1f. Minutes1
i
1
1
0
1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 9, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman DockendorL
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, and Todd Hoffman
ip
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the agenda with
the following additions: Mayor Chmiel wanted to add a presentation by Susan Hurm and Natalie Rossini under
Visitor Presentations and Don Ashworth wanted to discuss the Debt Study under Administration Presentations.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAIM MAY 15-21,1994 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS
WEEK.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll go through this just rather quickly. This is a proclamation establishing May 15th thru May
21st, 1994 as National Public Works Week. Whereas, the public works services provided in our community are
an integral part of our citizens' everyday lives; and Whereas, the support of understanding and informed citizenry
is vital to the efficient operation of the public works systems and programs such as water, sewer, streets, and
highways, public buildings, solid waste collection and snow removal; and Whereas, the health, safety and
comfort of this community greatly depends on these facilities and services; and Whereas, the quality and
effectiveness of these facilities as well as their planning, design and construction, is vitally dependent upon the
efforts and skill of public works officials; and Whereas, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel
who staff public works departments is materially influenced by the people's attitude and understanding of the
importance of work they perform; Now Therefore I, Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do
hereby proclaim this week, May 15th thru May 21st, 1994 as NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK in the
City of Chanhassen. I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues
involved in providing our public works and to recognize the contributions to which public works officials make
every day to our health, safety, comfort and quality of life. Given under my hand and Seal of the City of
Chanhassen this 9th day of May, 1994. Is there a motion?
Councilman Wing: Absolutely. Thank you. So moved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. I think that was a well read verse. And I think really, what I read I
really feel strong about because I think people within public safety are really, or excuse me. Within public
works are doing things as they normally do every day of their lives and do a good job at what they do. And I'm
sort of proud as to how they really function within the city.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Definitely unsong heroes.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Resolution #9449: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to proclaim the week
of May 15 -21, 1994 as National Public Works Week in the city of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the
1
motion carried unanimously.
' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
' a. Approve Plans and Specifications for 1994 Street Repair Program; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project
No. 94 -8.
e. Resolution #94 -50: Receive Feasibility Report on Lyman Boulevard Street Reconstruction and Lake Riley
' Area Trunk Utility Improvements in Sections 13 and 24; Call Public Hearing, Project 93 -32.
g. Resolution #94 -51: Approve Property Transfer from the City of Chanhassen to Nordictrack, Inc.
' h. Approve Water Obstacle Permit, Minnewashta Ski Club.
i. Amendment to City Code Regarding a Requirement to Submit Computer Aided Graphics or Models for Site
Plan Reviews and Subdivisions, Final Reading.
j. Amendment to City Code Regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation, Final Reading; and Summary
Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
k. Approval of Accounts.
' 1. City Council Minutes dated April 25, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 20, 1994
Joint Public Safety Commission and City Council Minutes dated April 14, 1994
1 m. City Code Amendment Regarding Discharges into the Sanitary Sewer System, Final Reading.
' n. Approve Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes, Wetland Protection Ordinance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
(Item 3(p) will be discussed at the end of the agenda.)
C. THE MEADOWS AT LONG ACRES, LUNDGREN BROTHERS.
' Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. This applicant requested that this item be pulled off the
Consent Agenda for review and corrections that have come out today. Unfortunately it wasn't on time ... changed
' highlighted. Basically these changes and the recommendations of approval ... for this item. Just briefly going
through in the subdivision approval. Condition number 1. Second sentence of that paragraph should read,
variances should be granted on Lot 6, Block 1; Lots 1, 8, 13, Block 2, Lot 5, Block 3; Lots 5 -7, Block 4; and
Lots 1 -3, Block 5, which is a drainage entry to the wetland. Condition number 4 shall read, a pool located on
' Lot 4, Block 2 shall be removed in conjunction with the site grading. On the next page, condition number 8.
8(a) shall read, full park and trail fees... Condition number 16. First sentence shall read, drainage and
conservation easements shall be dedicated ..except for Outlot G, H, K and L. Basically the last change occurs
' on.
Mayor Chmiel: How about 22 Charles?
2
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Charles Folch: 22 shall be kept. There was a question, actually there was a question by the developer as to
whether that was necessary or not...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but (c) you have on here rather than Block 1 you have Block 3 to run parallel. That is
22 (a).
Charles Folch: That's correct. That actually, that amendment to the variance for Lot 3 is actually covered under
that fast condition...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With those numbers, okay.
Charles Folch: And then the final item is item 22(b). That condition can be deleted which basically provides
25 % ... and those are the changes for...
Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. I had one other question regarding that. From the proposed location of the home
that's going on the properties, what is the setback from the home to the street? What is the distance involved?
Charles Folch: From the existing home?
Mayor Chmiel: From the pads to be put on those, each of those lots.
Charles Folch: Typically.
Mayor Chmiel: I went through that and I did not see from where the pad would be to what the depth is of that,
from the driveway.
Charles Folch: Terry, are those 30 feet setbacks? A typical housepad to the rear yard.
Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord with Lundgren Brothers. There are a number of, part of the approval of the PUD,
there are a number of lots that staff recommended and were approved by the City Council in order to save trees
to keep the house pads a certain distance from the wetland. That they reduce the front yard setbacks. There
were a few of those ... I don't know exactly how many...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Any questions? Can I have a motion for item 3(c), items 1 and 2.
Councilman Mason: So moved
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the Final Plat, Development Contract
and Plans and Specifications for the Meadows at Long Acres by Lundgren Bros Construction as amended
by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's try to carry item (f) and (o) onto the balance of our Council Presentation and we'll cover
them at that time. With that I'll move the agenda along.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
K
C
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: I did have Sue on the agenda at this time. Also Natalie for your proposal or your presentation
that you're going to make this evening and so if you'd like to come up now and do that, I would greatly
appreciate it.
Natalie Rossini: Well I come to you for the last time as a Chair for the Youth Commission. I graduate this
June and I'm very excited. Counting the days down. I wanted to remind the Council about, that there will be
an opening after this month and applications can be dropped off at the Chaska High School. There's a pink
form in the back ... so our commission can continue with ... Also in the packet is a gold or a yellowish packet.
' That will give you the responsibilities of the Youth Commission members. A few months ago at one of our
meetings we split up into groups and brainstormed what we thought... youth commission member, what they
were. As you can see... advocating for youth. Serving as a key communicator in our community. A link
between communities and the school district and also along with that a link between the youth and adults and so
on. On the next page it talks about...and local board and Council. And this is Todd Hoffman's job. All these
responsibilities on the committee. Reading the Youth Commission Minutes. All the other material. And
keeping yourself informed Contacting your student or adult representatives if you have any questions...
arrangements for the youth commission representatives... in February, May and August and November. Those are
the months that we set up...in our By -laws each member's supposed to make quarterly udpates during the year.
And also...county activities and considering all ... The third page is ... responsibilities of...numbers of the youth
commission and that includes all the City Council, County Commissioners, School Board members and so on.
We just, instead of listing all of them, we just call them all agency numbers. And reading Minutes and agendas
and we put this as number one because we look to you as being a vital link to our youth commission and each
of you having a responsibility towards the youth commission as we do towards you. So if you take the time to
' read through those, we would really appreciate it.
Sue Hurm: In your packet you have a new Youth Commission Directory and one of our goals when we came
before you last time was to have an opportunity for youth in Chanhassen. I think they've done a nice job.
Gotten more in there. We'd still like to see more of that done but there will be opportunities for youth in
Chanhassen ... we had these directories presented, staff had presented it to St. Hubert's at Chaska Middle School
and at the High School so they thought ... if they are looking for summer opportunities to volunteer, it's available
' in the school. The next thing we tried to do as far as accomplishing more awareness of what the youth
commission is, is we have designed a T -shirt and would like commission members to certainly buy a T -shirt
when they're all made so you can also help us publicize the youth commission. The picture of what it would
' look like is in your packet. It has each one of the city logos. The District #112 and our logo on the bottom. It
will be done black lettering for the youth commission and the logo around the outside will be a teal on white.
Natalie Rossini: You haven't changed the logo, have you?
Sue Hurm: Yeah, we had to check that because we were going to do this.
' Natalie Rossini: The City of Carver changed their logo. That's why we would have had the T- shirts done to
present to you to show you.
' Sue Hurm: And really twist your arm.
Mayor Chmiel: Watch out. This gets televised in Carver.
' Sue Hurm: So you need to let us know if you're going to change your logo. So that's ... and also provide a
1
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
certain number in order to get them so we'll be pushing for those. A banner. We talked about Values Week
and they were involved in Values Week and we felt it would be real appropriate to have a banner displayed in '
the City Halls which would have again the logos across the top which is in your packet. Community Values and
we need 8 values that we are trying to encourage in the city. The youth commission is coming up with the
funds to cover them. So we'd like you to have it displayed in a permanent place in the City Hall—But we felt
that, we felt very strongly that it is important for the youth commission to...
Natalie Rossini: Okay. I might as well continue with telling you about our activities that we've been doing
since Christmas. Around Christmas time we promoted the holidays, or we organized the holiday gift project, and
'
I don't know if you read about that in the paper but the Youth Commission, along with Student Council put this
on where we had a tree displayed inside the school and we had people donate money. When they walked
through the school, people, a student would ... dress up as Santa Claus and stuff and then we also had people
donating gifts and we had about 5 big boxes full of gifts and items that we donated to the ... and then we also
collected $550.00 to go out and buy more items. So that was really neat. The turn out that we had for our fast
year of the Holiday Gift Project. We also participated in the Super Cities Walk for MS and that was last month
and we had about 25 to 30 students that came out... We also did the Walktoberfest last October and we had a
'
smaller number so it's beginning to grow. And then we also took some students down to some churches down
in St. Paul with our ... project and I think I explained that before. We just had it last fall where we go down there
and help serve the hungry in some churches down in St. Paul. And you can talk with the people and eat with
them so it's a great learning experience. We also helped out with the Easter Egg Hunt here in Chanhassen and
that was a lot of fun. I know all the students who, even the people that had dressed up as the Bunny Rabbit,
they really enjoyed the time there. And then we also had Earth Week in April and this is the fast time that the
Youth Commission or anybody has promoted Earth Week. Just, you know students who had organized it and we
,
had demonstrations about how much trash we use and we also had a promoting car pooling day. We had posters
and an essay contest so that was ... The other things that we've done on the volunteering side is finding volunteers
for Parents Anonymous meetings and also finding volunteers to help out and chaperone the Middle School
Dances put on by I think the Park and Rec Department. So Susan wants to talk about our future activities.
Sue Hurm: One of the things that the youth commission will be working on next is there's a shelter down in the '
Minneapolis area where the youth commission will go down and provide ice cream and story time for some of
the children that are down there. That's one of the next things that we'll be working on. Jeannie Strauss and I
will be working on setting up ... at the High School in which we would like local government people and the '
Senators and Congressmen and anyone else we can think of, to come and listen to the students about what their
concerns are in the community. We felt that we needed to find out what their needs were and so we're going to
try and get it for ... we'll let you know because we'd like some people from Chanhassen to show up. It will be
during the day. Next, the last thing that I'm aware of is there's a...And I guess the other thing that I needed to
do is I needed to thank Natalie because she's done an outstanding job and she was recognized during Values
Week as an Outstanding Youth. Or as one of the Outstanding Youth and received a bond, which was kind of
nice because she's done a lot of work and hopefully it will look good on her resume too for school and '
everything else but she has put a lot of her heart and soul in it and we're going to miss her...
Natalie Rossini: Thank you. The youth commission has brought me so far. It happened.to be a fluke when one '
of my friends asked me to be on it so I've been very fortunate and have met a lot of influential people and
learned about communication skills. But besides Outstanding Youth Award, I also leave with a sense of
accomplishment because I helped the youth commission or was part of serving a purpose of the link between the
youth and adults in the community and to actually accomplish some goal that was set up—gives you a good ,
feeling. I don't know how to explain it but anyway, I do hope that this fall, when we have the Spaghetti Dinner,
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
or the youth commission has its Spaghetti Dinner, that everyone will attend. I don't know I have all these
articles that just that are proof of how much publicity that we've gotten this year and how it's going to grow.
Hopefully grow in the coming year and so I want to thank you for listening to all our little updates. And I don't
know, I guess that's about it. And I just hope that you guys will also be encouraged to spend more time looking
at the youth commission and becoming more involved.
' Mayor Chmiel: Great. Natalie, on behalf of City Council, it's always a pleasure to see your smiling face here.
And knowingly what you've done, it really is youth of the up and coming, well the up and coming through the
' process that you're going through and it really is something to see when an individual who will take their time
such as you have done, many, many times over and I've seen you at many of the functions that I've attended
because of the city. And you're always bubbly, effervescent and don't ever lose it. Keep that going.
Natalie Rossini: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: And we applaud you for that. Thank you. Okay. It's always neat to see young people within
' the community who really care and I think that's the name of the game. We'll move on to item number 4.
HEALTH HOUSE 1 94, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION.
Mayor Chmiel: Is Diane here?
Jerry Orr: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll let you come forward and introduce yourself.
' Jerry Orr: I'm Jerry Orr with the American Lung Association of Hennepin County. With me is Jeff
Schoenwetter from JMS Homes and we simply wanted to drop by this evening to thank you for the warm
welcome that the American Lung Association received for it's Health House project. It was a project that we
initiated for the first time last year. It has grown to the point where there are five health houses being built by
' American Lung Associations around the country. In North Caroline, Michigan, in New York, and Wisconsin and
the National Demonstration Site is the one here in Chanhassen. The project is about a whole series of healthy
choices and the fast choice is in terms of what community are you going to build it in and we chose your's. We
also chose Jeff's Royal Estates project and Jeff is our builder who helped us develop our project last year. The
health house is simply about again those choices that it takes to make a house as healthy as possible and also
one that's healthy for the planet in terms of the kinds of materials that are used and put in it. As the National
' Demonstration Site, you folks will be getting some attention in local and national media. Our local media
sponsor is KARE 11 and our national sponsors will be touting the national site, which is the Chanhassen site, as
they put together advertisements and promotions that will,appear in the state... national housing, Health House
Project. So we wanted to come by and say thank you. We brought a shovel here for the Chanhassen Archives
for the site here. Jeff, would you like to make a comment?
Jeff Schoenwetter. I'll be brief. I know you have other business. Mayor Chmiel, ladies and gentlemen of the
Council. JMS Homes is just proud to be here in Chanhassen and building. We're grateful for the opportunity to
help out the American Lung Association. We had a great project last year. It's growing to national recognition
now and we hope it continues to grow and we thank you for being here for us.
' Mayor Chmiel: It's neat to know that this kind of a home is going to be built within our community as well.
1
G
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
But there's just one little item and I think Jerry mentioned it to me when we were out there for the ground
breaking. Is the mere fact that just between the studs of the walls that are going up, each of those are all
'
vaccumed out. No sawdust remains within. Only for the mere fact that any moisture that could get in there
could cause some other given problems and probably for those who have asthma or whatever, and that just
builds up a mold consequently and that mold no longer would exist within this specific home. And I think it's a
good idea just to probably have all builders start looking at that because many problems exist within our
,
community. Within our own personal lives and I too have a granddaughter who's a real severe asthmatic and
from that standpoint I know how clean things really have to be and I appreciate the fact that we have this within
our community, so thank you.
,
Councilman Wing: Can you make sure that Harold doesn't get a hold of that shovel.
Thanks again.
Mayor Chmiel: It will go on the wall.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B, PARK ONE 2ND ADDITION
INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION; A SITE PLAN FO 54,720 SO. FT.
,
WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE PRESS AND A 10,315 SO. FT. KIND ERCARE FACILITY;
AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAYCARE CENTER IN AN IOP,
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT; LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST Q UADRANT OF DELL
ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5, MARCUS CORPORATION.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that through much of what we have gone through, with this, there has been a request that
this item again be tabled. And if there's any discussion by Council, I would like that to start at this time.
,
Councilman Senn: I'd like to step down but I'd also like an opportunity to talk with you about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I was hopeful that you'd say that and remove yourself at this time.
Mark Senn: Maybe to start with I'd like to just raise a few points of clarification. Last Council meeting one of
the Council people referred to me I think personally over half a dozen times as it relates to this project so I
'
figure I may as well at least get up and talk to you about it. The application on this project was made by
Marcus Corporation, which is one of over half a dozen companies, I'll say small but modest companies that I
own and Marcus Corporation submitted that application on behalf of a 12 year client. Marcus Corporation, nor
'
myself, has never intended to have, nor will have any interest in this project, ownership or otherwise. It's
simply following through as it would with this plan on any other project anywhere really in the State of
Minnesota. Up front, real early on my only real involvement was to sit down with staff. I talked to Paul Krauss
,
and really asked him to just sit down and be overly critical of this project. The reason I asked that was because
I knew regardless of whether I was going to be directly involved or not, it was going to be perceived as
something that had something to do with me so I told Paul specifically that I wanted him and staff to be overly
critical of the project. We sat down and had a preliminary review on a concept basis and staff was very
'
positive. In fact Mr. Krauss was probably the most positive. Beyond that I have intentionally really stayed out
of this process all through it and as I've done before, and also tonight, I've removed myself from any votes as
was my intention. I think I now no longer have any other choice I guess other than to sit in the background
and do nothing because I think it's really going to perform a disservice to the community if we do. Both of our
clients at this point have assumed that tonight would be basically a repeat of last Council meeting, which was
basically telling them that, given the identical action to tabling and it was basically an off deal so to speak. I
,
can't really blame them for their perception but again I think it would really be bad for our community if we
G
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
i
did. What I'd like to do is just give you a little bit of history so you understand where this came from.
' Kindercare, through Mr. Richard Nordlin, who is a client of our's, came to us and told us that basically they had
an intention to do some fairly substantial expansion here in the metropolitan area. In fact they talked about
potentially 10 additional sites. They also gave us a priority list of those sites. Quite frankly Chanhassen was
way down the list on that priority list of sites. I knew whatever, I'm going to say pressure I could convince
them to move it up to the top of the site because both through personal experience and from what I've heard
from a lot of other people, we have an acute shortage of daycare in Chanhassen. My efforts were successful and
we then undertook the process of identifying a site and Kindercare, like most other, national companies like
' itself, has site criteria and we evaluated those criteria and went through them to basically... sites. Kindercare
traditionally wants to be on sites that basically transition between residential and commercial or industrial areas.
It's basically a traffic pattern and they want to be part of this basically puts them in the position basically to
service the residential areas but also service the residential areas on the way in terms of work. We looked at a
lot of different sites in Chanhassen. There's one real problem also already occurring in Chanhassen as it relates
to daycare and that's land costs. As you all know from numerous other things, land costs in Chanhassen have
gone up quite rapidly. Daycare unfortunately is one of those things that cannot afford high land costs. In fact
traditionally you'll find land costs of less than $3.00 a square foot going into a daycare in terms of the land.
And that's one of the reasons why the site basically at Dell Road was identified because it was an industrially
zoned site. Industrially zoned property of course is considerably cheaper than commercially zoned property. By
the way, the Press at that time did not have it's property for sale. I know there's a sign out there and a lot of
people think it is for sale but that property that's for sale happens to be a little parcel that's stuck way back in
back. Behind the Press that Frank Beddor still owns. It has nothing to do with that corner parcel. That corner
parcel is basically extending all the way back to 79th is effectively not been for sale and has been held for
' expansion by the Press. Also at that time the Press really had no intentions of expansion, or at least no
intentions that were very far along. They had contemplated that they had started to look at it but their expansion
needs basically were being met by storage needs being accommodated on the site in a number of semi trailers
that were basically just being put on site and counted as additional storage that was necessary. When I
originally talked to Paul about it, that was one of the reasons why I thought there was an ideal marriage here.
The ideal marriage was to possibly give the Press the basis to proceed earlier with their expansion and not
' function on that type of a basis, which they're allowed to do. And secondly, to create a daycare that would
basically help meet some of those daycare needs in Chanhassen. From there we've gone through you know a
very long process. We've been at this basically since about February. The process itself has become in effect
quite arduous and at this point you know we really need to I guess get it back in line or go on with other things
and I guess that's what I'm here to request that you do tonight. Essentially the proposals here are not able or
you're unable to separate this proposals. It took a lot of convincing to convince the Press to sell off this piece of
property and their Board authorized it only on the basis that the parcel be sold to Kindercare and basically that
' income be used in effect to turn around and fund the expansion. Or to help fund the expansion. So basically
one can't go ahead without the other. Kindercare on the other hand is on a time line which basically is
something that affects ... so you know we've reached basically the point of no return because if we can't get this
thing authorized basically we're past that point and after we pass that point, there will be no daycare like this in
Chanhassen until, I guess that would put it into say approximately late 1995. A little over a year from now.
Well over a year. A year and a half. The facility was designed and the plans were made up very carefully. My
instructions to my people as well as our consultants were that it meet every city requirement as well as a number
of city requirements that technically didn't even exist. But a lot of them were in draft form. And basically as I
understood it, and as I also understood it from staff in their review, the plans did precisely that. Beyond that I'm
not quite sure where the process has gone awry except basically I thought the Council made a fairly strong
statement last time sending it back to the Planning Commission that it should act on it one way or the other, and
that's what was requested. But once again it was tabled, which basically just holds it in limbo. Unfortunately
�I
8
L
Council Meeting - May 9 1994
Ci tyC g y ,
that limbo period now puts it past the point of no return in terms of any action at all. And I really hate to see
that happen. And the reason again I really hate to see that happen is, I'd really like to see something like the
Press be able to expand in Chanhassen. They've been here a long time and I think we all know they're very
'
responsible corporate citizens. I also want to see them be able to create new jobs which is good for us and pay
more taxes, which is good for us. I also want to see Kindercare come in because we badly need daycare. My
understanding, from some information I got from the county last week is, I think there's something like, I think I
'
heard a number like 190 people who's daycare needs are not being met right now in Chanhassen. It's simply
not available to them and most of that's infants. And Kindercare, by the way, is one of the few providers that
offers that service so. I guess given where this all sits right now, where it's at and I guess Roger will have to
'
speak to the legalities of it one way or another but I would simply implore the Council to act on it and push it
forward because if it feels they can't do so tonight, my fear is basically just that. It's basically a dead deal and I
don't think that is productive to the City of Chanhassen or beneficial to it. If I could see something in here that
I felt was really detrimental, I think I would feel differently but I really don't see anything in here that I feel is
detrimental and I think that is supported very strongly in staff's recommendations. Because there was, all the
way through this project, never one single negative recommendation from staff on this project. And again, it met
or exceeded all the criteria. It gets real frustrating when you go through a process and you meet or exceed the
'
criteria but every time you go to a meeting, there's new criteria. But that's really kind of water over the dam at
this point. So I'd just like to ask the Council to take the bull by the horns so to speak and take an action on it
one way or another. Again, there's no benefit to me one way or the other. I think it will help the clients but it
will also help Chanhassen and I would really like to see it go forward and I'd like to see it go forward—thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks Mark. One of the problems that we have, or at least I have right now. The
'
Minutes of that meeting are still not available at this time. for us and it has been recommended back by Planning
Commission to make that recommendation to table this. Maybe we have a couple of members from Planning
Commission here this evening. Maybe you'd like to address some of those things at this particular time. The
'
Minutes to me are sort of essential to know exactly what was done and what was said.
Nancy Mancino: You didn't get them with your report? 1
Mayor Chmiel: No we don't.
Matt Ledvina: W. Mayor, members of the Council. Matt Ledvina with the Planning Commission. One of the ,
most important things that we had difficulty, as far as the application was concerned, was the change in the
access for the site plan and we did not have any opinion from the city staff as to whether that access would be
acceptable to the turning movements in and out of the facility so there were also some other items associated '
with the application that were not changed based on previous comments and requests. Based on that, we felt at
that time we couldn't act on the materials in front of us so.
Nancy Mancino: And I'd like to add to that and that is that we did feel from the very beginning that the Press '
and the expansion that they asked for we wanted to let go ahead because we wanted in the interest of developers
to make sure that they could go ahead with...and we gave them a very firm recommendation and ... The
Kindercare we still had some questions about circulation and ... to the developer and to the city saying that the
access into Kindercare off of Dell Road needed to be changed, needed to be moved further north and that Dave
Hempel of city staff had not had enough time to review that and make a recommendation to the Planning
Commission. So it is now outside with a consultant being looked at as far as the circulation problems that we
saw. They had to do with the entire Kindercare site. We didn't feel it was right to go ahead without that
9 1
I City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
information. We also received the night of the Planning Commission information on electrical power lines and
8 8 l?o
what kind of, what they give off and whether it's healthier or unhealthy and we felt that we also wanted to read
' that information and have that background... so that's why we decided to again table that once again. We are
also, according to the lawyer, within the legal time line for a conditional use permit. We have 60 days, and I'm
sure the developer knows that, in which to act so we felt we were within the legal time to look at all the
' information in which to give you a motion on the conditional permit. Make a recommendation to accompany
that. Any questions of us?
Mayor Chmiel: Council have any questions? Roger, give us a reiteration of legal ramifications that, and how
we proceed with it.
Roger Knutson: What the ordinance provides is that the Planning Commission has 60 days to act on a
conditional use permit... If it does not act upon the application for a conditional use permit within 60 days after
it's been referred to it, the City Council can act without the recommendation of the Planning Commission. More
or less take it away from them. 60 days.
Mayor Chmiel: After the 60 days, okay.
Roger Knutson: Exactly. Which I believe, I'm not sure, is June 1.
Nancy Mancino: June 3rd.
Roger Knutson: This says June 1st.
Nancy Mancino: Oh okay.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. To fall on June 1, 1994. Okay, thank you.
Mark Senn: Don, I'd like to show the Council one thing if I could please.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Mark Senn: Basically what the Planning Commission, there were several issues that were raised germaine to this
project. I'm going to say technical elements of it. In the first meeting we met with Planning Commission I
think they raised about 10 different points. Most every which point which we went back and basically complied
' with, included kind of a parkway, walkway you know over between the Press and the Kindercare providing a
direct connection. A whole bunch of numerous other things like that including additional landscaping way over
and above the standard which we had already been way over and above. And a number of other things. One of
the concerns that the Planning Commission had all along is basically, and when you do get the Minutes you will
' see this very clearly. One of the reasons Planning Commission was still negative on this was hard surface
coverage. Basically that relates to the Press parcel and this was basically identified I believe through a legal
opinion that Roger issued is that this site basically is in effect bettering the hard surface coverage condition that
exists there now. And by doing so it's becoming further into compliance, which is what it is supposed to do.
The way the ordinance reads, I believe, is it can't get any worst. And we're going from basically about 79%
hard surface coverage down to about 75 % -76 %, with this expansion. And you say well how does that happen?
Well it happens because we're basically putting the building where the parking lot is now, or on the existing
parking lot. So it's hard surface to hard surface basically. And we're supplying additional green space on the
' 10
11 1
1�
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
site that wasn't there before. Another issue that basically became the latest Planning Commission issue. Or I
shouldn't say, not the latest one. The one that was, we were still at odds on and maybe the Planning
Commission wanted to do something through here to basically stop traffic from basically going from here
'
through here to come out to Dell Road. This is a right - in/right -out only on Dell Road. Okay. We put in some
landscaped islands, all that sort of thing. You know narrow entrances. We've done that from the beginning to
discourage that. We also talked to Press' management and Press' management agreed to basically issue to all
,
employees telling them not to use that as an exit. It's only to be used by those people going over to the daycare.
You know we thought that was fairly strong coming from your employer. But we also were going make a
commitment, we told staff this up front, that if it is a problem, we'll be happy to put in speed bumps or
'
whatever to help curtail them more. Well 48 hours before the last Planning Commission meeting, all of a
sudden staff called my people and basically told us that, what they told us was wrong and that MnDot wouldn't
approve this right - in/right -out where it is at and that in the construction of this intersection ... going back so far
from that intersection, which this fell within that area. This basically, an oversight up front but was something
they had a right to do. Well, what we did on basically very short notice, which was less than 48 hours, was go
to an alternate that quite frankly we showed staff way, way up front back in March. Which was to move the
driveway here to the north so it's to the side of the building. We basically just moved the building over a hair,
'
not violating any setbacks and putting this ... Well at the time that the staff came back with less than 48 hours
notice to let us know that, we thought well geez. I guess that should really make everybody happy because all
of a sudden that's a pretty big deterrent for traffic going straight through from the Press to Dell Road. At the
same time ... moving the driveway 50 feet to the north in any way, shape or form, would have any major traffic
,
ramifications that didn't exist there before when it was 50 feet to the south. I mean I guess that defies
imagination that it would. So you know quite frankly, you know I don't think those are real hard issues to deal
with. I guess I would say, I wish we would have known that more than 48 hours ahead of time after already
being in this process and back to the Planning Commission twice. But again you know, I can't help that... But
we did react with a viable alternative and.. and maybe it's a question for Charles or for Dave or for Dave or
whoever but again, I can't imagine that a 50 foot difference in that location, if anything it will help the stacking
,
distance going out to the intersection, making a right - in/right -out. The only other part that relates to that traffic
movement, and continually got challenged from the Planning Commission, basically was the ability of the driver
to go down to the end basically there at 77th and make a U turn and come back to Dell Road and come in that
rather than making movement in through here on the main driveway. Well you know, quite frankly that's
'
outside of our control but it can be very easily solved by the City putting up a No U Turn sign at that
intersection, as we pointed out from the very beginning. It's not a condition we're trying to create one way or
the other and stuff so I really don't think the issues here are all that terribly complex and I don't think they're
,
really all that complicated. There is one other issue that I think is complex and maybe complicated and that
Planning Commission brought up and that was basically one of should this use be at the "gateway" to the city.
The other one they brought up was power lines, and quite frankly I don't know of any reason that I can
,
technically, nor I believe anybody in the city technically can evaluate that. In the first place I don't think it's
anything our ordinance would allow us to evaluate but I can assure you that both the clients have evaluated it
because it's very important to them. In fact Kindercare has an environmental team that before a site even makes
it to the second phase, comes in and totally does a "environmental study" on the site. Including what's around
'
it. They actually go out there with meters and take a readings as to how many mega whatever they are and
again, I'm not competent in these things. All I can know is that the professionals that are, are happy with it and
the two landowners, they're all happy with it and the two that have liability for it are happy with it and again, I
don't think that's anything that we're really in a position to evaluate. Or that the city's in a position to evaluate.
As far as the gateway to the city. One of the reasons this was suggested in the first place, you know I thought it
really presented a nice gateway to the city. Far better than expansion of an industrial building would and maybe
another thing that needs to be understood here is, really any future expansion on the Press' part is not going to
11 1
1�
1
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
be additional office space. I mean it's going to be additional production space. It's going to be high ceiling
warehouse space. And basically with this type of an approach, that type of development effectively is going to
be moved back. We've often times talked about perspectives and stuff ...came in with this and this is basically a
perspective and it's not playing with any, basically with any sizes one way or the other. If you can visualize
yourself as that person standing out there on the trail, that's you. That's how big you are and that's what you
' see. Also if you were sitting out here on Highway 5 in your car, this is precisely what you would see. To me if
that's not a nice gateway to the city, I guess I don't know what is. We've also made it real clear to staff that we
were perfectly willing, for whatever reason the city wanted anywhere between this parking lot and wherever, to
' do whatever it wanted to with entry monumentations at a future date. But we haven't even addressed that. The
city hasn't addressed that yet. But when it does, it may want to do something special in that area. Kindercare
has stated right along that they have no problems with that and they're willing to put an easement in place to
deal with that. You know again, all these answers were there. All these issues were there. I think all the
resolutions were there. Again, I hate to see it die because there's nothing there that really is critical in terms of
ongoing study. And if Charles can jump in on that whether he wants to or not but I mean the key things in
terms of anything on resulting traffic and ... it became kind of silly...because again, 50 foot here, 50 foot there for
a driveway and again, they thought they were being real nice by going back and altering very quickly to do
something that in effect was accomplished at least in earlier plans, that direct ... So that's some of the specifics of
it and that's a lot of what will come through and show you in the Minutes in terms of the issues.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Does Council have any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any questions but, Council has not had the opportunity to speak at all
about this issue and a lot has been said and done and I just, I'd move to table it but I would like to have some
comments. It's unfortunate that Planning Commission tabled it. However, I do understand their reasoning. I'd
really like to see this project continue. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for it without some modifications to
it but I think everything is surmountable so I would hate to see the applicant wait for a year. On the other hand,
I don't want to be put to their time table and right now our hands our tied Legally we have to let it go back to
the Planning Commission and hopefully those issues can be resolved and whether they recommend it or deny it,
and we can get on with it. And I'd just like to add that I've never seen this as a personal issue. It's always
been a site plan and just got mucked up.
Mayor Chmiel: I think you're right in what you're saying. It's not a personal issue. Although in my own
judgments I have my own opinions as well where Council people should be but that's beside the point and
' people are elected to office. That's people's perogative to do so. But I do have a bit of a concern and I can
address that later but I think the item is right before us now. Whether to table this action or if there's any real
strong feelings to move forward with it. I think I'm fully in agreement to the comments that Colleen has made
' and I don't have, and I do want the Press to know, that I think they're a fine company. They do a great job.
They provide much employment within the city and has nothing to do with the Press either. It's just that two
things got tied into one item of which presents a problem. And the problem being is that the clarifications and
some of the concerns that people have on the Planning Commission are really not addressed and all the facts
basically are not before us. Until I think I see those facts as well, that's at least where I'm coming from.
Richard.
Councilman Wing: I guess I'd concur with Colleen. I just have a couple comments. I'd like to see it go back
to Planning Commission too to clarify it before it comes back to us. I'm not looking for resolution but at least
recommendations.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
12
Ll
.
I
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Councilman Mason: I think it's all been said. Like it or not, I think we need, that's how we need to go. I
would like Kindercare to hear that if in fact there area, and I believe that there are, 190 people or 190 homes
looking for daycare, knowing the position that I'm in as a teacher, I understand their concern about being ready
,
by the time the school year opens. However, I see the ads that come through the schools and what not for
constant requests for daycare during the school year. I would hope that, I understand they're concerned about
opening in the fall, if this projects gets approved. On the other hand, I also know how quickly daycare is filling
,
up any time of the year. And I would certainly hope they would take that into consideration. If in fact it goes
through. I don't think we have, like it or not, I don't think we have much choice but to second the motion that
Councilwoman Dockendorf has made.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Was that a motion at that time Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yes it was.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And you seconded that?
,
Councilman Mason: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
'
Councilman Wing: I had some comments when it's appropriate. Just some issues.
Mayor Chmiel: The time and it's appropriate.
Councilman Wing: Would you like to lead off? You made the motion.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Go ahead.
Councilman Wing: This isn't an issue and I wanted to just throw it out because of a leadership issue and I think
that the Highway 5 corridor study has been a passionate issue to me. I'm not going to deny that, and an
,
emotional issue but I certainly talk from the heart and I'm certainly talking for the true concern for the city. So
when we get a proposal on the west end and we really, as a unified group said, go away and leave us alone until
this is complete and staff said it's going to be done any day so it isn't a problem. And then the east end comes
in and this Highway 5 corridor study is not binding on them whatsoever. It's not a document that exists so
they're not bound by this thing and whether they comply or not, it's almost not up for discussion but my concern
was at that time, to get onto these other facts quickly here. Was that were we being fair and were we as a
'
Council being consistent and were we showing leadership by saying no to the group out west and go away and
leave us along but then coming in and be willing to take the time and the effort to talk to this development on
the east end. So that did concern me. It seemed to be inconsistent and slightly unfair. And I'll leave that sit
where it is. I think it's a moot point right now. The fact is if we don't get that done, the whole corridor's going
,
to come in because it's still ... and this is the year things come in. There's at least 5 things with Planning right
now or with staff that are going to be on Highway 5 but I'm convinced we're going to get going on that. I
guess we're talking about that later. Both for Mark, I think it's fair to talk to you directly Mark, representing the
development and then for planning. I want to make sure these items get back. Issues that I would like, that I'm
concerned about that I would either like to see come back resolved or just recommendations if nothing else. Or
denials. Whatever. But I don't want these thrown in our lap because then we're going to have to hassle with
,
them so number one. Number one, there's just been a lot of talk and argument and the people on Planning seem
13 1
1
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
to understand parking lots. Especially Diane coming from where she does, with parking. The access. The flow.
The circulation and the concern that all the entry comes through the parking lot and that's their entry and exit.
' Kind of was the parking lot through the Press as I saw it early on. So I'd like this parking thing resolved before
it gets back to us and I think the city consultant, or whoever's been hired to do this study, that should be back
and you should have that information by then and make some clarifications. Number two. Mark commented on
impervious surface and I think it's true. They are dropping it. Our ordinance says 70%. It doesn't apply to the
expansion. I don't think it applies to the Kindercare. But I think it is worthy of discussion. I think to be
paving a lot of area over with asphalt, if it's not necessary, and the number I remember was, there was excess
' parking spots. I don't even have the numbers but 10 or 12 or 15 parking spots more than was required and that
was a Planning Commission issue so if that impervious surface is there, maybe we can trade off those parking
lots that aren't required, parking spaces and get down to the impervious surface. But again, I'm not going to
question that because I don't think they're in compliance with it. We have a parking lot ordinance that requires
interior landscaping and there's a revision coming out to clarify that with sketches that requires interior parking
lot landscaping. I want to make sure that that ordinance is being met regarding interior landscaping of large
asphalt areas. I don't know if the size dictates this or not. The health hazards we've discussed. I don't have
any knowledge on that but I certainly want to make sure that that's been discussed and clarified. That there
either is or isn't information and we're not putting these infants and young children underneath these wires and a
hazard that may or may not exist today or in the future. I think if there's a place to err, it would be on the
conservative side here but I know less than anybody else on that. The Press expansion. Landscaping. I'd like
' to make sure that that expansion has a landscape design coming to the Council that's been recommended,
approved, improved or denied. But whatever is required on those big blank walls, let's have that up front and
defined before it gets to Council so we don't have to debate whether we should put in two more trees or some
' simple. Let's have that done before it gets here. And then I guess the one that I'm perhaps most concerned
about, and again this is having looked at the Kindercare and I haven't seen the Marcus proposal. I don't know
what it's going to look like other than the brick in the brief picture we saw. But all the rooflines I looked at and
the 4 Kindercars I looked at, were very linear. Very flat. Didn't have what I saw as good quality roofing
material and I can't define that. I think Mark brought up that there's a special shingle that looks like, whatever
that is. I'd like to see that but there was a lot of pipes. Vents. Miscellaneous roofing stuff on these very linear,
flat roof surfaces that I didn't think looked good at all. So the only issue I have with the project maybe itself, is
the roof line. I'd like Planning to look carefully, look at the roofline. The linear roof line and do we need to
break it up. Do we have to meet some quality or some architectural standards to the roof line on these buildings
because they're, again. I hope I'm not using the wrong words because I don't want to offend Marcus
' Development but it's kind of a cookie cutter building in that it's kind of standard Kindercare building, as I see it.
And a basic square building without a lot of architectural standards and designs and shadowing and angles and
that's fine. That's certainly, it's maybe ittelevent because it meets the standards but the roof line. If I can just
put in one personal comment it would be could we look at the roof line and make sure we break up that linear
' effect, if it's not appropriate. And if you haven't looked at the Kindercares that exist, I think you should
because the roofs are not necessarily attractive. On the other hand, the proposal coming in may address that
issue and may be different and of higher quality than the ones that exist and I don't have that information but I'd
' like to before it gets back to us. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Your welcome ... with those additional clarifications. Any other discussion? Hearing none, we
' have a motion on the floor with a second. To table. Bring this back to the Planning Commission. All the
comments that Councilman Wing has provided as well and to have it at least come back to Council with
recommendations, approval or denial before they get in the project.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat
i
14
1
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
and Conditional Use Permit for the Press and Kindercare until the Planning Commission forwards their
recommendations. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who did not vote, and the motion carried. ,
APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MAYOR CHMIEL.
Mayor Chmiel: I have had some discussion with Mr. Bohn, with Jim Bohn just this past week. I've had one ,
discussion with one of the Councilmembers. But as yet I have not had any other discussions only because it
curtails the ability for me to talk to any more than one person at one given time on a given Council agenda
project. And so I thought what I wanted to do is to sort of get the feel from Council. One of the things that I
look at strongly too is what I have seen is to have 3 members of the citizens on the HRA with 2 of the Council
members overlooking. The proposal I've never really thought about it being a complete responsibility of the
Council to have the HRA as well. I think we need the outside input for some of these things and some of these
other people are well qualified within areas that we may or may not be. But some of the thoughts that I had and
one of the things I mentioned to Mr. Bohn also, is that I would get back to him and inform him prior to any
decisions being made. In my mind I do not have a decision and my suggestion would be to table it but I would '
like some discussion on it.
Councilman Wing: I move tabling so you can get your act together. It's your decision and I think you can
show whatever leadership you want to. Whatever... '
Mayor Chmiel: Well I guess I wanted some additional input. There's been some discussions that the Council
would like to probably take over or control the HRA. I don't have that feeling. I think at one time or another, '
if we have two people on there, that's the way I would like to see it go. I don't think we want to railroad things
through, as most people could look at it is as. And I just think there should be some, I'd like to get some
additional feelings. And you're right, I will act on it until I get some back feed from some of the people sitting
here. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I do have some comments. My frustration has been the left hand not knowing
what the right hand is doing and I think, which really presents to me two options. Either the Council is the '
HRA or we set up some procedure for informing each other. I think moving 3 people to the HRA, 3 Council
members to the HRA is a waste of time. 1 know I wouldn't want to sit on the HRA unless the HRA was the
Council, or vica versa. So for me I don't know whether we need to, I'm not speaking coherently am I? '
Councilman Wing: Better than I can do.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's two options. Either the Council becomes the HRA or we open the lines of '
communication a little better and provide for every Council meeting to have one of the members,
Councilmembers on the HRA update the rest of the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's where it should really come from is some additional communication. It should be ,
brought back and I think not only that but other areas that if some of the Council members sit on any respective
other commissions. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Absolutely. Absolutely. I agree with you. My other comment would be, and I
have the same frustration with the Board of Adjustments. Is that we're seeing the same people term after term
after term. '
15 1
1
I City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
1
Mayor Chmiel: That's only because they're proficient at it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. So absolutely. But I think there comes a point in time where we just need new
blood.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I don't disagree with you with that Colleen. Well maybe I do to a certain point. When
you have people who understand what the ordinances are and what the requirements are. To put someone new
in who doesn't quite know exactly what's going on unless they may be aware from being in a former position as
such.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well you can always be brought up to speed
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah right. But there's quite a bit of knowledge that it takes for those people to have in order
to do what they're really doing. But that has a lot of pros and cons to the issue as well. And I do believe when
we made a reappointment, we did that reappointment accordingly by Council so.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Oh absolutely, yeah. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Mayor Chmiel: So we have to talk out of both sides as well. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Being on HRA, well. I'll maintain my position all along is I think I'm here because I'm
trying to do what I think is best for the city. The comment was made by Councilwoman Dockendorf about
length of terms and she related Board of Adjustment to HRA. Right?
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yes.
Councilman Mason: And I guess I see some major differences between those two. I mean obviously Board of
Adjustments is a Board that decides whether variances should or shouldn't be approved and HRA has a much
different function in the city. It's to continue the city's growth, particular the downtown area. And I, while as
I'll go political here and say I'm not in favor of term limits on a national level. That has nothing to do with this
but I do think that there is something to be said for getting a different outlook from time to time. For getting
new and fresh viewpoints from time to time. Now I'm not knocking, well. I think that's something that needs
to be looked at. However I'm not the one that does the appointing or the reappointing either. I will say, I do
agree with the Mayor when he says that your comment about having 3 Council members on HRA. I do think
it's important to get a "civilian" outlook on things if you will and I do agree with that. I would not like to see a
majority of HRA be Council. But maybe it's time to look at some fresh things but again, that's not my decision.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess I'll enter the well known minority viewpoint. To me there's major delineations
between the Board of Zoning and HRA. In the fast place, Board of Appeals, first of all it's appointed every
year. So I mean the option's there to change people or whatever every year. If the Council chooses not to do
that, I guess that's up to the Council. The other thing is, they control variances and if an applicant isn't happy
with what they do, they have a right to appeal it to the Council who are their elected representatives. And they
can rely back on their elected representatives to make a final decision. And then they can also judge them based
on that. I think that's how the process is supposed to work. They also don't control any money. The HRA I
believe controls more money in the city than the City Council does. And I've always felt strongly and I still do
16
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
feel strongly that the HRA should be the City Council and to me, the reason that it should be that is it provides a
more open process for the HRA and the decisions they make and makes the HRH's decisions more open to
scrutiny by the public. And again, the electorate can hold the City Council then responsible for those actions
and decide accordingly. You know right now there's huge sums of money in the city being controlled by the
HRA and there's not a citizen in town that can hold them responsible for anything. Because they don't have the
option to elect them or not elect them. And I just think those are compelling reasons why the Council should be
the HRA. And that's the reason why I'm going to say 90 some percent of the municipalities have already made
that move. Very few municipalities still have an independent HRA in the State of Minnesota. And just I think
with what's happening in Chanhassen, it behooves us to take that responsibility and accountability and I'd like to
'
see the HRA and the City Council in effect be one and the same. But again, I know that's the minority
viewpoint so enough said. Plus I'm beaten so I'd better shut myself off.
Richard.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Well I, I really respect all three opinions.
,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: How political of you.
Councilman Senn: That's better than saying we should talk about term limits after midnight, right?
,
Councilman Wing: First of all, I would like to serve on the HRA, but that's neither here nor there. Whether it's
now or in the future but why would I like to serve on the HRA as a Council member? Well, they control more
money than I do. They control our future. They control development, etc, etc. So I mean every time somebody
,
complains to me I say, go to an HRA meeting. Well who are they? Well they're the people building your
city. Controlling it and I can't disagree with Mark. I think HRA is a very strong, powerful force in their
element. And why don't you say it right now, because it will clarify where I'm going.
Councilman Mason: Okay, I will say it. I think HRA is involved with downtown redevelopment and there's a
real big difference between what goes on in the city and what goes on in downtown.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, downtown.
Councilman Mason: I think that does need to be made clear.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, let me be real speck.
Mayor Chmiel. It's all within each of the TIF districts.
Councilman Wing: Downtown. But that's to me what Chanhassen is right now and becoming. Civilians.
,
Absolutely mandatory to have the community and civilians in there and I guess my frustration there is, I have
been disappointed in and disappointed with some of the comments, lack of leadership. Perhaps personal
weaknesses that I personally have seen at HRA that have been frustrating for me. I don't-know if I can say that
critically other than I have not particularly felt a lot of leadership from some of the civilian members. So that's
come back I think to haunt us a little bit. But the diversity I think is important to be there. I guess I would
favor the majority being the Council, mainly because the Council itself is diverse. It's not a gang coming from
City Hall to haunt HRA. The civilian members still have their vote. The discussion still goes on and a strong
member whether, being a strong personality and emotional and passionate on issues I believe in, if I was on
,
17
I City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
' HRA, would take you guys on lock, stock and barrel. I don't care if you come from the Council or not and I'd
rant and rave and see that the point got made, and if you're right, you're right. I wouldn't allow the Council to
dominate me. Could we dominate the existing group? Maybe. I don't know but, so I guess, I don't know if I
want to take it over but I guess I sort of, because of the amount of money and the amount of vision and the
amount of future involved, I kind of favor seeing one of us sit there as the third member to have the majority
vote. I don't know if that dilutes it down too much. If we had a lot stronger, more aggressive leadership from
the civilian side I might say, that isn't necessary. I think they'd be in here talking and communicating and I
wouldn't, they wouldn't be allowing us to run their show so. I would be comfortable with a third member from
Council sitting on there. I would not be disappointed, I'd be very comfortable supporting the position that you
had too. To leave it as is. But I would warn the civilian group, do their job and be aggressive and make sure
they're going toe to toe here with the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the civilian segment of the community does look to what interest is for the city as well.
And there's no question in my mind some of the things that come back from staff or some of the proposals and
so on are the things that this HRA really addresses. And rightfully so because that's the way the city functions.
Staff makes the recommendations of the HRA or City Council can either approve or disapprove whatever comes
before them. You want to say something?
Councilman Wing: Well just.
Councilman Senn: Don that's true but it doesn't ever go to the second step I guess is what I come back to. If
the HRA does something, it never goes to the Council and the Council doesn't have an option, as the elected
' representatives of the city, to confirm or deny what the HRA has done and to me that's where the process goes
awry.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and sometimes just what you're saying is if we were to have addressed some of those
things, but some of the things you even brought out to Council, on some of your no decisions that you voted on,
I'm sure would have gone the same way. And the discussion still would be there but that's all that would be
there.
Councilman Senn: That's a very limited amount of what the HRA does.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right.
Councilman Senn: Very limited amount.
Mayor Chmiel: But the point of the HRA being where they are, I still feel strongly that we have citizen input
rather than taking over lock, stock and barrel and ram rodding through what you think you should ram rod
through. And I don't believe in that either. It's.
Councilman Senn: Why is it ram nodding? I mean I don't understand that. I mean if every citizen come to
every hearing and provide their input. I mean to me that's not the Council...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, maybe it's a poor choice of a word to say ram rodding. Maybe that's not the proper
word. But would the decisions be any different? I don't know.
Councilman Senn: Well, who knows?
18
19 ,
L�
Ci ty Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councibnan Wing: Because of the growth of our city and the amount of money involved and the complexity of
,
these issues, I have to side with Mark in that I think the Council really needs to be intimately, strongly and have
a lot of control over this. I wouldn't go as far as Mark in taking over it's entirety but I guess I do favor having
the majority vote and I would just leave it at that. And no hard feelings if it doesn't go that way.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh no, no. No. I think we've worked too long together to have hand feelings one way or the
other.
Councilman Wing: Count on that.
Mayor Chmiel: And those don't happen here, as far as I'm concerned.
Councilman Senn: If you're looking for comments Don, I mean it's not hard to sense you know where it's
going here. I mean I think the chances of the Council taking it over at pretty slim to none but, from the
,
comments I'm hearing. But you know if you're asking for comments beyond that then yeah. The more Council
representation I'm going to say that can get on there, the happier I'm going to be, even though I think that where
we should be is all and so I just, and I guess like Richard, I would be happy to express my interest in doing that
but again I know I'm the minority vote so the chances probably are slim of that too but I think the HRA needs
'
to ask a lot harder questions than they ask about things. And I think those things need to be aired a lot more in
an open process than they are being so.
Councilman Wing: I want to target, excuse me Mike. If I can just target Mark's last sentence. I think that's
the key to where I'm coming from. They need to ask a lot of hard questions and Mark, could you phrase that
again so it gets repeated. Your feelings about what they need to do because I feel probably that same way.
'
Councilman Senn: Well I just think again, they need to ask a lot harder questions than they're asking about
things and really get to the bottom of them and you know, hey. Most of their decisions involve pure and simply
expense. It's dollars going out and those, as we're so much reminded of here in the last year or two, those
'
resources are dwindling faster than we can keep up with them and how those resources are used are becoming
more and more critical here, especially as it winds down to the early 2000's when at least TIF as we know it
now goes away. And that's not to say that there's probably not going to be an instant replacement of it but you
know, to wind down I think is going to be real critical for the city to set those priorities and get them where they
want them. And like I say, the best way I see to do that is to have the Council do it and take the leadership role
in doing that.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. When you make discussions regarding TIF, I think where the TIF dollars have gone to
what you see downtown and what you see in the industrial park, I think are quite well spent. Just the way the
community is developing. In addition to that, the new grade school as well. I think there's an awful lot of
pluses that have come from it. There may have been a few questionables that you think about when it comes to
purchasing buildings or things of that nature. But I think the total dollars that have been spent accordingly is
best for the community.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Here's one of the reasons I wrote down. One of my reasons ... that I would favor
making the two commissions, or the Council and the commission one and the same. It's just getting back to the
communication issue. But more of, if we think our audiences here are sparse, I've never seen anyone sit in an
'
19 ,
L�
1
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
HRA meeting. I don't think the community knows who the are what the do what issues the deal with and I
g ty Y Y � Y
don't know how we garner citizen input when people don't know that these items are being discussed and who
discusses them. When people think of the projects that are going on in the city, they think of the City Council
you know approving those projects and.
Councilman Senn: And when they're getting built, that's when you hear from them. City Council person.
Councilman Wing: When they don't work, and the streets don't work and everything else, and I'm up against
the wall saying, I didn't do it. And they said, well you're the Council. Who in the heck did it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Right, and why?
Councilman Wing: The HRA did it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well what the heck's that.
Councilman Wing: That's exactly.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yeah so you know, I don't know if it's whether we do it in a report or a newsletter
or whether Mr. Trippler would be nice enough to write an article about who and what the HRA does but
somehow we have to let the citizens know.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think too that the Minutes coming from the HRA within the packets probably should also
be there. As to what's discussed rather than just seeing what's being proposed. We get the Minutes, and I think
if there's direction that Council feels that there should be some discussion on, and feels what's in the packet is
not apropos, that's when it's time for Council to come back before the HRA and at least state their opinions.
And I know that Richard has done it from time to time and I think that's where I think that different aspect
comes from.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. But I'm not talking about just the Council. I'm talking about the community at
large. They need to know what's going on.
J
Mayor Chmiel: True. But that's also published as an informational item in the newspaper and just like you see
tonight. Unfortunately there are not enough people who are really interested but take that amount and put their
feelings towards us because they think that we are the authority in coming up with those discussions. Or with
whatever we might address. So that's another part of it.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Councilman Senn: Well if we're going, something Don if I could. To follow up on Colleen's point, just so we
don't lose it. I just would really like, even if we're not going to go ahead and do anything on the Council and,
or I should say most the Council isn't going to, the more open we can make that process the better, and if that
means start putting HRA meetings on TV and getting better coverage on it and stuff like that, then I think we
should we do that. I mean it just never ceases to amaze me the number of people that come up to me and tell
me that they watch this. Which leads me to question a number of things but, especially with all the midnight to
20
99 4
City Council Meeting -May 9, 1
2:00 a.m. meetings we have but you know, but if they do, at least it gives people a way to start understanding
what it is and who it is and what they're doing and I don't know whether that will help much or not but I guess
I'd like to see more and more steps towards that since again I don't think the other's going to happen.
Mayor Chmiel: Well okay. Don, you wanted to say something here. ,
Don Ashworth: Just a couple of quick comments. And I realize this is being tabled You've put a lot of
emphasize on the money that the HRA has and it's more than City Council. When we review this document in
2 weeks you're going to see here where really the HRA has fully committed it's funds. I mean this takes into
account what's in the ground today and so there's a strong likelihood that before the HRA folds their door, that
you may be finding a plus to the $3 million position over where we're at I think from a year ago of about $4
million. Something like that. Secondly the HRA, and in 2 weeks you're going to be holding the hearing on the
HRA's redevelopment plan and included in there is each and every item that they can spend money for. And
their incentive program. So if you don't like the current incentive program, because the HRA generally treats all
businesses the same, and I know there was some discussion. Well should we provide incentive for ABC versus
another one. Well again, the policy is in there. I'd like to spend time potentially with each one of you to take
and walk down through each one of those. The pedestrian bridge is in there. The Hanus facility is in there.
The incentive program as it deals with new businesses coming in is in there. If this City Council doesn't
approve those, the HRA can't do them. So I mean that's a real vital document and again we're going through
another revision here in another 2 weeks. And so here is your opportunity for.
Mayor Chmiel: Look at it and scrutinize it.
Don Ashworth: ...of input.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that I'd like to have a motion to table this to our next meeting which would be
the 23rd.
Councihnan Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the appointment to the Housing and '
Redevelopment Authority until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Item number 7. Well before we go to that. Maybe we'll address item (f) and (o). Mark. Of
the Consent Agenda
3(F). APPROVE YEAR END CLOSINGS AND TRANSFERS.
Councilman Senn: On item (f), I guess I pulled this for the main reason that I suppose if we could do this by
line item. I support everything in here except four items but on the basis that I'm not sure that that ability exists
I asked for it to be removed. The reason I asked for it to be removed quite honestly is I just get really, really
bothered seeing effectively $560,000.00 being transfered into a fund called City Hall expansion when this
Council has not had any discussion about expanding City Hall. So I have no intention of voting for those one
way or the other going into that fund. The other one is down under the second listing. $74,201.60. You
know ... prime example of HRA. That's $74,201.60 in consulting fees to HGA on the ill fated attempt to put a
community center behind the Frontier Building. And I just again, I can't go for that. I don't know how we ever
allowed almost $75,000.00 to be spent on a project that this Councilman never set as a priority or even endorsed
in the end. And have similar feelings down the line. The $22,930.00 in consulting fees to go tell us we should
spend $200,000.00 for entry monuments in the city so, I'd be happy, like I say, to vote for approval on all these
21 1
1
I City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
F1
1
items except those four and those are the reasons why on those four.
Councilman Wing: Can you back up Mark? I got the $74,000.00. What was the next one?
Councilman Senn: $74,201.60. And then the last one was the $22,930.00 in consulting fees to tell us that we
should turn around and build a $200,000.00 entry monuments. Those are the ones I have problems with
transferring.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we'll get into that discussion as we progress to item number 7. So maybe what we
should do is just hold off yet on (f) until once we hear some discussion on item 7 yet that Don is going to bring
out here. How about (o)? We'll just hold that one until, and then we'll bring it back.
3(0). AUTHORIZE FILING FOR RATE REGULATION, CABLE TV, FCC.
Councilman Senn: My only question there was did we get a response back on our ability to effectively do this
later rather than spend the money now? Or more or less you know, piggy backing with the other communities.
Don Ashworth: Don and I have met back with Triax. Really it came down to the fact that the cost really had
already been incurred by literally all parties. I mean we ... regulation or filing for that, we're simply copying the
documents that have already been created as it relates to the Minnetonka group. And as far as Triax is
concerned, since they have had to prepare each of the forms that are required, they're simply copying those as it
relates back to us. I guess both parties, all parties, meaning our specialized attorney in this area ..Brian Grogan.
Recommended that we go through this Triax attorney and try to extend this out. It's looking that way. And I
guess Don and I just came back saying, this probably provides the greatest assurance that we'll be able to
regulate rates if it's necessary.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Is the right word leverage I hope?
Mayor Chmiel: That's part of it.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean I'm just trying to get answers to some of the questions I brought up last time
that came up and I'm sorry, I didn't get any of the answers. And I didn't know you had met and I didn't have
any of this information. I guess if you're saying that we are in effect piggybacking but we have to spend the
money to file the application, I think that answers one question I had. The other question is, I guess I really
would still like a firm answer. Do we have additional leverage or don't we? I mean otherwise it seems to be
real silly that we're spending the money if we're not picking up additional leverage.
Don Ashworth: We're picking up leverage from the standpoint of federal law and what it will allow us to
regulate and what it will not. It insures that our citizens get that 17% rollback. You know fact it, they're going
to just do some tier adjustments and.
Councilman Senn: They do everything they can do.
Don Ashworth: You know so I mean as far as true rate regulation, I don't know that it's there but.
Councilman Senn: There was a deal April 1st where they weren't supposed to be able to charge for additional
outlets and they've said oh they're not paying attention to that because you know it hasn't really happened.
22
1
Council Meeting - May 9 1994
Ci ty 8 Y
That's what I mean. We have to get control of these guys. It's getting ridiculous.
Mayor Chmiel: My hot button. That's right. And I think by doing.
Councilman Senn: Doing what they want to do when they want to do it and they say we know nothing about
what they're doing.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's because the feds come back and they give them a song and dance but yet I don't
believe their full song and dance. ,
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and they keep giving them extensions too. I mean which was part of the last question
I think I raised last time with all these extensions they keep giving. Should we just wait until the questions are
gone.
Mayor Chmiel: My question at that meeting was the same thing where I thought that was to be off the bills and
I believe that they should start showing that. It was either last month or this coming month. One of those two.
I'd have to look back at my Minutes.
Todd Gerhardt: There's still going to be a 52 cent charge.
Mayor Chmiel: 52 is right, as opposed to $4.95. If you read what they cam e out with their most recent billing
too, it says they're going to have a rate reduction in one thing of whatever amount of cents it was and they were
going to raise that on the other end of it. So actually there's no reduction and there's, it just sort of wipes it
clean. But the portion of the outlets is something that I've been harping for so long. People finally started
listening. And yet we still haven't seen it but the feds have even approached it now from that standpoint.
Councilman Senn: With that info I'll move approval then.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing: Can I just ask one question?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Wing: 30 seconds. You keep pulling these Mark, and I don't have cable television so I've sort of
not paid attention.
Councilman Senn: Well Dick if you moved into the...
Councilman Wing: Well I live out where the people that have these conveniences. Your concerns are, you pull
these because you have some concerns. I want to clarify in my mind why you're watching this. Rates? What
are the specifics why you're pulling these and you're concerned about them?
Councilman Senn: Okay. Triax Cablevision charges one of the highest rates that exists in cable television. r
When you compare them against all the other cable companies in the metropolitan area, they're one of the
highest. And if you look at what they charge you for, I mean it's not real hard to see, excuse me for these like
Don says, or maybe you don't say. But might agree was a little trumped up. I mean as soon as they're told to
23 1
1
1
[
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
reduce one thing, they basically just turn around and move it somewhere else and raise it on top of that. And
quite frankly when you compare the service we get, and this is really where, it comes back and gets me irritated
is when you compare the service we get, and we have one of the highest charges, it makes no sense at all
because we have neighborhoods in the city who would love to get cable who those guys won't even bring cable
to. Okay. Yet I go into other systems and hey, people want cable. They get it there right away and they're
cheaper. And not Triax. I mean Triax sits there and sends you through 10 song and dances and a year and a
half of we'll be out to maybe get a cable to you and that's not servicing our citizens. And to me every
household in the city, if when in fact we've given them the franchise and they're supposed to provide the cable
in the city, that means dang it, if people want it, they should get them the cable. That's not our fault that they
have to run a cable a little bit further to do it. But then maybe we should talk about criteria and get it set up
and going but it shouldn't be totally in their hands. And now we've gone around and even made it easier for
them. Now we're going to turn around and make it the developer's cost and responsibility to put the cable in for
them. Now the interest part's going to be to see whether that makes it any easier to get them to hook it up.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it should hopefully but you're right. We've discussed and argued those points rather
extensively at the meetings that we've had. But anyway.
Councilman Wing: When the rates come down and you feel the service is reasonable, will you let me know and
I'll hook back up. I'll hold off until then.
Councilman Senn: Oh you have it, you're just not hooked up?
Councilman Wing: I'm just not hooked up.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'll move the other element. Could you advocate to get it into my neighborhood
because I don't want it but my neighbors.
Councilman Senn: I have. I have.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize the filing for rate regulations for
Cable TV with the FCC. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADMIMSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
ENTRY MONUMENTS, CITY MANAGER.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll move onto the Administrative Presentations. We'll move on the entry monuments and
then I'll go back to that item (f) in regards to this. Don.
Don Ashworth: I asked Hoisington Group to present this evening to talk about it. Michael Schroeder, talk about
at least some of the initial thoughts that they have been coming up with as far as the entry monuments. They're
aware of the comments that are currently in the Highway 5 corridor plan- Affigently working with the downtown
group as far as the Vision 2002 and have finally have seen some of the work efforts that were done in previous
discussions where they had brought in the University of Minnesota And by the way, a good portion of those
costs that we looked at, the $22,000.00 figure, related back to the work effort by the University which grew from
let's say $8,000.00 - $9,000.00 up to about $15,000.00 where they finished I think about the 6th of those
video ... films. And then we've got an additional—and that's what raised the cost up to the current deficit of about
24
1
4 1
City Council Meeting May 9, 199
$22,000.00 which that transfer basically insures we'll close the year without having that deficit. With that
Michael you're on.
Michael Schroeder: Thanks Don. The City's asked me to come here tonight to talk about some ideas about
setting direction for entry features into the city. And I just handed out a brief outline that says the amount of
work we've done to date. So far it's been very little. We've only started thinking about it briefly. We really
want to get some direction from both the Council and the HRA before we proceed head long into this but I
thought it was worth while stepping back. I understand there has been work done in the past on entry features
and monumentation for Chanhassen and I thought I'd identify some of those that have been done. I don't have
with me the stuff that Barton -Ashman has done with the limestone wall but I have some other things that have
been done, including a recent look at Highway 5 that HGA has done. They looked at some features along the
corridor that tie in line with what Hoisington - Koegler is doing with our Vision 2002 work. And also to point out
that the pedestrian bridge that Strgar - Roscoe - Fausch has been working on will actually be started within the next
couple months. It's also an element of an entry feature into the community, although it serves more than one
purpose. Related to our work in Vision 2002, we've identified a couple of sites in town that can help us to
identify some of the points of entry that we felt are important, especially relative to the center. And that would
be at the AVR, Taco Shop, Highway 101 site where it meets Highway 5. Also on Highway 5 and Market
Boulevard and Powers Boulevard. And as we started to identify some of the potential other sites for entries, the
entry at Great Plains is still important. The entry at Dell Road is important and there are probably others
including entries moving from west to east through the community. We really feel the best opportunities for
marking entries into the community are along Highway 5 corridor. These are the best opportunities. Certainly
you enter Chanhassen from many other places but most people move along that corridor and that's where, at
least as far as we ... so far, the direction should be set. We have gone through and identified some very basic
principles that we'll be following as we generate concepts for entry features and the first one is the first
principles... principle of identification. We're trying to make the boundaries of the center or of the edges of the
community with some kind of a entry feature. We also, in principle number two feel that there should be some
relation to one another. It should be a series of gateways as you move through the community. Each one of
these things should look somewhat like the other. In some way so it isn't actually, not different elements but
recalling the same element as you move along Highway 5. The third principle and this is the one that will
probably take the most amount of direction is that the entry features should reflect somehow the character of the
community. It's people. It's landscape. It's place. It's history. A whole range of things that we can start to
explore once we have a little bit of direction. The other thing that we need quite a bit of help from, both this
group and from the HRA is trying to define what exactly the entry features should be. What should it be that's
going to signify entering into Chanhassen? And as a list of kind of contrary statements or opposing statements
that might be thought of as ... and basically it ranges from gaining strength from some kind of a feature through...
with it's surroundings or trying to be similar to it's surroundings. Both are reasonable directions to move but we
need some direction from the Council and the HRA before we start to explore. And actually I think the next
question is also important, and that's to define to what degree it should be a monument. Whether it should stand
out strongly and be a powerful statement about entering Chanhassen. On the other hand, should it just be a clue.
Should it be something that recalls features of the landscape. Features of the community that are important in
this landscape. That's one of the things that Morrish's group pointed out in the work that they've done here.
Should it be something that's, people recognize as being a part of the community but it doesn't stand up and
shout Chanhassen? Or should it be somewhere in the center? So these are the kinds of ideas that we need help
setting some direction on. Once we have some direction on whether it should be obviously different than it's
surroundings or close, we can get some idea whether it should be a monument. More like the Barton - Aschman
limestone wall. Or whether it should be something similar to the work that Morrish's group did in the
Design Center with the roads they were defining for the AVR site, which is also an element of entry into the
25 1
I City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
community.
1
fl
t
t
Councilman Senn: I have a question for you. Maybe the rules have changed recently but I thought there were
pretty hard and fast rules, both on the State level and the County level as to what you could do within their
right -of -ways and they don't include monuments. I thought there was a standard form of state signage that this
is the only thing they will allow in their right -of -way. And from a county perspective that's, or at least in
Hennepin County that's true. I thought Carver was the same. I can't tell you that for sure but I know the State
it's true. So I mean does that then mean that you are forced to acquire land for every one of these and input
them off of State right -of -way and basically get into more land acquisition. More etc.
Michael Schroeder: The thinking that we've been doing so far has been that the monuments would not happen,
whether it's monuments or whatever the feature is, would not be within the county or state right -of -way. That it
would be on property that's owned by the city. Or acquired by the city. In fact as we've gone through and
looked at some of the things that have gone on with the Vision 2002, related to these entries here, we have
started to think about if we carved through the idea that this drawing depicts where around Market Boulevard
there would be a statement that reflects the wetland character that Morrish identified early on at Market
Boulevard. Or moving down towards Target. Something that reflects the oaks that are near Target and up on
the hill behind where the Byerly's development will be. Or on the east end of town, the grove site where
Morrish talked about maples. All of those, in order to make a significant statement would probably require
additional land beyond what's there and available now. We could probably do something on the land that's
available but it would be far more successful if we could make a larger statement. In that case it would be, land
addition in terms of landscape and it may not pose any limitations to the development of those sites, depending
on how they actually proceed.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think if, as we look at monument, marker, whatever clue it might be, we looked at
many, many things through the HRA and I think some of the deciding factors were the amount of dollars that
are spent on whatever's going to go in. There for a while we had one large amount of dollars for a monument
or two and to me, yeah it made a statement. Look at all the money we're spending, which was $250,000.00 per
and I thought no way. I can't see spending those amount of dollars. Can you, in making a suggestion, put a
dollar figure on whatever we plan on putting, whether it be a monument or a marker. One or the other.
Michael Schroeder: Certainly that would be a big part of what we would have to do.
Mayor Chmiel: And that is where I think, at least I'm coming from. I don't know about the rest of the Council
but I'm sure they're concerned with the dollars as well. I've driven, as I've often said, through a lot of cities
and just checking out markers as you come into their communities. They are, some of them are you know, it
doesn't really say much but there are some that are out there that I know have not cost anywhere close to
$250,000.00 and probably as much as only $40,000.00 or $50,000.00. But it still makes that statement for that
community and it doesn't look bad. And I wish I carried a camera with because there's been a few that I
thought were fairly decent looking and yet the over expenditure of dollars wasn't there. But yet it still made a
statement. Small community or big you know, it really doesn't matter. Richard.
Councilman Wing: You're asking us some questions tonight that we've asked before and we've spent hours and
weeks and months with the same questions and I'm saying geez, are we after all this, are we starting over again
after looking at all those models and all the bricks and all the designs and towers. And the towers made out of
cement and the towers with wood and the one with the bell in it. How could we be back to the starting point
after all of that except these guys from the HRA said half a million dollars for a wall. You must be crazy.
26
Council Meeting - May 9 1994
City g Y
Well, there's some validity to that statement.
Councilman Senn: I think most of us said that.
Councilman Wing: So we're back to monuments, location, size, materials. Oh my word. This is kind of
discouraging. I happen to think, first of all I'm very happy with the east and west end saying Chanhassen,
Population 15,285. But now when we get downtown, now I think we're looking at centralizing our downtown
and now we're looking at our central business district and now we're talking where the population of people are
going and something that I would like to identify. And now I'm looking for a touch of class and it becomes a
key element to a strong downtown and a focal point downtown and a key element to our development downtown
and now I'm ready to spend some money and do it right. So I don't want to put in something that isn't sizeable
and doesn't make a statement. Or if we're just going to put in markers, I'd like to be very conservative and then
not spend much money at all. I mean to say ... cheaply, that's fine with me but if we're going to really hit the
downtown and identify it, I guess I would tend to put these markers downtown and one of them. Well I tell you
what. I'm not sure about the locations because I had my heart set on Market Boulevard and TH 5 as the central
point with all the trees and the marker were the ones we looked at but the ones too, where the Taco Shop was.
That makes sense. And out at the Target end. I guess that makes sense. So for myself I would put three
locations down. The Taco Shop, west end of Target, and Market Boulevard if I was to put any monuments in.
Pass it onto my colleague.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, let me completely discourage you. I think at Dell and TH 5 is a silly place
to put an entrance monument because it's such a small section. I mean people always think that the homes to
the south are Chanhassen. We have to explain they're Eden Prairie. Anyway, that's not an appropriate site.
Definitely up at the old AVR site. And again I'm happy with a natural element. I don't like markers to
neighborhoods so I'm not big on entrance markers in general. But I do like the idea of a natural element. I
think when you hit downtown and you know you're downtown, therefore you don't need a marker. That's kind
of my opinion and we're going to have a pedestrian bridge there, which hopefully will have some kind of
identification of Chanhassen on it. Perhaps one, I wouldn't be completely opposed to something at Market and
TH 5. And then on the west side, people know when they hit the Arboretum that they're here. I'm not sure that
we need one down there. So we already tentatively have plans for the AVR site. We've got the bridge. The
only issue in my mind is do we put something at Market and I'm not certain about that. And I guess getting to
your specific questions. I'm looking for something that's abstract. Something that's natural. Not anything, not
a monument. Not something concrete.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can I give you my suggestions?
Councilman Senn: I thought you visualized it for us.
Councilman Mason: Or Welcome to Chan. Spend money here. I don't know.
Councilman Senn: Well don't forget you have to list the Mayor and Council...
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I don't know. I'll admit as a member of HRA, when we got that quarter of a
million dollar bill I kind of went well, and even without anyone from Council telling me what they thought about
it, I kind of figured I knew how Council would feel about it. You know being a member of Council, I'll know.
27 1
t
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Yeah, I don't know. I see, downtown I can see it'd be kind of nice to have something that says this is Chan. I
can go along with that. But yeah, at either end, I agree with Colleen. I mean anyone coming in from that end
of town knows where Chan starts and the Arboretum there. I don't know, those little green or brown road signs
with the population, like Richard said, have worked for a long time. At either end. But it is always kind of
interesting to see what else is out there too.
Councilman Wing: But didn't we primarily look just at the Market? Were we looking at one or two? Was it
just Market Boulevard?
Councilman Mason: Well at one time, as I recall, we were looking at two and then.
Mayor Chmiel: Great Plains and Market Boulevard.
Councilman Senn: Are you done?
Councilman Mason: I'm done, sure.
Councilman Senn: I guess from my standpoint I'd really like to see the Council reach some closure on it and
provide some real specific direction before we go and spend another $22,000.00 designing $250,000.00+
monuments but ouff. I don't know. You know, the bridge is going to be there. I think it'd be really nice if we
could very tastefully in some way, shape or form, which probably is a snowball chance in you know what with
the State of doing anything, but I think the effort should really be made to try to do something tasteful with that
bridge. That people will understand because I think that is, whether we like it or not, now that that bridge is
going to be there, that is going to be an entry monument. You know beyond that, I really don't see. I mean I
think all the entries to Chanhassen east, west, north, south, whatever and there are plenty of them, I mean we're
going to be plagued with the standard signage and I don't see any real change coming in those rules because at
least most of the major ones I know of are either State or County roads. And I'm not willing to get into, start
getting into a city wide land acquisition program for monumentation. I think Market's important. I'd really like
to see something at Market. I'd like to see something at Market's that natural. Maybe with some small brick
treatment. I have never found distasteful the, I'm going to say, small but visible and not real over powering you
know brick monuments that you see in many cities where you turn around and you see the Rotary Club and the
Lions Club little round emblem in brass. Or well again, there's some schlaky ones too because I mean I've seen
some schlaky ones with these little you know wood cut out, plywood you know emblems and stuff on it but
there's some nice ones too. Because that has lots to say about your community I think too in terms of those
service clubs and stuff being there. Of course it's also another nice way to pay for them too because most of
those cases, when that's done, the service clubs put together the funding to do it through some type of fund
raising effort but I guess when I get into saying, looking at brick monumentation as part of the landscaping
thing, I look at dollars. More down, maybe around the $10,000.00 range than the $50,000.00 or $40,000.00
range. And I think that statement can be made, like I say, in a landscaping way where I think our money would
be a lot more well spent than bricks and mortar and stuff. I just think, it's just my own opinion but I think it's
real non sensical to do much of anything by the old Taco Shop because I mean if you're coming down TH 101
and if you're coming into Chanhassen, you turn before you hit it and if you hit TH 5, you're either going east or
you're going west and if you're going west, you're going to hit Market anyway and that's going to identify the
downtown area. If you're coming from the west, I don't see how you can miss the downtown area. I mean it's
a little hard to miss the massiveness of the buildings and the signage and everything else that's already out there.
It's even going to be worse yet when more gets done. I don't think we have to really point out the obvious at
that intersection. I like the more central approach where we kind of bring them in Market as a focal point to the
28
Ll
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
downtown area. And just do that tastefully and not get carried away on monumentation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Can I ask the City Manager a question? I
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: On the record and will you answer this as thoroughly and completely as you can. The press
is here. Roger's here and the entire Council's here. Don, a lot of us on the Council here, the majority sat
through studies, surveys, committee meetings, designs, and basically decisions were made up and to that. I
think we got rid of that wrought iron crucifix, the word comes up but that wrought iron.
Councilman Mason: I don't think it was a crucifix.
Councilman Wing: No, no. That wrought iron.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Star of David?
L
Councilman Wing: No, just anyways. The arch we had.
Councilman Senn: What are these? I mean these are all new. This is real interesting.
Councilman Wing: We went down through, as I said, all these different designs and we had models built and all
these different designers and we had contests and the University held a contest. And then we came down to Jeff
Farmakes coming in and designing what, everybody said we like it. Let's go.
Councilman Senn: When did you do this? I'm just curious.
Councilman Wing: Over the last 4 years that I've been on Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he designed something really neat.
Councilman Wing: So if you want to know, here's what I'm getting at. The $22,000.00. Actually it's more
than that because we were spending, there was tens of thousands of dollars over this.
Councilman Senn: Well this is only $22,093.00 Dick. Don't get me wrong.
Mayor Chmiel: When Farmakes did what he did, there was no charge to the city. This is all out of his own
time, which was a lot.
Councilman Wing: I understand. But over the years now we have tens of thousands of dollars committed to '
this project and what happened Don? Where did it fall down? Was it just HRA panicked at the last minute?
Rightfully so. I'll just make that assumption and didn't want to take the design as presented and go with it so it
kind of stopped right there. And one of my complaints that night was, but we've spent tens of thousands of
dollars getting to this point to make a decision and do nothing. And again, I won't say that was the wrong
decision. But now we're back to almost point zero. Is that correct?
29 1
1
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Don Ashworth: I don't agree. I think that the HRA had picked out, made a decision. Yeah, we should really
be looking at entry monuments. And yes we did involve the University and yes there was a contest within
HGA. I think the biggest problem with that was that we put it into a narrower context of just these entry areas
and what should we really do with those. I guess I'm really happy that we took a step back. And then a
$500,000.00 price tag came in along with it. The Mayor's absolutely correct. We said, hey wait a minute.
That's not what we're looking at. But also in that process we took a step back and we said, there's a broader
issues here in terms of Highway 5 corridor and the overall downtown and really the whole Bill Morrish type of
thing and as a result of that, I guess I really like what I'm seeing now and I think that if we would have moved
ahead with the St. Louis arch type of thing, that it would have been a big mistake because I think we've got an
opportunity, for the most part, each of those green areas that are shown there, we own those lands. And for the
most part, they incorporate a water feature right now. The third one, well the center one Market does. The 17
will shortly have one as part of the drainage thing. The whole 78th realignment. It would be very easy to
incorporate something on that east end. I think we've got a real possibility to do exactly what Mark stated.
Define each of those rooms with potentially a higher deciduous type of tree on the outside. Potentially markings
inside of those with bunches of crabs or other plant materials so that all of them read similarly and they all kind
of defined this larger room thing that Bill Morrish was trying to get at and I think we can make a lot of
identification for Chanhassen simply by looking at those 3 areas and trying to make them into something that
people would recognize. This is uniquely Chanhassen. So I don't know if I answered your question. But yeah,
I think we took a step back and I think we did it for the better part and I guess I'm happy that I think we're
maybe even taking a new approach. Yes, it did cost us $22,000.00 to take and realize that that was a mistake.
Councilman Senn: I want to come to Don's defense too.
Councilman Wing: Is that the price of business?
Councilman Senn: Well, you know to me Dick, and I think it's a real valid question that you asked and you
know, the same question then is just, I can't tell you what happened before I was on the Council. I mean all I
can tell you is what happened since I'm on the Council and to me, what's happened since I've been on the
Council is, is that there's been this lingering issue out there of monumentation and who's been dealing with it?
Not City Council. City Council's never dealt with it. We got one thing passed up to us with these big price
tags on it which we promptly gaboshed and sent some comments back on or whatever. But again, if we're
talking about entry monumentation to the city of Chanhassen, to me hey, the Council ought to provide some
direction up front before a consultant's even hired and get his act together and say here's what we think it should
be. That's what we're here for and then we should give the consultant the direction so it's a small task rather
than a large task and the HRA shouldn't even be involved in it as far as I can see, other than maybe reviewing
the elements that may tie into downtown. And I think this thing has gone totally awry because everybody's been
involved other than City Council and the City Council, at least as far as I've been on it, has never taken a firm
position on what it should be and where it should be and I think that's what we should get down to doing and do
it and then go from there in terms of defining it. And that has nothing to do with staff. I think that's something
that we should quit passing the ball on or assuming that somebody else is doing because the bucks stops here
guys.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Then let's do it. My suggestion would be that we do something at the AVR site.
We do something at Market and we do something at CR 17. Some kind of natural element. See if we can get
some kind of, I don't know. Maple leaf with Chanhassen on the pedestrian bridge and I really don't want to see
any concrete or brick or whatever. I'd rather just leave it natural on those three separate sites. Can we give that
charge to Hoisington and have them design something?
1 30
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Senn: So you're saying which sites again now?
Mayor Chmiel: Each of the three that are shown in the green area.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: AVR, Market and CR 17.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I have problems with AVR and CR 17. 1 mean again, I think you really should make
it central. I mean if you want to make those part of the park systems for another reason, I'll agree with you
100 %. Or part of the trail system or something like that. But I don't think that's really how, I think where we
want to mark, in terms of monumentation is the center.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. But we own the site at AVR and at Powers. We own some pieces of those
comers.
Councilman Wing: We're going to landscape them anyway.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. We're going to landscape them anyway.
Councilman Senn: Well, and maybe, and maybe like the AVR one, at least my understanding is the main
purpose of that is the trail system and a stopping point and the connection to the bridge. Well, to me it kind of
starts muddling it when we have to try to, we're somehow trying to grasp what defining of this entry
monumentation. I mean to me it's open space. To me it's part of a trail and a park system. I don't know.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But if we're going to do amatural element at Market, why not tie each of these
sites to that? Because it's going to be landscaped anyway.
Councilman Senn: Well because I think at Market you're talking about identifying Chanhassen in a tasteful but
obvious way. I don't see us really doing that at AVR or at CR 17.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well it marks the boundaries of downtown.
Councilman Senn: Well but, I mean Chanhassen, Chanhassen, Chanhassen? All within a half a mile area. To
me that seems kind of repetitive.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We'll concentrate on the Market but we'll tie in the other two sites because we're
going to be doing something there anyway.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I would support Colleen so there's two of us anyway. And I would, in addition, I'd
just, I happen to like monuments because I think there's permanence there. So I would even, and if there's just
me then there's no point in discussing it but I would tie a monument in someplace. I just like what you guys at
HRA looked at at Market Boulevard. I thought that was a sharp deal with the monument and the trees and all
the landscaping. And I realize there was land acquisition and land and a lot of the land form had to be changed.
And a lot of money but if that was toned down, I still like the idea of the permanence of that stone. I would
agree it's not appropriate elsewhere and these other corners are too diverse for that but I like Colleen's idea of
kind of rooming these up in a similar fashion with similar landscaping. I think I heard you say that.
31 1
F 11
1
1
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is both ends showing as it is, with the trees and whatever we plan on within
that specific area and having those two rooms on the east and west. But yet for the center, have something in it
specifically there to cause direction to saying hey, this is the entrance to the downtown. The main entrance.
Councilman Senn: My question is, how much should we spend on each one of them? I mean now we're talking
3 again. Is it $250,000.00 a piece again?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think we're talking 3 though.
Councilman Mason: If I may.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael, shoot.
Councilman Mason: I think first of all the monument. If you put a monument in, I think it's going to raise the
price a whole big bundle and I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily look at that. What, I'm not hearing
Chanhassen, Chanhassen, Chanhassen. I'm hearing perhaps two really nicely landscaped sides and somehow the
middle one, those two sides being drawn in by the middle one.
Councilman Wing: More monumental...
Councilman Mason: Yeah. Be it monumental by a monument or just some sort of landscaping that really grabs
you. I don't see 3 monuments that say Chanhassen, Chanhassen, Chanhassen. Or even one monument that does
and I think we're looking at somehow that this room concept, landscaped natural perhaps. I mean that's kind of
what I'm hearing right now on all of this.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think you're right. What you're saying is, if we can put a high cluster of trees
which Richard would really thoroughly like, to something more moderate and show that, what the cost associated
with that and then tie in and focus on this other. But I still don't want to see a monument at Market Boulevard
for that $250,000.00. I think if we have something, it doesn't have to be vast and humongous as that one
showed before.
Councilman Wing: Do we still have the tape, the video tape of that, that we had seen? Remember the
University gave us that video imaging of Market and the trees coming in. I'd like to see that but also remember
that breakdown with the monument was I think 65, I mean correct me. $60,000.00 but then the cost came to the
trees, the land, filling in the land. The cost of $200,000.00 or more came from just the land and landscaping.
The monument was only $60,000.00. That was an enormous structure.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, soil correction if I remember was a big number in there too.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but it was more than that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, there was soil correction. It was a big number and all kinds of things for the
monument. And stuff and it just, well and I think you have to be careful. I mean again, I'm not going to
disagree with anything that Michael said and I think we're all agreeing that there should be landscape elements
there but again, I think cost is a consideration. We can put the trees there. Well the next thing you know, we're
going to be talking about planters or we're going to be talking about benches or we're going to be talking about
32
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
this. Well I'll tell you, it starts getting there real quick.
Mayor Chmiel: But that's where they can come in and tell us what those costs are going to be. Then we make
the decision of what we really want to see there.
Councilman Senn: Should we give them a rough budget? I mean to me when you give a consultant direction,
you give them a rough budget. You don't just say...
Mayor Chmiel: You don't give them an open key. ,
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's right.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm saying, ask for what it would be with X number of trees. 50? 25? Whatever. And if that
is too much, well then come in with more of a moderate thing. Have one or the other. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I agree with Mark. We should give them a rough budget.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's true.
Councilman Wing: First of all, I would move Mike's suggestion. I would just move that to get that part settled.
Councilman Senn: Three landscaped elements with a monument at Market?
Councilman Wing: With a centralization with the Market Boulevard.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Perhaps a monument.
Councilman Wing: Well yeah. The monument I'm saying in terms of, it could be...
Councilman Senn: But three landscaped areas with something additional or primary at Market.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, okay. Do you have that?
Councilman Mason: So far so good.
Mayor Chmiel: A buck and a half on each side. You know to throw out a dollar figure.
Councilman Senn: But I hate to ask the obvious question. What do we have in the budget for this? I mean I
shouldn't ask such dumb questions but.
Councilman Mason: Takes all the fun out of it Mark.
Councilman Senn: Oh I know it does. I'm just curious. What have we got budgeted?
Don Ashworth: Do you recall the redevelopment plan currently shows as far as entry monumentation.
$200,000.00, $300, $400?
Todd Gerhardt: The new plan for the Economic Development District in Hennepin County has got $660,000.00.
33
i
1
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Is that all? Golly.
Todd Gerhardt: That's not taking into account we've got to get 4 new buildings in town and take care...
Councilman Senn: Well that's kind of the end of that money so you can forget that.
Councilman Wing: If we were to put in 60 dry roots.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Throw out a figure. You heard what his figure was. Cut it in half. Cut in half again
and a half again and a half again.
Councilman Senn: Well, I'm going to go back to my earlier point. I am very willing to talk about a number
and some money in terms of developing some open spaces. But if you want me to buy off on a number like
$200, $400 or $600,000.00 relating to entry monuments, forget it. I'm not willing to do that. I'm willing to say
that, let's talk about some open areas and let's keep those, you know maybe look at some alternatives on those
open areas and some dollars. As far as entry monumentation goes, which seems to me what we're really talking
about is at Market, then let's put a budget together and say hey, less than 50 or less than something. I don't
know.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. I guess this seems reasonable that you just come up with some, you need to take
these plans one step further before you start talking really about budgets. And at least to get some different
concepts for what you could do in those areas and maybe that next one would take and say, this plan is going to
be more pricey than the next. But I think just to take and say, you know, $20,000.00. I don't know if you
could go through here and put shooting permits required at all three and stay within that budget.
Councilman Senn: No, but you do pay a consultant to design the project and then you turn around and pay him
to build it and he's paid on a percentage of the cost. You know so I mean there's a little bit of a self serving
function in here. I mean when we deal with it from a private standpoint, we go to the consultant and tell them
to design .what he wants and then reduce it in half and give us a realistic price.
Councilman Mason: I guess I'm agreeing with what Don is saying and I know I saw Councilman Wing nodding
his head. I do, I have a lot of faith in what Hoisington - Koegler group has done with the city and I have a sense
by Mr. Schroeder, having to listen to all of this bruhaha tonight, knows what direction we want to go with the
money and I would certainly hope that HKGI would act accordingly when they put some things together. I
mean I guess I happen to.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think you know where we're coming from basically from what you're hearing. And
that's something I think as to that discussion to come up with a conclusion. Show us something but let's not go
out in left field and stay there. Realistic is what we want. And what's realistic as far as dollars, we don't know
yet but just show us something.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Michael.
Councilman Mason: I just, and this doesn't have anything to do with. You know HRA I think rightfully so is
34
Ci ty Council Meeting - May 9, 1994 1
coming under some scrutiny right now and I think that's positive. No, I really do. I think some questions have
been raised here that hopefully all members, and not just the two Council members that serve on HRA but all ,
HRA members will listen to. The flip side of that is, is that HRA meetings are open to the public just like any
meeting is here and with, I don't hear these comments at HRA meetings. And the other HRA members are not
privy to these direct comments like I'm hearing and I think they're good comments from Council. You know
they're open to the public. We all know what's on those agendas and we all have the Minutes available to us.
And I'm a little, I guess I'm a little curious if people on Council are so concerned about what HRA is doing, I
don't, as a member of HRA, if I wasn't sitting right here, I would not know the concern that Council has with
BRA. And I guess that's, I'll just. That's, I feel pretty strong.
Councilman Wing: But Mike I have shown up at numerous meetings and I have spoken but I feel that I'm
being over aggressive, nagging. I feel out of place and uncomfortable and I don't feel it's appropriate as a
Councilmember to stand up there as a Council member and start pointing fingers. I want you to do this and I
expect this and what are your priorities and... I might as well be on the HRA then. And some of the things I
brought up, I don't feel the Chairman has followed through on or kept tabs on. I read the Minutes but as I've
gone through them, very few things that I've addressed have come through. And you've got your own agenda
too. I mean it's not just mine so it's, even Planning Commission. And I think it's sort of their time and should
we be standing up there pointing fingers directing and telling them what to do.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't think it's an issue of pointing fingers but I do think it's an issue of what
everyone in the city wants to see happen for the city.
Councilman Wing: It's too bad the public isn't there more.
Councilman Mason: Well yeah but, I agree with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well maybe there are enough people out there listening or will be listening to get a little
stimulus to come in and say exactly what they feel.
Councilman Mason: I think there's something to be said for having these televised, to tell you the truth...
Don Ashworth: ...because that was one of the problems the HRA ran into. HGA came back with, they had a
plan for $8 million for this community center. They said no, we want you to establish a budget of this. And
let's move this and let's do that. Well those were $4,000.00 every time we did that. There's 15 of those
upstairs. That's how that $74,000.00 sits in that as a deficit for that downtown account.
Councilman Senn: Don, I understand that but why, I mean again. Why doesn't somebody come and ask. I
mean again, maybe there were 15 of them and 14 before I got here but I've seen 1 since I've been here and I'll
tell you. I was here all during 1993 and this is only 1993 we're talking about here. 20 some thousand dollars.
This is 1993 fund transfer. Okay, to cover that. That's my understand from talking to the financial people so I
'
mean to me, whoa.
Don Ashworth: No, that is the 1993 transfer to close basically those accounts out but that's a running total of
'
the cost that have been charged to each of those two projects.
Councilman Senn: But you weren't running a negative fund balance in the account at the end of the year of a
previous year?
35 1
1
I City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Don Ashworth: Sure did. If it's still an active o'ect and you're anticipating that something's going to happen
Pr' J
with the thing, that's in effect.
Councilman Senn: Well I asked if that was 1993 and I was told that that was 1993 and it was paying the
Barton - Aschman period. So I mean, I don't know beyond that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And I think we have to go on some of the things that Don is saying. I'd like to move
back to item (f). Mark on those dollars figures that you had questioned I think many of those have been
answered.
3(F). APPROVE YEAR END CLOSINGS AND TRANSFERS.
Councilman Senn: The only one we've dealt with is entry monuments. I've heard nothing on the $75,000.00
almost for the community center behind Frontier or the expansions to City Hall so again, I mean if you want to
move ahead with this, that's fine but.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we could delete those two last ones.
Councilman Senn: If you would want to delete those 3 items.
Mayor Chmiel: Expansion of City Hall.
Councilman Wing: No because, well. Whenever Mark. I don't want to cut in on Mark here.
Mayor Chmiel: Well those are the two items that he suggested being removed.
t
1
Councilman Wing: I'm assuming that Don Ashworth, the City Manager. Well I'm going to speak for the Fire
Department. I hope that somewhere Don Ashworth's thinking, he's putting aside money for $200,000.00 fire
trucks because we've got a proposal coming in that's going to stun you on stuff that's got to get done. And it's
not going to maybe happen. We'll let you decide how many years you want to rotate these trucks but they're
going to get rotated. But in the meanwhile we've got to make ... but the point of that is, I hope that we're saying,
we probably are going to expand City Hall. I'm assuming that will happen. I'm hoping Don is putting money
aside and carrying that money forward and carrying that money forward He's not spending it but when we
decide to do it, and when we decide to go, I'm assuming. This is the way I read it. That this is the money for
that?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Wing: And I think it's good policy.
Councilman Senn: But Dick, my problem with that is, if we've got $560,000.00 of extra money right now to set
in that fund, then this Council ought to be looking at priorities in terms of how that 560 should be spent. It
should not automatically be transferred over into a fund that's for the expansion of City Hall, which again this
Council has not had one discussion on. And I have real problems with that. Leave it sit in the general fund and
if that's the case and then let's talk about priorities and let's transfer it to where we're talking about transferring
it
36
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Don Ashworth: But that would be the worst mistake. Deloitte came in and basically told you, the auditor's
office is in the process of trying to rate cities. They have their number one priority is cash balances. You have
taken positions year after year to take those dollars. To move them into projects just exactly like Dick is
referring to. We did not have to get into the bad R word as it dealt with the expansion for public works. 1 want
to make sure that putting this city into a .position that we do not have to go back out for a referendum for city
hall expansion. You're absolutely right. I don't know when that's going to occur. I don't know what that will
entail but if I can help ensure that we do, that we've got the dollars and that we don't have to go back to a
referendum, I'll strive to do that. And again, you should not leave that in the general fund. And this does
conform with your previous policies and it's shown. Most of those dollars you referred to are right out of the
budget.
Councilman Senn: I understand that Don but if we've got, we're also being told there aren't any monies to do
this. There aren't any money to do that. I mean if we've got 560, I'd much rather look at issues like, well are
there trails we should fund? Are there parks we should fund? Are there issues like that where we should be
funding now rather than creating a rainy day fund for a new city hall. And you know, we haven't even been
asked to look at those questions and again, I think that's the kind of direction the Council should be providing.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's everybody's choice as to where those dollars should go and you may have a
different idea and Mike will have a different one and Dick and I.
Councilman Senn: Well then we can..vote on it.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. And that's the point being. But I think with some of those dollar allocations, that
doesn't mean that those dollars are going to just automatically go. They're in that fund. They're set there for
that particular reason so that, as he said, when they come back to rate from the State, at least we have those
dollars out of there and that cash fund is not there. And that's the whole point of it.
Councilman Senn: Well, but then put it in a fund other than, there's a lot of funds you can put it into where it's
safe from a rate by the State without creating in effect all of a sudden kind of a almost pre- approved assumption
that a city hall expansion's going to happen.
Councilman Wing: Let's move it if we come up with a specific then I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's something too that Don and I have sat down and talked about. The Fire Department
start getting some of those dollar appropriations and maybe trying to find some other ways of getting some of
those dollars into another slot. But I think that for what's there and the position that he has said, I would either,
if you don't want to move it, maybe someone else could move it then. That we continue where we're at and
accept this with clarifications. I think that is not there. That can be put into something that we can use
somewhere else.
Councilman Wing: I guess I, a lot of times, well first of all I guess I will move this for discussion. Item 3(f).
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would there be a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
37
a
1
I City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Councilman Wing: A lot of times Mark brings these things up and my ears perk up because he's knowledgable
on this and he's, and I find myself listening. In this case I'm really comfortable that the City Manager's on top
of it. I just have the respect and support for him and I'm comfortable with what's happened here. With due
respect to Mark's comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I don't dispute those but sometimes some of these comments have put us in a hole
once in a while too where we didn't know how to get back out of where we were at. So I think we have to
have all of this down and know where the real world basically is before those things move ahead. So with that
there's a motion on the floor with a second.
Resolution #94 -52: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Year End
Closings and Transfers. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay Don, item number 7. Or excuse me, 8. The debt study.
Don Ashworth: I passed out a copy of the debt study. I plan to have that onto our agenda 2 weeks from today.
It will be a shorter presentation and you've got 2 weeks to kind of look through it.
Councilman Wing: I can only say, I think the only one in my opinion that's capable reading this, well you and I
are kind of equals, is maybe Mark and maybe the Mayor. What about for us laymen? Can you read this or can
you help me? What do we do with this? Listen to your short version.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. All you have to do is if you have some real concerns with it, give him a call. Sit down.
Have it explained. If you have other concerns, check in with Jean. Jean will tell you the same thing.
Councilman Wing: Is it going to be a laymen's explanation of this?
Mayor Chmiel: There may be a laymen's explanation coming. Just so long as we don't lose it all, right?
Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. We pulled off special meeting dates to give us the ability to talk about
the entry monuments but we should either have a motion or go back and try to figure out.
' Mayor Chmiel: Where was that at?
Don Ashworth: It was 3(p).
Mayor Chmiel: We approved that. Oh that's right. You're right Roger. You're right. We have not adjourned
as yet so let us go right to 9(b).
Councilman Senn: 9 what?
Roger Knutson: 3(p).
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. As we moved it along.
(Taping of the meeting ended at this point in the discussion.)
1 38
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1994
Action taken on item 3(p), which was setting work session dates for the Highway 5 corridor, was unclear and
will be clarified at the City Council work session on May 18, 1994.
The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
39
0
t
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 9 9 , 1994
Mayor Chmiel reconvened the Board of Equalization meeting at 7:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilman Senn, Councilman
Mason and Councilwoman Dockendorf
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, and Representatives from Carver
County Assessor's Office, Steve Just and Ann Wise
Don Ashworth described the procedures that were taken by the County Assessor's office in
reviewing property assessments. There were initially approximately 1.15 parcels requesting
review. An additional 7 were later found bringing the total to 122. Out of these requests, 11
were unresolved. Therefore the Board was recommended to discuss the 11 still unresolved.
Mayor Chmiel asked if there was anyone present at the meeting wishing to speak. Seeing no
one present, Steve Just from the County Assessor's office went through and briefly described
the review process taken on each of the 11 unresolved items and offered their recommended
action to be taken by the Board. After discussion between the Count Assessor's office and
the Board of Equalization and Review, the following action was taken.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the Board of Equalization
and Review approve the action recommended by the County Assessor's Office on the
following parcels:
I Ref. # Name
0
PIN #
Action Taken
2. Bob Crees /Jan Almli 25.8010200 Reduce market value $4,000. from
$173,900. to $169,900.
3. Richard L. Anderson 25.4060840 $189,900.
4. Kent & Veronica 25.8760010 Reduce market value $7,500. from
Anderson $263,500. to $256,000.
5. Roderick & Gayle Annis 25.1860420 $174,300.
6. Charles & Susan 25.3930040 Reduce market value $18,400. from
Applegate $521,200. to $502,800.
1
If
Board of Equalization and Review - May 9, 1994
Ref. # Name PIN #
7. Jerome Lynch & 25.3980200
Teresa Arendaczyk
8. Audubon Partnership 25.1790050
9. Audubon Partnership 25.1790030
10. Audubon Partnership 25.1790040
11.
12.
13.
16.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Audubon Partnership 25.1790060
Arletta Bragg &
25.1760220
Viola Auperle
Beddor Properties
Ten parcels
c/o Julius Smith
listed in letter
Gregory Bohrer
25.6600080
Jim & Ruth Boylan
25.0051600
Peter & Deanna Brandt
25.8940020
Vicki & Geoffrey Breault
25.8590320
Kathryn P. Broughton
25.2620080
M. Jane Brown 25.7930260
Colleen & Tim Browne 25.3640060
2
Action Taken
Reduce market value $6,500. from
$151,500. to $145,000.
Reduce market value $666,700. from
$1,000,000. to $333,300.
Reduce market value $311,400. from
$467,000. to $155,600.
Reduce market value $215,000. from
$254,000. to $39,000.
Reduce market value $184,700. from
$277,000. to $92,300.
Reduce market value $5,800. from
$131,800. to $126,000.
Mr. Smith withdrew appeal for
all 10 parcels
$212,000.
$137,600.
$360,500.
$133,500.
Reduce market value $6,300. from
$155,800. to $149,500.
Reduce market value $26,600. from
$259,800. to $233,200.
Reduce market value $24,200. from
$193,400. to $169,200.
Board of Equalization and Review - May 9, 1994
Ref. # Name PIN #
24. Ronald & Sue Busch 25.4010020
25. David L. Callaway 25.2700010
26. Richard & Renee Carlson 25.7900100
27.
Don Chmiel
25.3000240
29.
Dawne Christiansen
25.4030080
30.
Herbert F. Carlson
25.0023700
31.
Skip Cook
25.0351700
32.
Diane Corey
25.4200110
34.
Mary Dezellar
25.6070140
35.
Al Dorweiler
25.0270200
36.
Tom Dotzenrod
25.4060610
37.
Steve R. Ehlers
25.2030160
39.
Gerald Engelhaupt
25.7550110
K
Action Taken
Reduce market value $2,500. from
$140,300. to $137,800.
Reduce market value $4,800. from
$202,300. to $197,500.
Reduce market value $4,600. from
$128,600. to $124,000.
Reduce market value $4,100. from
$145,700. to $141,600.
Reduce market value $10,300. from
$124,600. to $114,300.
Reduce market value $3,000. from
$133,400. to $130,400.
Reduce market value $15,300. from
$78,600. to $63,300.
Reduce market value $8,100. from
$169,700 to $161,600.
Reduce market value $3,800 from
$187,500. to $183,700.
$94,000.
$150,400.
Reduce market value $1,800. from
$118,500 to $116,700
Reduce market value $6,000 from
$82,600 to $76,600
t
Board of Equalization and Review - May 9, 1994
Ref. # Name PIN #
Action Taken
40.
Robert & Jean Fess
25.2400060
Reduce market value $11,200 from
$233,200 to $222,000
41.
Bryce & Mary Fier
25.1620040
Reduce market value $3,500 from
$139,100 to $135,600
42.
John Foote
25.7550090
Reduce market value $2,800 from
$80,900 to $78,100
43.
Russell L. Frederick
25.0242100
$169,700.
45.
Paul Gran
25.1990290
Reduce market value $20,900 from
$171,900 to $151,000
46.
Norman C. Grant Jr.
25.0240500
Reduce market value $82,300 from
$454,500 to $372,200
47.
Richard E. Hamblin
25.3450900
Reduce market value $4,500 from
$143,100 to $138,600.
48.
Glen & Joan Hansen
25.2850040/001
Reduce market value $15,100 from
$264,700 to $249,600.
50.
Paul Hanson
25.1620220
Reduce market value $7,200 from
$151,600 to $144,400
51.
Joel W. Hedtke
25.7900380
$93,400.
52.
Roy Heller
25.6170120
Reduce market value $3,100 from
$129,400 to $126,300
53.
Bill Hickey
25.4950300
$117,700.
54.
James & Mary Jessup
25.7950240
Reduce market value $35,000 from
$50,000 to $15,000
55.
Craig & Jane Johnson
25.7551250
Reduce market value $10,800 from
$115,700 to $104,900
4
Board of Equalization and Review - May 9, 1994
Ref. # Name PIN # Action Taken
56.
Ruth Kalanquin
25.3930120
$232,700
57.
Randy Karl
25.2630130
$190,400
58.
Keith D. Knefelkamp
25.2020640
$88,000.
59.
J. Donald Knight
25.6600280
$207,100
60.
Randy & Jennifer Koski
25.5450140
Reduce market value $6,000 from
$154,600 to $148,600
61.
Kurvers Homeowners Assn.
25.3920270
$35,000.
63.
Lynn Lord
25.7551330
Reduce market value $11,300 from
$119,400 to $108,100
64.
Jeffrey & Sherrel
25.7551380
Reduce market value $10,000 from
McCoskey
$128,600. to $118,600.
65.
Metro Lakes West Mini
25.7510010
$1,153,500.
Storage c/o Mark Senn
66.
Robert Meuwissen
25.0500270
$96,100
67.
Robert & Cynthia Meyers
25.3451070
Reduce market value $2,000 from
$169,700 to $167,700
68.
William Scott Modell
25.4500060
Reduce market value $6,500 from
$114,100 to $107,600
69.
Peter Moe
25.0082300
Reduce market value $4,400 from
$135,800 to $131,400
70.
Barbara Montgomery
25.2300270
Reduce market value $7,800 from
$162,900 to $155,100.
71.
Scott & Dede Montgomery
25.4060630
Reduce market value $8,200 from
$185,300 to $177,100
5
Board of Equalization and Review - May 9, 1994
Ref. # Name PIN # Action Taken
72.
Lester & Stephanie A.
25.8830060
Reduce market value $7,900 from
Morrow
$280,400 to $272,500
73.
Richard L. Nelson
25.1870640
Reduce market value $6,200 from
$118,500 to $112,300
74.
Stephen Neurerer
25.4060130
Reduce market value $14,400 from
$126,000. to $111,600
75.
Roger Novotny
25.4120030
Reduce market value $20,000 from
$242,100 to $222,100
76.
Michael & Becky Nyberg
25.6070150
Reduce market value $14,800 from
$148,800 to $134,000
77.
Betty O'Shaughnessy
25.0151700
Reduce market value $123,500 from
$660,600 to $537,100.
78.
Donald M. Oelke
25.0022700
Reduce market value $2,100 from
$111,200 to $109,100
79.
Andrew Kent Olson
25.4060600
$150,800.
80.
Mark Paulsen
25.2620100
$165,800
81.
Gerald Paulsen
25.8200100
$110,700
82.
James & Susan Pehringer
25.4060860
Reduce market value $9,100 from
$188,500 to $179,400
83.
Nancy Jo Perkins
25.6660090
$38,900
84.
Ed Perkins
25.3640140
Reduce market value $24,300 from
$195,700 to $171,400
85.
Paul & Judy Peterson
25.1990180
$118,900
R,
Board of Equalization and Review - May 9, 1994
Ref. # Name PIN # Action Taken
86.
Mike & Ann Preble
25.3640050
Reduce market value $24,900 from
$198,500 to $173,600
87.
Mike & Denise Reid
25.3650020
Reduce market value $14,800 from
$189,200 to $174,400
88.
Richard D. & Paula Rice
25.3000350
Reduce market value $4,900 from
$102,600 to $97,700
89.
Martin Ricker
25.3500230
Reduce market value $4,800 from
$98,800 to $94,000
90.
Jodi Riesselman
25.5250230
$116,500
91.
Charles Robbins
25.8230050
Reduce market value $2,000 from
$145,200 to $143,200
92.
Karen Rockvam
25.7970030
Reduce market value $2,000 from
$139,200 to $137,200
93.
Paul & Rita Rojina
25.0123400
$96,400
94.
Roman R. Roos
25.7510030
Reduce market value $96,800 from
$530,00 to $433,200
95.
Donald & Revelda Sather
25.8800040
$140,800
96.
Donald & Jean Schilling
25.1990150
Reduce market value $6,700 from
$135,300 to $128,600
97.
Daryl & Corrine Schultz
25.3980520
Reduce market value $4,100 from
$152,300 to $148,200
98.
Thomas Schwartz
25.2050150
Reduce market value $2,100 from
$119,600 to $117,500
99.
Mark O. Senn
25.6950010
Reduce market value $20,300 from
$426,300 to $406,000
7
Board of Equalization and Review - May 9, 1994
Ref. # Name PIN #
Action Taken
100.
Donna Sims
25.6060041
$192,200
101.
Michael Solberg
25.1990030
Reduce market value $10,400 from
$107,300 to $96,900
102.
Robert Sommer
25.2670020
Reduce market value $5,800 from
$122,700 to $115,900
103.
William Spliethoff
25.2380030
Reduce market value $18,000 from
$379,500 to $361,500
104.
Steven & Cheryl Stock
25.1870250
Reduce market value $2,000 from
$125,500 to $123,500
106.
Cynthia A. Stokvis
25.8580050
Reduce market value $4,000 from
$204,300 to $200,300
107.
Denny & Ann Sullivan
25.2700370
Reduce market value $6,500 from
$245,200 to $238,700
108.
Paul Taunton
25.2640070
Reduce market value $31,400 from
$659,000 to $627,600
109.
Kim Terning
25.4070160
Reduce market value $4,600 from
$254,100 to $249,500.
110.
Albert F. Tholen
25.0340300
Reduce market value $4,500 from
$95,100 to $90,600
111.
Gene DeWeese &
25.8850030
Reduce market value $20,900 from
Julie Thorndycraft
$186,500 to $165,600
112.
Ronald & Cynthia Tonn
25.4060590
Reduce market value $9,000 from
$176,100 to $167,100
113.
Karel & Nanci Van Langen
25.4950730
Reduce market value $13,600 from
$284,700 to $271,100
L
Board of Equalization and Review - May 9, 1994
Ref. # Name PIN #
Action Taken
114. Robert & Betty Wold 25.0253700 Reduce market value $4,600 from
$95,400 to $90,800
115. Tom Workman 25.8010040 $155,200
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
After discussion by the Board of Equalization and Review, Councilman Wing moved,
Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following parcels where conclusions were
not reached with the homeowners, as recommended by the County Assessor's Office:
Ref. #
Name
PIN #
Action Taken
1.
Abraham Abbariao
25.1700020
$277,200
14.
Roger & Deborah Benson
25.4030190
Reduce market value $5,500 from
•
$148,700 to $143,200
15.
Douglas Bergeson
25.0220400
$67,200
17.
Dale & Randi Boyer
25.0240200
$225,300
28.
W.R. Christensen
25.1600720
$103,900
33.
Harold & Kathryn Dahl
25.6400020
Reduce market value $2,700 from
$176,400 to $173,800
38.
William Engberg
25.7550750
$105,400
44.
Donald & Dorothy Gale
25.0133700
$103,500
49.
Thomas Hansen
25.3450920
$160,200
62.
Ron Lockman
25.2010020
$139,200
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Board of Equalization and Review - May 9, 1994
Ref. # Name PIN #
Action Taken
105. Daniel & Barb Stoflet 25.4500010 $120,900
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
The Board of Equalization and Review adjourned their meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
10
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
' MAY 4 9 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Diane Harberts, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, Jeff
Fanmakes, and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting
' STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer, and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager
CONSIDER APPROVING A NEW TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LOCATED
ON THE PRESS AND DATASERV PROPERTY.
' Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item
Scott: Mr. Gerhardt, perhaps there might be some people who are going to see this on tape
or who are here right now. Why the City of Chanhassen would invest any money in a state
highway and if you could explain kind of the unique relationship. What Highway 101 - really
is and why we have to make this investment.
' Gerhardt: Well State Highway 101 is designated as a minor maintenance highway so the
g Y S gh Y Y
will not stick any dollars into reconstructing it. That means they will go out and fill potholes
' and provide right turn lanes where traffic warrants are necessary and will not add trails to it
unless we would make the overlays with curb and gutter. Impacts on environmental
resources, wetlands and lakes. So it's really up to the cities, counties to look at rebuilding
' this highway. It's got a history where the State is trying to give it over to Hennepin County.
Carver County has shown interest in trying to take it over and right now there is a special
committee put together by Carver County, City of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka,
' Hennepin County to try to work out an arrangement in reconstructing TH 101 because those
are the jurisdictions that are mostly impacted by it.
Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments from commissioners?
' Farmakes: What is that, I'm curious. How does the DataSery thing work 'in the Met Council
with the, our local community and our facts and figures for employment. The final figures
that are added to Hennepin County. How does that work...? Is this in Carver County or not
in Carver County?
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Gerhardt: It's in Hennepin County. The tax increment district, it is all in Hennepin County
and we've got an opinion from the attorney that says we can take Hennepin County dollars
and use those on roadways that come along that jurisdiction. We just can't go out and
rebuild half a highway so we ... that you could rebuild the entire highway. So we get, we
recognize through Met Council those employments figures from the Press and DataSery and
Redmond Products and Automated Building Components and I'm going to forget some but
several other businesses... are recognized in our employment study. So when we do our
survey compared to Met Council, we're fairly close.
Farmakes: Yeah. In the one I looked at, I'm talking about projection. The projections were
significantly lower here and the response that I got, and that particular issue with that, that's
because we have a significant amount of employment figures in Hennepin County and that's
part of this. I was just wondering for when we make an investment, or we're using Hennepin
County dollars, are we approving something here that's within our scope of view? Obviously
we are or we wouldn't be seeing it.
7
L
J
i
1
Gerhardt: Right. I mean there's no question that upgrading State Highway 101 will benefit
all those businesses. Through the truck traffic. Through employees getting to work. To all
those facilities. It's going to be safer. Right now TH 101 is a very dangerous highway. It
also provides opportunities for installing a trail system that will connect into these areas.
Allowing people to bike, walk or other modes of transportation to get to these businesses. So
there are some real benefits back to these. We used... Hennepin County dollars to rebuild the
TH 101 intersection... in Carver County. All those trucks that are served by Redmond
Products, the Press, and that, that had the difficulty of making that U around to that frontage
road. And it's sad that we can only go so far. There's no question as Crosstown gets
completed to 4 lanes, you're going to have a...4 lane major non - restricted highway into a 2
lane minimum improvement state highway with only 2 lanes. And the right turn lanes along
there are not, so people going to work along that highway, if they use Crosstown, and come
up onto Town Line, that's going to be completed here fairly soon. You know everybody who
may work in Hopkins that works at the Press is going to hop on Crosstown and take TH 101
and then come down to serve those businesses. So they don't have to hit the traffic signals
on Highway 5 in Eden Prairie. So we're real concerned with TH 101 as Town Line,
Crosstown is completed and funnels down into a 2 lane minimum improvement state
highway. So that's our big concern and then of course the neighborhood would also like to
see a trail running there. And this is our only opportunity, locally funding this study and try
to do something.
Scott: Looking at the boundaries of the TIF district, or the proposed TIF district, the question
that I've got is as you look out into your crystal ball and see some of the developments that
are being proposed. I mean obviously we're going to be talking about an expansion of an
0q
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
existing business in that area. Also potentially another smaller business. What sort of
development do you see occurring across the street in the DataSery area? And just basically, ,
what sort of financial benefit do you see when this TIF district is fully developed, based upon
what you know of other TIF districts that we've gone through, what sort of tax benefit do you
see on an annual basis for the city of Chanhassen from that area? ,
Gerhardt: Right now I think we've estimated to be fully developed about $900,000.00 a year
in new taxes. Including the DataSery and the Press expansion. Right now the plans are for ,
two 70,000 square foot office /warehouse type facilities that sit along the frontage road
between Highway 5 and Lake Drive in front of DataServ. DataSery is also coming out and
going to build at least a 100,000 square foot office /warehouse R & D facility next to their ,
current plant. Their lease runs out in 2 years in their facility in Eden Prairie.
Scott: So you're just going to be moving those Eden Prairie employees into Chanhassen. '
Mancino: So that will be an increase of $900,000.00 you said for taxes? When it comes. '
Wouldn't we get that $900,000.00 regardless of if it were TIF or not?
Gerhardt: Some people question that it might not occur. It might or it might not occur. The '
development.
Farmakes: The development. ,
Gerhardt: Right.
Mancino: Oh, the whole development might not occur.
Gerhardt: Yeah. The big question is, what's the incentive of the DataSery going on their ,
own property when Chaska has it. Waconia has it. Shakopee has it and they can almost
build in those facilities for less money and incentives are for them to do it. And for us to
compete with those other cities, we have no other option but to do it. The other up side of it
is, is that it gives us opportunities to do other public improvements. You can ask for brick or
better on your buildings and say you can use that ... say you're going to get assistance from the
city. Even if you've got Highway 5 treatments, you're going to see, you want to see some
special treatments as people enter the city. Be it entry monuments. Special landscaping
treatments. And then public improvements. Right now if Dell Road, the "segment of Dell
Road south of Lake Drive was to be constructed. We would have to pull general obligation 1
bonds. Myself, as a taxpayer in Chanhassen would have to pay for that road and I would
never use it.
3 1
J
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Mancino: Couldn't we use the property taxes that we're getting from that development to do
that?
Gerhardt: They go into one large pool, general pool.
' Farmakes: ...edge of the city. It's in another county. It's, how does that general pool work?
Where do those tax dollars go? You're saying that it's going to generate $900,000.00. In
' whose coffers do they go?
Gerhardt: We get, well with the creation. You want to know if the taxes from the district
' was there or wasn't there?
Mancino: Both. Both scenarios.
Gerhardt: If the tax increment district is there, we basically capture 50% of those dollars.
The other 50% goes to fiscal disparity and that is distributed throughout the metro area to
' those cities that are commercially and industrially poor.
Scott: But don't we get around $900,000.00 a year from fiscal disparities because our
existing TIF districts are invisible to the calculation? Fortunately.
Gerhardt: We are a beneficiary of fiscal disparity money but in 6 years we will be a major
' contributor to fiscal disparities. So of that $900,000.00, we will not see those dollars once
the district is collapsed.
Farmakes: Do you feel that the expansion of this area benefits us in projections with Met
Council? Does it benefit our area or does it benefit another area? We still have to provide
' these areas with fire service, police and so on. Does that benefit our community statistically?
Gerhardt: Well yeah, that's the problem with statistics. I mean people sort them around and
' play with them however they want to make their numbers to work but statistically we count
those employees as a part of city of Chanhassen's employment base but do they break out
those figures and say they're part of Chanhassen's Hennepin County portion and then you've
got Chanhassen's Carver County portion. Well we'd like to, it's still part of Chanhassen so
we combine the numbers and I think, or I've seen it where Met Council has broken out each
of the two. I do not know if they combine both of them together. But they should show the
' separation of the two because you're going to have to make that reflection back when they do
county statistics on employment. You can't count our portion of Hennepin County
employment into Carver County. So I would think that when they show those, I've seen it
where Chanhassen, Hennepin County portion, Chanhassen, Carver County portion and they
L]
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
show those figures.
Mancino: I had another question about education. What happens when we, first of all before
that. Do we have any commercial/industrial development in Chanhassen that isn't in a TIF
district? Has all of it come in under TIF dollars pretty much? ,
Gerhardt: We have a small neighborhood retail area up at TH 41 and TH 7 that is not.
Gedney Pickle down in, what is looks like it's in Chaska but it's really in Chanhassen, is not. ,
This private property here that's on the map, I did not include what is Ver- sa -til. What was
Dexter Magnetic. I don't know who's in there now. Laytec. Automated Building
Components. Redmond Products. Those facilities were in a tax increment. Are no longer in ,
a tax increment. All that's included in this new district are vacant lands with the exception of
the Press and it's original value of the Press building, when they do the tax calculation, will
continue to pay into or outside of the district because the base value needs to be established
at the time the district is started. So we're not going to capture any increment off of the
Press. So those tax dollars will come back to the community.
Mancino: Do any of these tax dollars during the TIF district go into our schools at all? On a '
regular, consistent basis or do our schools lose out when these come into the TIF district.
Gerhardt: The tax dollars from this district o to Eden Prairie schools because they're in the
g Y
Eden Prairie School District. We do not any residents within Chanhassen that go to Eden '
Prairie School District so there's no residential in Hennepin County side. We have one house
that's in Hennepin County.
Mancino: Okay. My last question has to do with, I think it's on page 7. Number O which '
is parcels to be acquired within the TIF district. It is not anticipated that the city will acquire
any property within TIF District No. 3 -1 except such easements or other interest in properties '
maybe necessary to complete the improvements of Dell Road, TH 101, TH 5 anticipated by
this plan. I know that the Highway 5. corridor study, which is involved very much on
Highway 5, is very interested in this comer, Dell Road on the north and south side, as a
gateway to our city. And design has not been done on either of those parcels of land but it
may be that when one is designed, that there may be some easements of land wanting to take
into account for our gateway. These are all kind of what if's and questions that I have right
now. Wouldn't it be appropriate to put in this contract something about the gateway concept
and what's going to happen? And would there be a right to acquire some easements from
both of those parcels? '
Gerhardt: You, perhaps it would be correct and, however we have not included that in the
plan because we do not know how much land we are going to take or if the entry monuments '
J
N� Planning Commission Meeting -May 4, 1994
will be completed so until City Council has reviewed those and I think they've got a meeting
scheduled to start looking at those, it's tough for me to put a budget in and how much land to
take you know and people that own that property see this as you're taking my property and
why. And then that puts Council in a predicament to try and answer questions. So until we
have a plan in place, we'll come back with a modification and then I'll come back in front of
you and modify this plan to say that we are going to acquire land at the intersection of Dell
Road and Highway 5. And at that time I'll have a good estimate of what the budget would
be for that.
Mancino: Great. Because I wouldn't recommend passing this without that caveat. Without
' that addendum that that area be designed and come back to you with it in here.
Gerhardt: Right. And until we have a better idea of you know, are we going to put a large
' entry monuments that say Chanhassen on them? Are we going to do landscaping? Are we
going to do vertical elements? That question hasn't been answered yet. So until we have
those answers, we need to come back with a modification. Right now we felt that it was
' important to get the district in place instead of waiting for that. However we have
highlighted in the plan that the Planning Commission has reviewed the Highway 5 corridor
plan and that this plan is recognizing that as a project that we want to undertake with the
increment that we have available. So you already are laying the ground work... want to do
special treatments along Highway 5 consistent with the Highway 5 corridor plan.
' Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Scott: Yeah just looking here at, so basically the Highway 5, for $660,000.00. It says
roadway improvements. Because of the state of Highway 5 in that area, which is obviously
pretty darn new, how do you envision that money to be invested?
' Gerhardt: Right now, and I have to put the, the budget is fairly generic. In addition it's a
true estimate of what we anticipate based on our zoning ordinance of what we develop here
and tax wise. So we laid out what we felt was the best estimate for these public
improvements. And that's all they need to be. You know a good estimate. We may end up
spending a million dollars in Highway 5 or we may end up spending $300,000.00 on
' Highway 5 but the key was to get the $2,860,000.00 and dividing out what we felt the
priorities were and the magnitude of the projects that would occur. There's no question if
you were to take on State Highway 101 that a good 70% of that project would take the
money. We felt that the Highway 5 treatments, you know ... $680,000.00 and that was about
20 %. 10% for the Dell Road improvements, which is just a small segment of roadway. If
you look at that roadway now, it's very unsafe over there and the city is at liability in having
that roadway in an unsafe alignment.
1 6
I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Ledvina: As it relates to the upgrading of TH 101. Is there any cost sharing that Eden
Prairie will provide as part of that construction?
Gerhardt: Yeah. I mean there's no way $2 million is going to pay for the upgrading of TH ,
101. What we, I kind of mentioned the coalition group that is being created right now
between Carver County, Hennepin County, Minnetonka, the city of Eden Prairie, the city of '
Chanhassen and MnDot in trying to coordinate to restructure this highway. Minnetonka's
concerns are along Town Line. As that roadway comes in, it hits that corner of their city.
And of course Eden Prairie on the east side and Chanhassen on the west side. We've looked ,
at several options of looking at how to define this. But the $2 million would be basically our
contribution towards that. ,
Ledvina: And the cost sharing? The cost sharing would be worked out at a later date?
Gerhardt: Yeah. '
Ledvina: Who referees? ,
Gerhardt: It would be a joint powers agreement that works out, you know it'd be percentages
of benefit from it and how people should contribute. '
Ledvina: Okay.
Scott: What happens, now the life of this district is going to be what, 6 years? ,
Gerhardt: 9.
Scott: 9 years. And typically we reinvest, what about.
Mancino: I thought it...2000.
Scott: I think you're talking about the existing. The existing increment districts end at the ,
year 2000. This one is going to be going until after the year 2000. Just the typical
arrangement, at least from what I understand is that the first 3 years of tax' increment
typically gets reinvested in the project for assessments, land buy down, etc, etc. So if we had
everybody start building today, we basically have, we forego 3 years worth of this.
Mancino: The $900,000.00?
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Scott: Yeah. So I'm just trying to get an idea from a cashflow standpoint what this will
actually generate. I mean I saw the capacity figures and I think basically what you did
calculation wise is come up with the capacity figures and then say, well that gives us $3.7
million that we can invest. Is it a situation where we, to maximize the amount of money that
we can invest in the infrastructure improvements, is this something where we really need to
get people starting to develop, as soon as this is approved, we really need to get people to
start developing as soon as possible so that we can get past the 3 years and start receiving
some actual dollars we can invest?
Gerhardt: We get a 2 year ... and then we have at our option not collecting from. it for 2 years.
So where the city would physically start collecting taxes off of this district wouldn't be until
the year '97. So really we'd get basically 2 years. If you want to see the full figure develop,
you get 2 years to wait out for buildings to come in. But we don't market Chanhassen to try
to bring people out there. We have our own program so we don't go out and call businesses
and things like that. Walt Roberts, one of our businesses in the industrial park's here tonight.
Walt called me and I sat down with Walt and I explained our program to him. He said, it
sounds good to me. I like Chanhassen. It sounds like a good program. There are probably
other better deals out there but you know, I like the location and I think we're just finishing
up with Walt's program this year. I think it's businesses like Walt's that make this a good
program and one to really help the businesses because they're making a transition. I don't
know how much new equipment Walt had to buy when he moved into that but it's difficult
for these businesses to come out here and to take on the amount of assessments for these
streets that are built and to get started and to take on this risk so, all this program is is one to
help the businesses pull themselves up by their bootstraps, if I can quote the City Manager.
It's not—market businesses to come here. People want to be in Chanhassen because there's
usually a reason. You know that they're working with other people in the area. This is their
market area. It's close to their home. It's close to their employment base and good
highways. Things like that are typically how businesses decide how they want to be here.
Market dictates. State of the economy ... I don't think we've processed that many industrial,
commercial buildings in the last 2 years. I'm expecting the next 2 to 3 years you're going to
see quite a few.
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission deem the program for Development
District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 -1 be consistent with
the plans for development for the city of Chanhassen. I would further move that the
commission approve Resolution No. 94 -2 and direct staff to hold a public hearing on May 23,
1994 on the program and plan as required by State Statutes.
8
r 1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Harberts: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the staff recommendation on the TIF '
district. Is there any discussion?
Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly amendment and that is that, that there be, in the TIF ,
contract, something having to do with the Highway 5 gateway and that there may be an
easement on the two properties, north and south, on Dell Road. And we'll leave that up to ,
the city staff and to figure out and to come back to us. Once it's designed.
Gerhardt: I can design in there. Maybe just highlighting that one section where we're not ,
anticipating any acquisition. We can look at, there are the possibility of selling the gateway
access easements or land for the gateway treatments to be acquired—but just highlighted in
the plan. Is that what you want to see? ,
Mancino: Yeah. To have it in the plan so we can be proactive and so that any development ,
that's going to come in will know about it before hand and won't be surprised and that we
thought it through.
Harberts: Nancy when you discuss that point, are you looking at just the north side of the '
road or are you looking at both the north and the south side of the road?
Mancino: North and south. ,
Harberts: Okay. I
Mancino: So it's a whole gateway entry. Thank you.
Gerhardt: I would highlight in there the acquisition be consistent with the Highway 5 1
corridor plan.
Scott: With regard to gateway. '
Mancino: Yeah but it's not specific in the corridor study yet. It hasn't been designed yet see ,
SO.
Gerhardt: Then I'd really like to keep it out until we have a little more specifics on it. It's
not that it's not going to happen. I'm still going to have to come back with a modification...
Ledvina: So that would be an amendment? '
9 1
I
F
L
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Gerhardt: ...an amendment, you've got to have a budget figure with it. And so it's not a
problem... amendment.
Scott: So we're going to see this again as an amendment to the comprehensive plan? Or are
you talking about an amendment?
Ledvina: To the amendment.
Scott: Okay. Speaking of which, of the amendments of the friendly sort, do you accept?
Ledvina: Well it would be a recommendation then not to have that in there?
Gerhardt: I don't think so at this point. By the time you get to the point where we're going
' to do the Highway 5 treatments and we have a specific plan and a budget for it, I would
include it in at that time.
1
I �
Mancino: But what if those, let's say the north side is already, a development comes in on
the north side and they don't know that they may need to give some easement of land up
because of, do we want to tie it into the TIF contract and it doesn't happen for 2 months?
Gerhardt: Well it's typically done with the site plan approval process and the Highway 5 and
the Comp Plan and planners that say that you know, based on the Highway 5 plan you know.
Mancino: I'm concerned with timing.
Scott: Well especially too if they're going to be looking for TIF assistance. We want to
make sure that they, I mean does having that amendment specifically allowing for land
acquisition that's consistent with the Highway 5 standard, does that preclude this from
moving forward? I mean is this something that's going to get in the way?
Harberts: To look at it, yeah.
Mancino: Then I would still like to add, in general terms, that there may be land acquisition
of those two areas.
Ledvina: Okay. I would accept that amendment, yes.
Scott: Excuse me, is there any other discussion? Okay. Well it's been moved and seconded
that we take staff's recommendation on the TIF district as well as the amendment regarding
land acquisition consistent with Highway 5 corridor study.
1111
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
I �
L_
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission finds the program
for Development District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3- '
1 consistent with the plans for development for the city of Chanhassen, with the
amendment regarding land acquisition consistent with the Highway 5 corridor study.
The Planning Commission also approves Resolution #94 -2 and directs staff to hold a ,
public hearing on the program and plan on May 23, 1994. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMERSKIRCH FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.95 '
ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF ,
A WETLAND: AND VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED ON
MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF
SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE LANE, NEUMANN ,
SUBDIVISION.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Herb Pfeffer
2850 Tanager Lane
,
Harry D. Peters
18800 Ridgewood Road
Ann and Arnold Weimerskirch
2831 Sandpiper Trail
,
Olive Neumann
2841 Sandpiper Trail
Art Johnsen
18300 Minnetonka Blvd, Minnetonka
Ken Adolf
Schoell and Madson, Inc.
,
Laurie Johnson
2731 Piper Ridge Lane
Delores Erickson
2762 Piper Ridge Lane
'
Mike & Sue Faulk
2791 Piper Ridge Lane
Chuck Rosenberger
2772 Piper Ridge Lane
'
Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Harberts: Kate, under the recommendation you outline the issues to be addressed. Has there
been a chance to talk with the applicant about those?
Aanenson: Yes, and I'm sure they'll speak to some of those too but we are recommending I
11 1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
tabling because we feel like the relocation of the pond and if we look at the wetland and
where they're mitigating, it may change the configuration of those lots and we thought that
was a big enough scope that we want another chance to thoroughly review it before you and
get your...
' Harberts: On one of the items with regard to the redesigning of the lots, because of the
variances requested, do you anticipate that you'll be able to bring them into compliance?
' Aanenson: Well I think we can eliminate a lot of those. Certainly you know like if it saves
trees or we can save natural features, that that's certainly a reason to give a variance ... maybe
not all 9 lots are going to work. Maybe only 8 will fit on there and that's the things we'll
look at. Again as stated, that we ... alteration to that ponding ... so maybe they can get 9 but
' maybe 8 works best.
Harberts: Well I'm dust looking at some of the variances that were requested. You know a
17 foot setback. A zero. I guess you know, depending on what the action of the commission
is tonight, is trying to, I guess we're looking at what do we gain by considering the variances
and what's the benchmark here, especially at 0 and 17.
.t Aanenson: We're not asking. What we're saying at this point is that we're recommending
that it be tabled and they go back and try to work out the lot design and maybe we can
' eliminate a lot of those variances. That's our position too. Obviously there's been a very
good effort to try to save the natural features and we do commend the applicant for doing that
but we think they could, with a little bit of tinkering, make it even better. That's what we're
' asking for, for the reason for tabling it.
Harberts: Good, thanks.
' Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff?
' Mancino: I just have another question for Kate. On page 7, under Water Resources. And
I'm thinking about Block 2. The houses on the south side is a wetland and then it goes into
Lake Minnewashta. It has under water resources that there can be limited clearing of trees
' and shrubs and cutting and pruning. Tell me, on Block 2, those houses. Can they go in in
their back yards and put a walkway down to the lake through the wetland?
Aanenson: No, that was our understanding in the doing the common beachlot so they
wouldn't have to do that. That goes back to the monumentation we just approved. Putting
monumentation on this buffer at the buffer setback the natural... maintain the integrity. And
that's another reason looking at the variances. They may be warranted. This is a tough site.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
1
We've got a natural wetland surrounding the entire site plus another wetland on the corner.
But again you have to balance those. Is 8 the right number? Is 9 the right number and then
work with fitting in the topography so.
Mancino: It's a beautiful site. Just a wonderful. ,
Scott: Good. Dave, do you have any comments? Any additional?
Hempel: No, I pretty well covered it. ,
Scott: Okay, good. We'd like to hear from the applicant or their representatives. Please '
identify yourself and speak into the microphone.
Arnold Weimerskirch: My name is Arnold Weimerskirch. I'm Mrs. Neumann's son -in -law. '
Mrs. Neumann is here tonight. With her, my wife Ann next to her. Mrs. Neumann is the
owner of the property. She has owned that property for 60 years and lived there all that time.
My wife and I have lived there for 30 years. And so we've seen Chanhassen go from a very ,
rural community to as the city gradually closes in around us. And about a year ago we
decided it was time to develop. But we wanted to make sure that it was developed right
because both Mrs. Neumann and my wife and I plan to continue to live there so we want to '
make sure it's developed properly. So we went to an old family friend, Art Johnsen who is a
realtor. He is our representative and he works with his associate Harry Peters. They are ... and ,
we went to Schoell and Madson engineering firm and Ken Adolf is here tonight to present
our plan in a little bit more detail so I'll turn it over to Ken.
Ken Adolf: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Again I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell ,
and Madson, engineering... The design of the subdivision was really intended to minimize the
amount of grading and—that's going to be necessary so in general what the plan shows is '
grading in the streets, grading in the necessary storm water basin and some alteration of
wetland that was occurring to the grades as shown. I'd like to just cover some of the issues.
As far as the tree survey. All of the trees were not located. They're in general the area '
behind the two existing homes and the lot inbetween those two homes, which is not planned
to be built on in the near future. There are no construction planned in that area, removing
those trees. And again we're down to the 6 inch size being requested. We will supplement '
the previous tree survey with that additional information. There's been considerable
discussion today about the location of the pond. I've discussed that with Dave Hempel and
with the owners and they have agreed to a pond location in the area that Dave had outlined ,
on the plan so I think that will work out okay. The owners really want to retain 9 lots.
We'll have to see what can be done with that to retain the 9 lots and still meet the goals that
the staff has set forth in their report. One of the things I want to probably let you know that
13 1
i
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
J i
it is eliminated, there will be some wetland alteration just for the street construction. That's
1 where the big, the setback variances is occurring is on the Neumann residence where the
street has to be snaked inbetween the residence and the existing wetland. That's the reason
that the right -of -way with the 50 feet is being proposed and a significant variance of the front
' setback. By doing it that way, I think as you can see, the thru street or the proposed street
lines up pretty closely with Tanagers Lane to the north. Providing a 30 foot setback up from
the Neumann house and a 60 foot right -of -way would have significantly pushed that proposed
street into that wetland area. So there will be some mitigation required. The owners would
like to retain the existing vegetation. That provides a nice screening on the south side of
Sandpiper Lane and we're probably looking at doing any necessary mitigation along the
lakeshore probably right adjacent to where the storm water pond is proposed.. as long as there
will be some construction activity down in that area anyway. I think that for the most part
that covers the main...I'd be happy to address any questions.
' Scott: Are there an questions for the applicant?
Y q PP
' Harberts: I have a question maybe for Dave or for the applicant. With regards to that
Tanagers Lane and with the new road. Does it line up dead center then or it kind of like
slightly off? What I'm seeing, it looks like it's slightly off.
Ken Adolf. It is slightly farther east but it's not that significant. I think it comes 10 feet
from lining up—to the center line.
Hempel: The actual roadway itself I think could probably be adjusted within that 50 foot
' right -of -way to be more of a center...
Harberts: Dead center line.
Arnold Weimerskirch: Could I comment on that? The map I look at are somewhat
inaccurate in that regard. The map show a rather sharp right angle turn between Sandpiper
and Tanagers. In reality that isn't a right angle turn at all. It's a large curve and there's no
way of telling where Sandpiper ends and where Tanagers begins. I'm not sure how
significant that is but I don't think anybody would look at our driveway as an extension of
Sandpiper, or as an extension of Tanager Lane. Then as a matter of fact I would recommend
that to me it's more logical to call it an extension of Sandpiper than it is of Tanager. We get
quite a number of confused visitors wondering where Tanager is and where Sandpiper is. So
to me it would be more likely to call that Sandpiper rather than Tanager.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant?
1 14
F!
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
n
1J
Arnold Weimerskirch: I do have one other point I would like to bring up. When the sewer
lines were put in we, the property was assessed along Sandpiper Lane or Sandpiper Trail.
And what is now Lot 27 was assessed 2 units on the premise that there would be 2 houses
built fronting onto Sandpiper Trail. That's all wet then. This is 20 years ago when—Those
lots of course are not buildable now so it does seem fair to me that those assessments be '
eliminated now since it is not buildable property.
Scott: Can you respond to that? I
Hempel: We can certainly check with the city's assessment clerk and see what, if any,
assessments have been paid on that parcel and if that area is deemed unbuildable due to that '
wetland and so forth, the applicant probably does have a credit coming back as the parcel, so
we will take that under advisement and update you.
Arnold Weimerskirch: The assessments haven't been paid. They were deferred based on '
being a senior citizen so they haven't been paid but they have them.
Scott: Okay. Anything Y . An thin else? Okay. This is a public hearing. Could I have a motion to ,
open the public hearing please?
M cino moved Harberts seconded too n the public hearing. All voted in favor and '
an � Pe P g
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. '
Scott: If anyone would like to speak about this issue, please step forward and identify
yourselves and we'll go from there. So would anyone like to speak. Is there anyone here for
this particular issue? '
Herb Pfeffer: My name is Herb Pfeffer. I live on the corner of Sandpiper and Tanager and '
Harberts: Which side? I
Herb Pfeffer: It would be on the west side of Tanager ... the curve on the lower left hand
corner. And I really haven't seen any of the information about the abandonment of the right- ,
of -way of Minnewashta Avenue and since it impacts me, as I am the property owner adjacent
to that, I'd like some explanation.
Scott: As far as the. '
Herb Pfeffer: As far as if the roadway is abandoned, what happens to my property that's I
15 '
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
adjacent to the right-of-way?
J
' Scott: So you're located, run that by us again. I see Sandpiper Lane, Tanager Lane and I see
just south of, okay. That's what I was thinking.
Herb Pfeffer: Right here. If you're going to eliminate Minnewashta Lane ... exactly what's all
abandoned? Is it from this point further? All the way down or what?
Scott: Dave, why don't you speak to that.
Hempel: At this point we'd be looking at vacating the, probably the portion west, laying
west of Tanagers Lane and reserving a drainage utility easement down to the lake where the
city has utility lines down to.
Herb Pfeffer: You mean right here? Starting at this point? Abandoning it.
1
Hempel: That's correct. As long as there's no other homes being serviced by that parcel.
Herb Pfeffer: Well, then we've got a conflict because we've got a beachlot down here that's.
Aanenson: It'd start past the beachlot.
Herb Pfeffer: What's that?
Aanenson: Past the beachlot.
Herb Pfeffer: Oh past. It won't be vacated here then?
Aanenson: No. We've already approved that. The City Council approved a non - conforming
permit for that beachlot.
Herb Pfeffer: That's right.
Aanenson: Right. So we'd start past the beachlot.
Herb Pfeffer: So will where it be vacated? At what point?
Aanenson: Once it starts to take the bend to hear east.
Herb Pfeffer: Over here?
16
I
E
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
Aanenson: Yes.
Herb Pfeffer: Along the lakeshore?
Aanenson: Right. Through their property, yes. I
Herb Pfeffer: Okay. Then are these going to, you know you don't show that roadway
coming down here and I really don't understand it. We're going to have additional, these are '
lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 and so on. Are we going to be building houses down in this area?
Scott: No. I
Herb Pfeffer: No. Okay, so the purpose of the abandonment here is for what?
Hempel: To eliminate the unnecessary right -of -way that's essentially in the wetland. It '
serves no function.
Scott: It's more an administrative. ,
Harberts: It doesn't serve a public function in other words? I
Hempel: No it does not. ,
Aanenson: It's a paper street.
Arnold Weimerskirch: It's under water. ,
Herb Pfeffer: It is. It is under water. 1
Harberts: So is the Bloomington Ferry Bridge.
Herb Pfeffer: Yeah a portion, well you don't really. I can't really tell from this map exactly '
where the lake is or the road is down there but I'm assuming you're going to say it's going to
be abandoned right at the water there. '
Harberts: Kate, and I'm guessing that if the commission decides to table this, that this would
be an opportunity to maybe review this in detail so the residents do understand what's being
abandoned. I don't know, it might be easier to show it on other maps rather than
transparencies that have pictures.
17 1
I
1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Ll
Ken Adolf. The right -of -way proposed to be abandoned is directly behind the Neumann
house that's in the section right here. It's really south of where Sandpiper Lane is.
Harberts: How far does it go?
Ken Adolf: Well most of the street has already been vacated. It's just a small area right in
here. It's this area right here.
i Herb Pfeffer: Just that section there. But how far down does it g o?
t Ken Adolf: Well it used to go all the way around.
Arnold Weimerskirch: It goes all the way around.
Ken Adolf: So that's already been vacated.
Arnold Weimerskirch: The land has been platted in the 1800's. Presumably at a time
when ... and that plat is there. It is under water. I don't think that's an issue here. We surely
don't intend to build ... so it would just be vacated. I would presume the city would want to
do that because it's a nuisance for it to be on the map when it doesn't exist in reality. The
Minnewashta Manor Homeowners do own a lot in the lake.
Scott: Sure. I remember seeing that.
' Arnold Weimerskirch: But they do nevertheless have a right -of -way to that so we have no
intention of preserving that. It'd be just to erase the fictious road right -of -way that doesn't
exist anyway.
Herb Pfeffer: Okay so then that right-of-way will go to your property, be on your property...
Arnold Weimerskirch: Well I presume it will but it's wetland.
Scott: Would anybody else like to speak at this particular public hearing on this issue?
' Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ledvina: Kate, would a wetland alteration ermit be required for the construction of the
P 4
dock. Do we know that?
1 18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: It would be required?
Aanenson: Well, we've done it on other ones just to make sure. Really all we've done in
the past is to say that they ... a boardwalk and that's why we're asking more specifics. How
it's going to be constructed and looking at that but we've done it on the other ones. We did
require a wetland alteration permit and as a technicality we did insure that it's built, a
permitting process on other lots that do have wetlands when I think you're impacting it. I
think that's, there will be minimum loss but we want to see the type...
Ledvina: How would you mitigate that type of scenario? I mean for constructing a dock.
Aanenson: What we'd look at is any removal and basically that's why you go over the top.
It's just the posts going in...
Ledvina: Yeah but I mean if you're restricting the vegetation from coming up, is that altering
the wetland? Maybe you're not filling in it but I don't know.
Mancino: You've got to put the posts in and there's a lot of work to be done in that area. S
Ledvina: Right. How do you get in there? Develop wrecking stuff as you're trying to put
the thing in. Okay, so that's a specific thing that we'll know about when we have details on
the construction of the dock.
Aanenson: Right. ,
Ledvina: Okay. Now as it relates to the area that's calculated for the recreational beachlot.
Now we're not using any of the area that's wetland, is that correct?
Aanenson: No. It'd be upland... I
Ledvina: Okay, the upland area.
Aanenson: But let me make something else clear on that. The ordinance, the beachlot '
ordinance indicates a grade on that as far as, it doesn't say it has to be upland and staff's
ability to interpret that ... upland area.
Ledvina: I would support that as well. And there's a formula as it relates to the number of
docks and the number of boats. '
19 1
J
r Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Aanenson: It's on square footage.
Ledvina: Square footage, okay. And that's what's been determined 9 boats with the potential
' of 3 docks. Okay. Well, I would support the construction of one dock with the 9 slips. I
think that's the less intrusive technique for providing that amenity to the beachlot. I certainly
want to make sure that we have a good handle on what's going to happen to the wetland as it
relates to the construction of that dock and that we take the measures that we need to protect
that area and also mitigate, if that's deemed appropriate so. I think that I would support the
development and I would agree that the developer's done a good job of trying to be as
sensitive as they can to the wetland near Sandpiper Lane and if staff deems it appropriate that
the setback on the existing Weimerskirch house is, if we need to compromise that, I would
support that. I guess I would like to see it back again so I would support staff's
recommendation to table.
Scott: Okay. Nancy?
Mancino: I would like to ask Mr. Chair if we could ask the applicant how the feel about the
PP Y
one dock with 9 boat slips on it as in the staff report. What their opinion is, etc. Instead of
having 3 docks. Having one dock with 9 boat slips on it.
Scott: It looks like it's drawn in.
Arnold Weimerskirch: We're fine with that. That was our proposal.
Mancino: Oh, that was your proposal?
Scott: Well it's on the plans that way.
Arnold Weimerskirch: Correct. That's what we proposed in our original.
Mancino: Okay. My mistake. Thank you. I have nothing new to add. I support staff's
recommendation for tabling it and bringing it back with the revisions and the
recommendations that they've made. I would like to just add to it that we do perform a tree
canopy coverage analysis of the existing tree inventory. And that we be supplied with a tree
replacement plan and use our pending new tree preservation ordinance to follow that. And
' that's it, thank you.
Scott: Good, Jeff.
1 20
J.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
�l
Farmakes: I support staff recommendations on this. I would clarify 5 ... stated the seasonal
dock. I believe the DNR, if you leave the posts in the water, the support posts in the water,
it's no longer considered seasonal. You may want to clarify exactly what kind of dock we're
dealing with there. With this dock specification on 5.
Scott: Okay. Diane. '
Harberts: I would support staff's recommendation to table it. I appreciate what the applicant
has done with regard to the trees. The natural amenities here as well as with the dock. I'm
sorry I had to step out but I hope that that road issue was resolved or at least the information
can be brought forward to the gentleman that lives on the corner there. I would really
support trying to eliminate as many variances as possible on the redesign of the subdivision.
I don't know, I'm just real uneasy about some of, well at least with some of the variances
that are stated right now that exist right now so I would just encourage to eliminate as many, ,
if not all of them. But we'll certainly leave that to staff and the applicant to work out. But I
appreciate the responsiveness from the applicant.
Scott: Good. Ladd.
Conrad: I think the applicant gave us a good proposal. I think staff did a good job of
analysis. I'm real impressed and I think our ordinance played real nicely with a sensitive
area like this so it's all peaches and cream. I think the staff report is good. I think we
should table it for the modifications.
Harberts: Just one other thing Mr. Chair. I would just like to draw emphasis to the road
system lining up. Tanager Lane and whatever this new road will be called. I know the
discussion by the applicant with regard to the curve. Dave, you made the comment that
maybe we work within the right -of -way. I think it's very important long term, in terms of
circulation, in terms of traffic patterns, that we get it lined up the first time so.
Scott: Okay. I support the staff recommendation. Can I have a motion please? I
Mancino: I will recommend that we table the applicant's request so that the plat can be
revised to address the following issues. One, relocation of the storm water pond. Two, a
more detailed tree survey and in compliance with the new tree preservation ordinance. Three,
elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland - avoidance can also
be achieved through lot redesign. Four, a 60 foot radius needs to be provided at the end of '
the cul -de -sac. And five, a sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot, including trail
and dock specifications.
21 '
J
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Harberts: I'd like to also add Nancy, if it's okay with regard to the lining up of the Tanager
' Lane and the new road. I know Jeff had brought up the discussion point about clarifying the
dock, seasonal or permanent.
Mancino: I think that would be under 5.
Farmakes: I think that can be under specifications. It is listed as a seasonal dock.
Harberts: Okay. Was there something Matt that you touched on?
I Ledvina: No.
1
Scott: Do you accept that amendment?
Mancino: Yes. I accept number 6 as lining up the Tanager and the new street. Cul -de -sac.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second please?
Conrad: I second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff's recommendation with the
additional conditions. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table the application
for the Neumann Subdivision #94 -3 so the plat can be revised to address the following
issues:
1. Relocation of the storm water pond.
2. A more detailed tree survey and in compliance with the new tree preservation
ordinance.
3. Elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can
also be achieved through lot redesign.
4. A 60 foot radius needs to be provided at the end of the cul-de -sac. -
5. A sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot, including trail and dock
specifications.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
1
6. That the applicant try to line of Tanager Lane with the new cul -de -sac.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I
PUBLIC HEARING:
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF LIVING CHRIST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A ,
7,560 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING
CHRIST ON PROPERTY ZONED OI, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL AND LOCATED ON
LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 820 LAKE DRIVE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Don Wagner Architects Professional Association
Jim Dewalter Lutheran Church of the Living Christ
Nancy J. Manzey 17229 Round Lake Road, Eden Prairie
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Harberts: Question. The front of the building where the steps go up, is that the part that ,
goes into like the narthex into the church part? Do you know?
Aanenson: I'll let the architect. I believe that's the...
Harberts: Into the church? I guess my real question here is, does that meet ADA? I mean if I
someone was in a wheelchair, how do you get them up the steps?
Don Wagner: Okay, I'd like to answer that. My name is Don Wagner. I'm the registered '
architect and I'm representing Architects Professional Association. We're an architectural
firm in Eden Prairie and we have been selected as the architects to design this particular
addition to this facility. Your question regarding the ADA. What we are providing are,
according to ADA rules, we're providing 5 new stalls. Some of them are 5 foot wide.
Access spaces on each side. One with an 8 foot wide stall for a van. Two of those spaces
are located right down there on each side of the drive. They are intended to serve the lower
level. That area's about 4 feet 4 inches higher than the lower level so consequently you
would need about 90 feet of a horizontal run to drop to that 4 feet. We have 110 of
bituminous surfacing that would go from that area to the new entry that we're providing with
23 1
J
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
1 that. We are providing 3 more stalls in this area. Right up in there. The ... that is virtually
dead level with a portion of the existing entrance that we are keeping. That would provide
the accessibility to the upper level. Now right next to that is an elevator.
I Harberts: Right next to what?
' Don Wagner: Right next to that existing entrance that we'll be saving... access to those levels
at that point. So if you want to, you can even provide all 5 spaces in ... and all could be used
in that particular entrance. We thought we'd divide it up.
P
t
Harberts: Well and I think, certainly with the ADA they certainly outline the minimum
requirements that should be met and I just find it of interest with the church. With the
population or a congregation that may include ages, all ages, that they're for my point of
view, that there isn't a little better access to the church itself directly rather than more of the
indirect way.
Don Wagner: That was our intent at the beginning until we got the survey to find out how
the contours ran, and that's right. So we're very concerned about maintaining a minimal
slope for a drive in front of the church. Otherwise we're going to have a bunch of fender
benders and cars will be sliding into each other. So it seemed only appropriate that we
preserve a portion of the original entrance and that it will be used in perhaps in some
December Sundays that may be more popular than the, but it was the contours. The lay of
the land that determined those stairs.
Jim Dewalter: My name is Jim Dewalter. I'm Chairman of the Building Committee and I'd
like to address your question a little further. I heard it a little differently. What you were
asking and that was access from the parking lot into the narthex and the sanctuary and the
doors that Don has referenced, those doors right there do come into the same narthex area as
the main doors do. So it isn't like they're coming into a second class area or an area that
not's got easy into the sanctuary. It's all, it comes into the same room. I think that's what I
heard you ask.
Harberts: Well that and distance. If you've been on crutches or in a wheelchair, you
certainly bring a different perspective.
Jim Dewalter: I have.
Harberts: So have I.
Jim Dewalter: Actually those parking spots, the 3 up on top that he is talking about, that is
24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
k
our current handicap parking and that is closest entrance to our parking. Whether we look at
the lower parking in the outlying or the upper parking and this is as convenient as we have '
ever had. I guess the additional convenience we do offer is the lower entrance he talked
about as well as the elevators that were now incorporated into the plan.
Harberts: So the elevator's new to the facility then? ,
Jim Dewalter: Yes. I
Farmakes: Is there still a substantial daycare operation right out of the church?
Jim Dewalter: Yes. The daycare operation will continue. Part of this plan includes a new
entrance for the daycare which will be the lower entrance and new vestibule down below.
Farmakes: How many children are in the care on a daily basis there?
Jim Dewalter: That daycare is not part of the church. It's a Chanhassen Development
Center I believe. I think, that's why I clarify it's not probably true, I believe they're licensed
for 78 children. Something like that and this has no effect on that.
Farmakes: They parking g share the arkin lot though, correct? They share the facilities?
Jim Dewalter: Yes, that's correct. And the most, with regards to the parking lot and daycare, ,
there actually isn't any parking requirements because it's all drop off and pick up. Other than
the daycare staff and they're there when of course the church isn't in session.
Scott: Any other, since we're now to the applicant section, any other questions or comments
for the applicant?
Mancino: Just one more question about the daycare. Where does the, during the week,
where does the daycare enter?
Don Wagner: Where does the daycare.
Mancino: Enter. ,
Don Wagner: Where do the children enter?
Mancino: Yes.
25 '
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Don Wagner: I believe they're still coming in the front aren't they and down the stairs?
Jim Dewalter: Currently the children enter the daycare into what is our existing narthex,
which is the doors that I pointed to you where the handicap entrance would be in the future.
In this plan they will enter in a new vestibule that we're creating down here.
Harberts: Did you say that's a new daycare drop off?
Jim Dewalter: It will be one of the areas, yes.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay. Does the applicant or their representatives
have anything else they'd like to add? Okay.. I'd like to have a motion to open the public
hearing please.
Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Is there anyone from the general public who wishes to speak on this particular issue?
Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Jeff, your comments.
Farmakes: Just a few. I have concern about the relationship with the development being
expanded towards the highway. The parking area... I'm going to temper that though. This is
an existing building. It's been there for quite some time ... recent conceptual thinking. As
churches often are, they're usually pretty pragmatic about how they make their improvements
being as they're always short on money. Other than the recommendations made by staff on
this issue of dropping off and turn around, I don't have any further comments. I think it's an
expansion on this structure as it is and I do have concerns however about that parking lot
encroaching on TH 5, although I cannot see another area for it to develop into.
Scott: Okay. Nancy.
Mancino: I just have a question for the architect. When I'm looking at this color rendering,
I'm looking at a white roof. Is that what it is?
Don Wagner: No. Now the existing roof is a brown asphalt shingle and the flat roof is
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
a ... and gravel built up roof. Our new flat roof would be a rubber membrane with gravel on it
and then the new sloped portions would be metal. Standing seam metal.
Mancino: Would you show me where those metal, the metal roof would be? And what color
would that be?
Don Wagner: We would go with a deep brown or a deep bronze because that would match
the aluminum frames that are presently at the entrance. ,
Mancino: Would that match the existing roof?
Don Wagner: Yes. The existing roof is is a deeper brown or bronze.
g g P
Mancino: Okay. Is there any problem with painting the existing block that makes up the
church right now? The exterior.
Don Wagner: No. There wouldn't be a problem with painting that.
Mancino: There's no problem with peeling or weathering or? I
Don Wagner: As long as you make sure you use the proper paint, that's right. And apply it
in strict accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation. If there's a problem, go back I
to him.
Farmakes: But there is a problem perhaps with the Highway 5 ordinance, if that's enacted. I I
think there's a stipulation there about painting block.
Mancino: I know that there is about not painting brick. I
Aanenson: Right. Well it says no paint over brick. This is going to be the color right here.
They're not painting over the new but I think in the fact that it's yellow and they're bringing
it into a color that's refined I think is much more palatable to paint over the yellow and to get
it to a color we want than...
Farmakes: I wasn't taking a position on that. I was just wondering if it was a conflict.
Aanenson: You're right. The minimal, that's what the intent is. Not to have it over
concrete. Painted concrete but the new stuff, they're not going to ... the old for blending I
think makes a lot more sense. Try to get it all look the same color and the yellow certainly...
27 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
1
Mancino: Yeah. It will certainly add more maintenance for you.
Don Wagner: The existing exterior material right now serves the material is a textured
concrete block ... and that's where you see the vertical striping that takes place. So it is a
concrete masonry unit, that's right. That's already been painted once or twice already and it
will be painted again to match the new.
Mancino: ...to see good landscaping plan around the building. I like what's there now and I
would hope what you're going to put in is reflective of what's there now. In fact I was there
today and saw the transplanting of the crab trees out front so good to see that you're
transplanting those. But what I don't see is any landscaping plan for, which I think is very
important, for the berming between the parking lot and Highway 5. Now I know that number
one, you first need to get approval from MnDot and NSP that you can put a berm there. But
what I would like to see in the recommendations is that the city also approve the berming and
the landscaping that's on the berming. Because it needs to very much reflect, what we would
like it to is to reflect what's in the Highway 5 corridor study and you know it's intent is
really to screen parking lots so we would like it landscaped so that there is opacity there
between Highway 5 and the parking lot. And I would also like to have a rendering. It
certainly doesn't have to be black and color but it could be a perspective of what you will see
from Highway 5 as you look at this landscaped berm so that we have a perspective and I'd
like to see it from the viewpoint of Highway 5 looking directly at the church and also with
plant material that is going to be installed this year. For instance, I don't want to see a berm,
a landscape plan with 10 foot tall trees if you're actually just going to put in 4 foot trees. So
how do we do that and keep moving it on?
' Aanenson: Well I think we do have a cross section. We did ask them to provide a berm
cross section of TH 5.
Don Wagner: There is one on the site plan, yes.
1 Aanenson: Yeah. And then...
Don Wagner: We do have a cross section cut through the east bound lane of Highway 5 or
this section looking due west and it shows the section to Highway 5 and then crossing it. We
did put it on there.
i
Mancino: Kate, what would be your suggestion? I would like to see it after it's gone
through MnDot. I don't want to do double work here.
Aanenson: ...put back on ... at the beginning of the agenda. We did give the recommendations
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
that you were looking at ... under that easement so really what we need now is the approval
from MnDot to get their right -of -way. We'll get that information to the applicant and then...
Mancino: Okay. I would appreciate that. Then I would like to recommend us waiting and
seeing it again landscaped and getting a perspective from Highway 5. Other than that I have
no comments. I think it's a good plan.
Don Wagner: Thank you. I would like to add one other comment with regards to the berm
that you were addressing. While we're proposing to work with MnDot and NSP on the
berming, and we'll gladly work with staff to accommodate the plantings that you're
suggesting. One of the concerns and issues that we do have is the location of the berm
adjacent to Highway 5 and that many of our plantings in the past all burn out from the snow
removal.
Mancino: Salt. And salt spray.
Don Wagner: And so the concern is that only the cost of the plant material but the fact that
we could have a lot of dead materials that would probably not be as attractive as no materials
at all. So we'll need to give careful consideration to what all might be put on there.
Scott: You know what might help is that we've got a, as part of our landscape ordinance,
there's a list of many, many dozen trees and shrubs and basically what it also identifies, the
name that you and I would call it, the name that a landscape architect would call it and then
it's degree of salt tolerance from very tolerant, which would be suitable for usage in that area,
to intolerant and that's easily available by contacting our staff and that is a real good ,
shopping list.
Don Wagner: The other advantage that we do have going for us with regards to the concern
you have about looking at parking lots off of Highway 5. It's a combination of the elevation
of Highway 5 and the angle of Highway 5 as it goes around the on this bridge. And also the
elevation of the parking lot. And so if you should drive by there, it's very, very difficult to
see the parking lot just because of all those angles fortunately going in our favor in this case,
and when we put the berm out here, I think that will offer quite a bit of additional screening.
Mancino: Thank Y ou.
Scott: Good, Diane.
Harberts: I think it's a very nice plan for the church. For the addition. Landscaping's nice.
I guess with what Nancy had said with the berming and landscaping, I think it's good
29 '
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
comments and I think overall it's a nice plan. That's it.
Scott: Good. Ladd.
Conrad: Are there flat roofs on any of the additions?
Don Wagner: Yes.
Conrad: Which ones?
Don Wagner: This piece here, here and this corner.
Conrad: Okay. And the material is what? The roofing material on the flat?
Don Wagner: ag er: The roofing material will be what we call a single ply membrane. It's a
' rubber membrane. It would have ballast. Put on ballast.
Conrad: No more questions.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
Mancino: Will there be any rooftop equipment on the roof? Rooftop equipment. Will there
be any heating? Any ductwork? Or is that, is it going to be like what we see.
Don Wagner: No, we won't be having anything on the roof, to the best of our knowledge at
this time. And if we do, we certainly will provide proper screening so you won't be able to
see it. Because we understand that's part of the Highway 5 corridor study also.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Ledvina: I don't have any further comments and I would support the staff recommendation.
Scott: Okay. I just have one quick question for the architect. One of the things that we're
wrestling with is a relatively inexpensive means, and this is not directed specifically at your
project. We're looking for other visual tools that we can use to help us understand what a
particular project's going to look like. This is the first time that I've seen "something like
a this. We've seen some photo composites and some more involved things. If you could give
us just a rough estimate of what it costs to prepare something like that. This, and the
terminology in architect parlance so we can perhaps introduce it because I don't know if the
other commissioners, I felt that that's a very good representation of what it's going to look
C
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
like. So I mean this is kind of a round the corner compliment to you. But what does
something like that cost? Just plus or minus $500.00.
Don Wagner: I'm going to have to, the general contractor actually did that and I...
Scott: That's fine.
Don Wagner: I'll find that out. ,
Scott: I support this. Staff's recommendation so if there are no further comments, may I
have a motion please?
Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #94 -2 for a 7,560
square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ church subject to the plan
dated April 5, 1994 and subject to the following conditions. Number 1, number 2, number 3,
number 4, number 5, number 6, number 7, number 8, number 9 and number 10. I would just
like to add that we, the city comes back to the Planning Commission to approve a
landscaping plan for the berming adjacent to Highway 5.
Scott: Is there a second?
Ledvina: I second that.
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation with
the modification. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: What does that mean Nancy? Your number 10. I know what you asked for but
what are you asking the applicant to do?
Mancino: To come back, once they get approval from MnDot and NSP, to come back with a
landscaping plan for the berming along Highway 5.
Conrad: To us? '
Mancino: To us for approval of that landscaping plan. And I assume thaf it's going to come
back to us if NSP and MnDot do not allow them to put a berm and they have to come up
with a secondary plan. Or another option.
Aanenson: ...part of the motion.
31 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Mancino: Okay. I make that part of my motion.
' Jim Dewalter: Could we have clarification on that in regards to timing? In fact our concern
would only be that this would not keep us from going ahead with the immediate project
which is the construction having to come back to Planning again with that berm
recommendation.
Mancino: With the landscaping? How would we work that?
Aanenson: Right now the procedure would be that they would go to the City Council and get
site plan approval. I think what they're asking for is, if you do have specific concerns, that
we separate the landscaping and we would certainly... this commission. If we can't work that
out, then we come back and look at the landscaping and what other things we could do but as
' far as the rest of the site plan itself, that would allow them to go forward and if the City
Council approves the plan.
' Mancino: That's fine with me.
Conrad: I think we should.
Mancino: I do too.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second?
' Ledvina: I seconded it.
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we support staff's recommendation with
modifications. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Site Plan Review #94 -2 for a 7,560 square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of
the Living Christ Church subject to the plans dated April 4, 1994, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain and comply with MnDot's permit for constructing the berms
_ Pe g
and landscaping within MnDot's right -of -way. In the event that no- landscaping is
approved by MnDot or NSP in the ROW or Power Easement, then the applicant shall
submit a revised landscaping plan for final review and approval by the city staff.
2. Storm sewers and curb and gutter are not necessary with this phase of expansion.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
However, future expansions may require the site be brought up to city ordinance with
curbs, gutters, and storm sewers.
3. The parking lot stall design should be modified to provide a minimum of 22 foot wide
drive aisles and 8 1/2 foot by 18 foot long parking stalls. This can be accomplished
by restriping.
4. The applicant shall redesign the drive island drop off area to accommodate proper bus
turning movements.
5. Additional landscaping along the proposed berm of Highway 5 as well as the
southeastern portion of the property along both sides of the driveway to the church.
The landscaping along the driveway shall consist of a mix of 5 conifers and 5
deciduous trees as selected from the city's landscaping list. A landscaped berm be '
placed in the MnDot ROW. If approval from MnDot and NSP cannot be gained, it is
recommended that intensive landscaping for islands in front of the main entrance and
outside the utility easement area be designed and submitted for approval by city staff. '
6. A staff review be conducted of this parking arrangement annually for the next 2 -3
years to monitor parking needs and to require the additional spaces be constructed
should the need arise.
7. All conditions as stated in the Building Official's memo dated April 14, 1994.
8. All conditions as stated in the Fire Marshal's memo dated April 21, 1994. '
9. Any building lighting improvements shall be made in conformance with the City's
Lighting Standards and shall be subject to final review and approval by city staff.
10. The landscaping plan on the berm shall come to back to the Planning
Commission for approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AND OUTLOT B. PARK ONE
2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION. A SITE M
PLAN REVIEW FOR A 54,720 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR
THE PRESS AND A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAYCARE CENTER IN AN IOP,
33 1
L
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
I
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF
DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5.
Scott: If you could identify new information. Changes that have been made. You know
we've seen this a couple of times already so if you can go that way.
Al -Jaffa Sure. I'll try to make it as short as possible. You looked at this application 2
weeks ago. You separated the site plan by moving the Press forward and tabling Kindercare.
When this went to the City Council, they recommended that this come back before the
Planning Commission and be reviewed as one application. So that's why both the Press and
' Kindercare are before you again today. There has been some changes since Friday, which is
one day after the reports went out. We received a letter from Department of Transportation
stating that the original access point...into the daycare facility is located within the
Department of Transportation's access control. They basically said move it back north of this
line right here. The applicant submitted this application, or this change by moving the access
north of the line that Department of Transportation recommended. We received this
1 application at, it says here 1801 so that would be approximately 6:00 and I don't know if
Dave has had time to review this. If you have any comments on this particular issue.
' Hempel: Not thoroughly.
Farmakes: So they would be making, U- turning back out to that. As they go north they have
to U turn and go south, that's one way correct that you're showing.
Al -Jaffa Correct. Right -in, right -out. It's still the same as before with the exception that it
has been moved further north. It's approximately 220 feet from the corner of the property
line. Versus it used to be 150 feet from the corner.
Harberts: So I'm guessing when engineering looks at it, the public safety will look at it too
with regards to access with large vehicles.
Hempel: Turning radius, yes.
Al -Jaff: Another thing that has changed. We overlapped this transparency over the old
landscaping plan. We lost 2 trees with this change. Another thing that was requested...
Commissioner Mancino was any ordinances, federal regulations regarding the electromagnetic
field. We contacted the EPA, the EQB and NSP. We have received some studies. We gave
you copies of them. Those studies are inconclusive. Some of them are pro. Others are
against magnetic fields. We feel we don't have the expertise here to make a judgment on
that. NSP sent their regulations. Those are definitions as well as setbacks that they require.
34
Al -Jaff: There are studies that support both sides and there are studies that. I
Scott: Are they related in any way to the being in the power line business?
Mancino: A little special interest.
Scott: Yeah I, you know. We have a pretty good pile of documentation that we need to go ,
through and I'm just trying to, if it's very parochial, as things tend to be.
Al -Jaffa I think the study that was sent by the EQB, but even then they're saying in their
35 '
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
It doesn't say that magnetic fields are harmful or, again. It's an inconclusive decision from
all agencies that we have contacted and again the materials were received between yesterday
'
and today. That's why we couldn't include it with the staff report when we mailed the
copies. One change that we are requesting, the building official going through the report and
condition 16 of the site plan approval. Basically states the applicant meet conditions of
Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. And the building official requested that
these conditions be spelled out. There are only two conditions and they should read, submit a
1/8 " =1" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating dimensions and use of all spaces
'
on all floors. And the second condition would be, revise site plans to show site approach
details and handicap parking stalls in compliance with Minnesota State Building Code,
Chapter 1340.. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the applications of site plan
for both the Kindercare facility and the addition of the Press, a conditional use permit for the
Kindercare and the subdivision as outlined in the staff report with the conditions. Thank you.
Scott: Okay. Questions or comments for staff please.
Mancino: My only comment is, I would like to get staff's, have staff have some time to look
'
at the new entryway because I think one of our concerns has been the egress and ingress of
the Kindercare lot. And since we just got this new information I would like to have staff
have some time to look it over and make a recommendation. To put it through the process
that we usually do. I would also like some time to read through. I know that Kindercare is
concerned about the EMF's and the magnetic fields and I don't think any of us are scientist
or anything but it would be good information to look through and to get a little knowledge
about. To be able to talk intelligently.
Scott: Sharmin, was there any, you said they were inconclusive. Was there any sort of an
indication as to which side of the fence the studies would go on? Meaning does NSP say it's
not a big deal? Do the governmental agencies say not a big deal? But are there independent
sources that say maybe there is a big deal? I mean is this just.
Al -Jaff: There are studies that support both sides and there are studies that. I
Scott: Are they related in any way to the being in the power line business?
Mancino: A little special interest.
Scott: Yeah I, you know. We have a pretty good pile of documentation that we need to go ,
through and I'm just trying to, if it's very parochial, as things tend to be.
Al -Jaffa I think the study that was sent by the EQB, but even then they're saying in their
35 '
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, -1994
document that it does not represent or reflect the Board's opinion because the studies that
' were submitted, done for the EQB formally with their policies, none of the documents that we
have would commit themselves to an opinion. They all give you statistics but that's about it.
' Farmakes: I read both of the studies and it seems that the only thing that they can give you a
conclusive answer on is that there seems to be less of a problem the farther you move away
from it. That seems to be about it. There seems, I wonder how much these documents cost
' because they really don't draw any conclusion and they have to be several taxpayer's dollars
long so. I was frustrated reading them.
' Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? We'd like to hear from the applicant. If
there's some new information or, please let us hear it.
John Dietrich: Thank you. John Dietrich, RLK Associates. Again representing the applicant
for the Press and Kindercare. We are the site plan designers... engineering and landscape
architects of the site. And with me tonight is also John Finnemore of Kindercare and he will
' be able to address the issues of the placement of the building and provide some additional
information on the EMF's frequencies and where some of those issues come from. As
Sharmin had indicated, the site plan that is before you is comparable to what has been shown
' on previous applications. The one change of the site plan has been the location of the
driveway and based on obtaining information from MnDot and looking at the site plan
closely, I'd like to put up an overhead that identifies a modification of the access. Based on
' the need to move the driveway back, which also then assists in the cut through traffic issue
that was a concern to the Planning Commission, we have looked at the specifics of the
location of the access and of the building itself. It is our recommendation that the building
site plan shift approximately 15 feet to the west and essentially come about 10 feet off of the
existing curb which would still place the building 20 feet off of the property line and well
within any setback requirements. It would be proposed it would be a heavy landscaped edge
' along the western side of the building. That would allow more space on the eastern side of
the building and allow the access to Dell Road to have a wider throat and a proper turn radius
' into the parking lot, onto Dell Road. It would be necessary to have this for control of the
speed and access to the lot from the Press and also to move the driveway back to
accommodate the access control from MnDot. In addition to the driveway location, we have
had discussions with staff in regard to the landscape area south of the parking lot. We will
be going to enter into an easement for landscaping purposes to accommodate the street
monuments. Landscaping or elements that the Planning Commission and Council decide...
Mancino: My question is, have you thought about signage for Kindercare if we use that
portion for a monument for the city. I mean where would the signage go for Kindercare if it
can't go right there on that main comer?
1 36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
John Dietrich: We feel the signage elements would be a flexible element along the...
Scott: Are there any other questions or comments for the applicant? Or I mean if you have '
more people from the development team, sure.
John Dietrich: I'd like John Finnemore to discuss the building location and the EMF's. '
John Finnemore: You can read the articles that were given to you and you definitely won't
'
find anything conclusive. There really isn't any conclusive studies as far as EMF go. This is
pretty much what I've read about electromagnetic fields and the majority of the research has
been done by the power company because they have the biggest stake in the matter. Sweden
'
and France have passed laws on electromagnet fields and they're enforcing with their power
companies, which happen to public. They're not private. They're publicly owned. They're
relocating lines. They're doing things to reduce electromagnet fields. Whether our country
ever adopts any type of standards or not is definitely, the jury's out on that. The EPA has
done a lot of studies themselves but like any other governmental EPA study, you can read it
and then say, why did we spend money on this study? It doesn't say anything. Another
thing too. I've purchased what they call a guastmeter. These little old looking Texas
Instrument calculator costs $550.00 to measure electromagnetic fields and what is mentioned
'
a lot of these documents is, you measure electromagnet fields and you give it a measure
called milogaust. And they've used 2.0 as the level where they perceive problems possibly
arising. And there had been talk, in fact I guess they were close to introducing a bill that was
'
saying that schools and other sort of uses need to be at a level of 2.0 or lower but that is, all
went away. Nothing has went to apply that law or bill. So we as a company, just knowing
that that may happen or could happen or that's been determined to be a level, is the level
'
we've adopted as what we try to keep playgrounds and children away from. So that's what
we've done here is you know, I went out and paced off at a point where I got a reading of
2.0 lower on my meter and that's where we said it would be back from. The problem with
taking measurements like that is they vary. You can go out there 7 days a week and get 7
readings at different, not drastically but you're, the key time to take a reading is in the hottest
months of the year because that's when the major amount of electricity is going through the
'
lines. But even at that, those are transmission lines. I meant here's times when they literally
shut them off. You just don't know. I mean they're on a big grid system. The different
power companies are connected. It's a tough thing to get a good reading on so we've just
adopted the 2.0 and that's what we're going with. Really the biggest thing I've got out of all
these studies was Carnegie Millen University did a study and a situation like this you can
really do two things. Something like an electromagnetic field. You can just ignore it and say
it's not a problem. Or you can just completely over react and you know move all the houses
and everything you know 300 feet away from a power line. Or you can adopt a practice
which, the term is prudence avoidance. Basically it just means that. You do things that are
37 1
i
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
prudent and economic and that you can do, you can do now which in our case, that is setting
' our building back. Now we do have centers that are much closer to power lines. We built
them years ago before we ever heard of the term electromagnetic field. Now, if we took the
step of the drastic step of just you know closing the center down, that would be taking a
' drastic step. But the center's already there. We built it. We built it before we knew there
was a problem. Now in the case I've got a center in Illinois where there's a power line very
close to the playground. The city owns their own power company. They're so concerned
' about the issue, they happen to own the property next to us. They have a well site there.
They're going to trade us 6,000 square feet of their property for widening of the easements so
that we can move our playground farther away from the power lines and put it onto their
' property. That's how concerned they are about it. It's called prudence avoidance. That's
what you try to do. We try to avoid, where it's economical and it makes sense, you try to
avoid it and that's really what we're trying to do here. And I mean you can read, I've got an
article here. I'll be glad to make copies and send it in. It's a real lengthy article from the
New Yorker that basically this very article. But you can read just as many articles and put it
' in studies, scientific studies put out by the power companies that will tell you, I wouldn't
worry about it. It's very inconclusive. But we feel that we need, as a company, to set a
precedence for our own well being and set back from it. A lot of people are now becoming
concerned with this. When you do an environmental study of the site now, part of the study
is where they test for asbestos and all the chemicals, they give you electromagnetic field
readings because people are concerned about it. Everybody's starting to buy these little
meters. I mean who ever's making these is making a killing because if this is worth $550.00
you know, I mean I'd like to be selling them but you just can't buy them any cheaper than
this at this point. So it's, you know it's, we don't know if it's a real problem but we need to
address it. You can't just ignore it because it could become a problem and someday
legislation could be passed. Other countries have passed it and have significant concerns
about it.
' Mancino: John, on your buildings that are already existing, where they are close to the power
lines and it's just something back in the early 80's or something that you built it and this
' information hadn't come up. Are those still running at full capacity?
John Finnemore: The one that I'm the most aware of is this one in the Illinois area and
parents were raising concerns about it as they read the articles in the paper and asked,
actually the city even came to us before we went to them with the proposed solution. I'm not
really aware of any other ones that I can. In fact I know of a site in St. Louis where we
were, actually we owned land and we decided not to build on it because of the proximity of
the power lines and now we're trying to sell that property. I don't know of any other specific
ones but I know we have. And those are the two I'm aware of and we're not building on the
' one because it's so close. We're selling the land. We had permits. We were ready to build.
L�
38
fl
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
We've got major investment into the property and we're now selling it because we don't feel
that we should be putting a childcare center there. '
Mancino: Sharmin, do we have, I mean we have power lines going through the city right
now. I mean in residential areas. South of Highway 5 that parallel the railroad, etc. Do we ,
have those either residences or commercial establishments concerned about it right now? Is
there a concern in the city? Have people come to staff or to the City Hall asking about that?
Al -Jaffa We're not aware of any such case.
Aanenson: ...based on the other application we had last Planning Commission meeting, we
also checked on residential issues because they were saying they were having a hard time
with financing. As a note ... some FHA requirements an additional 10 feet. We did call HUD
and we did call just some mortgage brokers to find out if they have concern lending and what
we found out is, most standard...depending on who's underwriting it. Maybe insurance
companies that said it's too close to the power line, they will not underwrite it. So there is '
some, for residential and maybe some issues that they do look at. Some mortgage lenders
will look at that ... power lines.
Mancino: Is that multi- family or is that single family?
Aanenson: Both. I
Mancino: Both? Okay. So it's probably on the secondary market because they're going to
sell their mortgages to a secondary. I
Aanenson: Right. Yeah, and that's the issue. Depending on who's doing the financing, that
may be an issue to them.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant or if the applicant has any other
information?
John Dietrich: I'd just like to make mention that we do have some materials for the
Kindercare site that are comparable to the plan that you have previously been provided and '
I'd like to just quickly identify some on the site plan. That we are proposing. That it would
be able to incorporate all the site conditions that you have previously mentioned. In addition
to adding more evergreen trees as was suggested and a sidewalk going into that parking stall r
so that we would be in conformance with ADA requirements. This plan does not show the
realigned access onto Dell Road and we would incorporate that into the plan. And in addition,
we have provided a site elevation perspective that would be approximately drawn from, if you '
39 M
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
were in your car heading west at about the location of the property line between the
' Kindercare and the Press facility. This is an actual perspective of what you would see as you
were looking towards the Press with the existing berm that is out there and the existing
walking/running trail that is on the north side of the road. The existing conifer trees that are
on the berm and then the additional trees that we had lighten in for the proposed trees that
will be going through the parking lot and finally the little bit darker elevations on the Press
that would be going through the site. So the perspective of the building would be dying into
' the berm. And we anticipate this berm even coming up higher and being incorporated into
the enhancement element of County Road 5 and Dell Road. Or State Highway 5.
Mancino: John, can you talk a little bit about your point of view of the Press is very much
of a, what do I want to say, you know an industrial, commercial type building. The
Kindercare is a little homier. Has a different look. Can you talk a little bit about the
compatibility between the Kindercare architectural style fitting in the IOP area? I mean
we've got industrial commercial in that whole area. Whether you look at Ver- sa -til and the
other things that are going on in there. And then all of a sudden Kindercare has kind of a
' different look going on. How does that fit in, from your perspective?
John Dietrich: From my perspective I feel Kindercare has an opportunity to really enhance
the corner. It pulls the scale of the large industrial buildings down to more of a human scale
at the corner of Dell Road and State Highway 5, which I think will be a complimentary
element to an entry feeling. A green element coming into Chanhassen. There's residential
i properties both on the south side of Dell Road as we move into Eden Prairie and beyond the
DataSery property. And I feel this is a transition from industrial and still would be a strong
' and good compatible land use.
Scott: Any other comments or any other information from the applicant? Good, thank you.
' This is a public hearing and if anyone from the public would like to speak, please come up
and identify yourself. Is there anyone who would like to speak? Well seeing none, can I
have a motion to close the public hearing please? Actually we didn't open it in the first
place. Let's open the public hearing and then we'll close it. Can I have a motion to open the
public hearing?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
' Scott: Let the record show that no one wishes to speak at the public hearing so can I have a
motion to close the public hearing?
Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
1 '°
I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 '
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Diane. '
Harberts: I'll pass.
Scott: You'll pass? Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: I wasn't around for much of the discussions so I just have to backtrack just a little ,
J J
bit. Bear with me. A key issue for me is impervious surface on this property and I don't '
understand the staff's report given, I just don't understand why we can't pull it into
compliance so could you tell me why we can't.
Al -Jaffa City ordinance states that as long as they are improving or, improving an existing
non - conforming.
Conrad: Okay, yeah I saw that They're adding 14,000 and 40,000. Now I guess what I
don't understand is.
Aanenson: You're not changing the impervious surface. You're expanding the building.
We're looking at strict interpretation of impervious and the building...
Conrad: Right, so what is, where they are expanding the building was parking before? i
Aanenson: Correct. I
Conrad: Okay. And the lots, the other lots do not count because this was a lot of record?
Aanenson: Correct. I
Conrad: And for some reason we allowed a 79% impervious surface. I
Aanenson: It was zoned PUD then and that's probably one of the things that... impervious
surface. It was at one time PUD.
Mancino: Ladd, you were here.
Conrad: Yeah I'm the only ne that I can blame. That's real irritating.
Y g
Al -Jaffa There wasn't a staff report explaining this impervious surface. We went through all
41 1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
the history.
Conrad: I think 70% has pretty much been our standard as long as my memory serves.
Okay. The roadway, basically the right- in/right -out off of Dell. Dave, let me talk to you
1 about this, and I'm not even going to talk about that one. Is it basically your feeling that this
Kindercare should be served via that road, that internal road? And the Press simply because
we're not trying to encourage U turns. I'm trying to figure out, that just is a lousy way of
' servicing Kindercare here. Bringing them down an internal road like that. But is that
basically the rationale that we won't force the U turns on Dell coming in from Highway 5
and circling around back?
Hempel: Certainly that's the thought but we all know that U turns are going to happen. It's
P Y g g g PP
' the shortest route, even with the proper traffic signage. Unless enforcement is there everyday,
you're going to have U turns.
' Conrad: Is it staff recommendation to have that internal road like that or was it pretty much
the applicant's recommendation?
Hempel: Well, it probably was a little of both. This is a difficult site to serve. I guess if
you look at other industrial parks and so forth, you don't have the major collector ... two
boundaries actually. Trunk Highway 5 and Dell. So it kind of services the interior service
' road system similar to the shopping center.
Conrad: Okay. Couldn't make a curb cut or couldn't make any kind of a cut halfway
' through that Dell. So we could service the north and the south part of this parcel?
Hempel: I had conversation with the City Engineer...
Conrad: Can't do?
Hempel: Weren't real comfortable with it.
Conrad: Basically, huh. So what's going to be the access to that north lot? What's going to
' happen up there sometime Dave? Is it just going to be another, is there going to be a, is your
forecast a curb cut coming out of that or right out?
r Hempel: That would be one of the access points as well as another interior access point for
the service drive.
' Conrad: Okay. On a grade of 1 to 10, what would you rate this traffic system Dave? Less
42
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 ,
than 5? Never mind. Never mind. That's just a facetious comment on my part. Got a lot of
issues. I guess I'm not, I don't have a problem with the Press and some of the things. I think
'
everything looks okay there. I like the elevations. I think the Press looks fine. I'm really
bothered by the impervious surface. It really bothers me that we have some land and it's
probably my fault from many, many years ago. Don't have a clue why we did that but that's
just such a basic standard. It just sort of hurts that this is happening here. I think the Press
is doing a good job of expansion. They're a hell of a good company. They're terrific to
have in town. But this is just, and I'm going to stop talking because I don't see the solution
'
right now. I really did want to flip flop. I really wanted to move this playground and stuff
to the south and I have a hard time doing that right now. I guess I will keep it the way it's
located with the playgrounds and what have you away from the power lines, although I would
have loved to have moved it forward. It was sort of a neater way to say welcome to
Chanhassen. Even though I personally don't believe this is the entrance to Chanhassen. The
entrance and the monument to Chanhassen will be the bridge when it goes up. That will be,
,
in my mind, to say the statement saying, you are here. Whether they allow our maple leaf on
there or our name. You know I'm not totally convinced that this is really that key an access
point. I think people will feel they're in Chanhassen when they get to the walk bridge. So
,
that doesn't bother me. I like the transition of Kindercare there to the industrial. I think
that's, as the applicant spokesperson said, I think that's okay. I'm going to let the rest of you
talk about some of the issues because I know you care about that but I think the traffic- is
just, I don't have a solution to my two problems. I don't have a solution to the impervious
surface that I think we can enforce or do and I just don't like the traffic circulation but I tell
you, I don't see without a curb cut or a median cut, I can't find a solution so I'm stuck folks.
'
Those are my comments.
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: My comments are still pretty much the same as they were this last meeting. I '
don't have a problem with the proposed expansion. I understand the issue of impervious
surface and the criteria that was used so I'm going to argue with that. I'm going to vote to
deny this for the following reasons. The foremost reason and that is that I don't think this
conditional use should be enacted upon until the Highway 5 issue is completed, because it is
a development along the highway. It is the eastern gate. I think that the type of development
that we're seeing in the conditional use of the Kindercare is a typical use that we see where '
the parking lot is shoved up next to the highway as close as you can get it. The discussion
we had at the last meeting I think when we were discussing buffers. I think pointing out the
road median and I don't think an 8 inch curb would be considered a sufficient buffer. r
Anyway, the people that spent, community and business leaders that spent considerable
amount of time and input on the Highway 5 issue, and I think 3 of the people here on this
commission. This simply does not conform to what we worked on. And it's in a pivotal area ,
43 ,
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
of the city and whether it's the entrance per se, it's still very much a part of what was
' discussed in buffering TH 5 from, parking lots from exposed industrial areas. The fact of the
matter is that obviously anybody who owns property wants to maximize it's full capacity.
Property costs a lot of money in Chanhassen and it's understandable that the applicant wants
' to maximize out the potential of the property. However there are other issues involved as
well in that park ... I think are community interests. But however if the city is serious about
this, these particular types of pieces of property at intersections of main roads and so on, the
' city's going to have to look at the potential of acquiring 100 feet here or 100 feet there. To
get any type of true massing going on where you're bringing some relief, it's more than just
building one ditch and a row of trees. If you look at some of the stuff that Morrish did, part
of that has different types of massings and significant portions of landscaping, and I don't
think that this qualifies for that. The next issue is a safety issue. The traffic. This latest
development. Even is more bizarre. Basically make a U turn out to the lane going in the
opposite direction. You go north to go south. I'm not sure what the shuttle bus type of use
for something like this is but I would assume that they would have to block both lanes
making the turn. This makes no sense to me. The issue of safety, these power line reports
are really ridiculous. They don't say a thing and they come to no conclusion. It's sort of
like looking at a cigarette report back in the 70's. I do not have a problem if this particular
1 type of development went to the north site. I think that would alleviate considerable amount
of traffic. - It would be a considerable distance away from the power lines. But I don't see a
proposal here on that or a conceptual issue on that so I'm going to vote to deny this.
Mancino: I really have no new comments. I agree with Jeff in the Highway 5 in it's not in
keeping with the corridor plan and I also agree with Ladd and traffic flow and that gets into a
public safety issue for me. Having cars going through a parking lot where kids are getting
out and going to cars, etc. I would also like, I don't know if I'd deny it or table it. I would
like to get Dave's written comments in a staff report on the new access point which you have
not had time to do. And I'd like to read your words of wisdom and whether buses, etc,
trucks, etc, can get in there. Other than that the only other comment is that we also talked
about a reduction of parking spaces for Kindercare. That there should be 33 and I don't see
' anything. That hasn't been changed either. So I would, my suggestion would be to table it
until staff has had some time to look at the traffic issues. Circulation issues.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
' Ledvina: Well I would also agree with Jeff's comments and Nancy's comments regarding the
site plan and Highway 5 standards. Traffic. Certainly concerns that haven't been addressed
or at least evaluated properly at this point. I would like to get some input from the applicant
as to what type of action they would like to see, if I were to vote for it, specifically I would
vote for denial. But I could also vote for a table if the applicant felt that they would like to
1 44
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
do that and come back. Okay. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Okay. I really don't have any new comments. I was going to ask for your
impression. I'd like to see that. That seems to be a real pivotal issue and my guess is Dave,
is that if it's not possible based upon the setbacks and the MnDot requirement of easement,
that could potentially have a significant impact on the developability of that particular parcel.
A question that I have just a simple question for the applicant. Is the ownership of that lot
behind the one that you're proposing, is that owned by the same group of people as the
corner lot?
John Dietrich: Yes. The lot is currently, the entire property is currently owned by the Press
and they have indicated that they would sell the southeast parcel to Kindercare and it is their
intent to hold onto that northern parcel to maintain for future rights of development.
Scott: Future expansion from their standpoint. So that basically would preclude the
movement of the Kindercare project to that northerly lot? Okay. I don't have any further
comments.
Mancino: I have a question. Did we get a perspective from, excuse me John. This
perspective, it doesn't show Kindercare at all.
John Dietrich: No it does not. In fact it was again taken approximately on Highway 5
looking at the property line.
Mancino: Looking that way?
John Dietrich: Yes.
Mancino: So we haven't seen a perspective from in front of Kindercare where that parking
lot and what has to.
John Dietrich: No we do not. I would be willing to say from the roadway, the berm
continues to come up. We have approximately 70 feet of landscape area in the front from the
south property line that is going to be completely screened unless you were off on the east
side of.
Mancino: And it's screened all year round or there's deciduous trees?
John Dietrich: The requirement is 3 to 4 foot berms and with the elevation of the road would
45
1
li
1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
be down approximately 4 feet below general elevation. I see the berms being anywhere from
' 6 to 7 feet above the roadway elevation.
Mancino: You know Kate, I think that that's a good thing to ask for every single
' development on Highway 5, especially when we're so close to the road. To make sure that
we get a perspective from right in front. What that will look like and again, with the
landscaping, the massing of trees planted that year. Not in 10 years. What it will look like.
' But what it will look like in a present day sense and to ask for that for every one of them on
TH 5. And the other part of that is, I think it's important for the opacity, not seeing the
parking lot but also making sure that we landscape the berm on this side of Highway 5 so we
' just don't see this grass berm on one side. A question I have procedurally for us as a
Planning Commission and that is, all of us have talked about having some problems with the
' traffic circulation, etc.
Scott: Can I ask a question that's really going to throw a curve ball on this one?
' Mancino: Okay.
Scott: John, could you put that overhead that shows the expansion of the Press. The one that
you just had. It's just that view from above that you put up for the site plan. Yeah, it was
that that. That one right there. Could you put that up. Something just struck me. What
' happens to this. Let's say that the Press decides that they want to expand and they end up
going, let's say they put another 50,000 square foot expansion. How are they going to get to
that parking lot? I mean I'm just trying, I'm trying to look out from a land use standpoint
and trying to figure out what's going to happen. Let's say they build that thing all the way
across. How are they going to get to the parking? Are they going to be, probably have to
sneak in through that and cut, because you've got your playground there.
John Dietrich: You're talking in this area here?
' Scott: Yeah. Or you're thinking it would be just like a stand alone facility?
John Dietrich: It could be a storage facility. If that's where the expansion is going on
' because of all the technical equipment that is in there. Perhaps it could be another free
standing operation for the Press that they wish to buy. Or it could be potentially...
Scott: It could be another company or something? Okay.
John Dietrich: But we anticipate it will be of an industrial manufacturing type facility or
support for that type of facility.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Scott: Okay, good. I was, something just popped into my mind. Any other? ,
Mancino: Well my comment's dust procedurally. When a developer comes in at the last
minute with some revisions, how do we feel as a commission when it hasn't gone through
staff and staff hasn't made a recommendation to us. And if we table it, it goes ahead to City '
Council without staff's input.
Scott: We could deny it. It would go to City Council without staff input. ,
Mancino: And if you table it, it comes back. '
Scott: It comes back to us.
Mancino: After staff has reviewed it.
Farmakes: I think to a certain extent that would depend somewhat if you thought it was safe I
to do with the operation.
Scott: Yeah, and we were kind of iffy on the public safety. I
Ledvina: This is the third time we've seen it.
Scott: Yeah but it's like new, significant things keep popping up. '
Ledvina: Yeah, but other things haven't been changed that we've discussed.
Mancino: But we can't, I mean I take it that the responsibility is to give City Council, to go
over everything and to weigh everything and I can't really weigh this new entrance because I '
haven't. I don't know if a truck can turn in there. I don't know if a bus can use it. I don't
have any of those things which David would tell us. So that hasn't been thought through is
what I'm saying. And it hasn't been thought through before it goes to City Council. '
Scott: And if they can, if we had two lanes coming in, we've got turning radius and. '
Ledvina: I see that as an important issue but I don't see that as the overriding issue that
would tell us that, if it was okay would you approve the thing tonight? '
Farmakes: I understand what you're saying but, as far as my vote goes, it was unsafe to
begin with. Not a logical—of traffic. This new addition just makes it worst so I see what '
you're saying. Getting an evaluation of that but it won't affect my vote so.
47 1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Mancino: Okay.
Scott: Are we ready for a motion?
Farmakes: That's just me.
Mancino: Any other comments on what I brought up? Ladd?
Conrad: I don't want to see it anymore. I think City Council will have their perspective. I
think we've gotten the issues out. Yeah, it could come back. I don't see you changing your
vote. But the issue is there and we have at least one Council member here. We used to have
two. The issues are there Nancy. I think the applicant's going to want to approve it. In
terms of traffic and I think they're motivated to show the Council whether it can or can't
work and I don't know that it needs to come back.
Mancino: But I also, we can add that to a recommendation. A condition that it be reviewed
by staff before it goes to City Council and you add your thoughts to that new entrance.
Conrad: Absolutely. That's a good thought.
John Dietrich: Mr. Chairman?
Scott: Yes.
' John Dietrich: I would just like to, the changes to the access, we were notified of that
condition of the controlled access on Monday by city staff so we tried to turn that around as
quickly as we could in order to show a modification and a modification of that basically, that
' has access in was presented to staff when we first started the process and it was determined
to go with the straight access so.
' Mancino: I didn't mean to say any negligence on your part.
John Dietrich: But we're trying to, as the conditions change, we try to...
' Scott: Okay. An other discussion? n '
y y o . Ca I have a motion please. Don't everybody talk at
' once.
Conrad: Point of clarification Mr. Chairman. The motion that was passed to the City
' Council in favor of the site plan review, huh. Has anybody seen any changes to that motion?
1 48
Planning ommission Meeting - May 4 1994
g g Y
Mancino: Where are you looking? '
Ledvina: From the last time?
Conrad: From the last time, yeah. '
Farmakes: It was my understanding on this piece, but you can ask the staff. It was all or '
nothing on this piece. Is that correct?
Scott: That's the way it's being presented. I know that the outcome of the City Council
,
meeting was that due to a technicality with regard to conditional use permits, the City
Council cannot act on a conditional use permit until two things happen. One, a
recommendation of denial or approval is made to the City Council. Number two, is a 60 day
time frame to where if we don't make a recommendation, they can act on it. So the reason
why it came back didn't have really anything to do with what we had recommended vis a vis
passing the Press expansion ahead and tabling the Kindercare. It was the fact that they were
not able to act on the conditional use permit without a recommendation from us so that
without the conditional use permit, the Kindercare facility can't be constructed.
'
Farmakes: Okay, so we don't have to revote on those other issues. We didn't violate
anything at the time that that was done.
Scott: No. The opinion from the City Attorney was that there were no ordinances that
specifically said we could split a project. There were no ordinances that said that we
1
couldn't. So that particular point became moot and he focused on the very accessible
conditional use permit time frame and that was what he gravitated to. So basically it was not
remanded to us. They couldn't act upon it anyway because of ordinance.
'
Farmakes: So if we vote to deny it simply, or approve, we're just dealing with the
conditional use permit...
'
Scott: Well what we had, we're all clear on what we had passed on. It was tabling
conditional use. Changing the.
'
Farmakes: We voted on everything but that.
Mancino: Well no because on this site plan review.
Scott: No, there were 3 motions. '
49 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Farmakes: No, I understand it was part of the conditional use and part of the site plan. It's
hard to separate the one from the other in regards to, essentially that's one lot right?
Scott: Yeah. At least the way we proposed it. Outlot A I believe.
' Farmakes: I can't see how you can approve the site plan without approving the conditional
use.
Scott: Yeah because it's worthless if the conditional use permit isn't approved or passed on,
' yeah.
Ledvina: I think it's just the other way around. I think you, if you don't pass the site plan,
' you can't have a conditional use permit Because you can build the building. It's just, can
you put people in it or whatever.
' Scott: Can it be a daycare center in an IOP?
Ledvina: Right. Right.
Farmakes: I wasn't, when I made the comment a moment ago I wasn't dealing with the order
' that it was coming in. The content overall.
Mancino: But I still don't have any problem with the Press and the Kindercare I still have a
problem with traffic, etc. So one I would say okay and the other one I would deny for a site
plan review.
1 Farmakes: As I understand it, we voted did we not?
Scott: Well yeah.
Mancino: But we voted yes on the Press but not on Kindercare.
Scott: Correct. We tabled everything else, right.
Ledvina: Right, because it's one site plan.
Scott: Well no. No.
I Mancino: Now they're two site plans.
u
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Conrad: I think we can. '
Aanenson: There are two site plans. You recommended approval of the site plan request and
the subdivision. You didn't make any action on the site plan and conditional use for the ,
Kindercare. So that's what's still before you. Your other motion can still stand but what
have to address is the site plan for the Kindercare site and the conditional use.
Mancino: So I suggest that we keep, except that Sharmin has our original site plan for the
Press we passed two weeks ago. I recommend that we keep it with the addition of the '
building code?
Al -Jaffa The building official's conditions be spelled out as, I'm sure Nann got the verbiage I
but I can go through the conditions again for you.
Conrad: That was point number 16? ,
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Conrad: Okay. They can figure that out.
Mancino: So we use what we've had before and just add that to it. Okay? '
Conrad: Well, are you making a motion? Did you make a motion?
Mancino: Yes. I move that we g o ahead and approve the site plan that we, Site Plan Review '
PP
#94 -1 that we approved on April 13th, 1994, which is subject to the following conditions and
it is on page 4 of our staff report. Number 1 thru 19 with the addition of number 20 being '
conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994.
Conrad: Number 20? You changed number 16, right? r
Mancino: No. I'm on page 4. This is the original site plan review. I
Conrad: I think the motion that the staff has in front of us is on page 8.
Mancino: But I don't agree with that one because that approves both the Kindercare and the
press in one site plan and I'm not recommending that we approve Kindercare site plan. Does
that make sense? I
51 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Farmakes: How do you define that? They're both #94 -1.
Conrad: How can Kindercare be considered in the site plan for the Press?
' Aanenson: She just separated them.
Mancino: I've just separated them. I approve that we recommend approval of the Press site
' plan that we recommended on April 13th, 1994 on page 4 of the staff report which is
numbers 1 thru 19 with the addition of number 20 which reads, conditions of the Building
Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. And that approval is for only the Press site review.
Okay?
Scott: Is there a second?
Conrad: I second that.
Scott: Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
' of Site Plan Review #94 -1 for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building. as
approved by the Planning Commission on April 13, 1994, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and
show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans
must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting.
1 2. Deleted.
3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south
portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm
shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed
cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees.
These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be
added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as
suggested by Nancy Mancino.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and
provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
FI
7.
Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994.
The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up
the long wall masses
Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards
shall be submitted.
u
S. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking '
lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm
event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate '
agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department).
10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the
Press is being relocated.
11. Deleted. ,
12.
Deleted.
'
13.
The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking
lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street
West of 30 feet and two way traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle)
shall be posted with no parking signs.
14.
The driveway ccess point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical
Y P tY tYP
industrial driveway apron detail.
'
15.
The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash
escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards
disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod.
,
16.
Conditions of the Building Off'icial's memo dated March 25, 1994.
17.
The parking configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design
approval given to Kindercare taking into account such things as sidewalks for
pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kindercare.
53
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street.
' 19. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70 %.
20. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994:
1) Submit a 1/8" = 1"-0" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating
dimensions and use of all spaces on all floors.
2) Revise site plans to show site approach details and handicap parking stalls in
' compliance with MSBC Chapter 1340.
All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who was not present to vote, and the motion
' carried.
Farmakes: Should that be given a number of reference?
Aanenson: Yeah ... site P lan review.
' Scott: #94 -1 -A, I don't know but I think the verbiage is clear as to what's going on.
Mancino: Now the site plan for.
Scott: Okay. Can I have another motion please? If, do we want to have that as the extent of
our motion? Okay.
Conrad: Keep going. Motion.
Scott: Oh, I was just going to say, let's give some more time and.
' Conrad: This is confusing Joe.
Scott: Well see I don't have to make the motion. That's why I can say it. But sure, we'll
take as much time as you need to.
Mancino: The next thing that we need to do is recommend, or I recommend denial of the
Kindercare site plan.
Aanenson: I think what's left is on the subdivision. When you subdivide it, depending on
whatever you do with the Kindercare ... the subdivision along the line move to further to the
1 54
Planning ommission Meeting - May 4, 1994
g g Y
east for the Press expansion. You left the remaining of that property all in an outlot. So if,
whatever you do with the Kindercare, you need to ... split that lot. ,
Mancino: So we should do that first? '
Aanenson: Well I...
Scott: That was one of the motions that we had last time was to.
Aanenson: Yeah, but you left it all as one outlot. You didn't want Kindercare to go in so '
whatever you do.
Scott: And your motion is? I
Conrad: Well you're just, Nancy you just want to deny the subdivision. You don't need to
say anything about Kindercare. You want to deny the subdivision because of traffic and all I
these things. I'm not making the motion.
Scott: Or based upon Dave's information, do you want to see that before we pass it on? '
Mancino: No, that would be fine if he puts a report in before it gets to City Council. I want
to deny the subdivision? '
Conrad: I think you do.
Mancino: I think I want to deny the Kindercare site review. Can I have some help from '
staff"?
Al -Jaff: Basically right now, if you deny the Kindercare, the subdivision would be done '
administratively because we're only moving a property line. We're not going to give them
any additional. '
Aanenson: Yeah but it doesn't, it keeps that as one lot though. So it would have to be split
again so it prevents that other lot from being split which would allow the Kindercare ... So if
you left your motion as it stands, everything... to the Press expansion is still on an outlot.
Mancino: Which is what we had before. r
Scott: Which is Lot 1, Outlot A I think is what you said.
55
1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Aanenson: Correct. Yeah.
Mancino: And we've already approved the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park
One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the
following conditions. And this is on page 6 of the staff report which is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Any second to that motion?
Farmakes: I'll second that
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. That we, it's been moved with a second,. this really is
discussion. No discussion?
Ledvina: Hold on. Is this a repeat of essentially the previous motion?
Scott: A . repeat but getting.
P g g
Ledvina: But getting the outlot in there. Identifying the outlot.
' Aanenson: You did that before.
Ledvina: Okay. Alright.
i Scott: Would you restate that motion so I understand what you're saying.
' Mancino: I'm repeating the motion that we made 2 weeks ago on April 13th on page 6 of
the staff report which is I'm recommending approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-
2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with
the following conditions. Number 1 in it's entirety. Number 2 in it's entirety. Number 3 in
it's entirety. Number 4 in it's entirety. Number 5 in it's entirety. And number 6 in it's
entirety.
' Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94 -2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot
1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance.
1 2. Provide the following easements:
a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the
56
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
common lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1.
b. Delete. ,
c. A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat
along the west property line of Outlot A to facilitate the extension of the sewer
service.
3. Enter into a site lan development agreement acceptable to the city.
P P �' P
4. A driveway or cross access easement for use of the access off 77th Street West. The
easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. The easement
agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance
agreement acceptable to the City.
5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed ,
District, Health Department, etc.
6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt '
fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for the Press
is being relocated.
All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who was not present to vote, and the motion i
carried.
Scott: Can I have another motion?
Mancino: What other motion do we have to pass? Conditional use? ,
Ledvina: No, we don't want that. This relates to the site plan for Kindercare, right?
Scott: Well now there's an outlot so it hasn't been, it hasn't been subdivided for that ,
particular parcel so, does that preclude us from then doing anything with regard to the
Kindercare site plan and the conditional use permit now because there's no lot for it?
Aanenson: There's no lot, yeah. I
Ledvina: So is that it?
Scott: Now, if someone wants to make any additional motions.
57 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Farmakes: Well, what message are you sending?
Mancino: Yeah, that's the important part. What message, what are we sending to the City
Council to make sure that they understand why we are denying this? That's what's important
to me.
Farmakes: It's barely an issue of lot lines...
Scott: Or direction to the applicant. I mean there's a situation where, I think what we need
to do is to say well, obviously we've got some issues with public safety, etc, etc. Maybe we
need to do some if then. I don't know, I'm throwing that out. But right now it's, the
conditional use doesn't go on. The Kindercare site plan does not go on. Basically we're
' sending them the Press again. Is that what you want to do?
Conrad: That's okay.
Scott: Okay. If that's what we want to do, then we don't need any other motions.
Conrad: I guess I'm real confused. Now Nancy, your last motion recommended approval of
the plat for the subdivision.
' Scott: , The Press expansion.
Mancino: So I want to make sure that the Press is subdivided into that lot.
Scott: So basically it just sends forward the Press expansion and the necessary lot line
movement to handle it. And that's because the original plat included the existing Press
facility. It did not include where the expansion is going, correct? So we had to replat to
make room for the expansion and then send the site plan along for the expansion so.
' Conrad: The original plat did not have on it.
' Ledvina: This is what we did. This is what they wanted and we took this line out.
Essentially. They wanted Lots 1 and 2 here and we just made it Outlot A, or whatever, so
we took that out. So we said that would have to be the entire piece then.
Scott: So basically e signal or the message that we're sending is that the same thin all
Y g g g g
over again. Press expansion is fine. There's still some additional issues. Now just the next
question then. If Dave comes back next time and says hey. This works just fine. Are there
' 58
C
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
some other things because I think what we want to do is give the applicant some very
specific direction and say hey, if you do this, then because I don't want to just have this kind
of fluffy thing going on.
Mancino: Jeff, articulate this.
Scott: If it's a parking lot in back.
Farmakes: I think we're just repeating ourselves... several times. In listening to the applicant,
both here and at City Council, it seems to me that they're.
Scott: They don't want to change.
Farmakes: That they have a pretty concise idea of what was necessary to move that forward
and ... They chose not to deal with that so Ladd's right. Deny it and send it forward.
Mancino: And the issues are Highway 5 which Jeff eloquently said and.
Scott: Okay, so we're.
Mancino: And traffic circulation and no staff report on the new entrance.
Scott: So are we all satisfied that the motions that we passed indicate the direction we want?
Yes?
Ledvina: Yes.
Farmakes: I'm comfortable.
Scott: You're fine. Ladd?
Conrad: Sure.
Aanenson: Can I have a clarification on that then. Because you didn't act on it, we have to
pass the 60 days. The Kindercare is still...
Scott: Yeah.
Aanenson: So the Press is going forward but the Kindercare stays here?
59
t
Planning ommission Meeting - May 4 1994
g g Y
Farmakes: I would be comfortable denying it and sending it on.
1 Aanenson: Well Y ou have to have a motion...
Scott: And that 60 day time period will be, since it's the commission we're talking June 4th?
Because we got it on April 4th. June 4th?
' Aanenson: Yeah.
' Scott: Okay. So one way or the other the conditional use permit's going to be able to be
acted on by the City Council.
' Aanenson: Right, but if you want to put it on your next agenda, that's fine. Otherwise it will
just sit in holding until you...
' Scott: Yeah, I mean I'd like to hear what you have to say. Because that's real important.
Public safety is an important issue.
1 Mancino: So we have to make a motion?
Scott: No we don't.
' Aanenson: ...unless you want to put it back on.
' Scott: Okay. Item 5 was deleted..
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to approve the Planning
' Commission Minutes dated April 20, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
' Aanenson: ...was given final plat approval. ...Heritage plat that you recommended denial and
the City Council did also. What we found out with this plat is the extension of that street
will ... run north/south along the eastern border of Timberwood. As we find out what that
plat ... so we had to work to get that resolved and—The Council did approve a design charette
' for the Bluff Creek corridor and as I mentioned before, we were able to get Bill Morrish to
participate in that so that's scheduled for May 26th. We would like one representative of the
Planning Commission to make themselves available for that meeting. And what well do
after that, this is just to give us some design framework because we feel as a staff, we don't
K1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
have the tools in place to ... It's such a sensitive area. This kind of gives us a starting point
and we're hoping that we can get some ... and eventually an ordinance. We would also work
with this granting of that place ... The Council did approve the first reading of the, the first
time it went through they tabled it for lot line information which we thought we'd let you
know about ... they had approved the first reading so...
Scott: Can I just ask a quick question? What did.
Aanenson: That was...
Scott: Good, thanks.
Aanenson: ...I'll contact him and find out what exactly we get with the price and you know
it's funny, after that Council meeting we wanted a list of vendors so we—about 7 vendors
now as far as the different types of technology.
Mancino: Even what we saw tonight? I wish it would have had color though.
Aanenson: Well that was part of it. I think we could have worked...
Mancino: Because I couldn't see the roof.
Aanenson: ...we can work to get more representative of what's out there.
Scott: Yeah and I think one thing we can do with isometrics is one of the problems with
isometric drawings is that how you choose your vanishing points. So I think if we can get an
isometric drawing that has vanishing points that make more sense to what it's really going to
look like, that may be a rather inexpensive tool that we can use. Okay.
Aanenson: They approved the second reading of the wetland ordinance. The reason they
held out on that was ... mitigation so they did approve that. Second reading. They approved
the buffer monumentation. The question on that was they wanted to see the monumentation.
It looks really nice and it will be...
Scott: I know Matt, I don't know if you saw that but I mean, I know that was one of your
issues is what's it going to look like and they're 20 feet tall and they're blaze orange. No.
Do you want to tell him what they are?
Aanenson: They're on a gray post. They're 3 inches wide by 24 inches high and they're on
gray posts and they'll be ... wedand logo on the top. And the intent for that is again so people
61
1
C
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
know that that's the edge. They shouldn't, be mowing.
' Ledvina: Is there any letters or anything on it or just a wetland?
' Aanenson: No, it says Wetland Buffer Edge. And again, it will be one comer of your lot so
it won't be on both corners so every other lot corner so you don't have to have it blocking
your view.
' Mancino: And isn't the letterin g gray a or brown?
Aanenson: It's brown with like a light tan lettering. So it's subtle. And when you have the
tall grass ... We're putting those in place right now. As all new developments come in, we'll
be ... catching those and ... As to number 6. Kindercare ... First reading of the landscaping and
' tree preservation. I think the City Council was pretty excited about the work that went into
that and we got real positive results so that will be on the second reading at the next meeting.
' And then hopefully we'll be able to, after that there's a publication requirement and so we'll
be starting to enforce that...
Mancino: What I think was exciting is to actually have two City Council people you know
say, that was just a tremendous ordinance. I mean you don't hear that too many times.
Aanenson: ...we are trying to do some different things so I think ... I just want to talk to you
about our PUD process. You know we're frustrated. You're frustrated. So what I put in
here is a different approach and I just wanted to run this past you and see what you think.
' What we do is we get the concept. You know when you know it's single family and it's
going to stay single family but we're just looking at the lots I think it's not quite as complex
but we ... it's a big complex issue and how do we get a starting point and what's everybody's
comfort level to move to the next and that's what we're having a downfall on. Staff
included. We spend a lot of time on the staff report. Make them bump out a significant
period of time before they can get on an agenda and then to get here and we're not getting
' you the right information and so what I was thinking is that, we have a public hearing
requirement so what we do is go ahead and just give a 2 or 3 week, enough to meet the
notification and just let the applicant give you ... a generalized site plan. We put these at the
' end of the agenda and ... we sit down. Dave would stick around. They bring their
professionals in and we just try to flush out the main issues. These are some sensitive things
and you give them some direction as to what to come back for the concept. So it's kind of a
' pre - concept. I think it would serve everybody's time a lot better and if it's okay with you,
I'd like to try that for the next one. Now the concept one that you ... last tune, CCC is coming
back. They're coming back. You gave them direction to come back with all industrial or
multi- family. Kind of a mix...
62
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Mancino: The zero lot line.
Aanenson: Right. So what I did ask them to give a couple perspectives through the site. ,
Some site elevations showing how they're going to address the topography. Apply some
different perspectives so hopefully again that will help us just a little bit more ... would have
been I think helpful to ... what information you need and give that to them so we're not
wasting everybody's time doing a detailed report that doesn't get us anywhere.
Scott: Yeah. Well you know there's something that crossed my mind is I know whenever
I've been in a situation where I've had to sell to a committee, which in effect is what
someone's doing when they're coming to the Planning Commission. The best way to
increase your chances of success is to call some of the people on the committee, or get in
contact with them and I think this would be a good opportunity before a lot of expense is ,
undertaken. Just to say, and then they can find all the hot buttons and go, ooh geez you
know. And then react to it and yeah. ,
Aanenson: Yeah. If you guys aren't interested in that high density, let's before we start
doing more perspectives, just if you're not interested in that at all let's say, hey we just don't
think it's going to work on this site. Let's get that on the table right away so I think if we
can just say, or you say maybe it would work and these are the things that you need to do to
make sure that we can make it palatable. And I think that would be good.
Scott: Okay.
Aanenson: And if you feel comfortable with that, then we'll try it on the next one.
Conrad: Let me just kick that around a little bit. On the one hand I don't want staff off the
hook, and I'm not sure. You know when you do that, you're taking away certain
responsibilities, and I don't know what you know, if you're giving that away. You're taking
them over from Kate basically. So you've got to be comfortable you're taking those, and ,
we're not talking specific issues but the challenge is, and I wasn't here. Didn't hear this. If
you don't have a PUD ordinance, what we're going to do is have a.
Aanenson: It's a re -cone t. ,
P P
Conrad: Where we take over the needs that we would like in a PUD. And I guess just on i
the surface I don't understand. If we're not getting what we want, then we should be
changing the PUD ordinance. So I don't understand why it's loosey goosey. Let's bring it in
and see what we all. Let's take pot shots at it. Unless we can't get the ordinance any better.
63 1
I
1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
If the ordinance is pretty general and we don't like it, then you're doing the right thing. I tell
you, you have to make staff accountable. When they're negotiating, that's their job. For
negotiating trade -off's or recommending that it be a PUD. What I hear here is, you want to
take over some of the stuff so, and I'm not, you know somebody has to persuade me that
' that's right. But right now I don't feel real good about it. Again, there has to be some
absolutes in requirements of a PUD. I can't believe that we can't fine tune what we want in
a predictable fashion.
Farmakes: Well I think there's a duplication of effort going on in regards to taking a PUD.
' Combining it with the Highway 5 objectives. It's not necessarily a directive onto themselves
but you combine the two together and you look at the issue ... as an example. I'm not sure if
you were, I don't believe you were here at that meeting but the issues that we were looking at
were the same typical ones that we discuss on this Highway 5 issue about how close do the
units come up? How many are there packed and how close are they to the highway? And
the issue, if you go to something like zero lot line, you can get some space between the
i highway and the units, that's...
Conrad: But Kate knows what you have in the Highway, it's not in concrete yet so it's not
ordinance. We can't enforce it so we're talking persuasion right now and you're telling me
that Kate can't tell the developer what we're looking for?
' Farmakes: They were sensing some frustration in the meeting, as I recall. Maybe can
elaborate on this, that they were spending a considerable amount of money in presentation
materials and didn't feel that they were getting a clear direction in regards to not only land
use but concept.
' Mancino: Yeah. I mean what we're talking about is concept, not PUD but what is the
expectation at the concept stage. Whether it's a PUD or whatever it is at the concept stage.
What should be in a concept? I mean these people wanted just to know land use. Well
' there's a lot of other things that need to be talked about during the concept stage just besides
land use. There needs to be natural resources. How the, conceptually this plan treats the
natural resources. Circulation. Etc.
Ledvina: Except those are all tied together. Because they will dictate the land use on a
properly designed development.
Mancino: Exactly.
Y
Farmakes: And there can be buffer areas where you have more than one use to consider.
MIS,
Conrad: They have to do that. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't.
Scott: Yeah, but then when we see it.
Aanenson: When we load it up with conditions, that's at a concept level, that's where we're
saying, listen. You're a specific... these are your marching orders and if takes 100 things, we
try to. I mean the problem is I think we've given them too much details. Specifically we
want to see this, this and this. I mean that's why those lists get so long and I know that
makes you nervous. You think oh, they're so far off the mark but we feel like, look at all the
things we caught. You know, these are all the things that. We don't want to we you back
until.
Mancino: You should charge for doing their plan for them.
65 1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Next to a school. Next to an environmentally sensitive area. Look what we did with the
Arboretum in discussing a PUD up on TH 41 and TH 4.
,
Scott: And I think the way staff can work this too is that there are ordinances and then there
is stuff that is going to be ordinances and then there's the intent that I think you guys have
'
picked up on from working with us where we have certain hot buttons and things that we
zero right in on and although it might not, well I'm not going to tell what your place is,
because that still is in flux a little bit now, but I guess some of the things that I think would
really help the developer is you can take a look at something like with the Heritage. Here are
19 things that we think are just really off base. It's almost, I think you're doing everybody a
favor saying well, I know the Planning Commission and when I look through and I see these
7 things. The Planning Commission's going to non -linear when they see these. It's probably
better use of your time to change what you're going to be presenting to do a better job of
addressing these before you go in front of them because one of the things that I had a
conversation with John Dobbs afterwards and he was you know, he was pretty frustrated but I
do have to give him credit. He used his frustration to kind of come out and say, well how do
we do this differently next time? My suggestion to him was, is to, now that you know what
the Planning Commission likes and the things that we focus in on, is take those really
seriously and one of the things that I mentioned to him is that personally when I saw the staff
report and I saw the comments of the large amount of things that needed work, I had a really
hard time listening objectively because I'm going boy. This development really needs a lot
of work. So maybe the thing that you can do on everybody's behalf is to highlight the
environmental things. You know what they all are. Highway 5, etc, etc. You say hey, if
you want to have smooth sailing, these are the kinds of things that you need to do.
Aanenson: That's what we do and that's...
Conrad: They have to do that. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't.
Scott: Yeah, but then when we see it.
Aanenson: When we load it up with conditions, that's at a concept level, that's where we're
saying, listen. You're a specific... these are your marching orders and if takes 100 things, we
try to. I mean the problem is I think we've given them too much details. Specifically we
want to see this, this and this. I mean that's why those lists get so long and I know that
makes you nervous. You think oh, they're so far off the mark but we feel like, look at all the
things we caught. You know, these are all the things that. We don't want to we you back
until.
Mancino: You should charge for doing their plan for them.
65 1
Planning ommission Meeting - May 4 1994
g g y
Aanenson: ...because we look at it as, look at all the issues we think you still need to do and
' you're looking at it like it's not close but why would they be recommending approval.
Scott: I'd agree with that. I think that's the way I look at that. I go whoa, this is a really
' basket case. We've got to send them back. So I think that's maybe something that I'm not.
Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. How do we get past that because I think that is a
' problem existing and I ... with all these issues. And what we're saying, if they come back the
next round and address these, then we'll feel pretty comfortable.
Scott: You know what it's like, it's right now this is really a tight, it's something that's been
beat up because I guess.
Aanenson: And that's what it is Joe. That's a good way to put it. That's...
' Scott: I view our role as somewhat quality control because we're, when you think about all
the commissions that send stuff into the City Council, there's no way that they can, although
sometimes they do get into levels of detail that we think, or I think anything are, we've
already been through that. But I view part of our job is to really, you beat stuff up before we
see it and we beat it up before the City Council sees it so they have maybe more manageable
issues to deal with. But if they want to go into more detail, that's their prerogative.
Farmakes: It seems that the more money that is spent on development presentations, the
more untractable they get to changing anything.
' Aanenson: The what?
Farmakes: The more untractable they get in changing anything. They seem to be committed
to it. When we start talking about move this here or there and then it seems that they'll cut
' you very little.
Aanenson: Exactly and that's why we always felt the concept should really be, it's not as the
ordinance says, it doesn't give us any legal binding. All we're saying is, you know we could
live with this if. And that's what we're saying, if. Give them the list. Or we say, you know
we just plain don't like it. There's just, we don't think it's appropriate... What you're doing is
' you're creating the shelving where you're going to tell how it's going to function. If you
don't like it, deny it. Deny the zoning. If you do like but they have to do the following
things, then you recommend it that way. Or if you need specific information like you know,
I think that's fine. Elevations, perspectives. You want to see more about the type of
products you're talking about. I think they were all very appropriate things to say. Let's
1 66
L
i
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
table to look at that. But for some reason I think we haven't been able to, I want to give you
the information that you need. I want to give the developer the information he needs and I
right now I feel like, we're not doing that effectively.
Scott: Are you saying that perhaps what we need to do is to, instead of seeing, tabling
something and say fix these conditions that staff has made us aware of before we pass it on,
are you saying, well let's pass it on with these recommendations to the City Council and then
when it wanders through the process again, we want to make sure that they've addressed
those?
Aanenson: ...but if you don't feel comfortable saying you know, I think what the staff's '
identified is a'good thing. I thought ...but you know, I'm not sure that whatever. That
they've done a sensitive job with the wetland. I want to see more. I want to hear more what '
you're going to do about that. Or I want to see more what you're going to do with Bluff
Creek. What is your vision? Or I want to see the type of...what kind of materials. Table it.
Ask for that more information.
Scott: Yeah, well I think Jeff's comment's real important because if we were to take, let's
say the Heritage. If we would have taken that and passed it on with all those conditions, they
probably would have pumped more money into it to get ready for City Council. Then when
it comes back around. '
Aanenson: I think they would have pumped more money into it. I think they're just trying
to figure out. '
Scott: Well, I'm thinking they're kind of like what, they're going to interpret, oh great.
Okay this is the plan, let's go.
Conrad: I've got to figure out what the issues are here because it's not that I'm against what
maybe we wanted or the process but I guess I'm, you know Kate leverages our opinion on ,
those developers. She knows where we stand and she can say, well it's not going to go
through unless you do this. Now if we're up front, I'm not sure if we're helping the process,
seriously. She can be saying well, she's negotiating behind the scenes all the time on this '
stuff so what I see the process doing is, she's not involved. They come in here immediately
and we sort of take at it without very much of a presentation. Huh. Hey, I don't like that.
I know that there are some things, you know we've got some issues and the Highway 5 is an ,
issue because it's not cast in concrete and we're trying to leverage the developers ourselves
because she can't but that's not a reason to change the process, because we're going to say
please. Could you please do that because we can't make you do it but would you please do '
67 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
that. Now she can leverage our opinion because she's making some trade -offs before she
' comes in. So I never mind concept stuff coming here Kate. I like that. I like what we did,
when do we have the concept or the sketch plan? What is it when we get the concept
coming in? Is it for a PUD?
' Aanenson: Yes.
' Conrad: So we've always done that. We've always had some, what do you think? Here it
is. Here's some drawings. Here's some architectural. So what you're doing is a pre -
concept. You're saying before they even do the drawings let's come in. I tell you, I'm not
' sure I want to be there.
' Mancino: Okay, okay, okay, but here's where I still have a problem. I mean I agree with
you but when I see the concept, their original one, then I see staff recommendations and it's
45 recommendations, because you guys have done a great job. No question. I mean it's in
' depth. It's right on but it's kind of like maybe I'm such a visual person that then I need to
see those recommendations, I can't, I need to see them out in front of me to have the visual
contact because I can't tell you how much I rely on I mean the whole process. The visual
and the verbiage.
Conrad: Well that should be part of the requirements. The specs.
' Mancino: But I don't see it with the concept plans that are coming in. I see the verbiage
because they've made all the recommendations but I don't see the visually...
Ledvina: Change the specs in the ordinance.
' Conrad: Let's change the specs. Yeah, absolutely.
Ledvina: That's where it needs to go. I think we need to know about, we need to tell them
about natural features. We need to tell them about traffic circulation all working together
with land use and I don't think it says that right now.
' Aanenson: You're right, it's very general.
Ledvina: Okay. Well that's where we need to, that's the nail. We've gof the hammer.
Mancino: And surrounding and use relationship. Just the written objectives of the
g P J
' development and also just character of the development. I mean what's going to be some of
the construction details, I mean etc.
1 68
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Farmakes: It seems like every time I see a PUD, and I've made this comment in the last one
that I saw, and you see in a concept. You see the property maximized out again and there's ,
10 feet of green space around each factory and there's nothing but homes from one end of the
property to the next and the density is I forget what it is, 8 to a unit or 8 to a acre or
something. It frightens me to look at that kind of thing when we're looking at it as a concept '
because it's so.
Mancino: But that's before the revisions. That's before the staff recommendations. '
Farmakes: But even so. What I'm saying is, if that information came out of a horse trading
session and that drawing came forward, there's an interest of the developer on how to do this '
and every time it seems to follow on TH 5 for some reason. I don't know if it's because
we've created sort of a high density corridor or what it is and that's not really what we want ,
there. But what we're seeing is, if it's a PUD and it's wall to wall houses, what are we
getting for the PUD.
Conrad: Well now you're talking about the real issues. '
Farmakes: Right, that's what I'm saying. I
Conrad: Well, okay. That's different than what we've been talking about.
Scott: That's like what I point blank asked the developer. I'm saying what is the City of '
Chanhassen getting out of this PUD. It's like we're paying to move this thing. You're
packing stuff in tight. You're encroaching on the wetland. What's the deal? And then you '
get words. You get verbiage.
Farmakes: The counter back then is, well we're building affordable housing. You can't buy '
an acre of property for under 40 G's in Chanhassen. Well, that's a no win solution unless
somebody subsidizes the purchase. Or you build 8 units on an acre.
Scott: Yeah, or you do something with the density. '
Farmakes: Correct. And somebody subsidizes something. So I mean with that achievable '
goal of creating some affordable housing and you're looking at 300 units and you're thinking
gee, this isn't exactly scattered site housing here for affordable housing is it? I mean boom,
right there. And it's really not what we're trying to achieve, at least as I understand it. '
Mancino: Kate, after going to the HRA joint meeting with the City Council, we're not going
to have any low affordable housing by private industry anyway that comes in. '
69
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Aanenson: I don't think so. We did meet with this applicant again and we did talk about
' what the dollar amount would be for affordable development. We put in the staff report, and
this goes back in, this is where I need direction from you on because that property is zoned
single family... Now, this was direction given by the previous director that maybe high
' density multi- family is more palatable than industrial based on the fact that if you look at the
higher uses. Residential is less intrusive than industrial but as you heard from the residents,
they felt maybe... industrial might be more palatable than high density.
E L I
1
Mancino: Well especially from what Jeff just said on the north side of Highway 5. The
Highway 5 corridor study suggests that it be multi- family.
Aanenson: Except we know what's going in there. Really there's not going to be that many
pieces of high density multi- family. There's going to be twin home projects. There really
isn't high density. From what we know, it's been tied up. I'll be happy to share that with
you when we talk about Highway 5. There isn't going to be that much high density. But
anyway, back to where we did ... We put in that recommendation that we did feel it was
appropriate for the high density... never felt comfortable with that and we did recommend that
but we did think, if for some reason they did go with some sort of subsidized housing or
moderate priced housing, and that may be a reason under the PUD, which it does say in PUD
if you're getting that sort of housing product, that that may be a reason to give it.
Scott: Well one thing we need to do is, I mean this affordable. Okay, one of the things that
we, at least see what you other folks think of when you say affordable housing. The next
thing in the parenthesis should say, as defined by the formula recommended by the State of
Minnesota which is.
Aanenson: We've got the formula.
Scott: That baby's got to be right in the ordinance because the, I mean Terry Forbord has got
a different idea of what affordable housing is.
Aanenson: You're right. We were missing that. I think that would be the reason we felt if
you did want to go with the higher density, that would be one way and that's with the PUD
because you're getting affordable housing.
Scott: And then define affordable housing.
Aanenson: But if you don't feel comfortable with that.
Farmakes: I'll tell you what I would like to see is some forms at public hearings going on in
70
n
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 ,
some regard to getting public opinion in regards to subsidized housing. I haven't seen any
informational meetings. I haven't seen any educational. Maybe putting something in the ,
newsletter. City newsletter and clarifying that this is a problem and soliciting thoughts as to
how we solve this problem. I hate to see this problem solved politically from the State level
on down with this group home thing. Leaving holes in it. Leaving lack of subsidization. '
Financing. Having political ends benefitting other areas where these houses are not going
into, i.e. Minneapolis as usage for very low income percentage level based on all their
precinct meetings back and in several of their precincts they have no low income housing. I '
think that there's a lot of metropolitan silliness going on in trying to determine what that is
and I think the end goal is not necessarily affordable housing but a distribution of social
service... ,
Scott: By relocating the consumers. '
Farmakes: Without quantifying and qualifying these issues, I don't think we're being
responsible getting that information out to the public and having them respond to their elected ,
officials as to how we deal with this type of stuff. I don't want to see, and be extremely
disappointed if it's like the group home issue which does solve some necessary social things
but also omits several issues. Fortunately we haven't had that problem here yet but that that '
hole is there. The door is open for that. And I hope we can solve that issue from the ground
up rather than coming down and to quote the—it's a done deal. There's nothing we can do
about it. The State's making us do it and then we all kind of look around what are we doing ,
here, but.
Conrad: That's a good point. I wish we knew how we handled affordable housing here. If I
we handled it, we haven't handled it very well.
Scott: Well I could be willing to be that any sort of subsidy is going to have to come, I ,
don't know whether you'd have to have a TIF.
Aanenson: Well that's ... trade offs because they get higher densities and they spread a few ,
units out just like ... and that's the trade off for the high density and that's where they have to
make the pitch to you to say, you give us this, we will do this.
Conrad: But the trade off is, Y ou're trading density off but you don't want to trade the '
quality of facility off. But they're pyridoxic. You know it's like we're going to force you to
spend money on that building because we don't want it falling down. Brick or better but '
we'll reduce, we'll give you 3 more units an acre. So I don't have a clue. That's a really
good point Jeff. Rather than somebody telling us how to do it, we're going to have to do it
but I don't know how you do that and really make it work. '
71 1
'
Planning ommission Meeting - May 4, 1994
g g Y
Farmakes: I'd like to point out a couple of areas where the city.
' Mancino: There is no, P Y Y ou can't make it privately funded because of the 1986 tax laws, etc
so that's what they talked about in HRA. It will be publically funded but privately managed
' for real low income. Not affordable but I'm talking low income.
' Farmakes: The federal government defines it as low, very low, very, very low and they've
got an entire list that they use now for qualifications for the medical care. I believe it's a
' standard throughout defined by income and so on. I'm not sure that the State is using that as
a guide and I'm not sure that the city or the county is using that as a guide. But if we look
at some other issues where federal monies or state monies have followed this problem, there
' have been some gross mismanagements and terrible developments. Cedar- Riverside for
instance. There's an example of federal money that built an idiotic development.
Concentrated. Poorly managed. Nobody wants to live there that lives there and my point to
' that is, when there's a financial incentive, either the developer or of the area. Hey, it's
federal money being spent in our account, you lose this motivation that is out there for a
community to ... to maintain it. To build it. To contribute to the community and I think you
' lose some of that when you get these false ... going on.
Conrad: So is it possible to say, what is affordable housing look like in Chanhassen? Every
time we zone high density, everybody can't wait to reduce the density. You know our feeble
attempt to bring in affordable housing in here is that we get little pockets down here that
we've zoned 8 to 12 units per acre and that's it. That's high density. That's affordable
housing but boy you come, a developer comes in with 4 units or 2 units per acre, we can't
wait to change it. You know everybody says smile, says boy that's great. Now we're, and
you know I love open spaces but you know, so here we've zoned it. We've got it but we're
not doing anything with it. Jeff, how do we handle those pockets? How do we design
affordable housing for those areas so we have control rather than somebody else?
' Farmakes: I think the first thing to do is ask the community to define what the philosophy
and the intent, the objective is. And that may be defined for us in St. Paul. I'm not sure we
know. I use here the term over and over again, affordable housing, both from the applicants,
i staff and ourselves. It's a catch word. When we hear this and we talk about densities, so
many of the times we're looking at apartment buildings here that are a quarter of a million
dollars. Just because it happens to be high density and apartment buildings doesn't mean it's
affordable housing and just because it says it's affordable housing or the lowest affordable
housing, let's say Mission Hills. $80,000.00, $70,000.00 units. A few years back a New
Horizon home, the four plexes were the same prices. It basically, as I understand, you can't
build anything with 2 bedrooms that's standing in modern code requirements for less than 70
72
73 1
'
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
grand. So if we're going to, the motivation for this is for assembly type work out here.
They're talking about the intent is some of the owners of these companies would like to have
'
the people who work in their companies live out here so they didn't have the transportation
problems and they have access to lower cost labor. I don't know if that's a pristine objective
and if you're dealing with some of the philosophical issues of this city with no boundaries
'
and so on, the intent that you have a classless society and that you have say for instance on
the Song development over there. The Song property. You have the million dollar house and
then you have the $40,000.00 next to it. From a practical standpoint does that happen. Is
'
that going to happen. Do we specify on the Song development, hey. You can have $20
million houses here and then 3% of them have to this affordable. Subsidized type. Or
Lundgren development. I don't think the finances of those type of developments work that
'
way. What I see as the type of PUD thing that we have coming in that are 40% -50 %.
Somewhere in there is a subsidized. Substandard amount. And then we qualify it as that's
affordable so we're being good. But I don't think that those numbers translate into what's
,
considered very low income housing in Minneapolis or what Or eld's using as criteria. So
it's not something where I can sit here and say, this is our objective. I think the concern is to
have our community come forward and say, this is what the majority of us feel that we would
,
like to proceed in zoning this issue and achieving these goals. Whatever they are. And
maybe the State government supersedes municipal government so...
'
Conrad: What do you think we should do? Should we forward on at some point in time a
recommendation to the City Council that they form a task force?
,
Farmakes: I believe the City staff has been working on this issue off and on in regards with
some of the employers.
'
Mancino: And there's a report being created.
'
Conrad: Oh, okay.
Scott: So the purpose for the affordable housing is to supply workers for industry and this
,
housing will be subsidized by the general public? So it's in the interest of the employers.
Well Jeff and I had this discussion last week. You know who benefits? Obviously the
residents, the new residents benefit.
Mancino: TIF districts.
Scott: Well yeah, anyway. So our d irection on this is.
Aanenson: I get an idea of what you want in the PUD and I can go through that and modify
73 1
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
the concept to make sure we've got conditions in there that we want...
Scott: And in PUD, when they talk about natural features and so forth, I really like what you
did on Highway 5. This, not this. I mean that's very, very simple. But that will cut through
a lot of the stuff that you guys have to deal with if the ordinance is more specific.
' Aanenson: Let me just talk about a couple of things I had on here. Administrative
approvals. As you recall when we approved the expansion to the hotel, we went through the
facade that went over that part of the Frontier Building... they're having it signed but they
' a ... signs. We've been really quick to ... and we just approved the sign package for the Frontier
Building as a general ... We are policing the facade so we can get the new signs up there. So
just to let you know, we did approve... similar that matches the whole Frontier Building and it
will tie into what we have there. Also just for your information, May 18th the City Council
will be holding a workshop before your Planning Commission meeting. They'll be starting at
5:30. If you're frustrated about Highway 5, you can imagine my frustration. I did get the
Council to move forward on it and we do have, I did get a hold of Bill Morrish and he will
be speaking for a few minutes. Trying to light a fire. I'll spend a little bit of time talking
about what the Task Force did and what the Planning Commission has done and then Barry
Warner, the consultant is going to take as much time as they need to get through the whole
document. We want to get it adopted. There's the overlay zone. That's one portion but in
' the implementation section, there's a lot of work for other people to do. The HRA needs to
get going on the gateway treatments. I mean there's a lot of things that need to happen as a
part of this document and the work task for everybody to make all this come to fruition and I
hope we can get the Council excited about... And also just an order of business. You've
been asking to see landscaping plans back but what I'd like to do is ... just a landscaping issue.
One will be back is the Minnewashta Landings will be back on because they want to be on
the next Council so what I'd like to do, because these should be pretty straight forward. I
mean we're specifically looking at landscaping, is that I will be putting those on first because
I haven't noticed those. Is this an opportunity for you to look at so we get those people in
and out of here and that way ... and when the church one comes back. I did step out in the
hall and we talked about, if they can't work out the berm, come back and talk about what we
can do as an alternate—we'll put those people on at the beginning so you don't have to, even
' though it's old business. And one other comment, next week is a huge agenda. I've done
my best to try to knock people off and I think what we're probably going to have to do, you
do want to put the sign ordinance back on, we've pretty much made all the revisions. We've
got some great slides. Talking about some of the issues that you did and that's critical.
Another critical ordinance that we have in place. Unfortunately those things get bumped to
the end and everybody's tired. You've been beat up a little bit and I don't know how to
' accommodate that but you do have a lot that needs action.
1 74
�II
�J
Planning ommission Meeting - May 4, 1994 '
g g Y
Mancino: Can we throw some people off and do the sign ordinance?
Aanenson: I'd like to. ,
Mancino: Because that's as important as Highway 5. '
Farmakes: Can we do another work session? Come in early. ,
Scott: I know the Chamber of Commerce was very active on that.
Aanenson: Right, and when we get this revision we'll get that over to them too. The '
problem is that on the 18th is that we do have the Highway 5 and I want to let you know, in
case any of you wanted to come and listen ... or just refresh your memory. I'd like to have a '
work session on that. Maybe I'll give you a call Joe and show you what's on and if we want
to talk about it. A couple of them, we have the sign for Abra - Goodyear. We tabled this.
I'm not sure if they're going to be able to get it back on. We've got a couple others.
Mission Hills. A big PUD. Preliminary. A big complex plan.
Mancino: I thought we already approved that. I
Aanenson: That was concept. Now it's preliminary ... what we do with the extension of TH
101. Where we are with that so we've got a meeting with Fred and maybe there's some '
issues there that's just not quite ready. We don't have enough knowledge in having TH 101
go forward. We are kind of in peak development so the next agendas are going to be ... but
there's just some staff stuff we want to take care of too. Some ordinance revisions. '
Farmakes: I have a quick procedural question. The City Council, especially Mr. Mason was
pretty perplexed when this issue that we just discussed on the Press came up, as to why it '
was split or why we split it or why we came forward and approved the Press site and not the
conditional use. He expressed that it's highly unusual, da, da, da and we had some confusion
here dealing with this as it was really one approval but it wasn't one approval. It was three '
approvals and admitted that it took us quite a while to figure out how to approve that thing.
Is it their option to bring that forward as three proposals or one proposal or one proposal with
two subsections or? ,
Aanenson: Sure. You can handle them separately. I mean what we've always done is give '
the applicant. If he wants to keep it as one in the next arena and say you know, I want to see
them both together but certainly they can both fly on their own merits. The Press can act
independently of Kindercare if it wants to. 1
75 1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Farmakes: Why then would we group them together? That it's all or nothing.
' Aanenson: That's something we talked about. We looked at Abra Goodyear together. We
can certainly go with one applicant and ... it's the same thing with the PUD when you're
looking at industrial residential. You've got 3 applicants on that.
Farmakes: In that case then, I don't think we should be proactive. I mean that's my opinion.
' We should just approve or deny it like they requested it at City Hall and Council. And I
didn't see a problem with the Press, but hey. If that's what they want, that's their time.
' Aanenson: Well it's not going forward because technically again you haven't had the 60
days so the only thing that's going forward is the Press and the subdivision.
' Farmakes: Right, but we spent a fair amount of time on that and really clouded the issue of
approving the Press expansion. So I mean it may be constructive in providing information as
to why we didn't approve it or why we did approve it. But it kind of, to me I saw a Council
that was confused when.
Mancino: Very confused.
' Farmakes: As to why t was coming u to them with this approval.
Y g P PP
' Aanenson: I'm assuming that the Kindercare is on your next agenda and Dave's going to
look at the traffic things. You still have an opportunity to forward that recommendation.
' That's my understanding.
Scott: Well I think there was a miss, I haven't talked to Mike Mason about this but it
appeared when I was there that they were confused. Some of the Council members thought
that we had something that we weren't supposed to when it was very clear Roger did a very
nice job of saying, it doesn't say you can. It doesn't say you can't. So that was a moot
point. So that was rather interesting.
Aanenson: Yeah, normally just out of courtesy if the applicant wants to keep them both
' together, we keep them both together. He wanted those both considered together and they
both came back.
Farmakes: It was clear to me that Mike considered that to be some procedural tactic on
approval or denial and it had nothing to do with that.
Scott: No, and he also made a comment that, to the effect, and for those of you who were
76
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
�J
also there, this is what I thought. Is that there was somehow something personal about,
remember when he, he was very, I mean he was very concerned and was a bit irritated that ,
we had done this and then he had made the comment that he had hoped that the reason why
we were doing that was nothing personal against the applicant and I just kind of sat back.
Plus the fact, they didn't ask, we were sitting right there. There were four of us. The City '
Council didn't ask. They asked to talk to the developer. But now I supposed we could have
raised our hand and could have gotten up but they did not ask for any input from us. Perhaps
they didn't want any but so I mean it was a rather interesting thing. I'm glad we were able ,
to go there. The four of us were able to be there.
Farmakes: It's the first time that it's happened that I know, since I've been here, and Ladd's '
been here a lot longer. I haven't encountered that before where it was split up and approved
the one and then somehow it was considered to be highly irregular.
Scott: It made sense. '
Conrad: I think it makes sense. I wasn't there. I didn't vote on it but I think it made sense '
to me.
Mancino: I just don't think the developer liked it so the developer didn't like it and got to '
City Council.
Conrad: Theoretically when you have some common driveways and stuff, years ago things ,
came in split and wait a second. You say, staff. Why did you split these up. We don't
understand. Show them all together because they've got shared... So now it isn't to our '
benefit to see things coming in together and you see how they relate. You see how the traffic
relates so it's real valid. I love to have it come in together but I also think it's real valid. I
think the whole thing could have been tabled for the problem. The developer chose to bring '
it together. It was our prerogative. It was your prerogative to table the whole thing. You
were being kind to send the Press through. They don't want it. That's really what you were
doing. Hey, let's show some good will. Let's get the Press going. '
Mancino: But the City Council didn't see that and secondly, not only did they not see that,
but the only reason that they didn't deal with it was procedural. It was not in respect for ,
what the Planning Commission had done, which was even worse. And I don't know why.
Farmakes: It was perceived I think, because there were several comments made about timing.
Timing and delaying. That somehow this was being pigeon holed or delayed to achieve some
purpose and for the life of me I can't imagine what. I mean that wasn't the situation at all.
In fact I believe we asked the applicant in the discussion process, how to address the issue
77 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
I
and when he stood up at City Council and said that we asked them to approve or deny. We
didn't want this at all. I don't remember them coming forward and saying, please don't do
this in the meeting.
' Scott: Well, and then there's also the comment too of, well if we don't get, if you guys don't
approve this by such and such a date, well geez we're not going to be able to build this and
then fall's coming up. It's like their time line, you know anybody can sit down and take a
' look at what the time line is and if you're prudent and you're representing your landowners,
etc, etc, you're going to go well, worst case scenario is it's going to take us this many
months to get this thing going. So worst case scenario, do we want to push it for this year or
' are we looking for next year. So I get pretty irritated when it's kind of like, well this is our
time frame and you better follow it because we've got a building to build. Give me a break.
Conrad: But as long as we have valid reasons for delaying something, that's just, hey there's
no problem. Staff has an obligation to get things to us and we have an obligation to do a
good job. Period. And I think we can be turning things. Yeah we could have turned the
' Press down. I think one flat statement saying, hey. How you make an impact on the City
Council. I'm not sure we do it when we have 30 pages of notes. Seriously. I think the
motion, how do they get a consensus out of 30 pages. Jeff talks and they know where Jeff's
' at. And Nancy's talks and she's different. So what's the consensus of opinion. I think when
you make one flat statement, one motion saying we turned this down for these three reasons,
that is more of a, and if it's a 6 to nothing or 7, 6 to 1 vote on it, that's a real flat statement
' so it's a simple way to come to a conclusion. I don't know how the City Council really
understands where we're at because we do change during the course of a discussion. You
know somebody could be very vehemently against something but votes for it. If you look at
' our Minutes you know so how do they know. How important was that issue that you were
vehemently against because all of a sudden you voted for the whole thing? But I'm not sure
' we're, I don't know. Impact wise, that's what, you've really got to send clear signals to the
City Council and I'm not, I've never been convinced that our Minutes do a good job. I think
when we're in attendance they get a good feel. They get a good feel for where we are and I
' think our motions typically work well when they really show a unanimous perspective of
something and turn downs work a great deal. You know you can struggle to make a positive
statement but you can make, you know we approve this with these 48 exceptions. Well, you
' can really make it a lot easier if you turn it down because the developer gets it. The
developer doesn't want it turned down.
' Farmakes: It didn't work with Market. It didn't work with Charlie's property.
Conrad: Yeah, you're right.
1
' 78
J
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Scott: Well there's I think two ways to do that. One is the role of the Chairperson that after
a motion is passed to be able to say, okay so basically what we're, the message we're sending '
to the City Council is dot, dot, dot, dot. And then the person who is attending the City
Council meeting gets up at the appropriate time during the public hearing and just says, this
is the reason why we did what we did and in your minutes on page such and such. If I can '
just point this out to you... And so it's partially the role of the Chairperson and then the role
of the person who is at the, who goes to the Council meeting.
Farmakes: ... of important issue that that person that's representing won't mind doing that, '
g P P P g
that that would be helpful. Or even in some cases maybe we should send a letter forward to
the elected people so if we feel it's an important issue, sometimes looking at 20 pages of '
dialogue.
Aanenson: We always try to do a Planning Commission update and I think Joe's on the right '
track. If there's something, we always try to raise issues that were maybe addressed...
specific. Or something that was a hot button for you but I think you're on the right track. '
We do a Planning Commission update and then we revise the conditions or put the additional
conditions that you've done so they can clearly see what was added by you. But I think your
recommendation Joe is pretty good. If you wanted to at the end make sure that we put in '
that update specific points because we put that right before they see the recommendation.
Planning Commission update. On this date they heard and these seemed to be the big issues
and we've added 6 more conditions. But if you want to do something like that so they see it I
right there.
Scott: Yeah, well I get their packet and you know we're one of several commissions that '
they have to deal with so I mean, everybody wants to quick read and I think that's something
that we need to do for them so they can get our intent in a very short period of time.
Aanenson: Right the Minutes, they're verbatim.
Mancino: But it would be helpful for the Planning Commissioner who's going to that City '
Council meeting, to get the packet and look through it and say you know, to get up and to
give a short summary of what we decided at the meeting from the Minutes.
Scott: Now that we've beaten that to death. Can I have a motion to adjourn? ,
Mancino moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the '
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson '
79 1
�I
Planning Conunission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Planning Director
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
' 80
1
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 1994
The City Council and Park and Recreation Commission met at 5:30 p.m. at the Lake Ann
Park Shelter for an Arbor Day Ceremonial Tree Planting and then back to the Council
Chambers for a joint meeting.
Chairman Andrews called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Dave Huffman, Jim Andrews, Jim Manders, Jane Meger
and Fred Berg
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Roeser
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Supervisor and Dawn Lemme, Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meger moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Park and Recreation Commission dated March 22, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Andrew Olson: I'm Andrew Olson, 1890 West Lake Court and m concern is parkland
Y P
immediately... on CR 17. There are holding ponds being developed there and ... as far as runoff
' water and they're getting silt washed into the creek that runs into Lake Susan and getting
more sediment in there. I've got some pictures if you'd like to see it but it's just the barriers
that are up are being washed away or ... is doing absolutely nothing as far as preserving the
grassland down there.
Andrews: Okay. I think if you would give that to Todd, that'd be something we'd refer to
City Engineering Todd?
' Hoffman: Correct. Yeah, they can take a look at those. I've been following that. Jasper
Development is building a townhome development there at the entrance to the Lake Susan
Hills and when they came in their holding pond is located to the north, next to Lake Susan
' Community Park. There's some open space which is in there which acts as a buffer directly
to the creek At that time, in speaking with Mr. Jasper and meeting with engineering and the
applicant and planning staff, I voiced a very strong concern about the runoff which would
occur there throughout the development of the property and they assured us that that would
be taken care of. I've watched the problems, as Mr. Olson has over the last month or so.
c!
1
I've documented in letters...memo back up to planning and engineering. Schoell and Madson
specifically who does the on site visits, site inspections of the projects which are...city.
They've ... what I can see in two subsequent phases of bolstering or reefing up the erosion
control that's there but it's still failing. Not doing the job. There is a silt delta which is
being graded. It does not have me in a very good mood either. So I did a follow -up with
engineering. Dave Hempel will be speaking to the Watershed to talk about what corrective
measures should be taken for the damage which has occurred. Should we be taking the silt
back out of there? Would that do more damage than good? All of those type of things so it
has been an ongoing problem and one...
Andrews: Okay. That item will be handled then. Are there any other visitor presentations at
this time? Seeing none, let's move on to item 3.
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.95 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH
VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF A WETLAND; AND VACATION OF
RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED ON MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED SOUTH OF SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE LANE,
NEUMANN SUBDIVISION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dean Erickson
Paul Prenevost
Mike & Sue Faulk
Olive W. Neumann
Arnold & Anne Weimerskirch
Art Johnsen
Harry D. Peters
Ken Adolf
Chuck Rosenberger
Jim Josin
2762 Piper Ridge Lane
6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive
2791 Piper Ridge Lane
2841 Sandpiper Trail
2831 Sandpiper Trail
Johnsen - Bormes, Realtors, Deephaven
18800 Ridgewood Road, Deephaven
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
2772 Piper Ridge Lane
3890 Maple Shores Drive
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: I'd like to ask the applicant if he or she would like to tell us more about this
development. Please step forward and proceed to do that.
Arnold Weimerskirch: My name is Arnold Weimerskirch. I'm Mrs. Neumann's son -in -law
and Mrs. Neumann has owned this property for 60 years. It's been in her hands all that time
and it has been a rural area. Gradually taxes kept going up and I think we've now
approached the time when we decided it's time to develop the property. We have had the
F�
1
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g -AP ril 26 1994
engineering firm of Schoell and Madson do the preliminary plat for us. We've looked at all
of the wetland regulations and all the ordinances in effect and think we have a good ,
comprehensive plan...
Andrews: Do you have any other comments you'd like to make? ,
Arnold Weimerskirch: No, not from me. Anybody else? ,
Andrews: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to step forward and make
any comment? Again, as Todd had mentioned, our body here is considering the park and '
recreation aspects of this. We really have no input whatsoever on wetland mitigation or
suitability issues here. If you would like to step forward and make any comments that would
help us about our park and recreation decisions, please come forward, state your name and '
make your comments. Okay. If at any time later during our discussion you wish to step
forward, please do so. We'll just take any comments that there may be here on the
commission here. Let's start with Fred.
Berg: I have very little to say. It seems to me to be very straight forward.
Andrews: Okay, Jim.
Manders: Same view. I really don't have a comment.
Andrews: I also agree. This looks like a simple issue. Any other?
Huffman: Pass it on. '
Andrews: Okay, is there a motion to take action? I
Berg: So moved.
Andrews: And y our motion is? '
Berg: That we recommend that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the City ,
Council that they accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in
lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One -third of the park'and trail cash '
contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The
balance calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issue. And the
rate in effect for residential single family property when the building permit is issued minus
the amount previously paid.
I'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
Andrews: Is there a second to that?
Lash: I'll second.
' Andrews: Okay. Any more discussion?
Berg moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to
' the City Council that they accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Neumann
Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and /or trail construction. One -third of the
park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the
' subdivision plat. The balance calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building
permits are issue. And the rate in effect for residential single family property when the
building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid. Current residential single
' family park and trail fee rates are $900.00 and $300.00 per home, respectively. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' Andrews: Item number 4 on our agenda was an update of the comprehensive plan. That
item has been pulled which brings us to item 5.
PROGRAM REPORTS:
' A. ADULT BASKETBALL LEAGUE EVALUATION.
Ruegemer: I'll just go through each one real briefly. As we're coming obviously to the end
of our fall and winter activities... evaluations. This year we had 12 teams again on our adult
basketball program. That really involved... until we get the new school site in 1995. Right
now with our limited facilities in District #112 and some other locations, we're really limited
on the number of teams that we can put into our program. Basically the leagues were ... and
there's always some comments on the officials and everything else and we kind of have to
roll with the punches on that one and everybody's opinion is different on quality of officials.
What I try to do on a yearly basis is try to ... and try to emphasis consistency to our officials
and that's about all we can do. But we need to look at that on an annual basis. There's just
some other general comments. Some of the evaluations that did come back...so basically
' what I'm going to do is kind of open it up to if anybody had any questions of all the leagues.
I think everything is pretty straight forward with the evaluations and that. We made some
revenue...makes us happy and helps us in our self supporting budgets so we're quite happy
with that. So if there's any questions I'll entertain those at this time.
Berg: I've got a couple. First of all, who are the officials you're using? Where are you
getting them from?
4
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g -AP ril 26 1994
Ruegemer: We're getting them through either returning officials that we had last year. We '
ran ads in the papers. Called different neighboring communities. If there's anybody looking
to pick up some games. A lot of the officials that we had are officiating high school.
They're officiating junior college. It's just when you get down in that, this type of a
recreational league, a lot of the players are old frustrated jocks that don't have what they used
to have and a lot of that is ... and some of the officials are getting to where we need to take a
look at too as far as some are a little bit wise... ,
Berg: That was a comment made by an awful lot of the officials on the teams. Try to be
consistent. ,
Ruegemer: ...consistency more than anything else. As far as try to talking to the officials
and try to say—don't T up anybody just because. You know try to have some sympathy '
maybe to a certain degree. You don't have to have somebody in your face.
Berg: Second question. This basketball referring association, would they provide officials
and what would the cost be?
Ruegemer: The approximate cost in that would be about $18.00 per game per official and I
was paying $16.00 this year per game per official so that would see a slight increase in the
fees but I think if we try to balance that out over my staff time that I had involved with,
because Dawn can contest to this, about every week, it's either Monday or Tuesday or they
call me up Wednesday morning, I can't make it for tonight and that was a major headache to
try to find somebody at that last minute. That puts some additional pressure on myself in
trying to get that ... I have quite a few contacts with officials now but it's hard to somebody to '
come in when you call them that day. And to come in for that night so that's just another
way that we can, we can take advantage of the service that can be provided to us you know
and that would free up by time and could concentrate on other...
Berg: You might get a little better caliber of official too if they had an association that they
had to be accountable to.
Ruegemer: We've done that in the past and I've gotten away from that about 2 years ago. I
wanted to lower the cost of the basketball fees but. i
Lash: But that extra $2.00 might really cut back on the amount of flack you're taking. From '
the comments that I read, in fact there was just about every sheet somebody was complaining
about the officiating.
Berg: Right. And a lot of them were the same complaints.
L
Fj
i
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
Ruegemer: Right, and really there isn't any indication you know, if you look at the
evaluations. Yeah, the referees, you know I never received a phone call all basketball season.
Huffman: What are the ages of the players in this league?
Ruegemer: It goes from 18 -19'to the youngest all the way through 45. So there's a broad
range of people and all those people are...
Berg: Third question. I'm convinced there's a growing need for this. Has there been any
thought to adding a women's division?
Ruegemer: I haven't really had a whole lot of phone calls about that. With the growing
industry in town and that, it's certainly something we could take a look at.
Berg: I'd like to see us put out some sort of informational flier. Something that if we can
get the women involved too. They've been playing basketball now for 15 years. There's a
lot of women out there I think who would take advantage of this.
Andrews: At least put out, if interested contact us. I guess I want to make one comment too
about the cost of higher quality officials. You mentioned it's $16.00 versus $18.00. The
surplus of this program would easily cover that cost increase without a fee increase. I guess I
think we ought to try to do that.
Ruegemer: That's really what I try to do throughout the course of the, you know I try to
maintain a fee for 3 years. That's kind of my magic goal is to try to maintain a fee in any of
the programs, whether it's for adult softball, adult basketball, for 3 years and try to kind of
cover that so it's consistent. So people aren't... constantly hopping up every year. It seems to
work out really well as far as for the softball leagues and everything and I think people are
used to seeing, that's kind of a useful tool too that the fees that are maintaining the same. I
think people feel a lot better about the programs too so we can certainly take a look at that
for next year.
Manders: Just a couple of comments. Your games are at the elementary here?
Ruegemer: No. The games are at the Chaska Middle School and the Community Center
down in Chaska.
Manders: So they're tied in with Chaska, okay.
Ruegemer: Yeah, it's a combined league between Chanhassen and Chaska but I am kind of
0
,
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g -AP ril 26, 1994
coordinating the league.
'
Andrews: Let's move on to the Easter ro
P Sr' am.
B. EASTER PROGRAM EVALUATIONS.
'
Ruegemer: We're adding a program this year. Just for the calls that we received, I think
everybody was very pleased with the program. I did receive at least 3 phone calls and letters
,
that were just happier than all get out that we, that this program was offered. The looks on
these kids faces was just very rewarding when I hopped to the door and ... so that's personal
testimony right there. And it was really well worth it and I even received a couple carrots
,
and the whole deal so it worked out great. As I said in the report, the memo said that we did
offer two time slots this year. By far our morning session was the most popular. I think with
nap time and everything getting in there. We had 40 -41 baskets delivered in the morning
'
session and the remaining in the second half of the day. Total, I guess the numbers are here.
45 in the morning and 26 in the afternoon. We did over 71 baskets, 72 baskets this year.
For a first year program, I think that was very well received and we're definitely going to
'
offer this program next year and I can see us expanding our maximums too for each ... but I
think in going through our pilot year here, we really got a feel for it and what we can do.
'
And a lot of, some of the homes that we had gone to were a daycare facility. So we were
doing 6 to 8 baskets per household so that really picks up our ... but yet that isn't any
additional stops. So we can really add more into that and maybe possibly expand the time.
'
Meger: That was a question that someone had asked me. If there was any thought to
expanding the times for those parents that aren't there during this time.
,
Ruegemer: Maybe go in the morning earlier and then later on in the afternoon?
'
Meger: Yeah.
Ruegemer: Sure. We can take a look at that. I think we gained a lot of experience going
'
through our first year.
,
n a can of worms but going to a daycare too. As long as everybody
Lash: This could open g g y g ry Y of g
one. But say like 2 of the kids did not get one on...
Ruegemer: That happened this year as far as a daycare had called up and asked if they could
bring in a basket because some of the parents that were at the daycare didn't want to spend
the $5.00 to give a basket to have their kids get one when everybody else did so the daycare
'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
provider did bring a basket of goodies in and I delivered a huge basket of something that they
' could divide up so, you have to be concerned about that. We also carry an extra basket in
case ... as a department we would be happy to pay for that just to have some kid be happy.
' Lash: I think for $5.00, that's a great deal.
Ruegemer: You know for $5.00 it wasn't a whole lot of money to pay for the basket. That
' thing was jam packed with goodies and programs in the sidewalk shop and bubbles and all
the items that kids really like.
Manders: Maybe I just glossed over that because I don't have any kids but was there much
publicity on this or was it in the paper or how did?
Ruegemer: Yeah, paper, newsletter...
Andrews: Word of mouth on this will be what will make it grow.
Ruegemer: That's exactly what's going to happen. When they saw the big furry bunny
hopping through the neighborhood, boy that's going to spread like wildfire next year.
Lash: You're going to be doing it Monday thru Friday.
Ruegemer: Dawn said she's going to hop around next year so unless we get a commission
member, and we get a bigger suit too ... And like Todd did say ... seniors. We're really starting
to really use our seniors now as far as, they've helped us out tremendously on putting grass
in baskets and putting the different, sorting out candy and also they helped us a great deal on
this and we really couldn't have done it without them so we'd like to get them involved and
really a lot of the programs are vital ... for our program. They're great to have around.
Meger: You could probably grab a Polaroid camera—and hop along with that. Okay, now
the bunny's here...
Ruegemer: Video cam and lots of pictures so it worked out nice. Any other additional
questions on that? It will be continuing again next year so.
C. ARBOR DAY ACTIVITIES.
Lemme: Thank you. This is our next event coming up this weekend and basically the
information that I included in your report with the publicity items furnished by the Arboretum
and ... local paper and also some schools on all events going on for Arbor Day and we expect a
8
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g -AP ril 26 1994
good turnout. Friday is the free tree give away at the Chanhassen Seniors Mens Club will be
doing that over in front of Festival Foods ... If you have any questions or suggestions. '
D. PARK PRIDE DAY. '
Ruegemer: Thank you Jim. Our annual Park Pride Day is going to be this coming Saturday,
April 30th. We have groups already lined up and ready to go to clean our different
Chanhassen parks. So we're getting some response on that. We're going to be meeting up at r
City Hall here on the east side at 9:00 a.m. and coming to distribute bags and that type of
thing and then the groups then will go out to their parks and have a 2 1/2 hours to clean their '
parks and bring all their garbage and refuse back to City Hall and we'll have a city dump
truck and that type of thing to collect the refuse and take care of all that for them. Then
we're going to have a free hot dog lunch with refreshments. I'm sure Jan can appreciate the
little comment in there. That was intended for you. Then we're going to have a free hot dog
lunch from 11:45 to 1:00. Park Pride volunteers will receive a special prizes and we're also
going to purchase a tree that can be planted in any location that they would like to in one of '
our parks and that can kind of their tree that they can take care of and kind of have a special
bond I guess from year to year with that so.
Lash: Is it really necessary for them to bring all the trash back. '
Manders: That's what I was going to ask. I
Lash: ...don't all the parks have garbage cans?
Ruegemer: Actually we have a contest. Whoever collects the most refuse is the winner for '
special prizes or we're going to be giving away door prizes too.
Lash: Like what kind of prizes? '
Ruegemer: Excuse me. '
Lash: What kind of prizes are you going to be giving away?
Ruegemer: We're going to be giving away Arbor Day T -shirts and sweatshirts and hats away '
to kind of promote Arbor Day with that too. So we're looking forward to it. It should be a
good turn out and hopefully the rain will hold out for us on Saturday and we're looking
forward to it. I
9 1
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
Andrew Olson: Are you taking tires on that day too? These are tires that are in the creek
' that goes through into Lake Susan. I have my waiters ... and pull them up. But there's tires,
they get thrown in from the highway and they get washed down.
' Ruegemer: Yeah, we'll take those.
Lemme: Or they can be brought out to public works that day.
' Ruegemer: Oh that's right. They are doing that type of a waste clean up and drop off down
at the city public works that they do with appliances and that type of thing.
' Lash: Do you know where that is?
' Andrew Olson: Yes.
Ruegemer: So if you would like, if you wouldn't mind doing that, we're be more than happy
' to ... for that.
Andrews: Can he qualify for the prize?
Andrew Olson: All the stuff blowing off of Jasper Development is blowing into the park too.
' Ruegemer: Okay. We just had a group go through, Lake Susan you're referring to?
' Andrew Olson: It's right along the Jasper Development. The high winds, we had a storm the
past few days has made a difference. I mean it hasn't been common. But they're getting
more stuff in there now.
Ruegemer: Is that on the south side of the park? Okay, we'll get somebody else in there that
can take care of that too and we did have ... they just came in last week at Lake Ann and Lake
Susan to clean up as part of the—the Governor's Task Force. Kind of a program to clean up
both of our major community parks here last week so we'll get somebody else there to take
care of some of that blowing debris.
Berg: Is there going to be an attempt to keep the garbage separate from recyclable items?
Ruegemer: I always try to do that as far as pick through. We do that in the parks as well
but we make an effort to do that.
Lash: Is Greenwood Shores, is that spoken for yet?
10
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994 1
Ruegemer: No.
Lash: I'll round up a crew to get that one. Which one's haven't been, just out of curiosity? '
Ruegemer: Rice Marsh has been. Down there ... but the Hidden Valley Trail. Rice Marsh '
Park. Meadow Green is spoken for. We're going to be doing the Bandimere Community.
Those are ones that are spoken for. Lake Ann and Lake Susan are already done but if we can
get another group over there ... So yeah, if you'd like to do... '
E. ADULT SOFTBALL LEAGUES.
Ruegemer: Is everybody, basically what this is just kind of an FYI for you as far as what's
going to be happening now in our adult softball league for the season. A lot of teams elected ,
to extend their season to play more games in at the end. I think that's going to be very
receptive for the teams and what I did was break those down per night of the week and how '
many teams were in each league. Total of 68 teams this year, which were increased from last
year. Really the most significant increase was in the co -rec. Last year we had 11 teams.
This year we're going to have 16 so that was a very nice surprise. Some additional revenue I
for us. That makes up now for some of the declining programs in...Wednesday has pretty
much maintained the same amount. That helps us also in any additional revenue that we can
get is welcomed, that's for sure. Is there any questions anybody has on the softball? I'll flip '
the tape here real quick and maybe you can keep firing them at me.
Lash: ...what does that mean? I
Ruegemer: That is a member of the softball. Now as they're going down like in year's past
they've used like the kit ball, which is the 16 inch ball. Then for a while there they went to
the 14 inch ... ball and that didn't really catch on but now everybody's going down to the 11
and 12 inch. That program is just taking over the State right now and it's, in fact that's the
State Tournament that we're going to hold out here is going to be ... State C Tournament for '
that August 26th through the 28th out at Lake Ann here. We're going to host that tournament
so it's really taking off and with that league out here, they can use the, the men can use
softball as well as in the past they could use a 16 inch, the males did not use gloves and the '
females did. In this program now, it's really, I think it's going to be a lot better because it
gives people more of an opportunity to get the ball here ... It's kind of hard to do. It's really
more fair across the league as far as people getting the competition ... and it's really a nice '
way. I'm glad we're getting additional teams.
Manders: How much demand beyond space. I mean you've got enough space for all of this
11 1
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
obviously. Do you have a lot more demand than you have space to accommodate?
' Ruegemer: Just for an example Jim. I did have to decline people under the Monday nights.
I had probably 18 or 19 teams total so I had to, probably 2 to 3 teams could not get in
' Monday nights. I could have added more on Thursday night. Friday night, I maxed out at
now. Thursday night I'm maxed out at and Monday I'm maxed out on so, we looked at
possibly doing like a Sunday night league but that really didn't bite. A lot of people didn't
want to get into that. This year. But for years coming up we certainly see doing things on
the weekends and whether that would be officiated or not officiated, we can certainly use the
carpet, which is a carpet that's placed in back of home plate. If the ball hits that on a pitch,
' the carpet, then that's a strike so it's a way to offer play without officials. So that might
be—getting officials on weekends is somewhat tough so we can certainly take a look at those
options when we cross that bridge. So really, I know some of the teams were a little bit
upset that they didn't get in. Some of the teams had been playing out here for 5 or 6 years
but ... I'm sorry. We fill up really quick these days so maybe that's a lesson they can learn in
future years. But an additional plug for, I know we keep looking at youth complexes and that
' type of thing. We either need to take a look at acquiring additional parkland for some adult
fields or possibly take a look at purchasing some lights for the fields and expanding the
leagues if we can. So just a little plug... Does anybody have any questions regarding
softball?
Lash: Well just as an example when you talk about lights. On Monday nights you've got,
' are all 16 teams playing every Monday night?
Ruegemer: Yes.
Lash: And so you already have them back to back, don't you?
Ruegemer: Right.
Lash: Or is there a game on every field?
Ruegemer: Right. We're playing at 6:10 and 7:20 on every field Monday nights. It just, for
' your example. On Thursday night too I eliminated some teams in there allowing for more
youth activities on Field #1 so the baseball program for the 13 to 16 year old range so I did
cut back a little bit on that. Really Lake Ann #1 and Lake Ann #2 are solely dedicated now
for youth activities so that seems to be working out well. Those are going 6 to 7 days a
week... Any additional questions on softball?
' F. SUMMER PLAYGROUND /SUPER EVENTS SCHEDULE.
1 12
7
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994 '
Lemme: I believe you probably saw the Summer Discovery playground schedule on the last
administrative packet. It maybe has changed a little bit since then. I just wanted to include it '
so you would know ... this is strictly informational. To let you know what's going on with
the ... areas in the summer. They're popular programs. And the Wing Dings, which int he
past have been over at the Elementary School, obviously we're kicked out of there as '
well ... but we'll try our best.
Andrews: How tight are you on age limits here? If we have siblings where we're a couple '
months older or a couple months under on an age limit on some of these programs, is that a
huge problem?
Lemme: I usually ell people, I don't check birth certificates and if we have problems with a ,
Y P P � P
child, I'd say it usually would be someone sending a 3 year old and that child's not socialized '
to the point that they can do the activities with the 4 year old's. We usually catch onto that.
We would talk with parents and the parents would ... If it doesn't work, then they usually ... but
as long as they can deal with the activities. I do also tell people though the activities are
planned for that age group so if there's problems with age appropriateness and your child is
either below the age or above the age, that's probably, you're going to see that.
Andrews: Okay, thank you. '
Lash: And Jerry ... so would that be like 12 thru 15 or something like that? ,
Ruegemer: Yes, a little bit older.
Lash: Okay, but didn't you have like Beaver Mountain and what else was it? '
Ruegemer: I'm going to Trout Air in Forest Lake now for the St. Croix canoe trip. I
Lash: Because some of these, like the wave pool ... in-line skating, like those things.
Ruegemer: I just try to expand and do different things. We like to try new things and see
what kind of response that we do get and these seem appropriate and we're going to give it a
try. See what happens with that. '
Lemme: If we've had 12 year olds that want to go on the super events ... since they were 7, I
usually give those people, I write their name and their phone number down and if I still have '
openings on the trip ... and then I'll call people and say, I've still got openings. Send them
along.
13 1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
Andrews: Any other comments? Let's move to item 6.
I ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS CONTRACT.
Ruegemer: In the past we've used Banner Fireworks now for the last 3 or 4 years since I've
' been here for the 4th of July and now we've also included them into the February Festival.
They always have done an excellent job and they comply with all safety rules and regulations
and I would like to use them again now for this year's 4th of July Celebration. This year is
' our 10th Anniversary of our 4th of July Celebration. As part of that I would like to increase
the fireworks. Last year we were at $7,000.00, including insurance and sales tax. This year
it's recommended or requested I guess that if we could raise that amount ... $10,422.00 range
to cover a longer show, a little bit more creative and a little bit more energetic I guess for the
show. I believe that this increase would be very well worth it to our residents. I know that
we're very well held in high regard as having really one of the best shows in the southern
area. Southwest metropolitan area and I know that this could really give us a good boost, a
shot in the arm. That really could add to our premiere event. Using something ... on an annual
basis. The increase in this amount was approved as far as the 1994 budget process, so if
' you're wondering if the increase is not covered, it certainly is. And also with revenues
collected through our sponsorship program we can help offset the increase on the fireworks as
well. So staff's recommendation is for the Park and Recreation Commission to approve the
' fireworks display contract with Banner Fireworks Display Company in the amount of
$10,422.50.
Andrews: Is there anybody that's against that? Can we have a motion then to make that
official?
' Lash: I would move that we accept that contract with Banner Fireworks Display Company in
the amount of $10,422.50.
' Berg: Second.
I
Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission. approve the
fireworks display contract with Banner Fireworks Display Company in the amount of
$10,422.50. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
I Andrews: Just as long as we have some of those big boomers. Those are the ones I like.
14
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g -AP ril 26, 1994
Ruegemer: We like boomers too.
B. 1994 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARKS ASSOCIATION CONGRESS ,
MINNEAPOLIS, OCTOBER 12 -15.
Hoffman: I'm �g Y encourage just to start in earl to a either all of the entire commission or '
g
individual members of the commission to join us down at the National Recreation and Parks
Association Congress in Minneapolis this October 12th thru 15th. It's not only a good time
but it certainly is the ultimate in networking availability with other states. Other Park and
Recreation Commission members. See what they're doing. See how they're getting money
out of their City Council's so we can come back here and really get back at the... Mark it on ,
your calendars. If you can work it into your schedule, just let me know which days you
would like to attend and we'll coordinate that. '
Andrews: When are teacher conventions? Aren't they right about then?
Berg: That's what I was wondering. Yeah, it's pretty close to that. ,
Ruegemer: Oh MEA? '
Berg: Yes.
Hoffman: There's an interesting statistic on the back when it talks about Minneapolis. They '
have 1,253 parks. An acre of parkland for every resident where we talk about 1 acre for
every 75 residents.
Andrews: Who has an acre for every?
Hoffman: The City of Minneapolis. '
Andrews: Alright so are you, are you going to be looking for attendees here in probably '
what, in September? For some commitments there.
Hoffman: Yep. '
Andrews: Okay. Keep us posted on that then. '
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
Andrews: Are there any commission member presentations? I have two. Both of mine came '
15 1
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
about as a result of tonight's meeting. One is that we must have an agenda for next year's
' joint meeting. I felt that we were not able to state our cause well enough as far as our needs
for funding and a more aggressive approach by not having an agenda so I think we need to
do that. The second point is that Todd, you talked about equipment storage, in particular for
' the new school site. Is that where you were referring to? That needs to get on a short track
agenda so we can try to catch that during construction. I think we'll get our best deal then.
So that's it for me.
' Hoffman: ...submitted the plans that are made up. I didn't get a chance to talk about it but
it's about a $150,000.00 building. It's not part of the original program so the budget is
' coming in good. We'll be able to finance it under the current budget. If they do not, they
spent a lot of extra money, I was going to be looking to the Legion and the Lion's Club. In
speaking with Don Ashworth and Todd Gerhardt, the tax increment district looks like it
' certainly would be able to handle this $150,000.00 expenditure so that would be my
recommendation back to the commission and it should be your... recommendation then to City
Council. Because without it, we're just ... 90% of the way.
Andrews: I have two uestions. One would
q be, are we getting into a problem of siting a city
owned piece of building on district owned property?
Hoffman: No.
Andrews: This would be on the other side then from the property line?
Hoffman: Correct. This would be on the city, within the city property. The site plan and as
you know, this is the community parking lot, community entrance. This would be a focal
point as you drive down. You would be looking straight ahead and it would be right in that
central location.
Lash: And is one side storage and the other side a warming house or I don't get what you're
really saying.
Hoffman: They're two matching cubes. One twisted at a 45. One would be the open, one
for the open picnic shelter area. One would be the warming house and then this ... would pick
up the storage, restrooms, the concession area.
Lash: So the storage ... on the north side?
Hoffman: Yep. On the north side. Not nearly as big as we'd like. We've seen that the
original storage room consumed all of that but the mechanics, etc, etc.
U
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g -AP ril 26, 1994
Andrews: Is there any grade here that would allow us to put like a below grade, just rough
equipment storage? You know a steel garage type door. Just jam the field equipment in ,
there, whatever because this looks pretty small for servicing such a large outdoor complex for
city needs.
Hoffman: Below grade I thuilc would be cumbersome. We can see what we can do as far as. ,
Andrews: It'd be kind of like a walkout type of an approach. '
Lash: Like a tuck under? ,
Andrews: Yeah, like a tuck under of some sort. It's cheap. It's out of sight. This doesn't
look like it has any storage room and we're going to have. ,
Lash: Well now won't the school district have to have lawn mowers and stuff?
Hoffman: That won't be on site, no. And we won't store lawn mowers there. It will almost
totally be dedicated to the associations which are using the fields.
Lash: Well you're going to need equipment locations and goals and flags and striping '
equipment and that kind of stuff.
Hoffman: I'll talk to HG tomorrow and see what we can do with either expanding that one
or looking at a below grade.
Lash: Lake Ann is not too far away either for some of that stuff.
Andrews: No but I mean if you're running a soccer tournament or a baseball tournament, 1
you want the stuff there. That's, and to spend an extra thousand or two to tack on a little
rough space on this thing is much better than to have to build another building to service the
property later on so. '
Berg: Somebody will inevitably not return it where it's supposed to be and it will just get
left there too.
Andrews: Just a point. Jan, you had some items? '
Lash: Yeah I did. I have a couple of things. First of all I had a request, through a coach,
for the 12 -13 year old league and they, I guess they had requested that the equipment that's '
used for that league, that's now over at Lake Susan, that be moved to Lake Ann and they
17 f
C
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
were told that that couldn't happen. That the batting cage and something else, I can't
remember now what it was. Was it a pitching machine?
Ruegemer: Yeah, there is a pitching machine...
Lash: At Lake Ann?
Ruegemer: At Lake Susan.
Lash: At Lake Susan. Okay. Anyway they wanted to know if they could move those things
over to Lake Ann since the league is playing there and they said that the answer was no. So
I was supposed to pitch it again tonight and see, at least why. If there's a really good reason
or what the deal is, do you know?
Hoffman: Well the pitching machines are obviously portable. They could take those
wherever they want them. I've had a couple of conversations on at least 2 or 3 occasions
with Jack Jenson about putting an additional batting cage at Lake Ann and either that takes an
action by the Park and Recreation Commission to fund the thing or it takes a firm
commitment by the Athletic Association to buy it and approach the Park Commission to put
the thing in there. We simply can't at a staff level say, go ahead and we'll drag the thing
over there and move it ... It's an addition of another physical amenity to put in the park and
that certainly has to be discussed at a Park and Recreation Commission level. So I don't
know if Jerry has closed the door but I have never closed the door.
Ruegemer: No, I haven't either. I think that's still open for discussion. Like Todd said,
Jack has approached us a couple different times. I think that needs to be brought up maybe
as an agenda item.
1
1
Hoffman: One area they talked about was behind Field #2. A field which the fence was
moved in and we sat down and drew it out on a map. It doesn't fit in that location so again,
at first blush I can't identify another spot which would be appropriate for a batting cage at
Lake Ann. So if the commission, as commission members if you, down at Lake Susan it
makes a lot of sense to go off to the field lines and it's kind of out of the way. At Lake
Ann, there's not a lot of flat spaces.
Lash: So the one at Lake Susan, is that a city owned one or CAA owned?
Ruegemer: That was purchased and operated by the CAA.
Lash: Okay. So if they could come up with a spot at Lake Ann that it would fit and be
18
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g -AP ril 26, 1994
functional, does that seem to be what the problem is? Is that we just don't have the spot for ,
it or what do you think?
Ruegemer: That's really one of the key elements. More is, like Todd said, if back of Field '
#2. Now we do have irrigation back there now and we have to be concerned about with
digging in the future but we could expand those zones back into the other areas. So like
Todd was referring to, there really isn't a whole lot of flat space in there or around Lake Ann '
any more to put that. Because those are about 12 feet wide and 60 feet long so that is maybe
the area I guess ... we can certainly take a look at that.
Lash: So if they wanted to move the pitching machines over there, could they be stored? ,
Ruegemer: I just found out today that CAA's buying an additional 3 pitching machines this
year with 3 generators so that might take some of that pressure off. They have the pitching
machine over there because the batting cage was there and they could sign up on Saturdays
and go use that. '
Lash: But if they wanted to store something at Lake Ann, can they store them at Lake Ann?
Ruegemer: We can certainly take a look at it. I know we'd probably need an additional
couple of storage boxes out there but we can, you know by no means at a staff level did we
reject any offers of doing that because we're certainly open to helping out the association in
any way we can.
Lash: Okay. So I'm just going to suggest that they talk to you guys directly and if it needs
to come back to the commission, that it will be put on the agenda then?
Ruegemer: Yes. I
Lash: Okay, thanks. Alright and then the other thing was, while we were at our meeting Jim
gave me, Jim's idea and the more I thought about it, the more I thought it was something we ,
should take and run with. When you're talking about trying to raise more money for your
funds, your recreational fund each year, maybe it's something, I'm not saying it be a fee
assessed but maybe it's...developers when they come in, that we see that Lundgren Bros was i
generous enough to make a ... contribution this year. That we would look favorably on
developers who ... but we would appreciate contributions from developers for our recreational
fund.
Andrews: It could be a gold, silver or platinum developer. I
19 t
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
Lash: It could be done. I mean if it's $100.00 or $500.00 or whatever. You know it doesn't
1 have to be.
Andrews: They should be offered the opportunity.
' Hoffman: That opportunity to approach them comes at every City Council meeting when
they're up to approve a new grocery store in town because the stand up and the first words
1 out of their mouth are, or fast food restaurant is, we're community minded. We love to be
community citizens.
' Lash: Maybe we should just have a fund. Right there...
Andrews: Which level of citizen would you like to be?
Lash: Right. But that's certainly a way of in to increase our funds.
g Y Y trying
Hoffman: We'll put them on the mailing list.
' Lash: And I was wondering on a couple of things. If we need to dredge up a couple of old
issues. Number one I know, and I can't remember if it's spring or fall, but mosquito control.
That's something we're supposed to be reviewing annually isn't it?
r Hoffman: Yeah, in the fall and I don't know if there's an automatic kick in to review it or
not. I'll have to take a look at last year's motion.
' Lash: Okay. And also the fees at Lake Ann, I don't recall having that lengthy discussion
again this year. A councilmember brought that up.
i Berg: We did that at the budget meeting didn't we?
' Lash: Did we? I don't know. Maybe it wasn't as long as usual so I don't remember it.
And we did breeze over the discussion on the pedestrian bridge tonight and you know, is that
something we wanted to do intentionally?
Hoffman: Have...
' Lash: Yes.
Hoffman: No, not intentionally.
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g -AP ril 26, 1994
Andrews: It's a done issue isn't it?
Hoffman: Yeah. The Mayor today at the State of the City address said it's going to be u
Y Y tY g g P
and built by the fall of 1994. '
Andrews: At the cement site so. Dave must have done a lot of arm twisting on that one.
Huffman: No, it's a dead duck. I mean it was a dead deal. Yeah, it was set and done and
long gone. Pick and choose your spots.
Hoffman: It's something where we need, you know different commissions have different '
agendas in the city and the HRA put that into a priority stage and looked at that funding.
The matching funding favorably... originally intended. I certainly hope it's ... it's one of our
connection points we're looking at. We're looking at two others to the west. At Lake Ann
and farther out at the new school.
Andrews: When we talk about large budget items, so many of these are funded by I guess '
what I'll call creative financing through either tax increment or other methods, that perhaps
we should nudge the City Council into somehow finding a way to expand a tax district to go '
around Bandimere Park. Because that might be one of the only ways we're ever going to get
enough money to do anything with it. I notice they just created a tax district that just
coincidentally runs right along where the proposed TH 101 trail could go someday so they do '
have the authority and the power to do that. It might be something we could plant for action
for the future. As our commercial development goes along here, and it's not going to be too
long before we lose that opportunity. In fact very shortly actually, so maybe that's something '
we could have them do.
Manders: I guess I had a couple things I wanted to bring up. One was related to our field
trip that we want on and the idea of similar activities that we've conducted in Chanhassen. I
believe last year we went out to a few site inspections. It seems to me we need to do more
of that. I personally like it and you get more of a hands on feel for what things are like out
there and if it's, I mean I realize that we can go out and look at parks and things on our own
if we're interested but I think when issues come out, that we can go out as a group and get
it ... I think that's great. r
Lash: You know I can think back on, especially the Herman Field project and when that was '
nearing completion we took a little field trip and we've been there before. I think it was
done maybe we went after completion and it makes you feel good. There's a sense of '
closure on some of these things and you feel like you've finally accomplished something. It
21 1
I
J
1
I I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
kind of helps keep us going to actually see something.
Andrews: Yeah, it does get discouraging sometimes. You feel like you're just never getting
anywhere. It is like Jan says, it's just nice to see a project get done like that. One that you
were here when it started and here when it's done and there aren't too many that we can say
that for.
Lash: Like Pheasant Hills would be a nice one.
Hoffman: We're back into that field trip season so we'll do more of those.
Lash: One thing that just popped into my head. Another comment Jim made ... I think for the
benefit of all of us, and especially the newer commissioners, to have a discussion on PUD's
and the impact that they have and that we can have on that needs to be discussed so that
everybody's brought up to speed. And then when it is a PUD and it's on the agenda, maybe
it needs to be a little reminder to everybody that remember a PUD means.. just to refresh
everybody's memory so that when we start hearing appeals from a developer, we remember
that we have some ground to stand on.
Hoffman: Sure.
Berg: And an item I'd like to see on an upcoming agenda is what we're going to do with the
land by Apple Valley Red -E -Mix.
Hoffman: Okay.
Andrews: Who's going to own that, HRA? I think HRA does own that.
Hoffman: We'll be owning it.
Andrews: And I think the concept plan has now turned into some sort of a gardening, walk
through park area.
Hoffman: Green space of some sort.
Lash: Do we have a garden club in town? Like Excelsior?
Hoffman: We have a not very active garden club.
Lash: Two people.
22
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
Lemme: We have Charlene Eiler and Todd Gerhardt.
Lash: Have you ... with the seniors? I mean those.
Lemme: They did the plantings out at City Hall last year. You know they're busy. They
did the planting and they kind of ignored it after that and then Charlene and I were going to
take it over...
Lash: Well I read all those things in Excelsior about their garden club. It's been there for 80
years and those guys planted the whole thing by the Post Office and now they did the whole
thing over by 19 and it'd be kind of nice if they'd adopt that whole thing...
Berg: I can get you lots of teenage volunteer help just like that.
Andrews: Back to Fred's point about that Red -E -Mix property. In the past with the HRA
developments, they've developed it and then come to us and asked us, is this okay? Yeah.
Fred's point is a good one. If that is legitimately going to be a green space or you know a
park type use, we need to take a serious look at what we'd like to see happen there.
Berg: Let's be proactive.
Andrews: Proactive, right. Let's come up with a plan that we like to see that coordinates
and come back to the HRA and say, here's something that you can do for us. I mean I still
look back at the original community center situation and I think geez, how silly that was.
Here they had it blueprinted and a construction engineer already hired before they even came
to us and asked us what we thought. Let's take the opposite approach. I would like tv see
that on a fairly short agenda. Any other?
Manders: The last comment I had was, I just wanted to express my appreciation to the
gentlemen for coming in. I thank the commission too. Just being actively involved in
something and taking your time to come and express a concern like that when you're talking
about cleaning up tires and stuff like that, that's great to hear. So I appreciate it.
Andrews: We're always looking for new commission members too. Future seasons. Good
way to get active. There's a lot of different things you can get active in. The Tree Board.
There are other bodies. Now Todd, isn't there going to be an environmental board set up
separate from the Park Board or is that...
Hoffman: ...the Tree Board, the SWMP Committee, the Recycling Committee. All those
deal with natural resources and environmental committees...
23
u
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
Andrews: That would be a good group to be involved with.
Andrew Olson: Can I comment on the tree committee? And you're into preservation and
drip lines and all this during developments. Are you involved with actual developments or
only on parkland?
Andrews: Developments too. They're looking at, that is a separate group but they're looking
at preservation of tree stands in all areas. I think they're trying to come up with some
quantitative ways to measure loss of canopy. Loss of tree diameter. So it's an active group.
I'm also part of the Chanhassen Chamber and there are a lot of developers that are a part of
that group that are very concerned about what that group's doing. That tells me that
something good's going to come out of it. So hopefully it will help us preserve what we
have left in trees because we don't have a lot left.
Andrew Olson: No, my concern mainly is the Argus Development south of me. They had
that big hassle about the stand of oaks down there along side CR 17. They changed some of
their lots and all that and the rules and regulations were for protection. To keep equipment
off of the roots of these oaks because they can damage them ... whatever and they come along
and they put the nice little plastic fencing about that far from the tree and then they're driving
over and all around the rest of it and that.
Andrews: It will kill them.
Andrew Olson: You have to have some hard and fast rules of whether it's going to apply to
a developer or parkland when that's being built up. But to say drip line, the tree's got more
room...
Andrews: Well that would be the group that would be trying to come up with ordinances.
Right now they're just in a formative stage right now with ordinances so if that's an interest
that you have, that would be a group that I would seek out and be involved with. Because
' that's exactly what they're trying to do is how much separation and how much canopy has to
be preserved. How much tree diameter on a quantitative basis for a development should be
preserved? They act independently from us. Anything else?
Huffman: I just want to say very quickly, this is the first time I've officially had a chance to
' say thank you to everybody but it's a pleasure to be here and I look forward to a long
association. Thank you for your confidence and I hope I don't screw it up too badly.
Lash: We'll let you know.
24
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 26, 1994
Andrews: Anything else?
Lash: Did we officially congratulate Dave on record? I don't think we did.
Andrews: Congratulations, yes. And welcome. Is there a motion to adjourn?
Lash moved, Berg seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
25