1m. Minutes II ' f711
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 14, 1989
II Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
' Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhard, Jim Chaffee, Jo Ann
Olsen, and Dave Hempel
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda as amended to include the following Council Presentations:
Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss Frontier Hanes, Councilman Workman wanted to
discuss the concernt series at Heritage Square and TH 101/Pioneer Trail
' intersection and Councilwoman Dimler wanted to make the Council aware of a
seminar that was coming up. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the
motion carried.
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew two names for the recycling prize
for pick-ups done last week and for the pick-up coming up.
II CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
' c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to City Code, First Reading:
1) Section 20-3, Regarding Definition of Density
2) Section 20-411, Regarding Enforcement of the Wetland Section
3) Section 20-1021, Regarding Swiniuing Pool Fences
f. Approve Plans and Specifications for 1989 Street Repair Project, Authorize
' Advertising for Bids.
h. Approve Development Contract for Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition.
' i. Authorize Execution of LAWCON Grant Contract for Lake Susan Park Development
Project.
' j. Resolution #89-86: Approval of Change Order No. 6 for City Hall and Fire
Station Construction.
k. Proposed Franchise Agreement, Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative.
o. Approval of Minutes
Ip. Approval of Accounts
q. Resolution #89-87: Recertification of 1990 Property Tax Levy. •
I
1
A 11 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
I
r. Resolution #89-88: Southwest Corridor Commission, Request for Supplemental
Funding.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to go on record as not pulling an item.
Mayor Chmiel: Let that be so noted in the Minutes.
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, SECTION 20-237 REVOCATION AND INSPECTION
REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, FINAL READING.
Mayor Chmiel: The first item that I have, if I can find it here, on the second
and final reading for the ordinance amendment regarding conditional use permits,
and I don't know whether this can be done and I asked staff and we had
discussions this morning. If a violation is determined, Roger I guess I'll
direct this to you, a violation is determined, should we have a clause in the
ordinance for correction and a time period for that correction. If staff
determines that there's something that they're not complying with, should there
not be a time period that they must do this by and if not, then we move on it?
Roger Knutson: You could do that. Right now if a violation is determined of a ,
conditional use permit, two things could happen. One is, it's a criminal
violation. You're violating your zoning ordinance. We don't have to give them
any time. Historically and I think prudently the City staff has given someone LI
time to correct the problem. That's what we want to see happen. I think there
might be a bit of a problem in determining how long that corrective period
should be depending on what the violation is. For example, if you found the
violation in January that they didn't plan the trees they were supposed to have
planted, you couldn't realistically ask them to plan trees in January. You
might have a hard time pin pointing a grace period in an ordinance rather than
just leaving it to reasonable discretion. You could try. '
Mayor Chmiel: I'm thinking if someone does just miss it, unintentionally,
that's my concern. And I don't know if we should be that harsh on them, that's
why I'm thinking if there is something. For instance if someone was supposed to
plant 15 trees and they get someone to do it and they don't look at it and it
goes and there's only 13 trees. Basically they're in violation of their permit.
Roger Knutson: I think historically again, the last thing the City wants to do,
at least my experience, is to prosecute people for these kinds of things. We
don't do that unless they adamantly say I'm not doing it. I'm not complying. I
have no intention of complying or they drag us on forever and ever. I don't
think in the past the City has been terribly harsh. We've worked with people in
trying to give them that opportunity. I would agree with you if someone said II gee, I didn't realize it and cited them criminally the next day, I think that'd
be not a good practice.
Mayor_ Chmiel: That's my concern. , I
Councilman Johnson: I think this comes under discretionary enforcement like an
officer sees you doing 36 in a 35 zone. He's got the choice of pulling you over
for speeding or give you a warning or saying hey, just letting it go. There's a
2 1
IJ. City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
lot of times and in the past I think staff's done a good job of usually by t
time it gets to City Council which is the Y Y he
point where you're really going to get
into it, staff has exchanged 4 or 5 letters and they've worked real well with
it. I think basically that's the way the system seems to work. That wasn't my
concern with 1(a) . My concern with 1(a) was the financial side of it that Don's
brought up here. Because I really want this ordinance amendment because I think
' these inspections need to be done.
Mayor Chmiel: I agree.
' Councilman Johnson: But the financial side of it, we've got to look at that
too. Unless we can get a fee schedule or something and that's where I think
' some of these conditional use permits I don't think actually have to be done
annually. I still think there's some permits out there where the conditions are
such that maybe every other year would be fine instead of basing it annually and
that will reduce some of the fee problem and some of them do need to be done.
' Contractor's yard is one that I think should be done annually but some other
conditional use permits probably not so often.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address
this? Those who were the previous conditional use permit issuances from the
City, is there anyone who would like to address that at this time? Okay.
I just feel a little uncomfortable with it. That's my real basic concern and I
' guess if there is some discretion to be used by staff in that before we go to
any civil action, I guess that's my, just to make sure.
' Councilman Boyt: I think the problem here Mr. Mayor is that these haven't been
kept track of. I disagree with the City Manager_. I don't think we're talking
about something that's a great deal of expense. I think it should be done every
year. I think that many of them, it's going to be a very lick ins
because there's really not much that they can do. With others, the City has
been negligent I think and what we're doing in this ordinance is insisting that
the City have an obligation to inspect these every year. I like it as it is. I
think we should pass it this way.
Mayor Chmiel: Before we issue an occupancy permit for whatever it is, that
' conditional use is reviewed at that time is it not? Prior to the issuance of
the occupancy permit? All conditions that are contained in those specific
permits so that should be an automatic flag. Before an occupancy permit can be
' granted, that they make sure that everything is in conformance with that
requirement as far as that conditional use permit is required or has been
issued.
t Jo Ann Olsen: A lot of conditional use permits are uses or accessory to a house
or a business that was already there so a lot of times the occupancy permit
doesn't, it was before the fact.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: I guess I still have a concern because I don't think we
have established the fee and I think that last time, several of us voiced
opposition to charging a fee. Is that my recollection? I thought I read that
' in the Minutes.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, some people were opposed to it and some people were
for it. There's a little of both and we ended up not really stating whether a
3
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 A II
fee would be there or not. We just bypassed the issue.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I have a concern about hiring another full time [11
person to do this. I'm not sure what the task would entail but I guess I would
rather see this tabled at this point so we can ease into it a little bit.
Councilman Johnson: I have to agree with Bill though that I don't think that '
this is going to require a full time person. I can see a large majority of
these may not, you could inspect than as you drive by. We have some conditions
as simple as you can't have outside display of merchandise. That takes all of
30 seconds to see. If they are displaying outside merchandse, then it will
require some time. I can see setting up on forms. An inspection form that the
owner then gets mailed at the end of the inspection. This condition was found
to be violated. Please correct within and there's a blank and you can put 30
days and mail that off and go back. I'm not sure if it will need a full time
employee. I'm not convinced.
Don Ashworth: Staff's recommendation was just solely one to alert the Council
during the budgetary processes where I see a discussion occuring. Give us an
opportunity to further research and I won't tell you that it's going to demand a
full time employee. I'm concerned with the amount of time. It will be a major
time function.
Councilman Boyt: But this isn't an option about whether or not we can do this. ,
We have not done this very consistently in the past. We should be doing it and
maybe the issue of a fee or not should be looked at but that's not a part of
what we're doing here. We're just simply saying we're going to do it. It's not
very complicated to say let's inspect conditional uses every year.
Councilman Johnson: And the fee can be a real sliding scale. Like they say,
$100.00 to $200.00 for a contractor's yard. Well, a contractor's yard some of
them, Merle Volk's is going to take a while. You may take half a day in there
going through the place. Other places take almost nothing.
Councilwoman Dimler: So then you're not going to charge anything?
n9 g I mean how
are you going to do that you know?
Councilman Johnson: Like he says, contractor's yard, you're going to have to
have, maybe at the issuance of the conditional use permit, the Council should
decide upon the fee. That's a different issue than tonight like Bill's saying.
As is, I don't see a problem with passing it but we do have to come back and
look at the fees.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to make sure that that doesn't get '
interpretted to be passed with this tonight.
Councilman Johnson: No. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Or would we hire someone additional either.
Councilman Johnson: Paragraph 1 hasn't really changed either from the existing '
ordinance. It reads almost identical.
4
ICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Don Ashworth: We're solely alerting the Council that this is an it that would
be discussed as part of the budgetary sessions. We do not see this as
I authorization for us to hire additional people nor to amend the budget. We're
just again alerting the staff that that will be part of future budget
discussions.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the more I'm thinking as to what Tom had said, I think
that I would like to see just exactly what it's going to consist as to what
we're going to have to implement in order to adopt this. What are we going to
' have to do staff wise. I'd like to see that spelled out before I approve this
as well. I just want to make sure that we're not going to put another person on
board just to take care of this one specific item.
Councilman Johnson: But we'd have to approve that other person.
' Mayor Chmiel: Do we?
Don Ashworth: It would have to come back to the Council. Again, we just didn't
want to be in a position of you saying later, why didn't you tell us that it was
going to be this much work.
Mayor Chmiel: I still think I'd like to see it all spelled out. I'm not in
' opposition to what we've got here but I am, because I don't know what we'd
really wind up doing and I think I would just as soon.. .
II I Councilman Johnson: I think experience will tell too. I think it's going to be
hard to predict. I think some experience in going out there and doing it will
help tell what the cost will be. We may not get them all done but
out that they can' t get them all done with the existing staff, I think they can.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well we can start out not charging and if we determine
that it requires so much time then think about it later. I mean that's
something we.can always add isn't it?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to make sure it's not part of the original
amendment.
' Councilman Boyt: The only thing we're passing here is we're saying as a Council
that we want these inspected annually. We're not authorizing any fee. We're
not authorizing any addition in staff. Staff admits in the Minutes that they
' have not stayed on this consistently and we're saying Y y'ng we want you to make this a
priority. I think it's very straight forward and I'd like to see us pass this
so we don't continue to build larger agendas in the future.
' Councilman Johnson: I move approval of item 1(a) .
Councilman Boyt: I'll second that.
Councilwoman Dimlez: Is there a motion to table? Did you have a motion to
table?
I 5
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 11
Councilman Workman: I think it was dead anyway. I guess Mr. Mayor, I don't see
a problem with us approving this as it lays. It's something we're going to
probably and eventually get to anyway. I've voiced my concerns in regards to
the hiring of another person. If we have 150 conditional use permits and we
have a 5 person council, maybe we each take 2 1/2 a month. 30 of them a year
and we can take care of it. I wouldn't have a problem either way with approving
this at this point or not.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, Section 20-237, Revocation and Inspection regarding Conditional Use
Permits, Final Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND, EAST OF AUDUBON
ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD
ADDITION, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT.
Councilman Boyt: Very simple change here. I'd just like the conditions to '
read, compliance with the 6 conditions of the...
Mayor_ Chmiel: What page are you on Bill? '
Councilman Boyt: Okay, where it says City Council recommendations. Wetland
alteration permit. It states some of the six conditions of the Fish and
Wildlife but I would like one of the conditions to be compliance with all six
conditions of the Fish and Wildlife conditions for construction of wetland for
wildlife. That way we don't leave anything to chance. It's my understanding
that it already does that but I think it should be standard in our language of
approval.
Mayor Cfimiel: Okay. Do I have a motion? ,
Councilman Boyt: I would move that we add a fifth condition that the Wetland
Alteration Permit require the compliance with the six conditions of the National
Fish and Wildlife Service for wetlands to be wildlife compatible.
Councilman Johnson: Is that a motion to approve with adding a fifth?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. ,
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
Permit for Alteration of a Class B wetland east of Audubon Road and South of
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition with the amendment
to add a fifth condition that the Wetland Alteration Permit require the
compliance with the six conditions of the National Fish and Wildlife Service for
wetlands to be wildlife compatible. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
6
IICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
E. APPROVE MINERAL EXTRACTION PERMIT FOR LAKE SUSAN HILLS PARTNERSHIP.
Councilman Johnson: Is Dave here? Yes, Dave. Item (e) . I didn't see, it
seemed to indicate that if they don't get finished by the 17th, fine and dandy.
We don't replant this year. I'd drag my feet a little bit and not get finished
by September 25th and then I wouldn't have to replant. I'll save a bunch of
' money. I don't like that to be in there. I want to see this revegetated. I
don't want to have another 7 Hi situation of dirt sitting out there all winter
and erosion in the spring. Even if they plant after September 15th, the grasses
could still come up in the spring. When do they plan on being completed?
Dave Hempel: He had indicated probably around the early part of October.
' Councilman Boyt: Jay, what if we change item 9 to begin after 9/15/89 and read,
appropriate measures shall be taken by the applicant and so on? That ways it
covers it regardless of the date.
' Councilman Johnson: I didn't catch your change.
' Councilman Boyt: Item 9 of the conditions which talks about the planting
season. If we eliminate that sentence and the middle of the second sentence, we
then begin with appropriate measures will be taken to see that erosion control
measures are adequately maintained and so on. So no matter whether they plant
or not, they still have to do that.
Councilman Johnson: Well they still have to do that whether they plant or not.
The erosion control has to be there but what happens is you don't plant and then
I the spring comes. You've got the spring mud. You can't plant in the spring
because of the mud so it's, after all the erosion has occurred is the first time
' you can plant. What I'm saying is you can plant after October 1st. The grass
seed's there. It's mulched in. It's not going to germinate this year but it
will germinate in the spring and we'll have grass coming up in the spring and it
may or may not help stop the erosion. But I'd like to see them seed it this
' year. That's what I'm saying. This kind of indicates that if it's after
September 15th, you don't have to seed.
' Mayor_ Chmiel: You're right. That's the way it could be interpretted Jay. But
that's not going to, even if you were to do the seeding, that's not going to
eliminate the erosion that couldn't occur on there.
' Councilman Johnson: It won't eliminate it but it will help in the spring. What
we see year after year is they don't get to seed it in the fall. Come spring,
you end up with everything eroding away. It's June before they get out there,
' make some repairs and then get some seed in.
Don Ashworth: Why not strike appropriate measures and put in, winter seed and
mulch?
Councilman Johnson: Okay. If the site grading is to continue beyond this date,
winter seed and mulching.. .
Don Ashworth: Shall be requir_ed.. . •
Councilman Boyt: Along with appropriate measures.
' 7
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Councilman Johnson: Yes. Good idea. I so move.
Councilman Workman: Second it.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Mineral
Extraction Permit for Lake Susan Hills Partnership as amended changing item 9 to
read as follows:
9. September 15, 1989 is the end of the planting season for seed accordin g to
MnDot. If the site grading is to continue beyond this date, winter seed and
mulch shall be required along with appropriate measures by the applicant to
see to it that the erosion control measures are adequately maintained and in
place prior to spring runoff.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. t
G. APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NOS. 1 AND 2 TO EASTERN CARVER COUNTY '
TRANSPORTATION STUDY.
Mayor Chmiel: The only thing I have with this is I don't have any problem with
the study. We should go into it. The only thing I'd like to see contained once
we get that poll together, is to have words something to the effect providing
all other governmental entities matching funds are contributed. In other words,
if someone else pulls out, we get our money back too.
Councilman Boyt: Yes. Why don't you make that motion?
Mayor Chmiel: I will make that motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Supplemental
Agreements Numbers 1 and 2 to Eastern Carver County Transportation Study amended
to state the intent mentioned by Mayor Chmiel. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: Is anybody working with this committee?
Mayor Chmiel: Not yet. '
Councilman Johnson: Particularly an advisory committee.
Mayor Chmiel: Once it's established, I think that's time.
Councilman Workman: A technical advisory committee for this? For the EIS?
Councilman Johnson: No, not the EIS. This is a different thing.
Mayor_ Chmiel: For the eastern county portion transportation study that they're
looking at.
8
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
II
Councilman Johnson: They selected Howard Needles. Whoever's working with that
Ito make sure the scope is sufficient so if Howard Needles doesn't come in with
our standard change orders, because I'm not paying for it.
II -
L. APPROVAL OF POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN.
Councilman Boyt: This is again, as I think the Council knows, I'm real
Ifrustrated by this. I'm concerned that the City may not have appropriately
weighted it's job categories. I see this as something that pushes the City's
pay scales above the private industry pay scales and I don't think we should be
1 doing that.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you have any comments?
IDon Ashworth: I believe Councilman Boyt's points were brought out when we had
met with the consultant. The study is one in which it compares the salary
levels not only within this organization but for all governmental units in the
I Twin City area. If we do not pass it, there's a real question as to whether or
not we are in compliance with the entire comparable worth statute. The cost
associated with at least a portion that I believe that Councilman Boyt is the
II most concerned with was relatively minor. My recollection was $1,000.00 to
$2,000.00 where it was basically the cost for implementing that portion of the
plan that dealt with the one, potentially two positions that were questioned
I [ during that work session.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess those were addressed at that particular time.
I Councilman Boyt: All we did is we talked about them. Nobody ever answered
them. We have never looked at an alternative pay classification system. We
have never talked about weighting the scale any differently than it's currently
1 weighted and I believe at that meeting it was very clearly admitted that this
pushed the City's pay scale well above the private industry's scale for
comparable jobs in the lower level positions. A11 I'm saying is that I
individually am opposed to that. I don't think that's good management and I
Idon't think the City should be doing it.
Don Ashworth: Again, I would totally agree with Councilman Boyt's statements
I and especially as it deals with certain, let's say account clerk type of
position. The salary is higher for an account clerk for the City of Chanhassen
than would be paid potentially at some banks. That was the entire purpose of
I the State legislation. They wanted to insure that there would not be
disparities between male dominated classes of employees and females classes of
employees. You can make comparisons and show that certain salaries can be paid
II a lower wage and in the private area, some of them are. But again, the thrust
and the intent of the legislation was to insure that pay equity occurred within
governmental units and that's exactly what we've done.
I Councilman Boyt: That system hinges upon what you weigh most heavily in the
job. The things that we chose to weight most heavily in the job created hose
inequities. We could have chosen other systems that would have weighted things
differently. We haven't even talked to another consultant about alternative
ways of weighting that.
11 9
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Don Ashworth: One of the problems in, yes you can look to other consultants.
There have been a number of arbitration and court cases dealing with this entire
issue. The best I can advise the Council is in insure that whomever you're
using has gained a great deal of or a good reputation and can speak to why they
have put the various weights on each of the criteria that you just got through
going through. I think if we went around the table, each one of us might have a
slightly different opinion as to the importance of knowledge, experience,
education in comparison to physical strength, dexterity and some of the other
type of things going along with the manual labor. When Labor Relations
Associates was retained and they have currently completed the study for a
majority, I would say at least 70% to 80% of the cities in the metro area, they
were selected again because of their knowledge and ability to basically testify
and support the City's position in terms of why they weighed each of the
criteria the way they did.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask a question Don. Bill's talking get another
consultant. Do this. What was our cost with the consultant?
Don Ashworth: I would say $5,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. On the City's pay scale industry, you're talking about 1
or 2 positions that you have concerns for Bill?
Councilman Boyt: I think that the system is set up wrong. I think over the 1
long run it's going to cost the City a great deal of money and I disagree with
the City Manager about the cost of this being $1,000.00 or $2,000.00. He's
talking about an adjustment this year in moving towards future adjustments and I
think he's under stating it. I think that this represents a potential major
cost for the City in terms of our staff and to have one consultant is maybe a
mistake. We don't necessarily have to hold this up. I may well only represent
1 out of 5 opinions here. I just felt that this was important enough to pull
off for a separate vote and indicate that I'm opposed to the way we're doing it.
Don Ashworth: My statement on the $1,000.00 or $2,000.00 is, Bill is correct 1
that that is the monetary impact for 1989 but I would disagree in terms of the
long range impact being significantly higher. I think that Chanhassen over the
years has moved to a position of, knowing the law was coming around and
basically insuring that a number of our positions were already there. The only
position identified by the consultant as being outside of the range was that of
an account clerk. The receptionist position was also low but that is a part
time position paid on a part time scale and the monetary impacts again of that
position are none. Therefore, the only position that I saw a significant
monetary impact for was the account clerk.
Councilman Boyt: Do you want to talk about the mid-point of your receptionist's
salary?
Don Ashworth: But again, she's not being paid on the basis of the, as a part
time position, that position is paid on a part time scale. Not on the basis of
a full time position. 1
Councilman Boyt: You're saying it's just a matter of semantics. If you're'
talking about the base on which you're building the salary on, you're talking
about a mid-point and I would suggest to you that the mid-point for that job is
10 1
II ' ' City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
not just a bit above what private industry is paying. It's dramatically above
what private industry is paying. We don't necessarily need to get into
specifics. I just want to be on record as being opposed to it.
Don Ashworth: But if we're paying that as a part time salary, I don't want to
get to the point of putting out numbers but I honestly do not believe that you
' hire any...
Mayor Chmiel: Put on numbers.
Don Ashworth: Between $6.00 and $7.00 an hour.
Councilman Boyt: That's not the mid-point of that job. The mid-point of that
job is not $14,000.00 and that's what $6.00 or $7.00 an hour would point out.
Don Ashworth: We employ three part time people who work in that job and that is
' the salary range paid to those part time people. We are in compliance with
State law by employing people at an hourly rate for a part time job and not
having to consider that in relation to what it might be for a full time
position. We're not comparing apples and apples.
Todd Gerhardt: Bill would be correct in what he's saying if we hired a full
time receptionist.
' Don Ashworth: I agree.
Councilman Johnson: Right now we have no authorized full time receptionist
positions? The accounts would have to authorize such?
' Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: The receptionist position is just an example. It reflects how
skewed the weighting system is and that's my only point. We have one consultant
' who's come in and used a fairly broad base but a common base in how they
weighted it and said this is where you're out of line. We don't need to spend
the evening on this. I'm just saying that it's just amazing what the City and
the staff is forcing us to do.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would like to say that I have a feeling that
' Bill might be right on this and I'm wondering Don if we don't approve this
tonight, where does that put us with this process? Is there a deadline?
Don Ashworth: January 1st. We originally were looking to the first of the
' year. We kind of moved back so now I think we should be looking for January 1st
of 1990. I'm not being facetious. We have time. There's no deadline on this.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so if there's no rush on this, perhaps we do want to
look into another options that could save the City some money. I think that
would be wise to do.
' Mayor_ Chmiel: Let me ask you a question. It doesn't pertain to anyone else
except these two positions that we're talking about. An account clezk and'
receptionist and the receptionist being just a part time. Is that correct?
i 11
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: No, I don't think, Bill's going deeper than that. '
Mayor_ Chmiel: Well that's what I'm trying to get at.
Councilman Johnson: Because he says the whole system is weighted so you'd be
looking at your adminstrative secretary, light equipment operator, community
service officer, utility operator. That whole job class and then the
receptionist job classes. '
Councilman Boyt: This system is driven by the heavy equipment operators or
whatever the City's equivalent is of that and they're set by the market. We pay
for than what comparable situations in industry would pay but they drive the
whole rest of the system and I'm just saying that's crazy.
Don Ashworth: But that's again, comparable worth. You do have two primary '
benchmark which is really the entire police grouping and the public works. When
you get into a situation where you have let's say a secretarial position and
that is being paid less than, they have word processing and all of the rest of
the skills, being paid less money than a high school kid. Graduated from high
school and going to work as a laborer or light equipment operator, that's where
you start ending up with a problem with comparable worth. The State is
basically saying you cannot do that. You cannot take a person with 10 to 20
years experience and training or whatever and pay them less money than their son
would be paid if he went to work in your lowest male dominated position.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not even sure if that one's valued right. The lowest I
male dominated position may come up more than a college graduate engineer would
get as he comes out school versus a high school graduate. '
Don Ashworth: But if that college graduate is taking a position, I don't know
if I want to get into that. I'm saying the secretarial position, having the
skills necessary for a secretary, I don't know if that's a graduate from
college.
Councilman Johnson: No. I'm just taking that number times 12 and saying, that
we pay a high school graduate. Why don't we table this?
Councilwoman Dimler: Good idea. I move to table. '
Councilman Johnson: I move to table.
Councilwoman Dimler: I second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table the Position
Classification and Pay Compensation Plan. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
M. APPROVAL OF LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES TO INTERNATIONAL
THEATRES CORPORATION. •
Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled this Mayor because I had a question about, I saw
12 1
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
that we were waiving the financial investigations of the applicants and I'm
I : wondering if this could pose a problem to the city in the future. Perhaps if
they don't pay their insurance premiums, can the City then be held liable? Why
are we waiving the financial investigation on these people?
' Don Ashworth: The ordinance is established in such a fashion that on any
particular applicant, we have the right to ask for information really in any of
those categories. We did background information regarding any type of police
involvement where they may have been any way carried out in some type of illegal
activities. Checked on references. We discussed the financial aspect. In
fact I had Karen talking with Roger in that area. I think where you end up with
certain organizations or there is a certain belief that the new owner or the
operator has financial ties with elements that you do not want to have your
liquor license involved with. That's where you might get into a detailed
financial study. I'm not aware of where we have done this in the past. We did
do a partial financial as it dealt with the bowling center but that was only as
a result of the HRA's involvement with the ownership of that building.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I'm just concerned about the future. The City
isn't going to come up looking bad at any point if something goes wrong.
Don Ashworth: I don't think so.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Then I recommend approval of the Liquor License
Transfer from Bloomberg Companies to International Theater Corporation
contingent upon the receipt of a fee, a corrected certificate of insurance and a
II ` waiver of the requirement that the manager live in Chanhassen.
' Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Liquor
License Transfer from Bloomberg Companies to International Theater Corporation
' contingent upon the receipt of a fee, a corrected certificate of insurance and a
waiver of the requirement that the manager live in Chanhassen. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
N. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
REVENUE BONDS FOR ROBERTS AUTOMATIC PRODUCTS.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to ask Don real quickly, I think this is a
good project. I just wanted to know if this is a TIF district? It is?
Don Ashworth: I'm not even sure where they're proposing to build.
Todd Gerhardt: The lot is located within the Tax Increment Redevelopment
District but it has nothing to do with their application for IRB's.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well the reason I ask is because under Section 1, on
Recitals and Findings, Section 1.2 actually item c. It says that the existence
' of this project would add to the tax base of the City, the County and the school
district in which the project will be located and would provide increased.
opportunities for employment of residents of the City and surrounding area. I
agree with that except how many years is it going to be in a district before the
City, School and County get any tax money?
' 13
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
i
Don Ashworth: Her projections show that that district could cease in 1995.
That is up to the City Council in terms of really making that decision. The '
district itself has a life to 2001. The financial structure as currently in
place will allow you to cease it in 1995.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's a considerable length of time if we go to 2001. '
Don Ashworth: By the time that they would start construction, their first full
taxes would be 1991. Probably 1992. '
Mayor Chmiel: Is Mr. Robert's here this evening?
Mr. Roberts: Yes I am. '
Mayor Chmiel: Could you come up to the podium for just a minute please. In
reviewing this I was just looking and I didn't see the total numbers of the
employees that would be employed within the facility.
Mr. Roberts: We currently have about 85. 1
Mayor Chmiel: You have 85 employees presently?
Mr. Roberts: Right. And that would give us, going from 25,000 feet which we 1
currently are at, to 40,000 and then additionally room to go to 60,000. That
will give us about 150 employees.
Mayor Chmiel: About 150. Good. Does anyone else have any questions of Mr.
Roberts? If not, thank you very much.
Resolution #89-89: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve a Resolution Authorizing Preliminary Approval of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds for Roberts Automatic Products. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Roberts, this is a manufacturing?
Mr. Roberts: Yes it is. '
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd just like to say, I thought manufacturing was
dead in the United States. It's nice to see it coming to Chanhassen.
Councilman Johnson: There are several manufacturing places building here.
Councilman Workman: I know. It's great. ,
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: '
Henry Sosin: My name is Henry Sosin and I live at 7400 Chanhassen Road. I live
k:11
on Lotus Lake and I'm here to point out the presence of a nuisance and a
disaster waiting to happen. A concerned noise pollution and human safety. I'm
14 1
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
II
referring to the use of jet skis on our city lakes. Just recently I understand
s d
there was an actual collision or an accident with a jet ski involved on I think
it was Lake Riley I believe. You can sit on your front porch or you can be out
around your house and while attempting to have a normal conversation with
II someone next to you, you have to shout to be heard because of the noise of this
particular kind of machine. They're louder than most ski boats that are on the
lake. Not only is it a question of the noise intensity or the decibels they
produce but the way the jet ski is used as a recreational vehicle. The people
II who ride them actually play tag with them. They create a wake and then they
try to turn the machine quickly and jump the wake which makes it sound an
extremely variable pitch in the sound. So in reality when you're listening to a
II jet ski, it sounds like you have a chainsaw, about twice that decibel level
about 5 feet away from you. That's what they sound like. Unfortunately people
don't ride them singlely. There's 2 or 3 or 4 people who have these machines
and they like to play tag with them so you're listening to 3 or 2 or 4 of these
I things all at once and you literally cannot have a conversation on your own
front porch. Unfortunately these people ride their machines at the same time
you come home from work so that if you do have an outdoor patio or if you try to
I live outside in the summertime, as all good Minnesotans try to do, you cannot
have a conversation. It is a real nuisance for those people who live close to
the water. The other thing I'd like to point out, well in relation to noise,
II we've been so exasperated at times, we tried to make a tape recording.
Unfortunately we don't have professional sound equipment. We only had the
little kind you talk into and the tapes don't come out very well so I don't have
a tape to play for you tonight but a few of you have been contacted by my wife
when she's been irritated enough and tried to have a telephone conversation with
I : a portable phone outside. I don't know what it sounded like on your end but
I know that a few of you have had that experience and I think it was evident to
Ithose people that there was a real racket going on.
Mayor_ Chmiel: I can verify that. Your wife did call me on that Sunday and I
did go down to the lake to see what was there and there were 3 jet skis and they
I were, as you mentioned, playing tag and fortunately enough I took license plates
and numbers and had those verified and checked out and we have them from St.
Louis Park, Excelsior and Eden Prairie. None of those were residents within the
ICity which is a problem in itself.
Henry Sosin: We have machines that a resident on the lake as well. The other
I thing I'd like to point out is that when you're on a small lake and ours is the
one that's on the left hand picture there which is very narrow in some spots.
That's Lotus Lake on the left. Everyone who lives on the lake and even those
II people who come on the lake using the access, there's a big sign that's posted
that says all motorized craft go in a unidirectional pattern around the lake
just to prevent people from killing one another. These jet skis do not follow
that pattern. They're just all over like mosquitoes. They do as fast if not
II faster than a ski boat and I think they represent a major safety problem. I
think somebody's going to be badly hurt on one of these unless there's some kind
of control. So the purpose of my being here is to suggest that the Council look
into this and hopefully provide some relief from those people who live close for
I noise pollution and more importantly possibly provide some guidelines so that
there will be safety on the water as well. Just in the way of recommendations,
L since we've thought about it a lot having to listen to them, these kinds of
II machines probably, and I don't know this for a fact, probably are violating
noise pollution ordinances because they are so extremely loud. It's possible
11 15
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
that they be banned. Maybe the Council could look into providing hours for
their use that don't disturb the residents at dinner hour as an example. I
think much of the noise pollution would be stopped if they were made to follow
the same unidirectional pattern of useage as all other boats on the lakes were [11
to do. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much. I did have some discussions with Jim '
Chaffee. Jim, maybe you could just elaborate on that just a little bit.
Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, I have heard over the phone the noise from the jet skis
that Mr. Sosin has talked about tonight. He is right that it does interfere
with a normal telephone conversation. Just on a side comment, about 2 weeks ago
we did have a fairly serious accident on Lake Riley involving a jet ski where an
individual attempted to jump a dock with one. He didn't make it. He was
impaled on one of the dock supports. He lived but will have- permanent
disfiguration. Another side comment is, the State of Minnesota is beginning to
realize that these things are potentially dangerous and are sometimes a nuisance
and they are beginning to look at it from an enforcement standpoint also. The
DNR especially. Some of you may have seen the special on KARE TV a couple weeks
ago involving jet skis. I have written KARE, having been provided with a name
by Mrs. Sosin for a copy of that tape. We hoped to have it here tonight but we
didn't get it in time. As a matter of fact, I haven't heard back from them.
There's a number of opportunities for us I guess, and as Mr.. Sosin was saying,
in providing an ordinance that would limit the hours of operation. I don't see
banning as an option. I don't think that's going to happen. One of the things
that we will do is advise Water_ Patrol to take hard enforcement action involving
these jet skis if there is any kind of careless or wanton disregard for life or
property. Especially on Lotus Lake there are the directional issues and we can
enforce those so in the meantime we can take whatever measures available to us
using what resources we have. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Thank you. I think it's something that we're going to
have to look into and I agree. As we had conversations, it was hard to hear
what you were saying because of jet skis over rode your voice tones and it was
noisy. I think there's something that we can look at and discuss at one of the
next future Council meetings and come up with some kind of a conclusion. Jim,
would you, once we get ready with that, when we're done, make sure they're
informed as to when. Thank you for coming in.
Councilman Boyt: We have the noise ordinance is on here tonight.
Georgette Sosin: I saw that.
Councilman Johnson: The other thing was the, last year there was another '
problem that was occurring which you and I talked about. Have you noticed that
this year? I haven't noticed it myself very much.
Georgette Sosin: . ..looked into it and you could hear that. It was a '
manufacturing sound that echoed. Somehow it was amplified on our lake. Acted
as an amplifier for any kind of sound because we're up higher and that nas been
taken care of. To my knowledge, I have not heard it. '
Henry Sosin: I understand there was. ..same machine for a period of time.
16 '
' City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
IICouncilman Johnson: Yes, the muffler fella apart pa and they had to weld it with a
II i little heavier steel the second time.
Henry Sosin: It was repaired and we do not have that problem now.
II Councilman Johnson: Well good because I haven't heard it lately. I just wanted
to check on that as long as you were here.
IArnold Felding: My name is Arnold Felding from Winthorp. I've been selling
sweet corn at the Taco Shop down here for the last 3 weeks. I'm wondering, I
was kind of surprised when I was told to leave after I was told for the last 12
I years they've been selling vegetables and stuff there. I'm wondering if there's
some kind of suggestion by Officer Chaffee over here that _I could somehow get a
temporary permit so I can continue selling my sweet corn and stuff.
IIMayor Chmiel: Is there any requirement as far as ordinance is concerned? If
the individual is agricultural products, my understanding is that those can be
II sold if they have the approval of the property owner. Is that not another
condition?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's only permitted as a roadside stand and that's as an
I accessory use in the agricultural district. Where we've allowed similar things
was like Christmas tree sales and that was with temporary conditional uses but
as you know we don't have anymore right now so he really doesn't have an option
that I see. It's not a permitted use or even an accessory use or conditional
use in that district.
Councilman Boyt: May I jump in here for a second?
IMayor Chmiel:: Yes. -
' Councilman Boyt: There's a bit of an irony here because he could go door to
door and sell his sweet corn but he can't park in one spot and sell his sweet
corn. Is that what you're saying?
ICouncilwoman Dimler: I'm a little confused. Jim, do you remember at our Public
Safety meeting in the morning I brought that up and I asked you then to go look
it up and you said it was okay.
IIJim Chaffee: Yes, it was okay under the solicitor's permit. What we then did
is I asked Roger to look into it for that particular zoning for that area which
II was business highway. For that he'd have to have a conditional use permit for
outdoor display of merchandise and then he can if he had a conditional use
permit.
II Jo Ann Olsen: But this is on the site that already has another use. You can't
have two principles.
I Councilwoman Dimler: However, isn't there a Minnesota Statute that states that
any farmer can sell his produce anyplace he choses providing he has the
permission of the landowner? '
e-
ll
II17
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
I
Roger Knutson: Not that I'm aware of. This is a frequent issue. Maybe it
should be that way.
Councilwoman Dimler: It is that way. Look it up. I think there is.
Don Ashworth: There's another issue here as well and"that is, that's a very ,
dangerous intersection in that area. To have an additional use and one
additional, or any more turning movements than you have right now, just couldn't
be recommended by staff. '
Councilman Johnson: And an existing non-conforming use as is.
Don Ashworth: The Taco Shop. '
Councilman Johnson: Right. It doesn't meet any of the zoning setbacks or
anything. '
Arnold Felding: You have applied this criteria to all vegetable sellers in the
area then? ,
Councilman Boyt: We don't have many. We've got Kerber and who else?
Don Ashworth: Klingelhutz has been selling but he would meet the criteria that ,
Jo Ann just referred to.
Councilman Johnson: Agricultural. I
Don Ashworth: Agricultural. Grown on the property and sold in his front yard.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe the location is a bad location. It might be good for total
number of traffic but I guess what we're saying is it might be a safety problem
there. I don't know if we're going to be against you selling sweet corn in the
city unless there's some specific statute that we have on the books that say no,
you can't.
Councilman Workman: Could he sell in the parking lot of Town Square or
something? Would that be illegal?
Don Ashworth: I saw the kids have been down there this past week. I thought
there was a conditional use permit. In other words, if they came in but you're
saying it basically has to be. Is that with all districts?
Councilman Boyt: You can't give him a conditional use on property he doesn't '
own.
Mayor Chmiel: I think you're providing a service, at least to me if I'm going
to be buy the corn.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Plus by the time you go through the process, the
season's over. It makes no sense.
Councilman Boyt: It sounds like we're talking about something that we want to
license maybe. We have to control it some way or another don't we?
18 ,
IICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Then ou have to control the lemonade stands?
nds.
' Roger Knutson: Several cities I've worked with, this is a common problem.
Selling of flowers on the street is a common problem and concern and Christmas
trees. A lot of cities have gone to special provisions covering what is
' generally short term situations and a licensing proeess.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes but that's something a little different. That's not an
agricultural product.
Councilman Johnson: Flowers?
Councilwoman Dimler: They don't grow them theirselves most of the time.
Mayor Chmiel: Unless you're a rabbit.
' Roger Knutson: But similar types of issues in the sense of having someone not
in a building but in a truck or the side of the street or they're there for a
short period of time. It's sometimes been lumped together in one ordinance to
' regulate it.
Arnold Felding: The thing that kind of screwed me up was I called the City
whenever it was. It was earlier last year and they told me I was welcome to
come into town here and I talked to the people this spring and they said I was
welcome to come into town. I talked to the owner there and he said there was a
II precedence there 12 years of a man selling there so I didn't think it was no
problem. It kind of screwed my whole business up.
Councilman Johnson: I've never seen anybody sell at that corner.
' Mayor_ Chmiel: Oh yes. Yes. In fact that was a resident of Chanhassen who had
a little bit of land, probably about 2 acres. He was very hard of hearing.
Don Ashworth: Bongard?
Mayor Chmiel: No, no. He lived up over in the Pheasant Hill area. He sold
there constantly.
Arnold Felding: That's what the guy told me.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Up until the time I think he died which was just within I think
the last 2 years or maybe 3.
Resident: Yes, that was Mt. Canon and he did sell and he went deaf.
Councilman Workman: Is it being suggested then that we're not against anybody
selling corn in town, this is just the wrong corner now?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I think the location is not probably the best with the
' amount of flow of traffic that's come there within the last couple 3 years and
it is a congested area.
r
Councilwoman Dimler: It's hard to get in and out of. I agree with that.
' 19
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you object in going to another location?
Arnold Felding: Not at all. We're well know already there so the word would go
out pretty quick. The owner told me that he had no complaints and stuff.
I took care of things and the officer over there said everything was good
reports. h '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and good corn.
Arnold Felding: That's what I was told. I
Don Ashworth: Staff will work with the applicant and in the meantime to pursue
some sort of licensing procedure so next year we're in a little better position. '
Arnold Felding: May I remind the council too that I'd like to sell this year
yet if I can get something going this coming week somehow. '
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Don Ashworth: I think that's fine. ,
Councilman Johnson: I think it's those left turning movements across that road
with the railroad track and 14 different roads. ,
Mayor Chmiel: That's a real bad intersection as you can probably see from just
sitting there.
Arnold Felding: Where would I get a suggested spot? Who would I talk to?? II
Don Ashworth: Why don't you come in and...
Mayor Chmiel : Why don't you have some discussion with staff and talk to Jim and
maybe we can set something up.
Arnold Felding: Good, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other visitor presentations?
Councilman Johnson: We've got the one that's listed. '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Okay, we'll move onto the next item.
CONSIDER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, 1.5 ACRES IN SECTION ,
1G, NORDITRACK.
Don Ashworth: Is Mrs. Paul's going to be making any statements? '
Councilman Johnson: On the NordiTrack?
Don Ashworth: On the NordiTrack. I
Mayor Chmiel: Item 1.5. Consider purchase agreement of 1.5 acres in Section
16, NordiTrack.
20 '
II * City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
I Don Ashworth: I had talked to her right before the meeting and she had stated
I that she was going to speak, or at least I thought so. Staff has been working
with, just so you're aware. Staff has been working with Mr. Pauls. He is in
the process of making expansion or a new facility on property just south of our
public works facility. I think you can tell from the tone of his letter and the
purchase agreement that he felt it was important to bring this issue to a head
and bring it to City Council. In some ways staff is still trying to look to our
options in insuring that we're going to be able to house our equipment, cold
' storage, etc. and that has really been the reason for the delay up until this
point in time. At issue is, does the Council wish to see us proceed with
potentially selling that property and finalizing negotiations with Mr. Pauls?
' Again, I had anticipated that she would be present.
Councilman Johnson: Well she was earlier.
' Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we just keep this one where it's at. She may come back
and we'll address it later on in the agenda.
' Councilman Boyt: Wasn't that the staff's request to table it?
Don Ashworth: Well yes but with the idea then that we would finalize
' negotiations. I kind of anticipated discussion with the applicant.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's just hold that on the agenda.
ICouncilman Johnson: I think Don's asking for some direction from us.
Don Ashworth: Let's wait a while. Maybe she'll show up.
' Councilman Johnson: Is this considered a visitor presentation as 1.5? Isn't
that usually...
Mayor Chmiel: It should be just a separate item as far as I'm concerned.
Councilman Johnson: Because it wasn't published or anything? It was just
' brought up.
Don Ashworth: The reason I put it under that is normally we have a staff
report, etc. that's going along with it. In the midst of what I called
negotiations with the owner, I received that letter basically saying I want to
be on the agenda so I thought, I don't know what to include for enclosures. I'll
just put them on the agenda.
Councilman Johnson: So you put them as a visitor's presentation?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, we'll just hold it to see if she comes back to get that
info.
21
4
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
AWARD OF BIDS: REJECT BIDS FOR NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
87-17.
Mayor Chmiel: Dave, do you have to address that this evening?
Councilman Johnson: So moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, second.
Don Ashworth: Good report. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, it is. Amazing. Too much money. Really. Good speech.
You do good work. We appreciate it. You are faster than Gary. '
Councilman Johnson: Does anybody want to hear a staff report on this?
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we can waive it. I just have a comment and that '
is, Mr. Peterson called me and he wants to bid. He was a little bit delayed
with his work so he didn't get the bid in here on time so for that reason there
are other bidders out there that will come in lower so for that I would agree
with the rejection of the bids for the north side parking lot improvement
project #87-17 and I so move.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Resolution #89-9G: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
reject the bids for the North Side Parking Lot Improvement Project No. 87-17. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION IN SADDLEBROOK SUBDIVISION, PROJECT NO. 87-15A. '
Dave Hempel: This is the project that's going to complete the sidewalk
construction in the Saddlebrook Addition. The sidewalk in the past has been
installed as the lot has been developed by the individual builder and this way
we'll insure that the sidewalk is done according to City specs and done in a
timely fashion so the neighborhood can utilize the sidewalk. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and that $18,920.00 cost is going to be funded from the
City's park acquisition?
Dave Hempel: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: But we'll be reimbursed for $14,900.00 of that isn't that '
right?
Dave Hempel: Right. '
Councilman Johnson: They've already spent $14,900.00. That's the way I read it
is they've already spent more than that $14,900.00 so they've already met their
obligation.
22 '
` ' City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Don Ashworth: My recollection is-that the $14,900.00 represents the estimate
that was put into the development contract for asphalt. At that point in time
the developer was going to do it. We came back, found that concrete bids were
down to the point literally of asphalt and that we end up with a better product
and this and that. The developer would be kicking,in an amount of money on this
' but we would be picking up the responsibility for completing those and our costs
which we would get back from lots as they develop was the $14,900.00.
Councilman Boyt: So our cost is $18,900 and we're paying the $4,000.00
difference out of Park and Rec funds, isn't that correct?
' Don Ashworth: Correct. That's correct as well.
Councilman Workman: I would move approval.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Has this gone before Park and Rec as far as them committing
' the money? I don't see that it would be a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's see. At the last Park and Rec, I don't remember if they
did discuss this.
' Don Ashworth: You can have that as a condition. I'm n
co fzdent that they have.
I mean with the whole decision, concrete and all the rest of it was basically
from a year ago. This is not really anything new.
Councilman Johnson: I mean the $4,000.00 is new isn't it?
' Don Ashworth: No. Not even that portion was.
Mayor Chmiel: On any of these additional sidewalk constructions that we're
' going to have, I'd like to see where the sidewalk is going to be located and
have a drawing showing that location.
Resoution #89-91: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
award Improvement Project No. 87-15A, sidewalk construction to Curb Masters,
Inc. of Stillwater, Minnesota in the amount of $18,920.00. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS DENYING A FRONT YARD
VARIANCE REQUEST, 7307 LAREDO DRIVE, LEIGH AND JUDY COLBY.
' Jo Ann Olsen: Before the Board of Adjustments.. .
Councilman Boyt: They're not here. They decided to drop it.
Jo Ann Olsen: They appealed the interpretation of the ordinance and the Board
of Adjustments denied the appeal and they've dropped it.
23
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 11
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR
CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS.
Jo Ann Olsen: This one has been in front of the Planning Commission several
times. It started with the moratorium on the convenience stores with gas pumps
and the Planning Commission, as I stated, reviewed it-.several times to see if
they should limit the number of convenience stores with gas stations or limit
where they can be located. After discussion it was determined that we should
just zone, go through the ordinance and see where they are permitted. If that's
the correct zone and they went through it that way. So the ordinance in front
of you, the really only big change is that there's some different definitions of
convenience store with gas pumps, convenience stores and then motor fuel
stations. We removed convenience stores with gas pumps as a conditional use in '
the CBD district. We didn't feel that was appropriate in that district. Other
than that we're recommending approval of the ordinance amendment. I can answer
questions. '
Mayor C oriel: Is this giving us everything that we were looking for basically?
I don't think so.
Jo Ann Olsen: Originally I think it was looking at limiting the number of
convenience stores with gas pumps. Like you could have 4, one on each corner of
an intersection. Things like that. I think that was one of the intents of the
moratorium, but again, as it went through the whole process, I think at the
Planning Commission level it was determined that that wasn't the way to do it.
We can table it and go back and even bring it back to the Planning Commission if
that's the intent of the Council and say, go through it again.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess you've basically got some of my concerns to go back to
doing it. Bill? '
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment on this as part of the Council when this
was put into place. I didn't read, it wasn't easy to obtain, or easy enough to
obtain all the background on how the Council reached this conclusion but there's
a couple things that stand out. They completely missed the direction that I
understood the previous Council to be pointing them in which was we sensed that
there are too many convenience stores with gas pumps and we want to know what's
the best way to control them. Not whether or not we should control them.
What's the best way to control them and they completely missed that out of this.
When they missed it, their definitions don't make any sense. Convenience stores
with gas pumps and motor fuel station. They went to great, apparently effort to
define them but by where they're zoned, it makes absolutely no difference what
you call them because we don't regulate them any differently from one another.
I would say that the only thing that they did was they removed convenience
stores with gas pumps from the central business district which means the one
right over here would no longer be built if it was coming in under this
ordinance. I don't know if that's the best answer to this thing but I know it
doesn't answer the question that I understood the previous Council to be asking.
I kind of wonder why we went to all this trouble if this is the conclusion that
we're going to come to so I would like to redirect staff to come up with what
communities are doing to control these. I don't want us, if we can help it, to
have situations that we now see with gas stations where you can go into
communities and see corners, busy corners that have, used to have 2 or 3 gas
stations and they've now got maybe 1 and they've got 2 buildings empty that
24 ,
II
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
there isn't a great use for because the gas station is sort of a unique
1 situation. I don't think the market's very good about locating these things.
Everybody seems to want one and I don't think it's in the best interest of the
City so I'd like to see us refer this back to staff.
Mayor Chmiel: I would second that.
Councilman Workman: I would still, it's tough to make heads or tails of the
' report but I would still maintain that the best way to control them is the free
market system in some way, shape or form. That's tough to say because I don't
think I want one of these on every corner as much as you do but it's a very
' basic idea that says a lot. So when we get, I know when I was sitting out there
when you guys approved this, and the ensuing debate, that that was one of the
questions. It's a much larger argument when you bring that into it.
' Councilman Boyt: Which is?
Councilman Workman: The free market system in itself being, you let the market
' decide what's going to cane where basically.
Councilman Boyt: We don't let the market decide where we're going to put
' contractor's yards.
Councilman Workman: Well maybe we ought to. I think I've been in that debate
too. I've said before, we should allow people to do business and stay out of it
' as much as we can without trying to over burden and regulate and that's my
piece. But I would like to table this also.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'm wondering if after that if there's a need to look into
what other communities are doing to control this if indeed we don't want to
control it. I guess I'd go along with the free enterprise system too and ask
myself do we want to control it or will the market not control itself?
Mayor Chmiel: Control is something that I don't like to ever have control
of
anything. I just feel the direction that was given at the time was differently
as you indicated and I think it should go back and have that discussion and
table it at this time.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess when he said what the intent of the previous
Council was, I was surprised. Just to see what other communities are doing to
control this and how are we going to control this. I would no longer be in
favor of doing anything so for that reason yes, table.
Councilman Johnson: Well I like Section 1. After that I think they lost the
point. I do believe we need to define it. I'm not exactly sure that would be
' my total definition. Convenience stores do a lot of other things rather than
perishable goods. I don't consider diapers and stuff like that as perishable
goods but it goes a long ways toward saying what is a convenience store which
right now it really doesn't. We have a real problem there so Section 1 of this
I think is a good first step but still they missed the point I agree of what do
we want to control here. While the free market is a good theory on how to
control it, it doesn't always work too well. You control it by bankruptcy.
um Councilwoman Dimler: Controls don't always work too well either.
' 25
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Councilman Johnson: Controls don't either but I think that's what a zoning
ordinance is for. That's why we have a zoning ordinance that's 50-60 pages long
or whatever is to have a vision of what the City wants and what the City's going
to be. I'm not sure if very many neighborhoods want, within the neighborhood
business district next to them a convenience store with gas pumps. I know if
you ask the next door neighbors to any convenience store with gas pumps what
they think of it, they would prefer not to have it next door to them.
Councilman Workman: I wouldn't be as harsh with a non-compatible use. What I'm
saying is we should be careful about setting a precedence. The Legion's going
to come down and there's going to be an SA or something maybe going up there
let's say. Now all the traffic heading towards Minneapolis in the morning might
use that instead of Sinclair. Long time business here. We-could say well, we
would like to protect Sinclair and don't put anything there. That's where I'm
saying we're getting into trouble. Non-compatible uses take right behind
Brooke's and we've got a problem right there with fumes, etc.. I don't have
problems with that.
Councilman Johnson: But see, that's what I want them to look at. I don't think
that we should be looking at saying oh we're trying to protect our existing
businesses by not doing this. That is not the point of the zoning ordinance...
Councilman Workman: I thought there was a little flavor of that in the Amoco
situation.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. , There was a little flavor of that in the Amoco
situation by former members of the Council but that was not my purpose of voting
for that. I don't think that was Bill's purpose. I don't think that was Dale's
purpose and I don't think that was Clark's purpose. But I won't say who I think
who's purpose it might have been. But I don't think that that flavor, that you
heard...
Councilman Workman: No, I wasn't accusing you Jay.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think that was a council wide flavor. Let's put it '
that way.
Mayor Chmiel: There's been a motion to table. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment modifying zoning- restrictions and locations for
convenience stores, gas stations and automotive service stations. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, KINGS ROAD AND '
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT.
Daryl Kirt: We feel that the amount of fill that we're putting in is very, very
small and it will actually improve the wetland we're putting it on. We just
26 '
. City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
feel that behind the house we're looking to build, it would define the wetland
area if we put in the fill we're asking for, we'd actually define where the
wetland is and where the yard would be and I think we'd also help with erosion
I if we had that there during rains or whatever. Having the extra soil and we're
going to leave it for natural vegetation. It would actually stop water from
running into the wetland area so we think it's more of an improvement than
' anything else and it would also make the site look pretty where the house would
be to have somewhat of a defined area behind the house. I think by having it
there too, the vegetation that would grow, we're going to leave it natural,
would prevent the erosion and from going into the wetland area and we just feel
that it would make the building much prettier and more useable for us if we
could do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Jo Ann, would you like to address this?
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting the Council to vote for a
reconsideration to bring it back onto a Council agenda. He was not at the last
Council meeting and did not get a chance to speak at that time so we allowed him
or suggested that he bring it back onto the agenda and also to try to support
that it would be an improvement to the wetland and not detrimental to the
' wetland and allow him to support that.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's my understanding that we have to have a four-fifths
vote to open this for reconsideration to begin with?
Don Ashworth: No. The three-fifths vote for...
' Councilwoman Dimler: I thought it was four-fifths.
4_
Don Ashworth: Three-fifths to vote for reconsideration. If you would then want
' to turn around and waive your procedure where you would normally publish the
item, put it on the next agenda, that's your normal procedure but if you wanted
to skip that, you could do that with a four-fifths vote and act on both
' reconsideration and issuing the permit. Reconsideration three-fifths. Taking
action tonight on the permit itself four-fifths.
' Councilwoman Dimler: So you're looking for two motions?
Don Ashworth: If you wanted to do it tonight.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Either way.
Don Ashworth: The applicant would like to build his home and he'd like to move
on this.
Councilman Johnson: He can build his home.
Councilwoman Dimler: He has permission to build his home.
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: I hate to say this but I messed up earlier on this bep ause
I thought I knew that site until I went out there. My memory failed me on this
one when it first came through. I didn't realize how much forest was there and
27
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
the fact that this is going to clear cut that whole corner. That completely
went by me before. I think leave well enough alone from all the tree protection
work that's been going on lately. We're talking about taking out a bunch of 12
to 14 inches and 6 and 7 inch. From the grading, there's not going to be any
trees left out there.
Councilman Workman: Are we reconsidering? '
Councilman Johnson: I'm saying leave well enough alone where I already messed
up once. '
Councilman Workman: Why don't we vote to reconsider.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I make a motion that we reconsider. '
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reconsider the request
for a Wetland Alteration Permit for Daryl Kirt at King's Road and Minnewashta
Parkway. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who voted in opposition
and the motion carried 4 to 1.
Councilwoman Dimler: Now, because we are reconsidering, I do have one major
concern.
Councilman Johnson: Reconsideration will have to have another vote if we're 1_ 11
going to reconsider tonight.
Councilwoman Dimler: This is not approving it. We're just opening it up for
reconsideration.
Councilman Johnson: By that vote we do it at the next meeting unless we now '
have a motion to waive our procedures and do it tonight.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we can still discuss it after the vote can't we? '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't want this to set a precedent for other cases and '
as was pointed out, the differentiation may be very, very hard to accomplish.
So with that motion to reconsider, I would like to ask staff to do some findings
of facts for us and bring that to our next meeting onto which we might base our
vote. Our actual vote of whether we will allow this or not.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest a few of those. I think that the
Council has pretty generally approved alterations that have moved to improve the
wetland itself and disapproved any that haven't. I think that what the
applicant and staff also need to work on, not only, I agree with you, this needs
to be clearly established as unique so we stay away from precedent. The other '
thing that needs to happen though is that the applicant needs to come back with
definite improvements to the wetland. I would suggest looking at the 6 criteria
again of Fish and Wildlife, that one of those criteria is improving wildlife
28 ,
I ' ' City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Iareas per se. Feeding and resting areas for birds. This kind of thin . I
I [ lanti.
think as part of the alteration there should be commitments to g
P ng approved
vegetation along the wetland edge. I think there should be some sort of
commitment to maybe improving some area for other wildlife and we should
generally come back with a statement of not wetland alteration but wetland
improvement. That the whole thing ought to be phrased in that stance. This is
Ihow I'm going to improve the wetland out my back door. Then I think it's got a
chance. Jay, I guess I will plead unfortunate ignorance about the cutting of
hardwoods, if we're dealing with that. The City has a moratorium against the
Icutting of hardwoods so I suspect the won't be able to do that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Later_ on it's addressed there. We don't have a
moratorium.
IICouncilman Boyt: There happens to be one right now.
II Councilman Johnson: No. It wasn't properly notified and everything else.
There is no moratorium.
II Mayor Chmiel: I've not reviewed the site. What is there Jay? What kind of
trees?
Councilman Workman: It's very difficult. I drove by it today and dressed as I
' am, there's no way I was going through there.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. There's no way I was going in there to look at
I t wetlands. It's an overgrown area with anything from 1 inch to 12 or so inch
trees in it.
IMayor Chmiel: What species?
Councilman Johnson: I did not spectate the trees. As you know, I was late the
6:30 meeting this evening. That was one of the reasons for it. It's a whole
Ivariety. I'm sure there are some willows and soft woods in there because it's
basically a high spot on the end of a swamp. As far as improving wildlife
habitat, we've already approved a tremendous loss of habitat and I don't think
I there was a whole lot of ways around that for that little bit of area. To put a
house on it and make it a useable, it's a lot of record and everything and we
can't have the taking there but whatever we can save, I would like to see,
I anything that comes back, I want to see what the limits of the clear cutting are
and how that's affecting into here. Whether the trees are within this area.
Also they want to put a yard into.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Wouldn't that all be covered tinder findings of facts for
them to bring back to us next time?
ICouncilman Johnson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Findings of facts of all the ones that were mentioned and at
least I had 9 of them.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: And anything else you can come up with.
th.
4.
II
II 29
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Mayor Chmiel: That list of total numbers should be also given to Daryl so he's
aware as to what we're looking at. -
Councilman Johnson: Now is that required to do a little fill under that wetland ,
in order to save some of the woodland wildlife habitat that's in that corner.
That would be a trade off. In that area there's a very large portion of wetland
habitat and limited woodland habitat. I'm not sure what percent of that
woodland is going to be taken by the house and the garage. Fairly substantial.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any further discussion? If not, I don't think a motion is
required on this is it Roger?
Councilman Boyt: We already did it.
Mayor Chmiel: So this will be back on the Council agenda on- the 28th.
Jo Ann Olsen: I'll try to get it back on that. What you're asking is a lot of '
information that has to be supplied and then verified.
Mayor Chmiel: The problem is, if he's proceeding with building, we'd like to
keep it moving.
Jo Ann Olsen: The house can still go ahead. It's just the filling.
Councilman Johnson: What he does with the dirt from building the foundation is
a problem.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Li
DISCUSSION OF SUPERAMERICA SIGN, HIGHWAYS 7 AND 41. 1
Jo Ann Olsen: The reason this was brought in front of the Council was that it
was brought to staff's attention after the SuperAmerica site was built, the
store, that they had a lit canopy and the stripe around the building. It's
always been staff's understanding that that would not be illuminated. In
speaking with the applicant, they felt that it had always been clear that that
would be illuminated and it was just a misunderstanding. Because I had thought
that it wasn't going to be illuminated, it was never brought out as a specific
condition so there was nothing in the conditional use permit or site plan review
that I could point out that did not allow it. There is a condition that stated
that the canopy would not have signage. It's questionable whether or not that
illuminated stripe is signage so the applicant, I allowed them to have the
occupancy permit on the condition that I would be bringing this back up to the
Council for them to review it and that would be with their understanding that
the illumination could possibly be removed. So we are bringing it up to the
Council for them to review it. The applicant on Friday has stated that they
will turn off the lights until the HSZ site is constructed or berming or
whatever occurs on the site which would screen the lights from the residents and
then possibly be able to turn them back on to see if it would be an impact and
have the Council make a decision at that time. They are agreeing to just turn
off the lights adjacent to the residential neighborhood. Not all of them. Not
the ones along TH 41 and TH 7. So I still wanted the Council to review it just
so the applicant has clear direction what they want to allow happen and what
30
IICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
they can do. Also to let the residents speak pe k I guess.
I Mayor Chmiel: For those of you who may or may not remember, we did have a
meeting here with the residents regarding the developer's area as well as
discussing the illumination on SuperAmerica. I'm pleased to see that you're
willing to shut those lights off for the interim because it is causing an
inconvenience for some of those residents within a particular area whereby they
say it's a night light that they don't really have to have in their bedroom and
it does throw an awful lot of light. I guess what I'm looking at here, I'm
seeing what staff is saying that the potential with the developer doing the
landscaping and the berming within the area may allow this lighting to come back
on providing that it still is not an inconvenience for the neighborhood. I
' guess that's where I'm coming from at least and I'm not sure where the balance
of the Council is coming from but at least that's what I -see.
' Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, if I might. I think the Council is in a stronger
position given the agreement between SuperAmerica and staff that the Council
review this. I think we're in a stronger position if we work off the proposal
that SuperAmerica has made and table this. We can still listen to comment from
' citizens but if we, I think if we take no action, in the long run we're in a
better position to take action in the future than if we take action tonight we
sort of seal the books. We've done what they agreed and staff would too so I
prefer to see us ut off,, es pecially given that SuperAmerica has said we're
going to turn the lights off facing the neighbors. I would rather see us try
that before the Council takes final action.
IMayor Chmiel: Good position.
Councilman Johnson: Before I take any action, I want to see some of those
drawings back again that show the illumination. We had illumination drawings
showing what the illumination was going to be at this site and I don't remember
any building illumination. I only remember inside the canopy and stuff and I'd
like to hear from residents and I'd like to hear from the SuperAmerica reps
tonight but I don't really want to make any kind of decision tonight. Like Bill
says, I think we're in the best position...
' Mayor Chmiel: That's what we'll probably wind up doing is tabling this but I'd
like to have.. .
Councilwoman Cimler: But the residents can speak?
Mayor.- Chmiel: Yes. I'd like to have the residents address the issue. I know
' we've addressed it once but SuperAmerica wasn't present at that particular time.
We're just strictly addressing the illumination on SuperAmerica at this time.
Councilman Workman: Are the lights on right now?
Jo Ann Olsen: They're supposed to be turned off.
' Councilman Workman: Are the lights turned off tonight?
Resident: They were on last night.
1
1 31
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
II
I
Councilman Workman: I understood that they were going to be turned off
immediately.
Councilman Boyt: Let me say something about the staff note before SuperAmerica
gets held to task for what's down here. What's down here is a result of a phone
conversation that I had with SuperAmerica and relayed to staff and then there
was some discussion between staff and SuperAmerica. In the need to get this
into the pack, I think there were maybe some conclusions drawn. What I
understood to be the case following my discussion was that SuperAmerica was
proposing to turn off the lights that would face the neighborhood, which
basically meant the lights on two sides of the building and see how that worked.
Now since then we really, I don't know about SuperAmerica but there's been very
little time here and I don't know what conversations they've had with staff
but I don't think we should take what's in this cover paragraph word for word
because staff sort of got it second hand.
Dick Brown: I'm Dick Brown. I live at 2630 Orchard Lane. I have this letter I
received, I think it was sent out August 10th and it says in here, the staff's
position is that the lighted canopy signage does not comply with approvals given
by the City. Can the City tell us why it doesn't comply? What are the
specifics on that?
Don Ashworth: The canopy shows the striping around on the plans but it does not '
show it as being illuminated. Our position is that it has to be shown as
illuminated.
Dick Brown: And it should not be illuminated? Okay. Also, I'm trying to
understand in this letter it talks about occupancy permit had been held waiting
for the resolution of this item. Has that permit been given?
Don Ashworth: Yes it has.
Dick Brown: Who gave it? I
Don Ashworth: City staff.
Dick Brown: And how could they give it if they were not in compliance? '
Don Ashworth: It was with agreements that the sign, that they had the right to
appeal staff's decision to their City Council. Any person has a right to come
back to this City Council and to appeal a decision. It was staff's belief that
as long as they came back to the City Council, the Council made a decision
within a relatively quick period of time, that again it would be back to City
Council to make that decision.
Dick Brown: So they could violate what you told them they could do and still
get away with it and appeal after the fact?
Don Ashworth: The construction documents show the lighted sign in there. They
have some basis for saying that they had believed that that sign should be
allowed to be lit. Our position is that no. We don't think that's the cases
The preliminary plans as they were approved by the City Council are the
controlling documents but they have a right to present their position to the
Council and to tell the Council why it is that staff's position is wrong.
32
IICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Dick Brown: Okay but for the record, I have a hard time understanding that if
' you have a set of plans that distinctly tell you what you can or can't do, they
have the right to go ahead and do whatever they wish and then appeal later on to
change your mind. That doesn't make sense. That's just for the record and
' that's my position.
Councilman Johnson: Actually I think there's two sets of plans. A set of plans
' that show the basic development and then the construction plans that our
building permit people look at. It was between those building permit people who
looked at the building permits and looked for building code violations. Not
necessarily all of our conditions. Generally they look at the conditions we
' place on them. This is one that slipped by, what I would consider slipped by
our building inspectors as they reviewed those plans which is multiple pages. I
don't know how many pages something like this would be. Probably 20-30 pages of
' blueprints.
Don Ashworth: More than that.
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, more than that but a large set of blueprints they're
looking through trying to find health, safety violations and make sure it's a
safe building.
Dick Brown: So what you're saying is this would have happened, it would never
have been caught. I mean somebody has to be blamed to be responsible for that
x happening. Somebody just does. Either the plans are right or they're wrong.
Don Ashworth: Staff is responsible to
po take and look at the plans...
Dick Brown: And I agree with staff.
Don Ashworth: ...there was a site plan was approved by City Council. It did
not show the illumination. Construction drawings were submitted, they show an
illumination.
Dick Brown: Don' t get me wrong. I agree with staff but I think we should be
more prudent and expediate in getting it changed.
Don Ashworth: Then before occupancy permit was authorized, went back through
' both sets and that's where we realized that they had not complied with those
conditions. That's where we withheld occupancy permit. That's when the appeal
was asked for to come before the City Council.
Dick Brown: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Is there anyone else.
1 Ben Gowen: I'm Ben Gowen, 6440 Hazeltine Blvd.. Can ou read to m
Y e that
section, I think it's one of the 14 items that controls lighting. Would you
' read it to me for the record please?
Councilman Boyt: It has something to do with the amount of lighting that
remains on site.
11 33
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, do you have that handy?
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't.
Ben Gowen: I'll wait until you get it.
Councilman Boyt: I'm sure that the section you're talking about or maybe you're '
referring to is the one that limits the amount of light that can leave the site.
Is that right?
Ben Gowen: If you'll read it for the record it will stop the whole issue. It
was a condition of building. One of the 14 items.
Councilman Boyt: That there was supposed to be, off hand I'd say something like 1
20% spillage. 80% control on site. Something like that. 70%.
Ben Gowen: Well I think if you get it and read it we'll have it for the record. '
Let's get it out.
Councilman Johnson: Do you have the conditional use permit with you Jo Ann? '
Ben Gowen: Can we get it out please?
Jo Ann Olsen: I can go get it. '
Ben Gowen: It clears the question.
Councilman Johnson: It's upstairs someplace.
Don Ashworth: It's in the conditional use file.
Jo Ann Olsen: I have the conditions in here. I can read them.
Councilman Johnson: The conditions are in here someplace?
Jo Ann Olsen: They're in the Minutes.
Mayor Chmiel: There's some near the back but there's 12 specific items that are
there Jo Ann.
Ben Gowen: It's 12 or 14 items. i
Councilman Johnson: There's 15. I found it. Page 63.
Councilman Workman: Page 92?
Councilman Johnson: Also on page 63.
Mayor. Chmiel: There's the 11. ..
Councilman Johnson: No, there's 15 there. '
Mayor Chmiel: There's also those on page 91 as Tom mentioned but those are not
the ones that Ben is leading to.
34
I . City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
II
IIJo Ann Olsen: There's the one condition in there that says the lights on the
gas canopy, and those are the lights underneath, that had to be recessed, shall
be receeded into the canopy to eliminate dispersion of light into surrounding
t neighborhood areas.
IIBen Gowen: What was the last statement please? 'gliminate what?
Jo Ann Olsen: The lights will be receeded into the canopy to eliminate
1 dispersion of light into the surrounding neighborhood.
Ben Gowen: Does that answer the question?
ICouncilman Johnson: For the canopy.
Jo Ann Olsen: Those are the lights underneath.
IMayor Chmiel: That's just the canopy.
1 Ben Gowen: The canopy is the big problem. The canopy is 365 circle of light.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's in the zoning ordinance about control of light on
the site isn't it?
IIJo Ann Olsen: That's just a standard. Is that what he's talking about?
Ben Gowen: How can you change it the other way if it controls the light to a
horizontal area or to a vertical area?
II Councilman Johnson: Mite simply Jo Ann, if we had known that they were going
to light the outside of the canopy at the time, we would also made this
applicable to the outside lights. Why make it applicable to the inside lights
if you then put lights on the outside?
IJo Ann Olsen: As I stated, we didn't even bring...
I Ben Gowen: The purpose was to have no lights shining in the neighborhood. They
were notified before construction completed because I know that I noticed that
there were about 95 neon lights installed on the canopy and the City was
II notified I think it was on the Friday before the weekend by Gary Reed that this
was happening and it was lights that were illegal. Thank you.
Jo Ann Olsen: While he's coming up. We do have an illumination plan that was
Iapproved that does show that the lighting does not disperse.
Councilman Johnson: That's something that Jay indicated that he'd like to see.
1 Bob Wagner: Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane. I'm looking at the City of
Chanhassen staff report dated August 22nd. This was the proposal for the
III conditional use permit for the convenience store with gas pumps. I'm
specifically looking on page 8. The date at the top of that Jo Ann is August
3rd and it's item 4 and you go through several issues. One is, will not be
hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. We're talking
about the zoning. And it goes on to say, the conditional use permit process
II 35
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
permits conditions to be added to insure the site will not be disturbin g to
neighboring uses. The lights on the site will be downcast to prevent light from
being directed off site. The canopy lights are also downcast but to further
reduce impact to the neighbors, staff is recommending that the lights be
receeded into the gas canopy. I think that sets some early precedent probably
of what was to be expected. Are you Roman? I can't r.pnember Roman, right?
Roman, I'm going to read his comments of that Planning Commission meeting of
August the 3rd. We'll skip the one about no diesel fuel. Excuse me about Bud
Kelp. Bud's not here tonight but Bud took some early stances. He says the type
of lighting that SuperAmerica uses at it's location, downcast lighting, as the
picture illustrates is downcast lighting. Roman Mueller could direct who Bud
Kelp is to you. It's a little hazy to me anymore. Then I'd like to direct your
attention to the City Council meeting of October the 10th which was sort of the
down and dirty last hurrah when we decided what we were going to do and would
never come back again on this subject. Raman at that evening, his comments
were, our light spillage... I
Mayor Chmiel: What page is that on?
Bob Wagner: That's page 51, the bottom of the page. That's the number at the '
bottom and Roman is here so he can probably verify this. It says, our light
spillage is almost neglible... You might be able to stand at a person's house
and be able to see the light but you can do that with the lights downtown also.
That's not an impact on them. We're not lighting their buildings. We're not
lighting their yards. We're not lighting anything they've got. They can see a
point of light but they are not impacted by the light itself. It is also been
required that in our canopy our lights be receased up into than to eliminate the
point of light that they can see. That's already established in the
development. Mayor Geving spoke and then Roman spoke again. Also, I'd like to
point out that the lights that we do install, even when they are not made to be
recessed into the canopy, are all cut lenses to focus the lights directly down.
It's strictly like this and then he had the plat or plans that I think
Councilman Johnson was addressing he'd like to see. Then when we get to number
6 of the actual conditional permit which says the lights on the gas canopy shall
be reduced into the canopy to eliminate dispersion of light into the surroudning
neighborhood area. That's page 87. I think there's very clear precedent here
of what was expected and I'll point out number 3 on page 91 which was the final
12 I think. Maybe it wasn't the final 12 but it's 12 of the conditions. Number
3 says no signage shall be permitted on the gas canopy. I think all of those
establish a precedent of what's tight and wrong in this particular issue. I'd
like to address the comment about turning them off temporarily. I'm getting
awful tired of coming back. Secondly, with the leaves all off the trees,
there's no berming that's going to protect the lighting.
Councilman Boyt: What?
Bob Wagner: When the leaves fall off the trees, there's no berming that's going I
to be built that's going to protect me from that lighting. I sit quite high. It
might affect those that are below the berm. It's not going to affect houses
like Ben Gowen or myself. There's just no way it's possible. 1
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to put out something.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Bill.
36 '
' ' City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Councilman Boyt: As I thought, in our zoning ordinance we have Section 20-913
I which deals with lighting that says glare whether direct or reflected as
differentiated with general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits
of the site form which it originates. There may be some definitional
discussions about glare versus general illumination there so then in Section
20-958 it talks about glare or heat. Any use requiring an operation producing
an intense heat or light transmission shall be formed with the necessary
shielding to prevent such heat or light from being detectable at the lot line of
' the site on which the use is located. Lighting in all instances shall be
diffused or directed away from R districts, meaning residential and public
streets. So I think in terms of the City's ability to regulate this, we're in
' an excellent position to cone up with a good solution. i think that it still
makes sense however in spite of the necessity to maybe bring Bob back one more
time, to work out a temporary solution until we see what the site looks like
when it's all built up. It just seems to me to be the reasonable thing to do.
' To do it.
Ben Gowen: I disagree totally with Bill Boyt on that. The contract was let.
' The conditions were set. They agreed to it and they're not complying. They
should comply or be out of business. Close them up if they can't comply.
Dick Brown: I think Councilman Boyt ought to keep in mind that getting the site
done and completed is a whole different issue. That's what we talked about at
the last meeting and that's not being done either. Nothing being done the way
it should be done.
IIResident: They brought the machine in there to start the hole and they did a
little bit on one side and parked the machine and set there. They didn't do
anymore with it. That's all they did. On one side they dug it up a little bit
and the machine's sitting there. They haven't been back there since.
Dick Brown: So we're talking about two distinct issues here. First of all he's
' trying to bring in something that doesn't belong with what we're talking about
today. We're talking about lighting specifically and staff agrees with the
neighbors that they're in non-compliance with the plans. It's that simple and
the issue is, do you let them continue in business under those terms or do you
shut them down or do you modify the operation somehow to make us happy? The
other issue that you're talking about, is something entirely different. We went
' through this in the meeting before. The building may never get that done. I
don't think, there's a good possibility the City's going to have to exercise
their letter of credit and do it themselves. That's not an issue here. You
shouldn't even talk about that.
' Councilman Boyt: Okay, let me respond here for a second. There's no question
in my mind that the lights that are reflecting into the neighbor's houses need
' to be turned off. Okay? And that needs to happen as soon as they can arrange
it to happen. What I'm saying is, the Council has plenty of authority to go in
and deal with the light issue. Let's get the lights turned off. We don't have
' to take any action to do that. I think that Roman and his people will stand up
and tell you they'll have that done and maybe they'll even give us a date that
we can hold them accountable by. I hope they do. That needs to happen. I'm
just saying, let's not act on this per se but let's get the problem solved and
then see what happens. I don't know what's going to happen.
37
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we'll do is just direct this over to SuperAmerica and '
I think SuperAmerica wants to be a good neighbor. Maybe they'll address it from
that specific aspect. Please come over and state your name please.
Robert Johnson: My name is Robert Johnson. I'm the attorney who represents '
SuperAmerica. Point of personal priviledge first before I get into it. I find
it so interesting. I was Chairman of the Municipal Commission out here years
and years ago that had a whole host of hearings and dismembered the township and
annexed part of it to Chanhassen and part of it to Chaska and part of it to
Victoria. So it's interesting to come back and see the development and see
what's happened since, we must have had 20 hearings out here. As we worked on
what to do with the township and how to expand Chanhassen and to see what you
have done and cane back and see the Council and see than in action here, it's
very, very interesting. On the issue of what we're talking about here, we
indeed on behalf of SuperAmerica, Roman Mueller is here who's the architectural
engineer and Randy Peterson's here who's partner in this effort. But the lights
on the south side and the west side will be turned off. It's the electrician
has been ordered out there to disconnect. There's not a way you can switch it
off so that will happen within the next day or two. The south side and the west
side. I've represented SuperAmerica for a long time and a good many places and
I just assure you that they indeed do want to be a good neighbor. But we do
indeed want to work with you and work with the neighbors. We are very, very
concerned that that development is not going in as it had been planned and has
had to been promised. We want to go to the developer and put whatever pressure
we can put on him to get it done because as testified a year ago, going through
the transcript and noting that the station without the shopping center there is
going to have tough sliding because that shopping center is very important to
it. So we indeed join with the neighbors in saying we want to get at that and
we are going to get at that and try to bring pressure to bear on that. The
matter of the misunderstanding, as I understand it, occurred as a discussion
between Roman and the previous planner. At that time he did have a discussion
the planner in which they talked about the light on the canopy. All the times
I've worked with him, I've never seen him try to snooker something by. They
just don't operate that way so it was indeed an honest misunderstanding between
staff and SuperAmerica. We would appreciate very much your action to table it.
We will turn the lights off. We would like to see that shopping development go
in and then take a look at it and see what kind of, we don't know what kind of
buildings they're going to put up. What the berming strip is going to be. What
affect that will have on the neighbors as they would look at the light. As you
know, when you talk about the lights, the difference in the light projecting and
the visbility of the light is a part of what the language problem that you get
into what lighting would be allowed. But I don'.t see any point to getting into
that because that's not an issue in front of you at the present time. But
that's what we would propose and respond to any questions. I'd rather not get
into a lot of detail and rehashing of it at this time because as you pointed out
Councilman, that will be a time to do that at a later time if indeed the
building and the berm does not protect the citizen, then if at that time we want
to come back and get those lights on again, it will be our obligation to come '
and try and convince you of that. Unless Roman, do you have anything?
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
38 • ,
ICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
IIDick Brown: I'd like to make one more comment.
To avoid misunderstanding
again, I understand that the misunderstanding to begin with was on the lighting
Ion the outside. The facia. If I'm correct, you're talking about putting the
lighting out only on the south and west side?
IIRobert Johnson: The south and west side.
Dick Brown: And just so we don't misunderstand, I don't think that's correct. I
I think the neighbors are asking the City to follow the letter of the law the way
staff talked. Turn the lights on all of the outside out. Not just the south
and just the west. Just so we don't have a misunderstanding, that's what the
neighbors expect them to do.
ICouncilman Johnson: Can I ask why the other two sides, if it has no effect upon
the neighbors other than it's strictly to meet the letter of the law?
IIBen Gowen: There are neighbors across the street.
I Dick Brown: They were at the last meeting talking about it too.
Ben Cowan: Read the thing and abide by it. It's simple. Turn them off.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Always additional questions. As
they're saying, the south side and west side, and you're saying on all sides?
Lights that come down from there are down lighting up against the building is
I [ that correct?
Ben Gowen: We're talking the canopy.
IIMayor_ Chmiel: We're talking the canopy itself? Okay, strictly canopy.
Jo Ann Olsen: And the building.
IIDick Brown: We're talking the facia.
I Mayor Chmiel: Facia and the canopy? All the way around? Okay. Would there be
a problem in turning that complete facia off? On the upper portion of it?
Robert Johnson: Yes, it would be Mr. Mayor and the Council. On the north side,
I as I went out and looked at the site today, I could really only see one house
that was across TH 7 which is a double lane highway and it's up higher and if
you look to the east of that house, there's a shopping center. It's not as
II though there's something that was really create any great problem for them. It's
our position that the mere fact of putting a light behind the facia is not a
sign and we would, if we were going to get into the discussion of the merits of
that, why we could do that but it just seemed to be the only neighbors that I
' could see were on the south and on the west side that certainly are in Shorewood
so that would...
IL Mayor. Chmiel: That facia. I'm thinking the facia in itself, and I drove in
there one evening just to check it out and I also filled up with gas, just, to
let you know. I've used SuperAmerica quite extensively. I know that some of
II the people who are here, the other meeting that we had, had some real concerns.
They're having problems with sleeping because of that illumination and the site
11 39
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
in itself is well lit. I don't think that facia is really a real necessary
thing to have to point out or to stick out or to light out or to attract the
people because there's still enough lighting directly on site with your down
lighting as you have on the pumps and so on. That draws in itself. You've got
your SA sign which is something that draws in as well. Your prices are right
and consequently people are going in. So I don't see-that as being a real
deterrent for you at this particular time. I think what I'd like to ask, if you
would, is to keep that light off all the way around for this period of time
whether we have it tabled now and then come back and see once we get the
entirity of that berming up and get the plantings in, to see if there's enough
screening and there might be a problem with a couple of them because they said
they're up a little higher. See what that might be that you could come in and
turn it back on and see whether or not it would be acceptable back again to that
neighborhood.
Robert Johnson: Mr. Mayor, what I'm saying about that is, there will be no berm
on the north side so we're not changing that at all so that's why we would
prefer very much to leave it on the north side and on the east side. I
understand what you're saying about the people...
Mayor Chmiel: The north side is obvious shopping center. That's right.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not sure there's neighbors that way. There's a
shopping center.
Councilman Johnson: There is.
Councilwoman Dimler: There is?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I drove by there today. They're a long ways away too '
but I have to go out and see it at night. I haven't been out there at night
yet.
Bob Wagner: I have to point out too that there isn't any clear cut north, 1
south, east, west.
Ben Gowen: One more time. Why can't the City Council force them to live up to '
the contract that they signed to begin with? That they agreed to to begin with.
They didn't agree and now they're weaseling around. Don't let them. Make than
shut it off.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it does indicate that there's no facia lighting on it.
Ben Gowen: Pure and simple. Don't have it. '
Councilman Johnson: Basically the purpose of tabling is because the applicant
has not had time to prepare but I think we should have them shut it off until
the time that they can come in with the lighting. Prepare a presentation.
Mayor_ Chmiel: I think it's within the conditional use permit itself. Do you '
have that handy? Is that what that was shown in at that time Ben? In the
L:11
conditional use permit?
Ben Gowen: She read number 6. ..
40 ,
II •
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
I
IIJo Ann Olsen: That was talking about the recessed lighting.
Mayor Chmiel: No there was also
something on the facia portion and I believe
that was within the conditional use.
' Councilman Johnson: You know Jo Ann, I do not read number 6 as the recessed
lighting.
11 Ben Gowen: Maybe I've got the wrong one.
' Jo Ann Olsen: There's a different number 6.
Bob Wagner: I'm looking at a set of 15 on that handout, page 87...
' Councilman Johnson: You see, if we had been informed at that time that there
were other lights in the gas canopy besides those lights, the wording of that
would have been different.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right and I think that's what we have to get back to.
Councilman Johnson: That's the problem. There was a mistake and the Council
was misinformed about the plans for the lighting of that canopy because they
were not shown on their illumination drawings.
Bob Wagner: I have a drawing here with no indication of lightings in the staff
report. I have another indication of the building but. ..
' Mayor Chmiel: Can I see that Bob?
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to have this brought back so we can see all the
information put together and we can argue whether the stripes are a sign, which
by our ordinance the stripes are a sign. There's no way that you can say that
they're not but I'll let you read our ordinance. You just have time to read the
ordinance and then come back and argue that it doesn't say what it says.
Councilman Boyt: Do you have the lighting diagram?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's here. We'd have to go into it a little bit more but
it does show.
Jo Ann Olsen: Those are recessed. The lighting canopy is showing the recessed
lighting illumination.
Mayor Chmiel: It shows the edge of the canopy but it does not specifically say
' any lights on the edge of canopy there. What we're going to have to do I think
is to...
Jo Ann Olsen: How much will be shielded really depends on the buildings that
are zn there. It won't be completely shielded.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we should have a motion for tabling to look back at the
illumination drawings to see whether it's consistent.
' 41
City Council Feting - August 14, 1989 1
Councilman Johnson: I will move that we have the lights on the canopy, all
sides of the canopy turned off at this time and that we table the entire issue
to a future agenda when SuperAmerica can present their arguments as to, and we
can further research the issues.
Councilman Boyt: You can't do both those things. You can't move to pass
something and then table it at the same time. ,
Councilman Johnson: No, I moved to table it until...
Mayor Chmiel: No, he's saying to shut off the lights and to table the balance
of it is what he's basically saying.
Councilman Boyt: What's the balance of it? You're telling them to shut off the ,
lights. That's a done deal. --
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but to review what was actually said in conjunction with
what the interpretation is here as far as the canopy or the facia lighting.
Councilman Johnson: There's a lot of issues. '
Councilman Boyt: Well there's a lighting issue.
Councilman Johnson: There's a lighting issue. '
Councilman Boyt: And how are you going to take a vote on a lighting issue and
then table it for further discussion? That doesn't make any sense to me. I
Councilman Johnson: Okay, we're saying, as an interim measure, we want all the
lights turned off at this time.
Councilman Workman: On the canopy.
Councilman Johnson: On the canopy and that we will table it for the entire ,
discussion to see what will happen permanently because we have a lack of
information tonight to work from for a permanent solution.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger? I'd like a legal opinion.
Roger Knutson: I guess my, what Jay said is fine but my concern would be, what
do you want me to do if they keep the canopy lights on? Do you want me to
prosecute them?
Don Ashworth: Staff will take that position yes.
Councilman Johnson: Revoke the conditional use permit and close it down.
Roger Knutson: That's fine.
Councilman Johnson: That's my motion.
Councilman Boyt: I would propose...
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor.
42 ,
IICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
I
ICouncilman Boyt: There's no second.il
Councilman Workman: Jay, I'll second it for discussion.
I Councilman Boyt: SuperAmerica knows your intent. -Maybe I'm just hung up on a
procedure but I think it makes a pretty clumsy motion to move to table the
motion that you're making and I would, that's how I understand it. I would just
suggest that you move to table this thing. You've told them what you want them
to do. If they don't do it, they realize that there's consequences involved or,
just make the darn motion to turn the lights off. Get a vote on that and see
Iwhat happens to it. Let's clean it up somehow.
Councilman Johnson: Doing it the first way, I would say that if they leave the
lights on, there's nothing we can do about it until the issues comes up again.
I Doing it the second way, they can request reconsideration and bring the issue up
on a future agenda. If go to say, hey, that's it. Turn the lights off.
Nothing's a dead issue because you've got the reconsideration process.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: I guess my comment is that from what I've seen here, I
haven't really had time to look at it in great detail and none of us really
have, but if it's clear cut in there that the canopy facia lighting was not in
I there, then we have to move with turning them off and keeping them off, no
consideration. No reconsideration.
Councilman Johnson: There's no such thing as no reconsideration. It's in our
I laws that they can have reconsideration. We can deny their. reconsideration.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's in the plans.
Councilman Workman: We've had sticky issues like this before and I'm proud to
say the record of this Council has been the option of compromise and I think
that's where we've all been kind of squirming to try and keep a light or two on
and make everybody happy. Is the north side, we're not sure what the north side
is? The north side light couldn't be left on?
Bob Wagner:- Could I address that?
Councilman Workman: Sure.
Bob Wagner: I'd like to address this issue of compromise. I'd like to give you
about 10 years of history on this site but I don't have time. The compromise
has gone from residential to office to BN to adding a filling station. Where
does compromise stop? We have compromised over and over on this thing.
Councilman Workman: I would suggest that we have growth going on all over the
city. ..
Bob Wagner: Compromise for the community once.
ICouncilman Workman: Absolutely and that's I believe where we're heading. , I
would also agree that the position that we need to take first is to give you
I people relief until at least we can figure this out. I don't believe in
shutting any doors but until a suitable plan comes up, I think...
I 43
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Councilwoman Dimler: If this determines so that the door's already shut, there
isn't much we can do. It was approved by the previous Council. That's what I'm
saying. Maybe the door is already shut. We haven't had a chance to look at it
deeply enough tonight to...
Councilman Boyt: What I would suggest to SuperAmer_ica is stand up there and
tell us you're going to turn the lights off and then Tht us table this thing ,
without voting on the lights one way or the other. I just think that's a
cleaner deal.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what I requested previously. See if they were moving ,
in that direction but they weren't unless there's some reconsideration.
Roman Mueller: Can we turn the lights off on the sides facing the neighbors and ,
leave the lights on facing TH 7? -
Ben Gowen: They're rewriting their contract. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Then I think we have to go to a vote.
Councilwoman Dimler: All the lights off. '
Mayor Chmiel: You're forcing us to go to something else. I think a good
working relationship between the station and neighborhood and the community,
same consideration I think should be given.
Raman Mueller: And I felt that way as we were going along here, especially in
the consideration of the approved building plans that we built off was brought
up. Unfortunately we're not being given consideration for living up to what we
submitted. The City we feel is bending to the neighbors' requests 100%, even in
areas that does not affect the neighbors and we are being punished for a
development that we have no control over. We've seen this from the first day
that we came in with our proposal for SuperAmerica and we're accussed of using
the development to get us in. We have been fighting this constantly all along
and we feel like we're out there. We're what the neighbors can grab. We're
what the City can grab and you're just squeezing us when we have no control over
the development behind us. That development when it goes in and we are
continually reassured. I talked to the contractor and I talked with the
developer that it is going to be built and when it is built, our lights will
be... Now if you want to get into a technical discussion. ..point source versus
light spread. Your ordinance deals with light spread not point source. I can
see a light 5 miles away but there's no light that strikes me. Light source.
Your ordinance deals with the spillage off the site. That's what we complied
with. We feel as much a toy in this as probably the neighbors do. Both of us, '
as we see it, are being beat around by everything being stirred in this kettle
because nothing's settled. e would like consideration of being allowed to keep
those lights on as it was approved by the City. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: It wasn't approved. That's the point.
Mayor Chmiel: There's the clarification. I
Ben Gowen: It was not approved.
44
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
II _Dick Brown: The City says ou're not in compliance.
omplzance.
Roman Mueller: We built in accordance to the plans that were approved. My
discussions with the previous planner dealt with signage and the lighting and
what constitutes signage. What constituted lighting. Your signage ordinance
II didn't spill into the lighting of it. It dealt with the verbage and the logo of
the sign... Striping around the building facia was allowed. It was not
considered to be signage. The striping around the canopy was allowed because it
II was not considered to be signage. The lighting of it had no bearing on whether
it was signage or not. According to our discussions. A discussion we also had
stated that's not an issue. It doesn't need to... We went along with the
staff's recommendation was and good faith in the City Council and now we're
1 being...for something that was agreed on at a different time.
Bob Wagner: I think we're both saying the same thing only over and over. We
II attended the meetings, the public meetings. We heard nothing of lighting of
that plan. It was never presented. It wasn't in SuperAmerica's talked about
hasn't been presented. In fact, the comments in that staff report that you have
IIsuggests nothing of lighting.
Roman Mueller: That's right because that was the only issue that staff felt.
The other lighting of the building facia, in fact the discussion at one time was
Ito light the entire facia around the building.
Bob Wagner_: And that discussion I remember_. Discussion about lighting the
III front I remember...
Mayor Chmiel: Let's have one at a time.
IIRoman Mueller: I'm sorry. I've said my piece. I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like, Roger. I would like a motion for however we can to
Iwhat Jay has indicated.
Councilman Johnson: Mine still works doesn't it?
IIMayor Chmiel.: And I think you gave that opinion that we could do that?
Roger Knutson: Procedurally, yes.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
II Councilman Boyt: There's no need to table it. Just vote on the lights and
that's it. If they want to bring the lights back up, they can do it. What are
we getting out of tabling anything?
II Mayor Chmiel: We want to table until we determine whether or not this was a
requirement or not Bill.
I Councilman Boyt: Then how can we vote on it if we don' t know if it was a
requirement or not?
11 Mayor Chmiel: We can vote on what we're saying with no lighting and we can go
11 to tabling the balance of this until it's determined as to the information that
II 45
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
staff is going to find and come up with a conclusion.
Councilman Boyt: What's left? I don't understand what's left. 1
Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying in the motion Bill is simple. The lighting
issue, I'm saying no lights on the canopy from now until the entire issue is
brought back with all the documentation. Previous documentation. The full blue
print showing the lighting plans, etc. are brought back to us and that we have
enough information to make a permanent call. In other words I'm making a
temporary call on the lighting. '
Roger Knutson: Just so we're clear. If they don't turn off the lights, then
tomorrow or the next day I will be prosecuting than and then I have to make, the
Court will have to make a call as to what was decided when they got the
conditional use permit will be a final call.
Don Ashworth: The only thing there I'd like you to consider Roger is the staff ,
has made a determination that they are not in compliance with the authorization
given by the City Council. I think you have all of the rights to prosecute on
that basis. It is up to than to appeal that decision. This Council has not
acted on that appeal. Therefore, staff's position stands.
Roger Knutson: Based on Staff's position right now and the way the prosecutions
are handled, based upon the staff report, we could prosecute them.
Councilman Johnson: Is there a formal appeal before the Council at this time?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I
Councilman Johnson: Why is this issue up here tonight? Is this up here because
the citizens are complaining or because SuperAmerica has formally appealled
this?
Don Ashworth: Right. '
Councilman Johnson: What?
Don Ashworth:- The latter.
Councilman Johnson: We got a letter in here from them formally appealing and
asking to be before the Council then?
Don Ashworth: I don't know if the letter is in there but it's clear that the
occupancy permit would not be issued to than. They wanted to open and they
wanted to be able to take in. Have the canopy lit which they believed was
correct and if they had an opportunity to present their position to the Council,
they could demonstrate that position. Staff said no. You will not give '
occupancy. They then agreed to appeal that decision and that's where it stands.
Councilman Johnson: And what action has SuperAmerica taken to appeal that
decision today?
Don Ashworth: Technically do we have a letter on file saying we want to appeal?
46 ,
' ' City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
IIJo Ann Olsen: No. The closest we've got is that letter from Roman that's in
II 1 the packet. -
Councilman Johnson: July 17th?
Councilman Boyt: The last page. The next to the last page.
Jo Ann Olsen: Which I followed up making it clear that it would be brought back
in front of the Council but we don't have a formal application and appeal.
' Councilman Boyt: I have a question to ask engineering. When a person who's
going to build in our community, a commercial builder comes in, what's the
procedure that's followed with their plans?
Dave Hempel: Staff would review the plans. Each department has a set of plans
and they review the set of conditions that would be recommended by the Council
' for than to follow to be following the guidelines of the City.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Council sets conditions. It's approved with those
conditions. Do the drawings ever come back? Do the. ..come back in front of
staff after those conditions are set or do they just go out and build?
Jo Ann Olsen: What was the question?
Councilman Boyt: Once the Council has set the conditions, do the plans come
back in front of staff before they builder ? p
Y begins construction.
11 t
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. If there's a specific condition that's amended like
landscaping plans or things like that, yes. We usually see those before they'll
come back through for the building permit process. In this case, they did not.
The plans that came in after this were the complete set of plans, construction
plans.
' Councilman Boyt: The plans that came in, the complete set of plans, did the
City sign off on those plans?
' Don Ashworth: Yes, we did.
Councilman Boyt: We did?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Do we know whether or not this lighting was in those plans?
' Jo Ann Olsen: I'm assuming they are. That's something that I did not look at
and I'm sure that the building department saw it.
' Councilman Boyt: So we can muddy this water by saying that the City Council set
some standards and the City staff signed off on something that may not have
lived up to all those standards.
Jo Ann Olsen: But there's nothing in those conditions that specifically Said no
pe Y
lighting around the canopy. That's why the whole issue has been brought up is
that it was always understood that they would not be and that's why it was never
' 47
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 ,
brought out as a specific condition.
Councilman Boyt: I just want to point out to the Council that I suspect that
this is not as straight forward as we'd all hope it would be.
Councilman Workman: And so then Bill what happens is Flo we give the neighbors
relief or do we give SuperAmerica signage?
Councilman Boyt: I have no problems with turning the lights off. If it comes
down to that, then let's vote and turn the lights off and be done with it but ,
I'm just saying, this is not as straight forward as we'd like it to be. I'm not
so sure that that's fair although it's certainly not fair to have light in your
bedroom window. That's not a question. The question for me is what the City
does and folks, I'll say it again, I think we're overwhelmed with what's going
on in this city and I think this is just an example of how that shows up.
Robert Johnson: Mr. Mayor, just a point. If you will look to your agenda, it ,
indicates that there was going to be a discussion about this sign. That's the
notice we had. We did not cane prepared for a hearing because if we were coming
for a hearing, we would have had our lighting expert here to talk about lighting
and talk about our compliance with the ordinance and talk about whether or not
this is a sign. The letter we received from staff indicated that when the
lighting goes on behind the sign, it appears to than that it is a sign. That's
the language. Then we're brought here to discuss, just to discuss the issue
so I don't believe the matter is properly before you to be taking away rights.
We had said we will turn the lights off on the two sides. It seems to me that
just in the sense of good orderly process, if we turn those lights off, then you
still have the opportunity to have a hearing of which you're noted your
appearance and we can cane in with our experts and make our presentation and
then you're in a position to tell us to turn it off but at this point I have ,
some questions about that. We're willing to turn it off on the sides involving
the neighbors but that's it. We didn't come here on an appeal. We did not come
here for a hearing in that sense at all.
Councilman Johnson: Sides involving the neighbors, there's four sides that
involve neighbors. You've got neighbors on all four sides.
Robert Johnson: No.
Councilman Johnson: I don't care if they're in Shorewood or Chanhassen. Light,
it hits the city boundaries. We could pass an ordinance it's not allowed to
cross the boundaries and the light might pass it anyway and then we have to sue
the light.
Don Ashworth: Just so the record is clear. I disagree. I feel that our
position is solid on this. You cannot modify a site plan approval or conditions
of site plan by the submitting of construction drawings to get a building
permit. You had hundreds of cases that deal with, the building department looks
at the detailed construction plans. They're verified. The structural
condition. The legality with wiring. That set of construction plans cannot
override site plan approvals that had previously been given. I guess you've had
50 cases. ..
48 '
' City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
' Councilman Johnson: I'll agree with you Don. My little motion shuts the lights
off for right now. Provides SuperAmerica 2 weeks to 4 weeks, whatever, to
provide the information and our staff to provide us the information showing that
those lights were not on what we approved. Those lights were not on what we
approved. Give me the blueprints showing what we approved last December and
then as far as I'm concerned, the lights aren't there. We discussed lights
extensively. To my knowledge, I never heard anybody say that they were going to
put a sign, a backlit sign along that facia or anything backlit along there.
Decorative striping that happens to resemble one's store symbol, has been both
for Amoco and SuperAmerica, not looked on as a sign. When you start making that
a sign is when you start lighting that in this fashion, in my opinion and I'd
like to see, I think that the compromise I came up with is a compromise. I
' would also be willing to go the other route depending upon what the out turn of
the first motion is to say let's deny it all togther right now and let than come
in for reconsideration as the tool for them to supply relief.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Just a point of clarification Jay. Does your motion, when
you say turn the lights off, you're saying turn off the canopy...
Councilman Johnson: Canopy lights on all four sides. Canopy facia.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to direct SuperAmerica to
' turn off the lighting on all four sides of the canopy facia and to table
discussion of the SuperAmerica sign. All voted in favor except Councilwoman
Dimler who opposed and the motion carried.
II 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, this item will be tabled and until we get the information
back from staff and we will renotify the neighbors and we'll also renotify
SuperAmez ice.
Roman Mueller: ...determine that?
Don Ashworth: We'll have to get back to you. There's no way we could make the 28th. way e it
Roman Mueller: I'm talking notification on the...so I know exactly what I have
to do.
1 Ben Gowen: Turn the lights off.
Don Ashworth: Copies of tonight's minutes will be available I would say, what
' Nann?
Councilman Johnson: The term is until we have the next meeting on this issue
and the permit is decided. Until we see the blueprints that you submitted to us
showing the lighting for your facility and those blueprints show this lighting.
When that comes in and shows that we approved this lighting last year, then we
would approve you to turn the lights back on.
' Roman Mueller: So the plan you have upstairs is the lan you're y u ze looking fbz.
49
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Right. They weren't in this packet. You all asked that
you're not ready to present so we said we'll table it. Give you a chance to be
ready to present to us and everything and along with that, we're saying turn
them off because we have no evidence to say that we ever approved those lights
as a Council. Now it's your choice.
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than to sit back and wait, can we move ahead on
administrative presentations on item b on the raft public hearing notice
clarification? We have people here from (b) .
Jo Ann Olsen: We have somebody here from the recycling too.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, item (b) is the only one I'd like to address.
Councilman Boyt: People here for what? '
Jo Ann Olsen: You have somebody from Waste Manganent here for 11 also.
Councilman Johnson: Why would we skip 11? '
Mayor Chmiel: Because we have the residents here and I thought, they've been
sitting here ever since... '
Councilman Johnson: So has she.
Mayor Chmiel: I agree. I didn't realize that someone was here. '
13(B) RAFT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES, CLARIFICATION, CITY MANAGER. '
Don Ashworth: Simply staff had a question as to what it was the Council's
intent was for public hearing. General public hearing notices, we simply put
that into the newspaper. It's published and going to all homeowners. For items
such as conditional use permits and variances and what not, where you're talking
about a particular lot, we send the property owners within 300 to 500 feet each
an individual notice. If we're talking about rafts as anyone could put them on '
a lake, we're talking about almost every parcel within the community which then
led staff to say, another option is just to prepare a form and send it to ever
home. That's cheaper than researching 530 feet of the boundaries of every lake
in the community. The question is, all of those alternatives have cost
implications and before we went off on any one, I wanted Council to clarify it's
intent. 1
Councilman Johnson: Newspaper.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess if I may? Since I'm the one that tabled '
it, I thought maybe I'd address this. I don't even know where to start. I know
it has a long history and I know Don has stated many, many times that the raft
at Carver Beach is not the one that's being gone after here. However, I have '
grave reservations about that because later on he states that there is no
question that this raft is now owned by the City. Well there definitely is a
question because that is what our whole minutes were about last time is to who
owns this raft and I wanted it clarified as to who owns this raft before we
50
I/
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
would ever consider this ordinance amendment at all. I don't know how many
rafts there are in the City but I don't think it is a whole lot of them. My
first suggestion would be, if we're going to send out notices to anybody, just
send the notices to all current raft owners. Has that been done? Do they even
know about this?
' Don Ashworth: No one has been notified.
' Councilman Johnson: They don't have a permit system so we don't know who they
are.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well all you have to do is go physically and look at the
' raft and say who's owns this. I know ours, we could contact Joel Jenkins. He
has not been notified of this. I'm beginning to question_whether_ there is a
real need for this.
Councilman Johnson: Absolutely.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, not absolutely.
' Don Ashworth: How would we know to contact Joel Jenkins?
' Councilwoman Dimler_: Well, you do a physical survey and you see how many rafts
there are on each lake and then you ask a few neighbors who own's that raft and
then you get the name and address. It can't be that many. It just can't be
I1 that many.
Councilman Johnson: In a stretch of Minnewashta, about every third house had a
raft out there as I drove down Minnewashta today. From King's Road up, and I
was watching the road but I also looking out occasionally between houses to see
if I saw a raft, and I saw 3 to 4 rafts along that stretch of the road from
where I'm seeing.
' Councilwoman Dimler: 3 to 4? Bill, how many does Lotus Lake have?
' Councilman Boyt: I haven't counted than. I'd guess 7 or 8 at the most maybe.
Councilman Johnson: If that's representative, 3 or 4 is a very small section of
Lake Minnewashta. Probably Lake Minnewashta would have a dozen then. Lake
' Riley, I don't know. I've never been on Lake Riley.
Councilwoman Dimler: There just aren't that many people out in Chanhassen that
are not riparian lot owners that want to build a raft and spend $500.00 or more
and then take it off some public property or someone else's property and put it
out in the water. I'm sorry. There just aren't that many people that want to
do that.
Councilman Johnson: They don't know it's illegal to do that and it currently
is.
I I Councilwoman Dimler: They're not going to do it whether it's legal or illegal.
They're not going to take the time or the expense. Do you understand what I'm
saying?
1 51
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Councilman Johnson: I know kids would. It's a simple ordinance. Trying to
Y 9
control a water obstacle like we control other water obstacles.
Councilwoman Dimler: We're not saying that rafts aren't controlled. They
already are controlled as to the reflectors. The types of materials. The
safety. The ladders. There's already in our ordinance, covers all that. How
far out they have to be. It just doesn't make sense. This amendment no longer
makes sense to me because I think it is being directed at one particular raft
and I don't think that we ought to encumber every other raft owner with having
to come in and get a permit and possibly pay a fee. We haven't even established
that. Year after year after year after year for this one item that we can't
seem to be able to deal with.
Don Ashworth: If that's Council's direction, it should be in the form of a
motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's just my comments. Now I'd like to hear from other '
council members and I'd also like to have the neighbors address it again.
Councilman Johnson: The issue we're supposed to be addressing here tonight is '
how to do the public hearing notice.
Mayor Chmiel: I know but this whole thing is back open again and I guess what
I'd like to do at this time, before we provide any additional comments is have
the neighbors. If they have anything that they'd like to say or address
regarding the raft situation, come up and please do so.
Mike Wegler: My name is Mike Wegler and I live 6630 Mohawk. We're still, we ,
don't know what happened to the original ordinance that this raft was
grandfathered in. That's what we're looking at. As far as the ownership of the
raft, the ordinance has said that this raft was grandfathered in and that would
give us the right to rebuild it in case the City ever wanted to take it out.
That's the one that I looked at last fall and was assuming that that would come
up. Well that one's not here or gone and I built the raft and the City paid for
it so it's basically mine and the City's, 50-50 as far as ownership. I'd be
more than happy to write a check out for the raft and get it back to us because
we were under the assumption that it would be grandfathered in and at least we'd
be able to know that we could keep that raft. It's been there since at least
1948 and that's where we're standing. We went through a lot of work to get
about 300 people's signatures to save this raft for the kids and stuff. That's
where we're standing.
Councilman Johnson: You built the raft?
Mike Wegler: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: At your house? '
Mike Wegler: It was built on the property down there.
Councilman Johnson: On your own time?
Mike Wegler: Yes.
52 1
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Councilman Boyt: What's with this?
' iDon Ashworth: That wasn't my understanding Mike. It was my understanding you
built that out at the Public Works on City time.
Mike Wegler: No. That's incorrect. I built that on the property. The City
paid for the materials. I donated my time.
Don Ashworth: I stand corrected.
' Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
' Councilman Johnson: In that case, I'd rather see the City buy the raft from
Mike.
Rocky Byrnes: I think Mike's willing to give the raft to the City aren't you
' Mike if they're willing to give us some assurance that it's going to be there.
That's all we're looking for. That's all we've ever said. You guys can have
the raft. The City can own the raft. That seems to be your only hang-up is who
' owns that raft. You don't want public people to have the raft out there. You
want property owners to have the raft out there. Well fine. The City's a
property owner. Have the raft out there. All we're saying is, have it out
' there forever just like everybody else can have theirs out forever. That's all
we want. It's simple. Everybody makes a big deal out of it. We know this
ordinance is directed only at that raft. It's the only non-conforming raft in
the City if this ordinance goes past because everybody elses is out in front of
I i their house. Nobody else has one that doesn't live on the lake. We're the only
ones. We've had it there forever. It's the only one that's a problem. We're
willing to give you the raft. Just tell us, put it down. Pass some ordinance
' that you think the raft should always be for the public and always be in that
spot in Carver Beach or someplace out there. That's all we're asking for.
Something like that. Something on the record that says it will be there. You
don't even need this ordinance. We're willing to just let you have it and good
' luck you know.
Councilman Johnson: Now you want the reality of the world.
Rocky Byrnes: That's it. Just the reality.
' Councilman Johnson: This 5 member Council can say today it is our intent to
have that raft there ad infinitum. In a year and a half a new Council sits here
and they say, I don't like that raft and they can take it off. No matter what
we say, but we can at least say it's our intent.
Rocky Brynes: Absolutely but at least we have something to go back and say,
listen. The Council said this raft should be there and we feel that you should
' honor the previous Council's recommendation. At least we have something. If
you pass this ordinance, we have nothing absolutely.
Councilman Johnson: I have no problem saying that. That we believe that there
should be a swimming raft at that location.
Resident: What does it mean to grandfather something in then if that isn't the
saying to the people of the future that yes, this is. .. Isn't that what
53
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
randfatheri. something '
g_ ng ng in so why can't we say...
Councilman Johnson: Certain things can be grandfathered in. I don't think a '
city owned raft probably can't be grandfathered in.
Don Ashworth: I guess the question goes back to Roger. Recognizing it's in and
out of the lake, you can't grandfather a raft.
Resident: You had an ordinance here last year that was going to. All of a
sudden it disappeared.
Don Ashworth: Last year there were a number of ordinances that were under
consideration. None of then coming back to Council. None of them ever enacted. '
It had been heard at the Park Commission and I don't know the issue regarding
grandfathering.
Resident: We went to sevearl meetings with the Park Commission and the City ,
Council...
Rocky Byrnes: Don, when me and Mike talked to you, you said you gave the City 1
Attorney directions to draft an ordinance that would grandfather in the Carver
Beach raft. I have a letter stating that this ordinance effectively
grandfathers in the Carver Beach raft and then all of a sudden the ordinance
disappeared. It never came before the Council. We've never seen it here. Here
is it here.
Councilman Johnson: I think it must have died in Planning Commission, Park '
Commission.
Rocky Byrnes: I don't know where it went but it was dated 7-21-88. It says ,
enclosed please find revised ordinance amending Chapter 6 of the City Codes
regarding boats and waterways and the only significant change from previous
draft dated 7-21-88, that non-conforming swimming rafts are grandfathered in and
ours was the only non-conforming swimming raft so it was the one grandfathered
in but it disappeared. Now you're telling you can't grandfather in something
that's going to be taken out and put back?
Don Ashworth: I think we put that wordage in there but even at that, I think
there was some real question marks as to whether it was really...
Rocky Byrnes: That was the City Attorney's opinion at the time apparently.
This was a letter from him.
Don Ashworth: Any comments Roger? I
Roger Knutson: Under the current ordinance, if something is taken out or
discontinued for 6 months. For example, you take your swimming raft out in the
winter obviously. Then you lose your grandfather rights.
Resident: That raft never leaves the high water mark though. It gets pulled up
on shore and it's never off the high water mark. I don't know how you can say
it leaves the lake. It gets dragged up on shore and a couple barrels are always
in the water...
54
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Roger Knutson: . ..kind of ordinance you want to write. You can write
ordinances to say all sorts of things.
Councilman Boyt: Let me dive into this. I agree that this is a very simple
matter Rocky. The City Council said well over a year ago we want this beach to
be a public beach and we want a safe raft out in front of it and we want park
rules posted. We directed that to the Park and Rec Commission to get that done.
Rocky Byrnes: That's exactly what we have out there now.
Councilman Boyt: Okay and I think it's everybody's intention, I would guess, on
the Council to continue that. What I heard 2 weeks ago, as Ursula said, I want
to have the ownership of the raft cleared up. Good point. I don't know what it
has to do with our ordinance but it's a good point and it sounds like we still
don't have that cleared up. I think the City ought to own that raft. It's out
in front of a city park. The City should be obligated to take care of it. Be
sure it's maintained. We want the raft to be there. This should be a very
simple issue. That issue. Let's park it to one side so we can discuss the
merits of maintaining rafts in the rest of the City.
Rocky Byrnes: I know but if the City is going to exclude us from ever having
any recourse if that raft disappears. That's our concern.
Councilman Boyt: Would you like a motion that says that
in front of that park? We can certainly make that motion and zput ittont the
raft
Ibooks.
Rocky Byrnes: Well I guess that's what we're looking for.
Councilwanan Dimler: Mr_. Mayor, I have a motion.
Councilman Boyt: Can I get an answer to my question first please?
Rocky Byrnes: I said yes.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's what they were looking for before.
Resident: We don't know what it takes.. .to protect. That's what we want is the
protection.
Councilman Boyt: You want the raft there right?
Resident: And the protection that it will be taken care of.
Councilman Boyt: I think we want to give you the raft there.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, there's no question.
Councilman Boyt: I think we ought to have a motion that says we want a raft out
I from whatever we call that beach.
Resident: Mini-beach.
I �
55
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Councilman Workman: I know but that's eventually what we're getting up to.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, when we have the hearing and discuss the ordinance in
the future, that should be part of the discussion. I'm not sure if I want to
charge anybody a fee for the raft. That's not that big of a deal but I think
it's a water obstacle. I think we still need to discuss rafts. I think we need
to divorce it from this raft. The City is partial owner of this raft. It's
already been said we're a partial owner so it can be in front of City property.
Councilman Workman: Because if the fee is the problem you know...
Don Ashworth: We haven't got far enough to know if there is going to be a fee.
Councilman Johnson: No, we haven't gotten that far. Let's take the ordinance
on. Let's have the hearing. Let's see what's going to happen with it. Let's
have the discussion under the proper format rather than now.
Councilman Boyt: Before we do that, let's vote to make the raft as permanent as
anybody can make it...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor?
Councilman Boyt: No we don't.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I move that we amend the rules but we never voted on
it.
[:[Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Okay. I
Councilman Boyt: I would move, I'm not sure this is appropriate since there
isn't any public notice of this thing. If it is appropriate, I would move that
the City indicate that we want a raft out in front of the City's property so
noted in the earlier discussion as to location. We want this raft to continue
for as long as the City owns that piece of property.
Councilman Johnson: If we want to play it by rules, then you need to move to
suspend our rules in order to make that motion.
Councilman Boyt: Alright. I move that we put this on a future agenda so stated
that it would indicate that the City intends to make that raft permanent in a
temporary sort of way given that it's got to come out of the water.
Mayor Chmiel: Whoa.
(Everybody is talking at once.)
Councilwoman Dimler: What that does is just leave it up for interpretation
again and then we have people sitting here doing the same thing that we did
tonight.
Councilman Boyt: The whole book is up for interpretation.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would say just grandfather than in then. ,
58
IICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Can't do it.
I1 Councilwoman Dimler: Yes we can.
Councilman Workman: I would move that the City purchase the raft for $1.00 and
' make it a permanent facility at this beach.
Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that. I second that.
Mike Wegler: ...property over. That piece of property was turned over to the
City for $1.00 from the people of Carver Beach and that's where this whole
thing...
' Councilman Workman: Do we have a signed agreement on that?
Rocky Byrnes: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's how this whole thing got started.
' Mike Wegler: That's why we're here for the raft. That's all we've got left.
We can't pull our boats up into there anymore. We can't put a dock out there.
We can't do anything. Now you're telling us in 2 years the City might have the
' right to take the raft out. What does that do for. us? We've got 300 signatures
of people around the area with kids that just want to use it. We just to be
reassured...
IICouncilman Workman: Can we amend the Comp Plan?
Councilman Boyt: It's a park. We want a raft out there. Let's move to keep
' the raft out there. What's so complicated about that?
Councilwoman Dimler: Why can't we grandfather it in?
' Councilman Workman: Do I hear a second?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, it was moved and seconded.
Councilman Boyt: Whoever made it, we've got it covered.
' Councilman Workman: To repurchase the raft.
Councilwoman Dimler: But the neighbors don't want you to purchase it.
' Councilman Johnson: It doesn't even have to be purchased. It's already
personally owned by the City. It can be there. All we have to do is say it's
in the, under either ordinance it can still be there.
Mike Wegler: I told them, that's why I put my labor in it. I didn't want to
charge the City any more than for materials. ..
Councilman Boyt: The City owns the dock and intends to keep the dock.
Councilman Workman: So an amended motion would be...
' 59
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 '
Councilwoman Dimler: Mike has 50% owership.
Councilman Boyt: He just gave us the dock right? If we want it, you're going 1
to give it to us?
Mike Wegler: I gave you the dock under good pretenses that it was going to be I
grandfathered in there and it was going to be secure for kids. My kids and kids
down the road and I have no reassurance tonight that that's going to happen.
Councilwoman Dimler: No you don't. 1
Councilman Boyt: It's like any piece of park property.
Mike Wegler: There we go again. We gave it to you for a $1.00
Councilwoman Dimler: Grandfather them in. '
Roger Knutson: You can grandfather them in.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. '
Roger Knutson: You can write the ordinance to grandfather them in.
Councilman Johnson: But we have to hold the hearing on the ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: Fine. Then I'll go along with it. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Something so simple always becomes a big problem.
Councilman Johnson: So how are we going to notice this ordinance? Are we going 1
to spend $1,000.00? I think we ought to publish it in the newspaper and I move
we publish this ordinance in the newspaper including wording about
grand fathering.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to publish the swimming ,
raft public hearing notices in the newspaper. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
11
DISCUSSION OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING CONTRACT.
Jo Ann Olsen: Waste Manganent has contacted staff requesting that additional '
billing or they're requesting additional monies for their monthly payments and
if they cannot receive those, then they would have to use the option in the
contract that they would give 30 day notice to remove from the contract so we're
bringing it up to the Council to see what they would like us to do with that.
If they would like to have that additional money for the contract. Do they want
to tell than to go ahead and use that 30 day option. Whatever. A
60 1
ICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
representative from Waste Management is here to
1r-
g give the background of why they
need that additional money. I'm sure she'd like to get a chance to speak after
' sitting here.
Councilman Workman: Can I make a comment?
' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Tom.
Councilman Workman: We interviewed the candidates this evening for our
recycling committee. My question to the candidates was a negative question and
that question sort of went like this. We basically don't have a contract in
that it's pretty liquid to get in and out of. There's some question as to what
' really is being picked up. Cardboard is no longer being picked up. They
wouldn't take my soup cans and tuna cans one day. They're taking newspaper
mainly because they have to. Aluminum they can make money. Glass because it is
' recycleable. 25% participation in the City I understand is an accurate figure.
The cost is increasing. At this stage, in the middle of the game, why recycle?
Are we doing any good?
Councilman Boyt: The State requires it.
Jo Ann Olsen: Are you asking me that question?
Councilman Workman: I was asking the people and it's a question that well you
have to. We have to and I agree and I want to. Why did we bid the process?
Councilman Boyt: The State requires us to recycle. We have to have a plan to
recycle 25% of our solid waste.
' Councilman Johnson: The County does.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, and the County doesn't have that control.
Mayor_ Chmiel: The County has that jurisdiction.
Councilman Workman: Than let me rephrase. If in fact only 25% of us are
recycling, it seems to me that we could find something that might be as
efficient because we have a recycling company going all over our City to only
pick up at one fourth the homes. Obviously what the candidates for this
' committee, heavy education backgrounds and that's a word that could get
redundant in all this. As a person who's recycled for a long time, I'm really,
really disappointed. I left a huge box of cardboard out there. I do a good job
' at that. One day, next Thursday, the day after, it was in the trash. I can't
dictate the markets and all of that but I guess I can voice my concern that I'm
disappointed in that for how hard we are trying, I don't know that it's working.
And I'd like to hear from our recycling representative.
' Lynn Morgan: I haven't been that involved with your contract but a couple o
p of
thoughts. You're education committee or your recycling committee I think will
I hopefully help you get more people involved. 25% is kind of low but it's not
that far off for a program that runs every other week. Normally we would .expect
a program like that to be somewhere in the range of 27% to 35% tops so it's just
kind of on the low end of what would be standard for a program like that and to
have 1 in 4 households participate in something, on a voluntary basis with no
1 61
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 ,
direct benefit to themselves or with not necessarily a monetary interest in it, '
more of an alturistic doing the right thing kind of feeling, is probably a
better participation rate than you maybe get for wearing seatbelts or maybe even
not driving drunk. So yes, it sounds real low but is it really that abienal? I
think you should work to increase it and to get it up around 35%.
Councilman Boyt: Could you tell us something about your rate increase please? '
Lynn Morgan: Yes. It is a big increase. There's no doubt about that. We're
basically looking at a 48 cent increase taking the City up close to $1.35. The ,
recycling market has changed a lot in the last couple of months and it's going
to change even more in the months to come. Everybody here is probably familiar
with the newspaper articles about one recycling contractor that happened to have
a 50% market share in the metro area. A lot of households under contract,
380,000- 400,000 households by some accounts, that almost went out of business
and left a lot of cities hanging out there because they couldn't make it. We've
re-examined some of our contracts and feel that some of them are very, very low.
Unfortunately Chanhassen's is one that is very low for us and that we are losing
money on. When we came out here and started the program, it was kind of a cold
start in that the City didn't know exactly what would happen. How many
residents would participate. How easy the City would be to service and we
didn't necessarily know the answers to all those questions either but in the
process of serving this city, we found out that it does cost us a little bit
more than we had thought. In part because there are some almost rural areas
with a very low housing density and it takes those trucks a long time to get out
there. We've also had a dramatic change in the newspaper market. We've
recycled virtually every ton of newspaper that we've picked up. We've managed II
to do that. Lost some sleep over it. We actually export some newspaper to
Korea now. Some of our newspaper goes to Wisconsin. Some of it will be going
to the west coast very shortly and some of it stays closer to home in the 'Fain
Cities where it's made into Wheaties boxes and Pillsbury cake mix boxes and all
the things that our local industries produce but nonetheless, that newspaper had
been generated revenue for people and has now dropped as has the aluminum so
it's these factors that has led us to seek the increase. I know the numbers are
kind of shocking in terms of an increase but by way of comparison I would call
to your attention for example the City of Shorewood which is a very comparable
contract and which is a Waste Management contract at $1.90 per household per I
month. Another very comparable city would be the City of Mound which just
recently signed up a contract with one of our major competitors and I'm led to
understand that that contract is at $1.45. That contract is actually for
service on a first and third day of the month type basis which amounts to fewer
collections per year than yours actually does so I think it's very, very much in
the range of what is appropriate given what's happened out there with the market
place and what we now know about the City.
Councilman Workman: Are fewer collections, does that make it more economical?
Lynn Morgan: Not necessarily. If you look at the incremental cost of say
going from every other Friday or every other Wednesday collection, to going to a
weekly collection, you actually, it's not double the amount for example. It's
actually a smaller amount in addition. What you do find is that on the less
frequent programs, although you can have a lower per household cost, you
generally have a very high per ton cost. When you take that whole city figure
and you divide it out by the number of tons recycled, it's less convenient for
62 1
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
people to recycle on an every other week basis. It's more convenient to recycle
on a weekly basis so you do get more participation and more visibility through
weekly type programs and that helps get the tonage up which drops the cost per
ton for the program.
' Councilman Johnson: If we get the tonage up, would that help with the costing?
In other words, if you made more money selling more aluminum and more glass.
Lynn Morgan: Would that drop off?
Mayor Chmiel: The cost.
' Lynn Morgan: No, I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry. I don't know
the answer to that question. Aluminum is a money maker fot a recycling program.
In fact if you look at the contribution to the overall revenue, aluminum is
generally a very healthy chunk. Unfortunately for where we're all sitting,
although we're factoring in some more annual type numbers, aluminum right now is
pretty much at a seasonal low too. It's totaling somewhere around 47-48 cents
' per pound. Glass is about $45.00-$50.00 a ton but newspaper is what you tend,
as you increase participation to get more and more of and newspaper is a cost
item for most contractors right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Just in that same vein. The market being very soft right now.
If the market were to pick up and the cost become, your cost become better,
because there's a better dollar volume as far as paper, glass, tin, whatever, is
there a chance that the cost would come back down?
Lynn Morgan: Yes. There is that chance. In fact, if you wanted to, I don't
know how far you want to go tonight. I guess we're hoping to get enough of a
signal from you that we can all continue this program, at least through the
contract because believe me, we don't, it's not easy to come here and tell
somebody we might have to stop service. That's not something we like to do but
' we could for example specify some numbers. What becomes hard is determining a
market indicator for paper. If we wanted to do that for aluminum, we could do
that very easily by identifying, recognize almost Dow Jones type of statistics
' that we could all reference but with newspaper, there's no type of number like
that. What you would see as the newspaper market improves and as people begin
to generate revenue off of newspaper again is you would see the prices metrowide
' for recycling begin to drop again. I hope that when that happens, that people
will remember what happened when people had programs that relied 100% on revenue
and when the bottom fell out, and look more to revenue sharing type of
arrangements or ones that do reference market indicators so that people don't
get held over a barrel again.
Mayor Chmiel: I know that that situation happened to Ramsey County with Super
Cycle going out of the business.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to, if we approve the increase, I'd like to
' somehow. I would assume this meets your corporate desires for r_�ofit
p ability
which is what everybody works for is profitability. You don' t work to lose
money is what my boss keeps telling me. But this would make you profitable at
the soft part of the market. If the market changes, there is some way that we
can share in that. That there is some fixed part of this contract that we share
in gains in the market. Someway that we know how many tonage of aluminum you're
' 63
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
picking up and how much tons of newspaper and how much tons of glass and what
the revenues you are gaining from those are. When those revenues over cost
start to, the revenues minus cost start to increase, that we share in that
increase and it doesn't go to excess profit to develop you into the largest
waste corporation, I think you are.
Lynn Morgan: Which is hard to feel sympathetic for. right?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. It's hard to feel sympathetic for a 6 billion dollar
a year corporation.
Lynn Morgan: I understand the concept of what we call a revenue sharing. I
know you have a different context for that but we call it a revenue sharing type
contract.
Councilman Johnson: Sounds like a good idea.
Lynn Morgan: In fact, one of our flagship contracts, one '
of the most famous
contracts in the nation is a program that runs in San Jose, California and
provides service to about 180,000 homes. It's considered the Cadillac type
program for recycling and under our contract with that city, we do share in, we
specified a range of revenue and when the revenues exceed that range, the city
participates in that additional revenue. When the revenues fall below a certain '
range, the City also participates in that risk. The only concerns I have, and
they're very, they're rooted in...a formula that we use with the City of
Brooklyn Park. A contract that we just started so I'm speaking from a realsitic
point. It's very hard to allocate to one city their recycleables and the cost II of managing those recycleables. It's very difficult. If we allocate...
Councilman Johnson: Don' t you weigh the trucks? ,
Lynn Morgan: Yes. The trucks are weighed and your city does receive monthly
recycling reports that show you the tonages that were recycled. Those are not
weighed out by material. In other words, we don't weigh the multi-compartment
truck by newspaper and glass and cans. What we do is we take all of the
recycleables from all of our programs and we say well this month 75% of our
tonage was newspaper and 13% was glass and this much was tin and so on. Then we
say therefore, that percentage, that proportion applies to all of our contracts.
That's where we get into some real sticky record keeping and we're not 100%
comfortable with the adminstrative energy that is required to sustain a contract
like that and to document it and keep it all straight.
Councilman Johnson: If you're using those straight formulas like that, I would
think it would be fairly simple to go back to the tonages.
Lynn Morgan: It would if all of our markets paid the same but we're using
multiple markets now. What we don't want is we don't want to get a call from
any one newspaper outlet or any one metals outlet that says, hi Lynn. Guess
what? If you want to stay in business, next month you're going to pay me $50.00
a ton or Lynn guess what? I just had a fire and I'm shutting the gates so do
what you can. You know punt. Those are the calls we don't want to get anymore
and that's why we're using a diverse range of markets each of which has it's own
cost associated with it or it's own revenue associated with it and they not only
have costs associated in what they either invoice us or the check they write us
64 '
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
but we have our internal cost of loading the vehicles and delivering them to
I . market and that's different for every market we use. That's why I'm saying it's
a very, internally it's complicated to document a program like that back to you.
I'm not saying we can't do it by any means but in the way that we would
structure it, I guess that would be our concern would be to keep it simple
enough that we could fulfill it completely with you.
Councilman Johnson: I see this town and the people I know in this town being
' very environmentally conscience and when the program is going, the education
gets going, the committee gets going, I think we'll beat 35% easy at which time
what does that mean to Waste Mangement? Does that mean more profits to them at
' $1.45 or whatever it is?
Councilman Boyt: 35.
' Councilman Johnson: $1.35. How does us putting money into the education
program to increase the recycling that we want to do and our citizens want to
do, how does that affect you as the supplier of that service? Does it take your
' desireable profit margin and make it larger or does it hurt you because you're
in a negative situation?
Lynn Morgan: I have to clarify that although it seems incredible that the new
numbers we're talking about are very, very close to break even for us. The
other work that we've written more recently, for example again Shorewood at
$1.90 and then you look at some of our weekly contracts like Wayzata at $2.35 or
I a very, very large contract, the Minnetonka, Golden Valley, Plymouth grouping
that we signed up recently is at $1.85. As you increase your participation a
couple of things will happen. Your cost per ton will go down. You'll recycle
' more and come closer or do more in terms of meeting the County and State and Met
Council goals. From our perspective, I think that in the range we're talking
about, we would not see huge differences in our cost. Right now I think we
spend roughly pretty close to 8 hours per collection day in the City of
' Chanhassen and then it's 2 days so it's basically 16 hours a week I think. What
happens right now is that basically the fellas drive past maybe 7 out of 10
houses and stop at 3. As you increase participation, he'll stop at more so his
'
time out on the street will increase and his truck will fill up faster so he'll
have to spend over, in your case, over 6 months or so, he'll make additional
trips to the processing center that he would not have otherwise of necessarily
' made. So those are basically cost increases and will also add newspaper which
is not a profit item.
Councilman Boyt: Can I take a minute?
Mayor Chmiel: Gb ahead Bill.
' Councilman Boyt: This probably isn't to direct any questions your way. I think
you've done a nice job of sharing some things. I think we'd all agree that your
business has a right to make a profit. However, if I read your figures right,
if we have 25% participation, if it's $1.35 a household, that means for each
house you pick up, it costs $5.45. I would maintain that we can't afford it. I
would suggest that for $56,400.00, which is a close estimate of the annual'cost
given that nothing changes, and we know that's not going to happen, the City can
' r_rnn maybe a drop off program with a full time person doing nothing but working
on recycling of various things in our community and still cane out spending less
' 65
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 '
money than that and I would propose that we possibly agree to pay the higher 11
rate for 2 months. In that period of time we gather as much information as we
can including the possibility of hiring a person to do it. Not do actual
pick-up but do education. Every month we extend this, we spend close to
$1,700.00. I'd much rather put that money in an intern doing a study. I think
we've had an interesting 4 month experiment and that it has basically said that
we can't afford this type of recycling. I think you're very justified in asking
for enough money to cover your expenses and that should be a clear signal to us
that our city can't afford this. We have too much area with too few people to
run this kind of a recycling program. '
Councilman Johnson: We also need to apply for some more grants and stuff to
help us pay for this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'll go ahead and comment. I did talk to Jo Ann
about this today and I guess I was looking at alternatives too because I thought
it was, although I really have enjoyed the recycling. We've participated in it '
and it's been a lot of work but a lot of fun. I think our kids are getting a
real good view too of what they need to do in the future. But again, I think
the increase is too much and I do see Council as being a watchdog over. the
citizens' pocketbook but I do want to continue the recycling efforts. One of my
suggestions was that we look for help from the County. Perhaps get on the
agenda for the County Board. Go back to a drop off.
Councilman Workman: More centralized drop off?
Councilman Johnson: Over at the Public Works? Then we drop back to 10%.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that if we had somebody working on education,
that we may be able to come up with a way to have neighborhood drop offs.
Mayor. Chmiel: I think we have some people that are proposing for the committee
that have education backgrounds that I think would do a good job.
Councilman Boyt: The biggest generator of material for recycling is industry,
not the individual household. What we're dealing with here is really an
education as sort of a sense of participation. We're not dealing with people
that are really, at this point, capable of generating a great deal of material
that's recycleable. I think we're seeing that so maybe we're all sensing this.
That for $56,400.00 we need to do a very careful study of where do we get the
biggest return, recycling return? I think probably everybody in the Council
recycles every other Wednesday or Thursday, depending on the day but only 1 out
of 4 is doing it.
Councilman Johnson: Well Carver County is like the only county in the metro
area to make it's goal and primarily made it based on Chanhassen's businesses
and a lot of Chanhassen businesses recycling couldn't be counted because it was
already being done before they set the goals so anything that was already being
recycled couldn't set it so our businesses in this town do a tremendous good and
profitable recycling business. When you look at the printing industry we've got
here in town. They recycle a tremendous amount of paper and Class A grade paper
versus newsprint. Just to emphasize your point. I'm not sure if I'm ready,to
drop curbside recycling. Eventually it's going to, it's being required. The
State is requiring communities outstate to do curbside recycling as part of
66 ,
I ' ' City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Itheir comprehensive planning in the outstate. It's coming. If we're doing it
now, we're going to be required in the future. I think the County may be
willing but they're pretty tight on their budgets, to bring us some money but
II they are receiving monies from some of the set asides that are going. I agree.
I may say 3 months instead of 2 months. I think we need to keep this going. I
think we'll get a lot of citizen support for it but it is a lot of money.
IMayor Chmiel: Yes it is, no question. I agree I think with you Jay. 3 months
I think would be more of a time period that I would like to see this done only
II because of the committee that we're getting established for them to formulate
and pull together things which could give a good sense of direction for the
City. I think too, educationally wise, this has to be started within the
schools themselves right now. Start talking so the children understand what
I it's all about. That message brought home to the parents a little bit more too
of those that are not participating. As you say, there's 3 or 4 that are not
participating for everyone that is. Maybe this is the way we can activate that
to get it going. The other hand I was looking at was going back to our public
safety aspect. Doing what we did before and have the recycling down at our
shop. I just don't see people taking that time out to take it and haul it down
Ithere which is the problem.
Councilman Workman: Not with 6 limited hours.
IICouncilman Johnson: No. It'd have to be full time.
Mayor_- Chmiel: So I think I would have tendencies to agree that 3 months I'd
I like to see it continue yet rather than just the 2 because it would just give us
a little better time frame.
IJo Ann Olsen: From August though? August through October?
Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes.
I Councilman Boyt: The recycling committee and maybe it will be different but I
think most committees take several months to get really rolling. We'r_e not
going to see anything out of them for 6 months in terms of a real active kind
I of...
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, you didn't meet those people today. They're enthusiastic
II as all get out. They know what it's about. They've been there. They've been
recycling for as many years as one had said, for the past 10 years. Strong
advocates on it.
II Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to see us go more than a month because I think
that's basically cancelling the contract and I think at 2 months we've got time
to come back and extend that if we desire to do that. It's $1,700.00 a month
I above what we're paying now. I'd hate to see us commit ourselves to anymore
time than we have to. If we come back in 2 months and say let's stick with it,
okay. But I'd like to think that in 2. months we can get enough information to
make a decision.
11 Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we can get that committee to really move that'
1 quickly within the 2 months to come up with things.
II
II67
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
II
Councilman Boyt: I don't think the-committee is going to make the decision for
us and I didn't interview than.
Mayor Chmiel: But we'll get proper direction from that committee I think
because of the positions that they're taking.
Councilman Boyt: If we give them 3 months, they'll sure as heck take it. If we
give then 2 months, maybe we'll have an answer in 2 months.
Councilman Johnson: I've got one more question. Did you figure into your '
$1,685.00 recycling, the newspapers within the County as far as there may be a
mandate that all your newspapers are taken to the County newspaper facility?
Lynn Morgan: For newspaper shredding or something like that?
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Lynn Morgan: IVo. That's not reflected there.
Mayor Chmiel: And the County is looking at that aspect. '
Councilman Johnson: The County is buying the equipment and putting that in and
I believe under certain laws they can say all newspaper from all recycling
programs shall come to us as when the garbage collecters, when they put in the
composting plant. All garbage from the City of Chanhassen will go down to Scott
County and be composted. I'm not sure whether that's going to happen or not.
Lynn Morgan: I don't know myself. I can see why that would be a concern from
your perspective and I guess one option we would have is to write an amendment
of some sort. I don't know if we need a contract amendment or what have you for
what we're talking about doing here tonight anyway but we could write a clause
that would basically say that if that came to pass, that the price would revert
to x which would be a lower price than the increase we're seeking today. So
that if that reality kicked in and the County did offer that repository, you
wouldn't be locked into a contract with us that was based on a higher cost
assumption you know.
Councilman Johnson: You're saying if that did happen, it would be a lower cost
to us?
Lynn Morgan: If that did happen, that would result, and if it did result in a
lower cost for us, in other words, it would depend on, I wouldn't know yet if
the County was going to open the doors and say there was going to be a charge '
and you had to bring it there but we could write these things in and say that if
these conditions attain, the County offered the site and there were no charge or
the charge were sane very small amount and if we could deliver there without
incurring additional costs, then we could revert the price back too. I wouldn't
have a problem with that at all. That's fair.
Councilman Johnson: Because that may be open shortly. Like next month. They '
may be accepting as early as next month. They may be accepting paper down
Chaska for that. They've got the building and the equipments' on order. The
County Board has approved the money. If that becomes a reality and that's
actually a cost savings, maybe that will help.
68
II ' City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Lynn Morgan: That's fair.
' Councilman Johnson: But any approval, I think we should have it contingent on,
if it ends up being a cost increased to you, you know we have to have that
within our minds also. Of course that's not the plan of the County to make it
11 more expensive.
Councilman Workman: The way I understand it, a bale of this paper is going to
' cost more than straw.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. It will cost more than a bale of straw. It will
' absorb 50% more than straw and you know, economically you have to use 50% less.
A bale of this also will, on a pound for pound basis, it absorbs more than straw
on a pound per pound basis. A bale of this weighs 50% more than a bale of
straw. When it gets on down to it, your actual cost is about half of what straw
is according to the studies in Wisconsin, if you can trust them Wisconsin...
Lynn Morgan: I was born and raised in Madison so I'm really getting it tonight.
' Councilman Workman: I'll tell you what Jay, if curbside is stopped and I'm in
Chaska a lot, there's a place in Chaska. The Guardian Angel's shed off of 1st
' Street, down by the dyke, they are paid plenty for their newspaper because those
gentlemen down there sort it. It is clean and they are paid for a semi load of
newspaper. People are getting paid for it. Maybe we need that kind of
initiative and that money goes to the church and those guys love it. So there's
ways of doing things I think.
Councilman Johnson: What do they do with the glossy stuff?
Councilman Workman: Chuck it. But what's being done with it when it goes into
our recycling? Are they mixing that all in?
Lynn Morgan: It depends on where it goes. The box board mill, Waldorf at
Cretin off 94 for example throws it all in the soup. Into a hydropalper which
is sort of like the ultimate blender. They don't have a problem with glossy in
there but those clay coatings do come out as a contaminant out of the system.
The newspaper from the United States that goes to Korea or goes to Mexico is
generally put on sorting tables or sometimes just on the floor and people do
' pull out that coating material and discard it.
Councilman Workman: I'd be interested to find out if the newspapers that do
business in our fine city are using recycleable paper.
Councilman Boyt: From that standpoint, the City ought to be using recycleable
paper when you get down to it.
' Councilman Workman: The City of Chaska does. They have a recycling program.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, what's your pleasure?
Councilman Boyt: I would make a motion that the City Council approve a cdntract
at the higher rate to extend through October.
' 69
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Councilman Workman: I'll second that.
Councilman Johnson: Are you going to put anything in there about the cost ,
changes if Carver County requires within that time period that...
Councilman Boyt: I think it's going to be pretty minimal. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It might not be bad to have in there. Whatever is minimal.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I'll accept it. '
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to accept the price increase
for curbside recycling from Waste Management through October with a clause which
will indicate that the City of Chanhassen will receive any cost benefits
resulting from using the new plant which will be opening in Scott County. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
COMMUNITY SURVEY, COUNCILMAN BOYT.
Councilman Boyt: This should be fairly quick. There's a survey and a cover I
letter that I passed out to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Which we've not had a chance to really look at.
Councilman Boyt: No. And all I'm proposing is that we put this on a future
agenda. That you look it over and see if you like the questions. I think
there's some good reasons for doing this and I think we'd be good at it so. I
pretty much laid those out in the mono. I don't think there's a need to take
time to go through it all.
Councilman Johnson: I was just sitting here correcting your typing. '
Councilman Boyt: Yes, there's plenty of that.
Councilman Workman: Are you suggesting that we're dividin g P city?
the city?
Councilman Boyt: What I'm suggesting is that the Council would, we'll pick some ,
neighborhoods and some dates and the 5 of us would go out and hit the
neighborhood.
Councilman Workman: Together_?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. We're good at that. Well we wouldn't all go to the same
house. I mean that would be a little overwhelming.
Mayor Chmiel: It'd be amazing to see what the answers would be and how the,
questions are posed.
70 ,
IICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Councilman Boyt: The way I did this, with the 2P1
people I gave it to was I went
up, introduced myself. Told them that I was really interested in their opinion.
F Asked them if they had any hot items and then asked them if II
they'd fill out the
survey. Obviously we'd change the address on here but just put a stamp on it
and send it in and I got 60% response which I think is pretty high for a survey.
' Councilman Johnson: Yes. Very high.
Councilman Workman: Are we talking about having these go to City Hall?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. It'd go to City Hall and it's a chance
I think the 5 of us do a for us to do what
pretty y good job at.
' Mayor Chmiel: Good. Let's do it. Get us in shape for a year and a half from
now.
Councilman Boyt: Can we put this on the next agenda maybe to review it?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Okay, Bill. Frontier Homes.
' Councilman Boyt: Okay, this one is a little different. Did Scott v ou any
ive
information on complaints from Frontier Homes? 9 you
Jim Chaffee: He gave me a note. Bill, Ron advised me that 476 Bighorn is a CO.
Is that it?
Councilman Boyt: No, that's a different deal altogether. Okay. On Frontier
Homes. It was in our packet. It was in the Public Safety pack. It certainly
got a lot of press a couple months ago and so I guess the amazing thing about
' this is that the, okay this is the current link that has to do with it and I
haven't read this any more than the others have read it. What we got in the
public safety packet and the Council adminstrative pack is a letter from a
homeowner who's basically saying, here it is in August and nothing has been
done. All they're getting is, what I would call the run around.
Mayor Chmiel: This letter here pretty much addresses it.
Councilman Boyt: I think if this had come in a month ago, I think '
impressed than I am seeing it 2 months after the problem hit the I s be avie
' P press. Having
read the letter from the homeowner who says he was told that a committee was
going to be formed. Jim Chaffee was offered the opportunity by the Frontier,
supposedly to be on the committee. He's never been contacted by them. There's
nothing we can do from a building inspection standpoint that we haven't done. I
think though that there is something we can do. What I propose is that if
action isn't taken on these complaints within the next 2 weeks, that the City
run an ad in our official newspaper every couple weeks. About 2 columns wide an
inch deep, that says that basically that we caution people about using this home
builder. That we recommend that they have a professional home inspection
service inspect the home before they close on it and that we as a City have no
' confidence in them. I think if we ran that a couple of times, that they would
quickly get this resolved.
Mayor Chmiel: What would be our legal ramifications of something like that?
71
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 1
Councilman Johnson: Roger, was thinking on that one real hard.
Roger Knutson: We'd want to look at the content very carefully.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'd be afraid of doi ng to initiate a suit against us.
Councilman Boyt: I think that's wise obviously but I think that the City can
say that there's a record of complaints from owners of homes that this builder
is constructing.
Councilman Johnson: Where's Frontier building?
Councilman Boyt: They're building in Saddlebrook. We're talking about, I
think one of the newspapers reported they were contacted by 40 some people in
Eden Prairie with problems from this builder. We have had over, this thing as I
say, it started 2 months ago. We're looking at it 2 months later and there's
the letter from the homeowner saying, nothing has been done. Well, I think we
can get their attention. I'd like to see us draft that and get it ready to go
if nothing's happened in 2 weeks, we put it in.
Mayor Chmiel: And at the same time you can indicate our concerns and say what '
we're doing.
Councilman Boyt: Is that sort of the general consensus to pursue this? 1
Councilman Workman: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Just as long as there aren't any legal ramifications. I
Councilman Johnson: Roger can draft a sufficiently non-liable...
Councilman Workman: How would potentially a new buyer of one '
that though? potentially
y of these homes see
Councilman Boyt: They've got a chance of looking in the local newspaper when
they decide to come to the community. I think number one. ..
Mayor Chmiel: Can you get a front page spread?
Councilman Johnson: The homeowners there can also put up signs of their own.
Councilman Boyt: Yes they could and what the City is advisin g f them is i '
they've got problems, they should get together with other neighbors and pursue
that legally. I'm proposing that the City, drafting this properly, could do it
legally and I think it would catch Frontier's attention and get it resolved.
Councilman Johnson: Maybe.
Councilman Boyt: Well it's something we can do. Anyway, I'd like to see us
pursue it. If Roger comes back and says we can't do it. ..
Councilman Johnson: Are we licensing builders now?
C
Councilman Boyt: No.
72 1
•
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
II
I [ Councilman Johnson: We never got that ordinance through last year did we? What
happened to that?
Councilman Boyt: We looked at licensing contractors. Sub-contractors and it
Iproved to be an adminstrative nightmare so it never went further.
Councilman Johnson: Because that was in response to builders that had some
Iproblems.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we've discussed Frontier long enough. Let's go onto the
next one.
II Councilman Workman: i got a call from Jean Burke, 225 West 77th Street in
regards to the concert series. I went down and saw Jerome Carlson and it was
enjoyable and it was really an enjoyable atmosphere not fully taking into
account perhaps some neighbors might not appreciate it. I did drive by the last
II night and saw some young kid with an electric guitar and did think, hlu mu and
then did come back and that's when I received the call but certainly the idea is
good. I think it was Brad Johnson and Sue Boyt did some of that independent of
II the City so while it's a good idea, I guess I just talked to Jim about us
looking into perhaps the ramifications. Perhaps moving it. It is a nice little
area and I just wanted to bring that up for next year maybe we can look at it.
Steve Wilker, 621 West 96th Street talked to me about the intersection of
rPioneer Trail, not Pioneer Blvd. and TH 101 which has been a problem and I'd
like to see, that's probably one of the most nervous intersections I come up on
from the south. Anywhere. I'm breaking all the way through it so those
comments, he's going to try and maybe get a ball going. I have letters to that
Ieffect which I'll give you and that's the end of my comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Ursula?
1 Councilwoman Dimler: I just have a quick it dealing with the seminar
that
coming up on September 14th and 15th to be held at 8:30 to 11:30 I believe and
I then there's also an afternoon session. All the sessions are the same but the
seminar is called dealing with upset citizens and the public. I thought it was
interesting enough, it caught my eye so I registered for it and I just wanted to
II make councilmembers aware that we can register for that too if you'd like to.
It's really for staff but we can go.
Councilman Johnson: Who's sponsoring this?
ICouncilwoman Dimler: That I don't know. Don, do you know?
ICouncilman Johnson: It sounds like it's part of the. ..
Councilwoman Dimler: It's at the Radisson South I believe.
1 I Jim Chaffee: I've got a brochure upstairs I'll bring down when I'm through with
L the adminstrative presentation. ,
CounciLman Johnson: They similar y have very szmilar ones to this every year at the
National League of Cities Conference. It's very interesting usually because you
II 73
City Council MQeting - August 14, 1989 II
have a lot of first hand knowledge from people all over the country and what
they did about this, that and the other thing.
Councilwoman Dimler: Sounds interesting. That's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move onto the next adminstiltive presentation. ,
ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. NOISE ORDINANCE, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR.
Jim Chaffee: Before we get started I'd like to point out a couple...directions 1
that were pointed out during the public safety commission meeting we had on
Thursday night. The way you received the ordinance in your packet stated that
you can make all the noise you want between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and
actually we wanted to prohibit the noises between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. so if
you look in your packet, I think it's right after the page 22 of the drafted
ordinance where I made some notations on there.
Councilman Boyt: It's 6:00 to 7:00 by the way, not 10:00.
Jim Chaffee: Everybody's found that now I'll tell you a real simple remedy for '
that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would you repeat Jim what page you're on? I
Jim Chaffee: It's right after page 22. There's no actual page number but the _
one that says page 22 on it, I think it's the Council's Minutes, the one right
after that. About the 6th or 7th page in from the first page. I've got some
hand written notes in there. To make it readable the way we want, you look at
C(1) , (2) and (3) . Cross out "other than" in each one of those C(1) , C(2) and
C(3) then it reads the way we want it to read. Also when we went through this
at the Public Safety Commission, they thought on C-3, what I had penciled in
there, this ordinance shall not apply to snowmobiles while operating on a legal
trail, body of water or private property in accordance with the law. They
thought that might be a little confusing. People would read that, this
ordinance shall not apply to snowmobiles and forget all the test. They
suggested I work with Roger to clean it up or maybe even eliminate snowmobile
altogether. The intent of that was, you may have read when you went through the
packet, was to placate the snowmobile clubs that came out with a very large
opposition to this noise ordinance a year ago when we presented it.
Councilman Boyt: Three people is not a large opposition.
Jim Chaffee: They had a lot of documentation in their packet. That's precisely
why I said as much or provided as much information to you as I did in the packet
was to let you know exactly what we've been through a year ago when we tried to
get this through. One of the reasons we did have Roger draft a noise ordinance
for us was that presently, number 14 in our ordinance, Nuisance Ordinance.
Causing or cannitting any unnecessary noises or annoying vibrations is what we
have to use right now for enforcement and it's pretty vague. If somebody called
in a noise complaint and that's all the deputy's got to work with, it's really `--,
open to interpretation. What the noise ordinance does, and I think it was
74 I
ICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
drafted after the model or the League of Cities Noise se Ordinance wasn't it
Roger? It cleans up and pretty much highlights some of the areas that we would
like to get a handle on. Again, we act only on complaints. We got a complaint
and we go to the ordinance say yes, that fits and it just gives us a better
handle on dealing with a noise complaint than our present ordinance does. We
' suggested that we have a public hearing to go over -this and I would notify the
snowmobile clubs again. They're interested to come and talk to us about it
although I think with eliminating the snowmobiles from this ordinance, they
probably wouldn't have a whole lot of opposition to this. The reason we feel
' pretty comfortable that we can eliminate the snowmobiles from this particular
part of the ordinance is that there are other ordinances that we have that would
cover snowmobile operation. Both state and. local. So we think we wouldn't have
a whole lot of opposition to this.
Councilman Workman: There's nothing in this ordinance, I don't think, there's
' nothing in this ordinance that would pertain to an animal. I don't know. The
argument with the snowmobile and I'm a past snowmobiler myself. I would suggest
it would be very difficult, if we could back up to our little kennel discussion.
We can't catch a dog barking in a cage. It's almost impossible to catch a
' snow mobiler making noise.
Councilman Johnson: That's why it's eliminated.
' Mayor Chmiel: I live right adjacent to a highly used access with snowmobiles
during the winter and I don't really find that objectionable because they don't
II t stay directly in my yard or run up and down the street. They're going either to
or from. You can as many as 5 or 6 going past the house and after a short
period of time they're gone and they're out on Lake Ann and away they go.
Councilman Workman: It would have appeared with our discussion with the kennel
that the nuisance ordinance wasn't strong enough maybe and now this isn't
including this either.
' Councilman Johnson: Animals ain't in here, you're right.
Councilman Workman: So I would suggest that we add something in there to
' protect owners from the problem, which is usually the problem with an animal,
the noise. You can clean up a mess of a dog and a vicious dog is usually can be
taken care of but it's the noise that's the biggest problem with an animal.
' So I would look to find an item 8 to be added in so that we can maybe clean up
that problem we don't have to live with.
Jim Chaffee: That's a real good point and it's precisely why we're bringing it
to the Council now for any ideas or additions. Quite frankly that slipped my
mind and I just went back and looked through our animal ordinance and it doesn' t
cover barking so we go back to the...
Councilman Workman: There was a big gap there and I think as lon g as we're, I
think the noise ordinance is something that I think is needed and if we could
Ijust plug some in.
Councilman Boyt: Remember the chickens.
75
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Councilman Johnson: Yes, the chicken. It made all the newspapers. Oh, you
weren't living here yet. The chicken became a real problem up in Near Mountain.
Roger, does "at any time" add anything to this either? I'm nit picking here but
disturbing noises between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. versus disturbing noises
anytime between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.? Just strike out at any time. Also,
just adds verbage.
Councilwoman Dimler: Jim, one more point. Are you done Jay? I'm sorry.
Jim Chaffee: Yes, just point that out again will you Jay? ,
Councilman Johnson: Where you scratched out "other than". You could have
scratched out "at any time other than" because it's redundant. When you say at
any time and then you specify a time, you're being redundant.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was just wondering if we heard that tonight about the
jet skis. If this is going to be included in there?
Jim Chaffee: I guess we could. It's one of those things where I would like to
work with the Water Patrol first on that issue and see what the DNR comes up
with with their regulations. We can always amend it and add it at some later
time.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's a good suggestion. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Where are they with that?
Jim Chaffee: That I don't know. What I get, the tape from KARE, I think they
highlighted it and I'll check with DNR too but I think the tape highlighted what
DNR is doing to prevent these things from becoming the nuisances that they are.
I don't know if anybody of you saw the tape but it was just some incredible
stunts these people were doing. Spraying people with water in fishing boats and
things like that so clearly there was no...over these things.
Councilman Boyt: If we took item 4 where it says boat and put watercraft.
Instead of boat said any watercraft, airplane or motor vehicle of any kind that
results in creation of excessive, unmuffled noise or any other disturbing noise
we've got them covered and anything else anybody puts on the water.
Jim Chaffee: That's good.
Councilman Boyt: I would also encourage you to strike the snowmobile thing all
together. Why bother to reword it. Just strike it out of there. Our
snowmobile ordinance is pretty good. '
Councilman Johnson: You can call a snowmobile an other similar recreational
vehicle not licensed to travel on public streets unless you have that little
disclaimer about snowmobiles.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know. It's covered. I just as soon not stir up the
snowmobile people when we don't need to. They're well regulated with their
•
other ordinance.
76 1
ICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is, the people who
are mad about
IIsnowmobiles will came in and say, snowmobiles is an other similar recreational
4 vehicle so our ordinance says they can't operate from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
despite what the other, unless we put that little verbage, this ordinance shall
not apply.
Jim Chaffee: Why don't I have Roger clean that up.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's what you've indicated before.
Jim Chaffee: What I will do with this is we'll clean it up. Put it in an order
that's readable and then present it back to. the Council for the public hearing
' this next council agenda.
Councilman Johnson: How much do we pay a janitor per hour? If Roger's going to
' be cleaning all this up, I'm wondering what his fees are going to be.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's move on to tree cutting ordinance process.
TREE CUTTING ORDINANCE PROCESS UPDATE, CITY MANAGER.
' Don Ashworth: It was brought out earlier that we do not have a moratorium in
place and that is correct. The moratorium requires a notice that you're going
to have the moratorium and what it will constitute and all of the rest of that.
II i Staff has been working under the premise of what the Council really wants to do
is get an ordinance in place that stops tree cutting. I have prepared this
document based on some early conversations that I had had with Roger. I wanted
to take and have him relook at the wordage that I've used here as the basic
concepts. We were unable to contact each other on Wednesday, Thursday, just as
the packet was going out. Is there any segments in there, any statements that I
have made regarding the proposed ordinance Roger which cannot be accomplished?
' Roger Knutson: No.
' Don Ashworth: Okay. Then I guess the point that I made regarding the single
family property or the property owner and the question is becoming one of having
this ordinance effective in 100 out of 100 cases. The points that I have shown,
do they correctly address our conversations where you were very apprehensive
with me in terms of trying to develop an ordinance that would apply in every
situation. Meaning an individual lot owner having lived there for 30 years and
deciding that he'd like to cut down the cottonwood tree in his backyard.
' Roger Knutson: I think as we discussed, I've worked with other communities
drafting ordinances. First you have, you're addressing the single family
homeowner who owns one lot. First it would never occur to the average citizen
' that you'd need a permit to cut down a tree on his lot. So you're going to make
criminals out of a lot of people. You could. Second, when it gets down to the
single lot, I own one lot and I'm holding it to build a home on it. The last
thing I would probably want to do is cut down any tree that I wouldn't have to
cut down absolutely. I think a vast majority of folks, trees add lots an lots
of value to a lot. I think where you get the mass clear cutting is when you
have subdivisions going in. Big apartment projects. Big commercial projects.
Industrial projects. You get a lot of clear cutting and that's a lot easier to
r 77
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 '
control and you have a lot less adminstrative problems in doing so.
Don Ashworth: Anyway, here would be the proposal as we're outlining it. If the
Council would like to see philosophically any one of these points changed, I
guess I'd like to know about it so we can go about the business of actually
drafting an ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: I think of 2 lots in particular. One on Lake Riley and the
one in Klingelhutz' Pheasant Hills where the homeowner decided that he wanted a
back yard with grass in it instead of trees. He bought a treed lot. He paid a
premium for that lot and he clear cut the whole darn thing. Actually when I
first saw that, plus he filled into the wetland in one case. Is there any way
in new subdivisions that has existing trees on it, that when that individual
homeowner comes on and tells that builder hey I don't want any trees, I want
grass for my kids to play on, that we can prevent him from clear cutting that
individual lot and doing that?
Roger Knutson: Yes. At the time of subdivision approval I think you can have a
landscaping plan if you will that will specify what can be and cannot be cut.
Councilman Johnson: How does that hold that lot owner if a year later. he 1
decides well I couldn't do it when I built the house but I'm in here not and
I've got my chainsaw or he borrows one from Don.
R og er Knutson: A g ain, we've been releasing develo pment contracts because of the
problems that people have with them at closing. We couldn't keep that plan in
effect but you do have a practical problem. First, if the guy goes out at 6:00 I
at night or whenever he goes out, on the weekend with his chainsaw and cuts out
a tree in his backyard, one it's very unlikely you're ever going to find out L
about it. And if it's gone it's gone. I guess you can have him replace it. If
you're talking a big tree, you could have him replace it with a bunch of small
trees potentially I suppose.
Councilman Johnson: I guess there could be some information given to the '
homeowners as they buy the lots and whatever about the tree restrictions on the
lots.
Roger Knutson: It's a practical problem on a small lot. I'm not expert but say
you gut down a 30 inch tree.
Councilman Johnson: You can't put up 30 1 inchers. '
Roger Knutson: You can't because you have spacing requirements. You can't do
it.
Councilman Workman: Pit up 3 10 inchers or 10 3 inchers.
Roger Knutson: Few people could afford that. '
Councilman Boyt: I think the way we deal with individual homeowners is by, or
one way we get closer to dealing with than is by going out and identifying the
landmark trees in our community and that those landmark trees would then be ,
identified to the homeowners. Your tree has been chosen as kind of the
equivalent of a historical marker. That doesn't save every tree but it makes L -'
78
ICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
' sure that the one that stands out prominently in the neighborhood is protected
and the City also is more likely to be able to watch those than again every
tree. I'd like to see, when this comes back to us, and I asked Jo Ann to
research this. I'd like to see the replacement minimum size tree identified.
Whatever. I'm real curious as to how big a tree can we transplant. Is it 6
inches? What size?
' Mayor Chmiel: Whatever money you have.
' Councilman Boyt: But there's a limit in equipment in terms of the ability to
move the tree and so on. That will give us some sort of an idea of what we want
these trees replaced with when they're cut. We might, I doubt that we'll ever
' go to this. I thought about the idea of a tree cutting permit but I don't think
we're ever going to get into that because as Roger said, who would ever think
they needed one in order to cut a tree on their property. " I think the sense of
the Council that I picked up is that we all want to do something like this and
' I'd like to have staff research the issue of what should our minimum size tree
be. Thinking along the lines of what's practical to plant. Going about
identifying the landmark trees. Recognizing that we already have the DNR
working on mapping our hardwood forest. I think when that happens we need to
come back and protect those like we do our wetlands.
' Councilman Johnson: I think we can start that protection process before the
mapping's done.
Councilman Boyt: Well this is sort of giving us the tools to do it.
Councilman Johnson: We do have some unique remnants of the big woods here.
' CHANGES TO SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULE, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: The way we set that up was going with two Saturday mornings. I
' think the same schedule can be achieved, this is dealing with interviewing the
financial consultants and City Auditor. I think the same thing could be
accomplished by one evening and I was looking to either. September 5th, September
' 6th or September 7th and we would do both groups on one of those nights.
Councilwoman Dimler: The 5th is out for me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. How's the 6th? The 6th is okay with me.
Councilwoman Dimler: Fine.
tCouncilman Workman: Is the 6th a Tuesday?
t Mayor_ Chmiel: No, the 6th is a Wednesday. It's also a planning commission
meeting.
IDon Ashworth: We could do it in the court yard area or. wherever.
Councilwoman Dimler: The 6th or 7th is fine with me. •
Mayor Chmiel: What's the consensus? Let's go for the 6th? What time?
' 79
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
Councilman Workman: 6:30?
Don Ashworth: I was going to say 7:00.
Mayor Chmiel: 7:00? '
Don Ashworth: If we take 3, that'd be 8:30. We'd done by 10:00 hopefully.
What I distributed tonight are all of the financial advisor bids, solicitations,
resumes. I will weed those down to hopefully three but if in the meantime you
want to look through those and you feel that there's a particular firm that you
really would like to see in there, then let me-know.
DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING UPDATE, CITY ENGINEER.
Councilman Workman: My question. The representative of BRW, the landscape
repairs and any modifications will be completed within the City's present Phase
1 planting budget. What have we in fact paid BRW to research this and should we
bear those costs? These trees are going to be, I believe it says that we have
replaced or pulled out all our dead plant stock but did we get it all?
Don Ashworth: Did we get it all? What do you mean? '
Councilman Workman: Was all dead plant stock?
Don Ashworth: It does become a definition as to what's dead.
Councilman Boyt: It says Noble Nursery removed the majority of dead plant
stock. I haven't seen any. I'm looking for about 4 bushes left.
Mayor Chmiel: Some of those existing trees that are partially alive and
partially dead are not going to make it next year I'll guarantee you and those I
should also be looked at.
Don Ashworth: I would agree. Back to Tom's point. BRW is aware of the
concerns that have been shown regarding the trees and potentially even the over
stocking of those in the downtown area. We reached agreement with them that we
wanted to take and see a re-review of the entire planting plan and to sane
extent a reduction to that. The City would not pay for that, including any
materials that we felt in relooking at were put in in error and there are same
of those areas where the shurbs, their planting standards associated with some
of the yews and those type of things, that they should not be closer than 24 to
36 inches from the curb line to assure that salt and sand and some of the other
material and BRW was very candid in saying that some decisions were made in the
field by one of their people and that in re-review of some of those planting
areas, that those materials should not have gone in if they would have been
looked at by their senior people in the landscaping area. And accordingly they
will pay to have those materials taken out and proper materials put in to sane
of those extents. What it's going to mean is some of the median areas will
actually be shortened some of the tips where you're seeing plant materials rain
all the way down will be filled in with concrete back a ways. Some of the
plants will be moved back further away from the curbing. Some of the trees that
are right now visible problems in turning by...will be removed at BRW's expense.
80 ,
IICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Especially down there by the Blue Bell and Pony Express and
all that stuff. Are they really looking at that corner?
Mayor Chmiel: That's what he just mentioned.
' Councilman Johnson: He said b y something. I didn't hear what you said.
Don Ashworth: By Pony's.
Councilman Johnson: Oh by Pony's.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's a very bad intersection.
Councilman Johnson: Now, when they remove stuff. If they have over in another
' phase a place to put it and it goes over there and we're already planning to pay
for the other ones coming in, we're not going to pay for the other ones coming
in?
' Don Ashworth: No and in fact that does, even though BRW will be paying fairly
extensively in terms of some of these redos, they do have some alternatives...
with three other projects that are in progress and literally need certain
' planting materials and we don't really have a problem with taking a tree that
probably is in the wrong location as far as the sight line by Pony's and taking
that same tree and using it on 79th Street, Market Blvd., TH 101 realignment,
north side parking lot. We've got a lot of opportunities in replacement of that
tree, to put it into another location and not have to get into hassles as to
I should the contractor have or paid id shouldn't initially _ or oildn t he and... It's still
going to be a problem for them.
' Councilman Boyt: Who is responsible for the planting? Is it the City Council
or Housing and Redevelopment Authority?
Don Ashworth: I've tried to make sure all the way through this project that
both the Council and the HRA were aware of what is, each was giving approvals.
The project street was done as a 429 project and assessed. Any of the I'll call
them soft cost areas, things such as landscaping becomes more difficult to
assess. Gazebo, clock tower.. .
' Councilman Boyt: Okay, Don! Don! We want to get out of here right? All I
want to know is, I agree. You ran through everybody. You covered all your
bases. Who makes the final decision on the planning? Is it us or is it the
' HRA? Because somebody gets the last vote on the planting. The materials.
Mayor Chmiel: Who's got the final say?
' Don Ashworth: I say the City Council always has the final say on whatever but.
I Councilman Boyt: No but. Just that's good enough. Alright. I've been told by
two different landscape contractors that the low bushes that we have planted all
over the place in the medians and various other places, will not handle spow
pack and salt. I want to see, if we have the final vote on here, before
anything else gets planted, I want to see the landscape architect from BRW back
II in here because I remember 2 years ago when he stood there and told me, number
' 81
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
one, every one of these things will work. Number two, that he went out '
and hand
selected them. Well, I had those same landscape architects tell me that several
of the plantings, the trees looked like they were not nursery stock. I couldn't
tell you the difference but I think if we have sort of the final decision, that
gentleman needs to come back in here and talk to us before anything gets put in
the ground.
Councilman Johnson: Or his replacement.
Councilman Boyt: Yes, or whoever is working for him now in that capacity. '
1.5 CONSIDER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, 1.5 ACRES IN SECTION 16, NORDITRACK. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Being that Mrs. Paul didn't come back. Staff recommended that we
table this. Finalize negotiations. '
Councilman Johnson: What are we negotiating for?
Don Ashworth: We're negotiating a piece of property that...on TH 41.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have a massive desire to sell this that we want to
incur an extra $40,000.00 in cost? '
Mayor Chmiel: One of the things that I felt we should look at, and I hope
you've already done this, is to review with each of the departments to see if
there's any basic need for this land at any given time during the distant
future. If there's any real needs and have each of the department heads review
it and come up with conclusions of what they find.
Councilwoman Dimler_: Also Don, I would think if we're going to relocate, we've
got to count the cost of that and at least get our relocation cost out of it.
Councilman Johnson: I've got a question. What are all those semis sitting on
there?
Don Ashworth: Those are construction trailers associated with the NordiTrack's '
new construction.
Councilman Johnson: Well that's awful nice. '
Councilwoman Dimler: They're not supposed to be there.
Don Ashworth: They did ask for permission to use that. I think that we have '
construction trailers associated with any...
Councilman Johnson: Then they complain how junky it looks. It's their '
trailers. I'm in no desire to sell any piece of property at this time.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not either. It's the corner there. '
•
Councilman Workman: Have we tabled that item?
Councilman Johnson: Not yet.
82 '
IICity Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on
considering Purchase Agreement of 1.5 acres in Section 16, NordiTrack. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10
a.m..
Submitted by h
y Don Ashworth
' City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
IL
t
83
I ,
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
II ` SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
AUGUST 9, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order .
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler , and Mayor
Chmiel
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1
Mayor Chmiel : First of all , I 'd like to apologize for the mix up. We' re
having baseball meetings down here and they put us upstairs until the total
number who came for baseball was much less than the total numbers that are
here so consequently the room upstairs just wouldn' t accommodate everybody
and it'd be a little hard to sit on 6 chairs and 2 davenports. So as I
' say, I apologize to you because of the inconvenience that it took for a
little bit of time in setting this up. As you are well aware, at the last
Council meeting , Ursula has brought up the point of the site . Of the
' concerns that you basically have regarding what is taking, let me clarify
that, what has not taken place and you justifiably have the right position
to take on that. What we have done is to have staff pull through and
' gather data , information so we know what ' s really happening . Unfortunately
when this all went in, it was the previous Council that really dealt with
it so we ' re resolved that we ' re going to correct it . That' s the one thing
we plan on seeing. The intent basically of this meeting that we' re today
' is to assure you that the improvements to the site will be completed and
specifically the berming and the landscaping of which they indicated they
would do . What we have gone through is that the developer has provided the
' City with a letter of credit in the amount of $297,000. 00. This letter of
credit is in effect until December 31 of this year . What has happened is
what we see, that if the developer does not install all those required
improvements by November 30th of this year , the City may, not the City may,
' the City will draw down from that security agreement with on notice to the
developer and complete what was said would be done will be done . They, and
I don ' t suppose that HSZ is here tonight. Oh they are. Good. I didn' t
' see you there . These are some of the things that we see must be done and
will be done. With that I think I ' ll just turn this basically over to
Ursula a little bit and let her discuss it a little more ft.illy.
' Councilwoman Dimler : I 'd just like to give a brief history. I know you' ve
been through all this and you' ve probably read the Minutes and you know all
about what was said and what hasn' t been done. I guess my basic concern is
' that after having read through the Minutes of the October 10, 1988 meeting
which dealt with the conditional use permit for the SuperAmerica. At that
point there are several instances in here , and I did have a copy for each
of you. I feel it should have been included in the packet and when I found
that it wasn ' t, I had them draw them up this morning so I know you haven ' t
had a chance to go through them. So I 'd just like to highlight a few
things that were in the Minutes . I guess I ' ll start on page 37 where it
' talks about access and acceleration and decleration lane that' s supposed to
go all the way back to Oriole Lane . I guess that ' s kind of the first thing
that I saw that wasn' t done. Also then on page 42, it talks about the
' drainage ditches that had to be completed and the whole system has to be in
place before we can move forward. Those are Roger_ Zahn' s comments . On
I
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 2
page 41 Roger Zahn said here that they talked about the conceiveability of
the shopping center, that it would not get approval from MnDot but that
SuperAmerica would and Roger said that that thought hadn' t entered his
mind. A gas station doesn' t go without the shopping center and vice versa.
They' re really intertwined and then a line later it says , I shouldn' t say
vice versa. The shopping center will go without the gas station but the
gas station won' t go without the shopping center . Why don' t we just go
line for line and I talked to Roger and when I told him that we would be II meeting and that we would be using these Minutes as the basis . I can just
go on and on unless, I can or if you think that' s. . .
Mayor Chmiel : No . Just go on. I
Councilwoman Dimler : The drainage ditch is another issue again we' re not
taking care of and I 'm sure these neighbors will address some of these
concerns again too . The berming , the landscaping , and the big thing was
that condition 12, if you turn to page 92. Condition 12 states that no
building permit shall be issued to SuperAmerica until all the building
permits have been provided to HSZ and development starts on the shopping
center . Unfortunately putting the sewer and water in , which was needed for
the SuperAmerica, was then interpretted to be development on the shopping ,
center which I 'm not sure was quite the interpretation that the previous
Council or that I would like to see. But anyway, the permit was issued and
the rest is history. But my major concern is that if you look at the site,
you can see that after having gone through that, that none of the concerns
of the neighborhood were really taken into account. I would say in effect
their worst nightmare has come true and that' s just a horrible situation I
think for any neighborhood to be in. They come to all these meetings. II They voice their concerns and in the end nothing is listened to and I know
that ' s frustrating . That ' s not the kind of City that I want Chanhassen to
be viewed as. I would like for developers to see us as a City that does
consider the concerns of the previous residents . That' s the type of
reputation that I would like to establish and I want the citizens to know
that we do listen and we do do something about it . So that ' s why we called
this meeting this evening . '
Mayor Chmiel : Don, is Jo Ann going to be here this evening?
Don Ashworth: No she' s not. I will be here in her capacity. '
Mayor Chmiel : I guess maybe what I 'd like to do right now is just sort of
throw it open and have anyone indicate some of their concerns and if you
would , just state your name and your address so we can keep this on tape
here.
Fay Dudycha : I 'm Fay Dudycha . 6451 Oriole and they' re right behind me .
Now, number 1, I don' t like the berm hasn' t been done. It' s wrecked the
trees along the border down in our area . The weeds are taking over in the
back. The turn lane is terrible. You can' t even walk across the street in
the morning because that turn lane is turned right into , 5 feet. Right
past Oriole and that' s a turn lane so you can ' t even walk on that side of
the street anymore . There' s nothing . '
I
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 3
1 Mayor Chmiel : Going into the station.
Fay Dudycha : Going into the station because it' s this turn lane. I mean
here these people are coming like you know what down TH 7. It' s not 50 or
' 55 even . It ' s like 60 so I don ' t like that either . I don ' t know what they
can do about it but they've got to fix something because you can' t even
turn into TH 7 without somebody else wanting to turn into the filling
' station.
Mayor. Chmiel : I think that ' s something that we can discuss a little bit on
that. Some of the things of course that I had seen in here too regarding
the requirements that they have to have here and I do believe there ' s
landscaping in here Don.
Resident : Mr . Mayor , who are you talking to over here?
Mayor Chmiel: That' s Don Ashworth. Our City Manager . Maybe Don if you
' have a little more of a handle just getting these Minutes today from the
previous , I ' ve not really had a chance to review them. I have reviewed the
letter which is written from Jo Ann to you in regards to the site which I
basically covered on some of the letter of credit and some of the other
factors that were part of the issuance of that permit . With the
finalization as well as to the final approved plan that was given. Do we,
I ' ve not seen it, do we have , other than we have this small one and it
' shows some of the landscaping that ' s to be done and covered. Do we have
anything that we could put up on the board?
Don Ashworth: I can go upstairs and try to find it, yes .
Mayor Chmiel : I think it might be just a good idea because it will be a
little easier to point to and direct . . .
Don Ashworth : Do you want me to cover anything before I start looking?
Mayor Chmiel : Yes, it might be a good idea. Just to sort of highlight
some of this from where I have already indicated . You were sitting there
when I indicated the concerns that we have and also what some of the people
' have. Also , the calls that' s Ursula' s gotten and the calls that I ' ve
gotten. So with that, why don' t you just give an overall summary.
Don Ashworth : There are a number of areas that they are not in compliance
on. One of the purposes of this meeting is to try to document as many of
those as possible . Staff has a list . The primary issue is the one dealing
with the ponding and they have been notified that that is incorrect. A
redrafted plan was submitted that has been submitted over to the Watershed
District as well as to our City Engineer . They have now approved that
additional plan . The grading should be commencing very shortly on that
revised ponding plan . In regards to the building issue, they did take out
a building permit but as we are all aware, they have not started that
construction . I think that rightly so everyone here is disapp9inted that
they have not complied with what it is that they had told the City Council
and yourself from a year ago that that construction would parallel the
construction for the gas station.
I
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41 II
August 9 , 1989 - Page 4
Ben Gowen: Supercede . '
Don Ashworth : Yes . They would be starting that in advance of the gas
station, yes. I ' ll see if I can find that plan. I
Mayor Chmiel : Alright . We have had of course the execution as you' re all
well aware of the fact that the development contract has been pulled
together . I don ' t know whether anyone has had the opportunity to see what
that is and what it consists of but it really covers all the different
things such as the sanitary sewer , watermain and storm sewer , street
lighting , sign, erosion control , engineering and surveying and inspection. II
The turn lane on TH 7. The landscaping and the Reed Addition. I guess
with that I 'd just sort of like to throw this back open to you people to
see what your opinions are and get some more of your concerns . Of course
the reason for this meeting this evening is so we can get documentation and
get your concerns . Address those concerns and make sure that everything is
going to be complied with as it basically should have been from what was
II
intended when the issuance of that permit was granted with everybody' s
knowledge.
Ben Gowen: Ben Gowen, 6440 Hazeltine Blvd . . I think it' s indicative of
II
this gentleman who just spoke to us of what the whole problem is. He says
parallel and he means supercede . They are all on the same package .
They' re not complying and nobody cares. This gentleman stood right here
II
and said , parallel and he doesn ' t mean parallel does he? Does he mean
parallel? I 'm asking you a question.
Mayor Chmiel : To be very honest , when he was talking I was doing a little II
reading here so I wasn' t . . .
Ben Gowen: Ursula , do you think he means parallel or does he mean
II
supercede?
Mayor Chmiel : No . I think he knows it was supposed to supercede . I
Ben Gowen: Why does he say parallel? If he' s not in HSZ ' s pocket and
playing the same game . We' re getting all messed up out there and they
don ' t care and the City doesn' t seem to care either .
Councilwoman Dimler : The other thing that I caught is that he said the
building permit was issued and he' s the one that did the issuing . I
Ben Gowen: Well , what side is he on?
Councilwoman Dimler : It' s like he didn' t have control . I
Mayor Chmiel : Supposedly he' s to enforce the requirements that were so
stipulated in the agreement and what the conditional use was covered .. II
,
Ben Gowen: By what degree does he have ability to enforce it?
II
I
' City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9, 1989 - Page 5
II
' Mayor Chmiel : Through the building department is the place where he does
have that ability to enforce it .
Ben Gowen : It' s been 18 months and no enforcement .
' Mayor Chmiel : Yes, I agree. I realize that. And that' s the reason why
we' re having the meeting this evening .
Ben Gowen: Okay. When I first heard about this, it' s a psychological
approach. They showed me a picture in my front room. The road is coming
through my living room. That' s a psychological approach because anything
other than this is going to be better . So now we' ve got a mess out there
that' s better than going through my living room. Let' s get into the
SuperAmerica lighting . On the stipulations , there ' s no lighting that goes
'
10 feet beyond the building and yet they've got horizontal lighting all the
way around the canopy. I don ' t think it ' s fair and if this gentleman is
the City Engineer , he didn' t observe that omission of intent .
Councilwoman Dimler : If I might make a comment at this point Mr . Mayor . I
did stop and speak with Jeff Steel who is the manager of the SuperAmerica
there and I just talked to him yesterday as a matter of fact. I walked
over the site to see what has been done and if anything has changed. He
indicated to me that he too is very unhappy with the lack of development
there because he too was under the understanding that if that shopping
center was in there , it ' s only going to increase his business so he too
would like to see this go in and I did mention the lighting at that point
and yes it is a definite violation.
Ben Gowen: Are they going to be tricked?
Councilwoman Dimler : Don , is that going to be corrected?
' Don Ashworth: Is what?
' Councilwoman Dimler : The lighting on the SuperAmerica .
Mayor Chmiel : Canopy.
Don Ashworth : I know that the issue was brought out and that Jo Ann was to
research that issue. I 'm not sure that I know what the answer to that is .
In other. words . . .
Ben Gowen: Your opinion is it' s not tight . Is it going to be corrected?
tDon Ashworth: If it is wrong , it will be corrected .
Ben Gowen : It is wrong . Here ' s the paper .
Mayor Chmiel : Ben, what do you have there and on what page are you making
reference to?
Ben Gowen : I 'm on page 26 of May 17 , 1989 , Case No . 88-17 Sub. In the
middle of the page.
I
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41 .. II
August 9, 1989 - Page 6
Councilwoman Dimler : Those are not the same Minutes that we have. It says II
in here as well I believe. It' s condition 6 on page 87. Condition 6 on
page 87, the lights on the gas canopy shall be receeded into the canopy to
eliminate dispersion of light into the surrounding neighborhood area . I
Ben Gowen: Say that again.
Councilwoman Dimler : The lights on the gas canopy shall be receeded into I
the canopy to eliminate dispersion of light into the surrounding
neighborhood area .
II
Ben Gowen: The canopy' s got neon signs on the horizontal surface.
Councilwoman Dimler : We are not talking about a violation of the
II
conditional use permit for SuperAmerica which I don' t believe . . .
Ben Gowen: Another subject.
II
Councilwoman Dimler : Yes . They are. You' re right but I 'm wondering if
that isn' t slightly a different issue. Is Roger still responsible for II that? Roger Zahn . I don' t know.
Mayor Chmiel : I would say that that would probably be the responsibility
of SuperAmerica. Roger sold them the property. SuperAmerica is the
recepient of that permit so I would think it would be their responsibility.
I 'm not sure but that ' s. . .
Ben Gowen: It' s really this gentleman' s responsibility. The City I
Engineer ' s responsibility.
Councilman Workman : He' s the City Manager . I
Mayor Chmiel : No, the City Manager . Right.
Ben Gowen : I think it goes back to his pocket teal quick. II
Mayor Chmiel : I think that' s something that we will have to probably have II
addressed with SuperAmerica on the canopy lighting which is a little more
removed from this right now but we will check that out.
Gary Reed : My name is Gary Reed . I called Jo Ann Olsen when they were
constructing the canopy and I ' ve been to meetings with SuperAmerica and we
talked about how the signage would be down low and the lighting would all
be directed down. Then when I saw them constructing the canopy and putting
up fluorescent lights around the base of it, I knew what it was going to
do. It was just going to shine out into the neighborhood and so she said ,
well I was just over there and looked at the canopy lighting which was II below the canopy and how they weren' t directed down, they were kind of
below the canopy. And I said , well didn' t you look at the side of the
canopy and she said she didn' t but she said she would check right into it.
Then the next time I saw the canopy was lit and one night they were II checking it all out and they had the lights on all night. Jan and I came
II
11 City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 7
home and our house , it was like moonlight you know. The whole surrounding
area was lit up by that perimeter around which was directed out so. It
really wouldn' t be that hard to correct . All they'd have to do is switch
them off .
Mayor Chmiel : Yes , that' s right unless it controls some of the other
lighting. The down lighting that they have over the pumps. That would be
' the only thing and I have no idea .
Councilman Workman : Are we talking about , is that lighting or is that
' signage? Is that addressing?
Resident : Lighting all around the outside facia .
' Councilman Workman: It' s colored?
Gary Reed : It' s as bright . There' s no , is a logo on it? I think the logo
' is on the front of the station above the door . I don' t think there' s any
logo on the canopy.
' Councilman Workman: So it ' s meant to illuminate the area and not for
signage?
Gary Reed : No . It' s something that stands out that you see driving by to
' see it. I 've looked at some of the other stations and not many of them
have lights around the edge of the canopy. Most of them don ' t have it.
Mayor Chmiel : Ben, I was just looking at that with the lights on the gas
canopy which is number 6 here as part of the conditional use . It says the
lights on the gas canopy shall be receeded into the canopy to eliminate
dispersion of light into the surrounding neighborhood area .
Ben Gowen: If you put a light on a sign this way, which way is it going to
go? Down or out?
Mayor Chmiel : That' s correct . That light will go out .
' Resident : But that ' s the gas where the meters are. That isn ' t the
station. The station is what has the lights .
Mayor Chmiel : No .
Resident : The outside of the station with the canopy.
' Resident: The outside of the station lights shine down.
Mayor Chmiel : No , they' re talking specifically on the gas canopy here .
Resident: They' re supposed to go down though right?
Mayor Chmiel : Yes . They have down lighting underneath the gas pumps .
' They have those specific spot lights .
i
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9, 1989 - Page 8
II
Resident : Then what is it around there?
Mayor Chmiel : That would be the facia on the outer portion all the way up
to the top part .
Resident : But that doesn' t say that that is what is supposed to happen.
They are supposed to have the lights going down to the. . .
Mayor Chmiel : Yes. They're supposed to be down lighting rather than '
projecting out. Right.
Councilwoman Dimler : Next time we' ll say no lighting of the facia and that "
will . . .
Gary Reed : They didn' t indicate anything about the edge of the canopy.
The subject wasn' t brought up but the edge of it, they didn' t talk about
the edge of it. They talked about the street lights , down lighting and
down lighting throughout the station and down lighting under the canopy bull
they didn' t mention the edge of the canopy.
Mayor Chmiel : Let me just reieterate some of the conditional use
requirements and there were 15 of those . It said 1, no unlicensed or
inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises. 2, no repairs ,
assembly or disassembly of vehicles is permitted on the premises . 3, no
public address system shall be audible from a residential parcel at any
time and all other noise sources , operational in nature , shall not be
audible from the site between the hours of 10: 00 p.m. and 7: 00 a .m. . Has
that been pretty good? Okay. You' re not hearing , Pump 32 is clear?
Resident: No. So far .
Mayor Chmiel : I was sitting out there and I was listening one night too . II
Resident: I think that if they would be open past 10: 00 or 12: 00, now you
might hear them because everything is quiet .
Mayor Chmiel : Unless you' re a light sleeper , you may hear it but if you' re
as sound as I am, I don' t hear anything .
Resident: They do have an advertisement that plays over I believe it' s as
early as 7 : 00. It' s not actually an intercom system but it is an
advertisement that plays inside as well as outside.
Mayor Chmiel : On the specific special items that they have or whatever?
Resident: Yes. I 've heard it actually several times . I too think that
lighting outside is pretty bad .
Mayor Chmiel : Okay, let me just keep going with this . Number 4 , was gas II
pump stacking area deemed to be appropriate by the City shall Got intrude
into any required setback area . That I think is done . 5, no sales ,
storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as
motorcycles , snowmobiles or all terrain vehicles is permitted . 6, was one
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 9
' that we talked about , the canopy. Lights on the gas canopy shall be
receeded into the canopy to eliminate dispersion of light into the
surrounding neighborhood area . 7 , there shall be no outside display,
' storage for sales of merchandise. The day that I was there and looked,
they didn' t have anything outside. Everything was contained in. Tank
deliveries will be limited to 10: 00 a .m. and 4: 00 p.m. Monday thru
Saturday. 9, the applicant shall meet all conditions of the Assistant
I City Engineer as stated in the memo dated September 14, 1988. Do we have
that by chance any of you?
Don Ashworth : I brought down the HSZ file. You' re going through the SA
file.
Mayor Chmiel : Yes , that' s what we' re just touching on right now. 10, the
applicant shall comply with all conditions of the site plan approval . 11,
the applicant shall accept used motor oil and provide for it' s safe
storage. 12, there shall be no sale of 3.2 beer or intoxicating liquor .
' 13, there shall be 2 clerks employed at all times while the station is in
operation. 14, approval be conditioned upon satisfactory review by staff
of the traffic studies and the skimmer operation. 15, the hours of
operation shall be between 5: 00 a .m. and Midnight. Those were the specific
conditions that SuperAmerica had to comply with in order to be in
conformance with the conditional use permit. The only one that I see right
now would be the lighting within the canopy.
Ben Gowen: Didn' t they also submit after that revision procedure? I think
that ' s part of what I handed you. . . I don' t know what happened . They were
asking for revising this map.
Mayor Chmiel : Well this was the one that the Council moved , Councilman
Johnson moved and Horn seconded to approve the conditional use permit
' request #88-10 as shown on the Site Plan stamped "Received August 15, 1988"
with the following conditions .
' Ben Gowen: Shortly after that they asked for revisions of this . It ' s in
another file.
Mayor Chmiel : That' s something we can check on.
Ben Gowen: They requested some changes but I don' t know what happened to
them.
' Mayor Chmiel : Well is that ' s the only thing , then we can really check that
out. Was there any changes in addition to what was existing?
(There was a tape change at this point . )
Roger Zahn: Just take the last thing first. The holding pond should be
corrected beginning tomorrow. The holding pond was built according to the
plan of the engineer but it was defectively designed and I 'm no happier ,
I 'm less happy about that of just about anyone because I paid for the thing
' to be built the wrong way and now I have to go back and fix it. We had to
before we could fix it, approval of the City. We had to get approval of
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9, 1989 - Page 10
II
the Watershed District and I had to hire a new engineer . The old engineer
said he didn' t know how to fix it. So we hired a new engineer . He came up
with an excellent plan . We talked to the City about it. The Watershed
District has approved the new plan and beginning tomorrow that will be
corrected .
Bob Wagner : Roger , when you get that plan done, is there any fencing
around that for children?
Roger Zahn : There isn ' t currently a plan for any fencing Bob but the
slopes are going to be more gentle. The City asked us to reflect even
though it had been approved as a 3 : 1 slope, they asked for a 4 : 1 slope
could we get it from the Watershed? Could we get a 4: 1 slope.
Bob Wagner : It' s going to get bigger not smaller?
Roger Zahn: It' s going to get more gentle so. . .
Ben Gowen : It ' s probably going to get bigger now. 1
Roger Zahn: Not by much .
Ben Gowen : It ' s going to get bigger .
Roger Zahn: Yes, it' s going to get a little bit bigger . '
Ben Gowen : It ' s already 27,000 gallons and it' s supposed to be 10, 000
gallons. ,
Roger Zahn : There ' s a lot of water that has to go into it.
Ben Gowen: It was originally planned at 10,000 gallons, am I right? ,
Roger Zahn : I don' t think gallons .
Resident: 10,000 square feet.
Ben Gowen: Well I understand it' s 27, 000 now and now you' re going to go up
4% instead of 3% and it' s going to get bigger .
Roger Zahn : A little bit but I think you' ll see that as an improvement
because in the event, I know the City had made a request on us that they
want to be able to get equipment in there and they need a little bit
gentler slope to do that. You' ll have people get down there, it' s easier
to walk out then on gentler slopes . In any event, that will be corrected II
beginning tomorrow. My engineer tells me, and I 'm very leery of saying
this is the way it ' s going to happen . . .so I 'm hoping that by the end of the
week that pond is in place. But then I 've been disappointed so many times, "
I have been told it will happen by engineers and things, I hope I 'm not
disappointed on that. We' re very close to it and I don' t see 4ny reason
why it wouldn ' t happen that way and maybe. . .get done until the first part
of next week but anyway they were out surveying and staking the new
contours and so forth over the last couple of days so it ' s now staked .
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 11
II s
Bob Wagner : When you get it all done , are you still going to have room for
your bike path?
Roger Zahn : Yes . The bike path goes in. I guess what I would say to the
neighbors and to the City and so forth is, we have never abandoned this
project. The project is going forward . It ' s going to be completed . It' s
' going to be completed by us on your time schedule of November 30th or
before and we' ll have a shopping center up. We have a terrific group of
tenants that are committed to the project at this point and I think it' s a
' group of tenants that everybody will like. It has been a very hard summer
for me, believe me. It' s been harder for me not to go forward. I live not
too far from the neighborhood . I drive by it. It just about makes me sick
that we have not gotten going as fast as what we had intended or let me say
' it this way. That we have not picked up the construction as quickly this
summer. The construction that we started last fall . It' s cost me
unbelieveable money. Everyday that we delay it costs me money. I am
' trying to get this thing going as fast and as efficiently as we can. I am
now confident that we will finish it on time and will have, like I said .
We have a group of tenants committed for about 54% of the space which is
' excellent considering that we don ' t have a building to show to the tenants .
This is almost in effect a 54% pre-leasing of the shopping center which is
great. After struggling through defectively designed . . .a couple other
people that let me down as far as what they were supposed to do. I 'm
' having a very, very tough summer . I 'm finally in the position where I 'm
optimistic about it and I think everybody will be happy about it but I
don ' t think we should be talking about it in terms of it' s all over and
it' s your worse fears have been realized. We' re 3 months behind schedule .
We' re 3 months behind when we wanted to resume construction which was
somewhere around May 1st. Now it' s a little past August, 3 months and 2
weeks . While I ' ve hated probably every day of that , not being able to
resume construction, we are resuming. Like I say, we were out surveying
and staking so that we can begin cutting and coming in with the dirt and
that begins tomorrow. We' re going forward so we' ll have it done on
' schedule and we ' ll have I think a shopping center that ' s going to be a real
asset to the community there. An excellent group of tenants. It looks
grim. I know there' s no physical evidence and you don' t see the building
' going up and you've heard me say, I think it' s going to happen next week.
I 've talked to a number of you and I probably said that 6 weeks ago . I
meant it when I said it. I thought it was right. I just have to keep up
my optimism and keep pushing . That ' s what I 'm doing and there ' s good
reason for it now. We just had a terrific meeting with an anchor tenant
today and that negotiation is nearly wrapped up. We have about half a
dozen other spaces that are leased or leases off of signatures or letters
' of intent and so forth . The outlook is better now than what it' s looked
all summer. Believe we 've worked awfully hard at that. There hasn' t been
a minute . . . Even though you weren ' t able to see it, it wasn ' t visible to
you but if you could see me slugging away behind the scenes making phone
calls and pushing the people and working, you'd know how hard we' ve worked
so it' s starting to pay off and it will pay off . So that' s whore the
project is. That' s all I can say. I think we' ve got good reason to . . .
' positive outlook.
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9, 1989 - Page 12 II
Tom Rode : Can I ask you a question? Tom Rode . I live on 6275 Chaska II Road. I 'm just curious , what happened to your project? What delayed it?
Roger Zahn : I 'd say there' s 3 factors . Number 1 is the bad engineering .
The pond is one example and we had a couple of other problems with things II
that weren' t done right . And they had to be fixed before we could go.
Ben Gowen: What were they?
Roger Zahn : We had a couple of problems with the sewer line going out into
Lake Minnewashta. We had some. . .that had to be made to the grading plan. '
Tom Rode : But' s it' s sat for 3 months . There hasn' t been a thing done .
Also I 'm curious, secondly. . .
Roger Zahn : . . . there' s been a lease that we' ve been negotiating for
probably 3 months. Those things don' t happen fast. It' s a terrific lease
and you' ll all be happy with it. I ' ll be happy with it. '
Tom Rode: That path we all thought would be happening and I 'm just saying
by December 1st, you' re going to have this shopping center complete, the II blacktop in, all the screening, the trees planted, and it's going to look
complete? If I were a betting man, I 'd say you' ll never make it.
Roger_ Zahn: I 'd say by about the 15th of November we will , let me put it II
to you this way. We have to have the blacktop in by the 15th of November
at the latest. We have to have the landscaping . We have to have the
berming . All of that has to be done . The building will be, I don' t know
exactly the date the building will be finished. It will be up. It will bell
closed in so it looks presentable . When I last talked to my contractor ,
we' ll have the building up and there's a stage in the building where if you II don ' t have it walled in and you' re heating and air conditioning and all of
that business, then we have to put plastic sheets down and bring in heaters
and he says we should be far enough on that building before the cold season
hits that we won' t have to do that. So I 'm saying, to my way of thinking II
that the building will be complete for occupancy sometime in December .
Maybe we push the landscaping ahead a little bit and the building falls
behind a little bit but we' re going to finish it. We' ll be done with the
things that I know you all want to see done by the 30th of November. It
has to be otherwise the City will build it . I don' t want that .
Ben Gowen: You realize that what's happened with the gas station is not
indicative to what we think' s going to happen now.
Roger Zahn: I know. I
Ben Gowen : You' ve done it to us once .
Roger Zahn : All I can say is that anything I ' ve done I ' ve tried as hard as "
I can do and do the best job I can do. I started that construction .
When I started construction on that site last fall , it was my intention to
go full blast as far and as fast as I could go until the cold season and well
had to quit which is exactly what we did . We worked right up until ,
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 13
II
' I don' t know, I couldn' t tell you. . .
Ben Gowen : But then you forgot to start this spring .
Roger Zahn: That' s right. We didn't forget. If you had asked me, and you
did and I 'm sure I said many times , I don' t see any reason why we wouldn' t
start right up May 1st.
' Ben Gowen : It cost of whole year of growing on that berm around there.
' Roger Zahn: I feel awful .
Resident : Are you going to get that berm in there then so we don' t have to
look at that mess back there? It looks like heck. We've got to look out
' our window upstairs and look right at it . There are weeds 15 feet high and
those dead trees . Before it looked 100% better than it does right now.
You should have left the trees there until you can put the station in. . .
' Roger Zahn: In hindsight I would have done about 100 things different.
' Resident : Tear it all up and making it look like hell you know.
Roger Zahn: I know. I hate the way it is. Unfortunately the thing has
turned around and we' re going forward . Starting tomorrow we' ll fix the
pond. Then we go . . .
Resident : We' ve been told that about 3 months ago. You said in one week
something ' s going to be done. That' s 2 1/2 months ago and nothing ' s beend
one . Nothing .
Roger Zahn : You' re absolutely right . When I said that , I believed it.
' Resident: It' s a real mess. If somebody else did that, God they'd send
the cops after them.
' Ben Gowen : Last spring when Gary Reed had his meeting here, you told me in
the hall you had everything leased but one point and that was going to be
finished and we' re going to start and that was in May. I don' t believe
what you' re saying anymore.
Roger Zahn : Well you know, there isn ' t anything I can say. I know that
' I have said on a number of occasions based upon what I believed at the
time, that we were in good shape and I was wrong . The only thing however ,
I will tell you, that I was wrong about and I told you in May or March or
' someplace like that that we had a group of tenants that we needed one more
lease to sign in order to begin construction. I 'm talking about a lease
that has taken me 3 months . We are that close . We were that close 3
months ago. It' s a big company. It' s a big beauracy and things take
forever . I had another meeting today, now maybe we' re this close and it' s
going to happen. When we sign that lease, then we can announce, it and I
think you ' ll all be happy and you ' ll say, well Roger doesn ' t know anything
' about timing but at least in the long run it paid off .
I
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9, 1989 - Page 14 II
Resident : Is that the reason why it' s been kind of delayed for 3 months?
Roger Zahn: That' s a big part of it, yes. Finishing off that lease. The
fact of the matter is, it' s the kind of tenant that I know will be perfect ,
for the neighborhood and the truth- is, we pulled a big portion of our
shopping center off the market to lease to this tenant.
Ben Gowen: What' s going to happen if he doesn' t sign? '
Roger Zahn : I ' ll probably jump off the nearest bridge.
Ben Gowen: I mean seriously. What' s going to happen to the corner? '
Roger Zahn : I don' t think that' s going to happen . We had a meeting today
and we' re almost there. Outside of that, leaving that one aside, we still II
are at negotiations with enough tenants to meet our , we have minimums that
we have to meet for our financing . We' re in negotiations with enough
tenants even outside of that one so maybe I ' ll wait. . . '
Ben Gowen: Mr. Mayor, do you believe all this?
Mayor. Chmiel : Ben , as I sit here there' s two things that I really see.
One, what Roger is indicating and I guess maybe he' s told you that before
and I know that sometimes trying to get someone to lease a piece of
property is a problem. When you think you have it pretty well tied down, I
there ' s something that drops and causes a problem but that ' s Roger ' s
problem. The other thing that I see is that we do have the right to draw
on that letter of credit to correct the existing problems that are there
now.
Ben Gowen : Starting December 30th?
Mayor Chmiel : By November 30th.
Ben Gowen : November 30th . No extensions .
Mayor Chmiel : No. We can draw on that letter of credit. That letter of
credit is good through December of that year .
Ben Gowen: You aren' t going to be planting trees in December .
Mayor Chmiel : No , but it can be done . ,
Roger Zahn: Time will tell Ben. So far I can see what you can see and
I know how hard I ' ve worked at it and I know where I am with these people. II
I think time will tell . I 'm 3 months behind. I 'm not the first developer
in this town to be 3 months behind . It happens in this business . It ' s a
very, very tough business but if all that happens to this project is that
we got 3 months behind this summer , in the long run. It ' s a bad summer and 11
if we have to write it off, and I feel terrible about that, but in the long
run 3 months isn' t, like I say, it isn' t something that ' s so unusual in a
development of this nature. '
1
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9, 1989 - Page 15
II
' Resident : Why couldn' t that have been up to grade and that berm put
into . . . You would have been done with that now and we'd, the people would
be happy.
Roger Zahn : Honestly you know Bill , I thought , if anybody would have asked
me about any week during this summer, I would have said, well next week
this thing , the log jam has got to break and then we' ll be ready to go. So
maybe I 'm just ridiculously optimistic but that' s the way I 've been.
Resident : Why can' t that berm go in, I mean get it leveled off . . .
Roger Zahn: It is going to be one of the first things .
Resident: Close that off . Then you don' t have to sit there and watch
' everything going on. I think it'd be better .
Roger Zahn : We need black dirt for that berm and we know where it' s coming
from. I think we' re taking some from several different areas and I think
one of them is some. . .and some with Gary.
' Ben Gowen : You' ve got a big pile out there by the highway.
Roger Zahn: Yes, we' ll take all of that and we' ll push it. Like I say,
we' re starting tomorrow.
Ben Gowen: You' re starting tomorrow on the pond . I want the berm
tomorrow. I 'm pushing .
' Roger Zahn : The pond is the most important thing and I think the City
is . . .
' Resident : Both of them. Both of them are important .
Roger_ Zahn: Both are important. Gary tells me his road is the most
important. It ' s all important .
Resident : The whole works should be done . It was said it was going to be
' done. It should all be done.
Resident : We could care less about the shopping center . That can wait
for another month.
Roger Zahn : Well that ' s important to me .
Resident: I agree but it was important to us to begin with.
Roger Zahn : I 'm just saying you do have to start someplace . . .
Resident: I was looking in this plan here and that turn lane is further on
past Oriole Avenue than what it is now.
Resident: It' s right at Oriole Avenue it turns in. The road cuts off and
goes right in there . According to that it' s way up.
I
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 16
Ben Gowen : A lot of people think you' re going down TH 41.
Resident: I 've seen 3 people back out of there and go around to TH 41.
Resident : That turn lane is too early there and the other one is dumb too. II
The one they've got on TH 7. That should be, they should have a curb there
because in the wintertime that' s going to all be gone. You ain' t going to
see no line there soon as the snow comes and the snowplow start plowing .
There should be a cement curb there like there is down by 7 Hi Shopping
Center. You get down there and then you' re standing there.
Ben Gowen : It is dangerous .
Resident : It is . It looks like you' re going to get hit head on.
Roger Zahn: Well we' ll have to take a look at that. I think it' s a
legitimate concern .
(Everyone is talking at the same time.) 1
Mayor Chmiel : Is there anyone else who may have any comments? Anyone else ,
who has not really. . .
Bob Wagner : I have something . I 'm not here to pick on Roger particularly.
I think Roger has constraints he' s working with. What gripes me is when well
set conditional use permits and we set conditions , we don' t enforce them.
And I 'm not just talking about this development. I can take you back to
the one in front of my house 5 years ago I suppose. There ' s nothing
around . . . The yard' s not mowed. The right trees weren' t put in. There
was a letter of credit. It disappeared . Two tenants have come and gone.
I just don' t want it to continue. We've got stuff here that' s in violation
with SuperAmerica and I think that' s the point that we have to start to '
address. Roger ' s within his rights yet to a certain degree. SuperAmerica
is not.
Resident : -Can I ask a question? ,
Mayor Chmiel : Yes .
Resident : Who issued that permit to SuperAmerica when the pond wasn' t even
legal? Didn' t they check that?
Mayor Chmiel : SuperAmerica was not part of the conditional portion of the II
ponding at that time.
Resident : No , but in order to open their station , didn' t the pond have to II
be legal?
Roger_ Zahn : Actually the pond was built according the plans that were
approved by the City and the Watershed District.
Resident : But when they opened it wasn' t even working . '
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 17
II
' Roger Zahn : It was, the soil conditions were not properly investigated .
That was the problem. Now that' s all , we had. . .and rip rap. . .
Resident : What' s going to hold the banks up?
' Mayor Chmiel : The City basically issued the permit previous . . .
' Resident : And they didn' t check anything out I mean as far as the pond?
Mayor Chmiel : I honestly don' t. . .
' Resident : They knew that it wasn ' t working .
Mayor Chmiel : Yes , there has been some problem there. What that problem
is, I don ' t know.
Roger Zahn : I think the pond actually worked at first . Until we got the
' rain in the spring and then it . . .
Resident : That pipe ' s got to be all full of dirt now. It ' s got to be
I because this spring when the snow was thawing you'd have thought that the
Mississippi River was there. It made so much noise, I was wondering . . .and
you could see the water just pouring in it. Little kids sitting down there
playing with the water running down on top. They could have got washed
' right down that crazy pipe . Yes they could have. There' s a lot of water
that comes off from the school and back in there. That ditch sounded just
like the Mississippi River coming through there. Like a falls. Like
Niagara Falls . . .
Resident : And that' s what happened to the trees .
Resident : Washing the trees in and everything else.
Ben Gowen : We' re just lucky we' ve got dry weather the last couple weeks .
' Resident: That' s right. If we had had a lot of rains like they got around
us.
Mayor Chmiel : Well hopefully with Roger going to make that correction,
starting tomorrow that should take care of the problem.
' Roger Zahn : It' s a difficult engineering problem. The soils are, there' s
a lot of ground water in ther_e. . .and I don ' t necessarily fault our engineer
for our first . . . This is tough ground . You' ve got get somebody who ' s. . .
' Mayor Chmiel : Ursula, do you have something?
' Councilwoman Dimler : Yes . I guess I have to compliment Roger on his
optimism. I think that' s great .
Ben Gowen : You can also criticize him.
I
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9, 1989 - Page 18
• II
Councilwoman Dimler : No, everybody has to be optimistic . That' s true
but I think your beliefs have to be based on some concrete evidence.
Roger Zahn : Oh they are .
Councilwoman Dimler : But I ask you to bring some signed leases. Do you
have any signed leases .
Roger Zahn : Yes . We have two signed leases .
Councilwoman Dimler: Did you bring them? Can we see them please?
Roger Zahn : No , but I ' ll show them to you if you want me to . It ' s our
private dealings between tenant and we don' t want to, you know.
Councilwoman Dimler : That' s fine . As long as I can see them.
Roger Zahn: I ' ll be happy to show them to you.
Councilwoman Dimler : And then when I spoke to you last week, was it not
last week?
Roger Zahn : Yes .
Councilwoman Dimler : You told me that the holding pond would be completed II
before this meeting today. What evidence did you base that on?
Roger Zahn : The evidence I based it on was my contractor told me he could
start work on it on Monday which was two days ago and that it was about a
two day project . The problem is we had some topographical information that
was missing so they had to come out and resurvey. They didn' t know that at
the time and I didn' t know that at the time but it wasn' t pure speculation II
on my part. It ' s professional people telling me that. I listen to those
professional people. I pass it along and then I look like I don' t know
what I 'm talking about . '
Gary Reed : I can comment on that too . I ' ve been working with his new
engineer on the site. He' s been concerned. A lot of the elevations that
were taken from old topographies that were done. . . I suspect that were old
and he felt that he needed more elevations for the street. He did need
some information for platting the residential lots around the cul-de-sac to
make sure the street would work and so I ' ve been trying to coordinate his II
efforts with my surveyors and they were out and shot some elevations and
they have been shooting a few more. So to do the job right, it' s taken a
few extra days but . . .
Roger Zahn : I think Gary too , part of it was our engineer trying to get
together with your surveyor and your guy' s been. . .
Councilwoman Dimler : But Roger wouldn' t you agree that it ' s still '
basically it' s your responsibility? You hired the engineer . You hire all
your consultants . '
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 19
' Roger Zahn : Absolutely.
Councilwoman Dimler : I would recommend to you that you get some better
engineers and consultants .
Roger Zahn : The guy we have now is very good . I 've really happy with him
and I wish, I can tell you that I will never use the guys that I used.
' Councilwoman Dimler : But it' s up to you to screen them though.
' Roger Zahn: I 'm responsible for that but. . .
Councilwoman Dimler : But basically, after having been through this
experience with you, I now understand why these people have a hard time
' believing you.
Roger Zahn: Well so do I .
' Councilwoman Dimler : And I hope you don ' t have a hardship in seeing that.
There' s a total lack of credibility here.
Roger Zahn : The only way, I can talk until I 'm blue in the face but we
have to get the job done. That ' s all there is to it.
' Councilwoman Dimler : So I 'm just asking you, you have some concrete things
now that you' re building your plans on?
' Roger Zahn : You' ve got it.
Councilwoman Dimler : And then I would like to see them please .
Roger Zahn: Yes, if you want to come. . .
(A tape change occurred at this point . )
' Resident: . . .expect some response on this?
' Don Ashworth : I will have a response to the City Council by August 28th.
Resident : Can we have them shut it off until then?
' Resident : It is very bright . My whole room is lit up at night . It ' s
impossible to sleep. It ' s a night light and I 'm a little old for one .
' Don Ashworth : I ' ll have to take a look at the lighting issue . Again , I
believe. . .
1 Ben Gowen : Can ' t you believe us? Why do you have to look at it again?
We are the citizens. We see it. You change it .
Don Ashworth : You' re making an interpretation and I 'm not sure if that' s
tcorrect.
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 20
Ben Gowen : We need you around here.
Mayor Chmiel : Ben , I think what we need to do is just check it out and
see. I think we can get back with a response probably before the 28th.
Ben Gowen : Shut it off until the 28th and then turn it on if it' s okay.
Don Ashworth: What would you propose? Would you like me to get back to
the citizens or directly to City Council?
Resident: How about both?
Dick Brown: Mr . Mayor I have a question. Dick Brown, 2630 Orchard Lane .
Are you now saying that they may be in compliance with what they' re
supposed to do. Is that what you' re telling us? '
Don Ashworth: I 'm not saying they're in copliance and I 'm not saying that
they' re not. '
Dick Brown: What I ' ve heard up to this point is that they' re not in
compliance with what they' re supposed to do. Now from what you tell me,
you' re saying just the opposite. What ' s right and what ' s wrong?
Don Ashworth: I cannot promise you that I will go out and turn somebody' s
light off .
Dick Brown: I didn ' t ask that . I asked are they in compliance or are they
not? That' s what I 'm asking. '
Don Ashworth : I 'm not sure . One of the purposes of this meeting is to try
to gain input from the neighborhood as to concerns that you have and areas
that we need to make sure that if Mr . Zahn does not complete his
development, that we' re in a position to step in with a plan to complete . . .
Dick Brown: Let' s break it down and make it really simple. Do you feel I
they' re in -compliance or not? I 'm talking about SuperAmerica and only the
lights . Let' s take a simple subject .
Don Ashworth: I did not review the lights when they were presented . I did ,
not review the lights during the development. I do not know the answer to
that question .
Dick Brown: What is your position in the City?
Ben Gowen: You can go over there at 9: 30 tonight and check it out . '
Don Ashworth : My position is City Manager .
Dick Brown: Which means what now? I
Don Ashworth: That I am responsible as the chief adminstrator officer of
this city and it' s my job to insure that we employ individuals at each of II
the operating areas to carry out the functions of this government as
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
• August 9 , 1989 - Page 21
' reasonably well as we can.
Dick Brown: Okay, with all due respect Mr . Mayor , if he can ' t answer the
question, who can? And I 'm not trying to be smart. I 'd just like the
answer to that question. I think the rest of the people here would too.
Don Ashworth: Those people who are responsible for looking at each of the
' plans as they go through the City, the building officials and the planning
department, are the ones that can answer that question.
Ben Gowen : That question was directed at the Mayor .
Gary Reed: When I called Jo Ann about the lighting, she said that she
would send an inspector out that afternoon.
' Mayor chmiel : When was that?
' Gary Reed : This was before they opened because I didn' t anticipate them
getting their occupancy permit with the lighting in violation.
Mayor Chmiel : The problem is with going out in the afternoon , there' s no
way they can really tell what the illumination is going to be.
Gary Reed : No , but you can see the lights that are directed out and
' there' s 2 lights continuous all the way around and the facia board wasn' t
on yet so you have a wonderful opportunity to inspect what' s there .
' Dick Brown: I submit that August 28th is too far away.
Mayor Chmiel : I think we can possibly have an answer by next week.
' Don Ashworth: The reason I pick out the 28th is that is the next regular
City Council agenda and I wanted to insure that if there were any type of
questions , we would have a public forum under which you could consider that
type of response .
Dick Brown : That may be well but in the meantime these people have to live
' with something that they shouldn ' t have to live with.
Mayor Chmiel : Could we have a spokesperson from the group here who we
could get back to and then that individual could get back to the balance of
the neighbors . Dick, would you like to be that spokesperson?
Dick Brown: Either me or Mr . Wagner_ . He' s probably better than me. He' s
' a good spokesperson .
Bob Wagner : I 'm out of town next week.
Dick Brown: If he' s not available, yes I will be .
Mayor Chmiel : Okay, good . We will make a point of getting this checked
out by next week. The early part of the week and getting back directly to
you so you can get back to the balance of the neighbors .
I
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9 , 1989 - Page 22 II
Bob Wagner : Another thing if that' s acceptable is we can sign a list of '
who we are and Jo Ann can mail a letter to each of us. Why put the burden
on us?
Mayor Chmiel : This way we can get the response going quicker . But we will
pass around the sheet so everyone will sign up and those who don' t get an
answer , will get an answer from a letter from the City indicating what
we' re doing. Is there any other discussions that you'd like to continue or
try to pursue? As you' re aware, we as Council are trying to address your
concerns . '
Resident : . . .because they can even make a U turn which they have. We've
seen a truck, a semi .
Resident : Make a U turn. But they do that down by Christmas Lake too
where it says not to but they don' t care.
Resident : If that cement is there, up to Oriole. . . '
Ben Gowen: Mr. Mayor , have you actually looked at TH 7 approaching the gas"
station? It looks like it' s TH 41. You come over a little hill and you
see an arrow only to the right. You don' t really know that there' s a gas
station there but if you pull in there and then you pull back out into the
lane again to make your turn to TH 41. I think it' s a real hazard because II
you' ve got to get back into the traffic . Either make it all the way to TH
41 or something.
Mayor Chmiel : The thing that I 'm looking at Ben is that if MnDot has ,
reviewed that, it' s conformance with their guidelines.
Ben Gowen: Then maybe they made a mistake . ,
Mayor Chmiel : Maybe we can address that and have our engineer talk with
MnDot to see .
Resident : There ' s a lot of people that come from the upper part that come
down to our road to go out. '
Mayor Chmiel : Now this is TH 7 east to the approach into the station?
Ben Gowen: There' s a big arrow and it says only. You think I 'm going up I
TH 41 so I pull over there and you can ' t do it because you' re right in the
turn lane stops. Then you go out and then you make a right turn .
Mayor Chmiel : I think that' s probably a legitimate concern. '
Resident: And I think they should slow it down. That' s 55 there . '
Mayor Chmiel : We wouldn ' t be able to slow that down. That ' s established
by the Highway Department. Okay, those will be the things that we' ll
address . If there are any other concerns , we ' ll address those now. If
there isn' t any, we do appreciate your coming in to discuss this with us
I
City Council Meeting - SuperAmerica TH 7/TH 41
August 9, 1989 - Page 23
' and as we ' ve said , we' re trying to correct the given problems that are
there. If the problems are not corrected, they will be corrected by
November 30th with what we ' ve indicated at the preceeding part of the
meeting .
Resident : And we may call you?
Mayor Chmiel : Yes. Anytime.
Resident : Okay. You' ll get it.
' Bob Wagner : On behalf of the neighborhood , I would like to thank the City
Council for taking the time to come and listen to the concerns of the
neighborhood . We appreciate it.
' Ben Gowen : We 'd like to get behind Roger and help him too if we can. He
hasn' t done us right but we' ll help him if we can.
' Mayor Chmiel : Thank you. Appreciate it .
1
1
1
1
1
I
1 3
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 25, 1989 UNEIITEB
' Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Ed Hasek, Dawne Erhart , Jim
Mady, Janet Lash and Larry Schroers -»
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved , Schroers seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 11, 1989
as presented . All voted in favor and the motion has carried .
' Sietsema: Just one note on your comment that you thought we should do
something different than what we' re doing . The secretarial staff has
looked into a lot of different things. I haven ' t checked into that lap top
' computer you were talking about but they feel that this is the best thing
we can do and what I 'm doing is I 'm going to get a timer because it is 30
minutes and that way it will beep and remind me to turn it over so we will
' avoid some of those lapses. Also, when there are lapses it' s because there
are more than one person talking or you' re not speaking up. If she can' t
hear you or can' t understand 4 people at once, then she can' t type it in
there so then she ' ll either write lapse in the tape or something . Break in
' the tape or something. So this is the best that we can do is what they've
told me. For now anyway.
' SITE PLAN REVIEW, NEAR MOUNTAIN.
' Sietsema : The Neat Mountain subdivision PUD is up in the northeast corner
of the city. It' s also considered called Chestnut Ridge, Near Mountain and
. . .that it ' s referred to but anyway. This map shows the entire PUD with TH
101 being along the east side of it . The portion that' s being considered
' right now would be 3rd or 4th phase . Originally what was approved in the
PUD was condominiums in this area . It ' s got heavy topography and it' s very
heavily wooded . What they' re proposing is to amend the PUD to put single
' family houses up in that area rather than the condominiums . That would be
45 single family lots as opposed to 114 condominiums . In looking at this
as strictly a park and open space issue, staff has looked at that piece of
property and seen the number of tree houses and the way it' s being used by
the neighborhood in that area and the open space being used for
recreational purposes and meeting some of the needs that an open field like
the park that' s in the area may not, it' s different. It' s a whole
' different kind of an open space . Therefore , given that that open space is
getting such heavy use right now, it would be staff' s recommendation to
deny the amendment because the condominiums,, as you can see on here,
' require less development. Less grading and less roads of the area and
preserves more of the open space. Granted it does mean more units but the
/ open space is more preserved. So again the recommendation is to recommend
that the amendment be denied and we stay with the condominiums .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 2
I
Mady: Lori , if we were to, the Park and Recreation Commission were to deny,
the PUD change, it still goes onto Council of course and they have the
option of approving it. Would we have a second chance to review it or
should we make comments today? 1
Sietsema : You should probably make comments regarding the single family in
case it does. If it should be approved as the amendment is proposed, then
you should address park and trail issues as well at this time.
Schroers : Would you have an idea of how we would come out better , meaning
the city parks as far as dedication fees and single family versus the
condominiums?
Robinson : There ' s be more condominiums. How many acres are we talking
about?
Sietsema : We'd bring in $42 , 500. 00 if the single family went through and
roughly $35,000.00 in condominiums . '
Schroers : Do we do end up with less dedication?
Sietsema: Right. It depends on how much they paid for the property but
they' ve had ownership of the property for some time so I 'm assuming that it
is less than $12,500.00.
Mady: Lori , is that topo map. . .
Sietsema : No . This is Mike Pflaum and he' s with the development. Do you II
have a board there that has topo?
Mike Pflaum: I ' ve got some clear films that have topo . '
Sietsema: Basically all I 've done Mike is gone through what' s the
recommendation on the staff report so I don' t know if you want to let Mike
make his comments at this time.
Mady: It may be appropriate .
Mike Pflaum: Let me find the topo first . This has got topo on it.
Erhart: How many acres . . .
Sietsema : I want to say 18 but let me check. 23 acres but then we divided
off 4 or 5 of those so it leaves 18 remaining. Did you have comments that
you wanted to make?
Mike Pflaum: I ' ve got a number of comments . This is an informal meeting
I believe. I 'm not as structured in my presentation as I probably should
be but I certainly am willing and hopefully able to respond to questions .
I don' t know how familiar you all are with the Near Mountain pkoject. It
commenced from the standpoint of planning and contacting the City in 1979.
I don' t believe it was until actually 1984 that any dirt was moved on the
I
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 3
property because of the housing recession and some other things such as
that. In the initial planning design of the planned unit development, we
had a total of I think it was 300 units , living units . Again , I 'm going to
have to fudge a little bit. I think on 113 acres total . The mix was 120
condominiums, 36 quad units and the rest were single family houses of what
we' ll call a Type B and a Type A lot configuration. Two different lot
sizes. Since 1979 we' ve been back to the City of Chanhassen, I think this
' is our fourth time for amendments to the PUD. Amendments were principally
market driven or trying to improve some neighborhood transitions as
property developed. The first thing we did was we determined fairly early
on that quadominiums which had looked to be such an attractive housing type
' in 1978-79 when we were doing our planning, wasn ' t really catching on all
that great . We saw good reason for it. It was turning out to be a
non-competitive in terms of price with the small lot and single family
' home . Given the choice between the two , there wasn ' t too much question what
we wanted to go for. So our first amendment was to seek to substitute what
at that time was pretty much the new housing type for this area . Small lot
' single family homes. Lots that ranged from about 10, 000 square feet for
the quadominiums and we did that . The quadominiums originally were on the
eastern portion of the site along TH 101. The next amendment we planned
was to add the American Lutheran Church property which is at the
' intersection of Pleasant View Road and TH 101. Add that as a single family
subdivision to the PUD when that property became available. After that,
there were I believe there was only one amendment to the plan and that was
to adjust the mix of lot sizes to provide a greater number of Type A which
were the larger custom sized single family lots and reduce the number of
Type B which were kind of an intermediate size which we were using for a
country home product line which was what evolved from the small lot housing
type . At the time that we first looked at the property in Chanhassen and
in Shorewood, the site in Shorewood is I think even bigger than it is in
Chanhassen, there was very little development in this area and there was
' none in Shorewood because there was no municipal water . We did what most
developers do and that is we sought to protect ourselves from the
uncertainities to the housing market by incorporating as much density as we
' thought the City would tolerate on the second . When I say as much as
density I 'm referring to the mix of houses . The quadominiums, condominiums
and predominantly single family but the 120 condominiums units was a
selling job that we had to do on the City in 1979. The City was not
' interested in condominium housing in this area which was primarily rural
and all of the surrounding land uses were agricultural or intended for
single family. I think we were successful because we pointed out how that
' kind of clustering approach could be sensitive to the hilltop and how it
also would provide an adequate perhaps larger than expected buffer zone
between itself as a higher intensity use and the single family housing that
' would be constructed around the hill . What we didn ' t know in 1979 whether
there would be any demand for it or not. All we knew was that it' s almost
impossible to go back to a municipality and get more density. It makes
sense and generally the public at large feels comfortable with reduction in
' density so we did what everybody else does . Good , bad or indifferent , we
went for what we thought was a reasonable amount of density on the site
which would protect us if in fact we needed that kind of density to develop
the property and the housing trends indicated that would be needed . In
1988-89, there aren' t any condominiums being built either . I checked with
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ° II
July 25, 1989 - Page 4
1
your building department several weeks ago to find out how many attached
housing starts you had in 1988 and I can ' t recall the exact figure. I was
looking for it at my house before coming over here but there were no
condominiums built in Chanhassen last year . I don' t think there were any
townhouses. There were some duplexes . A few duplexes and one apartment
complex. Thus far this year, we can theorize all we wish about what the
reason for this is but the facts speak for themselves . People aren ' t
building them. In fact I don' t know if. you have occasion to drive up TH
101 in Minnetonka towards 7 Hi but you' ll see a sign on the Cherry Hill
site in Minnetonka. 45 townhouse lots for sale from Centurion. Centurion
was a developer of Cherry Hill . Apparently they' ve come to the conclusion
that they've got a problem on the site. So what we have done is we have I
progressively worked toward down zoning of the site . It wasn' t by design.
It was by response. In seeking the best use that we can think of for the
mountain top, we have to go where our experience and the market tells us we
should be going and the single family use we feel is the proper use. We
feel that the neighbors who we' ve spoken with already would approve it and
prefer it for a number of reasons. We think that the single family
development of the mountain top can be done in a sensitive fashion . I 've
got graphics here that are again on clear film and it' s kind of hard for
you to see these . You never know if clear films are going to show up but
the area that is disturbed with the single family use of the mountain top II
and the area which is disturbed with a condominium type use of the mountain
top, it is not that vastly different. What happens is, the condominium use
is centralized on the top. It pretty much occupies the entire top. What
it does do which the single family application can' t quite claim to is it
preserves a wider belt on the north side and the east side than the single
family use would but the single family use would still permit the
preservation. . .on the north and east sides . To characterize the mountian
top site , I think let me kind of run my finger over it to give you an idea
where the tree line is right now. Do you have a pointer or anything like
that?
Sietsema : Here it is .
Mike Pflaum: I 'm just going to start tracing . This side of this line
right here is second or third rows of reforestation. Mostly smaller trees .
The heavier growth is to my right and following the tree line going like
th s. This is heavily wooded in here. This area is all woods. Most of
this area up here is heavily wooded . This is heavily wooded here. This is !'
semi-open in this area down here. When I put another clean film on here,
I ' ll put one of the condominium area giving an indication of probably how
it will be developed in that use for 114 units as such. . .approved. What we /
are showing here, and I ' ll describe the board since you can ' t see it , is
the streets rise rapidly here. We cut in a retaining wall to minimize the
amount of disruption to trees and topography. There' s some grading outside
of the right-of-way here because as I say, it's predominantly new growth
and it is not getting in to a real heavily forested mature trees. Again
there 's retaining walls in here. This is matching grade down slope on this I
slope . Retaining walls through here . Retaining walls through here .
Retaining walls through here. The area of concern obviously i6 the area
where the houses are developed . How much construction are you going to do
in those areas? I don' t know if you folks have visited the project in
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 5
Shorewood , the Sweetwater development or the later stages of Trapper ' s Pass
' in Chanhassen but we' ve been. . . for some time. . .trees for a long time. . .
preservation policy and we know how to do it. That doesn ' t mean that you
can save all the trees but if you' re sensitive to it, recognize the value
' of the trees to the people who want to live -there . The areas here, these
are tremendously large lots . . .straight and narrow all the way back down the
slope. Very steep slopes here as well . The houses on these lots would not
' extend back any further than about here. The rest of the slope will remain
as is. The same thing is true when you look over here. These are the . . .
with mature trees on it. I 'm going to take this down and show you what a
reasonable condominium development of. that same area would entail . The
' property a little bit different from what you might expect but it is not
distorted . The area of disruption is the area within these hard dashed
lines. It' s the area within this perimeter . I see one thing that possibly
' is a little bit deceiving and that is, the same retaining walls that we ' re
constructing in here could just as easily be constructed with this approach
as with the single family approach so the area of disruption could be
sucked in closer to the street but basically what we' re showing here are
' two structures and each one them will have 57 housing units . It would be 3
stories high and we've got a fire lane around the building would be
required and we ' re showing 50% underground parking that you can ' t see is
' the 50% out of doors parking that you can see which is also reasonable. I
think that it would probably actually be a little bit more parking than
that given the higher concentration of building. These buildings would
It: have a footprint , each building would have a footprint of about 30, 000
square feet. As I say, they would be 3 stories high, about 40 feet high
but it' s true that once the disruption has been dealt with, there shouldn' t
be any more destruction out there but we' re not really here to argue
' condominiums versus single family. I think what I 'd like to point out is
that there' s going to be considerable destruction in either case and the
amount of destruction there would be with the single family approach is not
that much greater than it would be with the condominium approach because I
think one of the points that Lori made is that the condominium approach
would be gentler on the environment. While perhaps that may be true, the
degree of the truth is perhaps not as great . One of the other
considerations that we have and particularly in talking with the neighbors
because we had the misfortune of talking to many of the same people in 1989
as we talked in 1979. In 1979 they didn' t want condominiums and we
' convinced them that condominiums were a good idea . Now in 1989 we' re back
talking to them again trying to convince them why they really shouldn' t
want condominiums , they ought to want single family homes . To do that one
' of the things we did was to create a profile through the site that would
give a sense of how the single family homes would lay out on the site and
how the condominium buildings would mass up on the site because we think
it' s important that people realize that you' re putting pretty good size
' buildings on top of a mountain. If I can find that I will . This section
through the site is roughly from the southeast to the northwest running
across the mountain and diagonally across towards the end of Silver Lake.
' This is pretty much the slice that we ' ve got that we' re showing up there.
To say the same thing that' s on this board, the board shows it a little
bit. All that we' re showing again here is that because single 'family homes
are built on the mountain does not necessarily mean you ' re going to lose
all the trees here . What happens is the single family home is built lower
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 6
1
on the slope than the condominium buildings. It means that the single
family home is probably closer to the people across the way but the same
kind of housing as there is across the way so the people across the way
certainly shouldn' t be disturbed by that. The condominium is set back a
little bit farther . It ' s pretty close to the crest of the hill . It does II
preserve some trees but there should still be a belt of trees all the way
around with single family homes . The other thing I guess that I would
point out is something that I think is probably self evident and that is,
we' re talking about substitution of 45 living units for 114 living units .
About 3/8ths as many homes as would be the condominium use. The
recreational needs should be reduced somewhat immeasurably and at no time
was it contemplated that the mountain would be a general access imagined
for the entire planned use development . In the 1979 public hearing and
Council meetings it was very clearly represented that the mountain was to
be, in conjunction with condominium use, was to be private open space. . .
and lot size would average out to 3/4ths of an acres. We feel that the
recreational needs for the most part of the single family home on the
mountain would be adequately met with their own individual lots .
Mady: What I 'd like to do now is open it up for commission discussion and II
questions. Let' s start with Larry.
Schroers : One of the questions that I have I guess is, what is the type of"
trees in this area? The mature trees. Are they predominantly oak?
Mike Pflaum: I think they' re maple.
Schroers : Do you have any figures as far as how many trees you have to
take out?
Mike Pflaum: We haven' t and that would be fairly a monumental sort of
analysis to do. I 'm thinking along the lines in comparison with one
approach versus the other approach?
Schroers: Yes .
Mike Pflaum: No , we don' t have that information.
Schroers: I 'm just thinking that the single family homes fit into the
skyline and it'd be nicer but each one of them is going to require
driveways and accesses and I 've got to believe we 're going to lose a lot
more trees that way. '
Mike Pflaum: I won' t deny that there are trees in the front particularly
of the homes that will be lost. I 'm thinking more along the line of the
trees behind the homes . To be perfectly honest , a home is constructed it
is possible with great effort to say specimen trees in the front yard but
you can ' t realistically say all the trees and what frequently happens is
you try to do it and 3 or 4 years later the tree dies because of
construction traffic and things like that so the best thing you can do is
selectively pick the trees in the front yard that are most likely to
survive. The specimen of trees and do something like the snow fencing
around it to keep the construction traffic over the roots. That' s probably "
ILPark and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 7
lt,
the biggest killer is just the traffic over the roots and fill around the
trunk but no, you can' t save them all .
Schroers : Well I do understand your position and then you have to deal
' with the current marketing trends. That ' s only good business for you. Our
situation here is to consider the park and open space issues . Our past
rule is to try to preserve as much park and open space and save the mature
hardwood trees as we can.
Hasek: I have a question relating to that if I can interrupt . Does the
City have a tree policy right now? Tree preservation policy?
' Sietsema : I don ' t think there' s anything on the books although they' re
working on something.
' Mady: They' re not in a moratorium right now in existence.
Mike Pflaum: There is something. I don' t know exactly what it is. All
I know is what is being required of us .
Hasek: I guess that' s the question I 'm asking. Is there something?
1 Sietsema : There' s something but I don' t know what that is .
Hasek: Maybe it' s a good idea if we' re going to talk about preserving
trees, that we understand what it is that we' re supposed to be doing .
Sietsema: That' s generally done at the planning level.
Hasek: Then maybe we shouldn' t be talking about trees here at all .
' Mady: We can mention them I guess. Our recommendation shouldn' t be based
upon trees .
Hasek: I agree . We talked about trees in the past and if there isn' t a
policy in place, I think this is one body that' s really probably more in
turn with what ' s going on with the trees out there than any other and it
should be part of our job to suggest policy that we'd like to see
implemented regarding trees . I think if we ' re going to talk about the
preservation of trees, I think we ought to understand what it is that the
City has a policy before we go ahead and just start rambling on about it.
' It's not our job. It' s not our comission to do that. Maybe that' s where
we should start by just saying this is an opportunity here and we 'd like to
see a policy put in place that addresses the preservation of the nature of
the woodlands for recreational use or however you want.
Boyt: Do you know who ' s working on that right now?
Sietsema : Jo Ann .
irBoyt : Maybe this should be tabled?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
July 25, 1989 - Page 8
Sietsema : They' re addressing it at the Planning Commission next Wednesday.
Their packet is going out this week so next Wednesday. '
Boyt: Is there going to be. . .recommendation to Council on this?
Sietsema: No. This site plan is going to Planning Commission next '
Wednesday.
Boyt : Is Jo Ann working on a tree policy? '
Sietsema: I understand that something is being done. I 'm not up to date
as far as what it is . What the schedule is .
Hasek: Is it just a matter of staff recommendation to Council or was she
given direction?
Sietsema : It' s directive from Council to come up with something .
Boyt: There's a moratorium right now.
Hasek: On?
Boyt : On a project that we ' ve been looking at because of the mature trees II
there.
Hasek: Which one is that? '
Boyt : That ' s . . . I don' t know where they are on that but I think that' s
information we need. '
Hasek: Absolutely. The reason I ask the question is because I just got
done spending about 6 months putting together a wetland preservation
ordinance for the City of Burnsville. It ' s on the books out there right
now and I don' t know if you' re familiar with that but it was kind of a
compromise between what Eden Prairie had which was really, really
restrictive. Between that and what a lot of other communities have which
is virtually nothing . The object of that particular ordinance was to not
only preserve the trees but all of the habitat that goes along with it. In
the process of doing that , we went through developments based upon their II impact on the environment. Residential for example. I think low density
residential , we decided that if we were going to as a city zone a piece of
land for that particular use, then we had to understand that in the process
of letting that happen, a certain number of trees were going to have to be
lost. We set a limit within the contractor when he came in would have to
agree to and he wasn' t required like in Eden Prairie to go out and survey
the trees over 6 inches or whatever but there was a boundary that was set
up and everything beyond that boundary had to be preserved no matter what.
For each caliper inch of tree that was lost beyond that, there was a set
fee and everything that has to be paid .
Boyt: Right now we have some sort of replacement policy.
Hasek: The replacement policy is ridiculous . '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 9
IC
Boyt : . . . I think that ' s what we have right now.
Hasek: If you just think about it. If you take out a 50 inch oak tree and
' you replace it with 50 inches of 3 inch whic-h a lot of cities have as their
minimum, trees and try and jam those same trees into the area where that
first tree was, it' s ludicrous to do that . That ' s what a lot of policies
' try and do so it doesn' t make any sense. If you really want to preserve
the woodlands and the trees , then that should be the object of the
ordinance or policy or whatever you have in place and then you have to
write, maybe at that point , if those are destroyed , the trees go someplace
' else. But on the graphic that you've got there, you show trees in front of
the front yard on the one but you' ve also shown a regrading of the property
and that's, basically you' re right. When you regrade you can' t expect to
' save those trees . It just won' t happen so the logical thing to do when you
go into it is to assume they' re gone and make every effort to save the rest
of them but we' re getting off on trees here.
' Robinson: Yes. I don' t think that trees are a park and rec issue.
Hasek: I think they should be part of our job and that ' s one thing I 've
noted down here. I 'd like to see topography and vegetation on the
development. . .so we can really see what ' s going on . It ' s open space and if
it's open space related and if . . .might be part of the policy, then I 'd like
to see those items on the graphics that we get because typically we just
get something that' s got a bunch of lines on it and it really doesn' t tell
us a lot about the site or anything .
' Boyt : If we ' re going to make two recommendations tonight , one in case it
goes through as condominiums and one if it goes through with the single
family, maybe we could head in that direction . What those recommendations
' would be.
Mady: There ' s a lot of area to cover besides trees on this site .
' Boyt: Is North Lotus Lake considered adequate for all of this area?
Because first off again , I 'd ask for some acreage for a neighborhood park
in this development.
' Sietsema : I haven ' t calculated how many people are in the total
subdivision and how many acres of parkland we have in that area. How many
' people are being served but it is an 18 acre park which is similar to what
we have at Meadow Green and the density there is similar if not higher .
Robinson : What happen 10 years ago with the condominiums? Was there park
' dedication fees?
Sietsema : They would have been if they would have been built. We would
' have collected fees. We' ve collected fees throughout this development .
They' ve given no parkland .
Mady: I 'd be concerned with this site in that Fox Hollow is fairly built
up. That 's using the North Lotus Lake Park. All of Pleasant View has in
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, _1989 - Page 10
i
existence is using this park. Trapper ' s Pass . This whole development is
using that one park. At 18 acres at 75 people per acre, we' re handling II roughly 1, 400 people. That ' s a lot of people but that' s a big area . You
have to go on the other side of the lake before you come to another park .
The nearest one would be Carver Beach and then you go across CR 17 to Curry
Farms so we' re covering a big area over here.
Boyt : Well we know that each little neighborhood wants their own little
space that' s real accessible.
Mady: A couple areas when I look at this site just on paper . Not only the
topo really needs a lot but Near Mountain I was always told but I don' t II know if it is or not, is the highest point in Carver County I guess . It's
a unique area anyway in that it is the high spot. I 'd like to see somehow
or another that preserved as open space and worked into the plan . The
outlot goes down into Silver Lake. It' s a steep hill . There' s wetlands in!'
there . This is a unique opportunity for open space either through
conservation easement, outright deed or what have you. We could do there
what we did with Chan Pond . Make this a nice wildlife area . I don' t know II
if we need an active play type area here. I don' t think that' s necessary
but I really do think the natural amenities that are presented in this site
will be preserved with being heavily wooded and being such a high natural II
point that there 's some opportunities here. I 've got to believe that of
all the residents had their choice of it being residential single family
and condominium, they' re not going to want a 3 story high building out in '
the middle of their neighborhood. Proper planning tells me you put high
density close to areas that aren ' t quite as desirable for your
condominiums. This should be a highly desirable area. I can understand
why they want single family now. It would make a whole lot of sense but I I
would like to see us still working with 3/4 acre lots roughly. There' s a
lot of space there that we could pick up, I would like to see us be able to
pick up some parkland. Open space parkland. Not active space parkland .
Hasek: Have you any suggestion where and how that might tie into something
that 's useable by the public?
Mady: The third page of the handout shows , it looks like there are 3
trails that are bringing into the circular street. I believe they' re there
for pedestrian traffic . '
Sietsema: They are.
Mady: I was thinking , they are leading people in and people out.
Boyt: 3 1/2 acres adajcent to those.
Mady: Where the word "lots" is is roughly the high point of the whole
area.
Boyt : That' s where it ' s heavily wooded . Down where it says Near , that ' s I
more brush and it might be more conducive to a play area.
II • Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 11
IL Hasek: That' s on the edge of the wetland . Those slopes have to be 3 : 1?
What are those slopes?
Mike Pflaum: They' re very steep . I can ' t tell you what the percentage
is.
Hasek: Let' s measure it real quick. 23 to 50 feet . That ' s 40%. That ' s
' really, really steep.
Erhart : A great sliding hill?
' Hasek : Yes , into somebody else' s back yard. It seems to me if we' re
intent on taking land , we've only got one option. It doesn' t make sense to
take it in the top of this hill . That ' s the most developable part of this
' particular project. Yes, it' s in the middle of the woods but they' re going
to be able to save more trees there with less grading than they are
anyplace on the peripherim. How about lots in there, 8 and 9? Over off of
Pleasant View Road .
' Lash: Those are already there?
' Hasek: Are they existing?
Lash: They' re not in the shaded area .
Hasek: What is the shaded area?
Mady: We don' t have numbers on this thing .
' Hasek: 8 and 9 are right here. There ' s a little knob there. It ' s steep
down to the street but it' s high. It' s got some trees on it. It' s fairly
' flat . From there I 'm sure you' ve got a view across Lotus Lake and across
Silver Lake. A perfect spot for a house but a nice spot for a park too .
The question I have I guess is do we need parkland in this area? If we've
' got a park that's within the service area.
Schroers : That park is already to the point where we ' re at our limit with
numbers and use. It' s basically an active area and what we'd like to see
' with this park is more of a passive natural area and park development will
be a way of preserving some of the environment that' s left.
Hasek: How much land in this area Lori would you say is still up for
development in the service area of North Lotus Park?
Sietsema : Hardly anything .
' Hasek: This is the last piece by the graphic I put together last week.
' Sietsema : Yes , there ' s nothing significant aside from lots .
Hasek: So we' re at the limit for a reason . We' re at the limit because
we' ve got what we need in the area .
i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' II
July 25, 1989 - Page 12
1
Sietsema : There may be some lot splits or some small pieces .
Boyt: One of the things, Pleasant View Road would be an access road for
people to get to the park and I have friends that live in Fox Chase and
there's no way they would let their children-- on Pleasant View Road. It' s II
windy. It' s narrow. It makes that park less accessible to children.
Hasek: Where do they live?
Boyt : Fox Chase .
Hasek: Which is? '
Boyt : Which is right up here. There nearest park is over here and they
can' t get to it. It' s another small neighborhood, if we don' t ask for this '
property now, there ' s nothing left .
Schroers: The next question is, is there anything else in the area?
Hasek: Can you tell us about how big 8 and 9 are if they include that long "
tail that goes up there?
Mike Pflaum: I can give you the approximatley square footages of the two I
lots and you can figure it out. Lot 9 is approximately 104 , 000 square
feet. Lot 8 is 40, 000 square feet so that' s 144, 000 square feet
approximately.
Mady: Just over 3 acres .
Hasek: 3 1/2 acres , yes . 3 1/2 acres with those two lots plus the trail I
easements .
Schroers : What' s the total acreage? '
Mike Pflaum: The total acreage of this portion that we' re looking at
amending , I think it' s about 45 acres . 43. '
Hasek: Personally I think this area should be developed single family and
not high density residential . It ' s a nice location if you look at the II topography and you look at the amenities for high density residential but
the location and the neighborhood just doesn' t make any sense . That' s not
our job here but all that traffic is going to have to funnel back through
those single family residential neighborhoods and I don' t know. I think
from the standpoint of the topography and the trees, it' s going to lay out
a lot better as single family. If it' s generally felt that we need
parkland, I think Lots 8 and 9 are the most attractive chunks down there II with the exception of the top of the hill and again , I submit that the top
of the hill is probably be the easiest for the developer to develop and
retain the most vegetation . '
Mady: It'd be the easiest thing for the developer but it ' s also probably
the most unique piece of land. It represents something that we don' t
really have.
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 13
47
' Hasek: That we don ' t have? You mean the top of that hill? Well that ' s
exactly true but I mean when we started this whole thing we were talking
about saving trees and now we ' re going to take the piece that ' s easiest to
' save the trees on. That doesn' t make any sense at all to me.
Mady: My concern is not of saving the trees . The City is in the process
' of working the ordinance up on that.
Hasek: I guess what I was feeding off of was Larry' s comment about open
space.
' Mady: I believe the City' s ordinance is going to have to be followed no
matter whether you build it on the side of the hill or the top of the hill .
' I don ' t know what the ordinance is for sure. . .slight average versus a
specific tree average or something of that nature. My concern is, there' s
some unique , very unique areas here that could be addressed . I agree with
you. I don' t think, there' s no way I 'd like to see this as condominiums up
there. The one reason it did it as condominiums was because it preserved
as much space as possible. . .continuous open space but I don' t think that' s
what we ' re trying to do . I think what we ' re trying to do is provide good
' development and a recreational opportunity. Right now I don' t see in the
plan that was presented today, there was nothing really presented that
would provide recreational opportunity for any of the people who existed
now or people that would be coming in . What we ' re saying is we' re going to
throw all of them into North Lotus Lake Park and although we don' t have
numbers to support it at this point in time, I 've got the feeling that
North Lotus Lake Park is already being utilized to it' s fullest extent.
As soon as that park has grass in it , it ' s going to be full .
Schroers: Lori , it was also stated that so far we have had no parkland
' whatsoever from this development .
Sietsema : That ' s right . We ' ve got fees from all the homes so far . We 've
' collected the fees all along.
Lash : I drove up and looked at this area and I would have to say, I would
have to commend this developer on, I think that' s a beautiful development.
' I went back in that area and from what I could see , it looks like they did
a wonderful job of preserving the trees. A lot of the homes up there have
very heavily wooded back yards so I wouldn' t have a problem with single
' family homes going in there but I would too, I would like to see us try to
preserve some spot . Not necessarily for an active park but to have an open
space because everyone on this side- of Pleasant View is going to have to
cross Pleasant View to get to a park and I don' t necessarily support that
' so I would like to see, if this went into single family, that we would try
to get the maximum acreage that we could .
' Erhart: Initially the PUD agreement was to protect existing open spaces or
provide for that and I guess I would like to see some preservation of open
spaces. I also went and took a look at your development. It' § beautiful
and I think the single family dwellings would fit in with the development
as it is but I would be in favor of preserving some open spaces .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 14
1
Hasek: You don' t want me to talk anymore . 1
Boyt: You've talked. Curt hasn' t talked a lot yet.
Robinson : The more I look at it, the more I like Lots 8 and 9. They are II
close to Fox Chase which has no open space. It' s the furthest point away
from the city park already, North Lotus /Lake Park. It ' s about 3 1/2
acres. . . 42 acres and that should be some space for a park in this
development.
Mady: One other thing we didn' t talk about was sidewalks/trailways . If it'
is going to be. . . Pleasant View Road current as it exists and probably will
exist in the future, is the only place to put people outside of the
protective custody of your steel cars. You'd have to be insane to allow
your children to be on the street in anything other than a childseat inside!'
your car so I guess I 'd like to see provisions made for a trailway that
connects those . Obviously there ' s some connecting points with the other '
developments. It appears the City may be heading towards a sidewalk policy
in the Planning Commission. I would like to see us move in that direction.
I'd like to see us have an off-street sidewalk policy for all new
developments . Does anyone else wish to address this? '
Hasek: Yes, I think you' re right Jim. I think the trails obviously need
to get some way to get these people into this thing .
Sietsema: A trail where? I 'm not understanding what you' re talking about.
Hasek: That ' s the problem. Pleasant View Road is no better than
Minnewashta Parkway as far I 'm concerned. I drive it once in a while over
to a friend ' s house and if you have a little Audi , it ' s a nice road to
drive. '
Robinson: But if you' ve got the three outlots A, B and C?
Hasek: Well my question to the developer was going to be, are those
utility outlots in the previous subdivision? Over here onto Trapline Lane.
It says on our other one that it' s a utility easement.
Mike Pflaum: No . That ' s a trail outlot. Outlot A is a trail outlot and II
the new Outlot A would also be a trail outlot.
Sietsema : Our comprehensive trail plan called for a trail that wo ld go
through this portion. It considers the streets adequate for pedestrian
purposes and then have these outlots to connect the different neighborhoods
where the streets didn' t go through. If you recall the last amendment that
the. . .was not approved.
Mike Pflaum: Outlot C is a different purpose . Outlot C down here is an
emergency access that the engineer a long time ago requested when we had
condominiums up here as , this was and still really is , a cul-d&-sac .
k_ Before it was a more obvious cul-de-sac but in the event that there should
be blockage here , a tornado or something like that tore the trees down here
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 15
I
and there ' s an emergency. . .there 'd be a break away gate up here. . .
Hasek: Did you say there were sidewalks through the previous condition
were not approved by Council?
' Sietsema : That ' s right . There were no sidewalks whatsoever in the rest of
this PUD.
Hasek: How long has this been developing? How many years?
Sietsema : Since 1979 was the PUD approval . Was it ' 79?
' Hasek: And there are easements in place is that right?
' Sietsema: No, there are not.
Schroers : Lori , has any of the discussion here changed staff ' s feeling
about their recommendation?
' Sietsema : Staff doesn ' t feel real strongly one way or the other to tell
you the truth. It is purely to preserve as much as you can sense. The
' condominium proposal did that. If we go with the single family, I
definitely would support acquiring some open space for this area.
It: Mady: Unless somebody else has some other ideas , I ' ll give a motion a shot
here and then we can see if anybody else can add to it.
Boyt : If you ask for park, would you ask for a percentage or would you ask
for the lots?
Mady: Being this is a PUD, first off that means the developer gives more.
' Is expected to provide more than the normal subdivision process to the
City. Because of that, I would ask the developer to provide the City first
off, Lots 8 and 9 as parkland. Passive parkland.
Hasek: I would qualify that just as a comment. Passive. I 'd just leave
it as park.
Mady: I 'd like to see us preserve as much area as possible. I 'd like to
see us do what we did in the Chan Pond Park with a conservation easement
along the slopes and also along Silver Lake. I 'd also like to see an off-
street constructed trail along the mountain top and adjoining to the
outlots to the other. developments .
Sietsema : Say that again? The last part. You wanted a conservation
' easement along the north side and along the slope on the north side and
what else?
' Mady: The present outlot , I guess it' s the north side . It' s towards
Silver Lake. I feel comfortable but I don' t know exactly where that is but
we need , like we did at Chan Pond Park. We determined what the topo, what
ir line.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' II
July 25, 1989 - Page 16
1
Sietsema : Right but what was the last thing in your motion. The last
comment. I got the easement. '
Boyt : The trail?
Sietsema: Yes , what was that? '
Mady: Construction of an off-street sidewalk on the street. Adjoining all
three outlots . Be they trail outlets or emergency exits.
Hasek: Did you want a trail along those or a sidewalk?
Mady: The same difference for us .
Sietsema : You want a sidewalk along this whole looped street? Am
I understanding that right Jim? I didn' t get it. Is that a yes? Okay.
Mady: That' s what I got for a motion .
Boyt: I ' ll second it .
Hasek: You' ve got 2 trails going down 40a slopes here. We' re talking
about accessbility. 10o is the greatest we can go for a short distance.
For anybody that ' s in a wheelchair , are we talking accessibility here or
aren' t we? 40°% is . . .
Boyt : Do you have any suggestions?
Hasek: I think maybe what we should do is take an outlot on a trail as
opposed to suggesting that a trail goes down to the outlot. Take an outlotll
down a trail . You have a lot of trail for us and put the outlot, put the
outlot over the trail as opposed to us trying to ask him to put a trail in II
the outlot . It will take a little bit more in cost perhaps of the sewer
going through this one that he 's got here. It ' s a storm sewer but . . .
Sietsema : Are you talking like a switchback trail or something? '
Hasek: Switchback or something . Yes . If you' re. . .
Robinson : Jim, I 've got to understand your motion. Did it say you wanted II
a sidewalk around this? Is that really practical? There' s not that many
homes there.
Mady: There' s a lot of homes . There ' s 45 of them.
Lash : Basically the only people driving in there will be the people who
live there. It' s not a through street.
Boyt : But you know, that ' s what they say in every neighborhood that goes I
in. In reality, that' s not what happens .
Mady: Where are the kids supposed to ride their bikes? Rollerskate? In
the street? '
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 17
C
Robinson: Yes .
Lash : Yes . If you know your kids are there and you know your neighbor
' kids are there, are you going to go through at 60 mph. Even if there
weren ' t kids there , are you going to drive through there at 60 mph?
Hasek: I've been on this soapbox once before. I lived in a neighborhood
that ' s got 3 cul-de-sacs and it goes nowhere and we get people from outside
the neighborhood and people from inside the neighborhood because we do have
several rental units in the neighborhood , driving way too fast down those
streets and we do not have any sidewalks. I haven' t got a single neighbor
that wouldn ' t like to have a sidewalk in those cul-de-sac streets . Not
one. I don' t think that the opinion that sidewalks aren' t necessary is the
' public opinion out there at all .
Lash : I don ' t know. When the trail referendum was defeated twice, to me
that says it' s not the popular decision.
Hasek: No.
' Mady: We' re looking at the referendum. That ' s off the subject here. That
wasn ' t part of it.
Erhart : I was just going to say, we 've also been through this before . Can
we just take a vote?
Schroers : One other thing that I wanted to mention about your motion was
that Lots 8 and 9 amount to the maximum. . .
Boyt : No . Less than . If it' s 45 acres .
' Mady: We could get 4 1/2.
Boyt : It' s less than the maximum.
Schroers : Well I would like to ask for the maximum.
' Hasek: Would you like to ask for the maximum adjacent to Lot 8 and 9 and
have them perhaps reconfigure Lots 1 and 7 or something to accommodate
that?
Boyt : Ask for 10% .
t Hasek: I would agree with that.
Mady: Even to the point of letting the developer work with staff to find a
suitable location.
' Hasek: Sure. I guess I 'd like to call foz a question.
r MadyThat means I have to amend my motion which I will do if you amend
:your second?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' II
July 25, 1989 - Page 18
C
1
Boyt: Yes . '
Sietsema : You moved to recommend that we require Lots 8 and 9 for
parkland. Require conservation easement along the north side to a certain I
topo line along the outlot and construction of off-street sidewalk along
the looped street.
Mady: Do we need to name that topo?
Robinson: It' s about 910-912.
Hasek: Are you just picking one out?
Robinson: Well it' s 900 right here at the lake so 910.
Mady: I 'd like to see it above that. If it' s a steep grade.
Hasek: 900 is the total of the slope. '
Mady: I guess what I 'm trying to do with the conservation easement is keep
all development out of it. Landscape timbers, any of that kind of stuff . II
Hasek: It ' s not going to be down in there. It' s impractical to assume
that they' re going to build that far down into that thing. '
Boyt: You know what? They've done it in our conservation easement in
Chan Pond Park. They've built retaining walls .
Hasek: In the easement?
Boyt : Yes . There ' s no one to watch it and no one cared . '
Robinson: 921?
Hasek: I would be in favor of that .
Mady: It' s difficult without talking to. . .
Hasek: Yes . 910 ' s the bottom of the slope . It ' s probably also the actual'
tree. . .
Mady: Conservation easement means they can ' t do anything on the bottom '
part of this.
Hasek: I 'd like to go above 930. '
Mady: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
Sietsema : Did you change your motion?
N- Mady: We did .
IL Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 25, 1989 - Page 19
Sietsema : I didn' t hear the amendment . I only read it .
Mady: It was Larry' s comment as to. . .
' Schroers : 10% in the area of Lots 8 and 9 . -
Mady: Leaving it up to staff to work with the developer to find the
' appropriate area and then the switchback, his comment on trails.
Mike Pflaum: What is the maximum slope that is functioning adequately for
a trail?
' Hasek: The City' s got a standard . Don' t they? I thought there was one. I
thought we were working with one out by the golf course down there.
' Sietsema : I don ' t know of a standard but engineering might have something .
Hasek: They should have something in there. I don' t know that you
' necessarily have to go down to a handicap accessible standard but it should
be something that' s closer to that than 40%.
t Mike Pflaum: Excuse me, it ' s not 40%. I ' ve checked with the grade of
those two areas and it' s about 20%.
Schroers : I 'm not even sure we need to be all that concerned with the
handicap accessibility. We' re just trying to more or less preserve this as
an open space and passive use and to that end , I don' t think we ' re required
to offer handicap accessibility.
Sietsema : These are trail alignments within your overall trail plan though
and our trail plan should be handicap accessible whenever possible. As
much as possible . So did you make any changes on trails? The sidewalks?
The trails?
' Boyt : It' s still this outlots .
Mady: The outlots should be conducive to the trails I think is how it gets
changed. Okay, any further discussion?
Erhart : So we ' re not asking for trails throughout the whole thing?
Boyt: Yes we are.
Mady: Yes . A sidewalk system.
Mady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
to require 10% parkland in the area of Lots 8 and 9 for parkland, require a
' conservation easement along the north side, outlots should be conducive to
trails and construction of off-street sidewalk along the looped street .
All voted in favor except Lash , Erhart and Robinson who voted in opposition
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3.
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 20
Hasek: I 'd like to give the three nay' s an opportunity to express their
concerns about what the motion was , just for the record .
Robinson : I liked it all except for the trail around the center streets .
I see nothing wrong with using the street. Walk the street as sidewalk in
that area .
Erhart : I go along with that . I have no problems with it being . . .trail I
around what we have. That was to a sidewalk or an off-street trail .
Lash : That was my exact feelings too. I would get the fees in a place
where it is more necessary.
PUD SITE PLAN REVIEW, MARKET SQUARE. '
Sietsema : This site lies just across Market Blvd . from the Bowling Center .
It' s a commercial development. It' s within the service area of City II Center Park. Sidewalks are currently in place along Market Blvd . . The
recommendation of this office is to accept park and trail dedication fees
in lieu of parkland and trail construction and to recommend approval .
Boyt: Has this plan been accepted by the Planning Commission?
ir Sietsema : It' s not been to the Planning Commission. We always get it
first.
Mady: A sidewalk on Market Blvd . . That ' s on the east side?
Sietsema : It' s on both sides and it is in place .
Schroers : We' re only talking about 1. 2 acres? '
Sietsema : 1. 2 acres , right.
Mady: There is a walk along West 78th Street on the south side? '
Sietsema: No there isn' t. There isn' t through the whole downtown.
There ' s not a sidewalk on the south side.
Mady: They will be connecting with the Bloomberg development or whatever
we call this Dinner Theater complex now, there is an extensive. . .that will I
get you from basically either through covered or through sidewalk from the
railroad tracks all the way through to Market Blvd and there it ends so I
really think. . .
Sietsema : It wouldn ' t be unreasonable to require a sidewalk along the
south side from Market Blvd . out to Powers Blvd. . I think that would be a
reasonable.
Mady: It ' s a busy street . I think we ' ve been remiss in the past on
requiring pieces. People use both sides of that road and when you get to
developments through here , retail developments through here , there ' s going
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 21
to be even more use of the sidewalk.
' Schroers : I 'd be ready move on this .
to to m y o s .
Mady: Any other discussion?
Hasek: What was the recommendation?
' Sietsema : Are you making a recommendation to accept park fees and require
trail along the south side of West 78th?
Schroers : Yes that was going to be my recommendation.
Boyt: Second .
Sietsema : The motion on the table then is to recommend that the City
accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and require an off street
' sidewalk along the south side of West 78th Street . That would be a 6 foot
wide sidewalk on the south side in lieu of trail dedication fees .
' Schroers : That would extend to Powers Blvd . right?
Sietsema: Just the length of this development. The next development would
have to pick up the rest .
1rLash: Would all of our trails be. . .
' Sietsema : I will figure it out and if it isn ' t, I will make the staff
recommendation that something be adjusted. I didn' t calculate what the
cost of that would be. It' s usually $7 . 00 a foot . $7 . 00-$10. 00 a foot and
' I 'm not sure what the length of that is . The trail dedication fee is
$400. 00 an acre so it' s about $600. 00. $500. 00. It would probably be
totally waived.
' Mady: Is this part of the HRA area?
Sietsema: Yes . I believe it' s in the tax increment district.
' Mady: If we have problems getting it done through the developer , would it
be our recommendation for the HRA to review potentially putting those in
with HRA funds.
Boyt : The developer put in . . .
' Mady: If the trail fee doesn ' t cover it or we can ' t get it done .
Boyt: We don' t pay for it. The developer just puts it in when the
development goes in.
Sietsema : And we waive their fee .
i
k
IrMady: It might be too much . I want to make sure it gets in one way or the
other . If we have to do it with HRA doing it with tax increment . . . Any
Park and Rec Commission II
July 25, 1989 - Page 22
other comments? Lori , do
you want to review the motion? '
Sietsema: Larry has recommended to accept park dedication fees in lieu of
parkland and require 6 foot wide sidewalk to be constructed along the south
side of West 78th Street in lieu of trail dedication fees. Sue seconded. I
Schroers moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and require a II
6 foot wide sidewalk to be constructed along the south side of West 78th
Street in lieu of trail dedication fees . All voted in favor and the motion'
carried.
WORK SESSION ON LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES. '
Sietsema : Basically this item has been placed on the agenda for discussion
purposes. I can go through just what' s in the memorandum and then I would I
suggest putting some kind of a time limit on the amount of time you spend
in discussion this so we don' t get off on tangents . As a result of our
joint meeting with the City Council, I think they were open to the idea of
pursuing or find ways to pursue and preserve open space for future
community parks as they become needed in the long term future. Some of the
ways that we can do that is through identifying the property now. Going
through referendum or putting it on the land use plan and when it comes up I
for development, to purchase it at that time. Things that we need to
discuss in particular , specific areas that may service future parkland.
Funding methods and timing of the future acquisitions . I 'm sure that it ' s '
not anyone' s intention to run out right now and buy 180 acres of community
parkland now so we ' ll have it when we reach a population of 36 ,000 people
because that may not happen within the next 30 years or our lifetime for
that matter but we want to have ways to give the people who are going to be'
in your positions 30 years from now, the tools to be able to get it when it
becomes a need . So I don ' t know if you want to go section by section of
the City. We know through Mark's study that the west side of Chanhassen is
void of community parkland . That the southern part of Chanhassen, even
though we' re getting the 35 acres with Bandimere but additional community
parkland to meet the natural open space needs is going to be needed of
about acreage, 30-50 acres. And that there may potentially be the need for
additional community parkland in the center part of the City. Whether that
be attached to Lake Ann on one side or the other or maybe it be a separate
piece all together that might be along Galpin Blvd . . There' s some open II
in there that are beautiful . I don' t know if they' re conducive. I
haven ' t looked at them or walked on them but they' re beautiful pieces from
the street and I 'm not sure if they'd meet active needs but there sure II pretty to look at and would be nice. So I think if we maybe would want to
form some subcommittees that would want to go out and identify parkland and
potential parkland . We also need to talk again about the different funding
methods. The referendum. About budgeting it out of the general fund . '
Through land dedication process and through the grant process ., Those are
the ones that are most often thought of . Larry' s come up with some ideas
about acquisition through foundations . Getting some money through I
foundations and different programs that should be checked into as well to
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 23
lir
see if city' s can qualify for those . Then to look at the timing and put
' that in the Comprehensive Plan when that comes around. To either amend it
or put it in the next time that we amend or update that so when we plan on
making some purchase, when the population hits x number or when the
MUSA line moves or at what time do we want to gear up for that so we ' re
prepared and developers and the City and everybody is prepared to be
looking at those acquisitions at those certain times . Where do you want to
' start?
Erhart : You used up all our time.
' Schroers : Can I make a suggestion that each person gets like 2 minutes and
maybe. . .the official time keeper .
Mady: Fine.
Schroers : Some of the things that we had talked about at the joint council
' meeting, that we felt were valid was we would like to see implemented is
number one , have the developers install the neighborhood parks right along
with the development so that it' s done at the time of the development and
' that we don' t have to come back later and try to dig up funds for getting
it developed . So I think that we need to make a motion to Council in that
regard to require the developers to install neighborhood parks at the time
of the development. The development of the development. The second one,
for the City to establish a general fund for maintenance of the parks .
That would free up some more of our money.
' Sietsema : A general fund for maintenance?
Schroers : Yes .
' Sietsema : We have that. That ' s what Dale works out of.
Schroers : That was fast . That was good . Also we wanted to establish a
' fund for acquisition and we wanted to research the possibilities of State,
Federal and institutional type funding and then earmark key areas that we
would like to see for parkland in the future. The research on the State,
' Federal and institutional funding is ongoing at the moment .
Hoffman: And Jan you' re on .
Lash : I wasn ' t nearly as prepared as Larry. I didn ' t know we were going
to be on the spot here but I lean towards the idea of the developers having
to contribute much more than they are now in the neighborhood parks since
' they' re using it as a selling tool and charging people more money for their
homes and their lots and not provide us with anything but the property and
I 'd like to push for the developers to do more and I also think that would
tend to weed out some developers and we may end rip with the cream of the
' crop as far as developers coming to town. The ones who are willing to go
the extra mile to make sure that their development is nice and. the parks
are nice. I also would like to see a fee put on with the building permits
IF that would be then for a community park to help us start a fund because I
feel that the new people coming to town will be the ones creating the need
11
Park and Rec Commission I
July 25, 1989 - Page 24
for the new community park and all the rest of us shouldn' t necessarily
have to pay for it. I don' t necessarily support the idea of a referendum. II
Taking any of this to referendum for a long period of time because I think
there' s going to be a lot of referendums coming up in the near future and
I can' t see that they' re all going to pass . - I don' t really have any strong
feelings on the timing of future acquisitions and I guess that' s something
that we need , I think Lori pretty well covered it for me as much as looking
at earmarking some things that we think would be our first choices and
seeing as how we. . .at the time we might need them and if that would be the II
procedure that you explained, I guess that would be the method that I would
go for .
Mady: Some of the my comments and thoughts on this . I believe right now
we have a fairly good handle on what our community park needs are going
into the future of Chanhassen . There are some good numbers we come to . . .
We also have a fairly good idea of general locations for where they should
be situation. I think there' s a couple things we do need though and
someone' s going to have to come to the Planning Commission before we can
start assigning land we need to know what land use is . What zonings are so
we can be prepared to site parks where people are going to be. We' re also
going to need to know what the traffic patterns are going to be
established. Where the City' s going to be looking to put roads and what
type of roadways . Those will have a direct impact. When we get into the
funding methods, I think our number one concern for this body is going to
4' have to be are 1 acre . . . What we need to do then is start utilizing . '
A, Potentially develop an ordinance for utilization to get something done.
That means we' re not funding . We ' re not attempting to fund community
parkland with our new people coming in. They' re not paying anything. The II
people already paid for something who already exist in the City are paying
for these new people coming in and that' s not right. I don' t care. If you
look at it , a lot of what can be done . I think the subcommittee idea may
be the best way or . . . 1
Erhart : I 'd go along with the developer buying the parks in the
neighborhood. Under funding, the only new thing that I can bring up, II I haven ' t heard anybody address but I would like to see the City petition
the Met Council to open up some more space and to bring in some more
commercial businesses. They provide a nice tax base for us and that ' s one
way that we could generate some tax dollars to go in and purchase land or
develop it . As far as the timing , I have no ideas on that. If we grow and
there' s a need, then we' ll have to see us provide that but I don ' t know how
to address that because I don ' t know where our population is going . That' s "
it.
Hasek: The whole impetus for new parkland should lie within the
Comprehensive Plan. That's what we ' re supposed to be using to make our
decisions to guide our direction on this as is the Planning Commission and
City Council . The first item is to get that changed and that change has
got to be based upon some future plan for development like. . . so we need to
understand what the City' s future plans are for those areas that are
( undeveloped . I think generally we know that there' s a lot of residential
going to be occurring in the outland areas and if there' s any commercial or
industrial land that' s going to be developed , it' s going to be adjacent to
I
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 25
lir
the major roadway system that we have in place right now and it isn' t going
r to go into the middle of major undeveloped areas . I would like to see us
put together some sort of a task force or a group to work closely with
staff and our consultants to identify areas once we understand once is
1 going on with the future land use plan . To =identify areas for future and
major parklands for the City. I think that we've got some excellent staff
in place . I think we' ve got some excellent consultants on board and I
' think pulling together some topography and aerial photographs and perhaps
some members from the community know what' s out there and in certain areas
where we haven' t marked or haven' t been and I think we can probably do that
' job very well .
Robinson : I have nothing new to add that hasn ' t been said already.
' Boyt: One thing we've discussed before that I 'd like to see us start doing
is collect fees up front when development is approved rather than piecemeal
as the house are built. I guess we need to make a recommendation to
Counicl that that happen . I 'd like us to use the excess money from the
referendum to look at the property north of the Bandimere property and work
out a deal on that piece. I would volunteer to be on the committee or task
force to look for land for future development and I want either the Council
' to give us numbers on how much they will give us each year for park
purchase or put it in our budget and that will be completely separate from
park development and it will be comparable to the amount we spend on park
development.
Sietsema: For park acquisition?
Boyt : For park acquisition. We either need numbers from the Council or we
need to make up those numbers and put them in our budget.
' Mady: . . .ask for the . . .
Sietsema : What do you want me to do?
Boyt : Set up a meeting time.
Sietsema : Who wants to be on the task force? The subcommittee . Ed ,
Dawne, Jan and Sue.
Mady: Is it something we need to have Council approve and maybe advertise .
Sietsema: You want general public on there or do you want it to be just a
work session of this group?
Hasek: Let' s get started with a work session of this group and see what we
need .
Sietsema : I think there ' s probably a lot of homework probably that needs
to be done before we go out.
t
Boyt : You know how those task forces work when you get everyone .
I
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 26
Hasek: I don ' t mind it being a task force at all but I think there needs
to be some clear direction for that task force and if we' re going to do
that, what I think is the job of this group to orchestrate how that
happens.
Sietsema : And this task force, what I think we need is a motion to appoint
these people to a subcommittee to study blank. What do you want the
subcommittee to do? ,
Hasek: I ' ll make that motion. Study the identification of future parkland
sites to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan for future
acquisition. '
Sietsema : And to appoint Ed , Jan, Dawne and Sue to that subcommittee?
Hasek: Sure. '
Boyt: Funding might be a separate issue because funding , that is so
different than their zoning issues . '
Hasek: I think that might be a separate group. I think the important
thing is to get it onto the Comprehensive Plan before things start changing '
and we lose the opportunity to identify potential areas so that ' s primary.
Sietsema: The funding things I think that staff can work with, do some
1 research and bring back what ' s out there and available to us and work with
this anonymous person.
Mady: Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor . '
Hasek moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission create a
subcommittee made up of Ed Hasek, Janet Lash , Dawne Erhart and Sue Boyt to
study the identification of future parkland sites to be incorporated into
the Comprehensive Plan for future acquisition. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Boyt : Any other motions out of all our stuff? '
Schroers : Yes. I would like to make another motion. Since we are all
unanimously in favor , I 'd like to move that we recommend to Council to
require developers to install neighborhood parks along with their
development and ask for park dedication fees up front at the time of
issuing, park and trail fees , at the time of issuing of building permits .
Boyt : No . That ' s when they do it now.
Mady: Approve the plan. Phase 1 of the development. '
Boyt : Yes . You might want to put in Phase 1 for the park development
because they' ve been leaving park development to the last phase of the
development.
I
II ' Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 27
I
C
' Schroers : Okay, phase 1.
Hasek: Second .
Lash : Do you need any specifics about that?
' Mady: No. That' s part of the process .
Schroers : Is everybody clear on that? Lori , will read it back.
' Sietsema: The motion is that you' re recommending that the City require
developers to install neighborhood parks at the time their development is
developed and require park and trail fees at the time the development
contract is executed .
Boyt: It was amended to say the parks be put in during the first phase.
Sietsema: Require developers to install parks at the first phase. Okay.
And to require park and trail fees at the time the development contract is
executed .
I
Schroers moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City require developers to install neighborhood parks at
the first phase of development and require park and trail dedication fees
be paid at the time the development contract is executed. All voted in
favor and the motion carried .
1
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS :
Boyt : Can you get us some information on the piece of property north of
Bandimere?
Sietsema : Yes . What do you want to know?
Boyt: I want to know if we can work out a deal with the funding we have
left to purchase it.
Hasek: Purchase what?
Boyt : The piece of property north of Bandimere. We've got funding left
over from the referendum and we know we want that piece of property.
' Sietsema: Well , just be aware though that in the budget recommendation
that you sent to Council , you' ve recommended that we use $100,000 .00 for
future acquisition of other places in the park. We took that $100, 000. 00
but that money went into the reserve fund for Carrico purchase or Lake Lucy
access or future acquisition . What we did is we have the whole reserve and
then we subtracted $100,000. 00 because there was $100, 000. 00 worth of money
in there for acquisition.
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 28
1
Boyt : . . .this can' t be for that acquisition?
Sietsema: All I 'm saying is that you've already allocated $100,000.00 for II
other projects so if you go to put it towards property next to Bandimere ,
you have to take it out of the fund for either Carrico or Lake Lucy access II
or future acquisition funds.
Erhart : I thought we talked about that , I thought you said that we. . .
Sietsema: Remember I said you either had to reduce the fund, the amount in
your fund by $15, 000. 00 or $115, 000. 00 because the $100, 000.00 was
subtracted out of that and you only reduced it by the $15,000. 00 so you' ve II
allocated that $100,000. 00 for future acquisition in other areas in the
southern part of Chanhassen.
Hasek: In the southern part of Chanhassen?
Sietsema: Other areas than the southern part of Chanhassen .
Mady: We haven' t actually spent it yet . It ' s just in reserve.
Sietsema: Right. So if you want to do that, then it will be taking it,
next year it would require a budget amendment to take it out of someplace
else. We can do that. That' s not a problem. I just wanted you, I wasn' t
sure after our joint meeting , I wasn ' t sure that you understood that you
had allocated that money so I just want to make sure that you know that.
Hasek: A related question to that . Other areas of Chanhassen that that
money could be spent in. Did you have an opportunity to take a look at
that 38. 2 acres of land that ' s for sale?
Sietsema: I didn' t. You called me on Wednesday and then I was out on
Thursday, Friday and Monday and I didn' t get a chance to go out there .
Hasek: Minnewashta. It' s not 8 acres. It' s 30 some acres over there with
180 feet of lakeshore and a piece of property. . . I
Sietsema: Do you know how much they' re asking?
Hasek: No . The piece of property that abuts on Little St. Joe.
Lash: Lakeshore property you say Ed? p
Hasek: 180 feet of lakeshore. It ' s not very deep but it ' s lakeshore.
Sietsema: That' s got to include that house with the round silo thing . '
Hasek : I think it does . I 'm not positive but I think it does .
Sietsema: So it' s right next to the old access. Right next to Leach' s .
Adjacent to Leaches north of that .
Hasek: Yes . In fact it abuts the south piece of property that abuts the
' • Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 29
1_
lake abuts the old street extension that used to be next to Leach' s .
' Sietsema: Okay. I ' ll make sure I go out there and look at that tomorrow.
Mady: We' re in Commission presentations obviously. I have an item. Other
than wanting to be updated on the Minnewashta land, Lori has the City done
anything to contact the Army Corps of Engineer Reserve group to get the
' southern parkland on their grading schedule for 2 years from now?
Sietsema : No . We don' t have the property yet .
' Mady: We need to check with them so we don' t end up 3 years down the road
or 4 years down the road as to what time it needs to be.
Sietsema: As soon as we go through closing, I plan to contact them.
Closing is the 15th of August . I can send something out but it just is
cleaner if we have ownership of the property so when they do their research
on it, then you' re not confused .
Mady: A phone call might be wise at this point in time. Just to maybe
protect ourselves and get them thinking that we' re looking at it. Do we
' need a recommendation?
Hasek : What ' s happened with the pipeline going through there?
IF: Sietsema : They' re having it surveyed with the property, the current owners
have to have it surveyed and we ' re having the pipeline people out there to
stake where the pipeline is so they can have that included on the survey
' and then we ' ll have a better idea if it' s going to have an impact or not.
We still haven ' t been able to get information from the pipeline people.
They' re not very, they don' t communicate very well as to how much dirt we
' can put on there. They' re telling us yes, you can develop parkland over
it. That ' s not a problem but they may have some stipulations as far as you
can't put more than 4 feet of earth on top of the pipeline.
' Hasek: Or remove.
Sietsema : Or remove so much and if that ' s the case , we need to know that
before we can see how that would implicate. From a thumbnail sketch and
everything that Mark' s done so far , it doesn ' t look like it ' s going to be a
problem unless those depth levels are really, really restrictive.
' Hasek : Are they giving you a depth height?
Sietsema: They will , yes. They' ll have to.
Hasek: That' s part of what they' re doing?
Sietsema : Yes .
Hasek: Okay because we ' ve had trouble in the past getting thedi to do that
for us. They told us what it was 4 years ago but you've in a cornfield
there that ' s been cultivated and every time you go across that ground , it
Park and Rec Commission ' II
July 25, 1989 - Page 30
changes the topography. Sometimes it' s not as deep as they think it is .
The other concern that I had I think, and I expressed it to you, is II William' s Pipeline typically has almost all the rights that go with their
easement and if something happens to that pipeline and they go out there
and dig it up, a lot of times they' ll dig it--.up and just leave it in that
condition. They've done it out at the zoo already. That could really
devastate a ballfield for years if they just decided one year that they had
to dig it up or something and then left a mess there.
Sietsema : I ' ll find out about that too .
Hasek: Their easements are usually pretty restrictive. ,
Mady: Any other commission presentations?
Boyt: Yes. I 'd like the chains taken off the gates at the tennis courts II
so a wheelchair can get in.
Sietsema : I have a little note to that effect . '
Boyt : And I was approached by the family the other night that' s. . .
City Hall . Talked to someone about he' s willing to start Little League in "
Chanhassen and was told that there weren ' t any fields so he shouldn' t
bother. Bruce Krenowsky. I told I 'd work with him in getting it started
for next year so if you can reserve space for 6 teams.
Hoffman: Who did he talk to?
Boyt : I don ' t know. Becky was telling me about it . '
Hoffman: I don' t know who would tell him that .
Sietsema : I don ' t either . ,
Boyt : And has the HRA turned over Heritage Square to us as a park?
Sietsema: No. I don' t know if they formally do that either .
Boyt: Okay. There ' s the use of the buildings up there that I don ' t know II
who has control of that church. I 've heard it' s Todd Gerhardt and that
place is a mess and if it' s under our jurisdiction , maybe we could do
something about it.
Sietsema : I don' t know if that one will come under our jurisdiction as it
being part of the downtown but I can check on that. What ' s a mess? The
area around there? ,
Boyt : No , it ' s just the church . The church inside. It ' s a historical
building and it needs some work on it. There' s a question as to who is
responsible for it. The City is and apparently Todd Gerhardt is but some
people think Heritage Square is a park and if it' s a park, is that part of
it and if it' s a park, are we responsible for it? And the old City Hall
too.
I/
II ' Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 31
I
' Hasek: Quick question . The last time we were here and the time before
last, we talked a little bit about. . . informati_on. Were you going to get
something on that?
Sietsema : About what information?
Hasek: Accessibility.
Sietsema: Handicap accessibility?
' Hasek: Related to parklands. I thought we had talked about .
Boyt: We talked about we needed to discuss it.
' Sietsema : That ' s on the list for future discussion.
Robinson: Lori , can something be done at the dock down at South Lotus Lake
access?
Boyt : All it needs is a concrete block. . . It ' s really junky and it' s been
11 like that all summer .
Sietsema : The dock is under water?
Robinson: Yes .
Boyt : Yes .
' Schroers : . . . they could remove those chains from the bike trail gates from
Greenwood Shores and Lake Ann.
Mady: Amen .
' Lash : There needs to be something there to keep cars . . .
Schroers : I want to go to a ballgame in the dark some night. . .
' Lash : Somebody went down and put that yellow reflective tape on there . I
don't know who did that.
Schroers : The other thing is, it' s wearing trails around it.
Mady: Yes . It' s not going to prevent anything because you' re just going to
go around it . If we ' re trying to prevent someone from going through then
we should do it properly. . .
Lash : But I saw a maintenance guy down there on a lawnmower and he went
from there through on the trail over to Lake Ann Park so how would he then
be able to do that because he had the gate open so he could drive through?
Sietsema : I think what they' re planning to do and they just maybe haven' t
gotten to it is if you ' ve noticed , the way they have the barrier that goes
Park and Rec Commission ' II
July 25, 1989 - Page 32
1
to the beach, they have the pole that slips , there ' s a sleeve in the
pavement and then it locks and when they need to get through there, they
unlock it and let the pole out and they can drive through and I think
they' re planning to do that same thing on that trail and they maybe just
haven' t gotten to it. Dale is getting caught up with his projects so I call
give him this list.
Mady: The next time the guy cuts the grass , if he could just knock it off I
the chain.
Sietsema : The problem with that is, is that the way those were designed ,
someone pushed them and they just flop. They don' t do anything and then well
have motorized vehicles .
Schroers : It just takes the top part of the gate to turn off there.
Sietsema: Right but then you have the vehicles that go through there and
that' s the problem.
Hoffman: A vehicle can still go through there . I just think they' re just
going to remove them and put the new one in when they get a chance.
Sietsema : I ' ll put it on the list .
Mady: We' re talking about a couple hours work here for anybody. . .and when
they put in the rest of it it' s fine.
Lash : The other end is blocked off . That ' s basically where a vehicle or a
car would come from is down at Lake Ann from the parking lot there and then
you jump on the trail and come over . It' s not going to come from the other
direction. As long as it' s blocked off at Lake Ann, I don't think it ' s a
problem. ,
Mady: One other commission presentation , I had a discussion with the new
assistant city engineer .
Hoffman: Dave Hemphill?
Mady: Yes. I didn' t catch his name but I talked to him about the sewer
breaks along Laredo. If any of you have ridden your bikes along there, and
you' re not careful , they happen to be going the same direction as traffic
and the opening is just wide enough for your tire, if you have narrow tire
bikes , it will conveniently slip down in there. I. . .ridi.ng my bike and
talking with my neighbor who was walking on the sidewalk and it just so
happened that I was walking it along and it just kind of gently slid in II there. I thought this is real handy so the City is investigating that and
if anybody else notices that you' re supposed to talk to Dave because
they' ll fix them.
Hasek: Are they rectilinear ones? 1
Mady: Yes .
I/
IIPark and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 33
iL Hasek: Yes, that' s old. It' s either old or it was really an oversight .
' That' s something that hasn' t happened since they started making the
Minneapolis park system had a lawsuit I think involving one of those and
that' s when they really started to change them. A guy got killed .
Mady: Anyway, that was brought to their attention. I also talked to Scott
Harr concerning Chan Pond Park. There was a structure down in the woods in
' the Pond Park and from what I had looked at it, there was a sleeping bag in
there and a fire circle and a few other. things. It appeared it might have
a transient. One of the public safety CSO's went down there and took it
apart and he felt it was probably kids because he found some skateboard
magazines when he tore it down and they' re requesting the park maintenance
pull it out of there.
' Boyt: Todd had information about that place too .
Hoffman: Oh, concerning Chan Pond? Yes. I 've been in contact or a Cub
Scout leader has been in contact with me and we've made arrangements to
' plant 1,000 seedling trees in there towards the beginning of September .
They' re a potted tree . They cost 18 cents a piece and they' ll be planted
down in there in September .
Schroers : What kind of trees?
Hoffman: Maple, birch, and blue and white spruce.
Robinson : Where can you buy them? Can a private party buy them for 18
cents a piece?
' Hoffman : You bet. It' s a private nursery and UPS 'ed out here and
delivered direct for $30. 00 and 1, 000 trees, we' ll probably get more than
' 10% survival rate down the line for 2 years and should have some fairly
nice trees sometime.
Mady: As long as they' re not planted in the conservation easement . Do we
have a problem with that?
Boyt : Where else would they put it?
Sietsema: That' s where they' re going .
Mady: Doesn ' t that conservation easement prevent any plantings?
Sietsema: Not from the City.
Mady: I just want to make sure.
Hoffman : Lori questioned me on that and I said it' s fairly ludicrous to
say you can ' t plant a tree in a conservation easement in my opinion.
Mady: No but we were real specific when we talked about it. '
I
1
Park and Rec Commission 1
July 25, 1989 - Page 34
1
Sietsema : But we also talked about the City doing a planting plan in
there.
Mady: That ' s right .
Boyt: . . .trees and bushes that would attract wildlife . 1
Sietsema: What we didn't want was hedges and fences .
Boyt: And someone has a big wall . . .
Mady: Those should be provided, information to our Public Safety
Department so they can check on that .
Boyt: And nothing will be done. The reality of it is, they've spent lots
of money to put a wall in there. . .
Mady: If they' re in violation of the City Ordinance, can the Council not
be sued then for not following our ordinance? Any other Commission 1
presentations?
Boyt: So moved . 1
Lash : I have one . About a month ago at one of our meetings I mentioned
this to Lori after our last meeting and I 've done a little checking on
this . I sort of got the feeling from John Speiss from Curry Farms that
there's soon to be some uneasy feelings out in Curry Farms regarding the
sidewalk that ' s supposed to be going in there . I did a little checking
just to see when he mentioned that if it was just one person that was
having a problem or what was the general feeling and what was going on.
I went up there and talked with all the people on the street that this
involves and I found out this is not just one person. It was everyone
except one home and they did not wish to be identified. They said it' s not "
going in my yard so I don ' t have a problem with it. If it was in my
yard, I wouldn't want it but as long as it's across the street, I don' t
care. Otherwise everyone else , half of them were vehemently opposed . Two
of them have already contacted lawyers and they' re ready to start suits
against Centex . I think they are just really upset about it. Really
upset. So I said okay, do you have little kids? Yes. A lot of little II kids and you don' t feel like you have the need or the desire for this for
your children? No and I said what would make you happy and they said , we'd
like, we just don' t want them. We just don' t want them. They said that
they had called and talked with you Lori several times and were told it was "
basically, there was just nothing that could be done about it. They had
talked to the developer and he had said basically the same. It' s tying his
hands . He couldn' t get out of it. He had made the commitment with the '
City so. They suggested I talk with him which I did and I said there' s a
lot of unhappy people here, what do you think are our options in trying to
make some people happy? He said I 'm willing to do anything within reason 1
to get everybody happy. He said I don ' t care what goes in . I made the
agreement with the City. If the City wants to change their mirid or
whatever they want , he said within reason I 'm willing to work with II everyone. Do whatever is possible. I said would this be a major hassle
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 35
I
if we changed this? I mean would it scrub all of your documents and deeds
I and all of this and he said no. I 'd be more than happy to just give you
the money if that' s what you want or if you want me to do something else,
I 'd do that. If it' s a comparable thing. So when I talked, a lot of the
' people I said what would you rather see happen with the money? Of course
the majority of them said they would rather see the money go into their
park. I said I could check on that but I really doubted that that could
happen. It would be a separate fund seeing it was park and trail money and
they seemed to understand that . I said what would you like to see done
with it and they said, if you've got trail money, I 'd rather see the trail
money go someplace where people are going to use it . They seemed to feel
' that people were just not going to use that in that area . It' s a quiet
street. That basically just serves the people who live on that street so I
told them I would bring it up tonight. They offered to come here and voice
their sentiments and I told them I would just try and relay them myself and
be. . .and that I would bring it back to them or someone to contact about it .
I guess I 'd like to open it to discussion to see how you people feel .
' Schroers : I have a point of interest or a comment in response. It' s a
little bit different situation when we have a brand new trail , sidewalk on
Carver Beach Road and I took the opportunity to ride up and down it on my
' bicycle and ask the neighbors along it how they felt about the trail .
There was one that wasn' t happy about it because the construction people
did not replace his plants and flowers exactly the way he had them. He ' s a
gardener and he is fussy. Everyone else that had kids , loves it. It looks
nice. They did a good job. They' re using it like crazy and the most
important thing is, the kids like it. When I 'm just out working in my yard
I 'm heating from across the street and from next door , mommy can we go on
the sidewalk with our bike? Yes, it' s just fine. Stay on the sidewalk .
They think it' s a real good thing . On the other hand , if you have all
these neighbors over here and they' re all unanimous in the fact that they
' don ' t want that trail there , I say fine . Let ' s take the money and put a
new trail someplace else where someone does want it. If they want their
kids to play in the street , I guess that ' s their business .
' Boyt: But that affects other people besides those people and their
children . I live next to a development that does not have trails and the
roads are not major roads but I have to drive on it once in a while.
' They' re loaded ith kids . Apparently the parents don ' t care if the kids are
playing in the road. 4 year olds. 3 year olds . 2 year olds. They' re all
over the place . I have to sit and honk my horn to get them to move. They
' look at me like, what' s the problem. They don' t care if their kids are
playing in the road . I care if kids are playing in the road in different
parts of Chanhassen. It ' s not safe.
' Schroers : Well I do too . I agree with you on that . I just cannot imagine
any parent wanting their kids to play in the street rather than on a
sidewalk . I mean that isn' t even logical as far as I 'm concerned but you
know, I think if that particular neighborhood wants to be so adamant about
it that they' re going to go and get attorneys and just turn it into a big
1- deal , I think we should take the money for that sidewalk and spend it
somewhere else .
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 36
1
Hasek : There' s a couple of options . One, we would keep the trail easement
in place for the next group of people who want it because they realize how II
bad and desparately it' s needed . The other thing is that it' s our job,
it' s our responsibility, it' s part of the reason why we' re on this
commission, why the Planning Commission is there, why the City Council is
there is to be watchdogs for the public health, safety and welfare. A lot ,
of times the public does not understand that particular issue until
something drastic happens. I think we'd really be remiss in not doing ,
we' ve got a trail plan in place and Jan, I tend to disagree with you. It
wasn' t the trail plan that failed at all . It was funding for the trail
plan . We' ve always had a trail plan . _ It continues to be there and we' re
going to continue to put trails in. It was the funding that failed in the II
referendum. The trail plan is there and I think that it' s our job to
continue to do that. I think if we do have a neighborhood like you say
Larry that absolutely, positively does not want a trail , that' s fine but I I
will not give up that easement.
Lash: I 'm not saying that either and I don' t think that that' s what they
want. Because they said, well the City owns that property. I said a City II
owns an easement on everybody' s property. That' s just a given so that' s
not a big deal and several of them said, well I have a problem maintaining
it. We just sodded it . We ' ve got flowers . We' ve got all this stuff out II
there. I don ' t have a problem maintaining it but they said if they put a
sidewalk in that I don' t want , I 'm not going to maintain it . One said that
she had called and talked to Lori and had been told that the City would
maintain it and she' s talking about shoveling . She ' s talking about
shoveling . I said, I can' t imagine that the City' s going to be going
around shoveling everybody' s sidewalk.
Sietsema : I didn' t say that we would maintain it as far as snow removal .
Lash : Well that' s what she was talking about for maintenance. She was
talking about maintenance. She was talking about shoveling .
Sietsema : She did talk about shoveling . I said at this point in time
there' s no ordinance on the books that requires you to remove the snow on a
sidewalk that goes in front of your house . That ' s not saying that that
will never happen but I did not tell her that we would remove the snow on
her sidewalk. I
Schroets : The other thing . If it was a major connection in our trail
plan, then I would say no way, we want it but I don' t see that as being the '
case here either .
Lash : I think most people were in favor of the extension that goes from
the back of the park up to Teton. They thought that made sense because
there' s nothing there for people to walk on but they just don' t feel
there' s a need and they would rather see the money spent on a road that has
more traffic . '
Hasek : If that ' s the case , we can take a second look at it but I think
there' s more to it than just connecting it to Teton. I think it has to be
connected all the way out to, well CR 17. That will happen through one way
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 37
or another . If we got out to Lake Lucy Road , then it will connect to CR
' 17. I think the connection has to be made to CR 17. That isn' t that
particular neighborhood ' s park and their park alone . It belongs to an area
and we have to provide for everybody to get to that park so maybe there' s a
compromise in here someplace and I 'd certainly be willing to look at it but
I 'd like to see it specifically from the neighborhood somehow. You said
you talke to everyone so we ought to be able to almost fill this place with
people who don't want a trail .
Lash : I have all their signatures of the people I talked to . I talked to
all of the people on the street that that affected. I didn' t go, initially
' I was going to go and talk to the people on the one side that it was going
to be on and I thought to be fair I should really talk to the people on the
other side because it' s not in their yard and maybe not being in their yard
' they would like to have it across the street. Those people too thought it
was. . .said I 'm jus so glad it' s not going in my yard but I think it is
stupid to have it across the street too.
Hasek: But there ' s lots of other people in that neighborhood that have to
be contacted too. I mean yes it directly affects a certain number of them
directly but indirectly it affects everyone.
Lash: Right. The developer did say that. He said he thought what he
would have to do would be to just double check but the consensus with most
the people is that no one knew it was there to start with.
Sietsema : And that ' s not our fault.
' Hasek: That ' s where the lawsuit comes in is with lack of information and
they' re not suing us because. . .
Lash : No . They' re not talking about suing us although they did say that
they think the developers , they don' t know if they just forgot about it or
what but I noticed that all the fire hydrants and the street lights and the
utility posts and everything are right where the sidewalk is suppose to
go. . .
Sietsema : That ' s his problem. The bottom line is though what can we do
about it. Even if this whole commission agreed that that sidewalk should
be removed , it' s in the development contract . It was a condition of
approval for that development. It's in the development contract. A
' requirement of their development . The only way, and I 'm not even sure that
legally that that all can be changed but this commission couldn' t say no,
you don ' t need to do it. I would have to check with the Attorney.
' Hasek: My guess is that I could but see the developer ' s agreement becomes ,
is that a PUD?
' Sietsema : No .
Hasek: In some cases , instead of a simple majority that takes 'a two-thirds
or a three-fourths or whatever the heck it is. It' s not a simple majority
that can reverse a decision like that because it is . . .but I don ' t know.
Park and Rec Commission ' II
July 25, 1989 - Page 38
I
C
Sietsema : I 'd have to check with the Attorney to see if the Council can
overturn something, change something that was done, that' s a legal contractll
now. I 'm not sure what the implications of that are. I don' t think that
we can. We can' t make that decision but I could check with the City
Attorney and then it would take the residents there to petition the City
Council to have that part of the contract amended or something. I can
check with that.
Mady: They have to go before the Council and a visitor presentation they
can request it.
Sietsema : If they make that request, it will come back to us and we' ll '
make a recommendation as to whether you think, if this group thinks that it
should be approved or not . The amendment should be approved but I wouldn' t"
even suggest them getting together unless it's something that legally can
be changed and again, I ' ll have to check with the Attorney.
Hasek: Lori , I don' t think it' s this body' s direction to have you do that"'
I think it has to go through Council . I think they have to make their plea
to Council and then Council will direct the Attorney to take a look at it
and so forth and so on. We have nothing to say about it right now and the
direction that they have to go is through Council ' s chambers . That' s where '
it has to go.
Schroers : To appease the . . .Jan just contacted some of the people that she II
talked to and said that after we discussed it we decided that. . .
Boyt : No , that it needs to go to Council . '
Mady: We can ' t do anything about it.
Boyt : I 'm concerned that maybe we' re not, I don' t think there' s a '
consensus within this group as to what should happen. If those people feel
strongly, they' re already starting to do things. Just let the process
continue. If they' re contacting attorneys, the process has started .
Robinson : I don' t think that ' s right Sue . I mean Jan' s spent a lot of
time out there. They' re saying hey we don' t want it. It' s been brought II before us now. I think the majority would agree that we should , I 'd just
hate to roll over and say there' s nothing we can do about it yet I don' t
know what steps have to be taken but I don ' t think we can just ignore it . I
I don' t think we can just do it.
Hasek: I don ' t think that we are ignoring it . I think what we' ve done , I
think Lori was right. I think the action has to come through Council .
We' ve had some discussion . Our discussion will be in the Minutes there for
Council to read and to review if - they want to. They can do with the
situation what they feel they morally and legally want to do. What would II
you like this recommendation body to tell the Council?
Robinson : To pursue this with somebody. Lori or the legal beagles or
something .
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 39
i7
Boyt : No . I don ' t think we need to . . .
Mady: We don' t need to spend any money on this .
Boyt : We already contracted with that developer to do A, B and C and he' s
doing it. The people who don ' t like it are the homeowners and they need to
approach their developer and then the Council . We don' t need to initiate
changing the contract, they do.
Mady: We can ' t change the contract . If the homeowners have a problem with
the contract, they need to change it. Not us .
Robinson : But we can save ourselves some money by not putting that trail
' in but nobody wants it.
Mady: We' re going to spend a lot of money because we ' ve got to get the
contract changed. I don' t see it as a problem for us right now. If
' somebody wants to do something , they have to do it but we don' t need to do
something right here.
' Hasek: I think if any one of you wants to do it on your own , that' s your
own perogative .
Boyt : But not as direction from the Park and Rec Commission. Not saying
this is what the Commission said.
Hasek: Because what that generally is doing is changing the policy
statement and I certainly am not willing to begin to even consider doing
that .
' Boyt : We' ve had , there are problems with, we have to make sure we ' re
representing the Commission because if we say we' re representing the
Commission . It ' s fine to go out and say, how do you feel about this and
this and Jan you probably want to call some of the people back and say
these are the steps you need to take.
Lash: They did ask me to do that. Although I do feel that it is this
commission ' s responsibility to listen to people who have concerns and if
it' s something that was originated with the Park and Rec, which this was,
then I would certainly think their first step would be to come where it was
' initiated to start with.
Sietsma : Then I would just say then Jan is when you get back to them, tell
them to formalize what they want. What they' re talking about in a letter
' and send it to the City and then it enters into the process of the City. It
will be channeled through. If it' s a park and rec issue, it will come
here. We' ll review it and send it onto City Council or if it' s not, it
' will go straight to the City Council or it will go to Planning or whatever
but the initiation , before we can take it on this board and really make a
recommendation on it anyway, we need something from them in writing . I
rarely, I can ' t think of anything I ' ve brought to you that' s a request from
a neighborhood that I don' t have something from them in writing and that' s
Park and Rec Commission • II
July 25, 1989 - Page 40
f
a the appropriate steps but as far as when you ask me what my opinion was as
far as what could be done, it' s a legal binding contract and I don' t know II
that there ' s anything that can be done . If they write us a letter , I can
contact the Attorney then and take it through the appropriate steps but I
can ' t without something from them in writing-. '
Erhart: The petition doesn' t, you need something other than the petition
then? You need a written letter from them. You don' t need something
signed.
Lash : I don' t really have a petition.
Erhart: I thought you said. . .
Lash : No . I took a notepad and it' s just a thing I put support or oppose II
and I just said I would like your opinion on it .
Sietsema : It doesn ' t need to be a petition. They can do a petition or
they can just have a representative from them with that request. '
Hasek: Do they have a neighborhood association up there?
Lash: They said they've had a lot of neighborhood meetings. Now whether II
they actually have an association, I can ' t say.
Hasek: Then at least there would be some sort of a general consensus, if
they have one .
Mady: They should also understand if they get rid of it, they. . . Let' s
move on to the Administrative unless there' s more commission presentations.
Any questions on that? I ' ve got a couple.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Mady: Lori , what happened last night at the Council concerning the '
Lake Lucy access?
Sietsema: It wasn ' t on the agenda . '
Mady: I thought they were supposed to make a decision by then . Wasn' t
that in their letter? I
Sietsema : Yes , it was in their letter but there' s some, we need more
information. There' s been another proposal that' s come through. Someone
on the north side of Lake Lucy has come to me and offered his property for II
sale. His name is Christenson so we have to look into that and walk that
site. Also we needed to get more information . Don Chmiel is going to be
meeting with Joe Alexander who is, I don' t know, I think he' s the Grand
Poupah of the DNR or something so we needed to get some information to
pursue the liftover option further. Just make sure that it's a dead issue
before we totally write it off . There was some more information regarding
Greenwood Shores Park that we needed to get together to see what the impact
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 41
was because DNR wanted us to pursue that further .
Mady: So we got an extension from the Watershed?
' Sietsema : I 've written them a letter since that time and indicated that we
are planning to put it on the next City Council agenda and would be able to
respond to them by the 15th of August .
Erhart: So they haven't pulled out on us?
Sietsema : No , and there was a letter , I don ' t know if the letter ' s in
' here, from the Watershed to the EPA indicating that they were still in
support of the project and they knew that we were working on it so Conrad
didn' t think that it was going to be a problem.
Schroers : Lori , are you going to be personally involved with the DNR and
checking out to make sure that it is reasonably a dead issue with the lift
' across?
Sietsema : No . No . That ' s a meeting between the Mayor and Mr . Alexander
and I 'm not invited. I mean I 'm not involved in that meeting. I 'm giving
' the Mayor all the background information that he needs but I will not be
attending the meeting .
Schroers : Could you ask him maybe if he would care to ask Mr . Alexander
why a portage would be an acceptable access up in the Boundary Waters area
and why they can do things like put in campsites and whatever lake
management they do up there and in that area that would be acceptable and
here it wouldn ' t.
Mady: I think it' s real easy Larry. I don' t know of anybody that ' s got a
' dock and a powerboat in the Boundary Water ' s canoe 40 or 50 feet from their
house . That ' s the big difference is there . . . Another question I had was
on the Lake Ann Park expansion. I 'm glad to see that the developer ' s is
' also doing Audubon Road . The simple fact of the matter is, I think they' re
under contract to get our park done by early July and the last time I
looked out there , they' re not going to be seeding that thing until maybe
September so we may be losing another year out there.
' Sietsema : We won' t be losing a year . They' re doing the infield work right
now and they plan to have all the seed down and everything and be out of
there at the latest August 15th.
Mady: The roads will be blacktopped? Everything ' s going to be done?
' Sietsema : That's what Laurie told me. That they felt that they could have
the entire project at the latest August 15th. If we don ' t get rain , if we
put seed down now, it' s dead seed and they' re going to have to reseed it in
' the fall anyway. As long as it gets in and starts growing before the snow
flies , we don' t lose a year so I 'm not concerned that the seed isn' t down
yet because we ' ve just planted seed at South Lotus and if we d6n' t get rain
1rwithin the next week, it' s dead seed.
Park and Rec Commission " II
July 25, 1989 - Page 42
1
Mady: I guess my whole concern is, the initial time table this was all
going to be done by July 1st and we've had some rain earlier in the year . I
Sietsema: There ' s some major soil problems with Lake Ann in that when it
does rain it takes a long time for it to dry out for them to get in there
and to work so they take the machinery across the road and do the work over/
on Audubon Road. That way we' re saving money on both of the projects
because they have two projects within close proximity to each other . I 'm
not a construction person. I can' t tell you more details than that. All I'
know is that they indicated that they should have it done by the 15th of
August.
Lash: Is there a late penalty?
Sietsema : No . I don' t think so unless it gets really late but they' ve had'
some extensions due to, they had so much rain at the beginning of their
project it almost put them back a month before they could even start.
Hasek: Is that what I saw on the TV the other night, they got the 10
working day extension or was that a different one?
Sietsema: No. That wasn' t Lake Ann but I don' t think there' s been any II penalities for the lateness of the project and I honestly don' t think that
anything is going to alter whether the fields are ready any sooner .
Robinson : So August 15th is now the magic number?
Sietsema: Yes .
Mady: It just seems like every time we do a project, it ends up a month
and a half to 3 years later that what was initially told the people of the
community and once again the City doesn ' t look like they know what they' re '
doing again. It seems like everytime we do a major project, it doesn' t get
done right. It doesn ' t get done on time and we just don' t have a concept
to follow. We have to start beating on these people saying, what they told '
us they were going to do, they' ve got to do it.
Sietsema: They can't work in mud. They can' t get those big machines and
work in mud . There ' s just no way they can do it Jim. There ' s no way they'
could work in mud.
Mady: But keep a time table . They know it rains in this state . They' ve II
got to start logging themselves. I think we've got to start holding
developers to what they' re going to do . If this City continually does, oh
gee, well that' s the poor developer . He' s got to make a couple of bucks .
Well hey, if he can ' t do we' ll wait for the next guy to come down and do it
right. That' s just a general comment.
Schroers : I deal with that on a first hand basis almost every day and the I
thing that you can do about that is put that late clause on the end of it .
What happens when you do that is that then they go out and work in the mud
\- and you end up with a substandard product.
Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 43
Hasek : Or you write it into the contract and the. . . Right now you pay
' now or you pay later for something like that. It seems to me like they' re
moving along out there. I 'm a little disappointed myself about how slow
it's been going but I realized early this spring that if they didn' t have
' the grading and stuff done immediately, that--they weren ' t going to get it
seeded. I 'd rather they didn' t seed it until the end of September right
now because we' ve got no water on there. No way of retaining it and the
normal seeding season ends the end of May, early June and it doesn' t pick
up again until the end of September . They do not recommend seeding in the
summertime.
' Sietsema : They may not seed it until November .
Hasek: Jim, as far as I 'm concerned, if they can bring in a good reason
' why and give us some better recommendations , I 'd just as soon that it
didn' t get seeded until later .
Schroers : There are also exceptions to that depending on what the
contractor wants to do. If he wants to seed and irrigate and mulch and all
of that to get it going , then that' s a possibility but I doubt that they
would want to do that.
Mady: Item number H. Park and Recreation Commission future agenda items.
I think something we need to discuss is trail , getting some major trails
I constructed along TH 101, Pioneer Trail , Minnewashta Parkway. I don' t see
us needing to drop the ball on that. We may have lost the funding with the
one referendum. Maybe we need to look through to another referendum
process for those major trails. There seems to be the sentiment out there
' that TH 101 is needed . I believe everyone of the Council members has
indicated that TH 101 is drastically needed. Maybe we need to go through
and start doing this instead of trying to let every person out there play
' dodge em car every time they go walk, or run or drive their bike along that
road . . .kill somebody to bring through a petition.
Boyt: We can also put on that list, some night we can sit down and
prioritize park development . That ' s something we talked about.
Schroers: I think unless my memory is failing me, we already have
' something on the books in regards to Minnewashta Parkway for 1990 when
State funding or State realignment or something like that becomes
available.
Boyt : Yes . Isn ' t there going to be some work done on TH 101 also?
Sietsema: I don' t know what the dates are. I don' t know if they have
dates yet but I don ' t know if they've got all the alignments together yet.
Mady: That' s the southern part of TH 101.
' Boyt : I thought there was going to be a hill taken out of the middle. . .
Sietsema : They' re going to realign as it comes through by the Meadows and
rcomes through the City and then goes down south of TH 5.
Park and Rec Commission • I
July 25, 1989 - Page 44
Mady: We should still have something in place for when it happens . We
don' t have to wait for it to happen and then say oh gee, maybe it' s good
planning . Anything else?
Hasek: Just a quick question. There was a comment last time made about 1
ommissions , errors and ommissions in the Minutes. Did you talk to the
secretary at all about that or did she try next time to get everything in
there?
Sietsema : If you don' t come in on time Ed then I 'm not repeating myself.
Hasek: What was the comment?
Sietsema : Basically when there' s breaks in the tape, I 'm going to get a
timer . I have one. I didn' t bring it down this time so there aren' t as
many breaks in the tape . The other thing is that if there' s more than one
person talking, it' s impossible for her to understand what both of them are
saying and often , very often I noticed tonight, you guys sit back and . . .and,
you don' t enunciate and you don' t articulate and she can' t that either. If
she can ' t hear it, she can ' t type it. She does not edit as she hears it
with the exception, she may have taken out some things that were not I
pertinent to anything . That were just inbetween items that had to do with
how your kids got through Cub Scouts or something. She might take that
kind of stuff out.
A. Hasek: First I 'd like to commend her on the job that she does . I know how
hard that is to do.
Sietsema : Considering she ' s never met you people, I think she does a good II
job.
Hasek: Exactly. I call on the telephone and she knows who I am just by '
voice.
Erhart: Does she work here? '
Sietsema: No .
Hasek: Anyway. I don' t know where the need for verbatim Minutes came
from. That was started I think after I started on this Commission within
the last 2 to 3 years . '
Schroers : There must have been an event .
Hasek: I know it came from Council but there must have been an event or
something that happened that they needed the documentation.
Sietsema : I can ' t put my finger on any one event . I know that Bill ' s the I
one that instigated it. He wanted to get all of your discussion because
I just summarized it.
' Park and Rec Commission
July 25, 1989 - Page 45
i
Hasek: I wonder if the intent was to have every last piece of discussion.
' I wonder if they just needed a lot more than they were getting because the
old system must have been similar to what a lot of cities do and it' s
simply a synopsis. A very quick synopsis . We just went through a project
' at work where we were trying to find information on the whole project and
the entire file for 3 months of work and council meetings was 2 pages .
Just 2 pages and it was basically. . .
Sietsema: They discussed this .
Hasek : They discussed this , this , this and this and that was all so what
we' ve got is certainly a lot more than what a lot of cities get.
Sietsema : And what it was before that was more than that. I would still
' tape the meetings and then I would dictate, Hasek had some concerns about
this . Staff ' s response was such and such. The general consensus was this.
The motion was made and I 'd bring up individual concerns but not verbatim
by any means .
Robinson : What' s your point?
' Hasek: I guess the point that I 'm trying to make is that I think the woman
who' s doing this job is doing a very excellent job and I don' t see the
point in recommending being concerned about every. . .
(The tape ran out at this point in the meeting . )
Mady moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
' Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
IF
I
II
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION UN ED i TED
I REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1989
IChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
I
Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner and Dave Hempel, Senior
IEngineering Tech
I PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION OF 22. 8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 2. 5 AND 20. 33
ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE
APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, CHES MAR REALTY.
IPublic Present:
IName Address
Chuck and Ginger Gross 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road
I Geri Eikaas 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road
Tim Keane Larkin-Hoffman, 7900 Xerxes, Bloomington
Representative for the Applicant
IJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order .
ITim Keane : Good evening . Members of the Planning Commission . My name is
Tim Keane with Larkin Hoffman, 7900 Xerxes, Bloomington. Jo Ann gave a
good recitation of the history of his matter . We promised we 'd be back
I when we resolved the issues last January and here we are. We essentially
have modified the plat to increase the size of Lot 1 to 2 1/2 acres to meet
the City' s minimum lot requirements for that parcel . We understand the
I conditions . We ' ve discussed them with staff . The one that , well actually
there' s one that we' re not in agreement with and that is the need for the
35 foot roadway easement . I 'm not sure with the conditions as imposed ,
I precisely what the need is for that. We do not see the need for that at
this time. Jo Ann, just a point of clarification . The 15 foot driveway
easement to be provided along the western boundary of Parcel A. Could you
identify that?
IOlsen : That was an old condition . It goes along here to provide some form
of access to it. The slope is actually pretty extreme in there.
ITim Keane : Yes . I 'm not sure if that is even feasible in the field .
We' re certainly willing to work with the City to identify an access
location that does work.
IEmmings : That ' s been removed as a condition you know? ,
I Tim Keane: Yes. With that, we 'd respectfully request your approval .
Thank you . Any questions?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 2
Emmings : Yes , I ' ve got a question on the plat. It seems to read to me
that all of this is called Block 1 and that there' s a Lot 1 and a Lot 2 .
Can you clarify that?
Tim Keane : The actual plat document itself will read Lot 1 and Lot 2,
Block 1, Ches Mar Farms.
Emmings : Isn' t that what it says now? 11
Tim Keane: I think we have Parcel A and B.
Batzli : Parcel A and B were on the previous plans .
Tim Keane: Okay. Then it will read Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 1,
Ches Mar Farms 2nd Addition .
Conrad: Other comments? ,
Chuck Gross : I 'm Chuck Gross . I live on this property. 2703 Ches Mar
Farm Road. We' re very happy to be here tonight and we' re hoping that we
can get the approval . I 'm, I should say we, Ginger and I , we ' re in
agreement with everything with the exception of this 35 foot roadway
easement . The number 6, the 15 foot driveway, it has been evidentally no
longer necessary. We' re a private road now and there is , as far as I know,
no plans at this time to change the density on this farm and from the
division that ' s going to take place hopefully, whereby we' ll end up with
our home, this would not change anything in the way of density or traffic II
or that sort of thing. I 've got, I don' t know whether anyone has seen, may
I present some shots of the driveway that we' re talking about here? Pass
those around?
Conrad : Sure .
Chuck Gross : If you' ll look, most of that , the left as you ' re coming in,
that' s our property which would be to the south. I wanted to refer to the
fact that if there was going to be an easement, the 35 feet would be
totally unreasonable in relation to the amount of property that it would
take and the trees , the mature trees that it would take out . There is an
existing 25 foot easement on the north side on the other property as such
at this time. I don' t believe that any of the people that live on the farm
at this time are in favor of any kind of or any type of a road change. I ,
don ' t believe that any of them are in favor of any type of a development .
I believe that they' re all interested in saving as much green space as they
possibly can and we certainly feel this way also . If in the future there
was going to be a change or there would be a development, then I think that
would be a time to approach the road situation in terms of having it become
a public road as such and that would have to be addressed at that time
but I think in all fairness , that it should be property owners that are
addressed so they would have the opportunity perhaps to have placed in
covenants in terms of any easement that ' s given . The photos that I 'm
passing around show that the drive. We have, Ginger and I have lived in
our home for I guess probably the past 18 years . We were able to buy the
I
• Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 3
' option on it approximately 8 years ago and we exercised that option about a
year and a half ago and we 've been waiting ever since to close on it .
During the time that we ' ve lived there , we ' ve probably planted over 200
trees over the 2 1/2 acres and such and we would certainly not want to see
a road come in and take 35 feet of mature trees out and that would also be
much too close to our home. So I would hope that the plat that is
presented here would be accepted . That plat does not have the easement in
there. It does have some drainage and utility easement. I think there's 6
foot or whatever it is there, 10 foot out in front and that ' s just fine. I
believe that we have another neighbor on the farm that perhaps wants to say
' something as well . Anyway, I thank you all very much.
Geri Eikaas: I 'm Geri Eikaas. I live at 2763 Ches Mar Farm Road. Even
' though I own property on the farm I was not notified at all of the road
easement until I got here and heard you talk about it. But I certainly
concur with Mr . Gross that at this point I see absolutely no reason why the
City would want a road easement there. It ' s a private road. It' s a PUD.
' It ' s zoned , it ' s sellable property. I see no reason for it to be changed
and if someone would like to explain to me the rationale in it, I 'd be
interested in hearing it.
' Conrad : Jo Ann , why don' t you do that Tight now?
Olsen: When we asked for that roadway easement, that doesn' t mean we ' re
' going to go in and improve and put in a public street right now. When
property comes in for subdivision, that allows the City to obtain roadway
easements that would be required when roads would be improved in the
' future. We have had several applications for improving the Ches Mar
property and at that time it would have to become a public road and be
improved . So whenever a property does come in for a subdivision , and if
they do not have the road right-of-way there, that' s the time when we would
' request it . So it doesn' t mean that the City would be coming in and
approving this and it wouldn' t be taking away the trees . What it would be
doing is giving us a 60 foot right-of-way that you need for the rural areas
' and whenever they do determine to improve the street, that' s where they can
locate it within that 60 foot easement .
' Geri Eikaas : By what you said to me it sounds like you' re concerned about
having an easement is because someone has come in and asked for a
development there.
Olsen : Well in the past and it' s whenever property is subdivided we
always . . .
Geri Eikaas : But the property is not being subdivided .
Olsen: The property, we' re asking for the easement adjacent to the
property that is being subdivided right now.
Geri Eikaas: But you were also talking about that other proposals have
been brought in .
r
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 4
Olsen : We always obtain roadway easements for future possible development .,
It may never happen. That easement may just sit there and never be used
but that' s all it is . It ' s there and it ' s not going to be improved right
away.
Geri Eikaas : And that' s not anything that other property owners need to be
notified about?
Olsen : As far as them. . .
Geri Eikaas : As far as them giving an easement or something like that.
Olsen: No. Whenever that roadway is going to be improved, that' s when
they' ll be brought in. As far as where it will be located . Assessments .
All that good stuff.
Geri Eikaas : I guess I ' ll just again concur with the Gross ' that if it was
my property, I would certainly not feel very secure or still even though
listening to your reasons , be convinced that at this point it was anything
necessary at all . Thanks .
Ginger Gross : I 'm Ginger Gross and I apologize that our attorney is not
here tonight. Our attorney received no notification of either the meeting
or of any of the requirements of the Council and we' ve had no time to brief
him on what was presented. I 'd like you to know that the attorney for Ches
Mar does not have the right to give you on the roadway. We have an option
that we did not buy from him. We bought from another party and they have
to give to us the property that our option requires . There is on that I
option nothing that states that there is an easement on our property. In
fact our property covers one-half of the roadway. That was done by a Mrs .
Johnson in previous years the owner of the farm because she wanted to
discourage any development through the main road . The access for
development on the farm according to her plan was to be an additional
entrance onto the farm which now goes in through the Carver Park. I don' t
think that' s the appropriate name but it' s the park down the road. They
have the additional entrance on that property. Development was not to come
off of the road that comes in through Ches Mar . That was the original plan
of Mrs . Johnson who sold the property. That' s why she had the property
line going through the middle of the roadway. I do see that down in the
park one of the stipulations that she had in her original contract which
was to name a portion of the property Margeritte Hill , that has been
followed . I don ' t see that anyone is trying to honor her original
intention here. I don' t know how you would have the availability of
jurisdiction to do what you would like to do . We would like to cooperate
with you in any way that we could but inasmuch as we have lived on that
property for the length of time we have and had the option for the length
of time we have, we have planted trees on that property, as my husband
mentioned . We are the only ones on Ches Mar Farm, in all of it ' s years of
going downhill , who have taken an interest and who have improved the
property. Other people who have been absentee owners have dist•egarded the
property and that includes Mr . Kitt, the current owner on the property. We
do request that you take into consideration that we have preserved the '
green space. We have during the years, when the property has become run
11
Planning Commission Meeting
' August 16, 1989 - Page 5
down, done what Chanhassen is trying to do and that is , to become a better
community. We do not feel that it is time for you to impose upon us a
restriction or try to impose upon us a restriction that I don ' t believe can
' be imposed upon us on this side of the closing . I think after the closing ,
after we close on the property, that might be another thing but I don ' t
think you can impose that restriction of the 35 foot easement. Ches Mar
Realty cannot deliver that to you now. That belongs to us . We 've had an
' option on that. Also, there is a 10 acre minimum out in our area and with
that thought in mind , we know that there are developers that are interested
in the property. We know that if they meet your conditions , they can
' develop the property. We don ' t feel that that ' s a good reason for us to
give away our road rights and we know that that is the intention of a
current developer and we don' t feel that we should aid and abet a developer
in developing that property at this point. Geri Eikaas bought on the
property under a PUD that Mr . Kirt came to you for and then David Geisler
bought the following year . The rest of the properties on the farm, when
people came and wanted to buy those properties , people were told that they
' could not buy the properties unless they bought the entirity of the farm.
There have been a lot of offers on the property and the farm. We feel that
the rest of the farm shouldn' t revert to the original PUD and that it
should be sold into private individual ownership, each and every residence
that is there according to your original PUD allocation to Mr . Kirt.
That' s how Mrs . Eikaas did buy and that' s why Mr . Geisler did buy. They
also have a road agreement with Mr. Kirt. That road agreement is
'
representated to them as though they are 2 of I think 10 parties who own
the road coming in. It was in error. It was delivered to them in error .
But they have a lot at stake here. They bought on the farm believing that-
' there would be individual ownership in all of the existing properties. So
did we . That ' s what we all based our ownership on. Mr . Kirt at that time
was going to move onto the property himself. That would have been
agreeable to all of us . Inasmuch as Mr . Kirt did not move onto the
' property, he did disregard the property. He lived at a distance. He would
have been one of the owners originally but he ' s not there and the property
has continued to run down and they have not promoted the property selling
original residences as we believed the original that the original
residences can be sold and we believe that if the 20 acres then are
attached to the farm, that also could be incorporated . We don ' t believe
' that should come in as a development or that it should be in the hands of a
contractor because we feel that the parties who are there bought because
you approved a PUD for individual ownership. The individual owners who are
there now are improving their property and they' re maintaining it and we' re
a good group. We' re a good asset to the community. The people who are
either renting or leasing or owning and not on the property are not an
asset to the property. The property continues to run down because they' re
' waiting to develop the property. That ' s the bottom line . They want the
developer to come in who has projected that he' s going to develop the 20
acres . That particular developer , and we' ve brought this before your
people before, has harrassed our people. Has caused Mr . Geisler at the
gate to put his house on the market . He' s been very intimidating . He has
written Mr. Geisler a letter. He wrote, I should say, to the Park
Commission suggesting that he as a realtor had the right to purchase the
' land behind Mr . Geisler because Mr . Geisler wanted to move his house back
there . Mr . Geisler did not want to do that . The move of intimidation so
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 6
that Mr . Geisler would think that the road was coming through his yard .
The same contractor told us that he would see to it that we never were able
to buy our house . Now with that understanding that the current contractor
who is there and trying to come in and develop the property and
intimidating us , with that understanding , you choose to look into
continuing the 35 foot easement and pressing that, I suggest that you take
into consideration what I ' ve just told you. Now is there anything you'd
like to ask any of us about things that we have stated? '
Conrad : Maybe later on.
Wildermuth : Are there any deed restrictions on file by the Johnsons? By I
Margaret Johnson? In view of her original intents for the property.
Tim Keane : Not to the best of our knowledge, I 'm not aware of any. '
Conrad : Jo Ann, what ' s the status? We' re talking about PUD. Is that
still considered a PUD? i
Olsen: This property is not part of the PUD.
Conrad: Is not. Is the other behind it? '
Olsen : To the west?
Conrad: Yes .
Olsen : Yes .
Wildermuth : Is the land to the north parkland?
Olsen: Regional Park? Yes .
Wildermuth : So that probably will never be developed right?
Olsen: No .
Ginger Gross : The contractor who wishes to develop the 20 acres came
before you last year and suggested the development of the 20 acres and gave
you some proposals. He had told Mr . Kirt , Mr . Kirt had a contract to have
the existing buildings painted and he told Mr. Kirt not to have them
painted because it would be more influential with the Council if the
buildings looked run down. And that the Council would or the Commission
would understand the need to do something out there. The property has been
grossly misrepresented as have the people who have bought from Mr. Kirt in
the past . The original PUD needs to be honored with these people. They've
bought on the private road and they expected individual ownership on the
farm. That is not what' s happening there. Thank you.
Conrad: Other comments? Anybody else before you come back? I' ll Y ou ive
g
a chance to talk to us but anybody else? Okay, I ' ll give this gentleman a
chance to go. •
I
• Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 7
' Emmings : Say Tim, before you start . I 'm not clear on who you represent .
Tim Keane: That was the point that I wanted to make. I 'm here on behalf
' of Ches Mar Trust . They are the fee owner of both Lot 1 and Lot 2. We are
the applicant here and I wanted to make clear that our objective is to have
the plat approved and the extent to which the easement question interferes
with that, we would yield to that question rather than having this plat
request denied . I 'm here on behalf of the applicant to re-emphasize that
our objective is to have this plat approved.
' Emmings : Can I ask you a question?
Tim Keane: Yes .
Emmings : Your client will wind up, or is the owner of the remainder except
the part that' s being split off to the Gross' . Is that correct?
' Tim Keane : No . Since we were here we attempted to sell the entire parcel
together so there would be no need for a split. We were not able to
negotiate a sale for the entire parcel . The arrangement at this point is
that the Gross ' s will exercise their option to Lot 1 which is now increased
to 2 1/2 acres from 1. 9 and they will be purchasing the 20. 3 acres of Lot 2
on a contract for deed.
Emmings : Who will be purchasing?
Tim Keane : The Gross ' s . We will continue to be the fee owner . That is
the respective interest of the two parties .
Emmings : The Gross ' s are going to wind up owning the whole thing but as
' two separate lots , is that what you' re telling me? They' re going to be a
contract purchaser of what ' s on here as Lot 2?
Tim Keane: That is correct. And they will be acquiring Lot 1 at this
time. Closing on Lot 1 which has the house on it. They will be acquiring
Lot 2 on a contract for deed.
Emmings: The Gross ' s are acting like they don' t know anything about this .
Chuck Gross : Originally that was a proposal that was made to me to help
alleviate the problem in relation to access to this 20 acres and Ginger and
' I were in agreement with doing this. But they have, and I say they, Ches
Mar Realty, they have an option that they had let out on that 20 acres to I
believe Mr. Kirt who is the land owner on Ches Mar , part of it, which is
' fine . That facilitates that property coming together with that division
but what I 'm aware of is that he currently has, I say Mr_ . Kitt, has a
purchase agreement or an option , one of the two , and I believe it ' s their
' intent to exercise that after we are able to obtain our tax ID number such .
We have, there ' s no problem with that as far as doing that but originally,
and that may be where Mr. Keane is not, unless I 'm not aware of it, but
anyway that was originally what was proposed to us was that we would buy
' both of them and then perhaps we would sell that 20 acres. It' s not our
desire to own that additional acreage there but it is our desire to see it
r
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 8
not developed into any extent and I believe one of the conditions on this
is that it would be allowed one building site considering the 1 in 10 and
considering that there is one residential now and that certainly would be
acceptable to us . The access off of that property, the 20 acres would then
come off of Kirt' s and I was told that he would access that off the west
end of his property which would not, there would be no need to come across
ours are close to it so that ' s what I know about it .
' Ginger Gross: Excuse me gentlemen, you say the original proposal . When
was that made? Was that the month of March. . .
Chuck Gross: I think it was after March when we were negotiating with Ches
Mar Realty. Any questions?
Emmings : The reason I started asking these questions , and maybe there' s
nobody here who can answer it but it sounds as if that property right now
is owned by Ches Mar Realty and that Gary Kirt has an option which he may
' or may not exercise but my next question was going to be, why does anybody
want to create a parcel that ' s landlocked and I guess the answer is because
everyone assumes that Kirt is going to buy it and he' s going to have access
' through the property to the north.
Chuck Gross : What I 'm told is that there is a purchase agreement or an
option, one of the two or both and that Kirt is ready to buy that property
' too . For it to be just attached to what he has now and that will alleviate
access problems to it.
' Conrad : Geri , you had your hand up_ before.
Geri Eikaas: I don' t know but I know it' s not on the agenda as far as
' pertaining to the PUD so I didn' t know how far you were going to carry into
that. If you ' re going to continue into that I would say I 've spent a lot
of times working on developments . I 've lived in Bloomington. Was on
Natural Resources Commission. Worked a lot with developers an dit is true
' that we have been hassled and that Mr . Geisler in fact has been scared off
his property and this makes it I guess me a little more concerned about
this easement because it' s been , I 'd say a very unpleasant experience. I
' personally had lunch with this developer and also been threatened with
things that could happen to me if I didn' t agree with this development and
I 'm sure the City does not want to work that way but it makes us very
insecure when you come up with an easement because we know who' s looking at
it and who would profit by it so we don' t feel that it' s the people who are
living on the farm and paying taxes .
Conrad : Anything else?
' Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart : Jo Ann , on these public hearings . Are you not giving us the cover
' sheets anymore that show the density and that stuff?
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 9
' Olsen : This is just a cover memo because there ' s been about two other
reports so it's all . . .
' Erhart : All the way through they don ' t have that and they' re kind of handy
to find out what kind of zoning there is and if we could continue that. I
think this has been fairly straight forward except for this easement thing
which I also think is fairly straight forward from a purely planning
standpoint in that it is normal procedure for us to require road easements .
Generally we like to take half of the width of a road along the edge of the
property if there is ever any potential need to get access to the property
' that essentially landlocked. Everybody supplies it. I think it' s been the
basis for the development of property. If people historically hadn ' t
supplied it, I suppose everybody would be living in downtown Minneapolis
today. I appreciate the concerns you' ve had with some issues of wherever
' the owner is of the property to the west and that' s unfortunate. On the
other hand , I still think it' s our obligation to do good planning and I
think it' s logical and consistent with our practice to take this easement.
' The only thing unusual about it at all is the additional 5 feet over a
rural subdivison. Generally currently we take 30 feet. When we want an
easement for planning we take 30 feet off both the adjacent landowners . In
' this case, since you only have 25 on the north, it leaves , to get the full
60 which we want in the rural area , it requires we take 35. This
particular case, it appears that if there ever is going to be a road built
in there, since there' s several homes already there, it probably would be
' an urban cross section which only requires a 50 foot easement so I guess
I 'd be, if the other commission members were interested , I guess I 'd be
interested in going along with a 25 to 30 foot easement because I still
' think that would leave the City with all the options that we need but I ' ll
leave that as a thought. I 'm in favor of taking the easement as we
normally do . The other thing is , again for the concern of tree lots , an
' urban street only takes, what is it , 20 feet?
Hempel : 31 back to back.
' Erhart : 31 feet so in the future if there actually was going to be an
improvement, it probably would be, and correct me if I 'm wrong Dave, that
it would probably only be 30 feet if it ever were done so I think the 60
' feet for us who own land out in the country is scarey when you think about
it but when you really consider the real thing that happens is that it ' s
not that wide. So those are my comments .
' Emmings: I 'd like to clear something up. Right now, you' re suggesting Jo
Ann as a condition that what is now Lot 2 be designated as an outlot.
' Olsen: That' s correct.
Emmings : So would it then be, there 'd be a Block 1, Lot 1 and that would
' be the Gross's property and then there would be an Outlot A which would be
what is now Lot 2. Is that correct?
Olsen: Right .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 10
Emmings : Should we make a condition that they have to submit a new plat
that shows it that way?
Olsen: That what I 'm just assuming that when the final plat would come in,
that it would have one outlot .
Emming : I guess because I think the lot and block talk here is confusing,
to make it less confusing I 'd add a condition that the applicant submit a II
new plat indicating the Gross ' s property, Lot 1 , Block 1 and indicating the
remainder of the property as Outlot A. Then I 'd change the present
conditions 2 and 3 so that instead of saying Lot 2, Block 1 they'd both say'
Outlot A. That way I don ' t think there will be any confusion over exactly
what we' re doing here tonight . You' re creating this Outlot A is real
bothersome like it always has been because it' s landlocked and now we know
that there ' s a plan with somebody to the north that will provide the access
out. We also have a piece of information that the State Highway Department
has said for sure that there can be no direct access onto TH 41 from Outlot
A. So given all that information, that means that the only access that '
this property has available to it is down the existing roadway that goes by
the Gross' s and for that reason I absolutely agree with Tim. We have no
choice but to take that easement at this time. We'd be foolish not to. If ,
we wait and let the sale go through without the easement, we' re going to
have to condemn it and buy it and we know we' re going to need it so I think
it should be taken as a condition of the plat. I don' t have anything else
right now. is
Ellson: I got a little concerned, maybe confused about what Ginger was
talking about as far as the legalities of where the property was or as far
as it was in the middle of the road or not and things like that . Is that
the way you ' ve interpretted it Jo Ann?
Olsen : Right now there is no easement on the lower , on the southerly part
so yes, the property does go right where the road is. It' s a private
drive.
Headla : I didn' t hear all of that.
Olsen : Since there' s no public street roadway, the property does go up
into where the private drive now is . It shows on the plat. Part of the
property is where the private drive is now. Is that what you ' re asking?
Ellson: Yes. I share Steve' s concern about the access to that Outlot. It
just seems like poor planning to purposely let something sit in there with
no access to it and then say and I okayed it.
Olsen : Making it an outlot though defines it as unbuildable. That it
would have to be replatted.
Ellson : I guess I 'd say, well you' ve got this land but you' re right , 1
calling it an outlot gives you a lot more leeway than calling `et a block
something .
Olsen : We don ' t usually even like to do that but .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 11
' Ellson: I agree probably with taking the right-of-way. I share the
concern of the property owner because it' s giving basically a green light
' to developing the area down there which in one respect we have to allow
even to a certain extent. Not necessarily this developer . I 'd like to
know if the City has any recourse at keeping developers out or working with
people who are shady characters or something like this. A black list of
our own . You know we don' t like you to come in here. I 'm sure it' s
totally illegal . There' s no doubt about it but I sure wish we could do
something to prevent those bad eggs from getting in which we' ve even had
' experiences with and things like that but I don't know that we have
anything . I just threw it out so maybe you could think of something
creative, I don' t know to help solve it because it does sound like somebody
that we probably don' t want to be working with and I 'm sure that there
developers that like the property the way it is and could see it just as
much as an investment . Staying the same as an investment as putting 500
houses in there if they could. I like Tim' s idea of a possible compromise
' and the fact that we' re asking for 35 is more than we ask a normal . I
could see something like a 25 or a 30 as a possibility. That' s it.
' Batzli : I 'm a bit confused by this talk of having a 25 foot easement to
the north. That 25 foot easement doesn' t run along the entire northerly
edge of Lot 1, Block 1 does it because we' ve got this other residence right
there? I don' t think there' s any easement on that particular lot is there?
' Olsen : Right .
IBatzli : The 25 foot easement is just in the park property?
Olsen: With the park property, no. When the PUD came through it included
this property and we did retain some easement .
' Batzli : The one to the north is PUD and there was an easement at that
time?
Olsen : There is an existing easement there.
Batzli : That' s about 2 feet inside of his front door then? He' s not 25
feet off the road is he? Off the center of the road?
Olsen: Yes he is . It' s close but I don' t know exactly where the easement
goes to the house .
Batzli : Well it' s troublesome to me because it seems like there' s a
waiting game being played here as far as development and forcing the issue
of getting this easement perhaps . I think it' s interesting because we ' re
actually, this easement that we' re taking from Lot 1, Block 1 I don' t
really think benefits the land which we' re taking it from at all , which is
real interesting. It' s actually the only lot that this is going to benefit
is the PUD in back of it by taking this easement and it seems somewhat
unfair that we' re doing it. On the other hand, planning says we have to do
it. It would be nice though, and I don ' t know exactly how or why but
really the lots that are going to be benefitted I would like to see somehow
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 12
have to pay for the easement because in essence they' re the ones that are
going to benefit. I don' t see any benefit going to Lot 1, Block 1 by
taking this easement .
Emmings : What about Outlot A and that' s part of this plat? If there ' s ,
going to be development out there, that' s the only place they can get out.
Batzli : They can get out over Lot 1, Block 1. They could get a private II drive over . More mess but it' s interesting and that' s a good point. But
on the other hand , we' re forcing an easement to the PUD but not to the
outlot and why is that? We' re reserving one for later and not for the
other but otherwise I agree with Steve' s proposed changes and unfortunately"
I think I have to go along with some kind of easement but I 'd like to see
it reduced to the minimum amount we can get by with.
Wildermuth: I 'm still not clear , what lies to the north of the existing
roadway? Is that all parkland? It can ' t be because of the house.
Olsen: Right just north of the Gross' s home is another house, lot and then !!
it ' s park.
Wildermuth : Everything else is park? '
Olsen: To the north .
Wildermuth : In other words, from where that long building is on the Kirt I
property, across the road is park?
Olsen : Yes . And it' s park all the way to the west . All the way to the
lake too . It' s a nice place to cross country ski .
Wildermuth : Did we obtain any easements from the Kirt when he bought that I
property?
Olsen : Any easements?
Wildermuth : Were any easements required when Kirt ' s PUD or bought that
property? '
Olsen : Right . That' s where that 25 foot easement. As far as when they,
like a 60 foot easement throughout the rest of that?
Wildermuth : Right .
Olsen : No . I don' t believe there is. I could double check. It ' s been soli
long I didn' t double check on that one.
Wildermuth : In other words, if we wanted to put in a regulation roadway,
we'd have to condemn a strip of property all along the Kirt' s property?
Olsen : No . For that to ever be improved , they would have to replat and
then we would get it. I 'm sorry, I can double check that one but it seems II
like we received something to cover . I think we' ve got the 50 or 60 foot
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 13
' easement and I can ' t remember but we didn ' t require them to improve it at
that time. I remember that was a discussion and we didn' t so. There is an
easement there. Exactly what it is .
Wildermuth: Where does the current road lie? Is it on the 25 foot
easement that exists past Block 1?
' Olsen : No . It ' s kind of half and half. You can see it. It ' s shown on ,
kind of sketched in on the plans . That' s where the road is so it' s really
kind of half and half. Probably even _ a little bit more on the Gross ' s
' property or home.
Wildermuth : I 'd probably be in favor of looking at a reduced easement . 25
' foot. 25 additional feet.
Headla : Show the new graph please Jo Ann . Turn it on. Will you outline
the PUD, Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Olsen : The PUD . Actually it ' s up here too . This is Lot 1 and Lot 2.
' Headla: All the way to the lake? Okay. Now the purpose of the easement
is what?
Olsen : Of the roadway easement?
Headla: Yes .
Olsen : If that was ever further , this property, because of the topography,
really the only means is through this existing roadway here .
Headla : Okay. And the 2 1/2 acres , the dimension of that on the north
side goes to the center of the driveway?
Olsen : The easement does not , if you dedicate it straight out as
' right-of-way and give it right over to the City, then you take that away
from the 2 1/2 acres . If you take it as an easement , you do not reduce the
acreage and that' s what we' re asking for . It' s just the easement. It' s
' similiar to what with the Halla property, Lake Riley Woods.
Headla: Why did you go for the easement rather than right-of-way?
Olsen : There' s no immediate need to improve that street at this time.
Easements act as the same purpose.
Headla : So in 10 years there ' s a need to improve it . Now what?
Olsen: There' s a roadway easement there for him to improve.
' Headla : So they will have to improve it?
Olsen: It depends on if they go through a public or private improvement.
' They have that option .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 14
I
Headla : And then it would become a right-of-way? If they wanted us to
I
improve it, would it become a right-of-way then?
Olsen : It' s even a right-of-way when it' s dedicated now. It ' s just not II removed. It's not dedicated street at this time. It ' s an easement .
Headla : But if we improve it , would it become dedicated?
Olsen: It' s the same. It' s still there. That easement is not for them. II
They cannot build into that easement . They can use it.
Headla: Well who's property is it? I 'm confused. I 'm spinning. I
Emmings : Who' s property is what Dave?
Headla: This easement that' s dedicated. Is it going to be the City' s II
property or the people at Ches Mar?
Emmings: Dave, an easement , if you have an easement over a piece of your
property, you own the property and other people have rights to use that
easement for whatever they' ve got the easement for . Whether it ' s for a
road or utilities . They have rights to use it but you' re the owner . II
Headla : And pay taxes on it?
Emmings : So they' ll be the owner and the City will have certain rights if I
a public road ever has to go through there.
Wildermuth : If a public road ever goes through there, will the Gross ' s be II
assessed for their portion of the road improvement that runs past their
property?
Olsen : Could very well , yes . It really depends on how. . . I
Wildermuth: It just doesn' t somehow seem fair at all .
I
Olsen : A lot of times what they' re do, they will go back, it depends on
how the whole process goes through and the feasibility study and whatever , II
but a lot of times they will just assess back to who is receiving the
benefit. But most likely when that is improved, if there is sewer and
water at that time, the Gross property could be further subdivided and they II
will look at that and they might do it by street frontage. Assessments .
A lot of times it really varies . I always say that there is the chance
that they will be. It's not definite or full assessments .
Wildermuth: It really doesn ' t seem very fair . II
Headla: Last January I heard this case. Was over there in the spring and
heard them talking and we' ve still got a bag of worms . The people involved
don' t even agree on what they' re agreeing to. Then we say we want this
easement and then this whole thing has to be changed . I 'm not sure why
this whole thing is in front of us yet, until it gets straighten out . I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 15
' Batzli : I think the applicant knows very clearly what they want to do. I
think the people that currently are living on the property and have various
options are the ones that don' t like the way the developers are going .
' Headla: I hear the attorney that's supposedly selling it is one position
and the buyer has a different position. I don ' t call that a mutual
agreement.
' Batzli : No, but does it matter?
Conrad: It doesn' t matter .
Headla : Well , I think it does to some extent because I don' t know what we
' really have to vote on yet.
Emmings : In front of us is people asking for a subdivision. For a form,
this plat. Talk about the quality of the developer and all that stuff is
so far field we shouldn' t even be hearing it . It ' s got nothing to do with
what we' re doing here.
' Headla : I 'm not interested in it .
Emmings : But all of that , this is really kind of a narrow question and
it' s getting real broad here.
Erhart : I guess I ' ll just emphasize again that in land planning , it has
been consistent for hundreds of years as new subdivisions and so forth,
' that the government ever feels that there is a need for future access and
other property as land gets subdivided, you reasonably take easements when
the land is subdivided so that in the future that roads can be put in
' without having to condemn property. If there seems to be some unique thing
about this that we would want to reverse that , I just can ' t imagine it as
much as I understand your problem.
' Headla : To coin a phrase , I ' ll re-emphasize too . This isn ' t the first
time the same subject has come up. We said we want that easement and
you' ve got to have at least 2 1/2 acres . We don' t have it but it' s before
us.
Erhart : They have 2 1/2 acres .
Conrad : They' ve met all the other requirements that we ' ve asked .
Headla: Well , not that I read it. If I calculate this , it' s 2 1/2 acres
to the center of the road . Not with the 35 foot easement .
Erhart: That' s the way we calculate it Dave.
' Emmings : We count the easement in there. In the area calculation .
Headla: Oh, an easement. That' s right .
Emmings : They own the land .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16 , 1989 - Page 16
Conrad : Anything else Dave? If you think of something , jump in and I ' ll
ask a few questions . What did we hear the PUD was going to do Jo Ann? The
last time the developer was in, what did they, given and this is kind of
irrelevent but I 'm kind of interested .
Olsen: They showed including Outlot A, ..if that's what we refer to it now.
They showed , I can ' t remember the number of lots . 10 or 12? 7, but there I
was also including into dividing into this property to use the acreage for
their density.
Conrad : Given the configuration before us tonight , the outlot and the 2 1
1/2 acres, what's potential to happen in the PUD? What possibly, so they
asked for 7 houses before, will this restrict , based on what we' re looking
at tonight, would that restrict the number of units that could go back in
there if land didn' t change hands?
Olsen : One way it would restrict would happen is that there' s going to be I
a restriction against the property that they can only get one building
eligibility. Even then, even with the building eligibility, if they would
have had the two, what they thought, they were not meeting all the other I
requirements so that hadn' t been a done deal essentially. But this would
definitely making it clear that they'd be getting one building eligibility
even though they' re getting some 20 some acres .
Conrad: The one building eligibility goes where?
Olsen : If it all is combined with this acreage, then instead of getting I
what they would think would be 20 acres or 2 building eligibilities, they
would get 1. That' s how we would . . .
Conrad: Okay, so the public road and 60 feet of easement will serve '
potentially how many homes?
Olsen : For what they' re proposing , if it was 7 , possibly 8 or so . It
seems like it was more than that. If sewer and water , when sewer and water
comes out there , that really opens it up completely. Then you don' t worry
about the eligibilities or anything anymore but you could have a lot more I
lost .
Batzli : But as a PUD we' d have a lot of control over that wouldn' t we?
Conrad: Yes. We would. You'd still have a road. You'd still have a road
going real close to some houses . That ' s real distasteful . We ' re back into
some situations. Regardless of what' s going on legally and I don' t even
care about that and financial implications and the negatives of owners and
upkeep which I find really unfortunate. They made a bad buy and they were
going to do some things back there and it ' s a real negative deal but here '
we are again looking at a road, for whatever reason, looking at road going
through two houses that potentially, I really don ' t see , is there another
place for the road to go? No. Ever . It' s going to go there. And it' s
going to serve some houses . Really it should serve 1 or 2. '
1
Planning Commission Meeting
9
August 16 , 1989 - Page 17
' Headla : Conceiveably it could down south right along the front and then
head west.
' Wildermuth : The State won' t allow it. -
Conrad: MnDot won' t allow it Dave .
' Headla : Wait a minute . I 'm not talking on the highway right-of-way. On
that property. This side going down par_-allal like the service road and
then head west .
Olsen: The topopgraphy is pretty extreme there.
Headla: I.t isn' t anywhere close to what we' re going to talk about tonight.
Olsen: Or 2 weeks ago .
1 Conrad : I don ' t think we have too much of a choice. I don ' t know that we
can assess the PUD, the people that have the property behind. I don' t know
that we can ever assess them the full cost for the improvement and leave
the Gross' s out of the roadway improvement but it' s real bothering . I
don' t see us , I think the road has got to be, the easement has got to be
there. I don' t think we need the full 65 or 35 as talked about. I think
we can reduce that to some magic number . Whether it ' s only 30 or 25, I
' just really feel uncomfortable that there is going to be a road going in
there . That the road is really close to these houses . It ' s beautiful
property right there and I wish I saw a way around it but I think based on
what' s before us tonight , we have to grant the easement .
Erhart: You have staff' s opinion as to, if we wanted to reduce that
' easement to a standard or more normal 30 feet , do you feel that has any
substantial negative impact on the future?
Hempel : If you' re going to construct a road as a rural road , we'd like to
see a 60 foot wide easement.
Erhart : If you' ve got 55?
Hempel : In 60 feet we have enough room for a typical ditch section for
drainage. Any less than that might cause some steeper side slopes that may
or may not be able to contend with . If sewer and water does go in this
area , typical 50 foot right-of-way would do. However , I think we' re in the
process of changing that 50 foot , excuse me, increasing it to 60 feet for
urban. For boulevards and space for sidewalks and utilities .
' Erhart : Are you entertaining a motion?
' Conrad: Not quite yet. Dave, any other questions on anything?
Headla : No . The way I 'm looking at it , to call it an easement is just a
blatant effort to avoid meeting that 2 1/2 acre.
Conrad : Is there a motion?
Planning Commission Meeting
II
August 16, 1989 - Page 18
Batzli : Yes . I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of I
Preliminary Plat #88-27 shown on the plat stamped "Received July 25, 1989"
subject to the following conditions . 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the staff
report. The fourth condition that the applicant shall submit a new plat II
designating Lot 2, Block 1 as Outlot A and then change the references in
conditions 2 and 3 to delete Lot 2, Block 1 and replace it with Outlot A.
In condition 1, delete the reference to 35 feet and insert 25 feet.
I
Conrad: Is there a second? Is there a second?
Emmings : I ' ll second it for discussion. 1
Wildermuth.: If the ordinance is going to change, if the urban street
ordinance is going to change, I think we' re making a mistake to reduce it. t
Emmings: How do you get to 25? Brian, what ' s the rationale for 25 rather
than 30 or rather than leaving it at 35?
I
Batzli : What was the width that they took in Fox Hollow in the PUD for the
road? Didn' t they take 50 feet? That was my rationale. And what this is
going to be doing is servicing a PUD. That was my only rationale. 11
Emmings : Why do we have a 50 foot easement there?
Olsen: Basically because of sewer and water . For Fox Hollow?
Emmings : Yes . The one he' s talking about .
I
Olsen: Sewer and water , urban street versus rural .
Ellson : No , I don ' t get it. Why was that not 60 and that was 50?
I
Batzli : Well it was a PUD that was sewered and water so they didn' t need
the additional for side slope and ditches and all that stuff .
I
Emmings : And basically this thing isn' t going to be develop without sewer
and water . It' s really going to be, when it does develop it' s going to
have those same characteristics. Is that what you' re saying? I
Batzli : That was my rationale.
Wildermuth : This is going to serve a very limited number of sites . II
Ellson: We hope.
I
Wildermuth : Like 7 sites .
Emmings : Well not when sewer and water comes in .
I
Wildermuth : That' s true .
Emmings : We could be talking about down to 15 , 000 square feet maybe. II
Planning Commission Meeting
9
August 16, 1989 - Page 19
' Erhart : I would support your proposal if we changed it to 30. I think
that' s , in my mind that' s the right number .
Emmings : Why?
Erhart : Because that is traditionally what we take from rural easements .
' 35 is more than what we traditionally take. 30 is traditional and I
believe that will do the job here .
' Batzli : I 'm willing to accept that if my second accepts it.
Emmings : As a matter of fact your second would prefer it.
Batzli : 30 feet.
Emmings : And I think too , I agree with the comments that I don' t think is
particularly fair to the Gross ' s . I don' t like doing it and in fact I was
absolutely opposed to it the last time this was around but at that time the
parcel that they had was smaller . They didn' t have 2 1/2 acres so now
that , in fact I didn' t think it should be necessary for them to renegotiate
their deal last time around and I still agree with that. I 'm happy that
they were able to do it and come out with the 2 1/2 acre parcel but that
also gives me a comfort zone that taking that 30 or 35 feet off the north
' side doesn ' t bother me as much because of we'd have a larger parcel than we
did. You'd hope that when the toad is put in there that a lot of
sensitivity, which some engineers are not famous for , goes into picking
where the road will go to preserve the trees but I assume that will be
done .
' Batzli : They' re going to have a ditch to fill in on the north side though
as I recall so they' ll probably prefer a more southerly alignment in order
to line up with the road further to the west but in any event .
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Preliminary Plat #88-27 shown on the plat stamped "Received
July 25, 1989" subject to the following conditions :
1. A 30 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City along the
northerly property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 of Ches Mar Farm 2nd
Addition .
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
' designating that Outlot A has only one building eligibility and the
development contract must be recorded as part of the recording of the
final plat.
' 3. Outlot A shall be designated as an outlot and is considered unbuildable
until it is combined with adjacent property or provides two approved
septic sites and street access .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 20
II
4. The applicant shall submit a new plat designating Lot 2, Block 1 as II Outlot A.
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a 11
vote of 6 to 1.
Headla : I don' t like the term easement . I think it should have been
II
right-of-way and the line should have been calculated from the
right-of-way.
Conrad : This item will go to the City Council when Jo Ann? I
Olsen: The 28th of August .
II
CENVESCO, OAKVIEW HEIGHTS , PROPERTY ZONED R-12 RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY AND
LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARDS NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET:
I
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18. 93 ACRES INTO 11 HIGH DENSITY LOTS FOR
182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS .
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PERMIT GRADING WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND. 1
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. I
Conrad: Dean, do you have any comments?
Dean Johnson : Hello again. I guess I 'd like to hear your comments you
II
know on this now that we have it but due to recent developments, I guess
we'd like to ask you to continue this for 2 more weeks . We have been
negotiating with Charlie James the owner of the ground and we might have a II
little more latitude that we didn' t realize we had before so maybe with
your comments and this new information, maybe we can come closer together
on this thing to get this thing to work. The only thing that is again we II
want to be able to present this to you so that can we have the public
meeting or public hearing part of this remain open or be opened again?
Conrad: We' re typically pretty flexible. I
Dean Johnson : I ' ll make a formal request at this time .
Conrad: So basically to table the item or to continue the hearing later on 1
is what Dean ' s asking for . I think it probably is wise to go through the
Planning Commission and just give comments specific to, I think he'd be
interested in out perspective on the park and whether we endorse. The City
Council , with the Park and Rec reporting to them, at their recommendation
goes to City Council but we can make some comments on what we think about
that park and obviously if 4 acres comes out of there, it throws the plat
in front of us in a little bit of disarray. The other question that we
11
Planning Commission Meeting
111 August 16, 1989 - Page 21
should take a look at and we' ve seen it in about 4 meetings now is curb
cuts . We' re saying there were, I don't know. It started at 17 and there' s
13 or 14 now and I guess the comments have always been, there have got to
be fewer but we' ve never settled on a numberyso if anybody has a concern
with curb cuts on the south side, please raise that so the applicant knows .
Obviously what they' re doing is the more the curb cuts , the more impervious
surface. No , I take that back. The curb cuts are there to help meet their
impervious surface yet there is a safety issue and just good planning issue
there so I think that and maybe some of the other comments that the staff
has reviewed but I think the review of the item are pretty valid but let' s
' give Dean our most current feelings. Dave, why don' t we start with you.
Headla: I didn' t understand what you first said about the impervious
' surface.
Olsen : They have provided an amended plan showing that all the lots meet
the impervious surface.
Headla : And you agree with that?
' Olsen: The numbers, all I can do is review the number and yes .
Headla : Okay. As far as I 'm concerned , I think the Park and Rec has good
rationale why they want so much land. I ' ve got to support their position.
' I don ' t know why we can ' t put the sidewalk on the north side. Get away
from, the trail committee preferred it there and the last time we talked it
was going to be there.
Olsen: It is on the north side.
' Emmings : It switched .
Headla : When did you switch it again? We talk about it every time. It ' s
on the south side. We comment on it and then you say it' s on the north
side.
Olsen : The plans show it on the north side. No , I thought we made it
clear on the south.
Batzli : The engineering report says it ' s on the south side again .
Conrad: It' s still on the south Jo Ann .
Olsen : But Lori told me it was on the north.
' Emmings : That' s what they said at our last meeting is that it was changed
to the north .
Headla : And then I read it in the report it ' s on the south . If Park and
Rec wants it on the north, I want it on the north and the north seems to
make a lot of sense .
Emmings : That' s what they said last time we talked about it.
I
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 22
Olsen : Yes , and I talked to her again . '
Mary Culley: Last time we showed it always on the north and they said they
want it on the south so we put it on the south this time. The north would
be quicker . . .
Wildermuth : Basically I have the same feelings about the configuration
that I had at the last meeting. With the density issue taken care of, I
think there are really three issues that have to be addressed and that is
the parkland, which I support, the access points and visitor parking and
storage. At some point I think we have to revisit the ordinance and I
require two garages per unit but I understand that that would not apply to
this case .
Batzli : If in fact they have to give up that much parkland and that throws
the densities into all sorts of turmoil doesn' t it? Be that as it may, I
guess we talked about it last time that Park and Rec reviewed it.
Determined they required some parkland and they apparently had some fairly 1
good rationale for it with the closest park being maxed out and it ' s a
somewhat isolated area that may require some parkland. It is interesting
though that the useable parkland is in that upper right hand or northeast
corner and it does seemingly take out 3 units which would put that sizeable
of a park on the property which is unfortunate . So I don ' t know what that
does and I don' t know what Dean was referring to when he said he has a
little bit more flexibility. I don' t know whether that refers to densities '
or what have you but I like this plan better than the one with the two
accesses and the double frontage lot and everything else. I guess I 'd
prefer to see a few less curb cuts but if the sidewalk is going to go on
the north , that reduces a lot of my concern of the curb cuts . The safety
issue and the kids wandering around , going up to the park, whatever was for
me at least a great extent of that concern. I guess I 'm not as , I 'm
concerned about visitor parking. I don' t know if I 'm that concerned about
single garages . I think the applicant has tried to work with us a little
bit on that and has provided some and I understand to some extent if they •
try to include more they' re going to be running into impervious surface
problems so I guess I 'd like to see them continue to work with staff and if
they' re in the middle of negotiating something else with the current owner ,
I 'd like to see the end result.
Ellson : I don ' t have anything new that hasn ' t been said before . I guess I
like the idea of a park but I 'm the crusader for those trees and this still
isn ' t solving my gorgeous 200 year old oak trees and couldn' t they have the
park where there' s just like picnic tables or something and leave all the
trees in an area? I think that we' re really losing out on something by
getting rid of those trees so I still don' t like it for that reason. '
Emmings : I don ' t have anything new but I 'm going to repeat what everybody
else said. I don' t have any problem with the density issue anymore. This
way of looking at it lot by lot I guess I don' t have a problem with . I
still feel , and I ' ve said before that I thinkthis is a good place for
R-12. I think it' s appropriately zoned. As far as the parkland is
concerned , I 'm uncomfortable with what Park and Rec did there . I think
it's a tremendous, to have 4 acres together is a tremendous burden to put
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
' August 16, 1989 - Page 23
' on this piece of property if you want to have it R-12. It takes such a
chunk that I think it makes it impossible. I think they are winding up
saying that we want something here and you ' re pulling the rug out from
under your own feet by imposing that large a burden. I think there should
' be some park areas up there. I don' t know what' s appropriate but I think 4
acres is too much. It obviously, to me, is a project killer so I don' t
like it for that reason. The other thing that bothers me about it is we
heard last time that 2 times this went in front of the Park and Rec and
they agreed to take fees and then the third time it comes , then they want 4
acres and that' s an extreme change of position which suggests that, I don' t
know why they did that but I 'd be interested to know. I 'd like to know
what standards they applied the first 2 times and what standard they
applied the third time that they got such a different result.
' Batzli : It' s the Steve Martin rationale. I forgot.
Emmings : As far as access points onto Jenny Lane, there are too many and I
would vote against this project on the basis of that alone. I think it' s
that important . I would never vote for it the way it is . Somehow there
has to be a way to plan in roads so that there aren' t so many people
backing out of their garages onto Jenny Lane . I wish I was an engineer and
knew about these things I tried to figure it myself but I 'm not. Visitor
parking is another issue . I 'm very much for 2 car garages . I would not
impose that on this one because our rules don' t call for it now. I think
our ordinance should be changed . I can live with the one car garages . I
can' t live an absence of visitor parking and again, that would be an item
that would cause me to vote against this . There ' s got to be some attempt
to get visitor parking there. I know there' s a problem with impervious
surface but again somehow it' s got to be designed in. I guess basically,
I don' t mind the preliminary plat. I don ' t mind the wetland alteration
permit . I ' ve got problems on the site plan with those items.
Erhart: I 'm never going to tell Steve my problems with something when he' s
first again .
1 Emmings : I 'm supposed to feel like I stole his . . .?
Erhart: My concern is pretty much the same. Number one is, as in the
past , even though we made ordinance on specific subdivisions and projects ,
I have voted against them if I thought there was a specific safety issue
involved . I think, as we look at this thing over and over again , I have a
real concern when we have cars backing out on Jenny Lane. Before I would
vote on this thing, I would have to see the driveways reoriented so that
everybody accessed Jenny Lane driving out as opposed to backing out. And
' that can be done . I think the buildings on the southeast corner are
oriented so that people do drive out forward and you have access points
that look like at about 100 foot intervals which is what you'd find in a
regular residential subdivision. So by turning some of those buildings 90
degrees I think you could solve that problem. Secondly, on the park issue ,
just to complete that. As far as the surface area, that' s just a question.
To me the access points have nothing to do with the impervious surface
area. The impervious surface area is a direct result of how many buildings
you' re trying to put on this site so to say that the reason that we can ' t
1
i
Planning Comm ssion Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 24 i
have, the reason that we may not have all these curb cuts is because the '
impervious surface is because you' ve got too many buildings so I don ' t
accept that. Regarding the park, in reviewing Mark' s discussion here and I
guess the 4 acres in general , I agree that if the developer won' t put
recreational activities on this site commensurate with the density, then
the City will have to take a stand on that in the form of recommendations
from the Park and Rec and they' re appearing to do that. On the other hand ,
4 acres , I guess I just question are we applying with the number of 4
acres, are we aplying the same standards in arriving at the 4 acres that we
do other developments . Then if we are, then I guess it ' s okay.
Olsen: They use the same calculations . I
Erhart : Same calculations? Then okay. Then I think I agree with Steve.
In this particular case, if those same standards make R-12 literally
impossible, then I think we have to take that into consideration in viewing
the 4 acres and maybe it ought to 2 acres or something. On one hand I
think the developer simple isn' t providing enough open space . . .and 4 acres I
isn' t reasonable either . And I agree with the others, we've got some
ordinance work to do here yet .
Wildermuth : Just one thought Ladd . The property immediately north of that "
is also zoned R-12. I wonder if the park were to be located along that
northerly lot line , east of that wetland , maybe there' s a possibility that
something could be worked out there with that adjacent property so we could '
look at maybe 2 acres and fees or something like that and 2 acres or 3
acres also to the north.
Conrad : I agree . That' s a possibility. I think everybody' s mentioned '
some of the concerns and curb cuts still remain one and that' s got to go
from 14 , it' s got to be reduced . At least I agree with Tim. The backing
out is not what I want but I think 2 curb cuts per lot is probably
reasonable in my mind . Densities look okay as long as we' ve got parking
for people. For visitors. The park area, the park issue is not our
responsibility but it is in terms of how it affects the plat in front of
us. There' s got to be park for the people and I think that' s something
that the developer , that Dean' s got to work on with staff to figure out
where that is and from what we' re being told, there's no room in the inn .
The bigger park so there' s got to be places for these people. From the
standpoint of whether it' s 4 acres, if that' s the calculation, I guess we
need that . If somebody told me that we could have a mix of 2 acre park and
then the balance in fees, I could listen to that but right now I haven' t
seen any other options for park and therefore I guess I have to go with
what I see. That' s my comments . We' ll continue this and bring everybody
back. Dean?
Dean Johnson : To the park issue for a moment . Like I say, with the
flexibility. . . if we want the 2 acres and again because we' re bringing this
back and trying to work with it, if we try to take 2 acres . . . is that
something that you people, as you see if obviously, I know it' s the park
commission that makes the recommendation but is that something that would
be something that you could see conceiveable or that you might then be
willing to work with?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 25
Conrad : We' re not really experts in the park issue. That stuff sort of
comes in and typically we' ve never had a problem with that. That sort of
passes through here real quickly because the Park and Rec reports directly
' to City Council and we' ve never stumbled on this one before. To tell you
the truth, and I 'm going to speak which I can ' t do for the Commission, but
more than likely if you solve some of our other issues, I think we' re going
' to be much more flexible on that issue . I don' t know if like Annette,
she' s more concerned with trees and I don' t know that you' ve solved any of
the trees problems. That way I think a couple of us are concerned with teh
curb cuts and if you can solve the curb cuts and still keep some extra
parking . If you solve some of these problems and they' re starting to
shrink. They' re fewer and fewer the more we see you. Another couple
times . Wa keep telling you Dean to build up not out . But I can ' t say that
we' re going to approve or deny. I think just based on a general feeling
that we get when you come back in and obviously if you take care of a lot
of the problems, we typically become sensitive to maybe being a little bit
' more lenient but I think the bottom line is for Chanhassen, the Park and
Rec' s got to be comfortable that there' s enough space for people. And we
don ' t really, we want to make this development basically provide for that
and whether that be fees or area, you' ve got to do it and the Park and Rec,
from what we' re hearing , is saying we need land . So I don' t know. Somehow
you've got to get some feedback from them. We can' t give you a blank check
on that one but just generally the more you take care of some of our issues
I think the more flexible they' re going to be on the others .
Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat , Site
Plan and Wetland Alteration Permit for Cenvesco, Oakview Heights. All
voted in favor and the motion carried .
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9 . 5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
' PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT
VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION,
(VINELAND FOREST) .
' Public Present :
' Name Address
Chuck Van Eeckhout Applicant
Daryl Fortier Representing Frank Beddor
' Todd Owens 6661 Nez Perce
Pat Cunningham 865 Pheasant View Road
Scott Anderson
Dean Wetzel 6260 Ridge Road
Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 26 '
Conrad : Now did we table this and it was a public hearing before? So are II
we continuing the public hearing? Okay. We' ll open it up for public
comments . Chuck, if you'd like to start out we would appreciate it.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: This is the strip that runs off to Pleasant View. It II
isn ' t shown contiguously on the sheet . The plat has remained the same I
guess, this is probably 10 weeks since I made this initial application.
The plan is still the same as it was in the beginning . We initially I
examined this carefully. In fact it was my intention originally to try to
get this worked out . The principle objection came from the City on the
basis of grades so I went ahead and purchased this piece so as to alleviate
the grade problem which we can do now with my current proposal . The
objection I have to the access to the south is one of it does remove more
trees. It does involve more cutting and filling and I believe it decreases
the quality of life for those future Chanhassen residents who are going to
be living here by having a more or less thru street going through the area.
So I still believe this is a preferred plan. I have taken into account the
comments and advice from any number of people on the commission and the
staff. The earth disruption is more. This is where, the red line, the
solid red line is where the back of the lots will be. The back of the
houses under the proposal . Under the alternate of going to the south, it
will be disrupting this dashed line here which is a little bit larger areal'
This right-of-way is loaded with beautiful trees which we hate to see go .
They act as a nice natural buffer and something we all hate to see
disrupted. '
Batzli : Are you saying that your grading plans would only be the solid red
line there if we weren' t to go south? '
Chuck Van Eeckhout : Right here they would be with the exception of the
engineer has shown a retaining area here which in going over them more
carefully we feel we can accomplish without digging a hole in a ground but II
putting a series of ponds right where the trees aren' t so much. In other
words, a little more precise work on the retention area . Right now we show
this being disrupted by digging a retention basin which is foolishness. We '
would want to work on that to get a series of little ponds and we can
accomplish the retention without taking down the whole forest . So this
solid red line is the grading area . This happens to be a fill area on this '
proposal because this is a lower area here. We want to fill this up to get
good drainage around here and develop walkout lots here and fill this area
but we'd only fill to the back of the houses. Then we have solid woods .
In this case we could take into account that entire right-of-way as if it
were ours , even though it' s wasn' t ours because they would appear to be
ours and it ' s there and there ' s nice woods on it . We've designed the sewer
and water and it works out very nicely. The City last time represented
that we make a connection , a water connection down to Nez Perce rather than
this water connection here. This makes no difference to us . It' s easier .
In fact it makes good sense . This is the portion of the plat above. . .
these 3 lots would be platted on Pleasant View. I guess in summary, I
think we have met all the criteria of the ordinances and all the standards
of the City and I believe this plat makes good sense. It gets the people
out in the most reasonable fashion. It gets away from a thru street 11
situation which I believe is ►indesireable from a traffic point of view.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' August 16 , 1989 - Page 27
From a public safety point of view as to security. Police. Fire. I
believe it' s more desireable for people to live in this kind of a thing and
again , I have not seen anything telling me to nor. have I received any
' directives that would tell me that to change my thinking. That this is
probably the desired way to develop this piece of ground . Just to the
east, Fox Chase has more than twice as many lots . The Lundgren project
that was here last time was I guess passed onto the Council with more than
twice as many lots as I have here on the same connection only they had some
kind of a barricade of the street or some deal going there. That ' s, I
guess I 'm just again requesting that it be passed onto the Council with
' your comments , whatever they might be.
Conrad: Okay, thanks. Public hearing. Other comments?
Daryl Fortier : I 'm Daryl Fortier . I ' ve been asked by Mr . Beddor and the
Pleasant View homeowners association to make a brief presentation of what
we' ve studied as an alternative. We' ve had the chance to meet with Mr .
' VanEeckhout, other property owners and talk to them. We would like to
offer for your consideration a brief presentation. Our first little board
here will show the existing situation of where the property in question is .
' We have toned in the roads that we believe are most salient to the
discussion. Pleasant View Road from about this point on is 20 feet in
width. Nez Perce from this point to this point is 20 feet in width. We
believe any connection that were to go all the way through this property
would cause a short-cut or a back door route and that would increase
traffic not only on Pleasant View but also on Nez Perce. We believe that
is objectionable to both parties . To the people who live in this area as
well as the people on Pleasant View.
Emmings : I 'm sorry to interrupt you but just so I know who you' re
' representing . The people that you are representing here live where on that
map?
Daryl Fortier : They live along Pleasant View Road and we are proposing an
' alternative for the Planning Commission' s consideration. The people who
are living along this road , and I believe Mr . VanEeckhout as well would
agree that any road that goes straight through we would find objectionable
not only to these residents but to the Nez Perce residents who I 've only
talked to one and also I believe Mt . Van Eeckhout' s future residents so we
seem to have a consensus that that is a poor decision because of the nature
of the two roads involved. That' s the first point we'd like to make. The
second , we' d like to comment on the existing proposed plan as shown here
and to contrast that we have an alternative plan which is shown here. We
are proposing that there not be a connecting link and we are proposing that
' access be to the south and that a secondary access in the future be
provided as requested by the safety and fire inspectors . The Fire
Marshall , be provided at this location where Outlot A is. I 'm not sure how
many members were on the Planning Commission back many years ago when
Carver Beach Estates was planned but there always was intended to be an
access point here and there was a dedicated outlot here . We believe that
in the future some road of some sort will come through here and pick up all
this traffic and keep it on a 28 foot wide road Lather than a 20 foot wide
road. If we' re to consider the alternative and any future road were
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 28 '
connected through here, it would indeed be an issue or more than the 18
residences being put onto Pleasant View. It would be 18 plus whatever else
happens in the future on both of these lots . Pleasant View Association
would not be in favor of that. That is putting too much additional traffic
on Pleasant View which again is a collector road only by default. Pleasant ,
View has been there for many, many years and as your own inspectors will
admit, it is not an up-to-date road . It. is only 20 feet wide and it has
some very tight hairpin turns in it or at least 90 degree turns. So the
conclusion is that we would really like to see this overall view prevail
and in the future, if I can just modify this, we believe a proposed
additional road should come through in this fashion which now gives you a 1
similiar looped fashion and a simliar circulation pattern to what else is
prevailing in this immediate area . That' s it unless there are any
questions .
Headla : I ' ve got some. Why doesn' t that map look like this map where you
have Lake Lucy Road going right along side where the new homes are going
in? '
Daryl Fortier : This may right here, this is taken from a direct photocopy
of Mr . VanEeckhout' s plan.
Headla : Where are the new homes along Lake Lucy Road?
Daryl Fortier : There is a new home which sits right here. This lot is
vacant and there is new homes located along these lots .
Headla : But that' s Nez Perce Drive?
Daryl Fortier : It' s referred to as Nez Perce. Lake Lucy Road is actually
what's shown on the street sign. It does take a little bend here and comes
out at Lake Lucy Road where it intersects with CR 17. The two maps should
be identical .
Headla : Well this calls Lake Lucy Road going right against the property
there.
Daryl Fortier : There is a vacated Lake Lucy Road right here where this
dotted line is.
Headla : That ' s blacktop right today right?
Daryl Fortier : No it is not.
Emmings : I think you' re thinking on the other side of Powers Blvd . . I
think what you' re thinking of is not this far east but is west of here.
Daryl Fortier : If we go to this overview, you' re thinking of Lake Lucy
Road over here which on the map aligns with this line here and it does have '
an easement here .
Headla : I don ' t know. I was out with Joe Trundle today looking at the
property and I walked over it. We were on Lake Lucy Road and he showed me
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 29
where his property was.
Daryl Fortier : That' s where I say the actual name of the road here is Lake
' Lucy although it' s called on this map, for some reason, Nez Perce. Nez
Perce ends at this point and Lake Lucy comes across here where it' s shown
in gray so this is where you would have been walking and then you would
have walked down through this vacant lot.
Batzli : So the map and reality don' t match?
' Daryl Fortier : The name on the map does not match but that is the name
that is taken off of the development plat. The road does not go straight
here . It does indeed drop down like this and then come across . The map is
' accurately reflecting the conditions .
Julius Smith : If I may, years ago Lake Lucy Road was platted along the
north line of that property and that road has been vacated so that if you
' look at Lake Lucy Road , it doesn ' t come straight across anymore. It comes
across. As soon as it hits CR 17, it dips down onto Nez Perce.
' Headla : So how much land is there from the road with several names up to
where that property is?
' Daryl Fortier : This is approximately 150 feet of land . . .
Headla: So you go beyond that tree line and drop down then?
1 Daryl Fortier : That' s correct .
Headla : Is it roughly where that old fence line is in there?
Daryl Fortier: The tree line sits right about in here .
Headla : Alright . I understand that better tnen , thanks .
Conrad: Thanks Daryl . Jo Ann, why don' t you talk about this. Chuck I 'm
going to let you come up in a second . Jo Ann , could you just comment from
a planning standpoint on anything you see good or bad.
Olsen : This is the first I ' ve ever seen this plan.
' Conrad: Spontaneous .
Olsen : Spontaneous but we' ve never , well I won ' t say never but we really
do not like having two cul-de-sacs . I couldn' t really see the plan. . . .We
would want it at least be continuous .
Batzli : What about the not wanting to connect both Pleasant View and Nez
Perce there with a continuous north/south road? Does it make sense not to
do that Jo Ann?
Olsen : Again , our original position was to have that connection. We feel
that the traffic, it does have to go up onto Powers and it would be a
Planning Commission Meeting
II
August 16, 1989 - Page 30
II
preferable to have another thru street to Pleasant View. Another primary I
reason for that would be for safety access. Looking at the slopes , it
can ' t be done if we allow the variance to the 7% but this sort of plan
would never be supported . _ II
Wildermuth : Is there a right-of-way on Park Drive or would the developer
have to purchase property there to make that southerly connection?
Olsen : There is right-of-way all the way out . II
Wildermuth: But he still would have to develop the road right? He'd have I
to clear the land and provide the fill?
Olsen: Yes.
II
Conrad : On the one hand , the road on the top that accesses the top 3 lots,
the cul-de-sac is more sensitive to the neighbor to the east who prior to
now has not had 20 some houses being serviced by his door . I
Ellson: Well he could come in tomorrow and have 3 there too.
Conrad : Could but he doesn' t want to . I
Ellson: Right but I 'm just saying, the long term.
IIConrad : If somebody came in just to subdivide the 3 lots to the north Jo
Ann, you would have a problem with that? No, we'd have to allow that
configuration basically. I
Olsen : We would suggest that if they came in with this plan, that they
would just have a continuous street. Engineering should probably comment. II
Conrad : The concern with Pleasant View folks is traffic . Obviously this
would dump only 3 folks , 3 houses out. The test would want on Nez Perce.
Is there anything reasonable about this plan? I
Hempel : From an engineering standpoint, traffic circulation I guess from
the start we would like to see the north/south connection. If something II did happen along Pleasant View, this would be an alternative for an access
or an exit. There' s very few or limited areas that such a connection
couldn' t occur . This is the first one and one of the last places .
Utilities would still remain the same. We'd loop the two subdivisions
II
probably together so there wasn' t a deadend watermain.
Conrad : Chuck, do you want to come back and talk to us a little bit about II
that?
Chuck VanEeckho'it : The only thing I would say is there are no real II standards that would prohibit this number of lots on a cul-de-sac and it
would be very, I believe, very much better from a public safety point of
view to have a dead end area in their cul-de-sac area. Bad guys aren' t
going to feel so free to come wandering through there if they don' t have
II
the same way to get out of there. In all my years I 've never seen a
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 31
' situation where you needed that second access for public safety reasons.
We have in many, many areas in Chanhassen with twice this many lots. If
the traffic for the Pleasant Avenue folks is their principle concern, we
' could always put a left turn only on that road coming out so all the
traffic would have to go west . That would , except for the traffic , the
people in Chanhassen, but that would eliminate a good part of the problem
that the Pleasant View people can see as being a big negative of this
11
project. We' ve had a lot of input and this was kind of the consensus that
we perceived as well as my own personal feeling that I want to continue the
Fox Chase, Pleasant Avenue, Pleasant View quality of homes. I build only
' quality homes and I believe that it speaks more as a continuation if it
flows to the rest of Fox Chase and that' s my thinking.
' Conrad : As you' re talking , I 'm looking at this map. Are you talking about
what you originally presented Chuck? When you' re saying you' re comfortable
with. . .
' Chuck VanEeckhout: This is Daryl ' s representation of essentially I believe
identical to what my proposal is. I 'm saying this is the difficult area of
Pleasant View. If we only turn left here and made no right turns here we'd
' keep a certain number of cars out of this area which would be a positive
thing I believe as far as Pleasant View is concerned . Again , I 'm trying to
continue this level of quality on through here and then I really like the
idea of these people being able to have a private area rather than a thru
' street. There are, as I ' ve pointed out, a number of other examples where
this would work very well in Chanhassen and all over the Twin Cities .
' Conrad: Jo Ann, how do you see the property to the west developing?
Olsen : Again , with this plan . . .we looked at a connection. Obviously you
don' t want that because it will just bring it back onto Pleasant View. At
least with the original plan we did have some. . . I don' t feel that having
just one connection will satisfy.
Daryl Fortier : This area up here will of course develop up off of Pleasant
View. There' s no thru connector . That is our first and foremost argument
that there should be no thru connector . The secondary exit for this
' cul-de-sac should run to the south and tie in eventually to this street.
This could be terminated . It would be no different than this road down
here. As a matter of fact, it' s slightly less than this one is but it is a
looped system that you could get in both ways . If the only cul-de-sac is
' 250 feet long, which is not a severe cul-de-sac that you can see from other
scaled streets in the area . That would serve this area . If I can address
just a moment about the left turn lane, this has failed to work over at
' Near Mountain and Pleasant View and it has not been successful . If the
Planning Commission is to approve the present scheme, our one big concern
would be Forest Street here . We - would not like to see that included . We
would rather see no connector there because what that is going to do is
eventually connect down to this outlot in which case we again have the
backdoor circulation that we' re trying to avoid. Or it will develop
additional homes at least and have a larger dead end cul-de-sac situation.
' We'd much prefer to see a looped design to begin with or at least indicate
to begin with. We do not want to see a connection. If this plan were
•
Planning Commission Meeting
g
August 16 , 1989 - Page 32
approved , we would not want to see a connector here and we would not want
to see this street.
Conrad : Okay. Other comments?
Scott Anderson : I 'm Scott Anderson. I 'm the neighbor to the east . . .and
northerly access. I 'd like to restate my objection as I 've stated in
earlier meetings and that is primarily the traffic . With the amount of
single family homes accessing through my back yard. That will create noise
and . . . That' s my objections .
Conrad: Okay. Thank you.
Dean Wetzel : My name is Dean Wetzel . I 'm a 35 year resident of the area.
I live 2 doors off of Pleasant View Road down by here on Ridge Road. There
are 55 residents from CR 17 down to where Pleasant View turns to the west
and that' s what makes up this Pleasant View Homeowners Association. They
get a loose group of people that are interested in what goes on in the
neighborhood. Because of the configuration of Pleasant View Road from this
point on and those of you who have driven it know full well , I thought it
was 18 feet wide. You say it' s 20. I don' t know whatever it was but as '
you know there' s hairpin curves and down along Lake Lucy there ' s homes
within 20 feet of that road. It' s a country road is really all it is in
that area so our concern is to keep as much traffic off of Pleasant View
Road as possible where there is a good alternative that makes sense and we
think that this is certainly the case . You' ve got a brand new road here .
Whether it' s Nez Perce or Lake Lucy, I guess I don' t know but I was on it
today too and both names are used but that is a new fully designed road . II Full size that goes right into CR 17 here so you' ve got the access on the
new road that doesn ' t have a lot of blind entrances onto it which Pleasant
View does. Even up in this area some of these homes were built with access
from their garage right onto Pleasant View Road so like I say, it ' s a
country road and it' s been that way. Pat, you were born there what 80
years ago? Let it slip again but this of course is Cunningham' s area here.
He has a daughter living here and one here. Their drive comes right out
onto Pleasant View Road so it' s just not basically a collector road for all
practical purposes. And like I say, here' s a perfect example of having a
brand new full sized road , extension of Lake Lucy. They can pick up this II
area. These areas back in here as they develop because it' s already the
outlot there made for that . There is an access , was allowed at this point
so why start dragging it back up to Pleasant View when we don' t have to .
Yes, these lots along here, if and when they' re developed . Bill Trundle
lives here. He sells that off and they go onto Pleasant View, that makes
sense and maybe these lots in here but again , why pull things to the north
when there' s good access to the south. Thank you.
Conrad : Okay. Other comments? •
Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Meeting
' August 16, 1989 - Page 33
' Erhart : I guess I 'd like to have, I don ' t know if it' s fair to ask you
Chuck to respond to the two cul-de-sac proposal . I don' t know, did you see
that?
Chuck VanEeckhout : We met earlier with evening , yes .
Erhart: Is it fair to ask you to respond to that specifically?
Chuck VanEeckhout : Yes , I 'm ready to respond to that . In fact , one of my
principle considerations when I first purchased the property was to go to
' the south and I was discouraged by the City so then I went out and
purchased the other piece so we could go the north. The negative on the
south approach are the fill amounts that have to be put on those lots which
' would make them less desirable and the tree removal would be more
extensive. Also , I could identify more , the house would identify more, in
other words, I could build a little more expensive homes in there, little
nicer homes if I enter off Pleasant View then if I enter off from the
' south. That' s some substance of my observations .
Erhart : I 'm sensing you' re not totally opposed to the idea of the two
' cul-de-sac thing .
Chuck VanEeckhout : That ' s less desirable to me than the proposal that I
have before the Commission. If the final determination were that it' s that
way or nothing , I would build it that way. What I would like to do, as
I 've said before, is to carry my proposal through until it' s ultimately
approved or disapproved and react accordingly.
' Erhart: Okay. I guess the concern I had two weeks ago was the problem of
putting a thru street there considering that there is a lot of temptation
for people to take Pleasant View all the way over to TH 101 and it really
isn ' t adequately designed to do that so I guess my general feeling is the
worse of all the proposals is to have the thru street for that reason .
Also , I think we talked about it the last time. It hit me that we have
this new street to the south and we' re talking about land which, the
majority of the land is closer to that than Pleasant View and it seemed to
me again that at that point that it made more sense to try to access the
' new Lake Lucy Road . It ' s unfortunate that Chuck gets the run around . Well
not run around. We have to consider this 10% grade. I think in
consideration , my general feeling is that that is not a good plan . Having
a long straight street and then having two cul-de-sacs at the end. I
guess I 'd rather see it access to the south and I personally like the two
cul-de-sac thing. On the other hand, one thing I don' t like about that ,
because I don ' t think you need to have a connection to , if you went to the
' two cul-de-sacs I think you could eliminate that connection to the west
called Forest Street completely because they' re not that long from Lake
Lucy Drive and I don' t really see that it serves any purpose to make a U
shaped street in there so that might pick up another lot to compensate for
' all the effort of having to go through on this thing. So regarding just
the streets , those are my general feelings. I hope I made myself clear .
The other issue, I think it' s a fairly straight forward development and we
' talked about most of them last time so I ' ll leave it go with that.
Planning Commission Meeting
1
August 16, 1989 - Page 34
II
Emmings : I can ' t decide. I think it' s about a horse apiece. I ordinarily"
like to hook things together so I ' ve got that bias coming in here and
I recognize at the same time that a lot of people , for reasons I think that
Chuck has stated, like this cul-de-sac arrangement so they don' t have the
thru traffic and I think that ' s kind of a personal preference item but I
tend to like to hook things together . It seems to me that this one, this
particular one , the urgency to hook things together really doesn ' t, I don' t
feel like it' s there to the degree that I usually do and there is the '
potential for the hook up to the west later on to have a secondary access,
if there is some need perceived at a later time so an option is preserved
there. Frankly I can go either way on this . I just don' t care. I
Ellson: Let me ask Jo Ann something. The big reason that we want a thru
street is safety and lack of a lot of north/south, things to Pleasant Road II
right now or what are all the key reasons that the City is pushing this?
Olsen : We originally looked at the submission with the applicant and I 'm
just trying to remember exactly which one. He had just the cul-de-sac from"
the north and that ' s where we showed that there was right-of-way to the
south and that we would prefer to have that secondary access onto the site
since you couldn' t provide that from Fox Chase . It was reasons for safety
and also reasons for a north/south connection which we' re just really
lacking in the city.
Ellson: I remember going through the Comprehensive Plan saying how little
we had going north and south. I distinctly remember saying that anytime
we can look to try to find something we should take advantage of it.
I remember agreeing . I 'm trying to decide, will people, I mean this isn' t
very far from CR 17 and I don' t feel that we ' re going to get people taking
this instead of CR 17. CR 17 has never known to be a 35W back-up traffic
kind of street or anything like that . I 'm wondering what would cause I
somebody to purposely either go to this route. They'd have to either live
here to know that goes through. You'd have to be one of these people.
Olsen: They'd perceive it as being a short-cut possibly but the design. . . I
Ellson: I doubt it too .
Olsen : I think to really have that answered , a traffic study would have toll
be done.
Ellson: But I guess my gut feeling is that I don' t think it' s going to
II
bring anybody more on that street than probably lives there. I live in
that area but I can ' t see myself going that way towards Excelsior . I would
go up to CR 17 and it' s not more than a couple of blocks more to do it
II
anyway.
Olsen : The design of it was such that you would come right along Lake
II
Lucy.
Ellson : So I guess I 'm not as concerned that there' s going to be a lot
more people on it and I 'm leaning more towards the City' s recommendation
II
because I agree that we don' t have a lot of north/south thru ways and it' s
II
1,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16 , 1989 - Page 35
not a true thru way because it' s only going a little way. I don' t think
that it' s going to cause more. I also think the fact that there are 55
homes on a really bad , 20 foot street is more reason that they need safety
accesses. If something were to happen along there and there' s something
blocking the street , it' s a tiny little street, an emergency vehicle even
more so won' t get through there and there' s a lot of homes in there that
have very little back up access so I 'd agree with the way the staff has
' proposed it.
Batzli : I agree with Steve, whatever he agreed with. Each has their
bright sides. Both proposals I think. I agree with the developer that the
way he' s got it proposed I think is probably much more attractive to him as
a developer . I hate to harp back on this but one of the reasons I bought
' my property in Fox Hollow is that I thought it was on a cul-de-sac and when
they put it through to Pleasant View, Pleasant View gained some traffic
from our development going west to Excelsior and I think if you put a thru
street in there, you' re going to get more traffic going east on Pleasant
' View. I don ' t see that as even being a question. I think for sure people
down on the west side of the lake are going to use Pleasant View to get up
to TH 101 for whatever reason. But on the other hand I like second
' accesses. I ' ve been convinced of that but I think this design, the current
design has a potential second access eventually when that site develops
so I don' t know. I really, there' s pluses and minuses to both of them. In
fact, even a thru street wouldn' t really irritate me that much, the third
' option, so I don' t know.
Conrad : I can ' t wait until I get a motion.
' Wildermuth: I 'in trying to think of a rationale for a thru street. I guess
without a traffic study, Jo Ann as you talked about , I can ' t see where it' s
going to take that much pressure off of Pleasant View. The connection with
' the double cul-de-sacs that would connect to Nez Perce and then a dead end
cul-de-sac off of Pleasant View certainly doesn' t look very attractive on
paper and it would result in removal of a lot of woodland between Nez Perce
and the property. I guess what I favor is what the developer has proposed .
Conrad : Dave, you have the power to persuade us all .
' Headla: I like the people from Pleasant View put up some pretty good
arguments . Where nobody jumped on, we just approved Near Mountain and all
those people coming on Pleasant View. That could have been quite a
' compelling argument . When push comes to shove, isn ' t your property line
going to go to the south? You' re going to vacate that, take over that Lake
Lucy Road and go down closer to Nez Perce Drive? Realistically isn' t that
where the boundary line will end up?
Chuck VanEeckhout : I don ' t know- if you' re asking me. I presume if the
' proposal that I have on the table is approved, there could be some action
to vacate that . It would be up to someone else to initiate it. The land
would be effectively attached to the adjacent properties by default because
it' s there now and it' s being used now as if it belonged so whether someone
wants to go through a formal vacation process or not, that would be up to
someone else .
I
' ,'
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 36 '
Headla : It looks like there' s just a narrow band of trees from the II
right-of-way. As you got in you had your bigger basswoods and then. . .
Chuck VanEeckhout : I think that right-of-way is pretty heavily wooded if I'
didn' t get lose up there. I believe the rear of the lot line of the house
to the west of Nez Perce. . . _
Headla: On the north side of the road? II
Chuck VanEeckhout : On the south side of the road . I believe their back
yard comes right up to the woods meaning that the entire right-of-way would'
be nicely wooded . That was the way. . .
Headla: I got lost in that one. I
Chuck VanEeckhout : Maybe I can show it here. The rear yards here seem to
go right to the edge of the woods . My property starts here so this piece II
here, which is the existing right-of-way potentially which could be
vacated, I believe is nicely wooded .
Headla : Yes , I agree . I came up Pleasant View. Came up along Pleasant 1
View. Swung around and then came back on, I thought it was Lucy Road and I
got up to that curve there , I can ' t imagine why anybody would want to take
that as a short cut if that road went all the way through the north/south.
If they did , and I 'm sure some would , I can ' t imagine anybody trying to go
on Nez Perce. You may say it 's about the same width but I bet if you
measure it out on an average over a period of a few miles , you'd find
II
Nez Perce much narrower and more dangerous. I definitely favor a north/
south road . I think it should come up there through to the Nez Perce, I
think just for safety reasons . When I was there, I was looking at maybe well
should just have a break away so fire trucks could get down in there . It
would have to be maintained winter and summer . I think that would be, I
could take that as an alternative just strictly from a safety point of
view. If we had to get in there with emergency vehicles and the other way
was blocked , let them go that way.
Conrad: Anything else Dave? I
Headla : No . Those are the only comments I had .
Conrad : We' re not going to get any motion here. Jo Ann, the property to II
the east of the road coming in, if it were to be subdivided , it would be
accessed off the current roadway coming down from the north or the west
right? I
Olsen : Correct. .
Conrad : So more than likely we don' t encourage, you know we' re not talking II
aobut forcing it. I think this road will , development goes in based on
what you said before, this is not where you want to be living which is
unfortunate. To the west, whatever direction, would those lots be, would II
they go straight to Pleasant View or would they access the Redman Lane? Jo
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 37
Ann, any idea?
Olsen : That' s Art Owen' s property.
Conrad : Here' s what I 'm saying . Tell me what you think might happen to
the other lots there and where the planning department would like them to
exit.
Olsen: It really depends on what properties come in but we've been seeing
them come in in pieces like this where we would be showing again, we still
have this connection . We would still have that.
Conrad: Was that outlot off of Nez Perce, was that planned there simply
' for access to the north?
Olsen : Right . Again , if this plan was approved and we would have to count
on this as being the north/south connection.
Wildermuth: What would be lost on that one in terms of wood? Is that all
wooded?
' Olsen : This is where the water tower is . This is Art Owen ' s property and
that's pretty heavily vegetated but along here I can' t tell you. So we do
have another connection to these properties but we would always like to see
some form of connection.
Conrad : Because of a second access?
Olsen: Just for flow thru traffic and yes, that connects this .
Wildermuth : How was Fox Hollow ever approved with all those dead ends? Or
not Fox Hollow but Fox Chase.
Olsen : A lot of that was topography.
' Conrad : Yes , it was real steep topography around there. There was really
significant difficulty. So the planning department , if you had your
' druthers , you' d run a road through Outlot A all the way up to , and I 'm not
talking about the parcek in question, I 'm talking about others , so you'd
run a lot straight from there north up to Pleasant View?
Olsen: Not necessarily straight but we would look again for that north/
south connection and then we would also look for the east/west connection
again so we don' t have two separate. When Art Owens came in, the way that
' he had it designed did not use this outlot . Did not use the southerly. . .
Wildermuth: He did not?
' Olsen : . . . it was considered I think at that time to vacate it . There are
times when if you just come in with a cul-de-sac and that' s the way it is
approved but with that plan there was going to be a western connection.
' Conrad: The lot numbered 8 there really has no access?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 38 1
Olsen : Right . But he also owns 4.
Conrad: He does own 4 and 8? Okay.
Resident : He intends to live on 4 and maybe sell off 8 . As of this
afternoon.
Olsen : That ' s why I 'm saying that most of these lots , the ownership will I
dictate. . . It' s really hard to say.
Conrad : Thanks Jo Ann . Yes . This is a little bit confusing . I have one I
absolute and the absolute is I don' t like the thru street. Period. I just
think that that is , and I said it , I ' ve very consistent from last meeting .
I haven' t been persuaded to go to a different. I think from a traffic
standpoint, it just doesn' t make sense . So in my mind that option is out.
The option, I think the developer, Chuck, has come in and he' s asked for
one thing and then we kind of told him to do another and then we come back II
and say you really could have done the first to begin with. As more
information becomes available and different ideas are generated , then
obviously you can come up with different solutions to a problem. I feel
badly that we make folks jump through hoops and then sometimes say well , well
didn' t mean it. If I were to pick, and I think again the best, the most
economically justifiable one is the one that has been presented tonight . I
think my preference however is the one that the Pleasant View folks '
presented for a couple reasons . One, I think it does dump or exit the new
development more towards a road that can handle it but primarily because
I 'm more sensitive to the individual living right off of Pleasant View
where we' re not running a road that services quite a few houses past so my
preference, absolute I don' t like the thru street . I think no matter what,
we probably have to provide some sort of access, well I 'm not sure what to
do with Lot 8 or the parcel labeled 8 on that. I don ' t know but no thru
street in my mind. The two alternatives that I see, the one the developer
presented , I think that' s acceptable. I think I like the one that the
homeowners association presented a little bit better. I 'm not sure I like
the winding road going to the west or whatever direction off of that. I
don't know that that' s possible or probable or whatever . I don' t find a
problem with the cul-de-sac coming off of Nez Perce other than an
economically we told the developer not to do it and then we said do and I II
don' t know. I have some problems with how we administered that but I think
no matter what we do on Pleasant View, there' s going to be more development "
there and we' re going to need more, and these are things not associated
with what we' re doing tonight but whether it be no right turn or stop signs
or whatever , these are things that are going to flow from this . There just
has to be some control some traffic on Pleasant View.
Wildermuth : Or upgrading Pleasant View.
Conrad: Which is almost close to impossible. If you take a look at that,
the cost to do that and purchase property and what have you, I •don ' t know.
It would be real costly to the residents of Chanhassen. So anyway, that' s
where I 'm at so I think we' re all over the board on this one folks and if
somebody can make a motion that a majority can agree to, I 'd sure entertain
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 39
that right now.
Batzli : I have a question. Jo Ann , did we get an easement on the
' northerly most lot on Pleasant View there for future expansion of Pleasant
View?
Olsen : What Dave was just saying is what we already have that. That there
is a 66 foot right-of-way.
Hempel : Pleasant View I think is currently 66 foot wide right-of-way.
' Wildermuth: So upgrading might not be the problem?
' Olsen : We might not have to purchase land or condemn.
Wildermuth: I 'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20,
1989 subject to staff recommendations 1 thru 10.
Batzli : Second .
Conrad : Is there any discussion? So you' re recommending the thru street?
Wildermuth: No. Recommending the plat as you see it right there.
' Olsen : I think staff ' s recommendation was to put the thru street.
' Conrad: See that' s where I 'm confused.
Emmings : There ' s no condition in staff ' s recommendation that there be a
' thru street. That would have to be added right?
Wildermuth : Right . That would have to be added if you wanted a thru
street. I purposedly didn' t add it.
Olsen : So you' re saying just with these 10?
' Headla: What about the comments from the Fire Inspector? They wanted that
didn' t they?
Olsen : Yes , it should have been in there as a condition.
Headla: Here again we come into that you don' t include the comments from
the . . .
' Wildermuth : All we' ve got from the fire inspector is to add a hydrant put
in the conditions .
' Ellson : Number 9?
Wildermuth: Number 9.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 40
Olsen : They did want them. They did request a thru street connecting
Vineland Court and Nez Perce.
Headla : What' d you say Jo Ann?
Olsen : The Fire Inspector did request the connection but that was back
with the 7% slope they couldn' t do it. _
Batzli : I ' ve got a question Jo Ann for you. We talked last week I think II
about moving Forest Street a little bit , more southerly didn't we? Do you
recall that? We were talking about adjusting the alignment of Forest
Street. We didn' t look at that at all? Okay.
Emmings : Is everybody clear that the Fire Inspector has said that the Fire "
Department wants a thru street connecting Vineland Court and Nez Perce?
Okay.
Headla : Is a trail or break thru considered satisfactory here? '
Olsen: When we can' t get a thru street, then that' s of course. . .
Ellson: He had agreed to that. '
Headla: Wait a minute. What'd you say?
Olsen : Ideally we want the thru street. The Fire Department also but if
we can' t get that, then we would want to at least have secondary emergency
access .
Wildermuth : But to put an emergency access in there is going to be
tantamount to putting a street in there. You'd have to take out all the
trees and have to put the fill in . You' d have to be able to clear it in
the winter time.
Hempel : If I can make one point. The water_main connection will require I
some tree removal . However , it will be no more than probably 10 foot wide
through to Nez Perce .
Headla : Now, are we recommending the thru street or not? '
Conrad: No. That' s not what the motion says .
Wildermuth : The motion proposes what you see recommended .
Headla : That ' s not consistent. . .whatever 's in these reports all over . Now
we' re saying well not this isn' t true in this case . I don' t care which way
we do it. All I 'm asking is to be consistent so I know what we' re doing .
Emmings: That takes away all the sport Dave. '
Batzli : We've got to keep you on your toes .
11,
Planning Commission Meeting
9
August 16, 1989 - Page 41
Conrad : Well what did you think of the subdivision with the Lundgren
subdivision last week? Did we have break aways for, how many units there,
45? Did we have secondary accesses there? We did.
' Ellson: So you' re right Dave. This is being inconsistent .
' Wildermuth moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20,
1989 subject to the following conditions:
1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance
of a building permit. Clearcutting , except for the house pad and
' utilities, will not be permitted.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the City with the necesary financial sureties to guarantee
' proper installation of the improvements .
3. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12 inch watermain
' in Pleasant View Road .
4. The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather
than Fox Chase.
' 5. The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce
versus Fox Chase.
' 6. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be
reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer .
' 7. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City Engineer .
8 . Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication.
9. Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector .
10. A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrant .
Wildermuth and Batzli voted in favor and the rest voted in opposition and
the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 5.
Conrad: Is there another motion?
Emmings : I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
' Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 subject
to the 10 conditions and also to the condition that the applicant provide
an amended plan providing a street connection to the south .
' Ellson : Second .
Planning Commission Meeting
II
g 9
August 16, 1989 - Page 42
II
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II
approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20,
1989 subject to the following conditions : I
1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance
of a building permit. Clearcutting , except for the house pad and
utilities, will not be permitted. 1
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the City with the necesary financial sureties to guarantee
proper installation of the improvements . II
3. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12 inch watermain II in Pleasant View Road .
4. The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather
than Fox Chase.
I
5. The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce
versus Fox Chase. i
6. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be
reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer .
7. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by II
the City Engineer .
8 . Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication. I
9. Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector .
I
10. A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrant .
11. The applicant provide an amended plan showing a street connection to I
the south .
Ellson , Emmings and Headla voted in favor and the rest opposed and the II motion failed with a vote of 3 to 4.
Erhart : The next motion could be just to deny it. What is it that we wand'
you know?
Batzli : We don' t have a consensus for what we want.
II
Conrad: Is there any other motion?
Ellson : If we could just pass it along and let them decide. You know,
II
we' re split here and they've got the Minutes .
Erhart : You can ' t vote on the proposal from the Daryl , Mr . Fortier ,
II
because that' s not been engineered so that can' t be.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 43
Conrd : You' re right . We can turn it down .
' Erhart: So the only thing left to do is to deny it.
Conrad : Yes . Unless there' s something that could swing a vote .
Headla: What was the objection. The first 10 was agreeable to you people
that voted no right that Steve had? It ' s just the thru street wording?
' Emmings: I don' t know what you just said Dave.
Headla : Your 11th condition.
' Conrad: That' s a thru street .
Emmings : Yes , the only difference between mine and Jim' s was the thru
street.
Headla : Oh, the definition of a thru street that bothered you?
Conrad: Having it there.
Emmings : Ladd is the most adamant .
' Headla: What about a break thru trail?
' Conrad : We ' ve got developments down the line that have the same situation.
Yes, we are a little bit different. In my mind I like to have a second
access but I just , there' s all sort of precedence for not. In this
' particular case, I think a second access, if it' s break thru, I don' t see
the positives outweighing the negatives . The negatives being the
disturbing to the property. Disturbing to the trees . I see a lot of
negatives with the cost to the developer . I just wouldn' t do that . The
' positives of having a second access to this, I would assume we will have an
access possibly as other sites to the west develop and therefore we ' re
going to have a solution but I don' t see forcing the cost to have a break
thru, I just don' t think that ' s fair to the developer nor do I think, I
think we' ve had too many other cases where we did require a second access .
There are cases where we have humongous cul-de-sacs in town and we didn ' t
have the fire department telling us don' t do it so I 'm not swayed by having
a second access because I see some other factors Dave. Without those other
factors, I would have liked to have seen a second access . Is there any
motion?
' Emmings : What are our options here? What if there is no motion?
Ellson: Well could we make a motion to deny this subdivision or whatever?
Conrad : We could .
' Headla : Or to pass it on. We ' d like to pass it on I believe.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
9
August 16, 1989 - Page 44
Conrad: Yes, I think the City Council should. I
Erhart : Even if we deny it it gets passed on .
Ellson: Right .
Headla: We can pass it on with no recommendation.
Emmings: Yes , is that an option?
Batzli : We' ve made motions with passing it on.
Conrad: We' ve done that before.
Emmings : Because if you vote to deny it, let' s see.
Ellson: As it is right now maybe. As it' s presented right now is what
you' re saying . '
Emmings: Jim moved to approve it and it failed 4 to 3 so a motion to deny
it ought to pass 4 to 3.
Ellson: And it would at least move it on.
Erhart: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City ,
Council to deny Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July
20, 1989.
Ellson : I ' ll second it. '
Conrad: Is there any discussion?
Headla : Aren ' t we going to have to give some rationale if we deny it
though?
Conrad : Sure.
Batzli : Well let' s see if it passes to deny it. '
Conrad: Actually several could be made and it would be a consensus of
objections coming from two groups . None of which the developer would have
to totally satisfy later on but from, if it was to deny, it would be
primarily because of a second , not having a secondary access . It would
also be a traffic standpoint impact on Pleasant View. You could do some
other . My concern still being with neighborhood disruption to the neighbor "
to the east. Very significant impact on that person. Safety impact
because that road does go fairly close to his door so there are reasons.
Headla: Those things at least get it up there and it isn' t a hostile I
denial . It ' s split on the one item.
Emmings: It' s a friendly denial . 1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 45
' Ellson : It ' s just a way of moving it forward .
Chuck VanEeckhout: Is it out of line to comment at all?
' Conrad : No . We' ll take that?
Chuck VanEeckhout : I would rather see you pass it on with some findings of
' fact rather than a recommendation to approve or deny. You can find that it
does meet the standards of the ordinance . That it does, the lot sizes and
grades do comply with the ordinance but you do have these disturbing things
' that you haven' t been able to totally settle and these are your concerns .
A denial is, the Council ' s not going to want to overturn your denial .
' Emmings : You don ' t know our City Council .
Chuck VanEeckhout: If you pass it on with some findings , they can look
objectively which they' re going to want to do at your findings and at your
' conclusions. That way at least it isn' t quite so negative and I realize
your concerns and I understand them but I would hate to see it denied
simply because, although I do very much want to move it along .
Emmings: I think that, it feels negative to deny it and I don' t think any
of us are against the project. The City Council reads our Minutes and
they' re going to know that if we do, if there is a denial , it' s only a
' formality to move the thing onto them. I think they' re going to know that
but we hav a choice. Can we do essentially what we' ve kind of said here
and he' s just suggested , just say. . .
Conrad : The motion is to forward it on without a recommendation. That
would be the motion with any kind of recommendations tagged onto that .
' Emmings : We' re not opposed to the project . We think the conditions are in
order. We just can' t decide the issue of the thru street.
' Headla : Can we approve it and then list our concerns? I think we had
about 3 concerns that we had a split vote on. That would be a much more
positive thing .
' Erhart : I think it' s important that we pass on to Council people' s
feelings about the thru street so when they read the Minutes it' s clear how
many people favored , were for or against the thru street because I think
' that' s the number one issue. The other issues are sort of secondary.
Headla : So we could approve this but list that as a concern?
' Erhart : Whatever . Just so the Council has an accurate . . .
Conrad : I don' t think we need to approve it . I think somebody can make a
motion to . . .
Emmings : There ' s a motion to deny it on the table.
Conrad: Okay. And was that seconded?
1
.1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 46
II
Emmings : Yes. Over here. II
Erhart : I ' ll withdraw that if we can get something moved onto the Council II
with comments. That's what I 'm trying to get accomplished here.
Conrad : Do you withdraw your second?
Ellson: What's going to happen here? I 've started to lose it? What is II
this going to be replaced by?
Emmings: We don't know exactly but. . . II
Ellson: Before I remove it I kind of want to know that.
II
Emmings : We' re going to try and do something more positive than do a
denial . It' s going to be more wishy washy but it' s going to be. . .
Erhart: That' s fine as long as we' re clear , and we pass onto the Council II
our comments , it' s clear to them to read the Minutes how many people are
against or for the thru street because I think that' s the number one issue.
Conrad : So we could accept a motion to just recommend that we have not
come to a final conclusion on this item but have the following comments .
Emmings : I think we can go further than that . Can ' t we say that our II
opposition is not to the . . .
Headla : Not to the project . 1
Emmings : And we think that the conditions that are listed by staff are
I
appropriate but we have other concerns that don' t allow us to come to a
consensus and we' ll go down the line and state what our separate motions
are. How about that?
Conrad : Okay. Do you want to make a motion? II
Headla: Tim, did you withdraw yours? 1
Erhart : Yes . Before we do, in other cases though when we have a motion
and it fails, do we always remove it, resubmit it as a denial? 1
Conrad : No .
Erhart : What do we normally do when it fails?
II
Ellson: Find one that does pass .
Conrad : Oh yes . Sooner or later we have to make a specific motion that II
passes. ,
Emmings : She ' s holding out . 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16 , 1989 - Page 47
Ellson : Yes, I guess I ' ll take it back. It ' s 10: 30.
Emmings : I move that the Planning Commission pass this onto City Council
' with the understanding that the Planning Commission feels that the
conditions in the staff report , 1 thru 10, conditions 1 thru 10, are
appropriate and that there are other issues primarily concerning this
street that don' t allow us to come to a consensus and we' ll simply make
' individual comments on our own feelings about those other issues and let
the matter be decided by the City Council .
Batzli : Second .
' Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission pass
Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 with
the following conditions with the understanding that there are other issues
primarily concerning the street that don' t allow the Planning Commission to
' come to a consensus .
1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance
' of a building permit. Clearcutting, except for the house pad and
utilities , will not be permitted .
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
' provide the City with the necesary financial sureties to guarantee
proper installation of the improvements .
' 3. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12 inch watermain
in Pleasant View Road .
' 4. The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather
than Fox Chase.
5. The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce
versus Fox Chase.
6. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be
' reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer .
7. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City Engineer .
8 . Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication.
9. Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector .
10. A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrant .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Conrad : Now for the comments .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 48
Erhart : Comments . I 'm very much against the thru street. I can accept II the proposal that Chuck has got but I favor the proposal that the Pleasant
View Homeowners Association submitted . I stated the reasons previously in
the Minutes so I ' ll just leave it at that.
Emmings : I have a weak preference for a thru street. I 'm 55% for a thru
street and 45% for essentially the plan that the developer has presented .
Ellson : I want a thru street .
Conrad : I am totally opposed to a thru street and find a lot of merit to
sourcing both Pleasant View and Nez Perce as connectors for the proposal as
presented by the Pleasant View Homeowners group.
Batzli : I 'm against a thru street. I think we' re providing a secondary '
access in the future by the present proposal .
Wildermuth: I 'm opposed to a thru street and I think there will be another. '
opportunity to connect Nez Perce and Pleasant View.
Headla: I support the Fire Department' s request for a thru street and I
think it will help us in the future for better planning .
Conrad: Good. Well thank you all for sitting through that.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES :
Ellson moved , Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting July 19 , 1989 as presented. All voted in favor except
Batzli who abstained and the motion carried .
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated August 2, 1989 as presented . All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: '
Conrad : Anything Jo Ann for City Council updates?
Olsen: They are going to reconsider Daryl Kirt. His wetland. They' re '
going to reconsider that. SuperAmerica , I don ' t know if you' ve been
hearing about that but they have lights around the gas canopy now which was
never approved . The construction plans , which I don' t look at the detail , I
it 's like 30 pages of construction plans, did show them as lit so there' s
problems with that .
Emmings : You remember no stuff stored outside. 1
Ellson: And I noticed that when I went last week and I told the manager
I liked it . '
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 49
Emmings : I 'm watching that like a hawk and doesn ' t it look a lot better?
Ellson: It does. I went in and I acted like I didn' t know anything about
' it and I said , gee that looks so nice without all that stuff . Now if they
could just do it on the counter . I mean you' ve got like one milk carton' s
about to put your stuff . . .
Olsen: That' s about it that happened Monday.
Batzli : What happened to our convenience store moratorium?
' Olsen: Oh yeah, that was another one. I did forget that. That went up to
them and they felt that the intent of what the Council wanted with the
' moratorium hadn' t been met. They still want something that you can only
have one convenience store on one corner or regulate it by the number in
districts or whatever .
' Batzli : They didn' t want to regulate it by square footage and all that
kind of stuff?
' Olsen : They didn' t feel that regulated it . They felt that a convenience
store could come in Linder the definition of a motor fuel service station
and still really be a convenience store but that didn ' t limit the number .
It's going to be coming back.
Batzli : So Mark is going to be going back to the drawing board? And he wa
worried about the Council over ruling us earlier?
' Emmings : I 'd like to move that we move Mark to the end of the agenda .
OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHAPTER OF COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, MARK KOEGLER.
' Emmings : Dave, we live in the most populous region of the City. 539-1.
Headla: Where abouts is that?
' Emmings : Right here. That includes you and me.
' Headla: That' s the western part?
Emmings : We therefore have more to say. At least we have greater weight .
Headla: But who ' s going to listen?
Mark Koegler : What I have this evening actually is very brief . I want to
' do a couple of things. Give you kind of progress update and then talk a
little bit about the next meeting . The material that you got in the packet
is a distribution that we worked up of the projections that have been
' agreed apparently with Metropolitan Council for purposes of completing the
TH 212 EIS. Don' t construe those necessarily to be Chanhassen' s population
projections at this point . It appears we' ll still have some minor
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16 , 1989 - Page 50 '
discrepancies with those and I hope to have that worked out by the end of II
this week. The information that is in that material , as I indicated, is
being used for this Eastern Carver County Transportation Study and they' re
beginning to do some preliminary computor runs on traffic and they needed
some feedback on at least dispersal of those numbers. We did go through
the the employment portions of that with some detail and the City just
recently completed another survey so I feel pretty comfortable with the
employment numbers that are shown there and the distribution geographically"
that ' s on those maps and that tabulate information. Utilizing this solely
at this point in time and translating that into land use , just to give you
a preview of things to come, it does appear as though there will be a need II
to expand the 2000 MUSA line just merely to accommodate growth at that
level and you' ll notice those particular projections are labeled the 2005.
Again that' s because of the Transportation Study that we were providing
projections of both 2000 and 2005 throughout all of the material . So more II
will be known on that as we proceed over roughly the next weeks period of
time. That kind of ties into the second part of what ' s really a conclusion
of my comments and it' s more of a reminder that if you recall when we met a
month or so ago, you all agreed to dedicate an extra Wednesday on August
30th to have a special meeting to discuss Comprehensive Plan. Perhaps I
should clarify whether or not that still works for everybody' s schedules
but that's what we' re working toward at this point in time.
Will we get a handout or something will come to our house to
remind us? ,
Mark Koegler. : You' ll get a packet of material . So again, view the
information you've got in front of you now as what seems to be the most
current projections coming out of Metropolitan Council . We will be
revising those to some degree and presenting that as part of the
presentation on the 30th. I should also indicate , you had a presentation
last time from John Shardlow representing some of the property owners along
TH 5 and I have tried to keep John abreast and I think he' s trying to keep
us apprised of what they' re doing . We' re meeting later this week to at
least get some idea of what their thinking is and probably will bring that II
to you on the 30th as well with some additional update as far as some of
their plans . I think it' s also noteworthy that the City' s new planner ,
Paul Krause and I discussed things today. Jo Ann met with him recently.
We' re going to be meeting on Monday to get some of his input also . I think
since he will play a critical role as this goes on, it' s time to probably
involve him as well so we' re trying to bring together all of the current
information and it will be coming to you as part of the packet for the
30th.
Emmings : On the sheet that came to us it says , EMP. That means what? 1
Mark Koegler : Employment. Full time and part time jobs .
Emmings : In that area? '
Mark Koegler : In that area, correct .
Batzli : Do you count daycare as full time jobs for people?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16 , 1989 - Page 51
Mark Koegler : If it' s in a daycare center we do. If it' s in a home, it' s
probably generally an unknown.
' Emmings : How do you figure that out? -
Mark Koegler : We've looked at a combination. First of all , the most
' recent survey the City did , just literally this week, I think, I don' t
remember the exact number but the employment was up in the neighborhood of
2, 800 . Something like that as the total . Don' t hold me to that number .
' We've utilized that. We' ve looked at development proposals that are before
you right now and buildings that are under construction such as McGlynn and
Rosemount. Ver-Sa-Til . Some of those. We've looked at the remaining land
' in some of these parcels and made some assumptions as to the types of
facilities that are going to go in there and what their employee generation
is going to be to come up with the 2005 numbers . So there' s a batch of
reasonably scientific input and there' s a little bit of guesswork in there
as well , to be honest .
Conrad : Mark, who came up with these numbers? The 2005 projection?
Mark Koegler : The 2005 population and household projections came out of
the, I guess the dialogue between Metropolitan Council ' s demographers and
' the consultant group that' s putting together the EIS work and then the spin
off, Eastern Carver County Transportation Study which is the Transportation
Study sponsored by Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie. Maybe Eden Prairie
isn ' t in there I guess . The County itself is and I think maybe Victoria .
So that is where this most recent batch of numbers came up. Those
numbers , at least in the early years , are pretty consistent with the
population projections that were done for the broadened study area report
that you went through a few years ago with Fred and Jim Benshoof and some
' of those people. In the later years they tend to deviate some and we' ll be
focusing on that again a little more the next time around but there ' s some
consistency there.
Conrad : And do you agree with those numbers?
Mark Koegler : They appear to be a little bit low. Again, I will be
substantiating that but just literally today we reached the conclusion that
I think, and speaking in terms of population now, that those numbers are a
' bit low.
Conrad : Are they like at 13, 000?
' Mark Koegler : Our best guesstimate is that at the end of 1988 , calendar
1988 , the population was 10, 100. That' s with assuming about a 5% vacancy
rate so you know, 10, 600 maximum kind of thing . Since that time obviously
in 1989, there have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 permits
issued in the first half of this year . So pretty well on course probably
similar to last year when I think there was in the neighborhood of 400.
412 single family and there 165 as of June 30th .
' Conrad: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting
II
August 16, 1989 - Page 52
I
Mark Koegler : Is the meeting on the 30th still a go? I
Conrad: Anybody can' t make it?
I
Batzli : What kind of meeting on the 30th?
Conrad: Special meeting to get the Comprehensive Plan, to spend some time I
• with Mark on the Comprehensive Plan .
Batzli : Like were we notified of that before?
I
Conrad : We talked about it before . We haven' t been notified but we will
be.
IEllson: We were polled on it before.
Conrad: Thanks Mark.
I
Erhart : Are we going to discuss this stuff we got from Roger Knutson or is '
that just for information?
Olsen : You really don' t have to . It will be coming forward in a more
formal .
I
Batzli : Jo Ann , what kind of a problem would it be to get a base map with
the zoning on it for the Commission members? That would be useful for me.
The base map of zoning. An updated one of those. Don' t they have one?
Olsen : Sure.
I
Emmings : I think we got one. When I came on as a commissioner , they gave
me one. I think I ' ve still got it. It's out of date but it ' s . . .
Ellson : Right . Some of the things have changed . That ' s what he' s asking I
for. Something that' s more updated.
Batzli : An up-to-date base zoning map for us because I know they just did I
one in like January didn't they?
Olsen : Yes, the base maps are what are always updated with all the new
I
streets and sometimes the zoning map is behind but I ' ll get you both .
Base and zoning map.
Conrad : In our kit Lori sent you a note on the Near Mountain trail and I I
don 't understand it at all .
Olsen : Essentially what ' s it saying is that the trails , there are trails II
from Fox Chase south and on street rails through Near Mountain .-and to get
to those two you' re asking , they will have to go on Pleasant View but
there' s no other trail , off street trail system.
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 53
' Conrad : Until Pleasant View is upgraded or something . If this is the
trail , there' s very little on Pleasant View so that' s why I 'm at a loss .
Until , there ' s so little on Pleasant View, we ' re saying we' re going to wait
' until , I 'm still at a loss. There' s nothing on Pleasant View to tell you
the truth . I don' t know what her comments mean.
Olsen: I guess I don' t understand what you' re saying .
' Conrad : The connection between Near Mountain and Fox Chase will not likely
be made until Pleasant View Road is upgraded. Well , I am looking at,
' here' s Pleasant View and there' s no trail . My concern last week was the
trail going through Near Mountain and I knew we had this here and I saw
nothing in the planning packet that talked about a trail going through the
' stuff we were looking for .
Olsen : You' re saying all on street . There is no off street trail .
They've been trying to get off street with all the newer additions but it
' hasn' t. . .so it' s all on street trail meaning . . .
Conrad: That just doesn' t make sense.
' Batzli : That isn ' t really a trail .
Conrad : Yes , why are they doing that do you know? Are they just s we
give up? We don' t want a trail or is that their . . . saying
Olsen : They' d recommend sidewalks . . .
' Conrad: But the sidewalk was just a loop .
' Olsen : But it was also an extension.
Conrad : Huh. There ' s something missing between their recommendation and
what we see. We support the trail . If they had said here' s the trail and
we want it in that development , I think I would have, we would have paid
attention to that but what we saw was a circular, it wasn' t a trail . It
was a circular sidewalk.
Wildermuth : There' s got to be something connecting that circle with a
system.
' Conrad : Absolutely. See a circular sidewalk is not the trail system to me
and maybe we' re just talking about some semantics but I 'm hopeful we didn' t
screw up, I don' t know.
' Batzli : Well has it gone to Council? Has that one gone to Council?
'
Conrad: But I hope our standards are not being diminished because of , here
we have Near Mountain . They need our okay for a change to the PUD and if
Lori says , or the Park and Rec says we want a trail going through there,
we ' re going to jump on the band wagon. It' s an absolute connector and now
' we' re just letting people walk on the street. That' s not a trail so I
don ' t know. Not your problem but I just have a problem with what they' ll
Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 1989 - Page 54
telling us . '
Olsen : There is a trail plan and . . . I think what she was outlining here is
that this is part of a trail plan shows.
Conrad : This is what I want to make sure happens if that' s what in the
plan. I didn' t see that last week so if you can help us make sure that it
is happening and that we did approve the right stuff . Okay. Thanks .
Anything else based on the other. stuff?
Erhart: This interim use thing . Roger just took the old ordinance and
just made a suggestion here. Here' s how we would do that?
Olsen : Right . We discussed whether or not it should be real open or II specific and in speaking with Roger , he'd be much more comfortable with it
being specific .
Erhart : So you' re going to come back with some proposals on that then or I
what?
Olsen : Yes . I ' ll review those. . .
Batzli : We have a new planning person?
Olsen : Yes .
Batzli : When does that person start?
Olsen: August 28th.
Erhart : Are we working on an ordinance change now addressing parking and
stuff? Is someone working on that?
Olsen : We are .
Erhart : Okay. I 'd like to suggest we add another one. And that is the
access points and that. I think it' s very easy to add an ordinance that
says that limits your accesses to 2 every 200 feet except in cul-de-sacs .
In a street, if we have two homes, each has their driveway right together,
that' s fine but in any given 200 feet , you can' t have more than 2 access
points .
Batzli : So what zones are you in there?
Erhart: Anything that comes onto a residential street . '
Wildermuth : Regardless of the zoning .
Erhart: Regardless of the zoning. You just can' t have more than 2
accesses. In residential areas . Obviously downtown businesses that
wouldn' t apply but in residential areas . You shouldn' t have an access more
than 2 every 200 feet. Okay, then say 180 feet or something like that but
to eliminate this thing that we' ve seen tonight. It' s an idea and as long
Planning Commission Meeting
9
' August 16, 1989 - Page 55
' as we' re making a bunch of changes trying to prevent that, there ' s another
idea. Maybe I don' t have the right words.
' Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 00 p.m. .
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
t
I