1986 12 15
I
I
I
57
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 1986
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving and
Councilwoman Watson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, City Manager; Barbara Dacy, City Planner;
William Engelhardt, Acting City Engineer; Gary Warren, City Engineer; Lori
Sietsema, Park and Recreation Dirctor; and Roger Knutson, City Attorney.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Horn
asked for a comment from the City Administrators as to how they were going to
fill the Public Safety Office. Don Ashworth stated that he would like to
discuss that under Position Classification. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman
Geving seconded to move item 1 (b) of the Consent Agenda to item 9(a) on the
Agenda. Mayor Hamilton stated that during Council Presentations he would give
a brief overview of the National League of Cities Conference that he attended.
All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recorrmendations:
(a) Resolution #86-88: Final Acceptance of utilities, pheasant Hills 2nd
and 3rd Additions, Tom Klingelhutz, 8551 Tigua Circle.
(c) Approval of 1987 Prosecution Contract, Carver County.
(d) Authorization to Prepare Access Plan for Herman Field.
(e) Approval of MnDot Agency Agreement. F\c.s-o \ ~. ,
s~~~g\,\
(f) Approval of Change Order No.2, Lake Drive East Project.
(g) Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance 33-E.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION:
Dan Peters, representing KSMM Radio Station on Hwy 212 out by the old
Assumption Seminary. KSMM has served the surrounding community from it's
present site on TH 212 across from the former Assumption Seminary since 1961.
Being under the strict supervision of the Federal Communications Commission,
the Station recently was issued a construction permit to retune it's antenna
pattern. This will give added protection to other stations which share the
same frequency. In the past, some of this protection was accomplished by
reducing the power output substantially at certain times of the day. However,
at this time a second small tower must be added at the present site. This
tower is 73 feet shorter than the other. This will effectively decrease our
1
58
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
radiation to the south and east. If the construction on the exchanges can not
be completed a hard winter freeze and heavy snowfalls, it will force delaying
until spring and this will mean a loss of thousands of dollars in revenues.
Therefore, KSMM requests:
I
(1) That the site not be required to follow procedures for a Conditional
Use Permit as the site has been used for radio transmission towers
for the past 25 years;
(2) That the City of Chanhassen waive the normal Thirty (30) day
requirements for a building permit application to enable construction
to begin immediately during this break in the weather.
Mayor Hamil ton: You are still going to have to go through normal channels.
We can certainly put it on a fast track. I'm sure but you are going to have
to work with Planning Staff and Planning Commission. I appreciate your
bringing it here this evening but we won't do anything on if so if you would
call Barbara and work with her and you will have to at least be on the
Planning Commission Agenda and then corne to the Council.
Dan Peters: I was under the impression from my brief discussion with Barb
that the one thing that we did need to get the Council to put their blessing
on, so to speak, was that the waiving of the Conditional Use thing so we could
just go through the normal channels rather than having to go through a
Conditional Use as well.
Mayor Hamilton: You will still have to go through Barbara because we want
Staff's input on this and we're not going to sit here this evening and say we
will or we won't without Staff input on this. Thank you for bringing this to
us and we certainly will help you and work with you as quickly as possible.
I
A. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DISTRICT 14 NOMINATIONS.
Don Ashworth: I'm not sure if you are aware or not of the fact that Mr.
Joachim is seeking reelection. You also have Marcy Wards from the City of
Chanhassen who is interested in this position. A group of cities representing
District 14 would like to have a, I guess I will call it a Meet the Candidates
Meeting in Shakopee corning up here on December 23rd at which time the
candidates would have an opportunity to meet all of the Councils and see if
there could be a joint resolution from all of the cities basically endorsing
one candidate. That is again the recommendation from the group of cities the
recommendation is being brought back from each of the City Councils. Again,
it is your decision as to whether or not you would proceed in that fashion or
if you wish to make a specific designation.
Councilman Geving: I would like to make a statement on this particular issue.
We have had representation from Mr. Joachim and he has represented our area
quite well I believe on several issues but I also believe that we do have a
Chanhassen citizen who is interested in this position. Marcy Wards has called I
me. We've talked and she has not formally announced that she is interested in
this position. She has let it be known that she is interested. She has not
submitted a formal letter to any of the cities. However, she has indicated to
2
I
I
I
1;1,9
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
a number of people that she is interested and would accept the nomination if
she were selected by the City. I would like to approach the Council with this
in mind and send a letter of endorsement in the name of Marcy Wards as our
candidate for this position. Councilwoman Swenson seconded the motion.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have talked with Marcy also and I guess I wasn't
real pleased about the way she went about approaching letting people know that
she would have this posi tion. She called me and stated that Ray Joachim was
going to retire and consequently she was wanting the position. After I talked
with Ray and he assured me that he was not retiring and he was still very
interested in being reappointed to his position, I was a little miffed at why
Marcy would approach this position in that manner. This is strictly a
poli tical appointment probably at it's best I think and Marcy was the... Ray
has been a DFLer for a long time and a gooo party member and so is Marcy and
their candidate won the election this last Fall so consequently their throwing
her the bone which would be possibly be on the Metropolitan Council but Ray
has supported us well I feel in the past years. He has done a good job for
us. Ray is not the most outgoing or articulate person I've ever met but by
golly, when you call him and you tell him you've got a problem and you need
his help and you want him to go to bat for you, he is there and he usually has
2 or 3 of the other Council members there on his side to help him and I have a
really hard time just pushing Ray aside after all he's done for us. I agree
very much with the cities want to get together and discuss this and we should
come up with a unified endorsement of a person we would like to have on the
Metropolitan Council. He worked well with the communities in our area
previously and I think we should do that again. If I have toI will attend
that meeting although it's a difficult time for me because it's very busy in
my business.
Councilwoman Watson: I guess I agree with you Tom from the standpoingt that
for the first time we are attempting to get some input into the choice of this
person. As you say, it is and always has been unique cronyism and for the
first time the cities are saying let's get together, let's come up with a
choice between us and try and get this person chosen and it's the way we
always felt that it should be done. That the cities within a district should
have something to say about who this person is and they have always been sort
of handed to us and at least if we follow this process, it is the beginnings
of the ability for the various districts to get together and choose the
candidates so whichever candidate, I'm sure will work and do the very best for
our City but I like the idea of the cities getting together and attempting to
make a choice and submit that person as a unified group.
Councilman Horn: I felt that we had done that last time this came up. I
think if I'm not mistaken, almost a unanimous position by all of the cities
who we wanted our representative to be last time and the input had no effect
at all. It was just as Tom described it as a political bone that was given so
I'm not terribly optimistic that this isn't an exercise in futility.
Councilwoman Watson: Wasn't the last candidate we chose though a Republican
trying to work in a Democratic situation? I don't think we had a prayer last
time but these at least are both Democrats.
3
60
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm agreeing with Dale.
I
Councilman Geving: I think the only other thing we need to decide is who can
make the meeting on the 23rd? I will be available if no other candidates
volunteer.
Mayor Hamilton: If you can't I would go but as I said, it's a busy time for
me to get away as well if somebody else can make it because I think it's
important that we're represented.
Councilman Geving: I noticed that they changed the meeting place. Have we
got that settled now where that's going to be? At the Scott County
Courthouse?
Council woman Swenson: Yes, Shakopee.
Councilman Horn: I think there was another issue too that we might want to
consider and that is the fact that the Chairmanship at the Metropoli tan
Council is changing. I guess I felt that the previous Chairman did listen to
our petitions much better and I don't know how much of this is affected by
our representative and how much was affected by the Chairman of the Council
but I think we should take that into consideration when we make our decision.
Mayor Hamilton: I think Ray had a very good working relationship with Sandy
Gardebring. They seemed to get along well and I think he had a great deal of
confidence in her and I think she thought that he brought something good to
the Council.
I
Councilman Geving: Do you know anything about the new Chairman?
Mayor Hamilton: No, I don't. Perhaps that could be a topic of conversation
with the other cities also.
Councilman Geving: Just to continue our conversation, maybe it would be wise
for us to make a formal endorsement tonight and attend the meeting and see how
the comments of the candidates who present themselves and I suspect they are
going to have speak before the group and present their candidancy and make a
statement and at time we might have a better understanding.
Mayor Hamilton: I believe we have until the end of January to give an
endorsement.
Councilman Horn: I think it's a little premature to endorse somebody.
Councilman Geving: I would like to withdraw my statement earlier and the
motion that I made with the understanding that as we attend this particular
meeting, we will have a better feeling for the candidates and the other cities
that are being represented heard by the candidates. We still have about
approximatley a month to formally announce an endorsement for when it is so
I'll withdraw my nomination at this time.
Councilwoman Swenson withdrew her second.
I
4
I
I
I
61
,City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: With that then we will just leave it that either Dale or I
will attend the meeting and perhaps Don you will want to go to that meeting as
well.
Don Ashworth: I think you should have a motion though endorsing the concept
presented by the group of cities.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to reach a consensus among
the cities regarding Metropolitan Council District 14 nominations. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamil ton stated that the next item is some comments from the Historial
Society. Susan Dreydoppel representing the Carver County Historical Society
was present at the meeting and stated that the Historial Society wanted to
know if the City Council was interested in supporting their project. Mayor
Hamilton asked if she meant supporting the Society verbally, financially or
something else. Ms. Dreydoppel stated it could be all of the above but
basically financially. Councilman Geving asked what extent financially was
she talking. Ms. Dreydoppel stated she did not have exact figures. The
Arboretum gave the Historical Society until April, 1987 to come up with a plan
to produce financing for the project and there is another group that is
primarily handling the funding aspects. Councilman Geving asked if the home
was furnished. Ms. Dreydoppel said that there was not furniture, it had been
abandoned. Mayor Hamilton asked if the home needed repair. Ms. Dreydoppel
said that the home needed some repair but she had been told that the home was
structurally fairly sound. Mayor Hamilton asked if the home had to be moved
off the property. Ms. Dreydoppel said that the Arboretum had said that if
someone else would take care of the upkeep and maintenance on the home, it
could stay where it is. Mayor Hamilton stated that from his own standpoint he
would be interested in looking further at the historical significance of the
Bost Home am for Ms. Dreydoppel to keep the City Council informed am let
them know what it is they need.
AWARD OF BIDS:
A. '!WO WHEEL DRIVE TRACTOR.
Don Ashworth stated that Jerry Schlenk was present at the meeting if the
Council had any questions. Don Ashworth stated that he recommended awarding
to the low bidder, Lano Equipment.
Councilman Geving asked if the bids were opened by more than one person and
were the bids verified at that point. Don Ashworth stated yes. Councilman
Geving asked who opened the bids and who reviewed it. Don Ashworth stated
that Jerry Schlenk and Harold Brose were both present when the bids were
opened and verified by Karen Engelhardt as far as the time. Councilman Geving
stated that he was concerned about the ham written figure on Lano Equipment's
bid which is darker than all the other figures on the bid which made it look
like it had been inserted. Jerry Schlenk stated that that was the price that
was on the bid when opened.
5
62
city Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Horn stated that he thought the City should require that all bids
be typed on pertinent data instead of handwritten. He also asked by did they
need an AM/FM radio in a tractor. Don Ashworth stated that you are putting a
man in a tractor for an extended period of time and that an AM/FM radio is
standard in all of the City's vehicles. Councilman Horn stated that the
loader did not have a radio. Jerry Schlenk stated that they are planning on
putting a radio in the loader.
I
Resolution #86-89(A): Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded
acceptance of the bid from Lano Equipment Company for the purchase of one new
two wheel all purpose tractor in the amount of $15,925.00. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Councilman Horn stated that he thought in the past the City Council had had a
chance to review the specification sheet before reviewing the bids and that
did not happen in this case. Mayor Hamilton stated that they could be put on
the mailing list so the specifications can be mailed out at the same time they
are mailed out to the people who are going to bid. Don Ashworth apologized
for not doing that. He stated that he would put that in the Administrative
Section with the next bid.
AWARD FOR BID:
B. FOUR WHEEL DRIVE ARTICULATED LOADER.
Mayor Hamilton stated that there was not bid received from Ziegler, Inc.. I
Road Machinery & Supply, Lake State Equipment and Long Lake Ford Tractor were
asked to bid and did not respond. The bids received were for a new tractor
and used tractor and the bids were within the amount budgeted. Mayor Hamilton
stated that Ziegler, Inc. was going to give the new Loader at the same price
as the used Loader because they were not able to locate a used machine. Don
Ashworth stated that a represetative from Ziegler was present at the meeting
with Jerry Schlenk. Mr. Ashworth asked the representative from Ziegler, Inc.
if indeed they would furnish a new machine at the used machine price. Merlin
Sackrim, representing Ziegler, Inc. stated that yes, they would provide a new
machine at the price bid for the machine.
Resolution #86-89(B): Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
accept the bid from Ziegler, Inc. in the amount of $81,103.00 for a new Four
Wheel Drive Articulated Loader. All voted in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Minutes of
the City Council meeting dated December 1, 1986. All voted in favor except
Mayor Hamilton who abstained and motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to approve the Minutes of
the City Council meeting dated December 3, 1986 as amended on pages 34 and 40
by Councilman Horn. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who abstained I
and motion carried.
6
I
I
I
63
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to note the Minutes of the Park
and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 2, 1986. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Councilman Geving stated that the City Council should meet with the Park and
Recreation Commission as soon as possible in January to go over their Capital
Improvement Program as well as any other goals and long range plans to
establish common goals.
REQUEST TO REMOVE NO PARKING SIGNS ON UTICA LANE, WILLIAM AND KATHY
ENGEBRETSON.
Mayor Hamilton: When we acted on this previously and we asked Jim Castleberry
to go back and talk to some of the neighborhood people and you have that
information before you.
Don Ashworth: You have the survey from Jim and you have a peti tion letter
from the Engebretsons as well.
Councilwoman Watson: The no parking signs were originally requested because
of very definite parking problems in relationship to the park. I would say
those problems have been solved. From reading this, it is apparently the
consensus of opinion among the people along there that they want the signs to
stay. I guess it was a case of majority rules. They went up and I suppose
it is a case of majority rules whether they come down or not.
Councilman Geving: I seem to recall that when we did this action back in the
early 1980's, we don't just put up signs arbitrarily. These were requested by
the neighborhood. We were having a lot of problems along Lake Lucy Road and
in the Carver Beach area and as a result of the input from citizens, we went
ahead and installed no parking signs in both of those areas. I think they
accomplished a purpose. I think we have diminished a lot of the problems that
we had at both Carver Beach and Greenwood Shores because of the parking
situation. I have to believe that even the people who are making this
petition tonight were part of the original petition that wanted the signs.
Let me understand though, is this the end where the Engebretsons live, is this
the last sign on Utica Lane?
Councilwoman Watson: No.
Councilman Geving: So this would be right in the middle of the signs?
Councilwoman Watson: Sort of in the middle of the signs.
William Engebretson: This is at the end of the signs. What we're asking for
is just take down the signs in front of our property so when we get company
we're not violating the parking ordinance if they park out there.
Mayor Hamilton: we realize what you're asking for.
William Engebretson: We're not asking to take down all the signs allover the
area. We're at the end of the line and I think the parking problem has been
7
64
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
greatly diminished. In recent years the people walk in from the adjoining
areas and parking really hasn't been that much of a problem in the area that
I've seen in the last few years. What the original concern was in the
neighborhood was a lot of other people coming in and using the park and making
a lot of noise at the park. I don't think it's a problem with parking.
I
Councilman Geving: If we remove this sign in front of your home, would there
still be no parking signs to the east of where you live?
William Engebretson: No.
Councilman Geving: Yours is the last home?
William Engebretson: It's the last one on the west side of the street.
Councilwoman Watson: It's not supposed to be the last one of the west side of
street however. It is only because the sign just doesn't happen to be in
Way's yard anymore but the signs are to run up so they are even. It is to
run up to Way's and Marcy's property line just as they do on Mr. Benson's
side of the street. Right now, you are right but technically, there always
should have been one up there. Way's always had a sign until like last summer
when it disappeared one night and it never got put up again but they were to
run, they ran to our property line and right across from us on Marcy's and
Way's property line. That was the ending point of the signs and Mr. Benson
still has one on our side of the road but like I said, Way's disappeared I
during the night last summer and it was never replaced but techically, when we
were told they put up, they had to be on both sides of the street and run
uniformally within whatever area but the pattern had to be uniform as far as
parking in order for the officers to have any idea of where the beginning and
ending of those signs are to take place. If the vote is to keep the signs up,
then that sign on Way's property should be put back so the uniformity exists
but they are right right now, they have the last sign because it disappeared
last sumner.
Councilman Geving: (be of the points that you made Bill was that if you
parked in the street and you had visitors over, you would be violating the
Ordinance on no parking. It is my understanding that you could call the
Sheriff's office for that event, let's say it was a holiday event or party
that you were having and they would disregard the no parking.
William Engebretson: I've called several times and it usually takes 3 or 4
calls to get to the right person to get it on the patrol car list. Getting
back to the parking thing, the original problem was not the parking, it was
the noise in the park.
Councilman Horn: First of all, I am appalled to hear that last statement
about if you call the Sheriff's Department you won't have it enforced. What is
the purpose of having the sign there in the first place if you don't enforce
it. My other concern is the fact that we put up City Parks and then we put no
parking signs in front of them so people can't use them. In my opinion, if we I
are going to put no parking signs out so they become private parks, we
shouldn't spend any money on improving them.
8
65
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
I Mayor Hamilton: So you are saying that you would not be in favor of...
Councilman Horn: I think all the signs should come down.
Mayor Hamilton: Being able to call the Sheriff's Department for an evening?
Councilman Horn: Yes, I think the signs there should be enforced uniformally
and if you like, the City Attorney could comment on it.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's a matter of we're not a Gestapo I hope yet and
it would seem to me that if we want to have good relations with our fellow
citizens and with the Sheriff's Department, we would be able to do those types
of things without offending anyone or causing a great deal of problems within
our community.
Counci~an Horn: Selected enforcement?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know if that's selected enforcement if you call ahead
of time and you state that you going to have additional cars parking in front
of your house and you would like them not to enforce the law for that evening
and the Council has already approved that, how is that selected enforcement?
I
Councilman Horn: Why would it be some special event? Why couldn't somebody
call in and say they want to use the park the next day?
Mayor Hamilton: I suppose they would have that opportunity to do that.
Don Ashworth: I think you have to look at the purpose and intent of anything
that is passed by the City Council. You have a number of examples of where we
have no parking overnight in the residential areas. If someone did have a
party and it went past 12:00 at night, technically they would be in violation.
The intent of that type of regulation is to insure that in case of snowfall we
can clear the streets. If there is no problem, I don't see where it harms the
purpose and intent of the Ordinance to allow parking on a street for a party
or in this case, if they had guests over and to allow parking in that
instance.
Councilman Geving: The only other point I want to make is that we did get a
letter expressing quite a bit of sentiment from the neighbors that they want
to leave the signs up. I have indications here of seven neighbors in that
neighborhood on utica Lane and Tecumseh, all indicating that they want to
leave the signs up. They feel that it is a police enforcement measure. It
controls the traffic and it gas quieted the neighborhood down so I get the
impression that the neighbors of the Engebretson's would like to see the signs
left as is. There was one suggestion in that is kind of intriguing. They
said leave the signs up on one side of the street. That's a possibility.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: That was going to be my comment. If the PeOple on the
other side of the street haven't any objection, why don't we just leave it on
one side? The concern seems to be that the street is too narrow and that
there would be a traffic problem created on the curb if parking on both sides
were to continue. If we were to park on one side, if that would alleviate the
9
~~
\01""
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
problem. I think if there is a dangerous curve there then by all means the
sign should be up at a minimum around the curve.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: But don't you think that is going to create the same problem
again in the summertime when the park opens and they are parking on the side
where parking would be allowed to use the park?
Councilwoman Swenson: I don't think there are any easy solutions.
Don Chmiel: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I live at 711313 Tecumseh. I
think the real intent of having the signs is probably what you are reading.
It has eliminated a lot of the problems, a lot of the concerns. Mainly during
the early morning hours at 2:1313 we've had different situations arise where
there are still parties going on down at the lake and then in addition to
that, when those people left afterwards, you were cleaning up behind them
picking up the beer cans, the pop bottles, the other bottles that they were
also consuming and it did leave an undesirable amount of problems within the
area. I think by keeping the signs as they are and if Bill and Kathy do have
problems with parking, I myself have called the Sheriff and I haven't called
them anymore than one time and indicated that we were having a wedding
reception or having a bunch of guests over and they would adhere so they knew
that, we never had any problems at all but there were existing problems as far
as the park is concerned. It is not too much of a pleasure waking up at 2:1313-
3:1313 a.m. with car doors slamming and people running around and different
things occurring so with that I would ask that those signs do remain.
I
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to deny the request to
remove the No Parking Signs on utica Lane, to leave them as they are and ask
that the Engebretsons work with the Sheriff's Department and City Hall. All
voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried.
STREET CONNECTIONS:
A. FRONTIER TRAIL
B. FOX HOLLOW DRIVE
Mayor Hamilton: 'Ihese items were both on the agenda December 1st. Public
input was taken at that time. It was stated by Councilman Geving at that
meeting that there would be no further public input this evening. We will
vote on the issue. However, there were several questions raised that evening
about some concerns that residents and we would like to have Barb respond to
those questions and we will proceed to vote.
Barbara Dacy: Both myself and Mr. Engelhardt will respond to the 113 or 11
questions. I would just like to start out with five of them. First of all,
there was a question as to whether or not a community that contains a number
of cul-de-sacs is a safer community. We asked Jim Castleberry, the Public
Safety Director to contact various State and Federal Agencies. His information
back to me was that he could not find any studies to prove or disprove that I
particular statement. Secondly, there was a question as to why the street was
not connected several years ago and there is a two point answer to that
particular question. One is that. the City will undertake it's own improvement
113
I
I
I
67
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
projects. Typically in a situation where there is a major street that needs
to be constructed. For example, Kerber Blvd. is an example of that where a
major collector was needed to service interior properties. Secondarily, to
extend a major trunk sewer or water line is another example of a project that
a City will undertake on it's own. However, to complete minor residential
streets as part of subdivision requests that has not been a part of
Chanhassen's budgetary process. In this particular instance too there was
some historical factors that effected development timing of that parcel. As
was noted at the last meeting, there were two plans considered in 1969 and
1980. The 1980 plan didn't reach the preliminary plat stage for approval.
However, the Watershed District did not issue a permit be because of drainage
concerns regarding the creek as it entered into Lotus Lake. What the
Watershed District required was an installation of a pipe and a drainage pond
to retain the runoff from the northwestern area. Because of ownership and
development timing, we now have those improvements as part of the Triple Crown
plat to the north so it is a variety of those issues that unfortunately
prevented the connection to Kerber Blvd. at an earlier date. That leads to a
third question as to why it was necessary to even show the previous plans or
why the historical background is necessary. Often times local government is
criticized for being inconsistent in decision making over a period of time and
it is Staff's responsibility to inform the Council of past Planning Commission
and City Council actions. Fifth question was as to the enforcement issue. If
the street is connected, what will be the City's and/or County's commitment to
enforce the speed laws. Again, we contacted the Public Safety Director and he
offered a suggestion in that additional personnel will be hired in the
upcoming 1987 budget. If requested, neighborhood speed checks could be
conducted. Secondarily, the neighborhood could also help by establishing it's
own safety programs like a Neighborhood Watch program, etc.. Another
suggestion that was brought to my attention was that immediately after the
street is connected that the police be instructed to post the area and to
speed check the area immediately to establish a presence of enforcement when
the connection takes place. The remaining amount of the questions deal with
the design and site distance and curvature and those items will be addressed
by the Acting City Engineer as well as the liability issue and the City
Attorney is present as well.
Bill Engelhardt: We had eight questions that came before us and asked a
number of questions. The questions concerned design of the roadway and
potential use of the roadway. The first question is what is the expected
traffic flow from the 91 new homes in Chan vista. Looking at the plat and
kind of taking a path of least resistance for that path, we're estimating that
approximately 38 homes or 40% could use that road if they sO.choose if they
found that that was more convenient to use it than to use the faster and the
more direct route of Kerber Blvd.. That would result in 360 trips or 180 in
and 180 out. The 360 is arrived at by using 10 trips per day per unit which
is a guideline from transportation planning handbooks. As pointed out in the
December 1st hearing, it is anticipated that a portion of the lots north of
Highland Drive and Kerber Blvd. on Frontier Trail will utilize the new
Frontier Trail or Kerber Blvd. and there are 49 lots in this area and we have
not attempted to estimate how many of those homes would use that new
connection but we feel that there is real potential for them to use that
route. The second question was what is the expected traffic flow from Carver
11
68
,City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Beach once that is connected am during the discussion at the December 1st I
hearing, it came up that the Carver Beach connection would be a fairly
expensive connection and before we can really comment on that, you are looking
at doing additional study to determine whether if that alignment is even
feasible. The third question, where are the hazard areas currently on
Frontier Trail? What is the road width at these locations and what is the
angle of incline? I've got a map that we put together, this is a half section
map of the roadway and I went through and dug out the old plats of the road.
The plats range from 1939 to 1962. The upper portion was platted in 1962 and
this portion was platted in 1939. We looked at the dimensions and the radius
for the curves and I selected the five larger curves that we might have
a problem with as far as design speed. We found that the first curve to the
north has a radius of 191.7 feet which translates into a degree of curvature
of 29.8 degrees. Looking in the design handbooks, that radius and degree of
curve would have a design speed of 27 mph. All of your residential streets
are posted or by Statute are 30 mph so that one is slightly under the design
speed. The second curve that we looked at has a radius of 215 feet and degree
of curvature of 26.64 and that is a design speed of 30 mph. That one does
meet all the criteria for a 30 mph speed. The third curve has a radius of 310
feet and degree of curvature of 18.4 degrees and that is a design speed again
of 30 mph. The fourth curve has a radius of 200 feet and degree of curvature
of 28.65 translating into design speed of 25 mph. The fifth curve I looked at
has a 52 foot radius and degree of curvature of 110 and design speed of less
than 20 mph. What this means is that the two curves or three curves that are
a little less than 30 mph should have advisory signs posted on them for speed I
limi t of less than 30 mph. The second issue that we looked at as far as the
design of the roadway to fim out if it was in conformance wi th the Stamards
of the City was the sight distance and we went through and used a conservative
approach looking at the sight distance for the inside lane am we found that
it does meet the sight distance standard of the City of every 100 feet you are
able to see within the right-of-way. Right-of-way on the roadway is a 60 foot
right-of-way from Santa Fe Trail to the north and it is platted as a 66 foot
right-of-way from Santa Fe Trail down to West 78th Street.
Councilwoman Swenson: When you say 60 feet, is that all the way up to the
cul-de-sac on the far northern section here?
Bill Engelhardt: The 60 foot right-of-way runs from Santa Fe Trail all the
way up to the em of the cul-de-sac.
Councilwoman Swenson: So there is plenty of room to widen that?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: Before we get too far off the subject, on the first
curve there, would you be good enough to give me the distance again?
Bill Engelhardt: The radius was 191.7 feet and using that radius we can
calculate the degree of curvature as 29.8 and if you look in the handbooks,
the 26 degree curve is a 30 mph curve so this falls slightly less than 30 mph
am you would be looking at a design speed for that curve of 27 mph then the
sight distance or what I have calculated as the m value on 100 foot sight
I
12
I
I
I
69
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
distance, you would have an obstruction 6.65 feet away so what that tells you
is that the actual, physical roadway is 28 feet in width, dividing in half
gives you two 14 foot lanes. I'm using the center line of the inside lane
which would be 7 feet off the center line of the total distance and that sight
distance is still within that blacktop area so you are well within the 30 foot
right-of-way for that side of the road. The vertical sight distance on the
roadway, we didn't physically go out am measure. We didn't think it was
warranted. I drove it a number of times and I didn't see any curve or any
vertical distance that would be over 8% am the City guidelines are 8%. I did
find one spot that had a slight vertical sight distance problem. I believe it
is coming up to Santa Fe Trail am at that point you are coming up to a stop
sign so it's not a through, if you are driving through that one, there could
be some potential problems there but there is a stop sign there so you have to
stop anyhow. The fourth question was, given the specifications the City has
to follow, what is the maximum traffic flow am speed for these areas. Again,
by Statute, the speed limit is 30 mph. That speed limit could be reduced but
you would have to go to the Minnesota Department of Transportation am request
a speed zone study to be conducted and you will find that what they do is go
out am monitor the speed that the road is actually being used at am
generally you will find that it comes back at 30-35 mph range. Very seldom do
you see where they are going way down to 15 or 20. Traffic volumes, from a
design standpoint for two lane roadway, a two lane roadway can handle up to
10,000 vehicles per day am that is way at the extreme but that is
theoretically what a two lane roadway can handle. At that point they say you
should construct a four lane roadway. The Metropolitan Council has come up
with guidelines and they are strictly guidelines for residential areas and
they say that the trips per day for residential areas should be about 1,000
am that is basically, again has nothing to do with design, it is just what
the Metropolitan Council said should be good for a neighborhood area. Using
the 1,000 vehicles per day, if you look at the actual plats and taking the 40%
or even if you want to use 50% of the 91 homes, 1,000 vehicles per day has an
accumulated effect so your 1,000 is maybe going to be on your lower end but
your upper reaches aren't going to come anywhere near the 1,000 so you might
have a potential problem way down at the end just when they come onto West
78th but in your upper em am through the midsection there just aren't enough
houses on there to generate more than 1,000 vehicles per day so based on this
analysis we would say that Frontier Trail would function as a residential
street. The fifth question, what is the City/County prepared to do to enforce
these and Barb had that answered in her report. Question 6, will the measured
traffic flow require the widening of street and installation of walking paths?
Frontier Trail as it exists today meets the design stamards for a residential
street and unless the traffic volumes get way up there, no changes are
recommended. Sidewalks could be constructed to accommodate pedestrian
traffic. Who will pay for these improvements? It is the general policy of
most municipalities, including this one that if improvements are undertaken,
that the benefitted properties are assessed for those improvements. What is
the City Attorney's position on the City's liability for imividual property
damage that results from the City failing to follow established road safety
standards, Barbara contacted Mr. Knutson am he can answer for himself but
what I am recommending on here is that if we post the advisory signs on the
roadway for the reduced speeds through the curve that that should satisfy our
liabili ty.
13
70
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: Would you like to corrment further on that Roger?
I
Roger Knutson: I think that sums it up. Basically, the Standard has the
meaning that you can not be negligent in our design and the best way to
determine that is by hiring a professional consultant as to whether the
designs are adequate or not.
Barbara Dacy: To conclude Mr. Mayor, Staff maintains their original
recommendation to connect the streets. The Council has three options
available to them. To connect it, not connect it or connect the streets with
a physical separation and if you do choose to recommend connection with a
physical separation, some type of barrier gate, etc., that that final design
be brought back for final Council action at a future date.
Councilman Horn: I was wondering if the City Engineer had conferred with the
County Engineer as to their statements of the last meeting?
Bill Engelhardt: I talked to the County Engineer and two of his staff members
had talked to the people that spoke at the initial meeting. The County
Engineer felt that his Staff was commenting totally on their own. That they
were looking at what the Standards are for designing County Roads and not
necessarily municipal streets. They are not in tuned to municipal street work
in residential street areas. He was a little upset that his people had even
made corrments on it.
Councilman Horn: There was one other question that I had had and I thought it
was part of our Comprehensive Plan that we designate the major thoroughfares
through Chanhassen for major traffic movement. I didn't see that in our
Minutes and I was wondering if you recall that reference in our Camp Plan?
I
Barbara Dacy: I don't recall from our last meeting but yes, there is the
Transportation element in the Comp Plan which does identify which streets are
arterials and which are collectors. Kerber Blvd. is a collector, TH 5 is an
arterial, Powers Blvd. is a collector.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would have some recommendations that I would submit.
I had the recommendation proposed to me that if we were to make a nT" at the
Chan vista side with a green way between that and the cul-de-sac and allowing
the emergency vehicles to get through and then allowing the determination of
need to develop, which I'm sure it will do. However, in retrospect this isn't
going to work because I don't know where the plows would go with the snow and
we could wind up with 10 feet of snow piled up which would obviously make it
impossible for the emergency vehicles to get through. That was the first and
obviously the last. The second would be that if it was proposed that the
street would go through, the time of the physical installation, the
residentials that are so opposed to this, at least towards Laredo, but I was
going to say donate but obviously we already have somewhere between 11 and 16
feet on either side of the road now which would be useable as has already been
mentioned by the Engineer for a walkway, so that could be done in conjunction I
with it. I would recommend if we did in fact open it up that that would be a
proviso that would be determined at the time of the installation. Secondly, a
proviso would be that we would have no parking signs posted on either side of
14
I
I
I
71
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
the road where at least the first two curves between Laredo Drive and the cul-
de-sac if that is correct. I don't find the rest that bad. I have been up
there a couple of times and there has been a truck parked right on the
northern most curve and I guess I'm a little apprehensive about that. I would
like to see if in fact the road is recommended to go through, no parking signs
be put on those curves which should give sight distance. I am particularly in
favor of the idea of having a walking path. I realize that people don't want
trespassers or other people walking on their grass but it is an easement it is
officially an easement therefore they wouldn't be trespassing. I know we
don't like to have our kids trespassing on somebody elses lawn but inasmuch as
this is already right-of-way. It seems to me that either one or all three of
these things would certainly help to eliminate the danger to the youngsters
which is my greatest concern. However, I am equally concerned with the fact
that the provisions have been suggested by all of our Staff, all of our
Commissions that are connected with this are in the affirmative and I can not
in conscience deny that so those would be my recommendations and that's all I
have to say.
Councilman Geving: I have just a comment or two. I want to ask Bill, after
you gave your presentation Bill I got thinking about some of the design curves
that are less than 30 mph and I believe you indicated at least two places
where that occurred and you had one that was a 20 mph curve. Could you show
me that again please?
Bill Engelhardt: This was based on the plat information and it is about 110
degree curve right in this area and looking through the design handbooks you
will find with that radius and that degree of curve that you are less than 20
so I would post that at a 15 mph and I would post this one at 25 mph, the next
one up is 25. '!he next one meets the 30 mph. '!he fourth one meets the 30 and
this one up on top is at 27 and I would post that at 25.
Councilman Geving: So there are about four locations that you would recommend
that we post with slower than 30 mph signs.
Bill Engelhardt: In fact you could on all of the curves that are even at the
30 mph speed limit, you could post those with an advisory of 25.
Councilman Geving: Would we have to go to the State for that approval?
Bill Engelhardt: I don't believe so.
Councilman Geving: w= could do that locally?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes.
Councilman Geving: Bill, you didn't speak to this issue but I don't believe
there is a stop sign now at Laredo and Frontier Trail, is that correct?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes.
Councilman Geving: There are two stop signs there but is there one right at
Laredo, on Laredo itself as it approaches Frontier going north?
15
72
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Bill Engelhardt: No, I don't think so.
I
Councilman Geving: I believe there are only two stop signs. One on the east
and one on the west.
Bill Engelhardt: It is on the Frontier Trail itself.
Councilman Geving: Have you considered a stop sign there going north on
Laredo?
Bill Engelhardt: That wouldn't be a bad idea because it would again, getting
back to the path of least resistance, it would help keep people going from
Laredo out this way and take the load so we can get a balance out there.
Councilman Geving: Again, I am thinking about the path of least resistance or
most resistance in this case. If we make it more resistant they are less
likely to travel it. I want to spend just one more minute with you Bill.
Have you considered any of the areas for a potential sidewalk? Pat brought
this up and we brought it up at the last meeting and I want to bring it up
again. If we did sidewalk any of the areas, have you considered that in your
thinking on any of your plans?
Bill Engelhardt: No, I haven't. You would have to go out there and actually
see, where are you making the connections through too. I think we want to be
very careful that you don't have just one run of sidewalk. If you are going
to do a sidewalk, you are probably going to have to do the whole shot.
I
Councilman Geving: I guess the thinking that I've always had on this issue,
we've avoided it because it is expensive. A lot of repair and a lot of
maintenance but I always felt that as we grew and we built up this area to the
north and eSPeCially filled in some of the areas on Frontier Trail, with the
expansion of our elementary school, it seems likely that we should proceed
with the sidewalk from the elementary school at least down the west side of
Laredo to Frontier or something in that neighborhood so you pick up all of
those students that are walking that now and are probably walking in the
streets. There are quite a few more apartment homes in that area now than we
had previously. We've got room to make it fit, is that what you are saying?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes, we have a 60 foot right-of-way on Frontier if you
wanted to do something on Frontier. We have a 60 foot right-of-way on Laredo
down to about Del Rio and from Del Rio or a li ttle bi t south of Del Rio we
have a 66 foot right-of-way so I think there would be enough right-of-way
where you could put either a sidewalk or a walkway of some sort.
Councilman Geving: So the 2 or 3 issues that I picked up here on, the
possibility of a stop sign on Laredo and Frontier, about four slow signs or
reduced speed on Frontier and the eventual possibility of building some kind
of a sidewalk system along Laredo, at least that's my thinking. Now I want to
get to another issue and that is probably even more so than the extension but
it has something to do with the extension Bill. If we were to connect CR 16,
which is 78th Street, all the way through Frontier Trail to Kerber Blvd.,
which is a Minnesota State Aid Highway, could we do that with our state Aid
I
16
I
I
I
73
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Funds and reconstruct the entire project Bill rather than the assessments
being placed back to the benefitting property owners? It might be a tough
question.
Bill Engelhardt: That's a possibility because the criteria for State Aid is
the connection of either a Municipal State Aid Highway to a County State Aid
Highway or State Highway to a County State Aid Highway so there is some
potential there. We have a certain number of miles. As a city develops and
more streets are put on this system, you are then allotted more State Aid
miles and this year your allotment went up from like 1.2 miles that you have
not designated yet to about 2 miles. There are certain areas that you
probably would like to keep some of those miles held back because they are
necessary connections. You can transfer designations from one area to another
area. The instance that comes to mind that we have looked at already was the
Pleasant View Road is now designated as a State Aid Road and you could
transfer that designation down to Frontier Trail because now Frontier Trail
would meet the criteria but you want to be very careful that you don't remove
those designations because that might be an important connection at some point
in the future.
Councilman Geving: I know we want to keep our options open but my question to
you is exactly the way I want to propose it that it is feasible that we could
do this at some future time. If we laid all our cards on the table and we
make sure that it was a possibility, we could make this a public improvement
project. If the road is deteriorated to the point where we are going to have
to do something in the near future. I don't have any other questions.
Mayor Hamilton: My only comments are that I guess as long as I've lived here,
16-17 years now, I've always felt that this road would go through and I think
it would be a disservice for the rest of the community not to put it through.
I see no reason why it should not. I think if the road can handle the
traffic, I think it would be a very positive thing for the City.
Councilwoman Watson: Barb, when you talk about the options to physically
opening up the street at this time, as Pat pointed out, the greenway thing
really doesn't fly because you couldn't keep it open.
Barbara Dacy: Right, if there is a separated strip there, you are looking at
additional maintenance costs and so on and I believe your comment, Councilwoman
Swenson was about the plowing etc.. The options that have been proposed to
date are back to back cul-de-sacs, a street connection with some type of
breakaway barrier or an electric arm or gate that would be typical of what you
would see when you enter a parking ramp.
Councilwoman Watson: The Fire Department feels the same as they did last
meeting?
Mayor Hamilton: That has not changed.
Councilman Horn: I think one of the frustrating things to me on this whole
issue is I get back to one of my concerns is I think a lot of PeOple when they
moved into that area thought they lived on a deadend street. 'lt1at's why I'll
17
7~:
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
get back continually to the point of not making a concrete curb cul-de-sac at
the end of a street that we plan to go through some day. I know that we might
have some reasons to do that but I don't think they're good enough in this
case, if our intent is to let that traffic go through someday and obviously
this one has been planned for a long time. I have trouble with not continuing
with that since it has been planned for so long but I know that people should
be informed of what is going on when they purchase a home but I think we have
to do our part and not mislead people into thinking they are getting something
that they're not and I hope we keep that in mind in any future subdivision
requests that come through and don't make such a permanent looking deadend
when there really isn't going to be a deadend. I have trouble denying this
because of the professional input that we've gotten on this whole issue and
obviously we are not more professional than they are and I don't believe that
a lot of the people who have given us their concerns know more about these
issues than what our professional staff does. Also, I'm not locked into tying
different developments together. I don't think that always makes sense but I
see this issue as being more than just tying two housing developments
together. We're really tying the whole end of this City into the access area
of Kerber Blvd. which has always been the plan. The safety issue is obviously
a concern. I think there is going to be some wash one way or the other. We
are going to have some people that come this way but there are also going to
be some people who go out the other way and won't create traffic problems so I
have trouble saying that one way will be more unsafe than the other. It is a
terribly difficult issue for me because similar situations but not quite the
same I might feel differently about. I think because a precedent has been
set, we can't get any clear facts that this is going to create a real problem.
Other things like this have been done in the past. I think we have to proceed
with it and I would so move.
Mayor Hamilton: Your motion to approve the connection?
Councilman Horn: Yes. I think we need the recommendations that Staff has
given us such as the slow curve signs. I think the recommendation not allowing
parking along those hazardous curves makes sense in this case. I think that
no parking signs do have their place and it is when we are creating a
hazardous traffic situation. I think we can also consider the possibility in
the future of State Aid type of thing but I don't think that is relevant for
this evening.
Councilwoman Swenson: Would you be willing to include on there the
consideration at the time of physical installation of this connection that
consideration by the Council be given to the installation of walk paths or a
sidewalk at least to Laredo?
Councilman Horn: I guess I would like to not pass judgment on that at this
point. I would like to get a recommendation from the folks in the
neighborhood on that.
Councilman Geving: I see that as a second issue.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
75
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the street
connection as platted for Frontier Drive and Resolution #86-90 approving the
establishing of no parking signs along the hazardous curves and the posting of
slow speed signs along hazardous curves on Frontier Trail. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
STREET CONNECTION: FOX HOLLOW DRIVE.
Barbara Dacy: Just a quick follow-up again. At the December 1st meeting a
number of homeowners in the Fox Hollow neighborhood did attend and state their
opposition to the proposed connection. Again, you have three options before
you. TO connect, not to connect or connect with some type of separation.
Staff has maintained and does maintain it's original recommendation to connect
the two roadways. Another option that has been looked at as to some
connection with some type of separation is some type of alternate park design
where a driveway connection could be made through the proposed park. However,
any detailed design on that should be evaluated by the Park and Rec Commission
should the Council decide to pursue that option, Staff would recommend that
the item be tabled until the Park and Rec Commission can study the item
further. However, as I stated earlier, Staff maintains it's original
recorrrnendation.
Mayor Hamil ton: Didn't you have something to add on that Don? I thought you
and I talked about something on Fox Hollow connection.
Don Ashworth: I think Barbara has given the report. 'Ihe concern shown by the
City Council was in reaction to the traffic study carried out by the
Engineers. That traffic study revealed that in this instance there was a good
chance that we would have significant increase in traffic through the
neighborhood as a result of that connection. As part of that, Council also
identified the concern that if we do not provide a connection to the park then
there could be a significant problem for the people at the end of the park
similar to the issues we heard even earlier this evening. As a result of
that, the City Engineer, myself and Planner met, reviewed some alternatives
and we think that there is an alternative that would allow for connection to
the park and still gain a second access into the neighborhood. Again, we
would work with the Park Commission to come up with that alternative.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that the alternative you talked about in your memo here?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Mayor Hamilton: You're saying that this is a through connection, it's not a
connection with a physical separation?
Don Ashworth: 'Ihat's correct. 'Ihe issue is really one of being able to get
traffic. The reason the PeOple will take the Fox Hollow alternative is
because it is a direct shot that would go from Pleasant View through that
neighborhood. The a1 ternati ve that we're looking at is that the Council has
approved a plan for that area that would have a tennis court basically
adjacent to the road. By moving the tennis court northward and putting a
parking area to the south side and then connecting that to Fox Hollow, you
19
76
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
would have established a mechanism whereby the neighborhood can get to the
park facilities. That route would also connect back up to Pleasant View
securi tously so from an emergency vehicle's standpoint, you could get from
Pleasant View to this neighborhood but it would not literally be a through
route. No one would take that as a normal travel path. Again, we do not know
how the Park and Recreation Commission would view that but it is an item that
I guess we would like to further pursue.
I
Mayor Hamilton: It does sound interesting. It has some potential.
Councilman Geving: I guess we need to look at this. I can't visualize how
the schematic would look because originally the Fox Hollow Drive looked like
it could go straight west to east through the development. You're saying that
you would make a parking lot in the middle of the park securitously so that
you could make that maneuver and it wouldn't appear like it... Is it possible
that you could make a drawing for us?
Don Ashworth: I am in some ways relunctant to put this up because again, it
is very preliminary and I think that you need to...
Bill Engelhardt: Here's Pleasant View coming along and we've got TH 101 over
here and then Fox Hollow subdivision sits in here and the Fox Hollow
connection would come down and come back up and there are several cul-de-sacs
down to the lake and the connection for pleasant view is almost a straight
shot like this where this is the right-of-way, this area of City parkland, I
the tennis courts that were planned were something like this. So if we take
and utilize the right-of-way for tennis courts and have maybe a driveway type
access into this area, we have our parking lot something like this. You can
do all kinds of fancy things inside of it and then at this point bring this
back up here and what that does is it creates that difficult movement through
the subdivision where it is easier for them to come directly up to get to TH
101. There are lots of things you can do. You can put islands in it. You
can put speed bumps. I wouldn't recommend speed bumps on a street but in this
instance you could put speed bumps but anything that would hinder this traffic
or slow this traffic down and nobody is going to use it. What that does is it
gives us our second access into Fox Hollow and you can still use this as our
maintenance route. ene of the key things that I always push is our
maintenance route because the more time you have to spend on the roads the
less service you are going to give your residents in your community so if we
can use this as a route to get through with your snowplows, that is a real
benefi t. en a preliminary basis of kind of just sketching it out, that's the
thinking but we would like it to go back to the Park Board and at least have
them look at it.
Councilwoman Watson: It would be very similar to what you see here where you
come into City Hall and drive through City Hall's parking lots and drive out
the other side. Is this used as a through street very much? It certainly
isn't the easiest through street. I know you probably haven't studied it much
but how used is this street as opposed to going down and going up West 78th?
I
Don Ashworth: You get some through travel. Most of it though is oriented
here to City Hall. Secondly, as we will see later in tonight's agenda, this
20
I
I
I
77
City Council Meeting ~ December 15, 1986
road out here is proposed to connect into new 78th so the intent of bringing
PeOple through this parking area really is a short tenn tyPe of...
Councilwoman Watson: I understand that but it reminds me of the same sort of
thing. It would be the same where you come in and there is this parking lot
and you've got to wind around. You can get out the other side but certainly
it isn't easy to do but would this really solve their problem of not having
the PeOple use this?
Mayor Hamilton: I can tell you, living on Chan View and I have a straight
shot across to Kerber, I go around.
Councilman Geving: I'll go around every time. I think one thing we have to
analyze here is the urgency of developing that park. Is it on the park plan
for next year for example?
Don Ashworth: The grading was hoPed to be accomplished this year and of
course we got the early freeze. We wanted to live up to Watershed District
requirements to have that seeded before November 15th and so we had to delay
that contract to spring of 1987.
Mayor Hamilton: The machinery is sitting up there.
Councilman Geving: I think we ought to just table this and send it back to
the Park and Recreation Commission with our recommendation and whatever sketch
you could came up with Bill.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table the street
connection of Fox Hollow Drive until the Park and Recreation Commission could
give it's recommendation. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion
carried.
Councilman Horn: I didn't find it quite such an intriguing suggestion. I've
seen that kind of thing done in Golden Valley. That's a very dangerous
situation because there will be people that drive through there and other
PeOple who thing they are in a parking lot. You are going to have to do a lot
of convincing to get me to believe that.
Mayor Hamilton: Golden Valley goes right through a golf course parking lot
and there is a lot more Pedestrian traffic where here on a tennis court I
don't think you're going to have that.
Councilman Horn: But it's the idea of people getting the impression that it's
a parking lot and other PeOple thinking that it's a through street.
Councilman Geving: If we make it tough enough for them, they won't go through
there more than once.
ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY, DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJOCT.
Don Ashworth: We have Don Ringrose and Gary Ehret here from BRW.
Council did look at this as part of a joint meeting with the HRA.
The
Council did
21
7B
City Council Meeting ~ December 15, 1986
not have an opportunity to express their positions on various issues. We have
design concerns that I'm sure the Council will want to discuss. More
importantly are really the assessment policies as a part of the proposed
improvements. I should note, I see a number of people present, in some ways
this is a work session for the Council in terms of your assessment policies.
It should be noted that City Council has not previously discussed these. We
will be hearing again the recommendations from the Engineer and I would hope
that those in the audience would again understand that the Council has not
voiced it's opinion as to the reasonableness of assessments or how they are
proposed to be carried out. with that, Mr. Ringrose were you proposing to
start the presentation?
I
Don Ringrose: we've got to sort them first, just a couple more minutes.
Mayor Hamilton: Would you prefer that we move onto the next short item?
Don Ringrose: If you would prefer, yes.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded amend the agerrla to switch
Item 7, Accept Feasibi li ty Study, Downtown Public Improvement Project and
Item 8, Approval of Accounts. All voted in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the accounts
payables dated December 15, 1986 for check numbers 024452 through 030548 in
the amount of $2,165,414.30 and check numbers 027539 through 027657 in the
amount of $448,617.14 for the total of 216 checks in the total amount of
$2,614,031.44. All voted in favor and motion carried.
I
ACCEPT FEAS IBILITY STUDY, Da-mTa-JN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (CONTINUED)
Don Ringrose: As you recall, we were here approximately three weeks ago in a
joint session with the HRA and the Council at which time we presented in some
detail the feasibility study which we had prepared in response to your
request and it was agreed at that time that both the HRA and the Council would
reconvene at a later date for more indepth discussion, analysis and so forth.
We subsequently did meet with the HRA for that purpose and I think at that
point, as far as the HRA was involved, resolved the issues which did surface
at your joint meeting and we're here this evening with the hope of trying to
resolve the issues which did raise in conversation at the joint meeting as
well as any other issues that you care to raise this evening. Based on the
presentation which you have seen, we are suggesting tonight that we not go
back through all our presentation but simply be here as a resource to address
your questions and try and help you come to some conclusions. We have
submi tted to you through Don's office, some additional information which was
requested in terms of assessment policies, assessment role, and acquisition
cost, etc. which I'm sure you all have. I guess with that we are here to
answer your questions. I guess I would raise a couple issues which I do
recall having surfaced in the discussion. One had to do with our request or I
proposal. First we proposed, as you recall, an al ternati ve on the roadway,
78th Street, the median or no median alternative. There was some discussion
22
I
I
I
79
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
on that and we would prefer and think it's better if the Council could reach a
decision on that before we go to public hearing so we present at the hearing
just one alternative, in essence the plan, so that is something we would like
you to address this evening if you can. Secondly, there was quite a bit of
discussion on the issue of the storm sewer assessment and a part in particular
the extent to which we involve residential properties to the north of the
downtown area. Again, I would like to have some discussion on that. After
that we're here, as I indicated, to respond to your questions and let you take
it fran there.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, let's start with the two questions that Don has raised
that he would like Council input on. The first one being whether we would
like a divided street or not. WOuld anyone like to comments on that?
Councilwoman Watson: Do we have the pictures of what that would look like?
Don Ashworth: You've done another board since the Council looked at it.
Don Ringrose: Yes, related to that issue there was some confusion on the part
of the Council about how the traffic lanes and whether there was continuity of
the traffic lanes. Some concern about having to weave from lane to lane and
we do have a new drawing which addresses or shows more clearly.
Councilman Geving: Is this model over here on the left in concert with your
turn?
Don Ashworth: Not qui te.
Councilman Geving: It does show the divided West 78th Street.
Gary Ehret: As I recall, that discrepancy is the right-in. Primarily in here
that one swings into a "T".
Councilman Geving: I was looking at the main street itself.
Don Ringrose: That is very inconsistent. It is inconsistent with one of our
alternatives. The one issue that was raised earlier had to do with the
continuity of lanes and what we tried to do on this diagram, hopefully you can
see it on your monitor there, is identified by color coding the through lane
versus the turn lanes and the through lanes is that which is in the gray color
and with the dark black arrows on it. You can see if you study those lanes
that there is a continuous through movement which does not require you to move
from one lane to another as you pass through the area. The only time you move
from lane to lane is if you are going to make a turn left or right. utilizing
the lanes, in this case the right turn lane or in this case the left turn
lane, that are provided for that purpose so I think the problem was not
primarily that the other drawings which were trying to illustrate the
landscaping and so forth, didn't clearly illustrate the turn lanes themselves.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there a significant cost differential between the single
and . . .
23
gO
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Don Ringrose: As I recall we were talking about somewhere in the range of
$20,000.00 to $25,000.00.
I
Gary Ehret: In our report it's about $20,000.00.
Don Ringrose: Frankly, at the level of accurancy we're looking at, there
could be that much swing in the cost period so I wouldn't think that as
significant.
Councilwoman Watson: I just wanted to see again, they showed us a shot of how
that street looked from the end with that center island in there.
Don Ringrose: The cross-section?
Councilwoman Watson: Yes, that cross-section. That was the last one that I
remember seeing. The em of that street sort of looking into it and that's
when we got into a discussion about trees and a variety of things seemed to be
prompted by looking at the street from that angle. Could we take a look at
that again? Whether we wanted trees on that center island.
Mayor Hamil ton: Due to the difference in cost, the one with the center island
to me is...
Gary Ehret: The first drawing here is the median alternative. The main thing
to note here is that there are two primary median designs depending on if I
there is or is not a left turn lane. The top illustrates where you get into
the full median.
Don Ringrose: In the section where there is just two moving lanes, you have
the full width median which is almost 20 feet in width and with the turn
lanes, it narrows down but even there, we intentionally kept it wide enough so
even with the turn lanes we have 10 feet. Often times you see in urban areas
where you have channelization, the median there goes down to 4 feet and ends
up being nothing more than a 4 foot wide concrete barrier. It is very
functional and that's what it's there for but what we're trying to say here is
that this system is not only functional, we're trying to add a little
aesthetic quality.
Councilwoman Watson: I like the median. The cost differential, I think it is
a much more attractive road.
Councilman Horn: I was just going to comment. '!his was brought up to the
HRA in their last meeting and the HRA unanimously approved the median concept.
The Minutes should confirm this.
Councilwoman Watson: What were the specific conments of the HRA?
Councilman Horn: Just visually much more attractive. For the small
difference in price there seemed to be a tremendous payback in amenity.
Councilwoman Watson: It really does look nice.
I
24
I
I
I
97
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Geving: I like what I see.
Don Ringrose: Should we then proceed in terms of the final draft of the study
to simply address the single design?
Mayor Hamil ton: Yes.
Don Ringrose: Okay, then that makes that issue much more simple.
Mayor Hamilton: The second issue was the assessment for the storm sewer and
whether or not that should be assessed to the residents...
Don Ringrose: And we didn't really discuss at the joint meeting at any length
or hardly at all the whole issue of assessments. The question was brought up
in terms of what we were doing. The one that generated the discussion
however, was the storm sewer primarily as it relates to the proposal to
involve properties tributary to the system but are residential north of the
downtown area.
Mayor Hamil ton: I think we've done that, the Council has. Maybe not this
Council but other Councils have done that and I'm thinking specifically in my
area when we did Chan View because there was runoff coming from almost up by
Dale's house and that was all assessed. I remember looking at all the runoff
and everybody who was north of 76th Street.
Don Ringrose:, Maybe just quickly to summarize for you, this line represents
the area which is tributary. Therefore, at this point (d) to benefit from the
storm sewer improvements. The red 1 ines are the proposed new storm sewers.
The orange lines are the existing storm sewers and you can see that compared
to the sani tary sewer and the water system, the extent of storm sewer
improvements is great primarily because there are no storm sewers of any
significance in your downtown. Of course, a very functional part of this is
the lake. Essential to the operation of this system in terms of controlling
flow as the water departs from the area and goes downstream. The primary
issue as I recall was the fact that this area north of Chan View primarily was
proposed to be assessed. On the basis of the calculations which we've done
and I should maybe go back and review those. First we have excluded from the
storm sewer assessment the cost of the land acquisition and development of the
pond feeling that in most cases, as we understand the systems in Chanhassen
that past projects there generally has been a creek or a pond or something
relatively closeby and you haven't had the need to get an extensive trunk
storm sewer systems and enlarge retention areas, mother nature has put them
there for you.
Councilwoman Watson: We haven't built lakes in other words?
Don Ringrose: Not to my knowledge so we have excluded that and then what we
basically have done, consistent with your policy, is taken the cost of the
pipe system am divided that by 2 or taken 50% of that cost and spread it on
an assessment basis over the entire area adjusting the assessment in the
commercial area to that rate twice that of the residential area. That is all
consistent with your past practice. The issue that seemed to surface was
25
98
~ity Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
whether or not this area should be included in the assessment district at this
time. We have proposed that it be included because it is tributary and
consistent with past practice, therefore it should be. The total dollar
amount involved in this area is not terribly significant. It is only, I would
guess in the range of about $35,000.00 that is involved. The total storm
sewer assessment was around $300,000.00 so it is about 10% of the total storm
sewer assessment or 5% of the total cost.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I'm just looking at the assessment and they are estimating
the assessment would be fairly minimal for land owners.
Don Ringrose: Again, I don't think it's the financial impact on the project
so much as it is consistency of policy.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess from my standpoint, I think we've done it in the past
and we should continue to do that. I think if it drains that way it should be
part of the project.
Councilman Horn: One word of caution. I think we have to be very careful
wi th this whole thing because what is going to happen is people are going to
say that they are picking up the tab for the downtown and we have to be very
careful to separate the issues that this is a separate storm sewer project
that would be required whether we had a new downtown or not.
Councilwoman Watson: I don't think they're ever going to buy that.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Actually that's true though because that is something
that's been discussed for a long time. It's been known that we have a maj or
problem here.
Councilwoman Watson: The fact that it is happening at the same time.
Mayor Hamilton: As we discussed earlier, that's what generates these types of
things. If we get a development occurring then that generates these type of
things happening. Whether it be a road going through or whatever.
Councilman Geving: I would like to make a statement Mr. Mayor. I think it is
very germane at this time, being a resident of the area that you are proposing
to assess, and I'm not speaking as a resident, I'm looking at the project.
Had it not been for the proposed downtown redevelopment project, I doubt
seriously if this entire water and storm water disposal plan would have even
come into being and my feeling is that the residents in the assessment area
that you are depicting here are being picked upon by this project and included
in this project and we would have never had this project assessed against our
people if it hadn't been for the downtown redevelopment project. My statement
is that I feel that the residents north of 78th Street should all be excluded
from the assessment and all of the assessment should be assessed against the
benefitting property owners, the business owners, commercial owners of
property in the assessment district and that is the conclusion of my statement
and I would recommend to the City Staff and to the Manager that he seek anyway
possible funds that are necessary to defray the expense that would normally
have been charged and assessed against the property owners so these funds
I
26
83
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
I
could come from the increased revenue that will be generated from the downtown
redevelopment project. That's all I have to say. I'm trying to protect our
residents because I do feel that the water flows the way it's been flowing for
100 years or more since the development of the City of Chanhassen. It will
continue to flow and this project was not necessary for the benefit of our
citizens and residents that are being assessed.
Mayor Hamilton: With all your money I thought for sure you would say you want
to be.
Councilman Geving: I want to do the downtown project but I don't want the
feeling to be nurtured and carried on by our residents that they are paying
for the downtown project and I want to make sure that that statement goes into
any discussions for any further discussion of the downtown project. That
they're not going to be assessed just so we can have the downtown project. I
get calls on this kind of thing. All of the City Council members, will be
residents of what I consider to be almost the downtown area. Two of you I
know have already been assessed on other projects but this particular project
is going to force an assessment on all the people who live south of 76th
Street and east of Laredo over to Great Plains Blvd. and I think that we are
attacking a small area for a heavy assessment. Now I heard a statement last
time when we got together that we're talking in the neighborhood of $300.00.
I don't know if that is the proper amount of money or whatever the amount was.
I think someone mentioned that. Did you mention that?
I
Don Ringrose: It is approximatley 3 1/2 cents per sqaure foot.
Councilman Geving: So on 1/3 of an acre...
Gary Ehret: I think the numbers in general run around $400.00.
Councilman Geving: Okay, let's say $400.00 for all the people who live in
this residential area. That's a considerable amount of money and it's an
issue that I think should be defrayed and picked up by the downtown.business
community. I won't say it again. That's the end of my comments. I feel
strongly about it.
Councilman Horn: I guess I'm trying to determine why one development is
different over others. We could have said when the assessment came to our
street that if we hadn't put this housing development in over here, we
wouldn't have to pick up that tab and now it is a precedent that we've set
with the City that everybody's water contributes to that and I remember Dale,
you were on the Council at the time and your feeling was 180 out at that point
about people whose water flows where should pick up the tab.
Mayor Hamil ton: I think Don what you're hearing is we've got a four to one
Council.
Councilman Geving: I disagree with you. I don't think it's four to one.
I
Mayor Hamilton: What is it? Three to two. What I'm hearing is four people
say they agree that that area north of the downtown area should be part of the
27
84
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
assessment and you're saying they shouldn't.
I
Councilman Geving: Don't forget, we're not at assessment hearing yet and that
will appear sometime in the future and I'm hoping at that time we'll have two
other Council members who will vote with me. I hate to use that term but that
expresses what I'm saying is that this downtown redevelopment project should
be self financed. It should not be assessed back to the homeowners.
Mayor Hamil ton: I think you've made yourself clear that you don't want to pay
$41313.1313.
Councilman Geving: I don't care what the money is, it's the principle.
Mayor Hamil ton: The principle has already been done. You did it to my
neighborhood. You assessed me when you were on the Council previously for a
project that went by my house for your water.
Councilman Geving: we're not talking about a downtown redevelopment project.
Mayor Hamil ton: Well, I didn't want your water running by my house either so
it's still four to one.
Don Ringrose: We will continue then for the public hearing to leave this
diagram as it is then. Are there any other questions with respect to the
sanitary sewer or the water system or the streets, as to how that assessment.
You do recall, because in some cases there are existing facilities in place.
We have prorated the assessment or given a credit for what we estimate to be
their remaining useful life of those facilities. It could be argued that 313
years is arbitrary but you have to use something and we still have to be
reasonable in terms of the life of the facilities. The resulting cost for the
sewer and water at $25.1313 to $26.1313 per foot are very normal, very reasonable
based on other projects in other towns, perhaps even here in Chanhassen and I
don't think that there is anything unique about that.
I
.
Mayor Hamilton: Anybody else have any questions on the feasibility study?
Councilman Geving: I have a comment. '!his has to do with the acquisition.
Are we ready for that? I have drawn my own redefined West 79th Street and my
redefini tion looks like this Don. I can show this to you. I wonder why we
drew the road moving so far to the north when we could have flatten it out and
drawn it closer to the TH 5 and reduced the amount of land that we have to
acquire. Could you comment on that please? I guess I'm against change for a
lot of acquisition cost and what I would like to do, by doing my proposal, I
would create several larger lots south of 79th Street.
Councilwoman Swenson: Could we see it again? It's not on the monitor.
Don Ringrose: We'll get the street drawing up here and we'll show you.
Dale's question had to do with 79th Street and in his little sketch he showed
me suggested that rather than aligning the road as shown on the diagram that
we could bring it more across the more straight fashion such as thing and why.
for exmaple, why did we do that? I guess that is basically his question.
I
28
I
I
I
85
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Geving: I'm wondering why you did it because in doing so we'll
have to acquire that property where we wouldn't have to acquire it before
because the road is already there.
Don Ringrose: '!he first reason is the fact that we need some distance between
the intersection with TH 5 and this intersection here. If we allow this to
come in too close, we're going to have confusion and problems there much like
we currently experience down here on TH 101 so this distance here will just
make the thing function more properly.
Councilman Geving: What is the distance and could it be reduced?
Gary Ehret: It is roughly 300 feet.
Councilman Geving: Okay, if it's 300 feet then I understand why you did it.
Don Ringrose: Secondly, in terms of the soil conditions in here.
Councilman Geving: One other question, let's discuss the possibility of
moving off the acquisition that you're showing as (N) and moving that road
further to the west by probably 50 feet or whatever it takes so we don't
acquire any of the Ward property. Do you see what I'm talking about there?
We want to eliminate that acquisition there. Is that possible if we move the
entire road whatever that distance is?
Don Ringrose: As I recall, the location of this had to do with lining up with
the entrance or the proposed entrance that is across the way.
Councilman Geving: It's just a proposal.
Don Ringrose: If there's flexibility across on the south side, then yes.
Councilman Geving: '!he only reason I propose this is that it's always been
very difficult dealing with the Ward Estate and this might eliminate that
problem. Trying to get an easement or the acquisition easement or the
purchase of property from the Ward Estate. If that no longer is a problem, it
might not be significant.
Don Ashworth: '!he other concern in that area is the highway starts to rise
fairly rapidly here but I would think that we would look to a small movement
without any repercussions.
Don Ringrose: Movements of that magnitude, yes.
Councilman Geving: That's very small. I don't even know how long that would
be. Do you have an estimate?
Don Ringrose: That's about 25-30 feet.
Councilman Geving: What I'm proposing, if we move the road 20 feet to the
west we can e1bninate that acquisition.
29
86
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Don Ringrose: Certainly.
I
Councilman Geving: And at the same time, I was hoping we could bend the road
further to the north where you have park on your schematic there? If we could
move the road north there, we could create a much larger lot south of that.
If we could move the road here, pick it up here, even keeping your curvature,
we would create a very large lot that we could sell in that area that you call
park.
Don Ringrose: Bringing this across and then creating a larger development
parcel on the south side of the realigned road.
Councilman Geving: Much better developable piece of commercial property
there.
Don Ringrose: That's something that we could look into.
Councilman Geving: I'm sure that Mr. Zaber or any other developer who might
want to buy that property could make it commercial. Right now, as it stands
right now, I doubt if we could put a building on that lot.
Don Ringrose: If we could create a developable parcel here, and the soil
conditions are conducive to that, it may make economic sense. We would have
to rebuild more roadway then we are currently proposing but if like you say,
if it pays back in terms of developing that parcel.
I
Councilman Geving: I would like to have you work with that and see if you
can't make a developable parcel out of that.
Resolution #86-91: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept
the feasibility study for the Downtown Public Improvement project. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
Don Ashworth stated to the people present in the audience that the public
hearing will be held on the 26th of January at which time a presentation on
the project would be presented.
CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, JAMES COMPANY.
Barbara Dacy: The applicant, Mr. James is here tonight, wants to discuss
pertinent parts of the Development Contract. This is a unique Contract in
that it not only binds the developer for certain responsibilities but also the
City. We tried to structure in responsibilities for the reconstruction and
alignment of West 78th Street. I believe Mr. James' concern is regarding the
method of assessment in Section 3.02 on Page 3. Basically what that section
is saying is that the developer, Mr. James, would be responsible for
improvement costs. That is typical of a commercial designed roadway. A
design of 36 feet. Anything above and beyond that that is required by MSA
Standards will give the resonsibility to the City as outlined in the previous
section on Page 2 in 2.01. At that point I will let Mr. James, if you so
desire Mr. Mayor.
I
30
I
I
I
87
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Charlie James: I apprciate your letting me have the time on your busy
schedule to come and talk on what could have been a consent item for you. I
guess primarily I wanted to come in and perhaps express a little paranoia
here. Apprehension might be a better word. We had started out to plat this
property and we were made aware that the Ci ty at one time had had a plan as
part of their master plan to realign West 78th Street and then down the road
as part of I think it Benshoof or whoever did your downtown study, this
project was ressurrected and it was in fact deemed essential to the whole
downtown plan and they said that the other intersections would fail unless
this improvement occurred and I guess what concerns me is that the entire
project takes place on my property so if we're looking at how far the
assessments are going to be spread, I don't have to look very far, I just look
in the mirror and it is a great concern to me. I guess I had some questions
that I wanted to ask that I'm still unclear of. I guess my first question
that I wanted to ask is is this property in the tax increment district or is
it not? It is in the tax increment district. I guess the follow-up question
to that one would be does that have any impact or bear ing or is the well dry
there?
Don Ashworth: I don't think that it's dry. One of the issues though, the
City Council is the one who establishes public improvements and assessments
going along with those and it's really a Housing and Redevelopment Authority
that would have the authority or the ability to potentially look to some form
of reduction or dues from the property owners, etc. I think I hear your
question and the Council does, but potentially those should be brought back to
the Housing Redevelopment Authority. Again, Council members may wish to give
the HRA direction but it is basically an issue .that...
Charlie James: Is there a policy, maybe this is a question for the engineers,
but we've been working so hard to try and get this together for tonight's
meeting that I guess some things have fallen between the cracks and our
communications with Bill here but is there a certain policy that says when you
have, you're calling it the City's Standard Detail Plate for a commercial
street or something, is there a certain policy as to how long a street of that
nature is assessed? Is it 5 years, is it 10 years, 15 years?
Councilman Geving: We make that determination.
Charlie James: So there isn't any set policy. Okay.
Councilman Geving: It's the size of the project, the amount of money that's
involved that has to be included.
Mayor Hamilton: Typically a street is assessed on 10 years.
Counci lman Geving: 8 years has been very common with us. 10 under unusual
circumstances.
Charlie James: I guess that's about all my cornnents.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you prefer that we not approve this then? Go to the HRA
and visit with them prior to our approval of this?
31
88
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Charlie James; I'm not really sure. I guess while I have the feeling that my
sense of the matter is. First of all, let me back up, it was never clear to
me whether this area out there was in the tax increment district or wasn't and
to the extent that I could find that it was, my sense of the matter was that
there wasn't any money there to be had. That those funds were rather sparse
and that they were higher priority items already in mind for those funds so I
guess I just wanted to, prior to any assessment hearing or something, I just
wanted to come in here and express my concerns and say that I've bended over
backwards to cooperate with the City on this and we're going to be filling
that enormous hole out there and preparing the whole street out there for the
street project and so I guess I just don't want to get some humongous bill in
the mail that when perhaps this project is of benefit to people than just the
guy that happens to own the land on both sides of it and it's long been in
your master plan so I don't think there is an argument that my project is
generating the need for this improvement. With those comments in mind, I
guess I commend your Staff and your Engineer and I guess we're ready to take
the next step.
I
Mayor Hamilton: We'll certainly work with you on this and do whatever we can
to assist you.
Councilwoman Watson: Shouldn't he really go to the HRA Board and talk to them
about the tax increment district and what use it can do to you? I don't
necessarily think there is anything that is that much higher priority than
what you are presenting here. I think your's certainly deserves every bit as
much consideration as anything else that is being proposed. You're right,
it's all happening on your property but I don't think that you're responsible
for that strange street down there. I see that a lot of people had their
fingers in arranging that.
I
Bill Engelhardt: I was just going to say that the intent is that he isn't
responsible for the strange street. The intent is that he would pay his fair
share of what a typical commercial development would pay and anything over and
above that the City would search out the funds to accommodate that, through
MSA or whatever.
Charlie James: I guess I don't have a problem with that. I guess there are
some things unclear in my mind like when I see these plans this evening about
this median and I can see this median coming down 78th Street heading for me
and the street lighting and this sort of thing, which I think would be great.
I would love to see the whole thing tied together integrate the lighting and
everything.
Councilwoman Watson: He should talk to the Housing Redevelopment Authority
and get some feel for that.
Don Ashworth: I would like the opportunity Mr. James, I sincerely believe
that after we have had a chance to meet, that a number of the concerns that he
has raised this evening, will really be overcome. I don't think they are real
concerns. I know that they are right now but I think we should have the
option to talk.
I
32
I
I
I
89
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Charlie James: The draft of this is acceptable.
Councilman Horn: '!he fact that the street is being realigned at that point
really doesn't affect whether he is in or out of the assessments does it?
Isn't that just that portion of it contribute to the overall project cost? If
I understand correctly what you concern is, because that changes are you going
to pick up the major portion of that?
Charlie James: It seems that the change starts and ends on my property. I'm
giving the right-of-way and preparing the subgrade, what else is there on top
of that?
Councilman Horn: '!he point I'm trying to make is that you would be in the
assessment area regardless of whether this change was being made in the
street. The additional cost to do that will go in the total project pool
which obviously affects your portion of it but you don't pick up that whole
portion just because that's in front of your property.
Charlie James: I had an analogous situation in Lakeville where the City
wanted to realign a street through the property and they came out and said how
much do you want for your land and I said I don't know and they said well tell
us because it's a loan from us anyway because you're the only affected
property owner so there is only going to be one assessed person so you can
charge us anything you want and we're just going to loan you the money for 10
years at whatever so I guess what I see is because it appears to me that this
project begins and ends entirely wi thin the boundaries of my property that the
potential, by the time they get done with signalization and all of this, by
the time the government gets into the thing, so I won't take anymore of your
time.
Mayor Hamil ton: Don's comment is that why don't you get together and talk
these things over.
Councilman Geving: The question is do we table this or do we?
Mayor Hamilton: No, I think Mr. James said that the Contract is agreeable to
him and if he could si t down with Don and talk about it.
Don Ashworth: If the discussions are not acceptable then you have the right
to come back in and ask for reconsideration.
Mayor Hamil ton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Development
Contract with the James Company for West Village Heights. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE, FINAL READING.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you want to add anything Barbara to the information you
have given us?
Barbara Dacy: Some of the items do need a final decision by Council so if you
want me run right through it that's fine. Item by item. One, u.nder signs,
33
90
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
under the public comments was that there was concern about the construction
sign size. On Page 120 of the Ordinance, it is proposed as 50 square feet.
There is also concern about where they are placed. If the Council so desires,
they can split the square footage depending on the use that it advertises. 50
for a commercial and industrial and 24 for residential is a suggestion. Then
also we can add a sentence that says that signs shall not be placed on local
streets adjacent to existing residential developments so the decision needed
to be made is the size and the location.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: It seems like the recommendation suggested for 50 square feet
for commercial and industrial districts and 24 for residential districts is
satisfactory.
Councilman Horn: I agree.
Councilwoman Watson: That 24 square feet is a darn big sign at any rate.
Councilman Horn: Depends on how far away you are.
Mayor Hamilton: I also like the idea of the signs not being placed on those
streets adjacent to residential developments.
All of the Council members were in agreement to the Staff's recommendations
of 50 square feet for commercial and industrial signs and 24 square feet for
residential district signs and that signs not be placed on streets adjacent to
residential developments.
I
Barbara Dacy: Okay, that was on development identification signs. In that
paragraph, major entrances was defined as those streets which are identified
in the Comp Plan. We have now included a section in the Zoning Ordinance
which lists the arterial and collector streets and requires subdivision signs
to be located at those intersections. So if you had two residential
developments located adjacent to one another, you could not have a development
identification sign. I spoke to Mr. Hansen and to Nordquist Signs regarding
how many franchise signs you could fit on one pylon sign and the recommended
sign si ze that we came up with was 80 square feet which is consistent with the
size that is included in the ground profile sign there on Page 125 so the
recommendation on that one is to increase the pylon size to 80 square feet.
Councilwoman SWenson: That's an awfully big pylon sign.
Councilman Geving: I don't understand. I don't think this came up before did
it?
Councilwoman Swenson: Yes, it did.
Councilman Geving: To increase the size of this one.
Councilman Horn: Bernie brought it up.
Councilman Geving: This was where you would put all your signs onto one
pylon sign.
I
34
91
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
I
Barbara Dacy: Right, so the concern is to make sure that we be able to
consolidate as much signage as possible into one and speaking with the sign
company, 64 square feet was too small but with 80 you could fit five 3 x 5
franchise signs on there and still identify Chan Lawn and Sports.
Councilwoman Swenson: Why do they have to be 3 x 5? I can understand why
they have to be a standard.
Barbara Dacy: I'm not saying that they have to be. '!hat's the information
that I got from Mr. Hansen that that's the standard size.
Bernie Hansen: '!hat's the standard size the company's are all producing at
the present time and they say that is basically nationwide accepted.
Councilwoman Watson: I'm sure they probably checked it out pretty clearly
what can be approved or they would be producing a sign...
Bernie Hansen: '!hat's the standard size and it covers about 75 or 74 square
feet so we're calling for 80...
Councilwoman Swenson: How big are those Chanhassen Business Park signs?
Barbara Dacy: Those are slightly larger. Those are 96 square feet. Those
were approved by a separate variance.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: This would indicate that all businesses along the
highway could have 80 square foot pylon signs?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: So TH 5 could literally be lined with 80 foot signs,
all with an incredible difference of advertising on it. Is that really what
we want?
Councilwoman Watson: No.
Bernie Hansen: I think that I'll just use our business as an example with a
mul tiple franchises that we carry. I think what would be acceptable to the
business person, let's say you went in with a business, let's take McDonalds,
you could take that 3 x 5 sign but if you have multiples, you could go up to
that and not exceed that. Follow what I'm saying? In other words, if you had
two franchises, you could have two signs. For example, when I walked in,
I've got five lines and each one says that I must have that displayed. I even
have to have pictures presented in color. They won't take anybody's word for
nothing. '!hey'll come out and take the picture themselves.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are you trying to tell us Bernie that if you don't put
those signs up that you are going to lose the line?
III Bernie Hansen: Absolutely. It's shut off right now.
35
92
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilwoman Watson: I think you have to weigh what the business people have
to live with too. I agree with Pat, I hate to think of these pylon after
pylon with 8~ square foot signs on them and yet if we are going to encourage
business and we're going to get people in there and they're going to sell a
franchised product, we're going to have provide some means for advertising.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Couldn't they get a Conditional Use so that on TH 5 just any
business in the BH District can have a sign that size.
Barbara Dacy: '!hat's an option. If you want to keep the current what is
proposed is 64 square feet. Anything larger than that would have to be a
Conditional Use Permit. '!hat's an option.
Councilman Geving: There's nothing wrong with that.
Mayor Hamilton:" I would rather have the opportunity to review it and approve
it rather than make it automatic.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!he other thing I'm concerned about is, here we are
talking about in excess of Four Million Dollar downtown renovation project and
suddenly we get the approach and all this thing along TH 5. Right now if we
have 1 or 2 or 3 it isn't going to be bad but if this becomes a highway of
business signs, I think that someday you may regret it.
Mayor Hamilton: That's why if it's a conditional use we don't need to grant
everyone.
I
Councilman Geving: Especially if you have one next door and the guy comes in
and says I want a sign just like Bernie's and I want an 8~ foot pylon. We
could deny that.
Mayor Hamilton: I can see Bernie's case where he's got five products and
needs to display...
Councilwoman Swenson: I can too.
Bernie Hansen: '!hat's why I mentioned if you have one product line.
Councilwoman Swenson: It isn't that I don't understand Bernie, I'm just
trying to look at the overall picture.
Bernie Hansen: I understand the other side of it too. You don't want it all
cluttered up because then it doesn't do any good for myself.
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm trying to think of places where they have these and
I guess I can't really think of anywhere there are any such things in the
newer areas and you associate this type of thing with a congested area which
is what we are trying to avoid. A Conditional Use Permit, if you think that
will handle it.
Mayor Hamilton: Let's just leave it as it is with a Conditional Use for
anything over that.
I
36
I
I
I
93
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Geving: Do you have your map here tonight that you can put up? I
think somewhere in the course of this evening we're going to be looking at all
of these districts.
Barbara Dacy: The BH covers this area. Basically, where the Chan Office
Complex is on TH 5 here and then moving west along TH 5 and down to the
existing termination of west 79th Street.
Councilman Geving: Okay, and then down south too. That's the only other BH
that I know of. Down near TH 169.
Barbara Dacy: That's BF.
Councilwoman Swenson: we still have the height restriction?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: Is that the same as before?
Barbara Dacy: Right. That's 20 feet.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, just so I'm clear. Are you putting an 80 foot cap
on that?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Roger Knutson: 64 to 80 feet is by Conditional Use Permit only.
Mayor Hamil ton: Yes.
Barbara Dacy: I referred to this earlier. It is just identifying which
streets are arterial and collector and as you recall, we're determining
driveway separation requirements in the rural areas so this will be the guide
to determine which streets shall have those standards.
Councilwoman Swenson: I have a comment on this. As you all know, CR 18 stops
for all practical purposes at TH 101 and Lyman Blvd. from TH 101 east is a
city street. I don't believe (a) that there is a sufficient, I don't believe
that the designated width of that street is big enough to take an arterial.
Either we should make some attempt to, not I recognize that this being a
linkage through the counties is one thing we discussed. I discussed this with
Bill at great length and I know that he had made overture to the State for MSA
on this because work was being progressed with Eden prairie to do that. We
have a considerable amount of traffic over that road and either that or I
think we're going to have to put that down at least to a collector because
that road is definitely not at this point prepared. It's just not equipPed to
become an arterial. There is no road bed. Before it can actually be used for
that designation, a whole street is going to have to be torn up and an entire
new road bed is going to have to be put in because actually it is nothing but
a cow path that has been trampled down and widened and paved and patched. It
isn't adequate for the service that it performs.
37
94
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: So you would like to be CR 18 under the arterial delete the
Lyman Blvd. portion or say CR 18 up to TH 101.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Either that or at a later date you can change it when
when it's been...
Mayor Hamilton: up to TH 101 and not including Lyman Blvd. east of TH 101.
That's a clarification.
Councilwoman Watson: That's almost kind of humorous to take that part of that
piece of street and compare it with TH 5.
Barbara Dacy: Number three just repeated the comment that came up at the
first reading. Maybe we should all the three words "in all districts" after
prohibited to make sure that that is clear.
Councilwoman Swenson: Roger, should we make that shall? Is are sufficient?
What is the strongest way we can phrase that?
Roger Knutson: I think are prohibited is just fine.
Mayor Hamilton: Are is specific. Shall be means that you may consider
something else.
Roger Knutson: It seems to me that you never can have than there.
I
Councilman Geving: I think are is pretty strong.
Councilwoman Swenson: I just want to make sure because so many times we are
advised to change it and then it's wrong. In all districts period, okay?
Mayor Hamil ton: Okay, Page 89.
Barbara Dacy: I just repeated the decision that was made at the first reading
regarding rural lot applications.
Councilwoman Swenson: Why do we need that, unless the City Council deems to
table final action on the application after July 1st? I thought we made it
qui te clear that that was going to be the cut-off date. I think all you're
doing is prolonging the agony for the Council if you make this a questionable
thing.
Barbara Dacy: I guess the situation I wanted to address is if for some reason
the Council at that time wanted to table it on their own initiative because
they wanted more information or an issue came up that couldn't be decided by
July 1st that they would have the ability to table it and so on.
Mayor Hamilton: '!here is a parcel that I'm aware of that would seem to
probably need to have that requiranent.
Councilwoman Swenson: We're not changing the requirement that the initial
application has to be in by the 15th?
I
38
95
:City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
I Barbara Dacy: That's right.
Councilman Geving: What are you talking about Tom?
Mayor Hamilton: There is a parcel of land that they have talked about
subdividing but there is some information that they can't get an answer on
whether or not some land that is along the 169 Corridor so until they know
exactly where that Corridor is going to be, they could submit their plans for
preliminary plat approval but we may want to table it until we can somehow
find out the exact information.
Councilman Geving: '!hey can't perform 1 through 4 by the 1st of January?
Barbara Dacy: I think what the issue is is that whether or not during the
preliminary plat application, it just allows you the ability to table action
on it should you so desire at that time.
Councilman Geving: So they feel they need another 15 days?
Councilwoman Swenson: No, this is the July 1st date that they are talking
about. 'Ihe main point was the January 15th.
Councilwoman Watson: But it doesn't allow you to table anything after July
1st.
I
Councilman Geving: I agree with the July 1st. I know there are going to be
situations like that but I thought we had agreed on January 1.
Barbara Dacy: It was discussed and then the Council did agree to the 15th.
Mayor Hamilton: Page 12.
Barbara Dacy: Okay, on the next one, the definition of wholesale nursery was
recommended to be added. That definition is the exact one that the Council
adopted in 1985.
Councilwoman Swenson: So you did eliminate (f) in that so there is no
restriction as to the closeness?
Barbara Dacy: 'Ihat's correct.
Councilman Horn: I just have a point I guess. If a person has a wholesale
nursery designation, can they sell vehicles from that?
Barbara Dacy: No.
Councilman Geving: It has to be something that grows on the land.
I
Councilman Horn: I know but what I'm talking about is the wholesale nursery
on TH 5 that has vehicles for sale. Is that authorized?
Don Ashworth: Are you sure that's not Kerber's property?
39
~6
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Geving: That's Lee Kerber.
I
Councilman Horn: Right in front of the nursery?
Councilman Geving: Just to the east of it.
Councilman Horn: Just to the west of the driveway is where it is.
Barbara Dacy: Vehicles sales are specifically prohibited from the wholesale
nursery and we can investigate that. Okay, under Council comments on one,
you wanted an additional sentence regarding pools that were inaccessible from
adjacent properties or the properties were completely enclosed. It is kind of
an awkward sentence but it is kind of hard to combine two of those thoughts in
one.
Councilwoman Swenson: Did we specify the six feet?
Barbara Dacy: I added and am recommending to add the six feet just in case
they have an ornamental perimeter fence of three feet. Anybody can scale
that. Four feet was for the fence height immediately arourrl the pool and this
is in regards to a perimeter fence. If the intent is to make, if you already
have a fence around the property, to prevent somebody from getting on the
property and potentially falling in the pool then...
Councilwoman Watson: '!bat fence has to be six feet but if you put it just
around the pool it can be four?
I
Councilman Horn: Then you don't need the other fence.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think the idea here Carol is to eliminate a lot of
people have their property fenced to begin with and then if you put a pool
I think it is ridiculous to ask them to put another fence so that's how it
carne about.
in,
Councilwoman Watson: But I also think it's ridiculous to assume that the
perimeter fence has to be six feet but if you put the fence right around your
pool it can be four feet.
Councilman Horn: That doesn't make sense.
Councilwoman Watson: It really doesn't make a lot of sense.
Barbara Dacy: Okay, if you want to change it to four.
Councilman Horn: I think they should be consistent.
Councilwoman Watson: If four feet is good enough directly adjacent to the
pool it ought to be good enough around the edge of the property.
Barbara Dacy: Okay, four feet.
I
40
I
I
I
99
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Geving: We had a variance proposal in our comments that night.
Did you pick up that? On this one here I have a note to myself that says
there could be a variance from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for this
particular item. Remember Roman Roos' situation where you've got a steep
bank.
Councilman Horn: That's what this says, it's inaccessible.
Councilman Geving: Are we covered?
Councilwoman Swenson: It says pools inaccessible from adjacent properties.
Councilman Horn: That's how we covered it instead of a variance.
Councilman Geving: Okay, so that will be okay then.
Barbara Dacy: On the next item, I think the Council just quickly talked about
that but I just clarified on the other section in that fence ordinance about
required fences between commercial and industrial uses and residential
property.
Councilwoman Swenson:
Yes, I remember that.
Barbara Dacy: Okay, home occupations.
Jay Johnson: I think you may have a problem with B.
Mayor Hamil ton: What kim of problem?
Jay Johnson: It says you must have this fence on the property line. The
purpose of the fence is to obscure vision of the commercial property from the
residential property, if I read the intent of this. If you place your six
foot fence directly on the property line am you may have 50 feet of grass
between that fence and where anybody is doing any commercial operations. In
effect you have really created a worse visual situation. You've restricted
the space. Say behind the commercial where there is proposed in some areas
you have a bike path or path that we're going to be putting a six foot fence
along one side of this path. A better reading of it would be to instead of
saying along the boundary say be placed between the residential property.
Let's see, shall be placed to function as a visual barrier between residential
property am any commercial or industrial operations. In other words, make
the placement of the fence not mandatory on the guys property line but a
location where it will function as a visual barrier. We're telling him how to
design his fence and where to put it. If he wants to give the city 20 or 30
feet of green grass between his fence am the neighbor, I can't see how the
neighbor will object to that.
Councilwoman Swenson: He isn't likely to dedicate 20 or 30 feet of his land.
Besides, our restrictions for the back, what is our rearyard requirement? 20
feet isn't it on some industrial and commercial areas?
Barbara Dacy: Right.
41
100
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: Am we've got to have a minimum of 20 feet for any
accessibility to the rear so he couldn't put the fence closer to the
commercial aspect Jay.
I
Jay Johnson: It depends upon the situation. There are some situations. The
site where the Bait Shop is right now, basically would be putting a fence all
the way back on John's property line where a visual barrier 10 or 20 feet back
from the property would be adequate. It would cost less for the person
because he don't have to put less fence going all the way back.
Mayor Hamilton: You can't be serious. You aren't saying you would rather
see a fence 20 feet behind that building in your example rather than having
the fence all the way back on the property line. That would look absolutely
ridiculous.
Jay Johnson: We're giving him no choice. It will function as a visual
barrier in either place.
Mayor Hamil ton: It should be back at the end of the property line.
Jay Johnson: You're saying on every conceivable commercial development the
proper placement for that fence is on the property line. What I'm saying is
the purpose of the fence is a visual barrier am as long as it functions as
such, it is properly placed.
Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor, the intent of the phrase along the boundary and I
can see where it could be confusing but the intent of along the boumary was
to make sure that the entire area between the residential use and a commercial
use is completely screened so maybe the language could be changed so that six
feet in height shall be placed between the residential and commercial or
industrial property am leaving a placement up to the imividual property
owner.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: You could have a fence that goes like this. You have
to have a consistency in the block.
Barbara Dacy: I understand that. I'm also saying that another part of the
fence requirement says that if it is located right on the property line, on
Page 93 there, you have to get the consent of the abutting property owners.
Councilwoman Watson: I don't construe along the boumaries meaning right on
the boundary line but I guess you could but when I read it I can understand
where you could possibly think that.
Barbara Dacy: That intent is to make sure that the entire area between the
residential am the commercial am industrial use is screened.
Councilwoman Swenson: I can't possibly conceive a commercial property owner
putting the fence, what is it in 15 years the lam on the other side of the
fence belongs to the other guy or he can claim it.
Roger Knutson: Adverse possession. It doesn't always work quite that way.
I
42
I
I
I
101
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: . But it conceivably can happen and I can't imagine
anybody doing that and you can't take it away from them because then you would
be taking their property.
Barbara Dacy: Does the Council want to leave it as written.
Councilman Geving: Leave it as stated. I think it's a good statenent.
Mayor Hamilton: Carol, leave it in?
Councilwoman Watson: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: Pat?
Councilwoman Swenson: Well, yes. You guys have to live with it.
Mayor Hamilton: Item 2(a) .
Barbara Dacy: Home occupations. The Council wanted another way to require
what type of equipment is used and/or not used for home occupations and in
talking with the electrical inspector and so on, a typical house is wired for
220 volts that will serve a stove and major appliances. It could operate a
drill or even a welder but anything higher than that, the heavy mechanical
equipment will require rewiring.
Councilman Horn: I think you should include single phase in that too. You
could have 208 three phase because that's a commercial. It should be in
excess of 220 volts single phase.
Mayor Hamilton: How many amps is that?
size of something you're going to use.
handle 8 amps.
Amps is what really determines the
You could have 220 but it can only
Councilman Horn: 220 is going to have a lower current draw than a 110 so amps
really is irrelevant. What you're looking at here is the bigger power is the
three phase power outlet than the two single phases.
Councilwoman Watson: What about like a welder?
Councilman Horn: A welder will work on 220 single phase. Welders, air
compressors, all that stuff will work on this.
Councilwoman Swenson: So what are we saying?
Councilman Horn: Single phase.
Barbara Dacy: I misinformed the Council at the last meeting. '!he Fire Code
does not require screening. It is purely an aesthetic issue that is up to the
Council whether or not you want accessory fuel storage tanks to be screened or
not. That's up to the Council's discretion. As proposed now, they are
required to be screened.
43
102
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Horn: I don't think they need to be.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: But if it's already in there.
Mayor Hamilton: You mean a fuel storage tank.
Councilman Horn: Like if a guy has an oil burner, he's got to put a fence
around his tank.
Mayor Hamilton: In a residential area, anyplace?
Councilman Geving: Well, shall we landscape with low hedges, evergreens or
other suitable materials.
Mayor Hamilton: If they would rather store their oil tanks outside the home,
and it doesn't bother anyone.
Councilman Horn: I don't think they should have to be screened. It's another
one of these rules that we don't enforce if we do that and I think the purpose
in doing this was to have rules that we could enforce rather than shut our
eyes at some of them.
Counci lman Geving: Are there many of those around?
storage tanks?
Above ground fuel
Barbara Dacy: I do not know the number.
I
Tim Erhart: Out in the rural area where they don't have gas, there are a lot
of propane tanks out and they really stick out much more than fuel tanks.
Councilwoman Swenson: With your 2 1/2 acre developments now, depending on
where these people place their house on that acreage. If it's real close to
the road, you could have a real series of these things.
Councilman Geving: '!hey are real easy to screen though, just a few evergreens
and hedges.
Councilman Horn: I was thinking fuel oil tank that sit close to the house and
are quite small but those propane things really do stick out.
Councilwoman Watson: They are so silver.
Mayor Hamil ton: Include the propane tanks need to be screened.
Councilman Horn: People don't own those do they. Isn't that why they have to
be silver is because you don't own them. You actually lease that tank.
Councilwoman Watson:
can't mess with them.
silver.
You aren't allowed to paint them another color. You
Otherwise I'm sure people would because they are always
I
44
I
I
I
103
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Horn: I think the way to get around this is to say that they must
be painted a color that blends in with the surroundings or screened.
Mayor Hamilton: If you can't paint them then screen them.
Councilman Horn: That's right but it takes away the oil burners so they can
have them be a dull color that just blends in.
Councilwoman Watson:
or whatever.
Or blend in with the house if it's close to the house
Mayor Hamilton: How about propane tanks that are associated with filling
stations?
Councilwoman Watson: I don't have as much trouble with them in an industrial
or commercial area.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think it would be a definite improvement if they were
screened.
Mayor Hamilton: The only problem is by seeing it there you know that you can
go there and get propane. I just look for the tank if I'm going to fill up my
barbeque thing or something.
Councilwoman Watson: A gas station where you have all the associated gas
station items, it just doesn't throw me to see one because after all a lot of
things at a gas station aren't beautiful.
Councilman Horn: I agree, we should SPeCify the districts and they should be
residential districts for this.
Barbara Dacy: So amend Section 15 to pertain only to residential districts?
Councilman Horn: Yes.
Barbara Dacy: Okay, then everything else stays the same in that.
Councilwoman Swenson: Did you want to change that fuel to propane storage
tank or do you just want to leave it fuel storage tank?
Councilman Horn: No, I think we just left it as any fuel storage tanks but
say they must either be screened or painted in an earthtone that blends in
with the surroundings.
Councilwoman Watson: And that allows you the option of your own fuel tank
being painted rather than...
Councilman Geving: You could paint it the same color as your home.
Council woman Swenson: Do you want to leave in that last sentence then? Do
you want to have to worry about the screening requirements in each case or are
you going to leave it in?
45
104
City COuncil Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Horn: I think it should be something that the neighbor could
complain about if it creates an issue.
I
COuncilwoman Swenson: In Section 15, doesn't that address the visual
aesthetic. So wouldn't you just eliminate that last sentence?
Mayor Hamil ton: What does the last sentence say?
Barbara Dacy: Any such fuel storage tank shall be fenced in accordance with
the Fire Code Regulations and in addition shall be landscaped with low hedges,
evergreens or other suitable screening materials.
Councilman Horn: I think we should take that out.
Barbara Dacy: So you're taking the second sentence out and then replacing it
with the sentence about painting? Any such fuel storage tank shall be painted
in earth tone colors?
COuncilman Horn: Or screened.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!he one that I was talking about taking out is should
the Council wish to delete the screening requirements. The second sentence
should be eliminated. '!hat's the one I was talking about.
Councilman Geving: That's just a note from us.
I
Mayor Hamilton: '!hat's just referring to the second sentence Barbara was
talking about.
Barbara Dacy: Antennas and Satellite Dishes. The Council wanted a little
more clarification about procedures and what types of dishes and antennas
require what. What we are proposing to do is specifically differentiate
between the ground satellite dish and a radio antenna. CUrrently radio
antennas are a Conditional Use Permit so we are proposing to maintain that
process and establish a maximum height of 45 feet. Secondly, we are proposing
to eliminate roof mounted dishes from single family distrcits. '!hey are
potential eye sores and could be a potential safety hazard and just allow them
only in the commercial and industrial districts. In essence that is the gist
of our recommendation. A building permit would not be required for a TV
antenna, it is just a permitted accessory use.
Councilman Horn: I disagree with that whole thing.
allow satellite dishes.
I think you ought to
Mayor Hamil ton: On your roof?
COuncilman Horn: Some people don't have a lot of access to open cover and
have a lot of choices where they can put this on their property unless they
want to clearcut part of it.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: As far as the visual impedimence to the adjacent
property owner, I would be quite incense is somebody came along and put a huge
46
I
I
I
105
Ci~y Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
dish along side of me and I couldn't see my lake.
Mayor Hamilton: WOuld you prefer to have it put on their roof?
Councilwoman Swenson: I would rather see it someplace where I don't have to
look at it. No, I'm not saying that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that
I think the placement, the note that I have here is not necessarily for the
elimination of them but I think that the placement on the property should be
subject to review. Would you like it if somebody put one of these things
right along side of your driveway and you couldn't see anything.
Councilman Horn: I think you ought to meet the setback requirements.
Mayor Hamilton: What I was trying to say and what Clark was saying, would you
prefer to see a dish allowed to be on top of the home rather than the ground
where you are going to see it?
Councilman Geving: Does it make any difference though?
Mayor Hamilton: The visual pollution it would seem to me is less if it's on
the roof than if it on the ground.
Councilman Geving: I agree but if your out in a 2 1/2 or 5 acre lot, the guy
has it along his house and decides he would like to put it on the roof, what's
wrong with that?
Councilman Horn: I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Mayor Hamil ton: I can't see anything wrong.
Councilwoman Swenson: My main problem is having it in the yard when it
obstructs the visual view of the neighbors and I'm not sure that shouldn't be
Conditional Use Permit so the adjacent property owners wouldn't have the right
to go in and say this isn't where we want this put. You have to protect the
people who are along side as well as the individual who wants to. I'm not
saying you shouldn't let him put it up. I'm simply saying that I think the
people who live adjacent to that piece of property have a right to say this is
going to depreciate my property and this is going to ruin my view. We've got
some perfectly beautiful pieces of property with some lovely views. We have
golf courses, we have lakes, we have all these things and if somebody can come
up and put one of those ugly things up. OUr friend down on Kiowa Trail has a
black one down three I swear that thing has to be, I don't know it's the
biggest one you could buy. I don't think it would fit in here.
Councilman Geving: He's got to get a building permit.
Councilwoman Swenson: I don't know what he got but if somebody put one of
those things alongside my house, you guys will see me down here screaming and
hollering.
Councilman Horn: He could build a house in that area. My point is why is
47
106
c~ty Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
this any different than any other structure you could put in there under a
setback.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Why don't we just strike roof top dishes are only permitted
in commercial and industrial districts.
Councilman Horn: I don't think we should even need a building permit to put
one up.
Councilwoman Swenson: I disagree. Either that or a Conditional Use. One of
the two because you have to have some control.
Barbara Dacy: The strutural design, City Hall should have a record of. If we
require a permit for a fence, we should for sure require one for a roof
mounted dish or a radio antenna.
Councilman Horn: They are different reasons though. The reason for the
permit for the fence is because we want to make sure that it complies with the
setbacks of the yard. What I'm saying is if we allow wi thin the proper
setbacks of any othe structure in that yard, there should no problem with it.
Roger Knutson: The FCC is very concerned about regulations of satellite
dishes. It has been a hot land use issue. They passed a regulations about a
year ago that says you have to be awfully careful when you regulate these
things. You can treat them like other structures but if the FCC basically
says that if you discriminate against them or try to discourage them by having
tough regulations, your regulations are invalid. The FCC says that these
things are syncosafe and Congress even plugged at the idea of exempting them
100% from the Zoning Ordinance.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Are you saying that the adjacent property owners have
absolutely nothing to say about the fact that this monstrousity that might go
in alongside of them, they have no protection whatsoever?
Roger Knutson: Pretty much so.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think that's an abolishment of human rights.
Roger Knutson: That's the FCC for you.
Barbara Dacy: Okay, so the current recommendation is to eliminate roof
mounted dishes are permitted only in commercial and industrial districts?
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to see something in there so that the
adjacent property owners can be notified that this thing is going to go in
there so they have at least the opportunity to explain to the board that this
is going to be a visual hazard or impediment to the enjoyment of their
property and I think that's really important.
Councilman Geving: Let's change building permit to Conditional Use Permit.
What's wrong with that?
I
48
I
I
I
t07
,City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Counci~an Horn: I think it should comply with the setback requirements.
Counci~an Geving: As a building permit?
Barbara Dacy: If it's a Conditional Use Permit, it is just like requiring a
Conditional Use Permit for a fence. You could literally have every agenda
stacked with requests like that and Mr. Horn is saying just establish minimum
standards and either they meet them or they don't.
Councilwoman Swenson: Then what you're saying Clark is if we have 150 foot
rearyard, they can't put it in there and if they have a 30 front yard, they
can't put it in there and they can't put it in the sideyard so unless they
have 20 feet on the sideyard they are not going to get one in that 10 feet
either so they are going to have to go up on the roof.
Mayor Hamilton: If we do what Clark says then also strike that sentence.
Councilman Geving: I don't have any problem with that. Put it on the roof if
they want.
Mayor Hamilton: We would just strike that sentence then and then how would
you want to phrase that Clark?
Counci~an Horn: It has to be within the yard setback.
Councilwoman Swenson: That's in the building permit. They have to conform to
the building restrictions. we just take out the roof mounted dishes.
Barbara Dacy: Page 87, Section 6 and this pertains to the proposed
requirements for house pads and what Staff is suggesting if the Council does
want to establish minimum standards, we recommend that you establish a living
area standard rather than a ground floor area standard and we proposed to
differentiate pads by four types of houses. I would like to propose that we
differentiate split level and split entry. The one story ramblers, if you
want to pass this down, these are all from Chanhassen. That size is 960
square feet of living area. It is based on a standard 24 by 40, 3 bedroom
rambler excluding the garage. For split level designs, for example, this next
one that I'm going to pass out is a split entry.
Councilwoman Swenson: This should be a minimum. I have 1,000 feet and if you
made it any smaller than that you would walk out of the front door coming in
the back door.
Barbara Dacy: OUr concern especially with the split level and split entry
designs, if you said a floor area, you could interpret that to mean or not
interpret that to mean a basement area and really what a split level is is
just a rambler.
Councilwoman Swenson: A garden level. There's a difference between a
basement and a garden level excavation and it can be determined by that
without any problem.
49
108
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Barbara Dacy: Nonetheless, it is set into the ground and under the terms of
the Building Code it could be interpretted as a basement so what we're saying
with the split level is set that as 1,050 square feet living area and
basically what that is is approximately 550 square feet per each level.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: That's no good Barb.
Councilman Geving: Did you talk to any builders?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that's an example of a split level.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!bis is a duplex.
Barbara Dacy: No. Now, for a split foyer, what I got from last time was that
you are trying to avoid the kind of a stacked appearance. For very small
houses being stacked two or three stories tall. What we propose with the
split entry and the two story design is that a minimum of 600 square feet for
the first floor plus you have to attach the two car garage so that gives you
the image of a 40 foot wide house. A 24 foot wide garage and a 24 foot wide
pad. You have that image of the wide house and you can up from there. OUr
concern was of setting a larger standard is for a two story, if you have a 900
or 1,000, you are dictating a 2,000 or 1,800 square foot house which is very
expensive so to be very honest with the Council, to establish just one number
we felt it would be very difficult for us to apply that to the housing types
and standards that are being proposed today. Looking at the house designs,
the first floor are being designed for the living room, the dining area and
the family room area and the trend in today's housing seems to be for the
smaller third floor level and we are basing these numbers on current homes in
Chanhassen and past applications. We feel we can enforce this and it will
receive the quality that you are after.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: I couldn't disagree more. '!be split level, split foyer
design and you're talking about 550 square feet per floor, that is cottage
size. I have a small house and I've got 1,000 square feet on the main floor
and it's a small house. Now the lower level is finished, this is true but a
lot of people don't finish off the lower level and anything less, I think the
960 is not unreasonable for a level. I truly don't.
Barbara Dacy: But that could mean then that you are having 1,800 square feet
for a split level.
Councilwoman Swenson: You don't have to have it. You don't have to finish
off the lower level. There are a lot of people who don't. They retain it as
a basement. We happen to have it because, in fact our lower level is even
larger but we've got a small house. You're not forced to finish off the lower
level.
Barbara Dacy: What I'm saying is that with split level houses, it is a
rambler that one-half side of the house is inset into the ground and that both
levels are finished.
Councilwoman Swenson: Not necessarily.
I
50
109
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
\
I
Mayor Hamilton: What she is saying is they are. The 1,050 is finished.
You've got the living space. It has to be. You've taken a rambler, 1,505
foot rambler and you've gone like this with it. It's finished. The bottom
part is your living room and kitchen or whatever and the other part is your
bedrooms and your bath and it's finished.
Councilman Horn: If you don't finish that then you have to have 1,050 on the
pad outline.
Barbara Dacy: That's the other reason for the definition of mInImum living
area. It's bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, living rooms, dining rooms, etc.
excluding garages so we are specifically defining that space. The useable
space.
Mayor Hamil ton: The finished space.
Councilwoman Swenson: Why would you make it 600 square feet on a two story
and only 525 on a split if you're talking about two levels of living?
Barbara Dacy: Because with the two story,
Councilman Horn: It's finished.
Barbara Dacy: You took the words right out of my mouth.
I
Councilwoman SWenson: But they're not forced to finishing it.
Counc i lman Horn: Yes they are.
Councilwoman SWenson: No they're not.
Barbara Dacy: Even if they don't, you have essentially a house that is 1,200
square feet minimum that you are requiring for a two story house in
Chanhassen. You are saying that it's got to be 1,200 square feet period.
Councilman Geving: That's still quite a bit of living area.
Councilwoman Swenson: <l1, that's small.
Councilman Geving: I disagree. I've got 1,100 on each floor and both floors
are finished and I could live very comfortably on one floor of my house and
did for a number of years. These are minimum requirements.
Barbara Dacy: As long as ou are requiring two car garages, if you are
requiring them to be attached, you'll get a 40 foot wide.
Councilwoman Swenson: Barbara, you want to turn Chanhassen into another St.
Louis Park.
I Barbara Dacy: _t's not true.
51
110
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: That's what it's going to wind up if you keep on going
with these minimum standards.
I
Councilman Geving: I don't believe that. We've built a lot of homes over the
last couple years and they are all nice homes in Chanhassen and they are
bigger than these standards but they are still nice.
Mayor Hamilton: These are minimum.
Councilwoman Swenson: I protest but go ahead, you're going to change it.
Barbara Dacy: Just to clarify that we're also, what you see here is A, B and
C. What I'm proposing would be adding A, B, C and D and have split foyer
design the same as a two story design requirements.
Councilman Horn: 1,200?
Barbara Dacy: Right.
Jay Johnson: So you would have to have it all finished, is that what you're
saying? I have a split foyer, I don't have the bottom finished.
Councilman Horn: Then you have to have 1,200 on the main floor.
Jay Johnson: Well, I don't.
I
Bill Boyt: Excuse me, are you saying that in a split foyer, if the basement
of that is 600 and finished and the first floor of 600 is finished, then
that's it.
Councilwoman Swenson: That's What they're saying.
Bill Boyt: So you could have a house 15 by 30?
Councilwoman Swenson: We have a minimum of 20.
Bill Boyt: 20 by 30 would do it.
Councilwoman Swenson:
all agreed that's fine.
here definition?
I'm opposed. I just want to be on record. If you're
Are you going to leave this minimum living are in
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that's part of the proposal.
Councilwoman Swenson: And basements are not included in living area?
Barbara Dacy: That's correct. No, I take that back. The basements are not
referred to because what I was saying before is in split level and so on,
it's built into the ground. What is a basement? It's not a second story and
it's not on the first floor.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think you're going to have to make a definition
I
52
I
I
I
111
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
change here though otherwise you can get somebody who can put 600 square feet
on the main level and then finish off the basement and say this is a living
area.
Barbara Dacy: But in the split level and split foyer, that can be true. It
just adds to the total.
Councilman Horn: So you're going to go two story 600, split level or rambler
is 1,200?
Barbara Dacy: Now the split level would remain at 1,050 and the split foyer
would be 600.
Councilwoman Swenson: Why?
Barbara Dacy: If you look at that split foyer picture, it looks like a two
story house and essentially it is.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!he only difference between a split level and a split
foyer is the fact that you have your houses lengthwise on your property and
you walk into the middle of it. Clark, I live in one and when we built our
house we worked on it. A spl it foyer you have your entrance on the side and
you still go up and go down.
Councilman Horn: A split foyer is two levels. A split level has three or
more.
Councilwoman Swenson: Oh no.
Councilwoman Watson: I have a split foyer. You walk in on the main level
into an entry way and you go up the stairs or you go down the stairs right
there. It's in the front of the house.
Councilwoman Swenson: But it can have more but it doesn't.
Tim Erhart: I was going to point out, on Item A there, a 960 square foot
rambler don't require that a garage be attached. Then on Item C, that would
be a two story house, if the first floor exceeds 960 square feet then I don't
think we should require an attached garage either.
Councilwoman Swenson: I thought our zoning Ordinance called for a two car
attached garage in all cases.
Councilman Horn: So did I.
Barbara Dacy: No, you only specified a two car garage. You didn't make a
distinction as to whether or not it should be attached or detached.
Councilman Horn: We can change that.
Councilwoman Swenson: It should be attached.
53
112
,City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Barbara Dacy: You remember in the rural areas now too, there are a number of
people who build large two or three story homes and they detach their garage.
Why in Minnesota I don't know but it is a choice that is available to them.
I
Councilman Horn: They can have a detached as long as they have an attached
too.
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm not saying that they should change but I certainly
think we should have attached garages.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the point that is being made, when you get out to
rural areas and you build a large homes and you don't always attach your
garage.
Councilwoman Swenson: It's only going to be a matter of time before those
large areas are going to be condensed into small ones.
Barbara Dacy: Is the consensus for the proposal or against it?
Mayor Hamilton: Clark, are you in favor of this or not?
Counci lman Horn: Run by the numbers again.
Barbara Dacy: A, that should be one story rambler 960; B, split level 1,050
square feet; C, split foyer design, 600 square feet on the first floor and the
two car garage must be attached; and D, a two story design as you see there
and add the definition of minimum living area.
I
Councilman Horn: I think it should be inmaterial whether the garage is
attached or not on the basic house size.
Councilwoman Watson: Only the two story requires attachment right?
Councilman Horn: I don't understand that.
Barbara Dacy: Because the concern was what I heard, you wanted to avoid the
appearance of a very tall structure and by attaching the garage you have the
immediate appearance of 40 foot, you have a wider looking structure rather
than the narrower one.
Mayor Hamil ton: Are you in favor of it Clark?
Councilman Horn: No.
Counc il woman Swenson: No.
Councilman Geving: I am.
Councilwoman Watson: I guess it's okay.
I
Barbara Dacy: Okay, tree removal, comments, I'm open for suggestions here.
54
I
I
I
113
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: On (D), trees shall be removed so as to prevent
blocking public rights-of-ways or interfering with overhead utility lines. I
thought we weren't going to allow overhead utility lines anymore so why would
we have to have that?
Barbara Dacy: But there are a number of existing lines in the older areas.
Council woman Swenson: Why do you have to take the trees out? If they are
there and they are existing, we're going to require the underground utilities
in all new developnents, if the trees are there, why do you have to take them
out?
Barbara Dacy: All that is being recommended is the method of removal. '!hat
when they do it that they be careful to not interfere with the overhead lines.
'!hey cut down the tree and take down si x lines wi th it, that's the intent.
Councilwoman Swenson: That isn't the way I read it. I think you might reword
that a little bit because I think that is very confusing. It looks to me like
it says that you can cut the trees down because they are blocking the power
lines.
Councilman Horn: It's hard to see how you could do that. CUt the trees so
that it interferes with the power lines.
Barbara Dacy: '!he last page there, Staff comments number one, we've been
approached recently and this term has been used by the Council and has been a
use that the Council has always looked to including in the downtown area
specifically as senior citizen housing and we just wanted to make sure that
that term appears in the CBD and so on so if a proposal should come in that
that is available. We are also proposing it in the general district which is
just west of the downtown. Number 2, Page 45, the Council heard a request
regarding this item a couple months ago. The Planning Commission did act on
it last Wednesday and what you see before you is exactly their recommendation.
TO allow churches in the rural area subject to those six conditions and
churches are a conditional use as well.
Councilwoman Swenson: I have one problem with that people and that is I think
you might think about putting in some sort of conditions. There are a lot of
schools now that are being run through the churches and Sunday mornings and
for intermittent weekly functions working on a drainfield is one thing but if
you have some kind of a five day a week school in there or function, you're
going to have a lot more drain on a drainfield then I think you are
anticipating and I wonder if you shouldn't put that sort of restriction that
there will be no five day functions of that nature.
Councilwoman Watson: They often run daycares and things of that nature.
Councilwoman Swenson: And you're going to have a lot of problems if you're
going to have drainfields.
Barbara Dacy: That was exactly the Planning Commission's concern and they
grappled with that for a while and it was determined that when the church
55
114.
,City Council Meeting ~ December 15, 1986
comes in for the Conditional Use Permit review we will know at that time what
the Commission termed as ultimate capacity. If it is, and there is a line
that I feel is a clear difference between a church and a day to day school and
a daycare center and so on. I realize that churches can act and do provide
some of those services but if it is a consistent service that they are going
to be offering then it has moved beyond a church definition into a school and
daycare center. What the Planning Commission came back with was as long as we
had the Ordinance 10-B and if they show their ultimate capacity or what they
are going to anticipate then it should be accounted for.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: I think if you add that in here that anything of that
nature, a day school or a nursery school or a school, anything like that would
have to come in for a Conditional Use.
Councilman Geving: Don't you think though Pat that a lot of that kind of
stuff evolves over time. You start out with a church and the first thing
you know you have a daycare and the next thing you know you have a full blown
facility.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat's what I mean. I think it should be in here
though.
Councilman Geving: But they already have their permit and the first thing you
know, they are running a daycare.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: What worries me though, you've been around a long time,
I've been at this almost 9 years now and I know that it is one thing to sit
here for a Council and to make statements like they are making but if it isn't
in writing, somewhere down the line no one is going to remember what the
intent was on here and somebody can come in or just suddenly start, like Dale
said, start running a day nursery. I have no objections to these things but I
think you are going to have some kind, if you know what the capacity is that's
fine but I think that's why they have to come in. Otherwise, they wouldn't
have any reason to believe that they couldn't start a school.
Mayor Hamilton: Could you include some verbage in number 7 then Barbara?
Barbara Dacy: I'll say maybe school and daycare uses...
Mayor Hamilton: Are a Conditional Use Permit.
Barbara Dacy: Right or just not allowed with approval of the Council.
Councilman Horn: How do you monitor the capacity?
Barbara Dacy: '!he site plan for one should show ultimate seating capacity of
the assembly area. Typically they do have classrooms, two or three classrooms
with an estimated capacity of that.
Counci lman Horn: I mean in the future after the permit has been issued.
I
Barbara Dacy: What I'm saying is that the church would submit a plan. Often
56
I
I
I
115
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
times like a commercial and industrial use will say, we are going to propose
Phase 2 sometime in the future and that similar type of information be
submitted whether or not they are going to expand or not and if they are, they
should submit that at time of application so the drainfield size can be
planned for at that time. It is only to the churches benefit as well to plan
for that ultimate use.
Councilman Horn: Like Dale said, that will never happen. They won't even
think about it at that time.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think they will if they know when they come in
originally to get the permit to build that they have to be advised of all
these things.
Councilman Horn: I think as long as we don't allow them in there, then we
don't have a problem.
Mayor Hamilton: Everybody agree on 2 then?
Councilwoman Swenson: What are we agreeing to? That they are not going to be
allowed?
Mayor Hamilton: No, item 2 with the addition of 7 that schools and daycares
are not allowed without Council approval. Number 3, Page 128.
Barbara Dacy: Did anybody get Page 8? I apologize for that. Basically, it
provides for a variance section in the sign ordinance and the language goes
on, mirrors the existing language in the sign ordinance. However, it does
require a public hearing process for a sign variance so it is a little more
lengthy process to go through the Planning Commission and the Council to
receive a variance fram the terms of the sign ordinance.
Roger Knutson: Just so I'm clear on 2(E) on churches, you said by City
Council approval. Does that mean Conditional Use Permit?
Mayor Hamil ton: Yes.
Barbara Dacy: Three more short items. Number one, on Page 138, the Ordinance
reads that the effective date shall be 60 days after it's passage and it was
intended, the standard ordinance procedure in Chanhassen is that the effective
date is upon publication. I also wanted to inform the Council that I got an
estimate from South Shore Weekly News, if they are chosen to be the official
newspaper, they will print 5,000 newspaper size Zoning Ordinances for
approximatey $1,600.00 and they will be included in the mailing at the end of
January so that is kind of a good way to get the new Ordinance out with the
map so that language would change. The Attorney has advised me that even with
typos, any minor changes like that should be seen by the Council.
Roger Knutson: If you want to look at them, here they are. They are just a
few typos.
57
116
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Barbara Dacy: For the record that this will be placed in the file and it is
marked with those i terns that are to be changed and so on.
I
Roger Knutson: After now they will back to the word processor in our office
with what you have done here tonight and with the typos and wording
corrections made and then over here for submission.
Councilwoman Swenson: Is the end of January the earliest it can be published?
Barbara Dacy: Yes. Number one we need to make sure that the South Shore
Weekly News is going to be the official newspaper for the following year.
Number two, Mr. Krause from Weekly News advised me that to typeset 140 pages
will require about 2 to 3 weeks time for two people. '!he last and final
comment, on Page 129 pertaining to grading permit activity, I just noticed
this within the last week and a half, basically it requires any grading
activity to be approved in conjunction with the building permit for a site
plan or subdivision or an utility installation. In the past, the Council has
reviewed individual grading permit acitivities beyond those instances. In
some cases they were administrativey handled by the previous engineer. My
quick question is whether or not the Council wants to continue that type of
policy where you would not have to see a minor grading operation if a
homeowner wanted to alter his lot to correct drain tile or to do some other
function as long as it has plan approval by the engineering office?
Councilman Horn: Sounds okay to me.
I
Barbara Dacy: For the record, so I can read it into, what it would be doing
is adding number 8 under 10-1-2, Page 129 to say, excavation or grading on
residential lots with a building permit shall receive the approval of the City
Engineer subject to the terms of this Article. That's it.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to accept the second
and final reading of the proposed new Zoning Ordinance as presented with all
noted changes and corrections with the anticipated publishing date at the end
of January. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Roger Knutson: Just to clarify for myself, you are moving for adoption of the
Ordinance as presented.
Councilwoman Swenson extended her thanks and appreciation to the Planning
Staff and Planning Commission for all their help and work in preparing the
Zoning Ordinance.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
Mayor Hamilton stated that there are four Commission seats that are going to
be expiring on January 1, 1987. Mayor Hamilton will interview people and
those interested can apply and he will make recommendations.
Councilwoman Watson stated that in all the Minutes of the Park and Recreation
Commission meetings for the last year have had a disgruntled, negative tone
and we need some people with more positive attitudes.
I
58
I
I
I
117
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Councilman Geving asked if the Council would sign a letter to Charlie Robbins.
He's been on the Comnission for several years and has done a good job.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to table the appointments
to the Park and Recreation Commission until after the Mayor has had a chance
to accept applications and interview candidates for the positions. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF THE 1987 PARK AND ROCREATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PR(x:;RAM.
Mayor Hamil ton: I've got just a couple of questions. Lake Ann Park, we have
just one tennis court at Lake Ann Park. I would certainly like to see that
expanded. I think it would seem to me when they put in tennis courts, the
cost to put in a second one isn't that the same as putting in one right?
Lori Sietsema: I don't know that for sure.
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm pretty sure that's true because that's a continuous
thing. It's two courts but they are together.
Mayor Hamilt<?n: Maybe you could look into that and find out what the
difference in cost is. I noticed you have that on North Lotus Lake Park you
have tennis court and I presume that meant one for $20,000.00. I think you
ought to investigate two and find out what they cost for two for maybe
$25,000.00. I think the Park and Rec Commission should consider the
possibility of adding another tennis court alongside the one at Lake Ann Park.
Lake Susan Park, I noticed that through the notes here a lot of volleyball
courts. I wasn't aware that volleyball was becoming so popular to put
volleyball courts everywhere. Play equipment, we don't have any play
equipment budgeted for Lake Susan Park.
Lori Sietsema: They didn't include it in the Lake Susan plan because what is
existing there is proposed as a park to serve the business district there and
with the additional 8 acres to be acquired at that point, then it would become
more of a community park.
Mayor Hamilton: They don't think play equipment is necessary there right now?
Lori Sietsema: The other thing is that the road still isn't for sure when
that is going to go through so I didn't want to put things that weren't going
to be used.
Mayor Hamilton: None of this should be put in until the road goes through.
Lori Sietsema: They felt that everything but the running track should be put
in because it is booked on weekends so heavily that it probably will be used.
Mayor Hamilton: North Lotus Lake again, a tennis court, you'll look into
two. Carver Beach area, the bollard and chain to obstruct the old access. I
think that's been tried before and I'm not so sure that it's ever been
successful. I think the only way we are going to keep people from knocking it
down and using that for an access is to put a berm of some kind. A mound of
59
118
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
dirt or clay or something so that they absolutely can't get over it.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: What about pilings.
Councilwoman Watson: I think if they put something in like grass or something
that could be planted over plantings that would be attractive and yet complete
the turn would work out nice over a period of time.
Mayor Hamil ton: I think it should be investigated.
Councilwoman Watson: $500.00 for a tire swing replacement?
Lori Sietsema: '!hey took the whole post out.
Mayor Hamilton: I just have one other comment at the very em here you have
the Lake Susan running track pending acquisition of additional 8 acres. I
have a really tough time with that. Generally, people who are into running
that I know and talk to don't like to run on a track or any kind of a design
thing because they would rather run aroum town or run around where the
scenery changes.
Lori Sietsema: -What they were thinking of was something like the Vitacourse
that is out at...
Mayor Hamilton: '!he one that never gets used. I've never seen anybody use it
ever. I think it would be a mistake to even consider purchasing any more
acreage to put in something like that.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: '!he tire swing has got to go. If we have any anyplace
else they better go because we have in our Ordinance a very specific statement
that tires are not allowed because water gets in tires and mosquitoes breed in
tires am then we can have kids with encephalitis.
Councilman Horn: They cut a hole in the bottom for the water to drain.
Mayor Hamilton: Do they have holes in the bottom for the water to drain out?
Lori Sietsema: I'm almost positive they do.
Councilwoman Swenson: Well, would you check that out Lori because I don't
think we want any kids getting. This is in our own Ordinance. It's so
important. Where is Meadow Green?
Lori sietsema: Chaparral.
Councilwoman Watson: '!hat is one nice park. '!hey get something nice and
lovely every year. They're always getting something. Basketball courts.
They've got everything there.
Don Ashworth: They put in a lot of money.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I see on Meadow Green it says tennis courts for $20,000.00.
60
I
I
I
119
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Lori Sietsema: I think the whole way through I was thinking of a double
court.
Councilman Geving: You're going to get two for $20,000.00?
Lori Sietsema: That was what the estimate I got was two courts for
$20,000.00. That's my typo.
Councilwoman Swenson: When do you anticipate that Chanhassen Hills will be
ready for stuff?
Lori Sietsema: I anticipated it not being ready until 1988 or 1989.
Councilwoman SWenson: They are putting the roads in there.
Barbara Dacy: The homes will begin next spring. There are approximatey 43
hanes in there.
Councilwoman Swenson: Is that park going to be accessible for the entire
south end of the city?
Lori Sietsema: It will be a city park.
Councilwoman Swenson: Would you make a note that I am starting a petition for
tennis courts down there.
Councilman Horn: I think I made my comments earlier about parks. I would
like to have any monies removed from any park that is not accessible to the
public because you can't park next to it. I believe Carver Park you've taken
the chain and blocked the old access. I think the tire swing replacement
should be deleted from that. I just can't see the City putting public money
into private parks that the public can't use. I don't know how many other
parks fall into that category in here but I would like to delete all of those
from the budget.
Councilwoman Watson: Greenwood Shores park does qualify because you paved
a trail from Lake Ann Park over to it now so there is access. It's not a
neighborhood park anymore.
Councilman Horn: How far is that from Lake Ann?
Councilwoman Watson: Not very far.
Councilman Horn: Are there any other parks in that category?
Lori Sietsema: The only one that I know that has no parking signs is
Bandimere Heights and Greenwood Shores.
Mayor Hamilton: Carver Beach and then the park up on top.
Councilman Horn: That is the park where the tire swing is.
61
12~
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
Lori Sietsema: No, Carver Beach, Park and Rec calls it the Carver Beach
playground and the beach is down by the lake and that's the one with the
broken tire swing that has the no parking signs in the parking lot and then
the one on top, there is parking allowed on the street.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: The reason that those no parking signs are on Kiowa
Trail though was not because of the park and since the esteem resident is no
longer living there, 1'11 try and find out if they still want those signs up.
Since Prince no longer lives there.
Lori Sietsema: I think it is 50-50 as to whether people think they should
stay or not.
Councilwoman Swenson: If you're not going to allow any parking there on the
street, it might be a good idea to plan on going back at least the distance of
an automobile into the park so people can pull in there. All you have to do
is the length of an automobile and get them off because otherwise we're
definitely secluding the use of that to the people along that area. I don't
think it has to elaborate, at least with the facilities that we have down
there that it's going to be of great use, but if you're going to have no
parking, you certainly at least have to have some parking for a .few cars on
the park itself.
Councilwoman Watson: There will be soccor to be built this year as well.
Lori Sietsema: And that was very well received because our soccor leagues are
played with Chaska and it's such a nice location for them both to meet because
Chaska people don't like to play at West Minnetonka and the Chanhassen people
don't like to play down in Chaska.
I
Councilman Geving: I agree with the comments that were made earlier on Lake
Susan Park. I really question whether or not we should put any amount of
monies into that park until we get the roadway in. I get more comments from
constituents that see that beautiful facility up there and they can't get to
it. They are frustrated by it and want to know when are we going to open that
up. I just feel that we have to build that road across there so we can get
our people to it so the comments I have is I don't think we should spend a
whole lot of money at Lake Susan Park until that happens. I agree completely
wi th the comments that were made on the running track. <X1e of the things that
I would like to see is the acquisi tion money set aside for trees. I think
that with all the development that we're doing in all of our parks, we need
trees. We have a very small tree farm and I would say that in every capital
improvement program year to year the park people should put about $2,000.00
aside for movement of fairly good size trees in.
Lori Sietsema: We have restocked the tree farm last year and I asked them
about it this year and he felt that he wouldn't need anything this year.
Councilman Geving: I think we do. I think every year we should acquire some
trees because it takes a long time the way we're developing our tree farm.
They'll grow in good time but I think that's one thing I would like to
include. Then, just a quick comment and this is in terms of philosphy, I can
I
62
I
I
J
121
City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986
see why the Park and Ree people might be a 1 i ttle bit frustrated. They
proposed a 1987 Capital Improvement Program. We read their notes tonight and
they spent a lot of time on this corning up with the items and the dollar
values and so forth and it comes to the City Council and we all have our own
feelings on what should be in a park and how it should go basically like we
would delete out of the improvement program. I think some of our own personal
feelings should be known to the park people because I know the first thing
they're going to see when they see a number of items deleted and their
$80,000.00 reduced to something less after a whole lot of work, they're going
to be frustrated and all the more reason again for this meeting with the Park
people and maybe this should be left until that meeting. There's no hurry to
get this through is there Don? Do you have to do it now within the next,
there are so many things that we have scratched or commented on tonight that
we pretty well have taken care of the parks.
Don Ashworth: I don't see any item on here that could not wait for an
additional 30 days.
Councilman Geving: That's what I would recommend so we could try to get a
general feeling between the Council and the Park and Ree's philosphy like for
example Lake Susan Park and some of these other things. Tire swing
replacements.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table approval of the 1987
Park and Recreation Capital Improvement Program for 30 days until after the
Council has a chance to meet with the Park and Recreation Commission. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF 1987 POISITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN.
Councilwoman Swensons moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adopt the City
Manager's recommendations to approve the 1987 Position Classification and Pay
Compensation Plan. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Horn stated that he didn't see anything about the City Manager's
goals. Don Ashworth stated that he did meet with the Mayor and in that
process he can relate some of the things they talked about. Through the
Housing Redevelopment Authority we have been able to put Todd Gerhardt on as
helping the City Manager out on the day to day activities and Don would spend
more time with each of the Department heads in terms of helping each of them
in their personal growth. There are a lot of tasks such as the downtown
project that will put a tremendous strain on the City. Those are two of the
primary goals. Mayor Hamil ton stated that he thinks Don does a tremendous job
and hope he continues to stay with the City and do a good job. Councilman
Geving stated that he would like to see his goals outlined. Mayor Hamilton
stated that he thought Don should delegate some more of his responsibilities
to people under him and give him the time and the opportuni ty to find out more
day to day what they are doing and direct their goals and work.
Don Ashworth stated that he would like to pursue advertising under the
parameters that Jim has laid out for the vacancy of Public Safety Director.
An administrative person capable of coordinating activities and recognizing
63
122
City Council Meeting ~ December 15, 1986
that we are carrying out a contractual service for our police needs and the
city desires to ensure that that happens in the future.
Councilman Geving stated that one of the areas that we could be doing a little
more work in is the personal growth area for all of the employees. The City
tends to keep the employees here. There has been very little turnover and as
a result of that, he thought the city needed to spend more time sending people
to training classes, upgrading them, whatever is necessary to develop them.
Go to seminars, go to training sessions, wherever. The City can afford to put
that money into their people because the city is retaining them and the same
goes for the City Manager. The other comment was because the city has been
able to keep the public safety thing going over the last couple years, he
asked if this position was going to be advertised over as wide an area as
possible? Don Ashworth stated that he had three resumes already but that
there would be advertisements in a number of publications and professional
journals to get a wide response for the job.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Hamilton told the Council about the League of National Cities convention
that he attended in San Antonio, Texas. He stated it was a very worthwhile
seminary for anyone on the council to go to.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
TH 7 CORRIDOR STUDY, FINAL REPORT, CITY PLANNER.
Barbara Dacy stated that she didn't really have a presentation. She was just
asking for any comments and that it will be back on a future agenda in
January.
Resolution #86-92: Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded
to accept the Final Report as presented on the TH 7 Corridor Study submitted
by the City Planner. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamil ton thanked Councilwoman Swenson and Councilwoman Watson for their
years of service on the Council.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m..
Don Ashworth
City Manager
prepared by Nann Opheim
64
I
I
I