that we set up radar traps and
ended up getting a radar survey on 78th Street. ,
Larry Brown: We do have the radar survey that was done by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation in our file and that is how the speed limit was
reached out there.
Xcting Mayor Geving: Let's talk about what's happening now.
Councilman Boyt: In regards to the speed limit. I remember that discussion and
as you recall, there was concern about posting a limit that we couldn't enforce.
It's coming home to roost. It's time for the City Council to come to grips with
the idea that we can't enforce our speed limits and we need to take action to do
that. I think the whole community would like to see the speed limits enforced.
Xcting Mayor Geving: The next item I'd like to address is the assessment '
hearing comment from Tom Kraker. Is that the correct pronounciation? Are you
in attendance?
Gary Warren: He indicated that he may not be able to make it in his letter.
Xcting Mayor Geving: Okay, Mr. Kraker is not here. His letter is added to the
assessment hearing and we have it for the record.
Gary Warren: I might note that his first comment that he did not receive any
II
lotice on the feasibility study. The feasibility study was actually approved in
May of 1986, as I mentioned earlier and at that time the property was in
ownership of Merle Stellar. We checked the notices and Mr. Stellar did receive
property notice. ,
Xcting Mayor Geving: This is a very recent letter as it's dated June 23rd. I
aould like to have the staff respond to this letter at the conclusion of
tonight's assessment hearing. Make sure that you respond back to Mr. and Mrs.
Kraker. Next we have a letter from Don Mezzenga.
Don Mezzenga: Our piece of property is located on the southeast corner of '
Galpin Drive and Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road has never been used by us on
our property. Can you move that map so I can show you. It might be a little
clearer if I can show you. This is our piece of property right here. This is
:R 117 or Galpin and this is Lake Lucy. Our home is right in here. This area
is farm. Our access has always been directly onto Galpin Blvd.. This is the
area that we're being assessed for. As I said before, we've never used that
toad for anything. Our equipment has always come in and out from Galpin Blvd..
Xs we all know, Lake Lucy Road has been upgraded and we've been assessed. It's
obvious that Lake Lucy Road was designed for one purpose and that was to service
_he new home development to the north. We derive from that road nothing. It's
a beautiful road but we have gained nothing. In fact, the thing that really
ipsets me is that upon receiving our assessment, I find that our assessment is
24
. City, Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 `8
II
more than double the assessment of these folks who use that road daily who
IIgenerate a great deal of traffic. Because they live there they have to have
their garbage hauled, their paper delivered but they must use that road. We
never use the road. our assessment is over $18,000.00. Their assessments are
Iright around $7,000.00 or $8,000.00 just for one lot. The fact that our piece
of property was even considered to be assessed for this thing that doesn't even
related to us at all is incomprehensiveable to me. When I saw the figure of our
Iassessment, that was even a little more difficult to swallow. Basically we
function without Lake Lucy Road. We will continue to function that way. No way
do I see any justification for our being assessed for that new road. As
I understand it, assessments are based on how a person benefits from
IIimprovement. Our benefits are zero. I don't want to stand here and talk about
the negatives of the road. There are some. I would appreciate the Council and
whoever is responsible for assessing properties to give this really, I'm sure
Iyou already have, a serious look. I think it's a terrible oversight on
someone's part. It's totally unjustified. Any questions? I'd be happy to try
and answer them.
IActing Mayor Geving: I think you have gotten some benefit Don. Obviously the
fact that that road covers several hundred feet of your property, is an
improvement to your property even if you don't front on Lake Lucy Road.
IDon Mezzenga: How? How does it benefit the property?
IIActing Mayor Geving: I think that road, just by being there is going to give
you substantial increase in property value.
Don Mezzenga: You mean my taxes are going to go up?
IIActing Mayor Geving: Yes.
IDon Mezzenga: That's good? That's a benefit?
Acting Mayor Geving: It's unfortunate but I think the properties themselves
benefit.
II Don Mezzenga: We make about $1,200.00 a year on our crop. Now you tell me how
my taxes going up and being assessed $18,000.00 is a benefit to me.
t Q
II Acting Mayor Geving: I believe it's a benefit. I believe the project itself,
from start to finish, from CR 17 to Galpin Blvd. is a big benefit to the City
Iand it's a definite to the people who live along that road.
Don Mezzenga: Of course but they should be assessed for that benefit. I'm
talking about, I'm being selfish here because I'm being assessed a tremendous
IIamount of money and I don't agree with you. You're talking about maybe in the
future the property will be worth more for development. I don't want to develop
this property. I'd like to live there and enjoy it for the purpose I bought it
II but that's old stuff to you folks. I'm talking about right now. How do you
II possibly justify charging me $18,000.00?
IActing Mayor Geving: Well, we couldn't build the project up to the corner of
your property and dropped it off there and forgot about it just because you
would have objected to this assessment hearing. We needed to complete the
I 25
I _m�.,._1.
Ti.£y Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
)roject and we swung it by your property. I believe there's a benefit. Any
)then Council comments on this? a r
:ouncilman Boyt: I have a question for Gary. I know that when we consider
assessing property we sometimes do it on a per unit basis to take into account
I
.anger lots. When we assessed this it was strictly frontage footage.
'ary Warren: The policies established from the feasibility study on was front
II
root assessment. This particular property received a credit because it was a
:orner property for one half of it's shorter side to allow it's total frontage
11 Lake Lucy is 1,069 feet roughly. We did give him a credit which brought down
II
he assessment rate down to 822 feet approximately.
sting Mayor Geving: How many feet credit did you give?
;ary Warren: The credit would be about 250 feet roughly. It is consistent I II
uess with assessment policies that...benefits from the improvement. You've got
pproximately what, 12 acres? i
on Mezzenga: Yes.
'ouncilman Boyt: Unfortunately, we can't come back and assess somebody should I
hey ever decide to divide their property up. It occurs to me that one issue
hat I'd sure like to hear from people as they present this, is who are they
roposing pay more? I would gather you're proposing that the people who live I
nd access the road pay a higher rate.
on Mezzenga: That would be the rationale thing. People who gain the benefit
hould pay the assessment. '
'ouncilman Boyt: Benefit is always hard to measure in the long run. As you
ay, let's talk about it right now. That's only one frame of reference that has
II
o be considered. Whether you care to develop it or not, there's potential.
he bill has to be paid. As you're aware, a tremendous amount of the total bill
as paid by State money so you got a great road. I see your point. If it was
II
ny of us sitting on that corner confronted with an $18,000.00 bill, I suspect
e'd be standing right where you're standing. I don't have a good way out of
his. What these people are proposing is that we go back and reassess everyone
lse? Is that the logic of this?
ary Warren: Or defer their assessments until development.
on Mezzenga: Wouldn't that make sense? Wouldn't that make just a great deal II
f sense?
ouncilman Boyt: You said you have how many, 12 acres?
on Mezzenga: Yes.
IIouncilman Boyt: Are we talking about lots along here that are consistently
arge? Like an acre plus?
ary Warren: The platted lots on Lake Lucy Highlands, Barb correct me if I'm igg
rong but I think the 1 per 10 criteria with 2 1/2 acre minimum.
26 II
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 e 1
IIBarbara Dacy: Right. The lots in Lake Lucy are 2 1/2 minimum.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so you're looking at a lot then that's about 5 times the
IIsize of your neighbors?
Don Mezzenga: That's correct.
IICouncilman Boyt: Well, there's a certain logic to taking a situation like this
one and deferring it.
ICouncilman Horn: I'd just like to respond to one statement and that is that
this was done for the... and that's not true. There are many people who live
along that road who told us we're tired of having exhaust systems drop out of
Iour cars from driving over this highway so it wasn't done just for the
development. It was done for everybody that lives along that road. Remember
when this came up and a few people objected to it, we told them at that time
Ithat there were a lot of people in the south part of the City who would like to
have their project done first and use this State money for it. We tried to make
this as painless as possible and still get the project done because a lot of
people really wanted the road. That road was not driveable the way it was
before.
Don Mezzenga: Mr. Horn, are you saying that Lake Lucy Road would have been
' upgraded if that development would not have gone in there? Who would have paid
for that road? Who would absorb that horrendous cost? Not those few people who
were worried about exhaust systems falling off in front of their house. This
I young man had a perfectly good road and is being assessed. I'm talking about
very simple facts. I don't benefit from that road. You say potentially. I
understand where you're coming from but I can't take that to the bank today.
I like the example, I've heard of deferred assessments. If and when I or
IIsomeone else decides to take that 12 acres and develop it, then hit that person
with assessments.
IActing Mayor Geving: Who's going to pay the construction costs of $610,000.00
if we do that Mr. Mezzenga? How are we going to do that?
IDon Mezzenga: I don't understand your question. $610,000.00.
Acting Mayor Geving: We have a project here that costs $610,000.00.
IICouncilman Horn: The bill is due today.
Acting Mayor Geving: And someone is going to have to pay that. The City of
IChanhassen is going to have to pay it. We pay for this bill by assessing it 78%
against our State Aid Funds, which we have. We have, like Clark said, a lot of
different projects we could have put that money against. We had an overwhelming
desire on the part of the citizens to improve Lake Lucy Road. A lot of the
Ipeople who live along your road and your neighbors wanted us to build that road.
If we took the other 24%, whatever it was, 22%, and deferred it and gave all
these people that are out there who now have a 22% assessment against the
I $610,000.00 and said we're going to defer this until sometime in the future,
who's going to pay the money that's been assessed against you if we don't do it
the way we're proposing to? It's got to be paid. There's a bill due. We paid
' 27
.ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Dur contracter. The bill is due. The project is completed and this is the
final action that we would have to take at the City level is to assess the
property owners so that this can go onto the tax rolls and the bill is then paid
through your taxes.
Don Mezzenga: I understand that. I
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, who's going to pay it if we defer it? I
Don Mezzenga: To me it's very simple. You had many requests. You had requests
for that road, is that correct?
Acting Mayor Geving: We had many requests.
Don Mezzenga: If you communicate back to those people what it's going to cost I
them to have that new road, that's very simple. Then suddenly the voices will
fall. If they know what the new road is going to cost, it's easy to say yes or
nay. I
Acting Mayor Geving: Those people wanted this road Don and they were willing to
pay...
Don Mezzenga: Then they should be willing to pay the assessments. That's
all I'm saying. Base the assessments on benefit.
Acting Mayor Geving: We are. That's exactly what we tried to do. I
Don Mezzenga: Are you trying to tell me that I am getting more than twice the
benefit from the folks who live on Lake Lucy Road? On what basis?
Acting Mayor Geving: On a per foot basis I would say yes. t II
Don Mezzenga: How? I want to hear your logic on that?
Acting Mayor Geeing: You're getting just as much benefit for the footage. I
Don Mezzenga: I don't use it. I don' t use it one bit.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not going to argue with you about it but we do it the
fairest way we could and this project, that was on a per foot basis. That's how
the assessment method works.
Don Mezzenga: It's a horrible inbalance.
Acting Mayor Geving: This is how we do all projects in the City. We either
assess them on an area basis or on a front footage basis and this happened to be
one, it's like many others that we do on a front footage basis where we feel
that you benefit.
Don Mezzenga: It seems that your inflexibility is inexplainable. The fact that
here sits this piece of ground and I know I'm being repetitious but it seems
that you're not listening to me either. These people are using that road 24
hours a day. Ambulance, fire, everything and that's fine. They're being
assessed less than half of what you're assessing me and I don't use that road
28 I
T-1 Sy
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
1
IIone second in a year. Now you explain that to me and I don't want to talk about
potential value. Defer my assessments.
Acting Mayor Geving: No, we couldn't do that. I would not...
IDon Mezzenga: A lot of people do it.
IActing Mayor Geving: ...on our part to do a deferred assessment. Prior to my
coming on the Council in 1972, a previous Council may a very big error by
deferring lots of, hundreds of thousands of dollars deferred sewer assessments.
' We paid for those in the early 1980's when those assessments were due. They
never did get billed. The pipes were in the ground. The project was completed
and the people that had good intentions of building and redeveloping their
property, never did so we could never collect those deferred assessments. Now
Iif you sat there for the next 25 years and never developed your property and
we're still paying 9% on this money that we borrowed to pay for the project,
who's going to pay that $18,000.00 Don? Who's paying for it?
IDon Mezzenga: I think that's the responsibility of the City.
' Acting Mayor Geving: It belongs to the City's responsibility.
Don Mezzenga: It is the City's responsibility.
IIActing Mayor Geving: But not all the people. Only the people who benefit.
Don Mezzenga: That's precisely my point and you show me where I'm benefitting
Ifrom that road. You can't.
Acting Mayor Geving: You live on that corner and you've got a new road.
ICouncilman Boyt: May I make a suggestion here? I think we're dealing with
about 5 people who have frontage assessments in .excess of 500 feet for widely
ranging net assessed amounts. I would suggest that one possible alternative,
' even though this road is a terrific deal given how much State money is in it, is
that we take all the lots that have 500 or more square feet and defer one-half
of their net assessment for 5 years to collect. That gives you some flexibility
IIto spread this out. It recognizes that you are paying, what I saw in a quick
look, the largest single assessment of any group being assessed here and yet it
puts a cap on it so that it doesn't carry out to who knows when. We have one
concern that maybe another council person, if they want to support this, and
IIthat is that we're running up a 9% per year bill on this that I really don't
think the City should be paying and I think that should be included in the clock
on the interest rate should be running from today but the amount shouldn't be
Iassessed for 5 years.
Acting Ma Y or Geving: I a pp reciate your su gg estion Bill. I know we're trying to w+
Preach compromises here but this is a matter that involves a lot of money. I'm
not about to make a decision tonight with our financial consultant's opinion on
your suggestion. I think your suggestion might be workable but I'm certainly
not going to have the Council vote on that suggestion tonight. It would be far
Ibetter to let our financial people look at that alternative and determine
whether or not it's viable but I appreciate what you just said.
29
4 t
Iity Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
2ouncilman Horn: Two things. First of all, I'm assuming on this that we're
Ioing to set up a payback period of a number of years anyway. We typically do II
that which accomplishes what you're talking about.
Zouncilman Boyt: What I'm talking about Clark is that we would take half of
that amount and collect interest but his 8 years would be divided into one-half
of his current assessment and 5 years from now it would be divided into
whatever, his 3 years remaining. The formula needs to be figured out. I'll
grant you that but I think my intent is to ease the burden on people who find
that they have a tremendous amount of footage.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would question, first of all, I don't know if the rules '
allow us to make a specific deferment for a particular homeowners who are being
assessed because of some road. I would have to defer to our counsel because you
are splitting a very important and rigid assessment policy and you're trying to
deviate from that and I'm not so sure that the rules will allow us to do that
but it's certainly something we can look into. Again, I'm not aware of where
we've done this in the past. Where we've taken a homeowner and said because of
jour unusually high assessment, we will defer your rate over a given period
that's different than all the others. I don't know if we've done that Bill.
Councilman Horn: The other comment I was thinking about and having thought ,
about it further I'm not sure it's workable but it seems like what we're talking
about here is benefit and people who have a driveway access to the road
certainly have a different benefit than those that have a sideyard benefit. The
hole I see in that logic is that someone can always move their driveway but it
seems there is, and we have two cases here where someone really has a sideyard
rather than a frontyard type of assessment. I'm wondering if we shouldn' t have
different rates for those.
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that that was the credit that the City Engineer
already gave. He gave one-half credit for this particular lot because it was a < '
side yard rather than a front yard and that is our normal assessment policy.
•
Councilman Horn: We did that also on Kerber's?
Acting Mayor Geving: Yes sir. We've done that always in assessment policies.
When you're fronting a street, such as you are Don, which is Galpin Blvd., and
your sidelot is the newly paved and constructed road, you would get a one-half
credit for that and that's exactly what Gary explained earlier. This is our
policy so we already do this. The credit he got is already there.
Don Mezzenga: Maybe this is a difficult question to answer, do you have any
idea how much deferred land we're talking about? You've got my 12 acres. Is
there a ballpark in that?
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not going to continue this very much further but I'm
going to refer to the City Manager and ask his opinion on the request by
Councilman Boyt on whether or not a deferment such as he is suggesting could
actually happen.
Don Ashworth: I would respond with the point that you had raised. I think that
the City Auditors should really respond to that question. As that issue arose
out of the '72-'73 bonds, there were definite opinions and positions put forward
30 '
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
IIagain by the Auditor's office and it's really difficult to estimate what the
total impact may be. You've given us a suggestion and we can surely look at
that. We can bring back what the cost of that would be to the City on a yearly
basis as well as a recommendation of the Auditor.
Acting Mayor Geving: We're sympathetic to what you're asking for Don. Don't
get us wrong. I understand your situation. You have a very large tax
II
assessment that's going to be placed against you and it will be spread over 8
years or so. We'd like to make that easier if we can and I think Councilman
Boyt has come up with a suggestion. Maybe it will work but we do have to give
Ithis to our financial people. They will plug this into their calculators and
give us some options. Thank you very much.
' Don Mezzenga: Thank you.
Councilman Horn: Another option might be to extend the payback period.
I Acting Mayor Geving: That's a possibility too. However again, that's probably
already been worked out in fine detail in terms of the recommendation that was
given to us tonight. I'd like to now hear from the fifth person and this is Mr.
II Warren Phillips.
Warren Phillips, 1571 Lake Lucy Road: I thought I had a legitimate complaint
' until I heard this man. I would like to remind the Council that maybe we
wouldn't be having so much discussion tonight if you folks had listened a little
earlier on. I have a copy of a petition that was signed by 18 property holders
on Lake Lucy Road that was given to the Council in April, 1986 that said we
I didn't want the road so where you get the idea that people on the road wanted
it, I don't know. Kerber's on here and Harvey's, Kruegers, Christianson and
everyone along the road. What we wanted was a blacktop road on the same
' configuration through there. The safety problems that have been mentioned
tonight you've created. The problem with this man's property you've created.
We could have gotten a blacktop road across there for the same assessment to our
•
' properties, yes we told at the time it would have cost us then to just
blacktop the existing street through on the original right-of-way would have
been about a trade-off.off. The money we got from the State, and I'd like to point
out that that State money is our money too. It isn't a gift from somebody. It
I was essentially to benefit the new development and for some future agenda that ,#
has never been revealed to us. My concern, in terms of my property, relates to
the low area adjacent to the Mielke property. We were told that the road would
I drain along the north side. It all dumps to the south. I have a letter from
the Engineer suggesting some corrections that were never fulfilled. I wrote a
letter to the Council, a copy to the Mayor, July of last year. Never got a
response. I do have the signed receipts that the letter was delivered so I
II don't have a lot of faith. I didn't expect to get my assessment down but I just
want to be on record for a few things that I think the Council could probably do
that would make things a little more acceptable to those of us on the street.
IFirst off we were told if the street couldn't exit on CR 117 in the old location
because it was a hazard. At least that was a 40 mph speed limit there. Now
where the road exits onto CR 117, it's a 50 mph speed limit along that portion
' of CR 117. That doesn't seem like a very good exchange for us. We were never
told that there would be no parking. It's one street that deadends on CR 117
and CR 17 on the other side. It's got a bicycle path that leads to noplace and
you can't park your car in front of your property. Some of us have long
31
thy Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
1111
driveways. It snows in Minnesota. If you want to leave you car out on the
street overnight if you have to get out early in the morning, we're denied that
priviledge. Is it possible that you could limit parking to one side of the
street and allow it on one side? Either side, I don't think would make much
difference. It's plenty wide. Could we have a light on the west end of Lake II
Lucy Road? There was one where it joined CR 117 previously. There's no light
there now. I think that would help with nighttime driving through there.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is that on the new portion of the road? '
Warren Phillips: On the new portion of the road. Where the new road exits. I
think that would be an improvement. Could we have some directional signs on CR
117 prior to the intersection from north or south? We had those previously on
the road. My own property, the frontage of my property to the west boundary of
my property, the road was raised about 4 to 5 feet. The property dropped off
sharply previously but the widening of the road to the south, it drops off even
sharper now. There's no way that I can maintain that and in fact, they dumped
all of the grass and things that rooted up over on that side of the road and
it's a very steep slope now and all I would ask is if sometime in the future if
there happens to be some fill around the City, if they would come back and take
a look at reducing that grade some so it can be taken care of. I think that
would be a fair trade-off. You can't expect any reduction in the assessment.
I just wanted to express my feelings on the property to let you know. I am on
record that we are going to have rain someday and that area is going to flood in
front of the property and then I may be back to the City for some more... '
Acting Mayor Geving: Warren, could you show me exactly and the Council exactly
which one of those lots? Just so we get a good reference to where you live
Warren. Is it the middle of the project? ; '
Gary Warren: It's west of that little pond.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's on the south side? F '
Warren Phillips: This property and there's a roadway that goes out to the point
and this is the Mielke property here. This area right in here is very low. We = '
were told the water would be drained from this way along the north side and then
there's a natural flow that goes through to Lake Lucy that way. Instead all of
this water now, you reduce the absorption area, you put gutters on so there's no
ditches, the water can't run-off before. I was told that that would be, some
run-off ditches would be put on the north side so the water here in front of
Glaccum's would flow north. None of that's been done. I have a letter that
says it will be done and as a result, the water really starts flowing right
about from here and it goes diagonally right over to this drain that goes under
the road and the Mielke property, then it turns and comes out this way. So this
low area is the area that's...
Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you very much Warren. I think the things that you
have written to the Council on June 27th, as far as I'm concerned, they're all
reasonable possibly except for the last item but in terms of the street light,
the fill, drainage, any comments on that from any of the Councilmembers? I
think all of these are very reasonable requests and I'm going to direct our City
Engineer be in contact with you immediately and try to resolve all of these to
your satisfaction.
32 1
77
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
II
1 Councilman Horn: I would like the City Engineer to comment on the cost of the
road without the State Aid. I'd also like to point out the other, our money,
Ibut if we don't use it somebody else uses it.
Warren Phillips: Why don't you use it in the way that the citizens want to use
it?
IIGary Warren: The question Clark, the cost of the road without State Aid?
ICouncilman Horn: Yes.
Gary Warren: The total project cost was...
IICouncilman Horn: No, I mean had we done it with the other recommendation.
Gary Warren: You mean just on a rural, typical road section?
ICouncilman Horn: Yes.
II Gary Warren: Actually the assessment costs are based on having to overlay that
so the assessment is based on if we would have had to do it the other way.
Councilman Horn: That's the comment I wanted brought out.
IActing Mayor Geving: The next is the request for an appeal from Elizabeth Ann
Glaccum. I know she's here. I talked to her earlier. She gave us this letter.
IIWould you care to respond to this or...
Elizabeth Glaccum: I just wanted to be on record with my letter. It's self
Iexplanatory. To pay that all at one time would be very difficult for me.
Acting Mayor Geving: So you're appealing the payment be scheduled a longer
period of time?
IIElizabeth Glaccum: Yes. If you'd just read the explanation. Dale, can I make
a comment to the Public Safety Director?
II Acting Mayor Geving: Sure. $
Elizabeth Glaccum: I live on the corner of Yosemite. I've lived there 20 some
Iyears. I live right on the corner and when the road was built we were supposed
to be able to see off to CR 82 and when we turn the corner as you come up into
my driveway, you can not see the top of a school bus as you're making the turn
II coming down...towards me. In other words, if I'm making the turn and a school
bus is coming, I can not see the top of the school bus. It is a very dangerous
situation. 5:30 in the morning I wake up with the screeching of the
I motorcycles. The construction people have to be on the road to their job sites
by 7:00. They toot their horns at my driveway to let people know around
Yosemite, don't make that turn because we're hauling concrete and things like
that and they would not be able to stop. It's more than dangerous. I know we
' probably can't have a traffic light. Maybe we could have a caution light. I
personally have called some of the contractors. I've gotten names off the sides
of the truck and I've said, if you don't tell me your driver within the hour, I
' 33
r
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
will et a s '
g quad car out here to ticket your men. That's how bad it is.
Jim Chaffee: That's for tooting their horn, is that correct?
Elizabeth Glaccum: No, not for tooting their horn. It's a dangerous situation
because the incline of the road and they're speeding so hard and so fast that
you could not possibly stop. That corner is for school bus children. A dog
crossing the road, anybody. Somebody going out for their mail. You could not
stop a construction truck there.
Jim Chaffee: Okay, we're talking speed again? '
Elizabeth Glaccum: Yes, we are talking speed definitely. ...that road was not
done properly. I was the most...my front hill with the wall. I'd like to go on
record, that wall will probably fall down within a year...
Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you very much Elizabeth. Are there any other
comments that anyone would like to make?
Doris Welke: I would like to add, at the bottom of my letter, I'm saying that
most of the benefit is going to Curry Farms, Pheasant Hills, those are the
people who are really getting a lot of benefit from the road and I'm wondering
how much they're being assessed.
Acting Mayor Geving: They're being assessed on the same principle, on the same
method that we assessed the entire project.
Doris Mielke: Only if they have frontage on the road? f '
Acting Mayor Geving: On a front footage basis.
,Doris Mielke: The people that are back then that are coming off and using that
road all the time are not being assessed?
Councilman Boyt: Centex had a per unit. r
Gary Warren: They're assessed on a front footage basis.
Councilman Boyt: But it was spread out over the 53 units right?
Cary Warren: Actually it was deposited with the City in escrow to cover the
assessments. Whether they choose to spread it over the development, that's
their perrogative.
2ouncilman Boyt: I thought it said in our pack here that that's exactly how it
as spread out. To be spread equally over all 53 lots in Curry Farms.
3ary Warren: The comment is not accurate. '
:ouncilman Boyt: It's not accurate?
;ary Warren: In that case, that was being discussed and...
acting Mayor Geving: But it was still based on a front footage basis?
34
' City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 71)
John: I read the letter from Mr. Gutmiller and Gary Warren's respond which, in
my opinion, says absolutely nothing. This road is basically for the benefit of
the developer. So far the property's made a profit. He's not paying a single
I assessment. I looked at the assessment roll tonight, his name isn't on there.
Had it not been for he and his realtors..., that road would have never happened?
IIActing Mayor Geving: I disagree with you John.
John Hennessy: I don't think so Dale. You have to be all in favor of 100%.
' What did the ask for? 80 acres of Green Acre's land which generates about
$1,760.00 a year. My guess is if anybody is paying as low as $2,500.00 for 22
lots, that that would be the minimum. You're generating about $50,000.00 at
least in taxes. How can the City say no to this road?
IIActing Mayor Geving: That road was a thorn in our side for the last 20 years.
It's been our desire for a long time, since we couldn't maintain it, to rebuild
I Lake Lucy Road. That was a decision of the Council and it was a request from a
lot of citizens to do that.
I John Hennessy: Outside of Merrill Steller and...how many residents along that
road, can you name even one that really wanted that entire project?
Acting Mayor Geving: I can't name them tonight but there were.
IJohn Hennessy: Can you name one?
' Acting Mayor Geving: John, I'm not going to argue with you.
Warren Phillips: We had 18 property owners on the road all sign the petition.
I John Hennessy: What you did to Mr. Gutmiller is just wonderful. He had peace
and quiet. He had maybe 2 cars a week going down that deadend road. Nobody out
there. He's now got constant traffic. I've been down there twice and seen
' motorcycles where they're leaning over on the side to the point where they
almost scrape their knees because they're going so fast. To have peace and
quiet and now that's all been taken away from him. . ..the city is so prone to
' let's develop. Let's be the Richfield of the 80's and 90's. Why can't we be
rural Chanhassen? What's next?
Dana Hennessy: Why can't they just, on the other properties, like the farmers
that are still there, I think maybe you should look at maybe giving them a
little bit of different treatment because just think, if you were driving down
the road and see all the new people that were. ..you can obviously see the income
I levels of those people. They are a lot greater than the people that existed
there before and also, it's interesting how Merrill Steller got in right under
the wire before the new ordinance and he got his land developed in 2 1/2 acre
I lots and now Mr. Mezzenga and Mr. Gutmiller can't develop their land because you
changed the ordinance. So now they've got to pay these high taxes and they
can't put their land into 2 1/2 acre lots. Maybe another alternative would be
to let these guys develop their land. If you keep up with things you kind of
' see how some people slid right under the wire to get their land developed and
then you cut other people off. That just isn't fair.
' 35
3City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: We didn't do it just overnight.
Dana Hennessy: Just about. I went to all those meetings. f
Acting Mayor Geving: I think the Met Council forced a lot of that on the City •
of Chanhassen but the decisions that we made were long in coming and they
•
weren't made at 12:00 on a given night here in the Council chambers.
Dana Hennessy: But still by the time they got their assessments, they weren't
able to divide their lots because you changed the ordinance.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's probably true.
Dana Hennessy: It is true and now they can't.
Ted Coey: My only comment was, I was here 3 or 4 times when we had all the
meetings when this thing was being passed and I think all that we're hearing
here is just exactly what we tried to say 2 years ago. Is the people on the
road didn't want the road the way it was. Now it's coming back and everybody is
saying the same thing. What you should have done is taken the properties that
were going to be developed on the west end, put a road in off of Galpin Lake
Road to serve them. Let us have the road the way we wanted it. We still would
have paid our $11.00 and whatever cents for the road but what we have now
is, I've got 20 acres there and I moved from Lotus Lake which got overrun by
•
people and now I'm in the middle of a freeway. I bought there because I wanted
to be in a horsey area. Not have cars all over the place and what you're doing e
to us is you're saying, hey we're going to put down what we want and not what
you want. Now the people are coming back and saying hey, we're getting stuck
for all these assessments and we didn't want this. Why didn't you stick it to
Klingelhutz? Why didn't you stick it to the guy who's got the Acres? They're
the ones that should have paid the tab for the whole god damn road at the far
end. Not us. We should have gotten stuck for our road the way we wanted it.
Just a side road. That's where it was at and you guys didn't listen and that's
why I think some of the councilpeople were voted off last time. I voted against t
them and I'll vote against them again because we want things the way we want
them. You guys aren't living out there. I think you have to listen to people
when they're coming up here that have been in the area. I've lived here for 15
years and I'm a newcomer compared to Kerber and a lot of people here and what
about us? We've been here for a long time. We live in the City. You're
catering to all these new developments. Centex and all these people who are
coming in throughout the area. We should have some sort of preference because
we've been here. At least listen to us. That's what it's all about.
Newspaper Reporter: I'd like to ask a question. You said that the road had
been a thorn in the City's side for years and years.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's correct.
Newspaper Reporter: Could you comment on that? How is it a thorn in the City's
side?
Acting Mayor Geving: The road was improperly maintained for a long time. We
ii;
weren't able to bring our trucks out there because the base of the road was
gone. We couldn't maintain the road any longer. The little bit of blacktop we
36
' City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 j'`
II
I had, we actually scraped up and pulled off and we graveled the road to maintain
it the best that we could. We kept it in that state for a few years. At that
point we decided the best thing to do for the whole City was to blacktop
Lake Lucy Road and rebuild it and that's exactly what happened. It just
Icouldn't be maintained any longer.
Reinhold Gutmiller: Why I have to pay $2.00...Steller property has new homes
Ithere. . ..all the water backed up...drainage ditch.
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that you may have responded to that, didn't you
IGary? Could you tell him about the drainage ditch. I don't know if that was
one of your questions that you wrote. You wrote and asked about the assessment
policy and the method of assessing.
IIReinhold Gutmiller: ...it's all wetland around there anyhow.
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe you got a credit for that wetland though.
IIGary Warren: He got a 93 foot credit for the wetland.
IActing Mayor Geving: Jay, do you have a question of Mr. Gutmiller?
Councilman Johnson: Actually about Mr. Gutmiller's property and it's to Gary.
How did you figure 93.25 feet on this as his reduction? Is that the wetlands
IIfrom his driveway west?
Gary Warren: It's based on a percentage surface area basically using wetland
II condition versus the total acreage out there. That percentage is applied
against his front footage.
Councilman Johnson: So if you've got 1,000 foot of frontage and 90% of your
Iland is wetlands, you only get charged for 100 foot of frontage?
Gary Warren: The minimum assessed rate was 180 feet to represent 1 unit so yes,
Iup to 180 feet. Everybody had a minimum to 180 feet.
Councilman Johnson: So it's not how much wetlands fronts the road, which in his
IIcase is over half his property is probably wetlands fronting the road, but how ,Ail
much of his property is wetland?
Gary Warren: Right.
IICouncilman Johnson: He is actually in effect, less than 2 units here when you
talk at 180 foot per unit.
I Larry Kerber: Mr. Phillips talked about the no
Y p parking signs and you said you
would look into some of those things. Is that something you're going to look
Iinto? The possibility of taking them down?
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know. We'll look into the issue. I don't know
what the issue is going to bring but we'll look into it.
ICouncilman Horn: Also, we need that whole drainage issue reviewed.
II
37
II
-g ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Councilman Johnson: All of it.
Councilman Horn: All of the concerns we've heard about water flowing the wrong
way. We want to cover that.
Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded the motion to close the
public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing
was closed.
Acting Mayor Geving: Ladies and gentlemen, before you leave, tonight I
appreciate you all coming and presenting your case. We will take a look at each
one of the people who made a presentation tonight. All the 6 letters that I
received here. The seventh letter is Mr. Gutmiller's and we will direct staff
to return to this Council on the first meeting in the month of July which will
be July 11th and we'll bring back to the Council all of the comments and
recommended solutions to some of the suggestions that were made tonight by the
various councilmen and by members of the public yourself. So be here on the
11th and we will discuss and finalize this issue.
Councilman Johnson: I also would like, since the public hearing is over but I
guess this is a Council comment, I do see a benefit to this road going to people
not fronting this road, i.e. Pheasant Run or whatever Pheasant whatever it is up
there. I guess the whole Curry Farms is getting assessed effectively. I'd like
to look at what the possibility is. Those people do utilize the road a lot. I
realize there is $6001,000.00 of State monies that is basically the rest of the
City's portion of getting this done that was put in here and crippled us from
doing other improvements around the town for a while. We're doing the same _
thing now down at Bluff Creek. Using up the next 3 years worth of State funds II
or whatever to do Bluff Creek. I'd like to look at whether, I know that there
was some thought to it and some discussion previously about who really benefits
to this and a road like this doesn't benefit, in my opinion, just the people
adjacent to the road but the people within an area, within a range of that road,
that their access has been greatly improved.
:'ouncilman Horn: You're thinking something more like the storm sewer type of
assessment.
ouncilman Johnson: Right. A more area wide assessment type of review of it.
Roger Knutson: You did not notify property owners of the public improvement
searing establishing the project, you can't assess them at this time.
-ouncilman Johnson: I'dl like to look into whether we notified the Pheasant
sills, or the property owners who owned Pheasant Hills at that time. ,
roger Knutson: The answer is no.
'cting Mayor Geving: I'd like to cut this off gentlemen. I'm going to make a '
lotion at this time to table agenda item 4, Lake Lucy Road assessment hearing
intil July 11th.
38
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
' Acting Mayor Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table the Lake Lucy
Road Assessment hearing until July 11, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Councilman Boyt: We may have voted prematurely here.
' Acting Mayor Geving: We voted and we're done with this issue. We have directed
staff to come back to us with the comments and the recommended solutions.
' Councilman Boyt: I have a quick question. When does our interest clock start
running? When is the City building up a bill on this?
Gary Warren: When the tax assessment roll is adopted.
ICouncilman Boyt: So so far it's not costing us anything to carry this over?
Gary Warren: You closed the public hearing and you're tabling adopting of the
assessment hearing?
Acting Mayor Geving: That's correct. We have closed the public hearing. We
I have tabled this to July 11th at which time we'll hear it again with the
recommended solutions.
' Councilman Boyt: I think there's an important point here Dale.
Councilman Johnson: We sold bonds last year.
' Councilman Boyt: The City's costs are building on this project.
Acting Mayor Geving: Sure, I know. That's why it's very important to make this
Iassessment hearing.
Councilman Johnson: The assessments will go against the properties next year
whether we do it this week or two weeks from now. We start collecting the money
next year, not next week.
IMCGLYNN PROPERTY:
A. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT #2-1 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2.
IIB. AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR AUDUBON ROAD BETWEEN SOO LINE RAILROAD AND
TH 5.
IDon Ashworth: City Council tabled action on this item close to a month ago to
allow the City to present the item to our school district and to the County. We
II did that. I attended the County Board meeting and we had planned on having
somebody at the school but they changed the meeting time. Anyway, both the
County and the school have acted to approve the proposed tax increment district
plan that you have in front of you, before the Council, and staff would
IIrecommend that we do such.
Acting Mayor Geving: This is also a public hearing, is that correct?
' 39
ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
1r- 11
Acting Mayor Geving called the public hearing to order.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. = '
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Acting Mayor Geving: At this time it would be appropriate then Don, I'm hoping
that we can get a letter from the school. We did get a response from the County
Administrator. I do not see one from the School District. I'd like to see that
in our packet. It would be appropriate to table this issue until the documents
notifications are...
Don Ashworth: I would like you to vote. '
Acting Mayor Geving: Would you like to move ahead?
Don Ashworth: Yes. I did talk with the School District today. They are in
agreement on their meeting. They did look at it. They did approve it. Bob
Ostman is the one who contacted me.
Acting Mayor Geving: I guess that's what I was looking for was a letter.
Don Ashworth: He stated that he would put it in writing and Mr. Ostman has '
always been honest. I'm sure that.. . r
' IIResolution #88-63: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the Tax Increment District #2-1 and Economic Development District No. 2 as
?resented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. F�
Resolution #88-64: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Horn seconded to authorize
a feasibility study for Audubon Road between Soo Line Railroad and TH 5 and that } '
the firm of William R. Engelhardt and Associates be designated to prepare the
Feasibility study. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ACCEPT QUOTES FOR INSPECTION/CSO VEHICLE.
2ouncilman Horn: It appears to me that by specifying a specific color on here '
re limit some of our options. Someone might have something that would meet our
:riteria on their lot that they could give us a good deal but by specifying the
.olor we've eliminated that possibility. Now I can understand how you might
rant to have a uniform color on a CSO vehicle but I don't understand why you
reed it on an inspection vehicle.
Tim Chaffee: My thoughts on that Clark are to keep the Public Safety vehicles
ill the same color. With all the networking and computerization going on, I
:elt they could find a vehicle that was comparable in a light blue color. If
rou wanted we could go back and vie for a different color. I'm not particular.
IIW
40
. City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 85
II F Councilman Horn: It's only a recommendation for the future. You might knock
out certain bids that would be really favorable by putting that restriction on
so if you can, and I understand what you're trying to do with the uniform code
and I see that for the CSO vehicle but for inspection vehicles and the fact that
' our last one was white, I think you'd do better not to specify unless you really
have to.
' Councilman Boyt: I can't find a quote here right at the minute. I remember
reading through this a statement from one of the dealers about the rush nature
of the bid. Can you tell a bit about that?
' Jim Chaffee: We were, I think maybe you're referring to the quote of Timmerman
saying that they had to order an 8 to 10 week timeframe for the vehicle to come
in. That would take us through pretty much the busy part of the season. Right
' now one of our inspectors is using his own vehicle and charging gas for that
vehicle. We felt that it was important to have the vehicle as soon as possible
to carry us through the summer months.
' Councilman Boyt: In Mr. Timmerman's letter he says, due to the urgency of these
vehicles or the need for these vehicles, it actually limits his ability to
effectively bid. It seems to me that when we pass a budget, we can start
' looking then. He talks about on the second page of his letter, as Clark points
out, that they would be able to expand their search if there wasn't such an
urgency in getting the vehicle. I can understand why there's an urgency in
' getting the vehicle now. I would like to see us take action when we approve a
budget to go out and begin the bid process for the items that have been
approved. Does that seem like it would fit Don?
' Don Ashworth: Remember that the adjustment adding the additional inspector was
actually a mid-year adjustment by the City Council and I will agree that it's
been a good 4 to 6 weeks since the City Council took that action. However, the
' question was one of how do we accomplish that in terms of total dollars so we
have not been sitting by idly during the last 4 week period of time. We have
tried to move ahead with the whole process to insure that when we came back to
' you, and I think you'll remember we put into the packet let's say 4 weeks ago,
the request to start preparing the specifications. There is a set of procedures
that we do follow in every purchase and I can say that from the date that you
approved that mid-year inspection position, we have moved as quickly as possible
to get this to the point that it's at tonight.
Councilman Horn: Did we notify Mr. Timmerman that that timeframe would not be
' acceptable?
Jim Chaffee: Yes, I did. I told him.
Councilman Horn: And he was still unable to locate something?
Jim Chaffee: He indicated that he could not, when I talked to him just 2 or 3
days ago.
Councilman Horn: Because he implied in his letter that he.. .
Jim Chaffee: I see that.
41
,._._ _ �... �z F.
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Councilman Horn: I want to make sure we at least pursued them. Then I have no
problem with the bids and I would recommend approval.
Resolution #88-65: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
authorize purchasing a 1988 Chevrolet Blazer from Nelson-Lenzen in the amount of
$14,010.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Resolution #88-66: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
authorize purchasing a 1988 Chevrolet Celebrity from Timmerman Leasing in the
amount of $11,256.68. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW NEAR MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD AND PLEASANT VIEW ROAD INTERSECTION.
Acting Mayor Geving: This seemed rather clear to me. I thought that '
in Near Mountain did a very good job in bringing this to our attention. There
are several letters involved and Jim Chaffee, I believe that maybe you could
refer to this. Give us a little bit of insight as to how we can resolve this
and let's get on with it.
Jim Chaffee: I think my memo is more or less addresses the history which as we
searched through it, it kind of made it a moot point with the access being now
authorized for the new Trapper's Pass. I think Mr. Wehrle is here and he is the
one who brought it up initially to the Council. We have looked at it. I've
talked with Gary Warren on the intersection. We have no problem with it from a
staff's standpoint, of straightening the intersection out. It's just a matter
of when. Whether you want to do it now. Use State Aid funds or if you want to
put it off until late in 1989 but the important question becomes then if we do
wait until 1989, do we want to put up a sign from a liability standpoint? I
guess from a liability standpoint we would like to do that.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to have your recommendation
not we do it now or we wait and do it in 1989. on Jxm on whether or
Jim Chaffee: From a public safety standpoint, I have no problem with doing it
right now. From a dollar standpoint, that's something the Council would have to
decide. '
Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you very much. Jim, would you comment please since
you started this whole issue with your Near Mountain presidency.
Jim Wehrle: I think the residents of Near Mountain would like to hav e '
intersection straighten out as soon as possible obviously in the most prudent
fiscal fashion that the Council can see it's way clear to doing it but as soon
as possible.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know how we made the $10,000.00 mistake but if the I
corner has been functioning and was functioning until we put the sign up there.
I understand the liability that the City has to properly sign it's corners. I
would suggest that we can put a sign there that doesn't limit car turns, since
you have said that those seem to be appropriate. It's the trucks, trailers and
longer vehicles that can't make that turn and we can do that for a lot less than
$10,000.00. Then we're not spending $10,000.00 that the City doesn't have to
42
$7
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
correct a problem that's been there for 4 years and really wasn't a problem
II I until we put the sign up. I suggest that we change the sign to read something
to the effect of no right turns for trailers, trucks or whatever. Vehicles over
' 30 feet or whatever from a public safety standpoint we need to do that. That
will correct the problem and we can be done with it. Then the cars can make the
right hand turn. We've stopped the dangerous vehicles from using it and we've
saved $10,000.00 that we don't have to spend.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Let's hear from the engineer on that. Can we do it Gary?
' Gary Warren: You can sign, we can make just about anything as far as signs are
concerned to restrict the traffic there. I don't know, it will become more of
an enforcement issue I guess from that standpoint.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Is it a long term solution that Bill is suggesting?
Gary Warren: I think if I understand the concerns as far as the Near Mountain
' neighborhood is concerned, it's to be able to get bus traffic in and large
vehicles. Not just the passenger vehicles. I don't know if that necessarily
addresses the neighborhood school buses.
' Acting Mayor Geving: What I've got, this option ahead of me, it says complete
the project in 1988. What is the extent of the project? What kind of a project
It_ would it be and how big a job? Could we do it in a couple of weeks? Let's do
it. What's wrong with doing it and be done with it once and for all? I
remember when we put that in Bill and maybe we made a big mistake when we did.
I guess maybe we were listening to a lot of neighbors at the time but remember a
lot of the residents to the west are very vocal on this issue and we didn't have
a Near Mountain. Near Mountain was a development, it was at plat stage and the
people to the west were making their points and it was pretty much decided at
' this Council to do what we did. Maybe we made a mistake when we did it and it's
time to undo it for all time and make it right. If we can do that in several
weeks and we can do it reasonably cost wise, I don't know if this $10,000.00 is
accurate. It was an estimate. The engineer says he can do it. I'd like to
think that we can go ahead and clean up this project.
Councilman Boyt: Dale, this is a neighborhood that's saying that they don't
want traffic.
Acting Mayor Geving: I know that.
Councilman Boyt: They certainly don't want truck traffic through the
neighborhood.
' Acting Mayor Geving: I don't think they're going to get it.
Councilman Boyt: They're not going to get it the way that corner is now for
1 sure and if we sign it properly, the corner will continue to do what it's done
all along. I don't think we have $10,000.00 to spend. I would support a sign
but I'm opposed to spending $10,000.00.
Acting Mayor Geving: Well, we don' t know how much it's going to cost. Go ahead
Jay and then we'll take a vote on this.
43
11 = x: ➢
atilcy Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
II
Councilman Johnson: I need to know whether we have school bus traffic that is
trying to make that right hand turn out of there or the left hand turn in. Jim
says we do. That's one consideration right there. The other consideration is
exactly what we did earlier this evening and this is, this was done through the
citizen input. To change it without citizen input from the people further down
III!
Pleasant View would be terrible. This is another public hearing, a public
announcement to the people who got this intersection designed the way it is now.
They had a reason they wanted it to be done not just for us to switch their II
reasoning backwards a few years later so I think that we owe it to our citizens
to inform the people along Pleasant View that we are reconsidering this
intersection. As far as they're concerned, four years ago we should have had a
sign up saying no right hand turn. That's what we
II
was not putting the sign up 4 promised them and the mistake
9 p years ago. That's what the mistake was. The sign
should have been put up before the first house went into Near Mountain then the
school bus company would know they can't make that turn and they would have II
found an alternate route. The trucks would know they couldn't make that turn so
they would have found an alternate route.
Acting Mayor Geving: I hear you Jay. I like your suggestion. Clark? II
Councilman Horn: That was going to be my point too is that we can't do anything
unless we open that up to a public hearing again. The other I like to make is that I think we need to evaluate Bill's recommendation from'a
City liability standpoint not just a safety issue. Part of the point that's
II
come out here is the reason they put the sign up in the first place is we're
liable if we don't have a sign up in the City. I know when that question first
came up, it seemed like a strange consideration to put on the developer to make
that kind of an entrance and that wasn't the developer's plan to put that
entrance in like that so I totally disagree with the Public Safety Commission's
recommendation that we should get the developer to defray those costs. He put
it in that way at our request and it wasn't only our request I see as I read II
back through the Minutes, it was MnDot's recommendation. I don't know how MnDot
ever got convinced that that's the way that intersection should work but somehow
it was their recommendation and when they make a recommendation like that, it's
not really something that you can turn around. II
Acting Mayor Geving: I think I'm listening to the Council here and I do believe
II
that we do owe it to the people west of this area to have at least a meeting
where they can voice their opinion and I think that's the way it should be done.
In the meantime though we do have a situation that we want to make sure is taken
care of. Can you assure us of that Jim, for the present until we have this
public hearing? Until we make a decision? Okay. II
Jim Wehrle: The status of the sign...will remain down, is that correct? As it
currently is designed? II
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe it's down now.
Jim Wehrle: Yes. It has been since the last time I brought it to the Council II
and the pledge you made at that time was it would stay down until it was
resolved so I assume it will stay down. If, before this hearing is held, from a
study by Gary or whoever would be done to show a plan 1 or plan 2 or plan 3 of
01
what could or should be done to that intersection and how much it would cost,
would be nice. I can't imagine spending a fraction of $10,000.00 to round off a
II
44
89
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
IF sharp corner. There's perhaps some concern that we get into whether the new one
is going to stay or be altered. It's currently there... I can't imagine it
being more than a couple day project...
' Councilman Horn: When we agreed that that sign should come down, it was before
we had the input from our Attorney stating that it was a liability issue to the
' City. That has put a totally different complexion on that problem and I don't
believe that we can sit up here and be responsible knowing we have a liability
situation and allow it to continue.
Jim Wehrle: I've read that correspondence and I don't know whether there's been
an exact determination that at any point anybody said that there would be a sign
go up there. There s nothing in the Minutes of the past meetings, no
determination by Council that there would be a sign ever put up there. Perhaps
it was people's understanding that a sign might go up there but it's my
interpretation by going over the past Minutes, that what was done in lieu of a
sign, that that angle was to discourage traffic going back through Pleasant
View. It was never determined by anyone that there should be a sign saying no
right hand turn from my reading of the Minutes of the past Minutes and
correspondence and having been that way for 4 years, and having been down for
the last couple of months while it went to Public Safety and back here again, I
assume this will be on the next one? I imagine the need to put the burden on
the 300 driving residents of Near Mountain of not being able to make the turn to
go to the new park, their church in Excelsior or whatever the case may be.
Councilman Horn: I think our Attorney has to comment on this.
ItActing Mayor Geving: Do you remember this situation Roger?
Roger Knutson: Yes. I'm not a traffic engineer. The only comment I can really
make to the situation is that if you have a dangerous situation, I'm saying if
you have a dangerous situation and you don't do something to warn motorists
about it and someone is injured, they have the making of a claim against you.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Is it your recommendation that that sign should be put up?
Roger Knutson: I don't know enough about the intersection. I don't like to do
' this.
Jim Wehrle: Can I ask a question? Has there been a determination that there is
danger here somehow because the only thing that I've ever heard alleged as being
dangerous. It's inconvenient to make that turn but it can be done. It's
inconvenient for a school bus or a truck because they have to back in, or he
' pulls in, back up and then do that a little bit but...
Acting Mayor Geving: I think the fact that they have to make that kind of a
turning motion would deem it to be unsafe. I think I would, as an observer, say
' that. I don't know if it's unsafe or not but if they have to make several
gyrations to turn right and go west on Pleasant View, I would say that is an
unsafe condition.
Councilman Horn: Let me comment on that. I don' t have trouble making that turn
staying in my lane but I don't have trouble driving downtown here and not run
into any of the curbs either. What happens is, I know people are going to swing
45
y Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
over into the other lane when they make that right hand turn so you tell me
what's a safe lane. What should be a reasonable thing that somebody could
maneuver?
Jim Wehrle: Excuse me Clark. I'm not sure I follow. The swining into what
other lane? It's one lane. There's only one lane going in either direction.
Councilman Horn: Pleasant View. When you make a right turn into the right hand ,
lane of Pleasant View, there are going to be people who will swing over...
Jim Wehrle: Going west or going east? '
Councilman Horn: Going west. There will be people who will swing over into the
easterly lane.
Jim Wehrle: If you're on Pleasant View going west, f rom TH 101?
Councilman Horn: No. I'm in Near Mountain. I'm coming out of your development '
and I'm going to go into Excelsior to church. A certain percentage of those
cars are going to swing over and cross the center lane into the eastbound lane.
I can maneuver that and you can probably maneuver that but some of them aren't.
It's going to be the one who doesn't that's going to come back and say, you have
a safety issue that you didn't address.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think it's a very important thing when I see, and Bill '
pointed this out to us here, a letter from a Public Safety Director to the City
Manager is indicating that he's gotten some complaints from a school bus driver
and one from the Fire Department and they are basically saying that this is a
hazardous situation. The Attorney points out that if we know that it's a
hazardous situation, then it's an unsafe situation for us and it's public record
at this point. I guess I'm going to have to refer to Jim Chaffee and your
recommendation on this Jim and where we should go with this issue. Could you
give us tonight, what you'd like to do with this corner?
Jim Chaffee: We need to straighten it out, as the Council has indicated but we
also need to put up a sign for liability purposes until such time as the Council
gets a report back from the City Engineer. That's the way I see it.
Acting Mayor Geving: That sounds good enough for me. The signs will go up.
Jim Wehrle: Will there be a notice to all the residents in the area about this
hearing?
Acting Mayor Geving: Yes.
Jim Wehrle: Can the sign go back up concurrent with that notice so peo le will
understand? p
Acting Mayor Geving: I think that would be appropriate. We're not going to
just run out there tonight at 12:30 and put it up. We'll make sure that it's
coordinated with the public hearing. i would like to ask, when, how soon could
this be placed in front of the citizenry as a public hearing? Barbara? Anyone?
[:!1
How long a notice would we have to give?
46
II
' City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Barbara Dacy: A typical timeframe is 10 days.
Acting Mayor Geving: What kind of a timeframe are we talking about?
' Gary Warren: Not until July 25th.
Acting Mayor Geving: It will be July 25th is the earliest Bill and I'm open for
a motion on this.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question and then I'll be happy to make a motion.
' Jim, are you saying, as I understood it initially, one of the concerns was that
people were driving in their personal vehicles and were being inconvenienced by
not being able to take a right turn.
Jim Wehrle: One day that was the case.
Councilman Boyt: So the problem the sign was creating was it cut down people's
ability to go right on Pleasant View?
Jim Wehrle: And the sign also was on Pleasant View saying you couldn't turn
' left into Near Mountain.
Councilman Boyt: So both of those and their major complaint was from personal
automobile traffic?
' Jim Wehrle: Yes. There had always been the ongoing concern that you 9 g y eluded to
here. It was difficult to make that turn and it also was a great restriction on
I our scheduling of the school buses and I guess potentially if a fire truck were
coming for some reason from Lotus Lake coming to on Pleasant View, he would have
difficulty turning into our intersection but...
Councilman Boyt: The intersection may very well need to be changed. What I'm
looking at is the sign itself and I think if we can post a sign there that
allows personal vehicles to make that turn, we don't have anything in our
' records that indicate that that's particularly hazardous, although it may be
inconvenient but we certainly can not allow vehicles with any length in excess
of personal vehicles to make that turn without taking on a liability risk. Is
' it possible to indicate, have a sign that would take care of that? Gary says it
would be. Alright, what does that do it us Roger?
' Roger Knutson: It goes back to the same thing we discussed. Is it safe for
automobiles to make that turn?
Gary Warren: The intersection is, if the question were put to us, is not a
' standard intersection. I think from that frame of reference, that in itself I
think is a liability.
' Roger Knutson: So what you're saying is it's not safe for cars.
Councilman Horn: As far as what the intent of the signs were, there may not
have ever been any method spelled out in which this would be controlled but the
intent always was that there would not be right turns onto Pleasant View or left
turns off of Pleasant View into this development.
47
Sty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
11
Jim Wehrle: The reason being that they didn't want the traffic going down
Pleasant View.
Councilman Horn: That plus MnDot recommended that as an improved traffic flow
pattern.
Jim Wehrle: You still have to keep traffic from going west on Pleasant View.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we beat this enough. Let's go ahead with a
motion. I think we've got enough information now to move. Jay, you've got one
comment? '
Councilman Johnson: Yes, one more comment. A total restriction of turning,
would our liability position only be cured by a total ban on right turns or
would a precautionary sign provide us some liability? Saying some kind of
wording warning people of the turn. Right turns at your own risk? That doesn't
sound real good.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's move ahead on this.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to post a no right turn sign at
the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Boulevard. That the
sign be posted simultaneously with notifying the residents that the City will be
considering the reshaping of the intersection and inviting them to a public
hearing on July 25, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Acting Mayor Geving: We have directed staff then to come up with these
estimates of cost, Gary, for alternatives on the 25th as well as the motion.
SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE REQUEST TO SECTION 20-1260 TO CONSTRUCT AN 80 SQUARE FOOT
PYLON SIGN, 615 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUPERAMERICA STATION, ROMAN MUELLER.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve permitting ,
SuperAmerica to install an 80 square foot pylon sign with a maximum 20 foot
height prior to receiving a conditional use permit with the following condition:
1. The applicant must conform to any conditions made as part of the conditional
use permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Roman Mueller: Just a quick question on the recommendation from staff about
being able to place the sign contingent on conditions being placed after this ,
point in time. That puts us in a little strange situation where we can put our
sign up. ...close your store to do it. I'm wondering, is there any assurance
from City Council, is this going to be too drastically changed from what was
spoken about in the previous meeting? -
Councilman Horn: I think there's a precedent here. Obviously, we found that
the Holiday has an 80 square foot sign. For them to come back and tell you that
you have to close your store for you to put up an 80 square foot sign, they'd
have a little trouble supporting that.
48
' City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 X73
' Roman Mueller: I understand there would be some problems there but I'd like to
avoid any problems.
' Acting Mayor Geving: I think you're on safe ground.
OIL RECYCLING ORDINANCE.
Councilman Horn: I'm going to move that we include waste oil recycling as part
' of our current recycling and have it done at a central facility such as public
works as Don has recommended.
Acting Mayor Geving: I will second the motion. I think I'd rather second this
for explanation of what your problem is Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I've been working on this for a year and a half and
that's simply not enough. This is a major problem and to say that we can cover
it by having one pick-up spot that's open 8 hours on a Saturday isn't going to
get it.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Are you saying that the recycling center because it's only
open on Saturdays would be a major obstacle to this plan?
ICouncilman Boyt: We have got to make this as convenient for people as we can
because what they're doing right now is damaging and very convenient. I think
that we have suggested in front of us options that are, given the damage, at a
fairly reasonable cost. I would like to see the City contract with 2 or 3 pick-
up spots which I think pretty much would limit to the facilities that now change
oil in town. Don suggested $500.00 to $1,000.00 might do it. I think that's an
' awfully good expenditure of City money if it keeps oil out of our lakes. I
think that we should require all new sites to put this in. We're talking about
a $1,000.00 expenditure. Something that can easily be, if it's built into the
new facility, it can be provided for, it would be a neat, orderly and safe spot
to hold it. Certainly the City should provide collection at it's garage in the
recycling effort. If I had it my way, honestly, if I thought it would pass,
I would say every place that chooses to sell oil has to collect. We're talking
' about a $1,000.00 expenditure but we're talking about oil that gets collected
and doesn't get dumped. But since that won't pass, I think Don's suggestion of
contracting is excellent. I think all new sites that are going to sell oil
should provide waste collection.
Councilman Horn: I thought that was my recommendation to go along with Don's
recommendation. That it be at the public safety and also set up a contracting
' site so we can have 18 hours and 7 days a week coverage.
Councilman Johnson: You didn't say that.
' Councilman Horn: I said Don's recommendation.
Acting Mayor Geving: Does that sound like what you want done? Let's say Brown
says he'll take the oil as a contracter and at the same time Don's suggestion
says, we'll open up the recycling center and public works garage and we'll pick
up this used oil on Saturdays. Does that satisfy yours?
49
94
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Councilman Boyt: You've got 80% of it.
Acting Mayor Geving: And there's no ordinance. There's no ordinance under this
proposal. This is strictly a business proposal. We would set up a contract
with someone who would take the oil.
Councilman Boyt: We don't exactly have a bidding climate here because there '
aren't many places that are going to collect it. I think if we could have 2 or
3 pick-up sites, 2 anyway, that it would give us some flexibility here so that
people wouldn't be limited to going to one place in town. We've just got to
make this easy Dale.
Acting Mayor Geving: Your problem is that the recycling center is only open on
Saturdays?
Councilman Boyt: Right.
Acting Mayor Geving: Can we beat that Don? Is there a better way to do that?
Don Ashworth: My suggestion is, whether it's Sinclair or Brown's, again if we
offer both of them the right to bid on being named as the City's waste oil
center and how much they would charge us for that designation.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let me ask you, is there a benefit to a Brown's or Cenex ,
or anybody else to pick up this oil? Do they resale this oil?
Don Ashworth: It depends on the time. You get times where you really did not
get enough money out of it to make it worthwhile collecting. Other points in
time there's been enough money in it from a private standpoint to make you think
about putting in the time that it may be worthwhile. '
Acting Mayor Geving: So it's not a question of us having them bid, it's a
question of whether or not we can find someone who would take this oil and we
would pay them a subsidy to have that outlet for us at whatever cost that might
be?
Don Ashworth: Yes and if it comes back as $20,000.00.
Acting Mayor Geving: Then it's unreasonable and we've got to look for another
alternative.
Don Ashworth: If it's $300.00 or $500.00, I think that's a much better
er
alternative than having it on Saturdays at the public works.
Acting Mayor Geving: I kind of like both. I like both because the recycling
center, I was very impressed with the recycling on Saturday. Saw people out
there that helped you with it and I don't know what this facility would be if we
dumped oil and so forth but I suspect you'd have a big tank there. You'd have
some kind of collecting spot and somebody would come then to the center and pick
up this used oil. Do you know Bill, what they do with this used oil?
[41 Councilman Boyt: Yes, they refine it. They refine it.
50
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 95
IlyActing Mayor Geving: So there is a useage for someone selling it.
Councilman Boyt: There's a ood market. You have ave to recognize that we are, the
Sinclair station already takes oil but maybe what we're missing is an aggressive
' advertising program here and an assurance that you're not going to get there and
be turned down. The City, by spending a fairly small amount of money, can take
a big step forward. I like that it doesn't require an ordinance to do it.
' Maybe that's a good way to start.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we have to start very innocently. We're starting
' something new here. People have been throwing their oil in their garbage for
years and it's an educational process for one thing. We've got to get some
media attention. Get it in our papers. Get it wherever we can. Maybe even
flyers to homes and start people thinking about recycling their oil. I'm very
' much in favor of this if we could keep it on a low key basis and maybe there is
a Brown's Standard or Cenex or somebody who would take it and get us started on
this. Jay, do you have any comments?
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, a couple. I spent a lot of time actually today on
this one. On the phone with staff and whatever and with oil recyclers. I spent
some time thinking on it. I've got an alternative if nobody wants to bid. I do
' like the multiple. I don't think we need to have it as one. If they both would
be willing to do it at a reasonable cost, let both of them be an authorized City
oil recycling center or whatever. What I see doing that, when we start saying
' something like that is seeing the City pulled into any liability with that oil
tank that he's got. What he sees, if he's a smart businessman looking at this,
he sees a deep pocket coming in to share a cost of an underground storage tank
that he has existing and is aging. The City has to look into it's liability at
that point. An alternative, which if nobody does want to participate with the
City in this case, an alternative proposal on an ordinance basis would be, that
I was thinking of, is anybody who changes oil, not who sells oil. If a
' Superette sells a couple cans of oil, I don't want waste oil going in to these
people. If they're handling food, deli items, drinks and cigarettes and
whatever, I don't want them handling used oil. It's not compatible so I don't
think everybody who sells oil is compartible with recycling oil but anybody who
fixes cars, their hands are not handling food items so they are more compatible.
Anybody in the repair business that changes oil, be required and here's where I
' go different. This is the fallback position type deal. At a cost to the person
bringing the oil in, at no more than 10 cents a quart or some cost. So we're
saying that Gary Brown is not doing this out of your own. It's taking your
staff some time to do this work. They have to stop what they're doing and get
' this guy's jug of oil and carry it over there and dump it down so 10 cents a
quart, that's 50 cents to change your oil in your car. You've already spent
$6.00 to $7.00 on the oil and the filters and everything else. It's not a
significant increase. If we can get it for the City paying them $300.00 or
$500.00 a year, that's what I'd prefer because there's no cost to the citizen.
It will encourage them to recycle more.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Let's propose this. We've got a motion on the floor.
We've got a second. We're going to start a project here as proposed by the
manager. Very low key, educational program where we have a dual program and
let's start this off and see if we can't make a go of it. Let's put a review
time cycle on it. Maybe 60 days or whatever. Whenever Don can get back to see
when we would actually implement this. What educational materials you would
' 51
Sty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
need Don to crank up the entire community. In the meantime that will give you
time to contact the dealers and see if we can't kick this off. We've got a
proposal.
Councilman Horn: Just a response to Jay's comment. My initial reaction was
exactly what you said. Require people who do actual changing.
Acting Mayor Geving: Because they've got to get rid of theirs anyway. '
Councilman Johnson: They have the tank.
Councilman Horn: So they'll have the facility to do it. But as I thought about '
it more, I said that logically doesn't match with what we're trying to
accomplish here. People who do that are not the ones that have a problem with
putting it in the garbage. It's the people who buy their oil at the K-Marts and
places where they don't change the oil. Those are the ones who do it so why put
a restriction on these people when they're not the ones creating the problem?
Councilman Johnson: That's why I turned it to a profit mode for them.
Councilman Horn: That's what we'll do with the bidding process.
Don Ashworth: We'll have it back before 60 days. I'll try for 30.
Councilman Johnson: Also, any new stations, we'd like to get them into the '
program.
Acting Mayor Geving: It might be one of the requirements that we place on a new
Q-Superette or something that sells.
Councilman Boyt: That takes an ordinance change doesn't it?
Councilman Johnson: Those are conditional use. Isn't it, gas stations? 11
Barbara Dacy: In some districts. ,
Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us enter into, find out how much it's
going to cost us to have a guaranteed drop-off site and not limit the number to
one particular place but if we can sign up...
Acting Mayor Geving: I think this is what Don is recommending in the motion.
The motion is before us.
Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to accept the City Manager's '
recommendation to set up the Public Works site and also set up contracting sites
for the recycling of waste oil. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
RECYCLING: A. APPROVAL OF RECYCLING CONTRACT WITH CARVER COUNTY '
Jo Ann Olsen: This is to fund the recycling center that we've established.
It's a contract with Carver County. Mike Lien is in charge of this and he
wanted to speak to the Council to get their feelings on budgeting for next year.
52
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 9 7
ir Mike Lien: We've discussed the recycling center concept with Jo Ann and raised
a couple of concerns about the level of funding for it I guess and it's a, as we
see it, a fairly expensive drop-off site. Before committing the County to a
' project that could come back in for money when you come to the County, I wanted
to just talk with you a little bit about it and see what you're, I hate to use
the word level of commitment or just your views on the whole recycling program
' using Chaska and your future of it I guess. To just give you a little better
feel for my concerns, the County does have money to fund programs. We're not
saying we won't fund Chanhassen program. We've been bugging you for years to do
something. The funding that the County has is we've getting in enough money
' from a number of sources which we, by law, have to share at least to a certain
degree with the cities. We've got three mechanisms we've gone by. One of a
grant up front to get the program up and running such as we've given to
' Chanhassen, Watertown, Waconia, Norwood and Young America and some of the others
that are already up and going. Also we've got two funding mechanisms that kind
of give you an incentive once the program is up and running. We'll pay you
' $4.00 a ton for every ton recycled and we'll also give you 50 cents per
household in the City for expenses that you've spent on recycling programs. I
guess what we have today is the contract for what we would consider the start up
funds which start up the grant and the other programs. I guess the concern I
' raised with Jo Ann is I see this money not going for equipment such as we've
used in other programs but more for the operating costs of the facility. The
pick-up cost. The advertising and things like that. The way we've done it with
other cities where we've given them a big boost to buy equipment and then we
' talk about the more limited, on-going opearting funds that you can expect over
the next couple of years. I just wanted to raise that concern with you. We are
a little worried about the amount of the grant especially for half a year and
' with the fact, I'd like to cut it back a little bit. Probably closer to
$5,000.00 than the $8,000.00 to $9,000.00 proposed here but I also wanted to
talk to you directly and get a feel for what you folks saw the program...
Acting Mayor Geving: Now, as I understand it, we're only talking about funding 1989, is that correct? g
Jo Ann Olsen: We're working on curbside pick-up.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, then if curbside pick-up comes in, then we would not
have this?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Now, when we arrived at the $8,000.00 and some odd dollars
which you've got broken down here. Is this your budget?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think, from what I saw on Saturday, this is working.
The volunteer program. How many different volunteer groups do you anticipate
taking park in that?
Jo Ann Olsen: I think I have maybe 6 or so.
Acting Mayor Geving: They get $75.00.
' 53
11
98
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
1
Jo Ann Olsen: Each time.
Acting Mayor Geving: For a whole day at this? One Saturday? To me that's the
most important item in this whole thing is getting a commitment from a volunteer
group. I'd like to make that a flat $100.00 period. I saw a lot of people up
there on Saturday and those volunteers are hard to get when it's 90 degrees out.
It's really tough. It's well worth that to me.
Jo Ann Olsen: We've already got their commitment. Some of than are Boy Scouts
where they're doing it for their badges and they don't...
Acting Mayor Geving: I understand that in a case like that the funding is
different there but I'm talking about a church organization or the CAA. Any
number of volunteer groups. They can use that money and put it to good use in
our community. As far as I'm concerned, they're the people that make this go. I
watched Chaska for a long time and how they got started. It took a lot of
dedication by a lot of committed people. I suppose you could say they did it
for nothing but they were really doing it for an organization and that's what is
going to make this thing work.
Councilman Horn: I would move that we fund the project. I don't think there
are many programs that are as important as this one.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'll second the motion.
Councilman Johnson: Mike, were you trying to get us to decrease our funds or
what?
fil
Mike Lien: Let's be a little bit blunt here. I guess I am uncomfortable with
going to my County Board and saying I want $9,000.00 for Chanhassen for the next
half a year. Based on the programs we've had before and everything, I'd like to
cut it back...
Councilman Johnson: What kind of funds did they have? What were the other r
program costs? Waconia, what was their start-up?
Mike Lien: Waconia right now, they're working on a grant.. . The City of Chaska
perhaps is the one that we could relate to Chanhassen as much. We gave than a
grant of about $8,000.00 about two years ago. They still have parts of that
money that they haven't used right now. We specified in there that the money
had to go for equipment, operating expenses and things like that. Now in this
case the City is providing the building and we're buying equipment for than to
operate the center from. For example we're working with than right now to r
provide a can crusher and forklift and things like that. Here again, pieces of
tangible equipment is what most of the money is set up to be used for. Not the
operating expenses or for on-going maintenance expenses and things like that.
In this case here we're kickin in money, most of the money is going to be
pick-up company for the cost of picking up the goods from the drop-off centers.
Not to buy a piece of equipment.
Councilman Johnson: So we can do it differently and instead of having a company
come in and drop off the piece of equipment for us, we can get money for you so
we can go buy the equipment and have than just come in and haul it off. We'd r
54
99
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
have to then store the equipment and be detrimental. We'd end up with the same
mess Chaska has sitting outside their recycling center all week around. I think
we're doing it a much better way and this money will help us prove that the
' first year. I think this City, as you heard us talking about oil recycling,
into and committed to doing this. I'd like to see our County show us some
commitment too. I think we'd like to continue asking for this for this year and
we will run the center in future years. I think what we're really going to need
' the help is getting the curbside going. I like the way they're using the money
here versus trying to get can crushers or whatever. If we get to the point
where we need the can crusher, maybe we'll have to go and get it ourselves.
Acting Mayor Geving: Mike, let's analyze for you very quickly and I know you've
looked at Jo Ann's budget. Just about everything that she's got listed here is
' advertisement. She's got mass mailings in here. She's got newspaper
advertising. Advertising t-shirts. Promotional campaign items. I believe that
what she's put together is probably a very conservative estimate of getting this
thing going. If it takes $8,600.00, I have to believe she's put together a
pretty good package for the City and I'm going to stay with her budget. I
believe what she's trying to do, we can't reach nearly 8,000 people in
Chanhassen and 3,500 homeowners if we nickle dime this project. We've got to do
' it upfront. We do it right the first time. If it means mass mailings,
newspaper ads, kids wearing t-shirts, volunteer organizations promoting this and
it costs us $8,600.00, I'm all for it and I think we've given you a reasonable
budget Mike to take back to your Carver County Commissioners. I'm pleased with
what Jo Ann has done. We have done something in this community that no other
community did for a long time. We were into recycling long before many of your
other communities in the County. We're spurring ahead on this one. Believe me,
Iwe're going to make this thing work and we'll make you look good.
Mike Lien: I'm hoping that you're not, the one thing I want to prevent in
' standing in front of you tonight was to belittle your efforts or anything like
that because I've had a good relationship with you on the leaf composting and
things like that and like I said, we've bugged you to do something and now
you're doing something and I don't want to look like I'm saying to you, golly
' that's a bad idea. You're doing some novel things in this. I think, for
example, paying the volunteer groups. I have no problem with that. I think you
need that type of thing. I guess what I'm hoping is that we can somehow cut
' back a little bit on the collection costs. I see that as fairly excessive
compared to what some other cities are doing.
Acting Mayor Geving: Well, that's part of the operation so we can' t get into
the operations. Tonight we're really not here to talk about 1988. I think 1988
is, we're moving on that.
' Councilman Johnson: We have to approve the contract.
Acting Mayor Geving: We've got a contract here.
Mike Lien: The contract was for money to go through the 1988 program.
Acting Mayor Geving: And what we're saying is we've given you a budget and I
think it's reasonable.
55
too
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Mike Lien: I guess I'm not, beyond the advertising and the promotional things,
the advertising we would do for you. I don't care if we do it. We give you the
I!!
money and you do it. That is fine. Promotional, I think some of the
promotional items that you've come up with are really good. I'm hoping we can
trap some of the costs on some of them but there are several things that I just
wanted to point out that it is high maintenance cost program that you're looking
at here compared to some of the others. It's not to mean that maybe that's the
only thing that's going to work for Chanhassen that we're going to find out.
I'd just like to raise...
Acting Mayor Geving: We don't know that yet Mike. We're just starting this and
we're going to do it right. I think in order to keep our forces instilled in
doing this, we're participating with the County. A lot of this, the County has
urged us to do but we've picked this up on our own. We probably would have done
this anyway. That's why I think you've got a really glowing example over here
in Chanhassen of a program that's working. I don't know what's happening in
Watertown. I know the Chaska program has been going for some time and it's very
effective. I think you're going to find the same thing here. I don't want to
belittle the program. The don't want to belittle Jo Ann's expenses and what
she's put together as a budget. Let's do it right. Give her the funds she
needs to do it right and you can go to the County Commissioners and sell this
program. I know you can and we're willing as a Council, to come in in 1989 and
pick up this project and carry it. Participate in the funding. We've already
made that motion.
Mike Lien: I'll relay that on to the Commissioners when we discuss it and I
guess we'll talk about the funds that are available and things like that.
Acting Mayor Geving: We're willing to take on the participation in 1989. We
don't know what that dollar value is. Jo Ann, do you have a figure? What are
we committing to? I
Jo Ann Olsen: For 1989, it would be, I don't know if ours would really increase
in cost too much. It would depend on how much money we get back from the
marketing.
Acting Mayor Geving: We need to have an estimate here tonight if we're going to
vote. '
Jo Ann Olsen: It would be doubling the amount.
Acting Mayor Geving: So you're talking somewhere around $17,000.00? '
Jo Ann Olsen: It could be but the fact, what I want to point out is that that
budget is high. That's if we, like already we haven't spent $200.00 that was '
already budgeted for and...
Acting Mayor Geving: Give us a reasonable estimate. ,
Jo Ann Olsen: It could be over $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 if we keep it open two
times a month each month.
Acting Mayor Geving: We'll be going into a budget cycle here in the next couple
months and we need to have that kind of figure. For tonight's commitment all we
56
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
really need to say is that we're going to participate in the program in terms of
' funding for 1989. Now does that mean that we're going to particpate 100%?
We're going to pick up the entire cost?
' Jo Ann Olsen: We would still be requesting funds from Carver County and we
would get the 50 cents per household and $4.00 per ton.
' Acting Mayor Geving: How much do you thing we could get from that Mike?
Mike Lien: You would have available to you, now this is money that, there are
' two sources of funding other than the grant. One is the 50 cents per household.
Chanhassen has 3,000 households so let's say $1,500.00. Now I should say that
that money is available for both yard waste composting and drop-off center
funding. The other source of funds would be the $4.00 per ton rebate which
we're required to have a performance based funding program for the cities
meaning we've got to reward you for the more you do, the more we give you. At
this point that's $4.00 a ton and I think the program we end up with will be
' essentially the same whether it's $4.00 or $6.00 or whatever. I would guess
that, from what I know of other drop-off centers, if you're real successful,
you're going to come up with a couple hundred tons of stuff so we're talking
here, let's say $500.00 to $1,000.00 probably on that. Total is we've come up
with about $2,500.00 for 1989 that the County would be kicking in for a batement
programs in Chanhassen. That much you can more or less count on having.
' Acting Mayor Geving: If we were to estimate $10,000.00 of our money, would that
be in the ballpark for budgeting purposes?
Jo Ann Ols
I en: I wanted to add plastics and add to it which will add to the
cost. I think it will be $10,000.00 to $12,000.00.
' Acting Mayor Geving: In addition to the $2,500.00 from the County? I have a
gentleman back here that's been holding his hand up. Did you have something to
add?
' Rick Schneider: I work with Mike. I just wanted to make one note and that is,
you talk about potentially having curbside and it has been shown to be the most
effective means of recycling. At the costs that may come into place here for
' next year, you could very easily come in and encourage that program with a
company for that kind of money. I'd just like you to keep thinking about that.
Perhaps if you wanted to at least discuss and look at that avenue.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Rick, that's a very good option and we would appreciate
looking into that.
' Rick Schneider: You're not sure which way...
Acting Mayor Geving: We don't know. That's something that Jo Ann would have to
' investigate.
Mike Lien: Forgive me for not introducing Rick. Rick is a staff person who was
hired last year to, his specific job was to work with the city staff's and stuff
to set up this on approval.
57
1
WA!
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I think we've got a novel approach here other than what's
been going on with the rest of the County. I think it can be sold to the County
I!!
Commissioner's as such. Jo Ann, you said this year's budget may be a little
high? '
Jo Ann Olsen: We get reimbursed. The budget, of the $2,800.00 that's what
we'll pay off R & W but we're going to be getting reimbursed with however much
money we get back from the glass company. However much tonage we give to them
we get reimbursed so that won't be the total cost. The yard waste containers,
we're going to stop the brush because that's just taken to landfills anyway so
that's going to be reduced right there. Volunteer groups, that's going to stay
the same unless you want to increase it. The mass mailings and the promotional,
I would like to do some more on that so that would add to it and then again, I
wanted to add plastic.
Acting Mayor Geving: From your standpoint Mike, all ou really '
y Bally need to know
tonight is whether or not we're going to participate in the program in 1989 and
that we're going to start a curbside service? Is that correct? That's what you
need to know?
Mike Lien: Yes, that's what I need to know. To take this proposal to the ,
County Commissioners. To be honest with you, I would express to them some of
the concerns I was just expressing here right now. Here again, I'm not saying
I'm against it but I would feel I would have to make known to them that I am a
little bit concerned about the expense of the program.
Acting Mayor Geving: You can also tell them that we're going to make it a first
class operation for the County and we're going to make them look good in their '
recycling efforts. You made a big point last year on what Chanhassen did to
make the County look good. I believe we were one of the 2 or 3 cities that were
highlighted, especially in the leaf composting so we've got success behind us.
I'm not concerned about our ability to carry this thing out.
Councilman Boyt: Mike, are you saying that in all likelihood more money is
available if we put it into physical assets?
Mike Lien: I'm not saying more money is available but that that general amount
of money is there or we've got precedent set for giving that amount of money. '
Councilman Boyt: So what you're saying is we're likely to get more money if we
put it in physical assets?
Mike Lien: I think the situation we've got here is that ou' '
y re basically paying
another company to buy machinery to service your program. That's what the cost
is going to R & W Sanitation for. Whereas in other programs, we have paid to
buy that equipment so the City has it in hand. .. It's just a different approach
I guess.
Councilman Boyt: I'm inclined to agree with you. My question is simply one of
the bottom line. Do we get more money if we put it into physical assets? You
don' t know, is that what you're telling me?
Mike Lien: I'm saying that I've got a budget like anybody else does. I've
counted on having to spend for Chanhassen at least as much as I had to spend for
58
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Chaska which is $8,000.00 or there abouts. I guess that's what I'm trying to
say here.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, if Jo Ann scaled here budget back to $8,000.00,
would that satisfy your needs which I think she could easily do because she does
have a number of things she hasn't done yet.
' Mike Lien: I believe we can. I guess I'm saying that I'm more comfortable
talking to you about the $5,000.00 for this type of a program but I do believe
that we're not going to spend the entire $8,000.00 or $9,000.00 that's here
' either but I do feel, I did want to express some concerns about the amount of
money and what it's doing.
' Councilman Johnson: How long have you known about the $8,000.00 or $9,000.00?
How long have you know how we want to do this? Or your staff? How long has
your staff participated with us in planning this recycling center?
t Mike Lien: We've talked for quite a few months. I guess the proposal as far as
how the money was to be expended was just brought to my attention last week. I'm
not sure, Rick, it was somewhere very recently where we, I think got a feel for
' the way the program was going.
Councilman Johnson: Because I know we've been working on this thing for months
and months and what I see as an eleventh hour saying, geez, I know we've been
talking about $8,000.00 but I think I want to give you $5,000.00 and that's what
Ilw I see coming. I know that's probably not what you're saying but to me this is
the eleventh hour. We've already done two pick-ups on this. We're already
operating. It's a beautiful clean operation in comparison to what I saw down at
Chaska when I visited your center down there with beds sitting outside and
barrels of who knows what sitting around the center. We want to keep it clean
' because that's our city facility there. We haul eveything away at the end of
the day there I believe. It doesn't sit there for a couple weeks. That's how
we're going to do recycling in this town and I think that we will prove that
this is a good system and this is the way to do it. Not the way that's being
' done elsewhere that could be creating more problems than we want to handle. I
really think that I'd like to see you go to bat for us instead of go up against
us and if you're going to go up against us, I want to know what day you're going
' to be going up against us so we can come along and fight for what we believe is
right.
' Mike Lien: Let's put it this way, very happy ppy to hear about your talking
about willing to commit for 1989 as much as $10,000.00 or $12,000.00. That is
much more, I'll give you credit, that is much more than any other city or town
has talked about putting in at this point in hard and fast dollars. I'm not as
' concerned as I was when I showed up here and that was one of the reasons I came
here was to make sure that you knew what you were getting into, which, not to
belittle Jo Ann or anything like that but I want to hear it myself because it's
sort of my neck on the line too if I've got to come back to the County Board
next year and say, we've got to fund Chanhassen. To be frank, the money
probably isn't ther next year because we're finding some limitations on our
4 funding too. So I just wanted to express some concern. I'm not saying that I'm
going to recommend that the County Board. ..but I intend to giving them an
explanations.
59
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 '
Acting Mayor Geving: We've going to quit the debate and we're going to vote.
There is a motion on the floor. Thank you Mike and thank you very much Rick.
There is a motion on the floor and there is a second to participate in the
funding of the project for 1989 in the amount, and I'm going to put in a dollar
figure of $10,000.00 as our participation for 1989. When we get to the budget
we will get to hard dollars. Approximately $10,000.00 so when we get to Don's
budget we can put the figures in. Anybody have a problem with that? '
Councilman Boyt: I have a problem with committing to a budget we haven't even
discussed yet. I think the intent. Say we intend to fund it.
Acting Mayor Geving: That would be fine.
Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded that the City Council
intends to participate in the funding of the Recycling Project with Carver
County for 1989 in an amount of approximately $10,000.00. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
B. RECYCLING: CURBSIDE PICK-UP.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded the authorization to create a
recycling committee for curbside pick-up. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Councilman Boyt: What about two. Do we need to authorize the application for
grant monies?
Acting Mayor Geving: No. That was just the curbside. We did that. It's all a
part of the first one.
Councilman Boyt: So your motion included both?
Councilman Horn: Yes.
DISCUSS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO BF AND A-2 ZONING
DISTRICTS.
Acting Mayor Geving: This might take some time. I hope we can limit it. '
Again, I think we're all familiar with the Planning Commission notes. We've
read your letter Tim. I think at this point we don't need your comments,
I don't believe Barbara. Let's go right to Planning Commissions comments from
Tim. Speak briefly.
Tim Erhart: I will. Which one do you want to take first?
Acting Geving: '
g Ma or y ng: Let's go with the BF. The recommendation are amendments
to the BF and A-2 Zonding Districts. You might just want to comment briefly
about them.
Tim Erhart: On the Business Fringe, I think the comments you made tonight
earlier, if we have a dangerous situation, I think we're obligated to do ,
60
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 dr
()5
something about it. I think we have a very dangerous situation down in that
area where we're allowing, not only allowing but promoting the intensification
of business' direct access onto TH 212 where the speeds, in the report I think
you can see what the speeds are. It's just doesn't make any sense. Now we've
got lots of land in Chanhassen. We've got a big commercial industrial
development just outside the area here and we have a downtown we're trying to
support, we really don't need to promote commercial development in this area
' where we're not providing facilities to support it. I think it's very
dangerous. Secondly is that I think we have, again having enough area for
commercial and industrial here, I think we have a real opportunity to preserve
' this area for people who live in Chanhassen 30 years from now. As the whole
city gets developed and we have 20,000 people living here instead of 8,000, that
we have some space available that's open and green. I think those two things
tied together, to me it's the time to make a decision on this. We can do it
today and preserve this area simply by converting it to A-2 without a lot of
expense to the City. I think your comment on staff is the concern that we have
and you expressed Roger, was that these people won't have anything to do with
this land if we do it, if we convert it but A-2 still allows you to build homes
no matter what size lot is existing, they can build at least one house on it.
I'm not too sure that that isn't increased value over it's value as commercial
' today considering the history of commercial successes in that area. In some
cases, we've made a big investment here in the downtown area. In fact we run
into a situation where somebody wants to push us on it in converting it to A-2,
look at what it would cost to compensate what you might consider Ag, I think
it's worth it for the future of Chanhassen to preserve that area and to
eliminate, I think a real big liability problem.
Acting Mayor Geving: Now are you speaking for the Planning Commission tonight?
Are you representing the Planning Commission's views?
' Tim Erhart: I think so.
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission has endorsed this.
' Tim Erhart: That's my comments on the BF.
Acting Mayor Geving: Should we take the BF first and just kind of walk through
it? Go ahead Jay.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see some numbers. I think it's a proposal we
should pursue to look at it and have somebody, through the City Attorney's
office, prepare us a scenario of our liability, which I believe at that point
would be, as far as what your opinion of takings are and staff. That's not the
kind of stuff you want to publish and I believe would be client privledged
' information, whatever but to make that decision I think we have to look at the
financial side of it. I'd like to be able to make that. I'd like to be able to
do that because I agree with you on that area. That part of the BF, well
intentioned as it was when it was created. It used to be a business type area
and it made sense at that time to keep it there. It also makes sense not to.
I'd like to see a little financial analysis as to what we're getting ourselves
into. Some concepts look nice and then you find out that those little concepts
can costs a million dollars and we have to say how nice is a million dollars
worth so that's where I'm coming from.
I
61
106
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 1
Acting Mayor Geving: So what you're saying Jay, you suggested that the Attorney
if!
look into some of the legal ramifications of looking in this direction and
converting that to real dollars? What is our financial liability as well?
Councilman Johnson: Right. 11
Acting Mayor Geving: Is that a fair question Roger? Can this be done? '
Roger Knutson: Sure. ...the uncertainity that someone else would conclude.
Acting Mayor Geving: But it's a fair comment that you can take...
Roger Knutson: It might work for the City appraiser for example.
Councilman Johnson: But by him doing it for us, we're obtaining ng legal advice
from him. If we ask the City Appraiser to do that for us, we lose our Attorney
client priviledge on it.
Acting Mayor Geving: There's no question that the basis for what you've
recommended from the Planning Commission as moved and unanimously agreed to Tim, I
is opening our eyes to the whole area down there. Maybe we made some moves with
applicants that came in and had a good idea at the time and maybe the Council
considered it and said, yes that doesn't seem like such a bad place for that
kind of business not recognizing the long term viewpoint and what this would do
if we continued to proliferate. I think your comments are very appropriate. I
appreciated reading them and I know it took a lot of thought on your part and
certainly the Planning Commission has studied this and given us their considered
opinion on it. You're speaking for them and I can see that, I think you did
your homework.
Councilman Horn: When I read everything that Tim had put together, it wasn't
very clear in my mind...then I read the staff report and thought back to why we
established it in the first place and I believe it was established as a planning
issue or a zoning issue before we had any applicants that came in. There's a
logic there that makes sense too. It's moving it to areas that created less
traffic than what was already put in there and I agree with you, I don't think
any business like the type that has gone in down there in the past like the used
car sales and some of the business to the general public, are reasonable at all.
It was the intent, as I recall as Barb was explaining it to us for the business
fringe, that they would be the low traffic type of things. Where you go down
there and operate your business but you wouldn't create publing coming in and
out of there all the time so I weigh that with what is it taking? What can we
allow as a reasonable use and the logic says, that's the kind of thing you put
in there. Something that makes it less of a hazard than it was before but it
still allows them some type of use. I think as far as A-2 goes, you can farm
it or put a house on it. Obviously that land is not farmable or a very small
portion of it is farmable. As far as putting a house down there, there are a
couple of houses down there but it's not very attractive to have your driveway
coming right out on Highway 212 so my thinking has kind of come around back
saying what staff recoauiended for that made some sense. I'm still concerned
about those safety issues and that they're good points. I'm trying to find a
reasonable middle ground where we can do both. It's going to take, as Jay said,
a lot of what the Attorney tells us, is allowing a reasonable use going to make
that happen? i suspect looking at it now, we would have been in a much stronger
62 r
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 101
I
_ position to go to A-2 or to leave it A-2 than having now gone to this change, to
try and go back, it makes it a lot tougher.
Tim Erhart: I think the intent of converting to A-2 was simply trying to reduce
the amount of development in either the next 20 years or until such time the
City really wants, at some time to acquire it and make a park or maybe the State
wants to make a... By making it A-2 you can reduce the amount of development
and also reduce the amount of traffic that passes there.
Councilman Horn: I think the thing that broke the logic string for me was
' allowing a nursery in there because that does cater more to a public type thing
and that's the one, as I think about what we tried to do, it doesn't make sense.
That's where I think we went across the line in what's reasonable. The others
are not much traffic generaters but the nursery I think is beyond what we had in
' mind.
Councilman Boyt: The Planning Commission Minutes of May 18th, Barbara made the
comments that there are several possibilities here which certainly looking at
the Zoning Ordinance is a good one. One of the best things the City can do is
set appropriate zoning. She also mentioned though that let's consider other
t approaches to some of the motivational issues here in the zoning. The traffic
issues for instance. We have occasionally heard discussion about a frontage
road. Is that ever realistic? How much is it going to cost if we do a frontage
road? It seems to me I've heard figures of $50,000.00 for a frontage road at
some time. Is it conceivable that we can consider that as an alternative? I
guess I'm saying, even if we rezone it we're still stuck with a huge problem
that we've already got in the amount of traffic that goes through that dangerous
section of highway. Are we better off to open our perspective a little bit and
look at how do we resolve the issues that we currently have and does that set us
up for a better future? I agree with you. You talk a lot about the nature of
' that strip of property and all I'm asking is that when we look at our report,
consider the possibility of zoning it some other zone than what it currently is,
let's look at other options that would be some sort of a permanent fix.
Tim Erhart: I think Barbara had in her report suggesting about $500,000.00.
Councilman Boyt: Regardless of the cost, I think we need to have that kind of
' information. As Barbara mentioned, maybe those properties don't have the
capability of paying off that sort of assessment but we need to know that
because I think that has an impact on what kind of zoning is permissible. It's
rather inappropriate to encourage any kind of business if we know we're never
' going to be able to resolve the traffic problem.
Barbara Dacy: Decide to build the new TH 212.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, outside of building the new TH 212.
' Acting Mayor Geving: I guess what you're saying is that we not only have, we
created the problem because of some of the businesses that we've let into that
area but what will happen in the interim between now and the time that we do
decide to take some action and we get 2 or 3 more applicants coming in here?
They have every right in the world to move ahead in that business fringe area
and develop. I'm not an advocate of moratoriums but I certainly wouldn't want
us to have a couple more applicants come in in the near future before we get
63
LS
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 1
something in place if our desire is to prohibit it. If we really want to stop
that and take another look, we definitely want to be able to put in place some
mechanism just to hold things as they are until we can get that done.
Tim Erhart: I was stunned when that retail or that landscape thing went in
there. I go and buy gas down there quite often and I tell you, you go in that
service station and try to make a left turn to get back to my house, it is
scary.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's almost impossible.
Tim Erhart: It's real scary. I think if we're going to let businesses
there... 9 messes down
Councilman Horn: As far as making it work, I think it was just the last
individual. If you consider what was there before, a used car dealership, gas
station, to me those...
Acting Mayor Geving: Those were appropriate
though in that area. They've been
there for years and they're going to stay there for years.
Councilman Horn: It's part of what we tried to do by resorting was to ,
that. I think we lost sight of what we were doing with this nursery. restrict
Barbara Dacy: At least you know that that's not going to go in there.
Councilman Horn: There's still a chance to tighten up. Whether we change it to
A-2 or even tighten up the business fringe even more to keep any kind of retail
out of there. ...and then we don't have the change of zoning type of taking
that people will complain about.
Barbara Dacy: I think the Attorney would agree that the moratorium option is
not a good one for the City to pursue and maybe we would need to look at the
language for the uses in the BF district. Outdoor display of merchandise for
sale is a very broad item. It could be trees, widgets or used cars or anything.
I will pursue from the Council's comments that you basically concur with the
Planning Commission's recommendation.
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that would be, at least what I'v '
e heard here.
Jay, do you agree that that's pretty much where we're going with this BF?
Alright. I don't know what you're looking for tonight Barbara. Just
concurrence on that issue?
Tim Erhart: I think the one question I'd like to have answered in my mind.. .to
revert back to the A-2. What is the real cost of liability? If somebody is
going to come in here and say hey, you guys are taking and I want thousands of
dollars.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's certainly possible.
Tim Erhart: Because I kind of think that question, to do it right, I think
that's what it's going to come down to. Is there a liability?
64
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 109
Acting Mayor Geving: You don't know if there's a liability until somebody lays
it on you.
Councilman Horn: You wonder if it's a legal liability and a moral liability.
' What damage are we actually doing to people from a land value standpoint for
instance? Obviously that's not a legal issue or may not be a legal issue but
it's a moral issue for us.
' Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know if we made a mistake in rezoning the area
like we did but I think we had good intentions. I think we had the best of
intentions. Based on all the discussion on where we were heading, it probably
seemed reasonable. What are you looking for tonight Barbara?
Barbara Dacy: Basically whether or not you concurred with the Planning
Commission.
Acting Mayor Geving: On the BF District, yes. Do we want to turn the coin
' over now and talk about A-2?
Tim Erhart: Regarding the long letter on the A-2. I think it's pretty simple.
' I think in 1984 when we talked about contractor's yards and contractor's yards
is really the prime issue I'm trying to deal with there. I don't think anybody
envisioned in 1984 the development that we were going to see in south
Chanhassen. In 1984 it was still, I think perceived by most people on the City
Council as agricultural land. It's not agricultural land today. What you have
there in south Chanhassen is low density residential period. There are two
farmers left in south Chanhassen so I think we have to find some uses here that
' fit low density residential. Even if you believe that industrial uses is
compatible with agricultural land, it's not ag land anymore today. There are
houses all over the place and more coming in.
' Acting Mayor Geving: And we knew that too when we started with some of our
sewer projects and so forth. We knew it was going to develop. Farmers would
go.
Tim Erhart: But you probably didn't know how fast it was going to occur with
this change in the 1 in 10 which drove almost everybody to subdivide their land.
' Councilman Horn: There was another thing that we tried to do there too and that
was to protect some of the small businesses. At that point the only option them
had was to try to rent space in the industrial park or leave Chanhassen and we
' didn't want that to happen. This is an interim type of use to try and keep
people in business until you're going to be forced out at some day. It really
put people on notice that at some time your operation is going to have to cease
and we're going to create a use for it in the agricultural area on an interim
basis. That's why they were all conditional uses because if they became a
problem and over intensified, when they come up for review.. .
' Acting Mayor Geving: That may be true but what we created was long term. Some
of these people that we thought were going to be an interim solution just to
keep them in business in Chanhassen, they not only have become a business but
they've expanded the business into the adding areas and I don't know how you
shut them down. We legitimized them. We had them come in and become formally
65
X10
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 '
recognized as a business as a contractor's yard and if you don' t allow it, where
are you going to put them? There are more coming. There's going to be others.
I!!
Councilman Horn: We've approved every expansion.
Acting Mayor Geving: Sure we have.
Councilman Horn: But we don' t have to. When it becomes an over
intensification, shut them down.
Acting Mayor Geving: So people would say they belong in the industrial park. '
Keep them in the industrial park. I don't know if we can. There is probably
twice as many construction yards out there that we don't even know about that
are working out of their yards and garages and so forth.
Tim Erhart: I think more important is you don't know when they expand. You've
had 1 or 2 come in here asking for expansion, I'd be surprised because I live '
next to two of them and they just sort of expand. One year they got a little
bigger and the next year.
Councilman Boyt: What's the possibility there Roger, if we don't have an
accurate means of keeping track of contractor's yard size, do we in effect after
say they've been that large for a year, that we basically grandfathered them in
at that size? re em
Roger Knutson: No. It becomes a matter of proof. You have to prove what they
look like. What you approved when you approved them.
Councilman Boyt: How many trucks they had or whatever?
Acting Mayor Geving: Bill, what you have to do is you almost have to take a '
picture. A picture of the business as it existed on a given day. The guy owned
3 pick-ups, a Bobcat and x number of loads of rock and dirt and whatever and
that was his business.
Councilman Boyt: Co we have the capability of keeping track of the contractor's
yards we now have?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, by site inspection.
Councilman Boyt: I mean realistically. We can do that? '
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: We're getting better at it?
Barbara Dacy: With the addition of Scott Harr, we are.
Councilman Horn: He has to inventory everything that he's allow ed on a
'
conditional use permit.
Councilman Boyt: It seems to me that possibility the ordinance already contains
an effective elimination of additional contractor's yards if the Council simple
enforces what we have to work with. If we've got that they can't be within a '
66
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
mile of each other, we've basically covered Chanhassen right now but do we have
the dedication of purpose to enforce that?
Councilman Horn: I agree. I think it is controllable with what we have. If it
' isn't being controlled, it's because we're not doing it.
Acting Mayor Geving: But what about some of the Planning Commission comments on
' what should be in and what should be out? What should we exclude? That's part
of Tim's recommendation. Churches, public buildings should be in and he wants
certain things out. Do you have any comment on that? Things that don't fit.
' Councilman Horn: I have no problem with doing it. I think that what we're
talking about here has to do with contractor's yards as a conditional use but I
think there are. I think the list he's given us is more appropriate.
' Tim Erhart: I guess the kind of commitment we're looking for is the general
comments, to look at the uses in the A-2 and come back... If there are a number
' of uses that you'd like at a contractor's yard to mean...why don't we look at
them all.
Councilman Horn: I might take exception to bed and breakfast though. I know
' there's a proposal for the Assumption Seminary property to make it a bed and
breakfast and I think that's, I would love to see some type of good use made for
that property so this might be the excpeption to the rule.
Councilman Boyt: I think the work you put in on this justifies certainly
carrying it further forward. I think we would be very fortunate if other
I Planning Commissioners would take on other zoning districts and do as thorough a
job as you've done with these. It's certainly a step forward and to have that
kind of dedication is great for the City. I would support it. I think you've
scratched the surface on a lot of tough issues and I'm not sure that I would
agree with everything you want to remove should be removed but I'd sure champion
your efforts.
' Councilman Johnson: I'm in pretty well agreement here. Bed and breakfast, I
think some size restrictions, I think it's Northfield and a few other places
that have some bed and breakfasts that are pretty large. They're small hotels
with 20-30 rooms and stuff like that so when we're talking about the lady down
on Bluff Creek who's got 4 or 5 rooms or whatever it is, that's one thing.
Pretty low intensive. I'm not too sure about temporary retail nurseries. If
it's not in there, I think we should have the public in the final
' recommendation. Public buildings.
Tim Erhart: Let me explain that one a little bit. The attempt there was to
' allow enough people like the one here who came in here and filed with us.
Acting Mayor Geving: Natural Green?
' Tim Erhart: Yes, the one that was going to replace. To somehow let them go in
on a temporary basis but when it was converted to a truly residential district,
that that permit would be automatically be removed. What you don't want them to
do is to go in and invest in a lot of buildings and permanent structures. Even
though you might want it now as a good thing for the City. What you don't want
to do is go for the permanent...
' 67
= ;�>
i 12ity Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know how you do that. I don't know how you do
that. I like the idea of temporary but I don't know how you control that. I
I!!
don't know if you can legally.
Councilman Horn: That's exactly our intent with contractor's yards.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think you've heard from us tonight. It's getting on to ,
11:30.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think retail, temporary or otherwise, is good down
there. We say we don't want the book store down there. I just don't think
retail is good in the A-2. You attract too much traffic.
Acting Mayor Geving: Barbara, you heard from the Council tonight on some of the
direction. That we're basically saying, Tim has done a terrific job here and
you just need to fine tune it and come back to us. Thank you very much Tim. You
did a good job. And I would agree with Bill. I really personally like the idea
of Commission members taking on a task. I've always said that people who want
to take on a special assignment. Clark has always had an interest in our
vehicles for example. He just digs right into those. Those are special
assignments and I'd like to see people do that.
Barbara Dacy: I also think Mr. Erhart's enthusiasm is also reflected in the
Commission's willingness to meet three times in July. ,
CITY COUNCIL SALARY SURVEY.
Don Ashworth: You received this from the League of Cities and basically would
ask the City Council whether or not you wish to consider that at this time. If
there's other information that you would like to have before considering that 11
type of change. I should note that any action that the Council would take can
not become effective until after the next regular general election. Again,
there is no necessity to make comparisons but I anticipated the Council would
want to so I've included literally all size communities. I have also circled
those communities that I think are closer to ourself as far as the amount of
work effort that council members are required to go through. In other words,
Orono may be larger but I do not believe at the current time that the total work
effort of an Orono councilmember is anything close to what you are going through
yourselves.
Acting Mayor Geving: Or at Eagan or Eden Prairie. I think Eden Prairie, they
may be a lot bigger but I think in terms of the amount of effort in think in
this Council probably. Anyway, go ahead Councilmembers, give us your views. '
Councilman Horn: I think the closest comparison we could come to would be
Chaska and we're right in line with them. It's my recommendation that we do not
change. ,
Councilman Boyt: I like the figures Don pulled together and I agree completely
with Clark. No change.
68
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
. El
Councilman Johnson: I'm agreeable. I think we're in line here. I really
believe that we're all pretty much volunteers here working at 35 cents an hour.
If we were into this for the money, we'd go flip hamburgers at McDonalds and
' make more money every month. We're not here for that purpose. I don't turn the
money back in, that's for sure. My wife finds uses for it.
Acting Mayor Geving: I guess I'd have to agree. I appreciate getting the
amount of detail that Don provided. I too spent some time looking at comparable
cities and I think we fall pretty much in line with the cities that I'm familiar
with. Chaska's about where we're at. Prior Lake and some of the other
' communities and I would say that there should be no change at this time. I'm
satisfied and I think we can, as a Council, let that rest for the remainder of
this year and this term which means that this would not become an issue again
until not this election but the following election. Okay, councilmenbers?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
DISCUSS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM.
' Barbara Dacy: We recommend that you support the first item and based on the
Manager's comments, that you not participate in the second.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Her recommendation is to participate in the single family
mortgage revenue bond.
If Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make one comment on this. To me this is the best
means of opening our community up to people who are trying to get started in a
home.
' Acting Mayor Geving: The first home buyer is perfect.
Councilman Boyt: It's much better than small houses on small lots.
' Acting Mayor Geving: I was kind of impressed actually with the dollars of the
houses that they could participate in. I was very pleased at that. That kind
of fits the Chanhassen housing price range that they can reach here. I agree
' with staff on this. If we don't have any other questions, let's move ahead on
this. Do you want to make a motion Bill?
' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the single family
mortgage revenue bond program and the City's participation in that program and
do not participate in the capital improvement portion of the recommendation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' 1987 AUDIT REPORT, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: Just that if we can set up a meeting date hopefully to talk about
the 1989 budget as well as what actually happened in 1987.
The City Council agreed to meet on August 8, 1988 at 7:00, a half hour prior to
the regular City Council meeting, to discuss these items.
1
69
114
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 '
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim '
011 1
1
1
70 = tr ,.1
11
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 15, 1988
' Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad , James
Wildermuth and Brian Batzli
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Jim Chaffee, Public
Safety Director
PUBLIC HEARING:
' CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 11 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS AND A DOUBLE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON HWY. 41, CHES MAR FARMS, BRADLEY JOHNSON.
' Public Present:
Bradley Johnson Applicant
Harold Nasset Applicant
Chuck and Ginger Gross 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road
Terry Jones Southridge Development Inc.
IF: Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order .
Brad Johnson : I do represent Gary Kirt who is the owner of this property
in this particular case. There' s always a reason behind somebody coming
in and asking for something that' s not supposed to be done. In this
particular case the reason is that the property has continuously for the
' last 30 years decreased in value. Primarily due to the decay of the
structures that exist there. We've had a number of fires and basically
changed the uses over the years . Originally, this is what the farm
' originally looked like. This is what the farm was originally like in the
late 40 ' s . I don ' t know if anybody has been out there lately but what has
happened over the last few years, about 20 years since it was originally
owned by Charles and Mary Johnson as a working horse farm. Over the years
as working horse farms became uneconomical , a fellow by the name of
Naegele purchased it as a land speculation and tried to develop it into
some form of property. I think he ran into the sewer problems and later ---
on sold parts of the property off to the County as a part of Carver County
Park. The next person who owned it went bankrupt. Not just because of
this but a couple of other dealings that he had and Mr . Kirt purchased it
I out of a foreclosure with the intent that he could bring it back to life.
It' s a very beautiful piece of property. It probably has a lot of
historic significance to those people who live on Lake Minnewashta. I
know the Gross' who are here can attest to the fact that years ago it used
to be an active part of the Chanhassen community. The problem that' s
happening is Mr . Kirt acquired it and I think he was going to live there
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 2
C
and he moved a home on there which he had planned on doing and for various
economic reasons decided that it was not, at that time, a good idea to
remodel that particular home . When you have a duplex and a 6 unit in a
rural community, a rural area with non-owner occupants living in the unit ,
it tends to degenerate into a slum. Mr . Kirt asked me to visit that
particular piece of property about 6 months ago because he'd had it on the
market for approximately 2 years. As Jo Ann said , they've been able to
sell off two of the buildings. One' s a duplex which Jerry Eickenspot has II
fixed up a little bit and then the front gate house was sold off and
that's been fixed up quite a bit but he' s been unable to sell the two
units. He said when he bought the Kirt place he literally drove a truck II up to it, filled a truck full of garbage and hauled it away. Interestingly
enough, unless he' s had family members living in the units , which he has
had off and on, other than one unit periodically, they have to drive a II truck up to the door and clean it out. This is not uncommon in this type
of property where you really have buildings that are not really designed
to be rental units, which is the case here. It is not a real attractive
place for people to live in the long term. The type of tennant that they I
attract seem not to take care of the property so that' s the economic
problem. Valuation from a tax purposes has steadily declined over the
last few years also for that reason. He came in and requested this as a
PUD, I think as your staff report indicates, that this was at that time
and has historically, you' ll notice that it has at times a much higher
density than it currently has even. It' s just there and the concern that '
we have had is that it is getting tagged, Mr . Chaffee is here from the
Public Safety Department and this is whether it's Mr . Kirt who owns it or
anybody that owns it, it will probably always be the economic problem as
long as there's six units there. Our solution was to shift the valuation
or the debt that happens to be on the property from the 6 unit building to
the land. To that end we purchased, or have option, an additional 21
acres because we felt that one thing we could not do is come in here and
ask for an increase in density in that particular area. So currently
there is 1. 2 acres per unit and our proposal is 3. 1 acres per unit by
adding the outlot. The configuration that we 're proposing is there
because we felt that this particular piece of land should remain looking II a little bit like it does at the present time, which you see is the fences
and things like that. By creating a large outlot and clustering the homes
around what is now the existing drive, we felt we could maintain the II credibility of the existing community. This is a PUD. It is a rural PUD.
If you look in your ordinances, there' s nothing that allows PUD' s not do
you allow 6 unit buildings out in those areas . Nor do you allow duplexes
out in that particular market. They just happen to be there and what
we' re trying to accomplish is dealing with them. Gary dealt with it in a
way. He was in fact able to sell off two of the buildings to owners
occupants . Our concern now is how do we make this particular property
viable as a real estate place to live without just burning it down, taking
it off the tax rolls and forgetting about it . We felt that one of the
reasons people may not want to develop it is because it is outside the II MUSA line so we' ve been in contact with the Metropolitan Council folks and
they have no problem, at least verbally, with the plan that we have
presented here . In other words, either the City, through the City
Council , has an agreement that they will not increase the density. They
felt that this project is not increasing the density out in that area
11..- - �,t..,._e.-A»�.iRt6f•:=9.±'v� �.,- v_.--at+ ,a .+t�urnR.dlS �sC
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 3
therefore, from an agreement point with the City. There won' t be the
sewer and water there but at least we' re not violating anything so there
would be no opposition on their part , at least verbally, with this
particular plan. That was our first step.
Emmings : Could I ask you, did you talk to the Met Council yourself?
' Brad Johnson: Harold did.
Harold Nasset: I spoke with Matt Paul of Met Council .
' Emmings: Was this a telephone conversation?
Harold Nasset : It was a meeting that Barb Dacy and I had over at Met
Council .
Emmings : And they saw this drawing?
' Harold Nasset: They saw this concept and the idea was that we were going
no more units. That we were trading rental units for single family and
' they were reading it as . . . So there ' s 11 units if you count on there
presently. If you count the number on the single families that were
converted to duplex , or the 6 unit into a duplex , it ' s the same amount.
Emmings: Okay, and they saw this land. That part of the land that ' s
being counted in is this long skinny trail going down to the lake?
' Harold Nasset: Yes .
Brad Johnson: They actually saw even a more common area type of thing .
' The idea of the common area, by the way, again was to maintain it from TH
41, the look that that property currently has . Using the PUD technique in
some communities, you go to more clustered urban type housing where you
cluster things. Here around the knoll or around the beauty area or you
' give them a view point and you try to maintain the other property as it
is. The other problems that we have in dealing with this particular piece
of property, other than the fact that it' s outside the MUSA line at the
' present time, it' s just that it' s there already. The road system has been
there for a number of years, probably 40 or 50 years, so you have to try
to work whatever plan that you put together around what exists. The
orange indicates the three properties that are currently owned by people
' other than •Mr . Kirt. The Gross ' , Chuck and Ginger Gross are here tonight
and we 've been working with them for a while. Each of these parties has a
certain interest in the project because they live there . I would say it -- •
' would be safe to say that, and Ginger you or Chuck could speak to this ,
that they would like to see something done. How many years have you been
worrying about this?
IChuck Gross : We ' ve lived there close to 15 and we' ve seen a
deterioration. . . . is still there and yes, we are interested in seeing
something done about it. We would like to see an upgrading . Better grade
' of people living there as neighbors. We have a vested interest with our
manor home there that we ' re living in.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 4
Brad Johnson: You' re faced with, let' s say there home is worth at least
$100,000.00 but let 's say there home is worth $200,000. 00 to $400,000.00,
which is the pinnacle as you come in. You have a small gatehouse that
fits in the sides. They have this huge monsterous building in the back
which adds value to their home until you get near it. I was just reading
Chaffee's report, you can smell it as you get closer. That's the problem '
we' re facing with in that property. What would you say about the state of
repair Jim?
Jim Chaffee : It needs a little work. ,
Brad Johnson: We get tags and it' s not as if , in this kind of property is
as close, I use to deal just in properties in 30th and Hennepin and 30th
and Lake and that area . It' s as close to that kind of property or is
getting to it from a tennancy point of view as you can possibly get.
Another party owns this property and another party owns this property out
in the back. They all have concerns and I think I 've listed them in our
presentation and I ' ll touch on them but in the design of the project we
have to deal with their rights. Currently there is a 25 foot easement
that goes with the project . In other words it goes with the back property II
from this TH 41 to this point. Whoever established this whole thing
originally made sure that there was only a 25 foot easement, good or bad .
The balance of the property is owned by the Gross ' . The road itself is
on both parties property. Now we could put a road to the right of that
and infringe on these folk' s homes but that' s not the proper way to do it
so we' re working through them. One of the requirements that both these
parties have relative to a road system coming in there, at least until
public utilities are there, is that that road remain private. They are
concerned about taxes. They' re concerned about traffic and any
connotation that would have to do with a public road entering into the I
property. Traffic, things like that. Much like what has been established
like at the Hesse Farm which is a well established subdivision in this
particular community. From there on in we are okay with most anything
that could happen . What we did say though as an alternate and for public
safety reasons or whatever , we needed a public road and these two parties
would not agree. Then we have provided an outlot around the back of the
property through the acquisition of the property to the south. We also II have set this outlot up in case , in some future time, maybe 12 years away,
that they actually want to run sewer and water in and then that City then
could do that . This would just be deeded over to the City or accessed to
them so they could do that. From this point on we would like to lay the
road system out a little bit different than it is but there' s an easement
that runs from here to here to service this particular party. Her feeling—
is that she does not want to allow any change in the easement on this
road. That it must remain as it is and rather than argue that point out
we therefore run the road in along the northerly portion of the property
and spun it around here. We had a couple of other ones that wrapped it II out and probably very small as a cul-de-sac or an effective way of dealing
with it. Thus the plan. I don' t think there would be too much problem
within the plan to meet a 1 acre standard for most of the lots except for
the duplex lots. The duplex lots, they' re kind of, there again, we just
can' t do much about it. Again our contention is that the outlot concept
•
' Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 5
I with trying to maintain some type of identity within the farm is the way
to do it. We also have set it up, whether it' s a useable beachlot or not,
at least it' s perceived to be that way. Concerns that people have raised
I are things like septic. I believe you have in general , in the rural area,
2 1/2 acre requirement primarily for septic purposes . In checking around ,
there are other methods of handling septic on the lot. Actually the two
adjoining properties are examples of that. Camp Tanadoona and Dogwood
I both have what ' s called the mound system, which is a community septic
system and they' ve been in operation for 10 or 15 years and according to
our engineers who have been out there, they're working very fine. Both of
I which are on the lake. There are probably engineering ways , let ' s say, of
getting around the lot size and the septic system problems. There' s been
a concern about is there water out there or not. Again, that' s an
I engineering problem. We' ve been sort of assured by our engineers that
water has serviced through private wells, a few homes out there in the
past and there should be plenty of water for a number of years more out in
that particular area. The lot sizes, as I said, I think we could
I configure it to make it 1 acre. We could actually increase some of them
to 2 1/2 acres but we think from strictly planning and aesthetic point of
view, we'd be distroying a lot of the things that the current property
I has. As I said, we designed it so that the density is 3. 1 acres per unit.
As I understand we ' re coming in under an adjustment in a PUD and the
purpose for a PUD is exactly this. How do you deal with something that
IF: shouldn' t be there probably in the first place and/or how do you deal with
something where you' re trying to preserve the beauty of the site without
exceeding the density? We felt that if we stayed under 2 1/2 acres per
lot, in other words more, that we'd at least be showing you an effort of
I not trying to increase a high density and therefore we went with the cost
of purchasing the balance of the property. The private versus public
road , as I said, Hesse Farm has a private road system. There we' re
I dealing with, and maybe Ginger or Chuck can speak to that private road
system concept . What is your concern? I know what they are but you might
point them out.
I Emmings : Why don' t you make your presentation and then I ' ll ask for
comments from the other people.
I Brad Johnson : Setbacks, I think most of the other kinds of things could
be met. I think the only, our concern from the land planning point of
view is that we realize that this does not meet standards currently
I established by the City. We are here just to explain our case. The
owner ' s got a problem and you may or may not want to address the problem
at the Planning Commission. We are looking for some feedback. We' re more
than happy to come back again if you have some ideas of things that we
I should change or concerns and make some modifications to our current ideas
but we will persist I guess is what I 'm saying . We think we have a legal
right to proceed based upon the PUD and that' s kind of the comment I ' ve
Ibeen given by the guy who ' s basically knows about it. That 's my comments.
Emmings : Just a couple of questions . You know our regulations . When you
say this one doesn' t meet our standards, that ' s really an understatement.
IIt doesn ' t meet any of them. It doesn ' t come close and I understand that
you're here, making a proposal on behalf of the client and you 've come up
II ,
- „ „..„_,..,„. ..,..,,,,...
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 6
with a plan . That' s fine , we ' ll take a look at it but I 'm sure you' re
also aware that when we looked at this before, there were some, in ' 85
when we looked at this and we made it a PUD, it was done at that time,
very different things were said to us than are being said now. One of II them was we want to maintain the character of this piece of property as a
farm and now it looks to me like a lot of buildings. Now it looks to me
like it' s going to look like a residential subdivision. I guess I 'm
wondering , that bothers me because I 'm wondering if that was part of a
plan . Was I getting the straight shot then? Am I getting a straight shot
now? I wonder about that. It's probably something you can' t answer. You
didn' t represent them before. ,
Brad Johnson : He was planning on living on the property. It just didn' t
come about.
Emmings : The other thing is, both at the City Council and at the Planning
Commission we' re very concerned that there not be any increased density.
We were talking about the land area that was there within the PUD at the II time and all that 's getting shuffled around. Is there any reason to think
this isn' t subject to our subdivision ordinance? Do you agree that it is
subject to our subdivision ordinance as well as the PUD? '
Brad Johnson: I guess if you looked at, I 'm not a lawyer okay. I do know
that you can take cases like this a long ways and normally the City would '
lose because it ' s generally felt that they have this lost . I think it ' s
one of those hardships that somebody has dealt with in the past and when
you have a grandfathered type of a situation. In other words , I wouldn' t
come in here and say this is the thing to do. I was contacted by the II owner , who ' s a friend of mine, and he'd been trying to market the property
for 2 years. I said, well Gary it looks like it isn' t working. Let' s try
to figure out what the problem is. I met with all the neighbors. Done
the history of the thing and my bottom line is , from my experience in
rental property, that this place will tend to degenerate forever until the
MUSA line is extended and you put 60 lots in there or 30 or 40 or 50.
It' s just a problem. Even if you bought this building for nothing , it
would still cost you more than you could rent it for .
Emmings : The sixplex?
Brad Johnson : Yes . It' s just a problem. It ' s a very nice duplex
interestingly enough.
Emmings : The sixplex?
Brad Johnson : The sixplex is really a nice duplex but they' ve modified it II
over the years. It used to be a barn years ago.
Emmings : So it' s at his highest and best use?
Brad Johnson: Yes. It's been moved. If you look at this, it' s very
creative. I found out that the duplex that' s way out in the back of the
property was a chicken coop so this thing has gone on and on and on and
the neighbors , you could think what kind of credibility I had when I
,.r
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 7
ik
I proposed to them that we change this again. So Ginger said, you ' ve got to
be honest. Now Ginger I 've been talking to you, because we tried to
figure out. What you see here is something that , not what we want but is
I what they would probably accept.
Emmings : Yes , you' re having the same problem here.
I Brad Johnson: I think Gary in good faith was trying to figure out what to
do himself. I said Gary you ' ve got to accomplish something . It may not
have been the right thing certainly at that time. Now the 21 acres we
I purchased back was part of the farm but even when they subdivided this
whole thing out for many different reasons they did it incorrectly. Gary
could have come in here , not a very months ago , a year ago , and come in
for a 2 1/2 acre subdivision on this property after acquiring this and
I probably making it work. Today we' re just stuck with the current
ordinance. I told him, I don' t see for 12 years you ' re going to see sewer
and water on that street. I don' t know what to do and so we thought that
I we'd try to create a real posh community out there. Now we got stopped a
little bit, not by all the neighbors , by some of the neighbors , that this
doesn' t come off the way we thought it should. We have to deal with
I existing houses . We offered for example to buy this back and try to
straighten it out a little bit. They' re just there. We did acquire this .
One of the covenants of the transaction is that this will never be
subdivided. It will always be an outlot. Interestingly enough, as we
if moved along and started talking this way, we found people, we' ve got a
person in the crowd tonight that' s willing to move in along with one of
his friends and families and they will actually move in here and start
I work on this project July 1st. To live there which we've been looking for
a long time for somebody who wants to live there other than Gary' s family.
Emmings : You said something just now that I want to follow up on. You
Isaid that one of the covenants on your option to purchase , if you do
purchase the 21 acres, one of the covenants will be that you can ' t
subdivide that 21 acres .
IBrad Johnson: This parcel here.
IEmmings : But those lots go into that parcel now don ' t they?
Brad Johnson: No, I said the outlot that would remain.
IEmmings : Okay, the new outlot?
Brad Johnson : Yes . I think one of the reasons the Gross ' , again I 'm -_- ,
I speaking for them, I don ' t mean to do that, but one of the reasons they' re
interested in this is that we perceive the , and again we don' t want to be
stuffy but the average valuation of a home in here will be $300, 000. 00 to
$600,000. 00. Currently the tax base in there is $400, 000. 00. We think we
can increase the tax base. Secondly, the scale of houses that we'd have
to build in here would then be the size of the Gross ' or the size of the
monster duplex in the back which until , quite honestly, 7 months ago I
I thought was a big single family house. I thought that was the main house
but the main house has always been the Gross ' house. That's where the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 8
Johnson' s used to live in the front . So we' re just trying to deal with II it. I 'm not saying this meets , I 'm sure Barb just enjoyed seeing me walk
in the door and saying I ' ve got a problem but on the other hand this is an
opportunity. That ' s where we are. We've got a couple of other ones like
this in town too we' re working on and this is a classic problem. The PUD
is a solution and it'd be a real easy solution if there was sewer and
water there but there isn' t.
Emmings : Would the gatehouse, the Gross ' and the duplex have access to
the beachlot?
Brad Johnson: I think actually by the way it was set up, they do not.
There' s a deed that transferred this property and within that deed it said
Ches Mar Farm, which at that time was this piece of property, shall always I
have access to the lake. So technically they may or may not.
Emmings : I specifically asked when this was here before, whether or not ,
Ches Mar Farms, what we were dividing into a PUD, into 4 lots, whether
they had access to the lake and I was told they did not . Is that wrong?
Brad Johnson: There' s an easement that runs from this point to here.
Under the original transfer . The property itself was not owned by Gary.
There was just an easement that ran from this lot over to here. Now he
may not even have known that but that ' s what we found out later . Nobody
has ever exercised the use of that easement. Now wasn' t there always a
concern by Margaret or somebody, I hate to ask but they have the answer .
That' s the idea.
Emmings : This is a public hearing , is there anybody else who wishes to
speak on this proposal?
Ginger Gross : I 'm Ginger Gross and we ' ve been on the farm for about 15
years and we are thankful to see something proceeding at this point. Mr .
Johnson is right, there has been a good deal of deterioration and it does
not appear it' s going to get any better . We' re not 100% sold on the
proposal as I 'm sure yourselves are not . There are some questions that we
have and some other avenues we'd like explored . What we would like to
know is if they have been explored . As things stand , it is most
unacceptable. We've had deterioration that has been almost life
threatening in many regards out there at the farm so something does have
to be done. If Mr. Johnson ' s plan does not go through, I think if you
move to put Mr . Kirt in some regard . '
Emmings : What are your concerns about this specific proposal?
Ginger Gross : We would like to see the area remain as rural as possible . '
Obviously if we had preference, if it was my property to develop, I 'd
still like to see horses . I 'd still like to see wildlife . The current
residents there would like to see people who appreciate the outdoors and
take part in it. That' s the concept of the farm. In regards to Mr .
Johnson' s proposal , again I do appreciate what he' s trying to do. I would
like to see something a bit more natural . Some of the houses maybe
snuggled within some of the contours of land, if that' s possible. I don' t
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 9
It
I know how realistic it is , I 'd like to see 2 or 3 parties there as opposed
to as many as he' s proposing. We really don' t want to see a public road
going through. We feel that it would be most inappropriate to the entire
area. I think then you would probably have a lot of people approaching
I you and wanting to develop there if we had a 50 foot road . Now it' s a
quaint private road and it does not stand out. There is some
consideration that we might have a privacy gate or security gate at the
I entrance. I think should Mr . Johnson do the development, I think he would
do it in good taste. I don' t know, I 've not seen his work but if that' s
what his plan is. Mr . Johnson is trying to work with all of us and we
appreciate that. He' s trying to observe the things that are important to
P us. I don't know how much you can preserve the existing character. A lot
of the existing character does not need to be preserved . We would like
the feeling that it still is a rural area. He' s right, if we wait 10 or
P 12 or 14 years , whoever sells off the property will not have appropriate
use of the property either. Anyone who would come onto the farm, want to
buy those properties at this point, probably would also let them continue
I to deteriorate. A lot of people who think that they could have a lot of
house for little money. I don' t think it would lend anything to the area
at all . Again, I don' t know if it' s been properly marketed. Previously I
know Mr . Kirt had marketed it through his own realty company and Mr .
I Johnson through his . I did some research, I went to Waconia and Victoria
and I understand that the kinds of things that we assume they were trying
to develop on the farm, those things are happening in the Victoria and
If: Waconia area . I don ' t know if Mr . Kirt or Mr . Johnson spent any time in
those areas or with people who , most people think you have to go further
out than we are to have that kind of acreage and the comments that I had
I out there is that what we thought should be done on the farm is being done
out there all the time.
Emmings : And that is what specifically?
IGinger Gross : People looking for 10 acres or 20 acres . 2 or 3 people.
Not necessarily revitalizing the area. A lot of those people want to
I build private homes that are going out there. If that ' s what it takes , it
would be nice for something like that to take place. I don ' t know how far
Mr. Johnson or Mr . Kirt are willing to go or can go in marketing property
to say, horse people or animal people or outdoors people. I don' t know
I how much control they have over that but they have indicated that they
would work with us as much as they could. Obviously there' s some economic
factors and there are a lot of considerations that are coming into play
I that that may not take place. That does concern us . We don' t want
plastic people in plastic houses . The public road would be a problem. We
share a well with the family at the gate and the road separates the two of"' '
P us , Our well is on their property. They have easements, Mr . Kirt' s
property has, Mr . Kirt the owner , their property has easement for the
road , I think that ' s the appropriate term. If you were to widen the road ,
it would take it up to the front door of the little cottage that has our
IL well and the well is right under that proposed roadbed area so you do have
a problem there. We could work with Mr. Johnson on some of our property
but we really don ' t want to give up a good deal of our project. Mrs .
I Johnson, the original owner , again I don' t know the technicalities, she
laid her plan out accordingly. Her attorney laid it out so that she would
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 10
not ever have more road coming into her yard . She sold the property to I
Naegele' s who were bringing new developing but she sold the property that
she sold to them with the understanding that her property would always
remain her property.
Emmings : So in other words , if they widened the entry road , none of the
additional land would come out of your parcel?
Ginger Gross : That' s right. Obviously a lot of things have taken place '
down through the years. That little gatehouse burned down at one time. I
think if people had really been on top of it, the little house would have
been rebuilt because that did not allow them the appropriate roadbed that '
they needed . . .but apparently they needed a roadbed. That' s the only place
it could come from is where that house is. Mr. Kirt and Mr. Johnson have
some definite problems that they have to overcome there that are going to I
have to be dealt with at some time. We like some of their proposals.
They' re trying to work with us as best they can but we are concerned about
the private road. We would like to see it that way. Obviously for the
next 10 or 12 years , if it remain private that it remain as it is but it
would also remain as it is for the. . .
Terry Jones : I was asked to come here this evening to address you all
because I 'm the person who is , also like Mrs. Gross , moving onto the
property. I 'm with Southridge Development Incorporation.
Emmings: Where are you moving onto the property? ,
Terry Jones : Into the double home which is now a sixplex . We' re also the
proposal , depending upon the outcome of this entire proposal , to purchase
and develop the rest of the project. My partner couldn' t be here tonight ,
David Kenneth is also personally going to live on the property and my
cowboy boots show that we like horses also. The property is a very II tranquil setting . That's what attracted us in the first place. Speaking
for myself and my company, which becomes very personal , we also would not
like to see a plastic type of development but rather a development which
would lend itself to homes positioned just right in the right places so
that it preserves the beauty of the property. These are things that have
to be dealt with down the road and I was just here tonight to introduce
myself and say that depending upon the outcome of this entire property, we
do have someone who' s willing to throw in the necessary money to make sure
that these things happen .
Emmings: Do you feel this plan meets your desire to have things laid out
in the best possible way for the property?
Terry Jones : Basically yes . With the time that I ' ve had to spend with
the property, I think it does. I 'm moving onto the property at the first
of the month where I can deal with that more on a hands on basis .
Brad Johnson: As a part of our proposal Mr. Kenneth, when we first met
they had a number of objections to the current status of the property. As
as far as Terry and his family and Dave Kenneth and his family moving onto II
the property, Mr . Kirt has agreed to fund basically the exterior of
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 11
IC
refurbishing the sixplex and the clean-up of the yards which is something
he just didn' t feel comfortable doing. He' s done it once before and now
we' re doing it again 3 years later . So he feels comfortable he can
attract a good tennant, worse case, potentially with development, best
I case , if we can get it done. Fix it up. Fix it up and it falls apart.
Somehow we've got to stop that and we think the concept is simply to
transfer , what we call a debt of the sixplex into the land and sell the
I land out so the whole cost of the project is taken care of in that way.
We just can ' t reclaim anything from the sixplex . Planning Commission ' s
historically aren' t concerned about that. The problem is we've just got a
problem we' re trying to solve and that ' s an economic problem. I think
I Terry came after they started the process. He' s the type of guy I was
sure I was going to be able to attract to this project. It will work. It
will be a very nice place. I thought about moving up there myself. If he
I doesn ' t, I am. I hope he does because I 'm comfortable where I 'm at but
we' re going to get this done and that 's where this whole thing originated .
IBatzli moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
I Wildermuth : Brad , what is on the outlot A? You' ve got 3 things there.
There' s a green box. A circle.
Brad Johnson : Somebody said preserve the character of the farm and keep
the barns and stuff like that. We' re leaving some on there. Some are
falling apart so this is a barn that we ' re going to move. I think we can
I buy the one that' s over on Westin. What ' s the subdivision just over this
way? What ' s the name of the one on Minnewashta that was just completed?
Olsen: Pemtom?
Brad Johnson: Pemtom has a little barn that ' s for sale so we thought
could bring in a barn. There' s a stable. These are just images for a
Ihorse corral that we could add back.
Wildermuth: But there' s nothing there now?
I Brad Johnson : No . It ' s interesting , if you look at that photo . I always
thought, if you ever go in there and it looks like there' s a bridge where
water used to go under . Look at the photo . It ' s the bridge where the
I horses used to go back and forth across the road so that ' s the way that
whole thing was set up. I always through there must have been a huge
gushing of water continuously. In real life , this whole thing was just a --
Ibig farm years ago .
Wildermuth : Outlot A, just outline the part that will never be . . .
IL Brad Johnson: And we did it, if you saw, somewhere I ' ve got some other
plans but originally we were just going to even shorten the length of
these lots and make it a little bigger but it got to be too much of a
I variance . This would work nicely with 1/2 acre sites but we felt that was
a little bit too much for the farm.
I -
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 12
Wildermuth : I guess I 'm inclined to agree with the staff' s analysis of
it. It no way meets our rural subdivision. It appears something has been
attempted with the sixplex . It' s in a pretty sad state of repair and the
house that was moved onto the site really with those two structures on the I
site , even if something like this were to be acceptable, I don' t see how
you could attract $100, 000. 00 into an area like that. I guess other
conditions that would be required or a bending of the rules, bending of
our ordinance structure, would be that there would be a central watering
system and a central sewage system for this PUD. I 'm surprised that the
PUD was . . . That's all I have.
Batzli : I guess I 'd be interested in hearing what the Public Safety
Director has to say about putting up structures such as this. If they' re
going to have individual wells , obviously to bring your own water but then
again the buildings that they've got now are supposedly hooked up to , not
the mansion. . . I think something needs to be done about the site . I
think it' s a beautiful old farm and I kind of got nostalgic wandering
around it when I went out there but I don' t know that the economic
hardship of developing in a different way, if that' s the criteria for why
this plan in particular was presented , is enough to convince me that this
is the best plan for that area .
Conrad : I have just a few comments . I think something should be done. I
like the concept of this a whole bunch. If I could design Chanhassen 10
years ago and no doubt at 15, this type of development would have been,
still is , real attractive. I have a problem of the ordinances that are
quite sound. I 'm not even getting into the design in terms of some of the
details of soil conditions and septic things. I 'm hung up on our
ordinance in which it talks about 1 unit per 10 and 2 1/2 acre minimums in
the rural area and I just don' t know how to justify changing those
standards to other rural people that might want to do the same thing . I I
wouldn' t know how to defend any action if we took a look at this and tried
to massage our standards a little bit. I don' t know on what grounds
somebody. . . tell me how to do it. I thought about it and I can ' t figure
out how to do it. I can' t tell Brad, Brad ' s in here for a concept and I
thought about what I would tell him to go away with and come back with and
I don' t know what I would do. I honestly don' t know what would work
within our ordinance so we wouldn' t have to drastically change it. I
guess I 'm kind of at a loss. I go back to some concepts, however , that I
think something should be done. I 'm empathetic to the situation and I do
like the overall concept but I don' t have a clue as to how to get it done. I
Ellson : I don' t really like it. I think the PUD was , you could say the
City and the Planning Commission and the City Council bending to try and
accomodate somebody who , at that point had economic hardship also . He
wanted the PUD so that he could eventually separate the parcels which he
has been able to do in a couple of the cases . I think we went above and
beyond just granting the PUD to help him out and I think he's stretching '
it and trying to get a little bit more. I 'm not sure that I can go along
with being that much more accomodating because that really is a lot of
increased density. The area is gorgeous but I wouldn ' t want to see having I
any units in there. I 'm not opposed to looking at other plans and things
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 13
IC
I like that but I think it doesn ' t conform so drastically and I think trying
to slip under , well now that this is a PUD we' re trying other things is
kind of taking advantage of the good nature that they gave you the PUD in
the first place which was for the original plan and not this one. I don' t
I really think this is called a PUD anymore because now they' ve changed it
so it's not the existing conditions when we called it a PUD. I don ' t know
what ' s been used to what will hold it in court . Now that it' s a PUD we' re
I going to go for different things so I 'm against it. I 'm not against
something about the area but I 'm against this exact one.
Emmings: I made the motion when we turned this thing into a
I PUD, I noticed in our old Minutes so some ways I feel like I 've got to
justify that. It made sense at the time based on what we were told by the
applicant that he couldn ' t sell the individual . It was all one parcel and
I he couldn' t sell the whole parcel , he needed to break it up. To be able
to sell it, he wanted to maintain the farm and rural character of the
property and that sounded very nice and we' re concerned about him wanting
I them to subdivide the four parcels we let him have at that time so we put
in a specific condition that we' re not going to have any greater density
here. We ' re not going to let you subdivide this down . Now they've come
back and basically it looks to me an attempt to backdoor or shoehorn in
I what is basically an urban subdivision into a rural area and I think it ' s
totally inappropriate. I did drive through the property tonight. The
Gross ' property is very beautiful and the rest of it is in a sad
It: condition. I sure can' t approve of a plan that looks like this . Our
PUD Ordinance says it has to be coordinated with the subdivision ordinance
and it has to be coordinated with the provisions of the, what is all
around it there? Is it A-2 or RR?
IOlsen: RR.
I Emmings: In either case , they both require the 2 1/2 acre lots and we' ve
got the 1 in 10 problem. I 'm real uncomfortable allowing somebody to
count as acreage in their density a long hallway of land that really could
I never be built on. That doesn' t make any sense to me at all . I think
that ' s very inappropriate .
Conrad: So what would we like to see done here?
IEmmings : When we have an outlot like this , this Outlot A, do we typically
count those in computing density?
IOlsen : We usually do the net and the gross density and the net density is
just the lot areas and it doesn ' t include the outlots or park areas and --- .
I street areas . Typically we have used net in the past. Although in the
Comp Plan the densities are determined by gross densities .
IL Conrad: Jo Ann, under our ordinance, what could be done to . . .
Olsen : Under our ordinance , again we'd have to meet the 1 in 10 density.
IConrad : And there' s 28 acres?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 14
C
Olsen : Yes , so you get two units . .
Conrad : 28 acres , help me figure that out .
Olsen: Two units .
Conrad : So they would get 2 units?
Olsen : Right. If Met Council is willing to forego that I unit/10 acres, they
would still have, to have a minimum of 2 1/2 acres per lot. The reason
that we have the common mound system .on Dogwood was because the system
failed and the City had to put that in. Never have we permitted that
common mound system simply because of the lots created would not support
the septic system.
Wildermuth: What about a central water system and a central sewage
system?
Olsen : I don' t have an answer to well system. I don' t know whether we
have done that. We may have done that for the Lakeview Apartments. It' s II
not determined that each of those lots couldn ' t support a well .
Wildermuth: In reading Mr. Whitehill ' s letter and he seems to be very
concerned about that .
Olsen: About limiting his water? Yes .
Wildermuth : His concern has impact upon everybody.
Olsen: I asked our engineer if that would impact other wells and he
did not know.
Emmings: I 'd also like, I noticed in the Council ' s Minutes from January
21, 1985 that Councilman Horn, at the time this PUD was before us said
that in this case we're dealing with pre-existing conditions . We really
don ' t have a choice because this stuff was put up before our Zoning II Ordinance was there. We can be comfortable with this because of that but
if we were creating something from scratch , that ' s one thing but this
already exists and I think now they' re going back and creating something
from scratch . I think they' re going over that limit and I don' t see any II way that we can support this kind of concept at all . As far as what ought
to be there , I don' t know but that' s not my problem. I don' t own the
property and I think we' re being asked to do this to make this marketable
and by god I don' t think that' s the City' s role at all . I don' t think we
help developers make a bad investment good. If it doesn' t meet the
ordinance, it doesn' t meet the ordinance and I 'm sorry. I wish I had a
great idea to make the property look nice and I guess you need somebody.
If a horse farm isn' t viable economically, and I see them being built out
in the Waconia area, as the Gross ' were eluding to. They just put up
another big one up on the way to Waconia . They two out there now just II recently. I don' t know, maybe land cost is too high in here to do that, I
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 15
k
I don ' t know but if they can do something like that , that would be
wonderful .
Conrad : One of the neat things about a concept plan is where we can give
Ithe developer some input. That ' s the point of a concept.
Emmings : You know why I think we can ' t on this one? Because this one is
II so far off that it doesn' t advance anything. Lots of times when you come
in with concept plans we say, yes change this a little bit . Shove this
over here a little bit but this is more like okay, if we can' t do this ,
what can we do? This is so far off it doesn ' t just need a little
I massaging, it' s got to go back to the drawing board and start all over and
I think that' s why we' re having trouble coming up with ideas . That ' s my
impression.
IConrad : I don' t know how to change it but I think it ' s just smart for Mr .
Johnson to take it to City Council . He's obviously dealing with some
Ieconomics that we are not inclined to deal with .
Wildermuth: The addition of the tax role I think is very attractive.
There ' s no question about that but when the PUD was granted it was to
I provide parcels that could be sold individually, I think the easy parcels
were sold individually. The sixplex is a mess . The house that was moved
onto the property is probably a good candidate for practice for the Fire
If: Department. I don ' t think you could probably put $250, 000. 00 in that
thing before you could get it to look like some of the other homes that
you might anticipate building . You'd probably have to put $250, 000. 00
into that Herman House.
IBrad Johnson: $150, 000. 00 to $200, 000. 00. The valuation that ' s the
$400, 000.00 to $500,000. 00. It ' s a very historic house. The real trick
Ithere is the lot . The lot ' s worth , just sitting there by itself. . .
Wildermuth: The lot is a nice lot. It' s a nice size.
IBrad Johnson: We' re basically selling that particular thing , we' ve been
able to sell that as either a group home or individuals like myself that
are interested in purchasing . A group home is permitted in this whole
I area and that is probably another alternative to the whole situation. In
both cases , people who wanted to buy the Herman House looked to the
sixplex and they wouldn' t buy the Herman House if there was a sixplex . We
I get a call a week on the Herman House and the price is a buck for the
house and $125, 000. 00 for the land, that kind of thing. People are very
attracted to that house . I think there were one of our salesmen already,
I had they be able to appropriately pass the sixplex and that ' s why I 'm
here . You guys want to know why I 'm doing this is because I was going to
buy the Herman House and we finally figured it all out and when we got
done with it, like you said , we 'd have $150, 000. 00 into it or $200, 000 . 00
IL but until the sixplex question was taken care of and you look at the
economics of the whole deal and it just doesn ' t work. You' re right, it' s
an economic problem which Planning Commissions aren ' t supposed to deal
I with . I 'm here realizing that . We deal with those every day in the
downtown area . I do know that people' s cities take care of it. Otherwise
. ._ �.....x�
Planning Commission Meeting 11
June 15, 1988 - Page 16
4 I
they end up with a downtown like Chanhassen has . Sooner or later the
problem will come up and it will be taken care of more from the Council ' s II
side . I 've listened to the neighbors . I ' ve listened to you guys . You' re
telling me what I thought I 'd hear . It'd be interesting to figure out a
solution and I 'm not asking for a solution per se . What you see there is II
what we came up with as I understand a PUD. That' s my business and my
business is understanding that kind of stuff . Now I understand that in
the PUD ordinance that we have to have out there, you have all the
flexibility in the world . In theory. That' s why it' s there. PUD' s are
there. You've got an apartment building we approved over here not too far
away that ' s got 23 units per acre. The minimum in town is 12. Why is it I
there? It' s there because of the great need.
Emmings : Brad but you ' re aware too that our PUD ordinance says that a PUD
may include only those uses consistent with the general land use category I
for the area on the Comprehensive Plan and also that subdivision review
under Chapter 18 has to be carried out simultaneously with the review of a
PUD so it also comes under all the subdivision ordinances . u
Brad Johnson: Without a doubt and the last thing you want to do is change
the ordinance.
Emmings : I ' ve got pages of questions here. If I thought this plan was
close to being approved, there are buildings on lot lines in this and I
don ' t know if those buildings, if you ' re planning to tear them down.
There' s a garage right behind the Herman House. I don' t know, maybe
you' re planning to tear them down but I ' ve got a lot of little questions
like that.
Brad Johnson : In this kind of thing , the only thing that would be left
would be part of the sixplex and that would be all .
Emmings : And why is the sixplex on two lots?
Brad Johnson: We' re going to divide it. It' s truly a good duplex. You
run it right down the middle and go in and it ' s a very nice place .
Seriously. It was built. . .
Emmings : And is Lotus Realty, now you ' ve got a sign out on the road . Have II
you listed this property? Is that what' s going on?
Brad Johnson : Six months ago he asked me what I should do and we left it II
on the market for a while and I said this isn' t going to work.
Emmings : And our mayor is still working with Lotus Realty?
Brad Johnson: No.
Emmings : He' s not? What is he doing now? '
Brad Johnson: He works for Realty World. He has for about 8 months .
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 17
I'
I Emmings : I didn' t know that . Alright , anybody else have any more
comments?
Brad Johnson: Should I take it on? My real question is , should I bring
Iit back or should we go on to the City Council?
Emmings : We' ll ask for a motion here to get you out of here.
IEllson: I move the Planning Commission deny approval of a subdivision of
11 acres into 9 single family lots and a double lot on property zoned
IPUD-R on TH 41, Ches Mar Farms. Does that make sense?
Conrad : Do we need a motion on the concept?
IOlsen: You' re really not acting on the subdivision itself.
Emmings : Okay, so we' re just going to pass our comments up?
IConrad: Brad ' s got our comments . Brad can run with them and do whatever
he wants . Council gets the Minutes and Brad know more than he did when he
came in here.
I
Emmings : I 'd like to ask staff one other thing that didn' t seem to come
up and that is, this is a private drive. Don' t we have limits on the
number of houses that can be on private drives?
Olsen: Yes. It would have to be improved to a public street. The
I question is whether it would be rural or an urban street . 50 foot or 60
foot right-of-way.
Emmings : And how are we going to deal with that gatehouse problem that
I Mrs. Gross brought up if that has to be improved to a public street?
Brad , how do you plan to deal with that?
I Brad Johnson: The request that we have was that we needed, one of the
reasons that we bought the neighbors property to the south is we have the
ability without having to deal with that entrance.
IEmmings : So to go around the Gross property?
Brad Johnson: If that was the requirement and if the neighbors were
Iagainst it , that' s what we' d do.
Wildermuth : How would the Gross ' feel about having a road on four sides ---
Iof their property?
Brad Johnson: I wouldn' t feel very good about that. That ' s just the way
IIIL it is . When I took it out as a road and left it as the outlot for public
utilities but. . .
• Batzli : Can you see down TH 41 at all if you move the street further to
I the south like you' re proposing? The sight line is bad already when
you' re coming out of that street looking to the right down TH 41.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 18
Brad Johnson : In talking to the engineers , the corner potentially is just II
a bad corner in the first place. When that corner was there, there was no
TH 41. The old Ches Mar Road used to go down the hill there so it ' s just
another problem but it' s got to be corrected over time. ,
Emmings: Would they be allowed an access that close to the other road
coming out on TH 41? '
Olsen : You mean the outlot?
Emmings: Yes . '
Olsen : No . One of them would have to be closed . That' s what the
engineer was saying. They are providing the 50 foot right-of-way with all II
those outlots .
Emmings : So if they got that , then the people who live in the gatehouse
would have to come in on the road on the south side of the Gross ' and go
back around . All around the Gross property and back to their house?
Olsen: That' s something that we still have to work on. '
Brad Johnson : That' s what they want to do. That' s what they would like
to do. '
Batzli : That would avoid all the traffic by their house everyday.
Brad Johnson: That makes the problem bearable. What you see there, when II
you go through this process is consensus building an agreement. . . I have
certain economics working against me.
Batzli : Your concept is probably great . It ' s just it' s in the wrong
location.
Brad Johnson : It' s there already you see and the question is , and it ' s ,
not a Planning Commission thing , we' ll get out of here, should the City
continue to allow the deterioration of this property? They say well , the I
common thing is we' ll let the landlord improve it. What ultimately
happens in these kinds of properties when you go into an urban renewal
district and tax increment financing, they' re improved and that' s the
classic with the hotel downtown . Any of those that go into this kind of a II
cycle. Until the uses change.
Emmings : It' s difficult for me to understand how this owner had so little
foresight two years ago when he came in to ask what to do what he did then
that it got to this condition today.
Wildermuth: When I went out there, it' s pretty unimpressive. There' s r
trash. There are old appliances . Old furniture.
Brad Johnson: And you know who puts that there is the tenants. That' s
where the problem is . It' s not the landlord that does that. It' s the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 19
k
' tenants .
Wildermuth : I 'm surprised he didn' t haul it off .
' Brad Johnson: It is being hauled away this week. As I said, it ' s part of
a general clean-up that' s under process . If it were cleaned up, we' ll
figure out a solution but the solution, until there is that kind of
' property. . . I wouldn' t believe it had I not gone back and guys like Bob
Naegele owned it and a guy by the name of. . . Both of those were of
considerable net worth at the time and the place just kept going nowhere.
Emmings : So this just goes onto the City Council and we don' t have to
take any action?
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-813 TO ALLOW CHILD CARE
CENTERS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT,
' INSTANT WEB, INC. .
Public Present:
' Richard Warren
If: Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order .
Dick Warren : I 'm Dick Warren with the Instant Webb Company.
I wrote the
letter that is included in the packet. I told Barb that I would bring
along a copy of the revised 4 , 300 foot structure plan to give you a sense
of what that would look like. It ' s the same concept. The fundamental
issue is we ' re dealing with so many ratios , space ratios , it ' s a little
' bit like designing a . . .and we just couldn' t get the job done in the
structure design. I 'm available for any questions that you have otherwise
I don' t have an fyrther ..comment .
Conrad moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Ellson : I love it. I love the idea . I think it' s great . I think you' re
idea is great. You can hire me any time because I 'd love to have an -�
' office that had a daycare. I think it ' s wonderful .
Conrad: No comments. I think it' s a good idea .
IL Batzli : I had a comment and I realized probably how silly it is now that
I reread the definition of an accessory use and my question was going to
be why don' t we make it a conditional use but it' s a permitted accessory
' use so 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other, I guess, and since they' re
licensed , I don ' t have a problem with that .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 20
4 '
Wildermuth : Excellent idea . I think Instant Webb is to be commended . I II
think they' re probably the first company in Chanhassen to have a daycare
center .
Emmings : I have no comments . I agree with Annette .
Ellson moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-10 to amend Section
20-813, Permitted Accessory Uses of the IOP, Industrial Office Park
District as follows :
(4) State Licensed Day Care Center .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-904 AND SECTION 20-615 (6B) , I
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OF ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, STORAGE BUILDINGS AND DETACHED BUILDINGS.
Olsen : We' re asking you to table it right now until we can republish . We
want to publish the whole thing so people can see it.
Emmings : At this point you just want to know that we. . .
Olsen : That this is okay. The new stuff is in bold hopefully to make it II
easier to see what the changes were.
Emmings : We' re going to table this I guess . '
Conrad: So we' re not going to have a public hearing .
Emmings: So we' re not going to have a public hearing and I think what '
they' re asking for is our comments as to the content of this when it does
come back on the public hearing so they want to be sure that we' re in I
agreement with what this says at this point in time. If anybody' s got any
reservations , just go ahead and speak them out .
Conrad: The only thing that I find interesting is the City Council , who
was very concerned about 1, 000 square foot accessory building and we
rationalized 1,000 as a good sized three car garage and a shop. That' s
how we came to that 1, 000 feet . That makes sense to me. I have no other II
comments but that' s a number we could certainly move around. Whether it' s
1, 000 or whatever . I think City Council will move it to where they want
to move it anyway so I don' t really care.
Emmings : The 3 acres is the same thing . It could be 3. It could be 4.
It could be 5 or 9 but I think it' s reasonable. Then does everybody feel
that this basically says , that it brings together what we tried to do so
many times before.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 21
111(7)
Batzli : The one comment I had was for agricultural district with less
than 3 acres. Are there many agricultural districts in the City with less
than 3 acres? Are you talking about lots in agricultural districts?
Olsen: Yes .
' Batzli : I think I'd just clarify that or something . We' re talking about
lots .
' Emmings : Agricultural district lot.
Batzli : Something like that. You' re not talking about the district.
You' re talking about lots within the district .
' Emmings: Or parcels maybe because they probably aren' t divided into lots .
' Batzli : That ' s just kind of a clarification.
Olsen: Just add parcels to residential district parcels and agricultural
' district parcels.
Batzli : Does the 3 acres apply to the residential district as well?
if' Olsen: No. I 'm just saying , if you' re confused with agricultural
district maybe residential district is confusing too .
Batzli : Well , it' s in any residential district or in an agricultural
district on lots of less than 3 acres is what you ' re trying to say,
correct? I guess I 'd just clarify that a little bit.
' Emmings : Okay, then is there a motion to table this until proper notice
can be given for a public hearing?
Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
to amend Section 20-904 and Section 20-615 (6b) until proper notice can be
given. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION OF THE FIRE STATION, 7610 LAREDO DRIVE.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
' Wildermuth: I have no questions on this issue. 1 think it' s a fine idea
to expand the fire department .
Batzli : I think it ' s a fine idea to expand it as well . I have a couple
questions though. I was curious where, the power lines now run along the
north side of the property. Apparently some sort of utility easement . Is
that where the property line is?
Planning Commission Meetin g
June 15, 1988 - Page 22
4 ,
Olsen : Where the utility easement is?
Batzli : Is there a utility easement on the north side of the property and
is that where the property line is?
Olsen : If there' s a utility easement , I 'm sure it' s along the north edge.
Batzli : Because if that's where the property is and they' re coming in 16 I
feet 16 inches from the property line, there' s no way they' re going to
save any of those pine trees on the north side. It' s about 15 feet to the
pine trees . That was one question. The other one was , are they going to I
remove that maple tree on the northeast corner of the property? Is that
what they' re doing by putting in this new bituminous surface? A big old
30 foot tree?
Jim Chaffee : I don' t think we are.
Batzli : I also understand there ' s not going to be an elevator in this? '
Jim Chaffee: No.
Batzli : Why not? '
1. Jim Chaffee : I think when we presented it to our building inspector , they
decided because of the dock we proposed, we did not need it. '
Batzli : What about handicap accessible?
Jim Chaffee: I think they considered. . .
Wildermuth: There aren' t too many handicapped firemen .
Batzli : But this is, the lower level is available to the entire city.
Jim Chaffee : I know what you' re saying . I can ' t remember how they
determined that. They thought about that and they decided it wasn' t
necessary. . . .
Batzli : I guess I have a problem with that and I don ' t even know that I
mentioned it when we talked about the addition to this building but I have
a big problem with that . I think that every building the City builds
should be handicap accessible in all ways. My one last question was, if II we continue to have the voting at the fire station , are we losing parking?
Gaining parking? That kind of stuff by doing this?
Olsen : No , we' re not losing it . We' re maintaining the same. '
Batzli : Once you pull all the trucks out so people can go in to vote?
Jim Chaffee : I don' t think we' ll be losing anything . It' s hard to
determine that because the back parking lot on the west side has not been
marked in any way. This time it will be. I don' t think we' ll be losing
any. That was one of the major concerns of the fire department because
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 23
IC
we' re adding members , part of the reason for the expansion was to
hopefully increase our membership. To do that they have to park so we
looked at that .
' Olsen : We didn' t look at it in terms of the voting . . .but the zoning
requirements in terms of the square footage.
' Batzli : I think some of your peak periods of parking might be during
those periods and obviously you've got a lot of city streets there and
other things that people can kind of muddle around in . Then I had a minor
' changes to the staff' s recommendation. Those were my four questions .
Emmings : What are the changes?
' Batzli : Just that they' re going to be acceptable to city staff. Provided
to the City Engineer. For instance, in condition 4, calculations which
verify. Just calculations will be provided to the City Engineer . That
' type of thing .
Conrad : 50% impervious ratio . That just always amazes me. Where am I
missing it Jo Ann? When I look at the layout here, it' s just hard to
' believe that there' s 50% that' s not impervious and 50% that is. Where is
the part that isn ' t?
It: Olsen : It ' s in the setback areas . There ' s quite an open area between the
street and parking. It always does amaze. It' s just those setbacks
really add up those areas .
' Conrad : It ' s just incredible to me. There' s no way it can be.
Emmings : Is this going on?
' Conrad : That' s the only place it can be. There ' s the little jog saying
never , never land to the left and yes , that ' s it. The plantings , there
' are no sugar maples on the plantings . Any particular reason?
Ellson: That one big one that' s there now.
' Conrad : Was there any logic to the plantings around the fire station?
Olsen: We usually just go with the plantings recommended and then
confirm. . .
Conrad : I 'm just looking for logic . I 'm just trying to figure out why. -"
Why are we planting a juniper here?
Olsen : They usually do it in terms of density. . .
Conrad: They' re lower trees right?
Olsen : The juniper?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 24
C '
Conrad : It looks like the planting schedule are all shorter . Junipers .
The crabs are smaller . Summit ash, I have no idea what that does. The
sanchera is small . . . I 'm not going to force with this but when an
architect comes up with plantings for Chanhassen and we' re talked about it
a little bit . If Headla was here he'd talk about it some more. Why not
the symbol of our . . .
Olsen : A lot of times they pick out the more exotic trees because they
look at it from the aesthetics of what kind of form it will have rather
than looking at the maple trees .
Emmings : None of these are that . '
Conrad : I guess the only thing that I would , and I really don' t care a
whole lot other than it 's kind of interesting to know what the architect
or the planner was thinking of when they said this is rationel for the
types of trees . That' s a one liner on our staff report that says the
architect planted these trees for these reasons but I don' t think it' s my
time or anybody' s time right now to talk. . . '
Batzli : From the planting schedule, they don' t have, I don' t think they
have the one maple that remains . '
Jim Chaffee : I pretty sure it' s staying .
Batzli : It looks to me like they' re planting two snowdrift crabs there.
Do they take out the maple and put in two snowdrifts?
Olsen: We' ll check that out.
Ellson : No comments .
Emmings : I don ' t really have any comments either . I didn' t look at the
fire station, I had to admit but if there ' s a big maple over there, if
there ' s anyway to keep it, it ought to be kept . And for god sakes , Bob
Siegel used to sit here and say everytime, let' s see some sugar maples in I
here. Especially on city buildings where we' ve got control over it. I
can' t imagine why we wouldn' t have them there. It 's kind of a minor
issue . Brian , is there a motion?
Batzli : As much as I hate to do this because I still want an elevator ,
I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of site plan review
#88-5 for expansion of the fire station based on the plan stampted
"Received May 23, 1988" and subject to the following conditions .
Condition 1 as it reads. Condition 2, the landscaping plan shall be
amended to indicate a species for the proposed trees along the south lot
line and to attempt to save the sugar maple on the northeast corner and
maybe throw a few more sugar maples in there. Condition 3 as it reads .
Condition 4 , calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer which
verify that adequate flow and pressue conditions will be met to meet the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 25
'c
demands for the sprinkling system. Condition 5 as it reads and I guess
I 'd like somebody to verify where the heck the property line is so that we
know. This isn ' t part of my motion. My motion is done. I 'd like
somebody to verify where the property line is to make sure that all those
trees are going to stay on the north side.
' Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #88-5 for expansion of the fire station based
on the plans stamped "Received May 23, 1988" and subject to the following
conditions :
t1. Concrete curbing shall be added to the north side of the ro osed
P P
driveway entrance to the new appartus storage area.
' 2. the landscaping plan shall be amended to indicate a species for the
proposed trees along the south lot line and to attempt to save the
sugar maple on the northeast corner and maybe throw a few more sugar
maples in there.
3. A revised grading plan shall be supplied to the City Engineer for
approval prior to final site plan review.
4 . Calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer which verify that
It: adequate flow and pressue conditions will be met to meet the demands
for the sprinkling system.
' 5. Adequate fire hydrant spacing will be met as part of the plans and
specifications review process .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Conrad moved , Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated June 1, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried .
OPEN DISCUSSION.
' Batzli : Let' s talk about this memo that we got about adding an extra
meeting. I 'd only do it if Ladd didn' t run the meeting .
' Ellson : I think you ' re really asking are we going to get at least four in
there.
IL Olsen : We ' re just asking if you do want to split those up or if you want
them all on one?
' Batzli : It ' s hard to say without seeing what would be involved on all of
these as well .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 26
C
Emmings : Obviously you must have thought it was a lot . ,
Ellson: Some of these are back again. They shouldn' t be quite as
difficult. Which ones have big public concern?
Olsen: A lot of them, George Way subdivision. The Schlotte and Schumacher
are just two lot splits . Those are real easy. Lyman Lumber , that should I
be pretty easy. The site plans usually go pretty easy. McGlynn is kind
of changing the whole site but that wouldn' t really take too long . Merit
Heating there will be lots of discussion with that one. Hidden Valley
Center , I think we' ll be recommending that you table that one because of
TH 101, realignment . . .
Emmings : What does the 20th look like? '
Olsen: We don' t know.
Emmings : Why don' t we knock off , I suppose 11 and 12 are small items but
those at least could be knocked off .
Olsen : A lot of those , almost all of those short subdivisions I told you II
wanted to be on the last application process. Those would be really
4 difficult for us to table. In fact, they all got their applications in
last week. '
Ellson: You' re talking about 11 and 12.
Olsen : Oh, I 'm sorry.
Emmings: I said 11 and 12. Even if those are just short items. They are II
public hearings , like 12 is a public hearing because that is the one that
we just looked at tonight right?
Olsen : Yes, that would be short and 11 would be short. Reed , I think '
that might have lots of discussion.
Emmings : Is that one up on TH 41?
Olsen : Adjacent to HSZ so you' ll get that public again and than Westside
Baptist, that might be a long one but the rest of them, the site plans. '
Batzli : It sure sounded to me like you just named about half of them that-- '
were going to maybe long ones.
Wildermuth : Jo Ann , isn ' t Westside Baptist already being built?
Olsen: No, that' s out on TH 41.
Emmings : But it is . It' s under construction. They' re moving dirt out
there. ,
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 27
'c
Wildermuth : Right . They' ve got the erosion barriers in already.
Emmings : We already approved that, I remember it.
' Olsen : No .
Emmings : They' re moving dirt . I don' t know if they' re buildng but
' there's big piles of dirt out there .
Wildermuth : There ' s equipment out there.
Olsen: I ' ll check that tomorrow. Are you sure that's not the Lake Ann
Interceptor going in?
' Wildermuth : No . There' s a sign there. The erosion control barriers are
up and everything else.
' Emmings : I remember looking at that in the past Jo Ann .
Olsen: What we did was we amended the ordinance to allow a church in the
rural .
' Emmings : Okay.
It: Conrad : Is Hidden Valley going to be tabled?
Olsen: We ' re going to recommend tabling that one so that one would really
be all .
' Conrad : How long is that McGlynn going to take?
' Ellson: We always they' re going to . . .
Conrad : There are four of them that could take, McGlynn , the Merit , the
Westside and Reed addition and Hidden Valley. We couldn' t do all of
those . If they all happened but I could almost , the others I assume are
not much other than those.
' Olsen : They could be real quick.
Conrad : But if you threw Hidden Valley in there, than we' re just
' pressing.
Olsen : We' re definitely recommending tabling . We' ve already told the
applicant. In fact that' s what the next item is on open discussion that I
need to talk to you about . You remember with our transportation plan how
it shows TH 101 going by Lake Drive East. Hidden Valley, that side is
where TH 101 is going through so we' re working with MnDot trying to get an
official map going. Trying to come up with our traffic counts to get that
site established so what we want to do on August 3rd , the first Planning
Commission meeting in August is to have you adopt a section of the trans-
' portation chapter. June one section and then we will also be looking at the
I
Planning Commission Meeting
9 9
June 15, 1988 - Page 28
C
Hidden Valley site plan at that time. But that one is definitely going to I
be recommended to be tabled.
Emmings : I know if I was running the meeting I could get through all this
stuff but Ladd , since you' re going to be doing it.
Conrad : I thought Steve, you' d take the meeting on the 6th and I 'd take
what was left over for the 13th.
Olsen : You could do it that way too . See what we can get through .
Conrad: It' s really, I personally like short meetings like Steve led
tonight. You' re fresh and you can react and it' s fun. When we get into
11:00, it stinks. It just is not fair to us. It 's not fair to me but the
people who come here. To hold them on and sometimes , like the first item I
tonight, I had no idea. I thought that one was going to be a half hour ,
45 minutes . Well , it lasted an hour and something . Simple things last
longer. It would be nice to take care of all of them in a short meeting
but I don' t know if we can do it.
Batzli : Then do you want to have an extra meeting? Is that what you' re
saying? '
Conrad : My preference is to have, I can make both those meetings. My
preference is to have meetings every other week and not be here every
week. It gets real tiring being here every week. That ' s not fun.
Emmings : Yes , because this is three in a row, not two in a row.
Conrad : Yes , two in a row is no big deal but when you get that third one ,
you say boy I 'm here again.
Ellson : We could even arrange it so at least four was always here.
Conrad: Now that Jim' s back, there are more people attending on a regular II
basis than we' ve had .
Emmings : I should be able to make two meetings for myself.
Ellson: I think I could make those two. I don' t think I can make the
20th as it is .
Emmings: Brian?
Batzli : I 'm not sure right now, to be honest . I don' t think I can make
the 20th actually, the third one. I don' t think these two dates are a
problem right now.
Emmings : Jim what' s your preference?
Wildermuth: I can make it .
Conrad : Let' s leave it that we have the two then .
k
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 1988 - Page 29
'C
' Emming: Try and even it up.
Conrad : Unless staff sees magic and can put it into one .
Emmings : Except they've got to advertise and give notice and once they' ve
done that, they can' t pull back to the 6th . Try and even them up so
you've got a couple of big ones and a couple of little ones but also if
you think there ' s a couple that could be tabled , wind up being tabled ,
make sure you put one on each. Do stuff like that. What else Jo Ann?
' Olsen : The final one was what I was kind of bringing up just to let you
know what was happening with that. What we' re going to be doing is on
August 3rd we' ll be bringing just that portion of the transportation
' chapter, not the whole chapter but just the part that addresses that TH
101 realignment across TH 5. We ' ll be bringing that to you on August 3rd
for approval and the reason we' re doing that is to show our commitment.
' MnDot needs to see our commitment for that intersection so we can keep the
ball rolling. We have to have construction plans by the end of this year
so that when MnDot gets their construction plans completed , they can
combine so when MnDot builds their extra intersections, they will allow
' for ours so we' re trying to work with them. Then again, that also works
with that site plan. We will be initiating an official map process to get
that realignment official so that we can acquire the proper easements .
if: That was just to let you know.
Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 30 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 1, 1988
IChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
I MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli , James Wildermuth and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
I
PUBLIC HEARING:
IIPLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR A 60 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CHAN VIEW, HERITAGE PARK
APARTMENT PARTNERS .
II Public Present :
Name Address
1 Tom Zumwalde Applicant
George Beniek 412 - 76th Street West
III Sue Welliver 7611 Huron Avenue
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report .
ill )
Conrad: I got a call from Brad Johnson saying he was on his way from St.
I Paul . He ' d be delayed but he would be here. He ' s not trying to dodge it
but we' ll open it up for public comments, if there are any from the
applicant. Any comments at all on the revision to this particular
I apartment building.
George Beniek: I live on 412 West 76th Street. I guess my only question
is, was there, I imagine there was a public hearing on the initial which I
I don' t recall ever receiving a copy of . What' s the purpose of the change
now? To who 's benefit is the change? Is it more units going to be in
there?
IDacy: No . There is no change in the amount of units that were previously
approved by the Council in 1987. The only thing that' s changed is how the
building is sitting on the lot . Basically it ' s shifted more to the south
I and has become an "L" fashion as you see there. The north/south and the
east/west access as opposed to a "U" formation. As to who' s benefit, I
don' t know. -�
IGeorge Beniek: Why are they requesting the change? Is it our purpose to
know that?
ILDacy: The architect is here.
Tom Zumwalde: I can try and answer that . I am Tom Zumwalde, the
I architect on the project. I designed the original project and also the
revision to it. The original project, we did not have a contractor
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 2
involved . We did not have a lot of marketing input . In the last year we II
got a contractor involved and we've dome some marketing input and those
are the prime reasons for the changes in the configuration . With the II
original building that was "U" shaped, we had a lot of units that were pie
shaped with minimal exterior walls looking up to an inside court. From a
marketing standpoint, the people we talked to felt they were less useable II
or less rentable. Less desirable units. From the construction end, all
of those wedges in the building were very, very costly and what was
happening was we were spending so much money on those that the rest of the I
building would have suffered for it . So what we feel , in the super
configuration is that we ' re getting a much better , more efficient
building . The units have increased an average of 24 square feet per unit. II
They' re much more liveable than the other ones were. Basically those are
the reasons .
George Beniek: The heights of it is going to be approximately how many
II
stories?
Tom Zumwalde: The same, it ' s 3 stories . The identical number of units . I
The same number of parking spaces. Basically just the configuration
change.
George Beniek: I t will conform to allow the senior citizen access? I
Handicap?
Tom Zumwalde : There are three handicap units in the building . Totally
II
accessible. As far as rent levels and all of that, I wish the developer
were here to answer that . I really don' t have all that information.
Sue Welliver: I live on Huron Avenue. I own a double bungalow there and II
I 'm concerned also about my tenants and myself, since I live there, is
access. There' s going to be 60 units and you ' re going to have a lot of
parking and that type of thing and a lot of cars . How are you going to
I
get out onto 78th Street without any stop signs onto 78th Street? It ' s
very difficult right now. If you' re going to put that up and have the
only access onto that road, how are you going to get back out? That' s
II
what I 'd like to know.
Dacy: The access to the apartments will be from Chan View and there will II
be two access points. One opposite the Huron Avenue intersection. Here ' s
Huron Avenue here. The entrance to the parking lot will be directly
opposite of that and there will be another access further to the east on
Chan View. So cars entering and leaving the site will come from Chan
I
View, iff they' re going to be headed to Great Plains Blvd. , they' ll go
over to here and then go south to the Great Plains Blvd. and West 78th
Street intersection which there' s a stop sign at that point and West 78th II
Street is now a flow through on that. There 's no four way stop. That was
eliminated with the reconstruction of the south lane of Great Plains
Blvd. . Additionally, there could be traffic that goes west on Chan View II that would eventually hit Laredo. The City is just finishing up, we' re
reconstructing Laredo Drive as it intersects West 78th Street. There ' s a
right turn lane now that will be on Laredo Drive going onto West 78th
Street. I
ji
II •
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 3
t
Sue Welliver : Yes , but I mean when you try to get onto West 78th Street,
I that is the most difficult now that they eliminated the four way stop sign
there. Also, on Laredo , eliminating that. You want to go east , anyway
from there, it' s very difficult. We have to wait 5 to 10 minutes and
Ithat ' s just normal time. You get into rush hour and it ' s terrible.
Dacy: I agree. There' s a considerable amount of traffic on West 78th
Street in both locations . In this location in front of Kenny' s, because
I that leg is part of TH 101, MnDot 's requirement was that we remove the
stop signs along West 78th Street to promote the flow through on West 78th
Street and to control the traffic coming from Great Plains Blvd. onto West
1 78th Street. There' s no question that during peak hours that main street
is a busy street. I can' t dispute that.
Sue Welliver : Are they going to do anything? Are they going to suggest
I to do anything for that for the residents in this apartment unit also?
Like are they going to put a four way stop on Laredo and West 78th or do
you know?
IDacy: No, there are no plans to put a four way stop at either location.
Again, MnDot is requiring us that we can' t have stop signs on that leg of
II what is known as TH 101. What ' s there now can control the traffic but
yes, it' s going to be busy during peak hours. I don 't know how else to
explain it.
Sue Welliver : I have rental property right now and that ' s one issue that
we have right now is because you can ' t get out. Now you build a 60 unit
apartment building , those owners are also going to have the same problem
I there. I think they should look at that and I think the City should
decide on putting in stop signs . There ' s a church there with children
going across. I think there should be stop signs and I think this is just
going to add to the congestion.
IConrad : It sure will add to the congestion by putting in 60 more units
there. There ' s no doubt about that. I guess the question becomes ,
I Barbara, you' re telling us that the intersection at TH 101 or West 78th .
Is that 78th?
IDacy: Yes .
Conrad : That MnDot really does control that and what is our influence in
terms of the traffic problems?
IDacy: As you recall also , the City has a long term plan, it' s really not
long term because we' re trying to accomplish it along with the four lanes
I of TH 5, creating a new leg of TH 101 that would go through the Apple
Valley-Redimix property, cross TH 5 and hook up into Lake Drive East.
That would take a significant volume of the north/south traffic from TH
IL- 101 and take that out of going through the downtown area but there is
going to be this interim period in here where the north/south traffic on
TH 101 is going to be going through the downtown area.
IGeorge Beniek: How many parking places are there shown on their plan?
A
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 4
Dacy: 108 .
Tom Zumwalde : The building has a 60 car garage below it. There' s one
garage space for each unit and then 48 open stalls out in the parking lot.
The same as it was before.
George Beniek: So there will be a basement in the building? Is that
right?
Tom Zumwalde : That would be the garage, correct .
Conrad: The parking lot did look small didn ' t it?
George Beniek: Yes .
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: Tim, we' ll start down at your end . What are your comments? '
Erhart: I really don' t have any. I think the building space is unusual
space. It' s built well and I think it' s adequate.
Emmings: I don' t really have anything. I liked the other building better
but so what . '
Conrad: Yes , the other building was prettier .
Emmings: This one' s efficient. ,
Ellson: I don' t have any comments either . I think it' s just fine.
Conrad: Nobody' s talking about traffic. Brian?
Batzli : I was going to talk about landscaping but I ' ll talk about traffic II
a little bit. Kenny' s is going to stay where it is isn' t it? Throughout
this whole development so we' re not going to lose any traffic . . . I
guess I would recommend that, I 've seen the paster of that church has
asked that stop signs be put in there, at least so people can get across
the street to go to church. We' re adding potentially 108 more cars a day
or more. When you talk about back and forth trips , a lot more congestion
at that intersection. I guess I would like to see whether we can convince
MnDot of some other way before we get people getting inpatient and trying
to pull out and creating havoc at that intersection because I think it ' s a
problem. I personally waited there trying to get out of Kenny' s market
for , it is several minutes. That' s not really an- exaggeration. I guess
I 'd like to see something . I don' t know what we can do in this particular
instance but it sounds like MnDot is kind of calling the shots on it but I
do think that ' s a concern. Not having been involved in the original
building, I don't know if I like the original building or not. Your one
condition that asks for the additional plantings, what are you going to, I
didn' t understand where that' s going to be. Chan View and the parking ,
area? You' re just going to have more plantings in that one strip?
]: .....s-{�Y-yl'' - rai�id! !'` - —_s- ..'assai4S41,141 '.�
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 5
II-
IDacy: Yes, in this area.
Batzli : Do we require a certain plantings to be put in? Are we going to
I get like little pine trees that are going to take 15 years to grow to
shield this thing?
Dacy: No . The ordinance requires for evergreens that they be a minimum
I of 6 feet at planting and I believe the landscaping plan, in some cases
there were taller trees .
I Batzli : Because this is going to be a 3 story building and when you have
a 6 foot pine tree, it' s going to take 20 years to mature and you have a
single family homes in the area , I don' t know. Obviously the people are
going to have to look at the building for a couple of years no matter what
II you do. That ' s all .
Wildermuth: I guess I have a question about the storm water runoff. Jim
I Lasher, in his letter, spent quite a bit of time talking about an on-site
retention. . .
U Dacy: Part of the problem in determing that, the ultimate storm sewer
plan is that the City needs to finalize it' s plans for the drainage of the
abutting properties. This site here is where a daycare center is proposed
li to be located and all of these properties here interrelate so what we ' re
trying to do is have BRW and the applicant on this project work together
so there is on-site retention on this property and make sure that it ' s
properly directed to whatever is finally determined on the daycare site
I also . It ' s hard at this point to give you a definitive answer of the
catch basin over here or here.
Wildermuth: There doesn' t look like there ' s going to be room for a catch
Ibasin on this property.
Dacy: If you' re talking about a retention pond . Is that what you mean?
I The City' s intent was to create a storm sewer system and piping and so on
so an actual pond wouldn' t probably be used . There might be a very small
depression in there but it was my understanding from BRW that we' re
Ilooking at a storm sewer system.
Wildermuth: With an underground garage, I can see a lot of problems
there. Like with the storm that we had last year. That' s going to be
I flooded because that whole area is low and it all drains . I think what we
should do is strengthen the language for the storm water runoff. Put in
provisions that that be made. . . I guess we ' re looking at the BRW letter .---
IThat 's all I had.
Headla: . . . Even if there' s City' s storm sewer that will catch the runoff,
IL then this apartment complex will pay for that?
Dacy: Yes , the applicant is responsible for all necessary storm sewer
improvements from the runoff from their property.
111 4
Planning Commission Meetin g
June 1, 1988 - Page 6
Headla : Does that appear to be adequate to allow that storm sewer to take li
care of it? To me that seems that' s the logical way to go but is there
anything else we should be looking at?
Dacy: The intent of condition 1 from staff was taken from BRW' s letter
that we want final utility and storm sewer plans from them. That will be I
reviewed both by in-house engineering staff and BRW. Before they get a
building permit, they' ll have to satisfy those issues .
Headla : Did you get any input from the Fire Department today?
Dacy: People from the Fire Department talked to me today but . . .
Headla: I talked to Steve yesterday and I said I want to know if we
recommend approval of this , is the Fire Department going to require any
additional fire fighting equipment? His first comment was, well we' re
ordering the aerial ladder . We' re ordering that so we' re covered there.
I said, is there anything else? He said I don ' t know, I ' ll have to talk
to them. I said , well get back to Barb on Wednesday. '
Dacy: No, Steve did not talk to me. The primary fire protection
equipment is the requirement for sprinkling so that ' s the number one best
defense as far as. . .
Headla : I 'm not talking about defense. I 'm talking about we got hooked
into being required to have an aerial ladder in this City. Have we '
overlooked something else that we can ' t charge the apartment complex for
or are the general taxpayers going to have to pay for it?
Dacy: Not to my knowledge will there be any other need for any other type I
of equipment. The aerial ladder is a significant addition to Chanhassen' s
fire fighting capabilities . Between that and the requirement that the
building be sprinklered is the best that we can do. '
Headla : Last time we beat around quite a bit on the soil borings . Have
they done any of that work? '
Dacy: I know soil borings have been conducted on site. The area where
the parking lot is is where most of the poor soils are located . '
Headla : They will have to take special precautions there so that doesn ' t
break up in a short period of time? How do we cover that?
Dacy: The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the parking lot
in an acceptable condition and I believe they will be soil corrections .
Tom Zumwalde: As required. There are a lot of borings that were done on
the site and I 'm not certain exactly how bad it is down at that end but
we' re putting in concrete curb around the entire lot. Putting in a
bituminous parking lot. That ' s a rental property. We' ll be forced to
keep it up just to keep it marketable.
Headla : Where do you have all your trash containers? '
r _ ;Y'=�.+.-era-sY+�i. •i_ -. 1 R "]°.. I_.:i{�
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 7
Ilt- Tom Zumwalde : The trash collection area will be in the basement of the
Ibuilding or the garage.
Headla : Will they be coming in from Huron to go in there?
IITom Zumwalde: That' s correct.
Headla : That tends to be off of where the real soft 'soil is?
IDacy: The poor soils, from my understanding, were over in this direction.
ITom Zumwalde: It gets worse as you get into this direction. . .
Headla : What do you do, you take soil borings and based on what you find
that determines the type of base you put down?
ITom Zumwalde : That' s correct.
IHeadla: And the City Engineer has to approve that?
Tom Zumwalde: The City Engineer will be approving all that . . .
IIHeadla: That' s all I have.
Conrad : I don ' t have any additional comments . I think those that I 've
heard are real valid comments and maybe whoever makes the motion might
want to say something in there that the City Council decides what the
traffic impact on West 78th Street might be. Maybe review whether we
Ishould pursue some kind of a stop sign on West 78th .
Headla: I 'd like to talk about that again. When does it look like TH 101
will go through by that Redimix and that?
IDacy: Hopefully during the 1992-93 timeframe .
I Headla : Once it does that , then we would be able to put up a stop
sign. . .?
I Dacy: Right . What would happen is that that portion of West 78th Street
would revert to local control . That would no longer be TH 101.
I Headla : What if it takes them two years to get that thing totally built,
then that would be two years when. . .
Conrad : It ' s a problem right now. I know that and this will add a little"" '
I bit to that and it may be an opportunity to look at the whole situation. I
don ' t know what the flexibility of the State is but we may, somebody may
want to ask the City Council to look into the matter. Is there a motion?
ILWildermuth: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Final Plat Amendment for the Heritage Park Apartments PUD #87-1 based on
the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" subject to the following
I conditions : 1 through 10 and I think the items in the BRW letter referred
to in condition 9 should be specifically spelled out regarding storm water
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 8
handling . I would assume that it would have to make adequate provisions
to handle. . . Does anybody have any suggestions on the traffic situation? '
I think the traffic situation in terms of what the City will be allowed to
do after . . .and TH 101 gets rebuilt, in terms of the natural course of
events I think if that situation becomes really bad . . .specifically read it
into the motion. I
Wildermuth moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I
approval of the Final Plat Amendment for the Heritage Park Apartments
PUD #87-1 based on the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" subject to
the following conditions:
1. A detailed utility plan showing water , sewer and stormwater
connections as well as fire hydrant locations shall be submitted and
approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. '
2. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted indicating the
additional plantings to be located between Chan View and the parking
area.
3. A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on the site in conjunction with
the development plans for the retail projects to be developed to the
south and east of the parcel .
4. Detailed facia and signage plans shall be submitted for Planning
Commission and City Council final review prior to building permit
issuance.
5. Removal of the existing single family residence shall be accomplished '
prior to building permit issuance.
6. Detailed lighting plans shall be submitted prior to building permit ,
issuance.
7. All parking areas shall be lined with concrete curbing .
8. Compliance with the comments as noted in the Building Department
memorandum dated May 25, 1988 . '
9. Compliance with the comments in the letter from BRW dated May 25,
1988, specifically #6-11 on pages 2 and 3 and #1 on page 3.
10. Compliance with comments as noted in the Fire Department memo dated
May 27 , 1988 .
11. Compliance with the comments in the letter from BRW dated May 25 , '
1988, specifically spelled out regarding the storm sewer .
12. Direct City staff to research the traffic situation prior to City ,
Council review.
All voted in favor and the motion carried . '
ii
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 9
PUBLIC HEARING:
I JAY KRONICK, PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO TO WEST 78TH
STREET, 1000 FEET EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE/TH 5 INTERSECTION:
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-714 TO PERMIT RETAIL
I
GARDEN CENTERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY
DISTRICT.
I B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE YEAR 2000 TO REDESIGNATE 1. 7
ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL.
II C. REZONE 1. 7 ACRES FROM IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT TO BH,
BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT.
IBarbara Dacy presented the staff report .
Chairman Conrad opened up the public hearing .
IDacy: Unfortunately the applicant ' s in Maryland .
IConrad: Did we send out notice for the public hearing?
Dacy: Everybody within 500 feet .
IF Conrad : And to the owners of the Chanhassen Office building have not
called you nor Redman Products?
IDacy: No .
•
Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
Iin favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Conrad : I guess we ' ll take them one at a time in terms of our comments .
I We' ll start Dave, down at your end and talk about garden centers that is a
conditional use in the BH district.
I Headla : Really the only comment I have is I like the idea of a garden
center , the whole bit. I 've got a fear of the unknown. If we say yes to
this, for a garden center , I don ' t see how we can control other garden
centers. Unless we. . .
IConrad : It is a conditional use . The point in this district is to make
it a conditional use which means we see it. It gives it the opportunity
I to occur . It doesn ' t give it the total right. It does have to come in
here and we can apply whatever standards we want to it. Do we have
standards in here that would help us review later? A center would meet
certain conditions?
Dacy: For garden centers specifically, no we don' t.
I Conrad: So typically I like to see conditions. If it is a conditional
use, what are we looking for to guide us in granting it as a conditional
7
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 10
use? Staff hasn ' t prepared that . Maybe what we can have input on but
it ' s only, how many BH districts do we have, two? '
Dacy: The BH district is located primarily along TH 5. It stretches from
the Hennepin County border then west to the end of West 79th Street .
Conrad : So I think Dave, what we' re saying , that ' s the district and we ' re
saying it now can , it' s not permitted, it' s now possible to have garden
centers but it' s not automatic . They have to come in and talk to us . We I
don ' t have any standards to evaluate whether it 's good or bad but it 's a
question right now. The concept in my mind about highway business
district was quick in and quick out, low intensity. The concept was we I
had limited traffic . We had limited road use in those areas and we wanted
to help the highway traffic through gas stations or restaurants get in but
the idea was not that that pattern was to go through the rest of the
Chanhassen. It was to help cars going on TH 5 find services that they
needed . Maybe Chanhassen residents could out there too but it was really
key that we didn ' t have real great traffic handling roads at that time so
we weren ' t looking for real intensive uses . We were really saying this is
a district that services cars that are going out onto TH 5 for whatever
the basic needs are . Whether a retail . We ' ve got retail down there
obviously so that' s not a problem. It 's just whether you believe. In my I
mind , to tell you where I 'm at right now, it ' s whether we believe that
this is a traffic generator , that it ' s going to go. Is it like the
Gardeneer? Is it like a Frank' s? Is it going to generate traffic that we
can ' t handle in that area and in my mind, that' s the question that is
still open .
Dacy: In comparison to what is already permitted , fast food restaurants , I
financial institutions , automotive service centers , retail shops , liquor
stores , motels and hotels, I think garden center , even a Frank ' s Nursery,
because it' s so specialized, I 'm positive that the trip generation reports
for a garden center are lower than those types of uses that are already
permitted.
Batzli : Except on Saturday morning . '
Wildermuth : That ' s part of the advantage of having a garden center . The
pressure will be on weekends rather than during the week. That ' s not a
good intersection there.
Conrad : These are all independent actions that we' re taking . We can make
it a conditional use. This particular application may not be appropriate I
but if we feel that it' s appropriate in that area , then we can make it a
conditional use for business highway and that ' s the only district we 've
got . That ' s the only business highway district going along TH 5 that
we 've got in Chanhassen.
Headla : I feel comfortable right now but I 'd like to hear what the other
inputs .
Wildermuth : I would like to see that parcel stay business office. I 'd
rather see another office building there. . . but I guess I can' t come up
with a good reason why. . .a nursery or garden center . 1. 7 acres is
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 11
certainly adequate size. I don' t know how big Frank' s is . . .
IBatzli : I guess two questions came to my mind. Why are we rezoning and
doing this thing , wouldn' t that normally be part of the process of a
I conditional use permit? When we see what the guy has put together rather
than rezoning it to suit a conditional use permit application that we may
not even approve?
I Dacy: Two reasons . Number one , the applicant has a purchase agreement on
the property and wanted to pursue this application to see if the City
would even consider rezoning the entire thing to business highway. Number
I two, yes you do have a specific request that you can pretty well bank on a
conditional use permit application for a garden center at this location
but tonight you' re basically being asked, are you comfortable with
rezoning this particular parcel , in total , to business highway? Are you
Icomfortable with all of the uses in that district to remove the split
zoning on the property to entirely business highway? If you just wanted
to act on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and would prefer to postpone the
Iother two applications , that ' s certainly within your power .
Batzli : I guess from my own point of view, I don' t know that a garden
I center is any more intense than these permitted uses . In fact , if it' s
going to be a conditional use, I think we are going to take a look at it
to make sure it ' s appropriate. As far as rezoning , I don ' t know that I 'm
IF comfortable rezoning this not knowing why I 'm rezoning it.
Dacy: Again , the applicant doesn ' t want
pp to have the parcel split by both
zoning districts . He wants one consistent zoning for the entire parcel .
IThat ' s the reason for the rezoning .
Batzli : But he doesn' t own the land at this point does he? The
applicant?
IDacy: No , he has a purchase agreement .
IEllson: He ' ll buy it contingent on all this happening?
Dacy: Right .
IBatzli : I guess I 'd prefer seeing either the landowner and the applicant.
I understand but that's just what I would prefer .
I Dacy: The landowner did consent to the application and Jay had to make
the decision of which meeting he had to come up to. Either the City
Council meeting or the Planning Commission for flight schedules and so on --
Iso he opted for the City Council .
Ellson : I don ' t see any problem with a garden center . I think we 'd be in
k- trouble if we tried to say no in the business highway. Especially when
you' re saying outdoor display of merchandise , screened outdoor storage. . .
Whether I want it or not isn' t really what I get to chose. It doesn' t
look like it would fit in here and according to some of these other
I things, I don' t see how we can no to a garden center. I 'm kind of on the
side of Brian . We' re zoning this just because some individual wants it
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 12
zoned that way and I guess I don' t see a whole good reasoning on that. In
the staff' s report you' re basically saying . . . will not have a significant I
impact on the availability of industrial . I guess I can go along if you
feel that but I just don' t feel strongly that there are some really good
reasons . Some guy would like all of these things, so okay then we' ll
rezone it just for one individual .
Emmings : Do you only want us to comment now on the. . .
Conrad: All three. We started with one but that. . .
Emmings : I don' t have any problem with rezoning . . . I 'm curious about TH I
101. Does any configuration of TH 101 potentially involve this land at
all?
Dacy: It' s too far to the east . '
Batzli : They' re not planning on putting a stop sign at that interchange
though are they? At that service road there for TH 101? Do you know
where I 'm talking about? When they realign, the last time I saw the
realignment, was there a stop sign there or did they move that service
road back?
Dacy: TH 101 will be realigned . There will be a median in Dakota and
West 78th Street will "T" into that and continue on. So where ' s the stop
sign? '
Batzli : Will there be one where the access is currently?
Dacy: Here?
Batzli : Yes .
Dacy: Yes .
Erhart : What has happened? We' re now looking at TH 101 being realigned
at TH 5. The last time we talked about it we were. . .of the industrial .
Did that go through?
Dacy: No .
Erhart : The last I heard it was kind of a dead issue. Apparently it ' s
still alive?
Dacy: Yes , the City is still going to try and pursue it because it ' s a "" '
vital part of the transportation system. So one means of doing that was I
the tax increment district but there are other financial means available .
Erhart: So 1992 that will include. . .
Dacy: We' re going to try as hard as we can to achieve that date .
Erhart: On the other place where we allow garden centers now is in the BG
district?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 13
,
Dacy: That ' s correct .
Erhart : Then that' s essentially the downtown?
Dacy: That ' s west of the downtown area. On the Burdick property and the
James property.
Erhart : What do you see as the difference between the intent of the
general business district and the business highway? Is it something to do
with TH 5?
Dacy: Yes . The general business district permits much greater and more
intense variety of uses. The Chairman ' s description earlier of the intent
of the business highway district was accurate . The listed uses in the
zone are specifically oriented to the traffic flow.
Erhart: Even when you go downtown you almost have to get into your car to
go across the street. Where the bakery was .
Dacy: Right . There are some similarities and there are some differences .
Some of these in the BG district would need a much larger land area
whereas a business highway district primarily consists of smaller , 2 to 3
to 4 acre parcels so there are some differences between the two.
I: Erhart: On that access road , say you come out of this nursery and you go
east, your route back to TH 5 is what? Can you get back onto TH 5 going
east?
1 Dacy: At the present time, no . When TH 5 is four lane , there will be a
full movement intersection at Dell Road and TH 5.
IErhart : So someone coming from the direction as Dell Road , they come down
78th Street and . . .
IDacy: Right .
Erhart : Most likely the traffic going into that area would take the
ITH 101 exit . . .
Dacy: That' s another point as far as the garden center is concerned .
It' s the type of use as opposed to a fast food restaurant because from a
marketing standpoint , a garden center you really don ' t need that immediate
direct access as where this property could be a prime site for a fast food
restaurant because of it ' s location.
IErhart : Fast food restaurants are allowed? That ' s a permitted use in the
area?
Dacy: Right.
Erhart : The problem is , it ' s more of a problem up there with street
I layout. Given, I guess I 'd agree with other commissioners , given the
other uses that are already allowed as a conditional use in this area , it
,r�:
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 18
C
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report .
Darrell Fortier : We appreciate first of all , the City' s attention to this
detail . We personally never found it confusing . We thought the ordinance
was fairly clear and we believe, up until now, that the ordinance
indicated that we were abutting a railroad tracks , just as we did when we
built United Mailings and when we built Instant Webb and when we looked at
other developments here . If that' s causing the confusion, we'd certainly
appreciate that the confusion be clarified so we may get on with our
plans . We believed, up until now, that the original conditions , about six
years ago when we received concept and site development approval of Park
One, was that we were actually going to be allowed a zero setback for
building and parking. We had an earth shelter proposal and there was a
considerable debate with the Planning Commission and Council . We really
since have backed off that proposal and we developed what is a plat that
you see in front of you. We have since then also agreed that a 20 foot
conservation district for preservation of some of the trees would be
appropriate . I 'm not sure if anyone has been through the Drive there in
Park One but we maintain what we believe is a very beautiful area and we
have tried our best to preserve as many trees as possible and we' ve
cooperated, we think, with the staff the best we can. Putting through a
drive that really blends well with the environment but in doing so we have
relatively narrow and deep, I shouldn' t say too deep, some of them are
only around 250 feet for depth . We don ' t object to having a 20 foot
building and parking lot setback from the railroad. That' s what we
believe we have now when we established the 20 foot conservation easement .
We would not be opposed to having that clarified and established. That' s
a minor difference. I believe the ordinance right now is saying , or what I
you're proposing is suggesting 25 for building and parking. We would just
as soon keep it consistent with the conservation district and make it 20
feet. If you' re willing to get 0 and 10 feet right now, and that has to I
be clarified . We are a little bit confused also about the language in the
present ordinance the way it 's written and perhaps I could ask Barbara to
interpret this for me. If that ' s acceptable to you. Barbara , in our
first sentence here under the proposed ordinance on page 3, it reads off
street parking areas shall comply with all the requirements , etc . . Where
you add the new language you say, abutting railroad trackage and
commercial or industrial districts . We ' re wondering why the word and is
in there and the word or. This seems to us that we would have to abut a
railroad trackage and a commercial or industrial . We would rather see it
simply saying if you ' re abutting a railroad trackage or commercial or
industrial .
Dacy: For a rear setback. Let ' s say you weren ' t abutting a railroad
track and you had a rear yard situation with another industrial use. Then
there should be that rear yard setback between two abutting industrial i
uses. There should be some separation.
Darrell Fortier : I guess I 'm still confused . 1 ',
Dacy: Okay, as written the ordinance said if you abutted the railroad
track you could go down to zero , right? If you didn' t have a railroad
track, otherwise the ordinance said. . .
• Si;F, _- r„+.a<t.i- _ - _....�yFli�t9nAC4R-t
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 19
IDarrell Fortier : 50 feet to a residential .
I Dacy: No, let' s skip residential . If you didn ' t have residential and you
had a lot here and commercial lot here. Or industrial and this was your
rear lot line, you'd still have to meet your rear setback which is 10
feet , right?
IDarrell Fortier : That ' s correct .
I Dacy: So what we were trying to say is that those parts of the City where
you did , and this would be a reason for putting it in , where you did for
example let' s take Instant Webb, you abut a railroad track and you've got
II industrial zoning right next door also. We wanted to make sure that yes ,
you could park right up to the railroad tracks . In this case, if this
area was single family or residential , then that would trigger . . .
I Darrell Fortier : The difficulty we find when we look at the land abutting
a railroad track and commercial , for one property line to abut to this ,
there are two uses, it would be difficult on one side. How does the
I diagram you ' ve drawn, if that was a railroad track between the
industrials, wouldn' t you say the industrial abuts the railroad. Not the
railroad and industrial . We would say it abuts one but it doesn ' t abut
both. It abuts the railroad tracks and beyond. We certainly agree with
abutting both . Abutting trackage and something . When you only have one
property and that one property side going there, it becomes confusing to
us . If there was someway to clarify that we would certainly appreciate
I it. The same is true when we get down to the other paragraph that ' s being
added where it says , abutting any residential district and railroad
trackage. The way we look at it, it was stated that residential could be
Ion the north and the railroad could be on the east but they would not both
be on the north side. Am I making my point reasonably clear? That ' s
where the confusion is coming into us .
I Dacy: Our concern is that the zoning line runs right along the railroad
tracks .
Ellson : Between?
I
Dacy: Right . The Commission needs to decide what type of status do you
I want to put on the railroad tracks? If that just happens to be the common
land between a residential zone and industrial use , does the existence of
a railroad tracks justify the zero setback back to the tracks? That ' s
what you need to decide and that ' s fine if you do .
Erhart moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Conrad : Barb, I need you to diagram this for me. I 'm really struggling
with this . When I think I get it straight , I need you to raise that
Iboard . . .
IIJYedw. tee:
Planning Commission Meetin g
June 1, 1988 - Page 20
C
Dacy: Let ' s say here' s the railroad tracks , we ' re going to have an
industrial lot here , industrial here and this lot is residential . The
zoning line for the residential runs along the property line and along the
railroad. The question is , in this case, the proposed ordinance says if
you abut railroad tracks . . . ,
Conrad : Would you do me a favor? What the current ordinance says .
Dacy: Okay, the current ordinance says , if you abut the railroad tracks
you can park right up to the railroad tracks .
Wildermuth: Railroad easement . ,
Dacy: Correct .
Conrad : Does it matter what the other district is on the other side of
the tracks?
Dacy: Let' s just ignore that. This is case 1. Case 1, you can park up
to the railroad tracks and the building setback is 10 feet. In this case,
staff ' s concern is that because the zoning district line exists right here
and because the ordinance as written it says when you have an industrial
commercial district abutting a residential district , you should have a
minimum rear yard of 50 feet. That' s one sentence but then there' s
another sentence in there that says , but if you abut railroad tracks you II can park right up next to the railroad tracks. So we' re trying , when you
have this situation , you' re trying to say, what should we do in this
situation? Should we still allow them to park up to the railroad tracks?
Do we recognize the railroad itself as a separation and buffer or do we
reduce this or should we keep it the same? Mr. Fortier was saying ,
I didn' t think there was a problem in the first place . So if the
Commission wants to direct staff that that' s the way we should be
interpretting that section, that makes our lives a lot easier , that' s sure
but our Attorney said, it ' s kind of ambiguous and you can get into a
situation that could be challenged . ,
Conrad : Okay, let ' s talk about what the railroad tracks does do from a
buffering standpoint. Is it typically elevated?
Dacy: Yes .
Conrad : So by itself, other than the fact that three times a day a train I
comes through, do you believe it is a good buffer separating industrial
from residential?
Dacy: Yes . '
Erhart : What ' s a typical railroad easement?
Dacy: I think on this drawing it 's showing as 130 feet.
Conrad : What ' s 130? ,
IIPlanning Commission sszon Meetzng
June 1, 1988 - Page 21
lc
IDacy: The railroad right-of-way. It ' s at least 100.
Erhart: So it ' s more than the number of feel we require anyway. So
I what ' s our Attorney talking about?
Dacy: Some precedent maybe later on.
IEllson : It just seems like you could say it easier .
Dacy: That ' s what in the report we were saying. In the locations in the
I City that has railroad going in the commercial and industrial areas . For
example, in the industrial are the railroad is elevated and there is
significant grade change as well as the 20 foot conservation easement.
That lessens as proceed west into the downtown areas. In that case you' re
I talking about a distance factor . Plus , there still is the requirement of
screening between commercial and industrial and non-commercial and
industrial areas .
IBatzli : Did you evaluate this in light of perhaps light rail going
through here as well? What we would do down in that area?
IDacy: With the light rail use as opposed to a railroad use, this
particular track is used on a fairly consistent basis. From what I know
if of light rail , they are supposedly less noisy.
Batzli : But more often .
IDacy: Potentially, it could be. It depends on how many trips it makes .
Batzli : As far as where the districts come together and where the light
I rail would go , you ' re on a different line. . .
Dacy: That line would be the railroad line that goes south of Lake Riley
and then along the TH 212 area so that ' s the line that would be proposed
Ifor light rail .
Batzli : Right, but did you look at if it would impact that area at all?
IDacy: In this area we still have the same slope and elevation conditions.
It is so far up and there is a ravine at the base of these properties that
it' s going to be low impact. As a matter of fact, anything building in
I this area would have to be, and remember from the contractor ' s yard
application, we' re going to have to go more towards . . .because it slopes
back. --
IWildermuth : How would the conservation easement come into . . .on the Beddor
property? Was that negotiated?
It_ Dacy: They went through the platting process in 1986 prior to this
ordinance being adopted and that was established by the Council with the
condition to number 1, preserve a screening area along the rear of the
Ilots so it was a condition of plat approval .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 22
Wildermuth : It almost seems like a good idea in any case . A conservation
district . . .
Headla : Railroad trackage bothers me. I 'd like to see all the terms
changed to railroad right-of-way. I like the crux of it. I guess I keep II
thinking . . . railroads in it.
Dacy: If a railroad doesn ' t exist and you have an industrial lot or a
commercial lot directly abutting a residential lot, then the 50 foot
setbacks still apply. We' re only concentrating on those applications with
railroad tracks .
Headla : I mean . . .and railroad tracks along here .
Ellson: There' s still 100 and some feet inbetween them. If you took out I
the tracks , there. . . I wonder if they might have problem with the current
one. Discussion said for lots directly abutting any residential . I would
think that if there' s a railroad track that ' s not a direct abut , or
whatever the term would be, therefore you' re covered. Maybe you want to
put in parenthesis , railroad means not abutting or something like that but
I think that' s spells it out absolutely perfect.
Dacy: I think there should be some clarification if that ' s the way the
1 Commission wants to do it , maybe just adding a paranthetical statement
A. saying this does not include lots that abut railroad trackage. '
Ellson: Something like that. I think this makes more sense. Maybe like
you said , you' ve have problems where there' s . . . '
Darrell Fortier : I realize the public hearing is closed and I appreciate
the chance to speak again . I did forget one other thing that was
important. When we did the platting of Park One, we gave up an additional I
10 feet of right-of-way for the convenience of designing the crossing at
Dell Road and West 78th without knowing what the alignment is going to be.
We simply did it for convenience of the engineering staff and road design. II
At the same time it was understood that we were giving enough but we
didn' t want to be giving up more even more of the land so at that time it
was agreed that the plan would either be reverting back to Park One or
even simplier yet, would be a relaxation of the setback requirements on
Lot 7. Right now we hear there is a 15 foot proposal for the side yard on
Lot 7. This is the property with one lot that addresses the Eden Prairie
side. We'd just like to refresh the City' s memory on that. Perhaps
Barbara if you go through the records or talk to the Engineering again , it
was simply a convenience to expand the right-of-way district because at
the time, Eden Prairie was not interested in constructing the road.
I think the same thing is true of the 60 foot right-of-way that was
extended all the way down the east side .
Dacy: The 50 foot setback, you mean the residential setback? '
Darrell Fortier : That' s correct . I think because there' s only a road,
this road' s not as wide as a railroad track. . . ,
' lanni_n
P g Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 23
k
I Dacy: That ' s another good point . Maybe we should add , instead of a
railroad tracks separating a residential and industrial , why don' t we have
the street right-of-way.
IEllson : I think we just have to define directly abutting . There are
things that do not make them direct. These things include railroad
trackage, easements and roads and things that prevent them from being
Idirect abutting.
Dacy: As a matter of fact , the previous ordinance , the 1972 ordinance had
I an exclusion for areas that were separated by street right-of-ways so the
idea . . .statement disclaiming railroad right-of-ways and street right-of-
ways so that would be a good idea.
I Conrad : Wo we need to make a decision on the 25 feet? The staff
recommendation of 25 versus the 50?
I Dacy: To be honest , that number basically came from knowledge that the
conservation easement existed out there already. If what I 'm hearing from
the Commission, if you don ' t want to establish a specific setback and just
I say what the district regulates now is appropriate when you have
situations where the lot abuts railroad trackage, that' s fine . It would
be less confusing as far as staff was concerned. Instead of throwing out
It: another number .
Conrad : Would anybody like to pursue the 20 or 25 foot setback as
originally drafted here? Does anybody want to document that setback in
I the ordinance or should we let it be loose as has been in the past? No
feelings?
IHeadla : Have we had problems in the past?
Dacy: To be honest, because we ' re anticipating applications in these
specific areas , we really haven ' t deal with this issue but it ' s coming and
I we'd like to get it resolved. There are a couple of applicants going
through the process .
I Headla : What ' s that you mentioned when you have industrial , a road right-
of-way and then homes on the other side? What' s that dimension? Is that
the 50 foot setback if you ' re abutting a street right-of-way? Industrial
with homes on the other side of the street?
IDacy: That ' s part of the issue that we' re looking at . We have no setback
as you've described that situation now. What the ordinance is saying if
I the rear yard directly abuts a residential area , then we need another 50
feet.
IL Batzli : So if there was a road you would be looking at, the other
setbacks are as follows language?
Dacy: Right .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 24
Headla : Did the Park' s people , the Park and Recreation look at this at
all?
Dacy: No .
Wildermuth: I think uniformity as far as the last sentence, side street
side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet in all districts .
Dacy: That' s referring to corner lot situations . Where you have two '
streets abutting a lot, that is defined as a corner lot and the side
street yard is that yard that ' s not the front yard but the other side of
the lot that abuts the other street.
Emmings : You brought up one other thing here and I just want some
clarification. You talked about the screening. . . Now obviously if you
have two industrial uses abutting one another and you've got a street
there. If there' s a railroad track. . . is there any screening requirement?
Dacy: We' re saying that we would still enforce the screening requirement I
dispite the existence of the railroad tracks .
Emmings : Okay, so if there was trees on part of mine, that screening ,
isn't going to take land so in effect, even though it says there is no
C setback requirement because you have a screening requirement , you will end
up with a setback from the railroad right-of-way anyway. Is that right?
Dacy: Yes .
Wildermuth : Is the screening requirement the conservation easement. . . ? '
Dacy: Yes .
Conrad : And that' s the basis for the staff recommendation of 25 feet
setback.
Dacy: It was some type of a distance . . . '
Conrad: We need that, whether it be 20 or 25, is that in step? What does
that do for us with it? How does that help?
Dacy: You could divide extra feet of area to work with. To be honest with
you, there' s not much difference. ,
Emmings : When you get to the screening requirements , how did that one
wind up being?
Dacy: It basically went on some total . . .
Emmings : So you guys took into account what was there and did something '
reasonable to provide some screening?
Dacy: Right. '
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 25
' Emmings : That seems to be the better way to go because first of all ,
railroad right-of-ways seem to provide plenty of distance. What ' s one
other thing you' re looking for? The other thing is screening . We ' ve got
' the screening requirement that we should be sure applies to these
situations and then allow staff to be able to be flexible with the
developer . Maybe there' s a hill but maybe it' s only 15 feet but maybe
that ' s enough then . That spot will screen it from the other use and we
don' t need to be always straight hard lines .
Conrad : Does the screen , we keep rashing here from one thing to the next,
' does our screening ordinance, does the screening requirement ordinance,
will it take care of, should we review it to see how it applies in this
particular case by a railroad track?
' Dacy: That ' s the best I can give you in help one way or the other . The
screening requirement is you have to have a 6 foot opaque screen between
an industrial or commercial and residential . You' re got to have a
' consistent screening .
Emmings : We' re talking about between a commercial or industrial use and
' the railroad right-of-way that has the same residential on the other side?
Dacy: Are you saying that you want to look at that also to see if that' s
required?
Conrad : We would like to possibly, as you suggested , we don ' t know
P Y. Y gg � that we
need 25 feet. I don' t know that I need 20 feet. If we' ve got a screening
'
requirement that solves the problem, I might just feel comfortable with
the screening requirement versus a distance .
Emmings : Because you already have the distance .
' Conrad: Right, the distance is already there. The only thing is, with
railroad tracks are typically flat and that ' s not a screen . That ' s flat.
Therefore , I would look at that to see if that ' s solving any of the
problems that the distance is attempting to solve. Barb, would you like
us to table this item and have you take a look at it?
' Dacy: No.
Conrad : You' d like to get rid of this?
Dacy: Yes . In order to construct a 6 foot screen, either between berming
or vegetation , you' re going to need at least , at least 10 feet of land
' area so that planting materials can be maintained at least at minimum.
That ' s what the landscape ordinance and we recognize other issues . I
think we really need to clarify the parking and building setbacks on this
issue . I hate to have it linger on and on unless you guys really don' t
think it' s okay.
Conrad : We' re not seeing the need for a setback at this point in time.
' At least I 'm not.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 26
Darrell Fortier : I'm sorry my eyes aren ' t quite well enough to recognize II
Annette ' s last name but I think she really has hit the nail right on the
head . The confusion is whether or not the property abuts the railroad or
whether it abuts residential . If we were to say that there will be II some. . . which says abutting a railroad is not to be considered as abutting
residential even if residential were across the railroad tracks. I think
we' ve got to clarify that . The presence of screening requirements can
certainly be reviewed with sight lines, etc. when the building plan is
reviewed and we already have screening requirements . . .that gives you at
lesat, even if the residential were built across the railroad tracks, that
gives you at least 130 feet or 150 feet of distance . It is far more
generous than the majority of residential developments would have that
abut highway or something . The issue of getting rid of the confusion that
the Attorney' s brought up, are we abutting residential or are we abutting
railroad seems to be the most germain issue . If we could get rid of that
issue tonight, I think our whole lives would be made a lot easier .
Conrad : Annette , how did you think you could sove that problem? '
Ellson: Something like either a parenthetical phrase that is
distinguishing a road and a railroad as separating that.
Conrad : And you would put that where?
Ellson : The ordinance as it is , I like. I would just go that one line
that says areas shall be 50 feet unless directly abutting any residential
and then say something to the effect of a railroad track or road , what
ever we might else think of. A horse path. Who knows what else we might I
have around here , are considered separating and abutting , whatever . I
can ' t rewrite it but I 'm basically saying that we want to say that those
things are separating that and therefore you' re not abutting that
residential . In other words , we' re trying to let them know that the 50
feet isn ' t required if there' s a railroad tracks . If someone tells me
what is going to constitute not abutting a residential .
Batzli : In other words , what you ' re trying to say is direct means direct. II
Underline directly.
Ellson : That ' s exactly how I had it in my notes . Just underline '
directly.
Emmings : You can ' t indirectly abut something . '
Ellson: Or define the exceptions of what we mean by not directly. Which
gives you a parenthetical phrase , does not directly would be where a
railroad track' s involved, a road' s involved, whatever .
Conrad : Okay Barbara , how do you want to work this to get us out of this I
thing?
Dacy: Taking Annette' s suggestion, I would add the following after the
second to the last sentence.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 27
IC
Emmings : I don' t know what you' re looking at.
Dacy: Look at the first ordinance.
' Conrad : 1216?
Dacy: Yes . And number 6 there, second to the last sentence , the minimum
rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any residential
district. (This does not include lots which abut railroad right-of-ways
or street right-of-ways .)
' Batzli : I don' t think that clarifies it well enough. You' re talking
about the. . .with that directly adjacent to the railroad tracks. With what
you just said , you could have a residential on the side yard , railroad
' tracks on the back yard and yet you' ve just fit your definition. . .
Conrad : Do you have an alternative plan?
Batzli : No, I was trying to put together some language. I was just
trying to say something about, what we' re not talking about is when
there' s a railroad or road immediately between the two properties. I was
trying to come up with language that said that .
Wildermuth: Let me try something. Off street parking areas shall comply
with all yard requirements of this section except that no rear yard
parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting railroad
tracks rights-of-way and commercial or industrial districts . No side yard
' shall be required adjoining commercial uses for off street parking
facilities .
Ellson : You didn ' t mention residential .
' Wildermuth: No parking areas shall be permitted in any required side
yards . That ' s what you want to say.
Dacy: As written? You don' t want to change anything as written as far as
that's concerned?
' Wildermuth : Well , what we would be doing here is crossing out two words,
except that, and taking. . .
' Dacy: I guess I don ' t understand what you ' re. . .
Wildermuth: You want. . .
' Dacy: No , that ' s existing now and I don ' t want to mess with that . It ' s
saying that if you directly abut another commercial or industrial use you
can establish adjoining off street parking facilities and the side yard
setback wouldn' t be imposed. You could have a shared parking lot
situation. I guess Brian, I still don ' t understand where you ' re coming
from with your comments .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 28
C
Batzli : If you were talking about the rear yard abutting that , I would
have agreed with you. You just said it abutted .
Dacy: The minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting
residential district (a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way) .
This would not apply to lots abutting the railroad right-of-way or street.
Batzli : If your rear yard, you' re talking about your rear yard line
abutting that , then maybe that will work. You ' re not limiting yourself
to that. Make that on the side yard .
Dacy: So you want to eliminate the word rear? ,
Batzli : No. It' s got to be parenthetical . I 'm trying to limit your
exception to the rule. If you' ve got a railroad going down your sideyard, I
you' re abutting that, then you don' t need a rear yard setback under what
you just said.
Dacy: I see what you' re saying . So then you' re saying in the parenthesis II
then, qualify that by saying, this does not apply for lots having rear
yards abutting railroad rights-of-way or street rights-of-way.
Emmings : If this helps , isn ' t what we' re trying to do, would it help to
get away from where we' re talking about rear yard, side yard, front yard ,
whatever and we' re talking about whatever boundary abuts either the II railroad right-of-way or the street right? So why don' t we just say that
when a property line abuts a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way
there will be no setback requirement but it will be subject to screening
requirements .
Dacy: I think if we did eliminate the word rear in that sentence, we' re
still saying that if you've got a residential district abutting a
commercial or industrial district, you need 50 feet. No matter what type
of yard. Rear, side or front.
Batzli : Okay, so just take out the word rear .
Dacy: Right, and then say if the lot abuts a railroad right-of-way or I
street right-of-way, we' re saying that you don' t have to have the 50 feet.
Batzli : Yes, I will agree to that .
Emmings : Read the way for them.
Dacy: The minimum yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any
residential district (this does not apply for lots abutting railroad
right-of-way or street right-of-way) .
Emmings: But you only want to exclude it on the side where it abuts and
you' re not doing that yet in your language.
Dacy: Okay, help me. ,
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 29
Ic
' Emmings : I did. I read what I would say. Where the property line abuts
a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way.
Batzli : (Except the side street side yard . ) That ' s legit though.
Getting rid of that one.
Emmings : I don' t understand it but if everybody else does , I ' ll vote for
' it. Where the property line abuts the railroad right-of-way or the
street, the setbacks for that yard shall not apply but it will be subject
to screening requirements. That' s the idea. I don' t definitely know how
to say it. I think that' s what we' re trying to get at .
Dacy: There' s got to be some way that we can use that an existing
sentence and add an exclusion.
' Emmings : Why does it have to be?
Dacy: It just seems to be a lot easier .
Ellson: It's seems the logical way.
' Conrad : It ' s going to be hard for us to draft this .
if' Dacy: If you can agree with the intent of saying that 50 feet is not
applicable when the lot abuts railroad right-of-way or street right-of-
way.
' Emmings : It ' s the line . It' s the particular line . It ' s not the lot
itself isn' t it?
Ellson: You' re saying if the railroad is in the rear than the rear
' setback doesn ' t have to be that. If the road ' s on the side than the side
setback doesn ' t have to be that . That' s what he' s worried about .
' Emmings: Right and you ' re saying if it abuts it on the rear it doesn' t
have to do it on the side . We' re worried about the particular side that
abuts only.
1 Dacy: Correct .
Erhart : You ' re not putting that in your language. You need to go back
' and do that.
Dacy: What we ' re saying is , if the yard area directly abuts a residential—
district you have to have 50 feet.
Emmings : You have to have 50 feet on that yard .
Dacy: Okay. ( If a portion of the lot abuts a railroad trackage or street
right-of-way, this section does not apply. )
Erhart: Only for that portion.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 30
C '
Dacy: I just said that. I said this portion. '
Batzli : Can we take about a 5 minute break here and just get together and
try to draft something?
Conrad : I don ' t think we need to . I think we have given Barbara . . . I 'd
prefer not to draft wording to an ordinance by the Planning Commission.
It' s just not appropriate but the intent Barbara , I guess we'd have to
agree with what Steve is saying. I don' t know that there' s a practical
aspect to Chanhassen in what you' re saying .
Emmings: Where there' s a railroad or a road, you've got the distance. '
Now we' re concerned about the screening . So we' re not so concerned about
setbacks except in so far as screening takes a certain amount of land.
Conrad : Does everybody agree with what Steve said in terms of philosophy?
Barbara, if we agree philosophically with Steve' s, if that' s agreeing
with some kind of an intent , what would you prefer to have us do? We
can' t make a motion on absolute words because they' re not there yet .
Dacy: I would recommend that you move to amend the Section as listed on II page 3 of the staff report. State your intent and then I ' ll get with the
City Attorney to draft the language. As a matter of fact, what I ' ll do is
1. have the Attorney review verbatim Minutes to make sure.
Conrad : Do you have a reason to move it through the City Council in two
weeks?
Dacy: I don' t think it could get to Council by the 13th anyway with him
having to review the Minutes but it would certainly be on the 27th.
Conrad : So it could be back here for our next meeting? ,
Dacy: So if you wanted to table it until the next meeting . . .
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to amend Sections 20-695, 20-715 , 20-755 , 20-774, 20-795 and
20-815 until the next meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 18 , 1988 . All voted
in favor except Conrad and Headla who abstained and the motion carried .
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Conrad : Let me introduce this . Commissioner Erhart would like the '
Planning Commission to discuss the attached at Wednesday' s meeting . Tim,
I think as I said before the meeting started , this is really a nice
analysis. You did a real nice job of reviewing the situations down there. II
I appreciate that . That ' s really terrific. Steve, did you have any
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 31
ik:
' recommendations that you wanted to give?
Emmings : Yes , I just think too , Tim has made a very compelling case here.
' Both from the way you handle contractor' s yards when they' re moving into
the A-2 district and I think this ought to go to staff and they should
give us their input on what Tim has proposed here and we should consider
it as an amendment to our Zoning Ordinance .
Conrad: I guess we could go over this tonight Barbara , verbatim or Tim
could give us an overview of it . It' s real understandable . I 'm not sure
' that he needs to do that. What Steve is saying he'd like staff to review
it and comment on the specifics of it and tell us where staff feels it is
inappropriate or look for the loopholes or look for the reasons not to
make this an amendment .
' Dacy: We have reviewed it and give the approach as similar to the one
that you took with the BF district. That maybe we should send this to
' Council . If the Planning Commission endorses it , give it to Council as a
discussion item. Say this is where the Planning Commission would like to
head on a potential zoning ordinance amendment issue .
Emmings : The choice between letting them have a first look at it as
opposed to sending them specific language to change the ordinance?
If: Dacy: It might be good this way so that the Council can get a feel for
where the Planning Commission is coming from as a whole on this .
' Erhart: Except the last paragraph, I think there' s only one paragraph
that ' s missing . Rather than just passing , you say here ' s a great idea and
pass it to Council . I think it' s worthwhile having Commissioner ' s comment
1 on some of these items before we pass it on. I agree that we shouldn ' t
try to create language here at this point and get to the specifics but I
think in this kind of thing , they really need to look at the comments of
the Commissioners .
Emmings : I don' t agree with you for the simple reason that we don ' t very
often pass them something that' s so thoroughly explained.
' Conrad : It' s real logical .
Emmings : I think what we ' re saying , I think that ' s a good idea to pass it
' up to the Council just maybe with a comment that we think that based on
this we should make some changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
1 Dacy: We could schedule it for the 27th. Kind of reserve a special area.
Erhart : So you ' re basically, your comments are that you' re in agreement
with all of it?
Emmings : Well , we' ll talk about that.
' Erhart: So what you' re looking for from the Commission is saying to them,
we' re generally in favor of that going to the City Council .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 32
Emmings : Do they want us to basically look at the zoning amendments to '
bring the zoning ordinance in line with a lot of the things that you' re
discussing .
Conrad : Is there anything in here that somebody would like to bring up as
something we wouldn' t want Council to see? Something that we don' t agree
with in Tim' s analysis. Is there something that ' s really objectionable?
1
Wildermuth: There' s one thing that occurred to me as I read it. . . .the
A-2 district out there? Almost everything is already is A-1 and one of
the things, in addition to letting in A-2 would be to require that the
contractor ' s yard . . . in A-1.
Erhart : There is a substantial difference between A-1 and A-2. '
Wildermuth: But in your own table analysis here.
Erhart : There is on lot size and so forth. '
Dacy: The A-1 is 40 acres and that 's specifically for ag preserve.
Erhart: You eliminate A-1 and there are only two parcels in the whole
city in A-1.
Dacy: We can' t eliminate A-1 because State Law says we have to provide
for a zoning district to allow it .
Wildermuth : That was just a thought that occurred .
Dacy: The only staff comment is on the contractor ' s yard. That might be
a little politically messy because four years ago the Council went through
a process to amend the agricultural districts at that time to allow
contractor ' s yards so now you have a process four years later that ' s
proposing to eliminate them and Tim and I have talked about that. '
Wildermuth : This is a different Council .
Dacy: Exactly and that' s another reason that I think it would be good to I
have the Council discuss this thoroughly before you start notifying
property owners and conducting a public hearing.
Headla : What was your point?
Dacy: My point was that four years ago the Coucnil specifically amended t
the agricultural district at that time to include contractor ' s yards. Now
this amendment would go back and exclude them. Remove them as a
conditional use so I 'm saying that four years is relatively a short time I
span and I talked about this with Tim and that might be politically messy
( for some of the Council members. That' s the reason why it should be
`• discussed though.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 33
' Conrad : What we'd like to do then , if we send this up to Council for
their discussion and their direction to staff.
' Erhart : Are we all saying generally favorable direction on this?
Conrad: I ' ve got some small nit picky things .
' Erhart : You' re using just the Minutes to support that?
Conrad: I think in our motion we can. . .
' Erhart : You' re looking for a motion?
Conrad: Yes .
Erhart : Okay.
' Conrad : And send this to City Council to provide staff with the direction
and I think under that motion we can comment that the Planning Commission
endorses this particular paper . Is there a motion?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to send Tim Erhart' s memorandum
dated May 27, 1988 onto the City Council for them to direct staff and the
Planning Commission with regard to it 's content and further action on it ,
noting that the Planning Commission finds this to be logically explained
and an all around good idea. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn, bourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 50 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 28 , 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7: 45 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Ed Hasek and Larry
Schroers
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson and Mike Lynch
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
' Recreation Supervisor
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Meeting dated June 14, 1988 as
presented . All voted in favor and th emotion carried .
SITE PLAN REVIEW: SCHLOTTE ADDITION.
1 Sietsema : This proposal is located down along Frontier Trail and West
78th Street. There is currently a house on the corner and then the grade
gets steep and we ' re proposing two lots . Actually, this would be a lot
and this would be an outlot. The area is on the edge of the City Center
park service area and it will be served by South Lotus Lake Park. The
Comp Plan does not identify this as a park deficient area. This Plan
calls for off-street trails along Frontier Trail . As I noted in my memo,
' people have been coming in and getting wind that the trails are going to
go back on the referendum and they' re wondering in this trail plan and
they' re wondering what kind of street they' re going to be on and what kind
' of trails are going to be used . I indicated that the Park Commission has
talked about off-street trails along Frontier Trail and in going out and
looking the full length of Frontier Trail , just from an eyeball look, it
looks like it would be better on the west side of Frontier Trail. So in
this recommendation I 'm recommending that we accept park dedication fees
as well as trail fees in lieu of parkland and trail development and I also
make a note that we ' re hoping to see a trail along the west side.
tHasek: I have a question. Now is that the proposed home location there?
Sietsema : This is existing. This would be the second lot with the
proposed house. This would be an outlot.
Hasek: They' re asking for a variance obviously because that only has a 20
' foot setback.
Boyt : The City Council would have to deal with that .
' Sietsema: That' s a planning item that I don' t do .
Hasek: So really it would take a 10 foot trail easement?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 2 1
Sietsema : 20 is what we usually have. The grade here, as you go to the
site on the road and it's straight down. You 're looking at the tops of
trees at road level .
Hasek: Yes , but Lot 2 would still be taking the same. . . '
Sietsema: That's why I 'm recommending a trail on the west side rather
than the east side. We' re not taking any trail easement from there.
Robinson moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission II
recommend to accept park and trail fees in lieu of parkland and trail
development. Also, to pursue trail development on the west side of
Frontier Trail for the Schlotte Addition . All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW: HSZ AND GARY REED PROPOSAL. 1
Sietsema: If you recall, a while back HSZ Development came in with a
proposal talking about a street alignment for West 64th Street. What they II
finally decided on was to come into the Gary Reed property, vacate this
portion of the street, this being TH 41, and have a cul-de-sac that would
go onto the Reed property. The subdivision of 7 acres into two single
family lots, one outlot and the West 64th Street cul-de-sac. That area
would be served by Herman Field which is located to the southwest of the
development and Minnetonka Intermediate School is across TH 41. The Comp
Plan does not identify this as a park deficient area. A trail easement, '
the Trail Plan calls for a trail along TH 41. If you recall at our last
meeting I noted that we were accepting a petition from homeowners in the
area to vacate the Oriole Lane right-of-way and at that time the Park and II
Recreation Commission made a motion to let the Planning Commission and
City Council know that we would be interested in at least a 20 foot trail
easement over the existing right-of-way to get a pedestrial walkway to
Herman Field . Oriole Lane is along the west side of this property so
right down here would be Herman Field. The petition has actually come in
and if the Commission would like to , we' ve gotten a lot of feedback from
residents in the area. If the Commission would like to review it in more II
detail , I could schedule that for our next agenda . They' re expecting that
to go to City Council in August.
Hasek: Do we have time to take a look at it? '
Sietsema : Their concerns are where the right-of-way and what kind of
trail and who' s going to be allowed to use it. How are we going to keep II motorized vehicles out and what vegetation will come down. If you'd like
to see that further, I can schedule that at the next agenda.
Mady: That would be fine. . . .together for us Lori with location of trees I
and stuff.
Hasek: I think most of the trees are right on the edge of the right-of- 1
way out there.
•
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IIJune 28, 1988 - Page 3
I
Sietsema : If they' re within the . . .right-of-way because that was part of
I our problem coming down into that. . . On that alignment to Herman Field,
we didn' t want to take out the mature vegetation.
IRobinson: Is that why these people are here?
Sietsema : Yes.
I Robinson : And we should get their concerns are and address them I think
shouldn' t we?
IIMady: You mean a public hearing?
Sietsema: I don't know if they have any comments or not.
IMady: It might help to hear them now so you can be looking at, you have
some idea what they' re looking for . When we get that proposal back, you
could come back and this is what we have to say once we have the proposal
Iin front of us.
Sietsema : Before they could do that, why don ' t I finish. The 64th Street
I right-of-way, HSZ is going to be putting a trail through the old alignment
and along the north side of 64th Street in this location. The road right-
of-way on TH 41 is wide enough to accomodate an off-street trail . We did
ask for that out of the HSZ development to the north and they have
I preliminarily approved the construction of such a trail . Therefore it is
staff' s recommendation to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland
and trail fees in lieu of trail development.
IMady: Is there any reason why we should go along on any of this
pending . . .?
ISietsema : No , because Oriole Lane is not part of this development . It' s
just abutting it so I wanted to bring it to your attention because it was
adjacent to the development , to this proposal .
IMrs. Reed: Could you show us, she ' s talking about the right-of-way along
TH 41, we can' t see from the diagram. Is she talking on the HSZ property
Ior the Reed. property?
Sietsema : We want a trail all the way along TH 41 all the way down
to TH 5 so we would be building an off-street trail along TH 41 within the
I TH 41 right-of-way. We wouldn' t be requiring an additional 20 feet of
your property.
IGary Reed : All the way to TH 5?
Sietsema : Yes, from TH 7 to TH 5. That' s our goal and according to the
I State, there is adequate width there so we don' t need to acquire
additional . We did address that same issue when we saw the HSZ
development so I just wanted to bring it to their attention that we' re
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 4 ,
going to be continuing that trail but we won' t be requiring any additional
right-of-way.
Robinson moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail
fees in lieu of trail development for the Gary Reed subdivision. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Sietsema : I will schedule that for either the 12th or 26th of July and
I ' ll be sending out a notice to you on the Oriole Lane.
Gary Reed: There will be a storm sewer extending down Oriole into the '
Herman Field area and it' s possibly, you can follow that.
Sietsema : Yes . That' s very possible. I don' t know if we'd go right over II
the top of it but it might be within the 20 feet.
Gary Reed : There ' s a 20 foot easement for that I assume. Do you take it II
down the middle of the road or do you jog from side to side?
Mady: We try to go around all the big trees . Within the 20 feet.
Sietsema: The easement itself will be 20 feet wide but the actual trail
will be 8 feet wide so we can meander within the 20 feet to miss anything .
Resident: You just stay within the right-of-way of the way the road goes 11
you' ll be fine .
Sietsema : Right. We won' t go outside of that at all .
Gary Reed: We vacated the street and then they have to have 20 feet. '
Mrs. Reed : . . .would they take more? Out to 50 feet?
Sietsemsa: It just depends on the vegetation. We could recommend that
we' re going to take the whole 50 feet for a trail easement and then
meander an 8 foot trail within that 50 feet but we won' t take additional
outside of the existing right-of-way. '
Resident: I don' t think it is 50 foot wide.
Hasek: Oriole Lane? '
Resident: Yes.
Hasek: I think it' s 50 foot. '
Resident: . . . I was looking at that map for a while and it said 30. . .
�.AS-V.1,. v
.� .� _�i�yY.'sT*t"Z34 •"1C�(�F�i.:vy!-+e3iCcYay�SS
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 5
' Sietsema : Well , whatever it said. 30 or 50, at this point it doesn ' t
matter . We just have to look at it closer and when I bring that back to
them in July, I ' ll have that information.
' Resident: I was just wondering, is it really necessary to have a trail
down there from that end of the park?
' Sietsema: That's what they' ll be discussing in July. They' ll want to
discuss that more in July.
' Resident : Because there' s a dead end road down there now.
Gary Reed: There 's an entrance into the park 400 feet west.
Resident : Can I ask one thing? Is the purpose for the junior high to use
that park?
Sietsema : No .
Mady: You mean classes? No . They have their own play facility.
Sietsema: No, it would be to provide the neighborhood within. . . Our park
entrance will be off of Forest .
' Resident : So we ' re going to be looking at a trail going to the other park
about 300 or 400 feet.
Sietsema : It will just be a second access . A pedestrian access .
Hasek: A house has two doors. A park can have two doors too .
Sietsema : We also have an easement over to the Piper Ridge subdivision so
those people can walk into the park and it' s just so that not everybody
has to drive to the park. The people within walking distance can safely
get to the park without walking on the street or across private property.
Mady: So when you bring that back to us Lori , they' ll be notified?
' Sietsema: Yes.
' Mady: Did you have any other concerns that we should know about before
hand? Okay. You' ll be notified then.
Gary Reed : I guess one other thing , I 'd like to see if you could put up +y
barricades so there's no motorized vehicles .
Hasek: Yes, I think that ' s going to have to be looked at real closely
because that would be an invitation right there. There' s a dead end
street with a trail into a park. We've got the same problem around Lake
Ann and we 've had to fence it there so I 'm sure we ' ll be taking a close
look at that.
At
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 6 '
AMENDMENTS TO PARK ORDINANCE. ,
Sietsema : Given a lot of discussions that we've had, I thought that it
would be appropriate to come to the Park Commission with some amendment
ideas. One with the Carver Beach problems that we've had there with
people mooring and storing boats and rafts and what not. We need to
clarify so there isn' t a loophole. Allow it so they can have the rafts so II
we clearly have control of what goes on in the parks so one of the things
on my list here was amending the Ordinance to prohibit boat mooring,
private docks and rafts on park property and out from park property.
Mady: Or within 150 feet of the high water mark.
Robinson: Is that what you can do? '
Sietsema : It would have to involve water surface zoning too . Not only
our park ordinance would have to be amended but so would our water surface '
zoning so that DNR would have to approve it . We don' t allow private rafts
out from park property. Our concern being liability. If there' s a raft
out there, it looks like it' s part of the park and Joe Blow from across
the lake comes over and swims on it and hurts himself.
•
Boyt : You know, that raft that ' s out there has a piece of metal .
Mady: It's a pontoon. I was in the water and it 's just, that thing is an II
eyesore .
Sietsema : Again, right now we don' t have anything we can really do about II
it.
Hasek: Historically, if you ask a question, would the DNR tend to go
along with those types of things?
Sietsema: If it' s reasonable. If you have a good reason, good clear
reasoning. If it's just to make restrictions for the sake of having
restrictions they don' t go along with it. They won' t approve it but if
there is good sound reason and it' s applicable to everybody on the lake or
the lake user who doesn' t live on the lake, they' re pretty reasonable.
Hasek: Okay. We can just have the Attorney draw that up.
Mady: The only thing is we might want to leave ourselves some space in
the ordinance that at some point in time if the City decides to put. . . - - •
Hasek: It would be anything that ' s not owned by the City is what would ,
be. . .
Sietsema : Right, so that would allow us to have a raft out there if we
wanted to have one.
Mady: Of if we wanted to put sailboat moorings out there or something. '
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IJune 28, 1988 - Page 7
I Schroers : Is it possible that that could come back to haunt you in that
if we say that we have control up to 150 feet beyond our park area or
something , if there' s an accident with boats or waterskiers in that area ,
Iare we then liable because we control that space?
Sietsema : No .
IIMady: What is it, 150 feet, you can not propell your boat through an area
within 150 feet of a marked swimming area?
I Sietsema : Within 100 feet of the shore on Lotus Lake is a slow no wake
area except going straight out or coming straight in. If you' re puttzing
along horizontal or parallel with the shoreline, it' s slow no wake within
,' 100 feet of the shore. I think the Attorney will clear that up for us and
make it so it' s not going to put us in a hole.
Robinson: Do we want to act on these one at a time or overall?
IMady: I think we can discuss them one at a time. Point of information,
Lotus Lake, the Sheriff' s patrol was out in their boat Saturday afternoon
I because I witnessed them issuing a citation to one of my neighbors which
I was glad to be seeing .
I Hasek moved , Robinson seconded a motion directing staff to contact the
City Attorney and ask him to draw up an ordinance which would exclude the
mooring or installation of docks or any surface water use other than for
the City for areas abutting and adjacent to parkland for whatever distance
he feels is appropriate . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
IGLASS CONTAINERS.
Mady: I , for one would like to issue a complaint on glass containers in
the park after I spent 20 mintues cleaning up glass in the City Center
Park. It was just one bottle.
Sietsema : We really have received a number of complaints about glass .
I People having to walk around glass. Broken glass and what not. The thing
is , we' ve received a lot of complaints in the park areas all together .
There is more use in the parks than we've ever had before. Lake Ann Park
I has probably taken in the same amount of gate fees as we did all of last
year so far this year . It' s unbelievable the amount of use.
+v
Hasek: Than you get a letter like this lady that says she ' s never had to
Ipay for a park.
Sietsema : We currently have an ordinance that says there ' s no glass
I allowed in the beach area. The problem that we have with a lot of these
things is enforcement . There' s no way that the lifeguards can guard
behind their head. I 've asked them to at least be aware that that's an
I ordinance so that in the sand area in front of them, if they see someone
on the beach area with glass, that they tell them it's not allowed. They
can' t go over there and take it away from them because they' re supposed to
11 _ _ _ .... _. . ..+n. 4
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 8 '
be concentrated on the water . But my argument was , they are there to
prevent injury in the beach area. In the water. If someone gets cut,
they' re going to the lifeguard to get fixed .
Hasek: Then they've taken their attention away from the water again '
anyways .
Sietsema : Right . So I don' t expect them to walk up and down the beach
and tell people they can' t have glass and see that they get out of there
but see if they can say it to the people and just start making people
aware that it' s against the rules. What I 'd like to see is that we I
prohibit glass all together in the parks because we have the same problem
with barefoot kids running around by the ballfields and everything else.
What we can do potentially is let people know at the gate that glass
containers are not allowed. If you have them, go back and buy something
in cans or put it in plastic containers or something .
Hasek: Is there anything that that would preclude? ,
Boyt: I know our rule is no glass containers . If I want to take wine, I
buy it in the box or I ' ll put it in a container. You work around it. '
Sietsema : If you go to a pool area , there ' s not a pool , any pool I 've
ever, ever , ever been to that you can have glass in the pool area and you
just take your stuff in plastic jugs or plastic coolers or buy it in cans
or buy it in boxes or whatever . Almost anything can be purchased in non-
glass containers nowadays and if you can ' t , you can transfer it.
Robinson: You should have the signage up too, I think both down at the
beach and at the front .
Sietsema : That' s another thing we ' re really going to have to look at is
effective signage because everything that comes up it says we' ll put a
sign up and we' re going to be really littered with signs.
Hasek: The signs have to be very specific and located properly.
Sietsema : When you have a list of 12 things on a sign , nobody reads the
12th thing or the 7th.
Schroers : I will move that the City formulate an ordinance that
prohibits glass containers or receptacles of any kind in all public use
areas and that appropriate signage should accompany this ordinance. That
would mean that that ordinance could probably also be enforced in downtown
parking lots . '
Sietsema: But that' s not really our jurisdiction. This has to do with
parks . '
Schroers : If you want it just to do with parks , that' s fine . Parks and
trails. And if the City Council can expand on it to include all public
use areas , that would be better yet.
-_ _ - .. }, .., _ _ .• s ,.dirt%..ri+},k�fw>; #ss:= _.. t��a'...- :. .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 9
' Hasek: The only question I have is , I think Larry might have hit on
something that we may cover some open spaces that aren' t called parks .
' Sietsema : Such as?
Hasek: Outlots . Are there any outlots?
' Mady: Do we own any outlots?
Sietsema : Outlots owned by the City are generally parks .
Hasek: Are they labeled parks eventually?
Schroers : Easements?
Sietsema : Utility easements but those are usually over private property.
' We could do it on the trail easements because that would be considered
linear park space.
Hasek: There' s no reason why we couldn' t do it on the trail .
Mady: On the easement.
' Hasek: The property adjacent to it , I think that might be a little
difficult to put that restriction over the whole easement.
Schroers : What I was trying to get at, not only parking lots there but
' also water areas like boat landings and that sort of thing.
Sietsema: But those are all considered parkland here .
' Schroers : We really want to keep it out of the water. Out of the beach
areas . Out of the parking lot.
' Sietsema: I will include it in public use areas and if the Council or
Roger feels uncomfortable with it, they can just go with the park.
' Hasek: Maybe it can be more specifically defined and maybe, you talked
about boat launches and on the water surface. We can put our ordinance on
areas where there are no ordinances right now. That would certainly. . .
Schroers : If we' re going to make an ordinance, we need to get into it so
that it covers all the areas that we want it to cover specifically so
there is no question.
' Sietsema : The thing is is that this will be amending our existing park
ordinance. You wouldn' t be creating a new one so it would be difficult to
' find , if you put it in the park ordinance and it includes the lift station
sites. We'd have to amend more than one ordinance, which we can do. I ' ll
put it in there and they can work with it.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 10
Schroers moved, Mady seconded to amend the Park Ordinance to prohibit ,
glass containers or receptacles of any kind in all public use areas and
that appropriate signage should accompany this ordinance. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
PETS .
Sietsema: We' ve talked about pets in the parks in the past. It' s my
personal opinion that pets shouldn' t be in the parks, although I think
they should be allowed on trails. That is a big issue though with some of II
these people that are anticipating that this trail plan goes through and
they' re going to have a trail going through their yard . Their big
argument is, people are going to be walking their dogs in their yard and I
they' re going to be a pet toilet, to coin one woman ' s phrase. I know that
that could potentially be a problem but I think that we should keep the
part in the park ordinance that prohibits the pets in the park but we
should allow them on trails and enact a pooper scooper law.
Mady: What is that?
Sietsema: You'd have to be carrying something to pick up your dog ' s.
Either a plastic bag or a little bucket or something. A little scooper or
something .
Hasek: So that you really wouldn' t preclude people from running with
their dog.
Sietsema : No, they just have to , and they do that in Minneapolis . You
see people with a little plastic bag with them all over in Minneapolis.
Schroers : Then you take a cab home and put it in a pile and when the pile II
gets 6 feet high, the City comes along and removes it.
Hoyt : I think wherever it says dogs it should say either pets or dogs and II
cats or just cats.
Mady: I guess I don ' t have a problem if the ordinance did state that you II
had to have a pooper scooper on your person but to specify. . .
Sietsema : That' s not a way you can enforce it is that they have to show
some way they' re going to pick it up.
Mady: I think as far as dogs or pets rather going through parks , I think
the ordinance should be specific that as long as the park is within,
what' s our leash law, 6 feet? Whatever it is , within 6 feet of the trail ,
than they' re okay. If they' re off that, further than that than they're in
violation. I think you have to be specific on that. ,
Schroers: And in the areas where the trail runs through the park.
Mady: That ' s what it means . '
-.,z-.• -ii ..:.e - -...._,-.;._,j..c :s-r.,_.s,i :' Auti. �..*. -
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 11
' Schroers : As long as you stay and you' re on the trail portion, you' re
okay.
Mady: Or within 6 feet .
Hasek: He' s saying the animal is within 6 feet of the trail .
' Robinson: Is this a common, like in Minneapolis and Eden Prairie, do you
know what they, no dogs in parks but they allow them on trails?
' Sietsema: I believe they allow them in parks in Minneapolis.
Boyt : They take them out on sidewalks .
Robinson: Eden Prairie allows them in parks?
Sietsema : I don ' t know about Eden Prairie but I think Minneapolis you can
have your dog in the park.
Hasek: Once on a leash, you can have your dog anywhere in Minneapolis but
you also have to take a pooper scooper with you.
Mady: I would just assume not even have them in the parks . Up at the
ballfields , either it would be where I 'm playing softball or my daughter
is playing ball , it' s not appreciated when that dog , especially the large
ones. A particular pet owner may feel that their dog is nicer than
anybody elses dog in the world but I 'm one of those poor souls who doesn' t
' trust dogs. I 've experienced some problems in the past and I just don' t
even trust them.
' Sietsema : Not everybody is that comfortable having a dog come bounding up
and lick you on the face.
Mady: As long as they are on the trails, that' s fine.
Hasek: Did we get a motion on that?
Mady: I ' ll move that we restrict pets in the parks to the linear trails
only and if the trail is running through a park, then the pet must be
within the distance of the leash law of the owner on the trail .
' Hasek: And you' re also going to include the pooper scooper?
Mady: Yes, and the owner must have on his person the proper receptacle to
' recover any of the waste from your pet.
Robinson: This will solve the problem, dog foul .
' Sietsema : You know where I heard that, that ' s the common terminology for
it in England. Everywhere you have, no dog fouling allowed. 50 pound
' fine.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 12
Mady moved , Hasek seconded to amend the Park Ordinance to restrict pets in II
the parks to the linear trails only and if the trail is running through a
park, then the pet must be within the distance of the leash law of the
owner on the trail . Also, to develop a pooper scooper ordinance. All
voted in favor and the motion carried .
Mady: Does anyone else have any other items for the ordinances? '
Hoffman: Kegs in the park?
Boyt: I think we' re going to talk to Public Safety about that aren' t we?
Mady: Should we put that on public safety? '
Boyt : I think we should discuss it.
Sietsema : I think we should probably have an idea of what this body wants II
to present.
Schroers : I have ideas about that . I think kegs should be allowed with a II
permit. If our group wants to have a keg , then they can be issued a
permit and the permit doesn' t necessarily mean we need to be restricted .
Such as the Men' s Over 35 Softball league, if they want to have kegs and
be responsible for the kegs, they can get a permit that will cover the
season. If a family renunion wants to come and they' re just going to be
there for a day, they can get a permit to cover them for a day.
Hasek: Why couldn' t you just make it a permit and you could have the
dates. That way the softball league would have the dates and all they
have to do is go bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. That way you' re not
singling anyone out for special favors .
Robinson: But if I want to go out there and pack a six pack I ' ve got to
have a permit?
Schroers : No , just for kegs. If you have canned beer like a 12 pack or a
case or whatever, I think that should be allowed. I don' t know how you •
can expect that people won' t want to come and use the parks if they' re not
allowed to have beer.
Robinson : What' s the differnce?
Hoffman: The difference is you' re trying to keep a maintenance on large
groups. If you' re going to have a keg, you ' re obviously going to have a
large group and sometimes large groups tend to be getting more out of
control than a group, a small group bringing in a case of beer . Quite a
few park systems have a keg law. '
Sietsema : It allows us to go back when there' s damage done and say, you
had the keg. You had the permit. You' re responsible.
.4.- i443' _ c3,4''�1-kr; 'r'-'i"X a�- ` •.• r:.LsYA °
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 13
' Hoffman : A class renunion or something like this where they' re obviously
going to have a keg.
' Schroers : They think a keg is an incentive to drink more.
Robinson: Yes, that' s probably true.
' Schroers : We got our keg, that means there ' s lots of beer , let ' s drink a
lot of it. I really believe the best way to get a handle on that is just
to issue a permit for a keg and if you don' t have a permit , you can ' t have
' a keg.
Boyt: Otherwise , right now we allow non-intoxicating malt liquors?
' Sietsema: No. Non-intoxicating liquor except malt beverages. So beer is
allowed but booze and hard liquor isn' t.
' Schroers: And where does wine fit into that?
Sietsema : I guess it fits into liquor . It' s not a malt beverage so beer
is really the only thing that' s legal .
Hoffman: Wine coolers .
' Hasek: But that' s not uncommon though because wine coolers are glass .
Sietsema: Not all of them. You can get those in plastic. But what I
' wanted to say before we go hog wild on these ordinances is that we don' t
have a police department. We get limited coverage from the Carver County
Sheriff ' s department . Some people feel that that ' s adequate. This year
' I 'm not so sure given the amount of people we have using the parks. We
can ' t control glass on the beach. We don' t have someone who is walking
the beach and telling them to get out of the beach with glass containers
' or anywhere in the park.
Hasek: It comes right back down to the issue that we've been running
across over at Greenwood Shores. There are certain ordinances and laws in
' place. You can sit down there and close your eyes and have somebody
throwing glass in the lake and expect that all of a sudden this cop is
going to come around the corner and do something about it. It is up to
the people that live in the City to act as their own police to a certain
degree. That' s why you have the right to , what do they call it, a citizen
arrest. That's why it' s there. I think if the ordinances are in place
and people are aware of them, that will help to cut down on the amount
' that' s done because now you 've got people that are complaining. Simply
saying , hey, it' s illegal for you to have those bottles in here and I 'd
appreciate it if you'd take them out of there and you get some flack ,
' enough flack, then you' re going to go to the telephone and make that phone
call .
' Sietsema : I guess what I was referring to is eliminating intoxicating
beverages all together. If we make all public area dry and you have no
way of enforcing it, I don ' t see the purpose of putting an ordinance on
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 14
the books that there' s no way we can enforce . It may come down the road . I
When we do have a police department, then we can enforce stuff like that.
Schroers : What is Public Safety? Public Safety in essence is our police I
department who is supposed to be patrolling the parks and enforcing the
ordinances that are intact at the present time right?
Sietsema: Our Public Safety Director coordinates with the Carver County
Sheriff ' s Department to have deputies and he gives them where we' re having
the problems. It doesn' t necessarily mean that they' re going to choose to
do that. We 've asked them to open the boat access at 6: 00 every morning. I
They may not get around to it until 10: 00 in the morning and you've got a
line up of fishermen outside. We asked them to patrol the boat access on
a regular basis. The gate attendant calls them, they may wander by an
hour and a half later . He asks them to do things but they don' t
necessarily always choose to do what he asks .
Schroers : I understand what you' re saying but ours , the City' s Public '
Safety patrollers, now they have no authority to issue a ticket?
Sietsema : The only public safety patrollers we have are the CSO Officer
and she came on today. We have one.
Boyt: But she can not issue citations .
Sietsema: She can issue tickets but she can' t make arrests.
Boyt : I was told she can ' t even issue citations . She can give warnings. I
She can call for help.
Sietsema : I believe she can ticket if it' s an ordinance violation unless I
she's directed that she can' t. I think ther was a CSO that was directed
that he was not to issue any tickets and he was to call for help.
Schroers: If that 's the case, I think that we need to look at an '
ordinance that would give our CSO' s some authority to be able to do some
good.
Hoffman: Legally they can' t .
Sietsema : Legally they are not police officers . They can ' t take police
action.
Boyt : They are still in training .
Sietsema: Well , I think Debbie' s done.
Mady: Some of those we had in the past were actually licensed police
officers but they were hired as CSO's because we didn't have the money.
Sietsema: Yes , Frank started as a CSO and he went on to get his
certificate or license as a police officer and he was hired also as a
police officer . He was a Carver County deputy and he was on staff . He
s _ II
_ _. i_ -: '. i•2_e�4'.443, a -s
Park and n Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 15
' was a police officer and he had some hours as CSO so he had overlapping
responsibilities but he' s not with us any longer.
' Robinson : We' re getting off track.
Sietsema: We are getting on track and I just wanted to close on that
' subject. I 'm meeting with Scott Harr and Jim Chaffee, it' s budget time
and to talk about if we can get CSO' s or some kind of park patrol on staff
that would be dedicated. If we had two people, even if they can' t even
write citations , that would be walking the beaches . Jim said if he had
his own police department, he would schedule a person to be on staff at
South Lotus Lake all day long every weekend . He would have the power to
do that. He would have that kind of control . But we don't have our own
' police department and I don' t know if or when it' s ever going to happen
but we could hire park patrollers or park rangers or something that would
maybe jointly employed by the park department and the public safety
department. That's something that we ' re going to look into for next year
' since it' s budget time now.
Mady: One item that might be, there was something to bring up at the
Public Safety Commission, is some communities have kind of , junior police
officers . It ' s usually high school kids who have an interest in law
enforcement. We've used them extensively with the Minnesota Gym Classic.
' We use them as our security. These kids, although you know they' re
probably seniors in high school , they have full uniforms. Some of them
actually have handcuffs and flashlights and billy clubs on them and they
work hard. They do a good job and they' re very serious.
Sietsema : But they' re really a civilian in a costume. They don' t have
any. . .
' Mady: Exactly. They have no jurisdiction but they can point out the
attractions. That 's basically what you need.
' Schroers : Jim Chaffee himself, is he a policeman? Can he make arrests?
Sietsema: Yes. And so is Scott Harr. He' s the Assistant. Code
' Enforcement Office.
Schroers : And they' re both full time with the City? But it' s not part of
' their normal routine to go through the parks?
Sietsema: No . They' re not even, they don ' t patrol . They' re in the
office taking care of administrative things.
' Boyt : What about Steve?
' Sietsema : He ' s gone as of today. He was fired . He wasn ' t qualified to
do the job that he was doing and he wasn' t able to get qualified so we
couldn ' t keep him on.
Mady: Okay, should we go on. We can discuss most of this then at the
Public Safety meeting.
- - :.. s, - .-•.xxt`+Pt = - _ .,:._a-ter::,.:kc.�;rrz
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 16
Sietsema: So do you want to do anything on liquor?
Mady: I think we'd be better off to wait on that until we talk to Public I
Safety about some of the enforcements .
Hasek: Can we do something on the beer?
Schroers : If you want to let that go and coordinate that with the Public
Safety or . . .
Boyt: I 'd like to talk to them and see if they have some ideas because
I think they have some different ideas about what' s going on. About what
the rules are. When I talked to one of the Commissioners , she thought I
there was no alcohol allowed at all unless you had a permit and that' s not
the way it is .
Schroers : I really don' t think that ' s realistic . People want to drink
beer. They don' t want to go to the beach and be able to drink beer on a
hot day. I don ' t think that that ' s too much to ask. I think they should
be able to do that. '
Boyt: I think it' s too bad when Lake Ann gets a reputation as a drinking
park though. That people won' t take their families there because it has
that reputation so we' ve got to look at the Public Safety on that.
Sietsema: There again, if we had the park patrol , we could have nipped
that in the bud . The last month of school that was the senior hangout
because there wasn' t a gate attendant on duty yet. Nobody was out there.
They had free run of the park and they were having their senior parties
out there. '
Schroers : There are kids that hangout in the parking lot drinking beer
there every night.
Hasek: Sue, let' s look at that conversely. There would be people that
would not go to the park if they couldn' t drink. So far in our society
it' s socially acceptable and until the morae is changed a little bit, I
think to consider. It'd be like saying you can' t smoke in the park.
Boyt: I 'd like to look at some sort of balance so we don' t have the
drinking center for youth down there but we'd like a balance.
Hasek: That I agree with.
Boyt : I would like to talk to Public Safety and see if they. . .
Mady: But if we banned all alcohol we'd still have a problem so it's not I
an ordinance , it' s really an enforcement problem.
Robinson: Are we going to get Public Safety into our meeting?
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IIJune 28 , 1988 - Page 17
I Mady: That ' s part of the adminstrative packet. Item 9 (g) . Thursday, July
21st is tentatively scheduled for a joint meeting between the Public
Safety Commission and ourselves and I think it' s great that we can
I participate with them from time to time. All Commissions should get
together from time to time as well as Councilmen . As long as I 've been on
the board, we've never discussed public safety and until I met Dick Wing
I up here a year ago, I really didn' t even know what Public Safety did. I
just really wondered what in the world we had a Public Safety Commission
for . What could those people be finding to do every month but I guess
they are pretty busy. Does anybody have a problem with that date right
I now?
Sietsema : I' ll be sending out a notice. I ' ll let you know.
IIMady: Is that one of their scheduled meetings?
Sietsema : Yes .
IMady: Okay, so we'd just be part of it. Early on and they kick us out
and do whatever they do.
ISietsema : Yes , he said they had a light agenda.
IISCHEDULE FOR LAKE LUCY AND LAKE SUSAN BOAT ACCESS PROCESS.
Sietsema : At the last , not the last but the meeting before, the City
I Council made a commitment to provide a boat access on Lake Lucy and Lake
Susan for the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes clean-up project . They needed to
do that in order for the Pollution Control Agency and the Watershed
1 District to proceed with that project . They want to develop a work plan
that would be in place by November so they can figure out the time line
when they' re going to do what on which lake and who' s going to do the work
I and when the money's coming in and all the different work functions that
need to be done with that whole project . If you recall , that' s a million
dollar project which the Pollution Control Agency is putting in a half a
million and the DNR is doing the other half a million. A contingency on
II that was, we have to provide access on the lakes involved and Lake Susan
and Lake Lucy don' t have access right now. Lake Susan doesn' t look like
it's going to be a problem to get access on the lake. Council did approve
I LAWCON application for boat access at Lake Susan at Lake Susan Park. This
would be the time line on that. I 'm preparing the LAWCON grant now. We
should find out in September if we are approved for the grant. We would _-.
I hold public hearings in July to October timeframe once we find out if we
are approved. Then we could begin construction next spring . The second
one was Lake Lucy. This one's going to be a little big more difficult
because there is the only publicly owned property on Lake Lucy is
I Greenwood Shores Park. I 've let the Pollution Control Agency and the
Watershed District and DNR know that we don' t feel that that ' s an adequate
spot for a boat access. They can't proceed with the DNR's portion of the
I work or even the PCA's portion of the funding without access on the lake.
I don't know if they' re going to approve this schedule or not because it
is pretty long term but we have to do a study project before we can even
i° - _ r s = r
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 18
proceed to know where we' re going to get access . '
Hasek: I have a question. Is this a motorized boat access? Non-
motorized boat access? '
Sietsema: It has to be equal to whatever the riparian rights are. If
they can have a boat with a motor, than we have to provide an access. It
could suffice if we non-motorize the lake and that would take the rights
of those homeowners away.
Hasek: How about , is there a way that that could be kind of finangled 1
through and dealt through at the same, listen, this is the only property
that we have on the lake, on this particular lake. However , we don' t feel
that it 's right that this be a public launch. Would you allow us in this I
case to put a canoe launch into this lake if we did certain things to
improve the park like include some parking spaces?
Sietsema: If the homeowners have boat access on that lake, there' s a
little gravel access right down to the lake.
Hasek: Is that a fire lane? 1
Sietsema: No , it' s privately owned and as long as they have that , we have
to provide equal access. If we restrict the lake, water surface useage
zoning , if we -restrict it so that there are no motorized boats allowed ,
only air or paddled powered, then a walk-in launch would probably do the
trick but those people that live on the lake with their motorboats would
not be able to use their motorboats either.
Boyt : What about widening that channel and then putting some barrier so
the levels don' t change? 1
Sietsema : The problem with a barrier is how you' re going to get the boat
over the barrier . '
Boyt: If the boats that are allowed on Lake Ann are non-motorized except
for an electric motor and they keep it the same and lifted them.
Sietsema : But then how are you going to get motorized access over . . .
Boyt: We wouldn' t have motorized access . '
Sietsema: Then you'd have to rezone the lake. The problem with that, our--
goal is to get LAWCON money to provide access. They don' t cover dredging II and it would require quite a bit of dredging and the other problem is , the
water quality of Lake Lucy is less than. . .
Boyt : That' s where if you had a barrier up, Lake Lucy wouldn' t be
affected.
Sietsema : I looked into it quite a bit and the further down the chain of
approval that I got with the State and the Federal, the more obstacles
there were and I pretty much put it on the back burner because it didn' t
�:', ssti- -_ :_ _ a-P: = r a5yt+k :s?S�aFwd► F wa GS:aecac:�
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 19
look very likely. I 'm not saying though, we will definitely keep
continuing to look at that option.
' Schroers : Is Rice Marsh included in this?
Sietsema: Rice Marsh, they are going to be doing a fish kill but they' re
not going to be doing any other work on it so they don' t need an access on
that one.
Mady: The private access on Lucy is at the top of Utica isn' t it?
' Boyt: Yes.
' Mady: It' s not real wide.
Sietsema: It' s just a little gravel but it' s a clear . . .
Mady: . . .not far from the lake, it' s over 100 feet long I think.
Schroers : If it ever would get to that point on Rice Marsh , I think
that 's another lake where we would want to have a non-motorized
classification .
Sietsema : Rice Marsh Lake has a different classification of a lake. It' s
not necessarily a recreational lake I believe so they don' t require
accesses on that type of a lake or it' s not a priority. It' s not a
requirement. I didn ' t want to question them too much on it because I
' didn ' t want them to require us to have access because the only property we
have there, we'd have to dredge out swamp for 600 feet.
Schroers : I know. I ' ve used that in the winter and I know exactly what
you' re talking about.
Sietsema: That' d be tough so they haven' t required . They only said Lake
' Lucy and Lake Susan. The key thing on all of this is that the City
Council , the reason I brought it to your attention is City Council has
made the Park and Recreation Commission the lead agency on these two. To
' getting access on these two lakes so the public hearings and all of the
work functions will have to be done by this body. That with the land
acquisition in the southern part of the City and the trail thing that' s
coming up on referendum is going to be requiring this body to have
probably more meetings than we already are or meetings are dedicated
solely to one topic. A public hearing on a boat access could well go
from 7 : 30 to 11: 00 at night , very easily.
Boyt: Are Carol and Mike interested in being on the Commission?
' Sietsema: Mike did contact me and said that until he can get control over
his company, there were going to be meetings that he was going to miss .
He'd like to stay but if you don' t feel that he' s here enough, he' ll quit
at your request.
Boyt : No , I was just wondered if he was interested .
11 ' r- ;r,, sv- ihc.,.�s� e'+.' 2 ,5:•. ,�i_., ,.z..dr- .._.,c.�
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 20 '
Sietsema : No, the only reason he' s not here is because his long term r
employee of 12 years up and quit and he 's got more business than he knows
what to do with. He' s got his wife working full time for him now too.
He' s got three new employees that don' t do the job of the one guy that
left yet so until he gets his business back on it' s feet, he' s here when
he can. He doesn't know until 7: 30 whether he' s going to be here or not.
Thanks for bringing that up because I did want to bring that to your
attention. It's not that he' s not interested.
Boyt: Mike has such a good background .
Mady: Especially when it comes to the water surface and the boat access
issue. The one thing I was wondering about Lake Lucy. The residents of
Greenwood Shores are going to be impacted on Lake Lucy no matter what we II do and they've taken a big interest in their area. Would it be beneficial
for us to ask them to participate on maybe a small task force or
something , to study the area and come to us with a recommendation. . .
Sietsema : . . .Lake Lucy Highlands that has not been sold yet, although the
last I heard there was an interested buyer . It' s 5. 9 acres of which 5. 3
is under water. It would require quite a bit of dredging. Like 400 feet II
of dredging out to open water that would have to be done on a maintenance
level too and that' s where they would propose that it go. Whoever looks
at this is going to have to look at every inch of shoreline around there .
If 2 or 3 people join a subcommittee that would look at it and bring the
facts back.
Mady: If we just did it by ourselves , they' re going to fight us the whole II
way versus okay, you go to Greenwood Shores Homeowners Association and
say, look guys , there aren' t any other homeowner associations around the
lake and say, we've got to do this. Council ' s already approved the money. II
We' re already committed to doing it. You tell us how we can do it
feasibily and with the least expense and the least impact but it' s got to
be feasible.
Schroers: Because they' re going to come back at this point and say, we
don' t want it.
Mady: That' s not an option.
Sietsema : That' s not an option. I think that that could be very useful
and we probably would get a lot of people and I think that would be good .
I would recommend though that we have at least 3 people from the Park _ - •
Commission that would be the lead people and then we could hold the
information gathering. They could bring back the information and hold
public hearings as far as what our options are at that point in time.
Mady: I don't think they would hold the public hearing. I see us holding II
the public hearing .
Sietsema : Right , that' s what I said. You guys have to hold the public
hearing but the sucommittee could do the background work. It could be a
little committee off the Commission. What I was getting at is that I
k
r
�.s�,s3,c4:;�sxs�=.��JOrmt�f.'.: .a*�_x�.,.c•.:..�,�s�.�"
r
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 21
' think we may want to do the same thing with the southern parkland so that
not everybody is involved in all this stuff. I know that my meeting
schedule between trailway task force, community center task force, lake
access task force, south parkland and Park and Rec Commission and City
Council . You still have somebody going to City Council . We've gome some
people on the trails. All these things . There' s a lot of things going on
' that need to be decided between now and the first of the year . Between
now and November and then some of these can go past that but I don't want
to put it all off until the last minute either because there ' s a lot of
information that needs to be gathered and this isn't something that can
' all be directed to staff to do. There are people that are going to be
interested in doing this, are going to have to do some of the footwork
too .
' Robinson: i think that' s a good idea that Jim is saying, to get them
involved up front.
' Mady: You guys come up with the ideas too. They' re saying we' re
responsive to the public. We' re saying , okay you' re the public, you come
to us . You give us something that ' s feasible. It ' s got to be feasible.
Boyt: It sounds like we need to run an ad saying we need people for three
. . .committees . We have one, we have the trails but we need the southern
acquisition. . .
Mady: I 'm not sold on going with an . . .committee on the southern park
acquisition right now. I 'm just not. I think we have the tools in front
' of us right now to start with it and maybe at the public hearings after we
find out. We know what we want. What we' re looking for . There are a few
people such as Klingelhutz who have, right off the top of his head
knowledge of that specific area of town who could tell us, yes you can get
about 40 acres of flat land .
Sietsema : But a lot of that footwork, again I think that 3 people from
the Commission as a subcommittee. I 'm not necessarily saying we open that
up to the public to come in and help us make that decision on the southern
park but 3 people could do the footwork on that and bring the information
' back so that the 3 people that are on the lake access thing don' t have to
be at all those. There are going to be special meetings that we' re going
to have to do. I don' t know, whatever . I 'm going to be here anyways , so
I was just trying to make your meeting schedule. We can' t seem to get
away from two meetings. I 've been trying to push everything off to one
agenda and things come up with the way the Planning schedule is and
everything , we' re pretty much stuck with 2 meetings a month. If we could {y
' assing our second meeting a month to one of these othere three topics,
that would work but it doesn' t look like that ' s really feasible because we
need that time for just our . . .
' Hasek: I think I was going to suggest the possibility of making one a
working meeting and one a business meeting but I think that because the
' Council and Planning Commission don' t do that, than we' re kind of forced
to do what they do. If they only took business once a month, like some
cities do , that would certainly free us up to do some discussion stuff at
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 22 r
other meetings and do what we wanted for some of these projects that we
wanted to see.
Boyt : We could use some working meetings too . r
Robinson: I think we spend far too long on some of these items and we get
off track. There' s no reason why we should spend an hour and 20 minutes
on this thing so far. I really think we do get off track a lot.
Hasek: I would tend to agree but I don' t know that that' s necessarily
going to change the time, the length of it, because I think all it' s going II
to do is facilitate discussion. . .
Sietsema: Another thing that might help in discussion is you just call me II
with your questions before the meeting. You get your packets on Saturday.
Hasek: Today.
Sietsema : You got your packet today?
Hasek: That' s why I wasn' t there at the thing tonight. I got mine today. II
Schroers: Sometimes I get mine on Monday.
Sietsema : They go out in the mail on Friday. r
Hasek: More often than not I get mine on Monday. Once in a while I get
it on Saturday so I can look at it and . . .
Sietsema: I might look into having maybe yours delivered then because I 'm
hoping , I could make an effort only it ' s really difficult because I don' t II
get Minutes until Friday so I have to hold off until Friday if you guys
want to see your Minutes from the meeting before but otherwise , typically
I have most of my items done by Thursday. I could try and get it in the
mail on Thursday and then mail you the Minutes on Friday or something .
That would give you an extra day but the point I was making is that if you
have, some of the questions that you have, if you just want points cleared
up, you could call me those during the day on Monday or Tuesday and that
would maybe eliminate some of the discussion or some of the confusion at
the meeting. I know that some of the Council people do that.
Boyt: Normally Bill stop and pick up his packets on Friday. r
Sietsema: That' s another option too.
Hasek: On Friday, the only way I could get them on Friday is if Todd
brought them to the ballgame because I sometimes don' t get home until
7: 30.
Sietsema : You' re out at the park on Friday nights? I can leave it at the
gate. If you call me and remind me.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' June 28 , 1988 - Page 23
' Hasek: I think it would just be easier if you could arrange to have them
mailed on Thursday.
' Sietsema : I ' ll try that. I can' t make any promises because often I don' t
get my planning referrals until Wednesday and it' s tough to go out to the
site and everything and get the report and everything done by Thursday.
' Mady: What do we need to do here? On Lake Susan I don' t think there' s
anything we need to do is there? Approve it maybe?
' Sietsema: No. I don' t need approval on this. What I need is if you want
to have a subcommittee formed to do both lake accesses or how you want to
handle this. Do you just want me to try and schedule some time during the
' meetings as they come up that we can work on this or how? I need some
direction. You guys have to be the lead agency and there's going to be a
lot of work involved and I just need some direction on how you want to
' handle it.
Hasek: I don' t think there' s any reason why we shouldn' t try and
formulate that this is really associations, some sort of committees with
abutting properties on both of them, if that' s possible. I don' t know if
there's any, maybe what we' ll simply do is mail it out to those people
that are adjoining the lake right there and ask them if they want to
' organize and recommend three people. Let them get organized out there and
send us three people that we can react with and they can take the
information back. I don' t think you need 50 people in here saying . . .
' Sietsema : On Lake Susan I don' t know that we need do that because we have
the site selected. We need to just hold the public hearing.
' Hasek: So it' s really the site selection process?
Sietsema: It's the site selection process that' s going to be the. . .
' Schroers : Are we going to receive any information or direction from the
DNR and the Watershed District and the people from LAWCON, that give us
the grant? Are we going to have guidelines to follow?
Sietsema : The same as Lotus Lake. I have the guidelines. Boat accesses
have to be open 14 hours a day between 4 : 00 in the morning and 12: 00
midnight. They have to be open to everybody free and equally. There has
to be handicap spaces . There has to be 1 parking space for every 20 acres
of water surface. There has to be equal access , whatever the riparian
users , whatever the rights have to be equal , the non-riparian users have
' to have the same rights on the lake. That's pretty much it.
Schroers : From my point of view, I would really like to see those things
' listed and take a look at that before we decide how many residents and
stuff to get involved and how big of a committee to try and put together .
I think we need to know what it is that we have to accomplish before we
start picking people to do it .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 24 '
Robinson : Maybe we should almost give notice that we' re having a meeting II
here to talk about it, whether you call it a public hearing, and lay out
the ground rules so everybody understands and try to formulate a group at
that point. You' re right, it shouldn' t be 50 people. ,
Hasek: I would think each one of them has 2 people from it' s group so you
have at least a group. . .and 3 people from the neighborhood over there or
around the lake. Maybe 2 from an association.
Schroers: Maybe just 2 and have the entire subcomittee consist of four
because anytime you add another person it' s just going to be that much
harder to get an agreement.
Hasek: Five is kind of, they usually give us odd numbers . ,
Sietsema: If we got someone from Lake Lucy Highlands and a couple people
from Greenwood Shores and 2 people from the Park Commission, I think that
would be a good size group. We could have a public meeting right off the
bat to say this is why we' re doing this and would you people go and pick
the people you'd like to be on.
Robinson : And just tell them all the ground rules .
Sietsema : There isn' t a lot to know about what is required for an access .
The two big things are that you have to have 1 parking space for 20 acres
and it has to be equal access. The lake homeowners can' t have anymore
rights than the non-lake homeowners .
Hasek: With the 20 parking stalls, how big is Lake Lucy?
Sietsema : Lake Lucy is 134 acres so it would be require 7 parking spaces .
Hasek: Can we get 7 into that lot on Lake Lucy?
Sietsema: The person that I met with on the DNR said that given the ,
circumstances, they may be able to fudge a little bit and allow 3 spaces
on the street if we had 4 spaces off street.
Mady: I guess I 'd like to see us publish in the paper and maybe send a
notice out to each homeowners association in the Lake Lucy area , that
we' ll be holding a meeting, say the second meeting in July. The first
item on the agenda to formulate, get their ideas on how to form a group
and study it. That a group be formulated and come back to us by say
October 1st or something with a recommendation, or at least some ideas to
discuss so we can get this thing moving. '
Hasek: Can we do this , let' s send a letter to the president of the
associations, if there is, and let him distribute them. That will start
them working right off the bat.
Sietsema: Instead of notifying each one?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 25
' Hasek: Instead of notifying each one and then we would go through and
notify any individual homeowner that owns property abutting the lake. The
two things we would list is we are looking for two people from Greenwood
' Shores to be on this committee and one person.
Mady: I don' t know if you want to specify that. We' re going to get 3
' people plus us. Three people out of the Lake Lucy area along with 2 park
commissioners to formulate a subcommittee to study the lake access
question concerning the pollution water clean-up project.
Sietsema : We need to put it in the paper too then?
Mady: Yes, put it in the paper too. We can cover all bases .
Sietsema : Basically then , what we' re going to tell them is that we' re
going to be holding a meeting in July discussing access on Lake Lucy.
Mady: Formulation of a group to study the access as it relates to. . .
Sietsema: And what the requirements are.
' Hasek : Can we add something else to that? Who ' s going to choose those
people? If Greenwood Shores gives us 3 and Highlands gives us 1 and
somebody else or whoever else gives us another one and says I 'd like to
volunteer to be on that committee to be chosen and they should be added to
be chosen.
' Sietsema : I ' ll have to check with Roger and see if you can pick them or a
committee like this has to be Council appointed. I 'm not really sure.
' Mady: It ' s our subcommittee, we should be choosing .
Sietsema: I took that as a motion.
Mady moved , Hasek seconded to notify the public that a
Y P public meeting will
be held in July to formulate a committee to study the lake access issue on
' Lake Lucy. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Mady: On Lake Susan, we should be able to hold a public hearing on that.
Sietsema : Yes , I really don' t think we need a special committee. I
wouldn' t think that we need to hold a public hearing on that until after
Iwe know if our grant was preliminarily approved .
' SETTING OBJECTIVES FOR PARK LAND ACQUISITION IN SOUTHERN CHANHASSEN, JIM
MADY.
' Mady: I took the form that Bill Boyt gave us on decision analysis and
then put my ideas down. All this is, this thing is running basically as a
starting place. It starts out with a decision statement. We list off
•
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 26 ,
what our objectives are . Some of those objectives are going to be must
objectives and some of them if you want objectives and we' ve got to go
from there. Really, at this point all I 'm looking for I think is , I put
up 13 things that I could think of for objectives. Maybe you don' t agree II
with the decision statement either . All I think I 'm looking for right now
is to see us start on the first two items and maybe at the next meeting
we' ll list all our objectives and then we can start determining whether or
not they are must or want objectives or if they belong there at all or
whatever and then we can start the process . We can get our objectives set
up so that by August 1 we can start looking for alternatives and determine
how those alternatives will be looked at . Unless you think we need to
formulate a committee?
Sietsema : I don' t know. It' s totally up to you. '
Mady: I guess I 'd like to see us , since we ' re the ones who know what we
want for a park. . .
Sietsema : I think the first two have to be set up by this Commission and
then if you want to break into a subcommittee to go from there.
Mady: I can really see us getting in people like Al Klingelhutz, Tim
Erhart and some of those people who live in that area and are familiar
with that area , come in and talk to us and say this is what you should be II
doing. This piece of property is like this. I 've driven around basically
Pioneer Trail to TH 101 to Lyman down down CR 117 and around there a
couple of times to look at pieces but I don ' t think that's a good enough
feel for it. That' s a lot of land in there. There might be a piece
that' s optimal to build that isn' t visible from the road. I 'd like to see
us go to number 2 and then maybe invite some people in and start listening
to them or having a special meeting to discuss it because I think it' s
going to take a special meeting .
Sietsema : What I would like to do is agree on number 1, on the decision
statement, and then everybody think about the objectives with yours here.
Schedule on the second meeting in July, I can schedule the first half to
talk about Greenwood Shores, we have an hour and a half, hour and 15
minutes to talk about that and the second half would be dedicated to going II
through objectives for south park. That' s all we would do at that
meeting . That would give us to be in a really good frame of mind to
concentrate on two heavy issues. Hopefully, I ' ll try and defer all the II other things to next meeting and the meeting after the second one in July.
Mady: Anybody have any thoughts on this decision statement?
Boyt : Do we have $300,000. 00?
Mady: And a little bit for the developer . '
Boyt : I thought that was the purchase .
Mady: It's the purchase but if we can save, if we buy $100, 000. 00 piece.
If we have two parcels of land that we' re interested in and they' re fairly
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 27
' close and we can get one for $200, 000. 00 and one for $300, 000. 00, maybe we
save $100, 000. 00 to develop instead of spending it all on one. . .
' Boyt : What does the referendum say?
Sietsema: I don' t know that we can use the money for development.
' Hoffman: Park acquisition.
Schroers : The only problem that I have with the decision statement is if
we should consider a park as small as 50 acres.
Boyt : I think we need to do what the referendum statement.
Mady: What we need to do then is find out from Roger if we' re
specifically limited to exactly what is said here. The question on the
referendum, should the City of Chanhassen be authorized to sell bonds not
to exceed $300,000. 00 to purchase parklands in the southern portion of the
community.
' Boyt : I think that ' s what we should be looking at . I think that' s what
our decision statement should be. Purchase lands in southern Chanhassen
not to exceed $300, 000. 00 for the park.
' Schroers: What framework or keep it in mind that maybe 50 acres would be
too small . Making it an objective then and look at it more towards the
100 acre parcel .
' Mady: I guess the $300, 000. 00 is really an objective too . Are we looking
for a portion in the southern park.
' Sietsema : That limits us , we can' t go over that.
' Mady: That' s one objective. There' s a limit set. That' s really what it
is . You' re right, that' s one of the objectives .
Schroers: Unless we know, if someone knows, there is quite a bit of land
' out in that area along CR 117 that is posted as wildlife sanctuary. Is
that private land that' s posted as wildlife sanctuary? Is there anything
in the City' s ordinances pertaining to wildlife sanctuaries?
rHoffman: I believe that' s, isn' t that in Chaska?
Schroers : Is it in Chaska or is it not in Chaska? Where CR 117 makes
that curve, everything on this side is Chaska?
Mady: It' s Chaska .
Schroers : Okay, what I was talking about was up in here where it says
wildlife sanctuary and I was just wondering.
' Mady: It didn' t say it in the referendum but in all the things we
published, it was south of Lyman Blvd. .
. .. ._. _ ... ter_.. .-
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 28 '
Sietsema : So you want your decision statement to be. . .
Mady: Where should the City of Chanhassen locate a park in the southern
portion of the City? Everything else is an objective direction.
Boyt: The statement could be to acquire parkland in southern Chanhassen?
Sietsema : Okay. Then I ' ll schedule, if that' s in agreement by everybody,
I' ll schedule just two items on the July 26th meeting. One being lake
access and one being south parkland . '
Schroers : I would like to know about the wildlife sanctuary. Is that a
private thing? Is it a State thing? What is it? If that' s a wildlife II sanctuary, if that would restrict us from being able to use that land for
park area.
Mady: If it ' s in Chaska . Let ' s on with 7, the park shelter . ,
LAKE ANN PARK SHELTER BUILDING. ,
Sietsema : What the Legion and I have come to understand is what I 've
written in the letter to them, is that they are willing to pay up to
$25, 000. 00 on the park shelter which leaves $3 ,300. 00 that neither we or
the Legion is planning to pay. The quote came in at $9,009. 00. Roughly
$10, 000 . 00. That put the ball back in our court. Are we going to pick up
that? Are we going to go back and request that they pick it up? Are we
going to scale down the finishing work? How do we want to do it? We do
have the alternative to use Chaska Lion' s Club money. We recently
received two donations which add up to $11,000. 00 which is roughly what we II
need to do the finishing work and get the electrical up to that shelter .
That would approve an additional $10,000. 00 that we' re loaning to the
Legion. Then we would pay the additional $3,300. 00 and we could do the
$8,000.00 for the electrical work. That would get the job done.
Schroers : Would it be feasible to split that $3 ,300. 00 with the Legion
and make a compromise of 50-50 on that $3 , 300.00? '
Sietsema: We can ask them. The big question right now, and I haven' t
talked to the Legion directly about this, evidentally they lost their
pulltab license and that' s what they' re making their money on and I don' t II
know how they' re going to pay the $15,000. 00 back much less $25, 000. 00.
don ' t know if they sell that many steaks . They've opened for business now '
for lunches but the whole thing was set up that they were going to pay us
back with pulltab money.
Robinson: How did they lose their pulltabs? '
Sietsema: Pulltabs, as I understand it , they originally set up the
pulltabs so that, it' s charitable gambling so all your proceeds had to go I
to charity. Then they said it costs us to have someone there selling them
and sometimes we have to leave space and okay, so you can take some of
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' June 28, 1988 - Page 29
' your operating costs out of that . The rest has to go to charity. People
were abusing it by, these people that were coming in needed a place to
park so they'd repave their parking lot . They need a place to sit so
' they'd add an addition and they need a bigger place to have it and they'd
add another . I don' t know if the Legion was doing that but now the State
has cut back and said forget it, this is bogus. Everything has to go to
charity. I don' t know if that had to do . That' s what is happening all
around the state with the charitable gambling and I don' t know what the
story is with Chan Legion . I don' t know if they fit into that category or
not but I know they aren't selling pulltabs right now.
' Mady: I' ll tell you how I 'm leaning personally, the City Council has
recently given us the Excelsior Amusement Park building to use at Lake Ann
and that ' s going to require some extensive work. From my way of thinking ,
that thing is going to end up being our center of activity up there. We
probably will be able to put in that a real nice area inside that. I 'm
thinking that maybe we should just put concrete underneath that new
' shelter out there and leave it as is until we have a real firm position
with what' s going to happen with the carousel building because I don' t
want to see us put all this money into this thing and two months from now
' find our we' re going to put the carousel building 300 feet away from it
and it's going to have all the same stuff in it.
' Hasek : When was the carousel building going to Lake Ann for positive?
Mady: Basically they said it' s up to us to determine how we' re going to
utilize it .
Hasek: In Lake Ann?
' Mady: In Lake Ann.
Hasek: So it' s in good enough shape to go into Lake Ann?
' Sietsema: The City Council approved accepting the carousel building and
they found someone who is willing to move it at no cost or minimum cost
and they approved a budget for refurbishing and foundation of, I think it
was $25, 000. 00. You remember $50 ,000 .00 so . . .
Mady: The paper was saying $50,000.00 but you never know.
rSietsema : I' ll have to look back in the Minutes and find out exactly what
that was supposed to go for. If that was supposed to be moving costs or
what exactly but that gives us $25,000. 00 for foundation and refurbishing .
' I don' t know how far that' s going to go on a building that size.
Schroers : That should actually be a totally separate project from this
other shelter.
Sietsema : It is .
Schroers : And I don' t see us doing ourselves or the Legion a favor by
extending their debt to $25,000.00 at Lake Ann. To pay the $15, 000. 00. . .
.- .t o,„A;_3
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 30 '
Sietsema : I got a quote, and I should have brought that down with me, I
extracted the quote of just the concrete and I think it' s $3, 000. 00 just
for the concrete . For the Legion park shelter . That would be stubbing in II
for electrical .
Mady: The other option also is just to leave it as it' s been graded .
Hasek: Those footings stuff sitting out there is just . . .
Schroers : Well , the footings aren ' t really sticking out . Since we looked II
at it last night, they went in there and graded it out so it' s about up to
the level of the footings. There' s a picnic table sitting underneath
there on fairly level . . . '
Hasek: I guess I 'd still like to see something put underneath there.
It' s just another thing that' s unfinished.
Hoffman: Isn ' t that going to be used for ballfield concessions in the
center where that carousel building you wouldn' t want to be designing
ballfield concessions underneath that thing . '
Schroers: I think we need to pursue our original , go with our original
plans on that building and try to get it completed as best we can but by
putting the Legion further in debt on it and putting ourselves in a
position where we' re not going to be able to recollect the debt on it,
doesn' t sound like very good business practice to me.
Robinson: I guess I just disagree , I don' t agree that it has to be
completed as soon as possible. I think we' ve got to start sticking to a
budget. For the same reason I was opposed against that zamboni . We have II
about the same thing. Somebody comes to us and says we' ve got to do it
tonight . We' ve got to make a $5 ,000. 00 decision. The hell with it. That
thing has been sitting there for 2 years and nothing happened. The Legion
has given us promises . Let it sit there until next year and let' s put it
in the budget for next year . That' s my feeling . I ' ve got to say that I
agree with Jim but for a different reason. By then we' ll have an idea
that the carousel will fit in there and we just need a foundation or we
just need a place to put the keg out of the rain or something .
Hasek: I guess my gut reaction, just knowing about how the park is going
to lay out, is that that structure, if you want to put it in the middle ,
has got to do almost exactly where that little building is. It' s got to
be on top of that hill someplace.
Mady: There' s a couple different places it would fit .
Hasek: You can' t put it on the highest hill because that sucker would
blow over. You give it time and some wind storm will take that thing
right down.
Mady: Right now, where it' s located right now is basically on top of a
hill and it's been sitting there for a lot of years.
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IJune 28, 1988 - Page 31
Hasek : I know what that structure, now that you mentioned where it came
from, I know what the structure looks like because I spent a lot of time
Ithere growing up. Not as a little kid but as a teenager .
Schroers : What I 'm hearing you say here though, I think someone is giving
Ithe idea that the facility would be multipurpose and solve all the
problems. It' s going to take care of the ballfields and the rest of the
areas too and I don ' t really see that . I think we need a separate
concession for the ballfields.
1 Boyt : The carousel is going to serve a different need .
11 Schroers: Absolutely. That' s going to be for the picnic groups and
things like that . If you had us for both, there would be conflicting on a
weekend when you had a ball tournament out there and a picnic group is
going to use it .
IBoyt : I would like to see the Legion finish a in for this
p Y 9 this . If they
want to make some fundraisers. They made a commitment to us and they' re
I an upstanding organization. I can' t imagine that they would back out on
something that they' re donating to us.
ISchroers : I agree with that.
Boyt : They' re an upstanding group. They' re not going to say, we've
changed our mind. I think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt
and let them pay for it .
Hasek : What I was going to suggest was thinking about what the
I possibility, I would hate looking at this thing finished exactly where
it' s sitting because I don' t think, if the carousel is going in there,
which I 'm very disappointed to hear, the building is going to go. I think
' that this building is going to want to be moved . However , I think it
needs to be finished to a point where it's useable and I don' t think with
gravel in there right now makes it entirely useable . What I would like to
I see us do is to put a floor in that thing with the idea that potentially
that structure will be moved at some point in the future. Perhaps it' s
more centrally located within the ballparks to serve the ballparks at that
time. Then , if we' ve got the floor underneath it , at least we' ve had it
I there to use for a couple of years if it takes that long, in some form
that it is useable. It won' t be that expensive to move that structure in
the future and remove the concrete pad and it' s not that great of a loss. ---
We've still got what we' ve got there . I think at the same time we do have
I to keep the commitment that the Legion has made to us and I don' t know how
we can facilitate that .
I Sietsema : Don' t you think that that will be somewhat centrally located
when the other three fields are built and there' s another field on the
other side?
Hasek: Potentially but if you recall , we talked about the possibility of
maybe putting another one down below anyway. This one was going to have
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 32
this stuff . Because it was going to be completed , this was going to have II
the concessions. The other potentially would be just a picnic structure.
Now we' ve got a big building coming in that might be able to take up a lot
of that picnic stuff and we' ll just reverse the roles possibly. It needs II
to be looked at more than I think. . .
Sietsema : I think we are going to be looking at the Lake Ann development
with hopefully construction beginning next spring. That would be the time
to move that structure.
Hasek: At least to locate it I would say. ,
Boyt: They need it out of the location it' s in right now.
Sietsema: I 'm talking about the park shelter . The little park shelter . '
The time to move that thing would be when they' re going to do the other
three ballfields and put it in the spot that you want it so if that' s
going to happen within the next year .
Hasek: Yes , but see that' s not going to be used for those other
ballfields for at least , what did we say, 3 years? 2 years at least .
It' s not going to be centrally located at least for the next 2 years
because those other ballfields aren ' t going to be used . They' re in
construction stages for at least 2 years so even though that may be the
appropriate time to move those structures , it ' s not going to be used and
it doesn' t make any sense to move it unless we' re going to use it. I
don ' t think there' s any cost benefit in moving it unless we can grade the
site for it or something.
Sietsema : No, what I was saying is why pour the concrete if you' re going
to move it within the year? '
Hasek: But it wouldn' t be, I 'm thinking more 2, possibly 3 years before
it gets done. We' re hoping that construction begins next spring .
Mady: What are we waiting for on Lake Ann? We' ve got a plan set up, why
can ' t we turn it over to Mark and say, okay let' s bid and let ' s go?
Sietsema: Right now we' re looking at architects. We' re not necessarily
going with Mark's firm.
Mady: This isn' t even the 1st of the July, they can grade through the ,
middle of November.
Sietsema : This potentially, they could start some work this fall . '
Boyt: The architect would be able to do the carousel and the small
structure. The architect will look at those and decide the best place for II
them.
Mady: After seeing the structure tonight and how they've graded and what 11
they've done out there, we can easily get by with what we've got for the
remainder of the year . If we want to put a pad underneath it, maybe what
_.+ .tk-'.fG Li n.�.aNi:T. k"Y'�.✓-.Y KSa 1s j
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 33
' we want to do is put a floating wood deck underneath it instead of putting
concrete down. It has to be even more solid than the gravel . The
gravel ' s been done. Staff' s done a nice job of getting that very level
' and very, very useful . The ball season is ending up out there. They
probably wouldn' t get much use out of it anyhow so I think we'd wasting,
potentially wasting $3,000.00 at this time. We need to get a little bit
' better feeling from the Legion as to what their financial situation is and
their plans for repayment and what they actually can do before we commit.
I don ' t want to see us utilize the Lion ' s donation for this project. I 'd
rather see that go into a more recreational use.
' Sietsema : So do you want me to contact the Legion and say we' re going to
leave it sit the way it is and we hope to start receiving payment on the
' current loan that they have. We understand that their pulltab business in
no longer . . .
Mady: Just ask them for advice . Advise us as to what their plans are .
' Sietsema: What I was thinking is that if rove can ou
y prove that you can pay
this off without your pulltab business , next year we' ll budget for the
' $10, 000. 00 to finish the thing but right now we' re not willing to take
that risk.
' Hasek : Exactly. Just tell them exactly that' s the truth but we need to
know from them what their action is going to be. . .
Sietsema : They fully intend to pay the $15 ,000. 00 so far .
' Hasek: But it' s the addition to see it completed and that' s kind of the
whole ball of wax . If this is the bill , are you intending on paying this
' or are you kind of stopping where you' re at now? What' s going on? You've
got to get them to make some sort of statement as to what they intend to
do, I would guess . They said they' re going to pay the $15,000. 00. Are
they going to pay the $25, 000.00 if we loan them $10, 000. 00 more? That' s
the question.
Sietsema : Yes , they plan to but again , without the pulltabs . . .
Hasek: I know they plan to. . .
' Boyt : Let' s not lend it to them. They can come up with it on their own.
Hasek: We kind of committed to lending it to them didn' t we?
Sietsema : We committed to lending them $15,000.00.
Hasek: But not ten more?
Sietsema: Not ten more.
Robinson: Tell them to take another $10, 000. 00 to complete it and we' ll
expect that in the spring of 1989.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 34
Hasek: That ' s really based on the labor right? They' re not providing the II
labor to build it?
Sietsema : The $10,000.00 over? Yes , basically they went over budget II because 3 years of increased prices while it sat out there for 2 years and
then they didn' t have the volunteer labor . They had to pay for it. If I
could have a motion directing me what you really want me to do, that would '
be helpful .
Hasek: I think I 'd inform them that we' re not going to complete the
structure at this time. Whether we put a floor in it or not, I guess I 'd II
like to see it but I 'm certainly not going to hold things up because I
want a floor.
Sietsema: This is a recommendation that goes to Council . '
Hasek: If we recommend that we not complete the structure at this time. I
That if anything , we' ll budget it for next year and we contact the Legion
and let them know exactly what's going on. What our intentions are and
ask them what their intentions are based on what we know needs to be done
to that to complete it. How they would like to handle the payment for
that. That' s my recommendation.
Sietsema : Would you like to also include in that, to contact the Legion,
that we' re expecting their monthly payment starting immediately? So they
can prove that they do have the ability to pay?
Boyt: No , just that we expect it. Not to prove to us .
Hasek: We trust they' re going to pay.
Boyt: I don' t think that' s being too hard on them. '
Schroers : Are we open for discussion on this a little bit? I don' t know
that we want to say that we would recommend not to complete. I would
think that we would like to . . .
Hasek: Delay completion? '
Schroers : Not even delay completion. I would like it to say that we
would intend to proceed as planned and we would just like them to start
their payments as scheduled and to proceed with the shelter as best they
can or ask how they intend to. I don' t know that we want to say that we
want to delay or stop the progress of completing the shelter .
Sietsema: They can' t proceed without us lending them $10, 000. 00.
Boyt: They can raise the $10,000.00 on their own. '
Mady: What we' re doing is we should be recommending that the City not
spend any more funds to complete the Lake Ann shelter and ask the Legion
how they expect to proceed with it. At this time we will not expend any
further funds to finish it from the City budget and nail the Legion to
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 35
come up with ideas to finish the structure.
Robinson : We' ve got a financial problem so throw it in their court.
' Schroers: If we make that statement and we' re saying that we are not
planning to go ahead with construction or with finishing it, we' re kind of
' telling them that the thing is on hold and they' re going to say, okay, the
thing ' s on hold so now we can sit on it for a while and that' s exactly
what 's going to happen. Nothing.
Boyt : We can just deal with the financial . Just say that we' re waiting
for payment and want to know what their plans are for the future
completion.
Sietsema: Except that the City contacted them and said if they didn' t get
on the ball we were going to take it over and we took over the project.
Boyt : Well , they still owe us money.
Sietsema: The City is now in the driver ' s sit of completing this project .
' I went out and got the quotes for $10, 000. 00. I was hopefully going to be
able to get this thing done by the 4th of July. Again, another deadline
has gone by but I continually get pressure from the public and from the
' Council on what' s happening with this thing so I called up Bernie and I
said, can I just take it over and go ahead and bill you guys?
Schroers : That ' s all the more reason that we don' t want to say that we' re
' putting it on hold right?
Boyt: If we bill them, would they pay?
' Sietsema : $500. 00. They made two payments last year .
' Boyt: Last year. Okay, then maybe we need to deal with the fact that we
billed them and they didn' t pay.
Mady: What we definitely need to deal with, what Lori is asking us to do
is asking to spend $10, 000. 00 and finish the project.
Boyt : I don' t think we want to . It doesn' t sound like we want to .
Mady: We need to vote on that and then we need to deal with the Legion
also .
' Sietsema : What I 'd like to do then is to tell the Legion that no , we do
not have it in our 1988 budget to spend $10, 000. 00, loan them $10, 000. 00
more. Please make your payments and we will look to budgeting for this
' project in 1989, if that's what you' re planning on doing.
Hasek: That basically I guess is what I thought I had said . That we
' would tell them that we haven' t got $10, 000. 00 to loan them. That we' re
not going to loan that to them at this time and try to get them to suggest
ways that they can complete this project themselves. If they decided that
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28, 1988 - Page 36
they' re not going to be able to complete it , and they send us a letter '
saying that, then we've got the option. Then our options are open. Then
we can say, okay are we going to spend the money to complete this thing
next year? Are we going to move it? Maybe we' ll have a plan by then? It II
pushes the decision off for us but it also allows them time.
Sietsema: It can open the door back up to put it back in their ballpark
and say, if you can get the labor together and finish it, that would be
wonderful .
Hasek: You might also suggest that you ' ve gotten a lot of phone calls
from people in this city.
Sietsema : They know. They get grief when they' re up there playing ball . I
All the Legion members and the Sons of American Legion.
Mady: We've got a motion on the floor and I think Susan seconded it.
We'd be glad to know what the motion is.
Sietsema : Ed moved to recommend that we not expend the money now in 1988
to complete the project but budget it for 1989. Also, ask the Legion what I
their intention of payment is and that we expect their payment and to
suggest to them that they proceed with getting volunteer labor to finish
the project. '
Mady: One thing that we talked about in there was, you said that we would
put in our budget. I 'd say that we' ll look to put in our budget. I don' t
want at this point , commit to putting $10,000. 00 in our budget to finish •
that shelter .
Schroers : Not to make it more complicated but on the volunteer labor or
other resources.
Hasek moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission '
recommend not to expend any funds at this point but to look at budgeting
the $10,000. 00 in the 1989 budget. Also, to ask the Legion of their
intention for payment of the $15, 000.00 and that payment is expected.
Also , suggest that the Legion consider volunteer labor or other resources
for finishing of the park shelter. All voted in favor and the motion
carried . '
-_
FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION.
Hoffman: This is written to the Commission to inform you on what is being
planned for the weekend. To keep you updated. There' s a schedule of
events also that was left with you. '
The Commission discussed their schedule for helping during the Fourth of
July celebration over the weekend.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
June 28 , 1988 - Page 37
' Hasek moved , Schroers seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
1
1
4=7
„AI
wilorm Mar. ...Li