1i. Minutes / i. 287
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 8, 1988
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara
Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Jim Chaffee and Todd Gerhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
' approve the agenda as amended with the following additions: Councilman Geving
wanted to discuss communications under Council Presentations and to move item 7
to the first item after Visitor Presentation; Councilman Horn wanted to discuss
' streets; Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the carousel building and building
construction hours; and Mayor Hamilton wanted to discuss the Brooks Superette
parking area. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
' recommendations:
b. Approval of Liquor Licenses:
1. Brooks Superette, 594 West 78th Street, Off-Sale Non-intoxicating
License.
2. Chanhassen Rotary Club, On Sale Temporary Beer License.
c. McGlynn Bakeries, Southwest Corner of Highway 5 and Audubon Road:
1. Subdivision Request to Subdivide 70 Acres into One Industrial Lot and
Two Outlots.
2. Site Plan Review for a 161,700 Sq. Ft. Building for Office and Food
Processing.
' d. Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Construct an 80 sq. ft. Pylon Sign,
SuperAmerica Station, 615 Flying Cloud Drive.
' g. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Provide Minimum Building and Parking Setbacks
for Business, Commercial and Industrial Lots Adjacent to Railroads and
Residential Zoning Districts.
j. Final Plat Approval, George Way.
1. Approval of Accounts.
!IL m. City Council Minutes dated July 25, 1988
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated July 26, 1988
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
11 1
288
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
CONSENT AGENDA: (E) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, WOODCREST ADDITION, R & R LAND
VENTURES.
Councilman Boyt: I think that this is the one where we want to be sure that
we're very clear because I think there's too many lots in this development.
This is the one with the unstable soil potential and the one where we were
removing quite a few trees. I think we should indicate that it's our intent
that these lots should not require any variances in order to have a house built
on it. I don't want somebody coming back 6 months from now saying it's a lot of
record and therefore you have to grant a variance to build 20 feet from the
street because my backyard doesn't have soil that can withstand a pad. Since
we don't have those tests in front of us, I think it's important that we
indicate our intent is not to grant variances here. So I would amend the final
plat approval to include a condition that the intent is that these lots should
be buildable without variances.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there a second to the motion?
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask Roger, it seems to me one of the rights of a
property owner is the right to come before a city and ask for a variance. Can
we take that away from them?
Roger Knutson: You can't take their right away to apply, that's correct. fl
Mayor Hamilton: So regardless of what we do, we can not at this point say we
will not allow a variance because they have the right to come before this body 1
and ask for a variance. Is that correct?
Roger Knutson: That's correct. You can not bind future Councils on that issue
forever. You can make a statement of intent if you want and granted it's non-
binding
but you can make a statement of intent.
Councilman Horn: I would think that this would be implied in all of our
approvals that they would not be subject to allowing variances. That should be
something that we apply to everything we do. I don't know why we need to make
an issue of it in this case. 1
Mayor Hamilton: Right, especially when it's not binding.
Councilman Boyt: I understand that it's not binding but I think for us to '
approve this final plat when we don't have all the soils information is
basically to tie our hands in regards to future variances because if someone
comes in here and says I can't build unless I build 10 feet from the road
because the back yard doesn't have stabilized soil, we're obligated to either
buy that lot or let them build on it.
Mayor Hamilton: Their remedy is to go back to whoever they bought the lot from
for not giving the proper information.
Councilman Johnson: I believe that your intent is good in here. It doesn't
hurt us at all to have it in there. It helps future Councils in case a variance
2 1
1 City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
comes in and we wish to deny the variance that that intent is put here. I
believe this is a little more special than the subdivision that's built out in a
cornfield that doesn't have a high potential for this to happen. I think your
' condition 4, as long as the condition is not misconstrued for them to believe
that they don't need a variance and they can do anything they want without a
variance. The wording you said, since I don't have it written down, to me at
one time I thought I could mince through that to say, I don't need a variance, I
can do anything I want on the lot because the Council says I don't need
variances but I know that's not what you're trying to mean. I think we have to
' make sure that the wording as such says that we do not...
Councilman Boyt: That's alright. It's not that these are building lots without
' a variance and as Clark says, that should be our intent everytime. In this
particular case there is a question about soil stability. Maybe what we ought
to do is deny it until they can prove that the soils are stable enough to build
' on and then we can approve it and we won't have this problem.
Councilman Johnson: The part of your thing that I was having a little problem
with is saying that they are buildable lots without variances. By declaring
' them buildable in that sentence, I'm playing sematics and English teacher with
you right now.
' Councilman Horn: Let's ask the Attorney once. By passing this, are we implying
any consent on variances?
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilman Geving: I think the process has gone very far in this particular
effort. We're at the final plat approval stage and to suggest that we might
' disapprove of this and let the developer come in and prove that the lots are
buildable, I think it's a little late in the game. I think that could have been
discussed and addressed very quickly at the Planning Commission level or either
at the first meeting of this whole process. We're at the final plat approval
tonight. These people are ready to go. I'm not about to pull back and deny the
possibility of building just because we're not sure of the buildability. I'm
not willing to admit that Bill. I think your intent is very good. I agree with
Clark. We make that intention on every development. It's our intent not to
grant variances but I think if you want to put it in there I have no problem
with it. I think it would convey to the developer that that's what we want to
do. I would add it. I don't have any problem with it.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Final Plat for
Woodcrest Addition, R & R Land Ventures as amended to include a condition that
the intent is that these lots should be buildable without variances. All voted
in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and the motion carried.
Councilman Horn: Maybe we need to make that standard for all of our approvals.
!!-- We hear it so often that people come in and the developer didn't tell them what
was said at the Council meeting and then we find out later there's a problem. I
would suggest we include that in all of them.
3
dlIN
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 '
Councilman Johnson: I see another potential on this particular site is that bi.
sign out front says wooded lots. By the time they finish the grading, the front
half of these lots aren't wooded lots anymore.
Mayor Hamilton: You don't know that until you see the grading.
CONSENT AGENDA: (H) APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR CURRY FARMS '
2ND ADDITION.
Mayor Hamilton: There was a question on this one by the Kerbers. They had not '
had an opportunity to review the development contract nor the 2nd Addition of
this development so I would like to add a condition that this would not be
approved until the Kerbers have given their written approval of the project of
this addition. They were to have met with the developers. The developers have
not met with them, talked with them or told them anything about the 2nd
Addition. That has been a part of this whole development process that they meet
with the Kerbers and they have not done that on this 2nd Addition. All I'm
saying is that the Kerbers should be informed as to what is taking place in
their neighborhood and that they have the right to sign off on the 2nd Addition
agreement contract. '
Councilman Johnson: Was that part of our final plat when we final platted this?
Councilman Geving: They were supposed to have been notified.
Mayor Hamilton: That was agreed by Centex right along that they would meet with
the Kerbers and keep them informed as to what was happening in the development
and they haven't done that.
Councilman Geving: Is that a motion Tom? ,
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Councilman Geving: I'll second that motion. '
Councilman Horn: I have a question. Are you saying that they have a right to
sign off on it or to be informed? 1
Mayor Hamilton: I say that they can sign off on it. Centex has said that's
fine with them. '
Councilman Boyt: They're comfortable with that?
Mayor Hamilton: That's my understanding, yes.
Councilman Johnson: Is Centex here?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
John Speiss: The City is giving them, the Planning Department; the opportunity
to review the plans with the Kerbers. They reviewed the plans as far as I know.
Mayor Hamilton: My understanding was that they have not and that you have not
talked to them about the 2nd Addition so until that occurs and they are
4
IICity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 291
satisfied with what's happening, I think they have a right to sign off on it.
John Speiss: Does that mean that we don't have the go ahead to do this because
' the Kerbers won't sign off?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that was my understanding that you had approved that
already. You said it was fine with you if the Kerbers could review the plan and
have an opportunity to sign off on it.
John Speiss: I don't remember that at all. Not only that but I don't know
whether it's possible by their signing off if there's another approval that
we've never known about.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could clarify this for me Don.
Don Ashworth: Kerbers do not feel as though anyone has contacted them. The
' plans supposedly were submitted on July 14th and yet again, Kerbers have not
looked at it. In terms of signing off, part of the approval is to grade on the
Kerber's property. If you can not get agreement with them, how can you go onto
that property? I would make the assumption that if the two property owners can
not resolve any potential differences, and I don't know that there will be any
because they haven't seen them so how do they know if they have a differnce or
not but I would assume that it would be back in front of you in two weeks if
they can't come to resolution.
Larry Kerber: There's a few complications with this. It's not, I really didn't
see it. I haven't seen the final plan that shows the grading. What I saw was a
I sketch proposal by Centex. Talking to John Speiss, as John said, we will not
t - put any of this fill or do any of this unless you sign off with us saying no
matter what we do, how we leave you after this, you have no recourse against us.
' Okay, but I never saw a final plat that was formalized and approved by anybody
here. Now Friday I got a letter from Gary Warren that says, in effect says, I
don't know if you people got this.
Councilman Geving: We have.
Larry Kerber: It says we will not require Centex to put fill in your property
unless you give us a 50 foot wide easement over the creek which emcompasses
about a half acre of my property donated to the City. A 50 foot easement and
then we'll fill your property. Am I correct in that? Is that what that letter
says? That's the way I read it.
Gary Warren: Conditions of approval from the plans and spec review and the
' grading and drainage review were that in order to provide the City the control
to deal with the ponding issue that happened in the spring of this year that we
felt that we needed to have access to that drainageway to keep the culvert
basically open and flowing. As a result a condition of approval was that no
improvements or work would be authorized of the developer on the Kerber's
property until we had received that easement from Kerbers.
111 Dacy: I did hand deliver the plans for the 2nd Phase.
Larry Kerber: Okay, did it show the grading on our property? I looked and I
.�-- couldn't find it on here.
5
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Dacy: I thought that the grading plan was approved by the Planning Staff. ..
Gary Warren: There was a grading plan in there and the sketch that you were
sent in a June 20th letter from Centex showing grading, the City then as a
condition of final approval had to incorporate into that grading plan that Barb
says she delivered to you.
Larry Kerber: If it's on that plan I can't find it because I looked at it 2 or
3 times and I can't find it on there. But I guess back to this letter, that's '
what this is all about. I'm to give the City almost a half of my land, they
will not take care of the drainage problem, is that correct?
Councilman Johnson: We're not trying to take a half acre of your land. ,
Larry Kerber: What this says, any trees, shrubs, buildings that are in the way
will be taken down. I'm just not going to do it. Why should I give up this
easement to correct a problem that is not my fault? The drainage problem I feel
should be corrected. If the City needs an easement, we can work something out
and that's what I said all along but now the last I heard, the only thing
I heard other than to talk, I said yes, I will work on an easement because if
you need, is this letter from Gary saying we want 50 feet which is almost a half
acre of land or you don't get the fill and I don't think that's the way this was
supposed to be handled. If it is the way, then I've got a real problem with it.
If that's the way you people feel it should be handled.
Councilman Boyt: It seems to me that this is saying that by the 26th of August,
Ell
you have to have something worked out. Isn't that what it's saying? Why does
that mean we now have to stop the process? The 26th of August is several weeks
from now.
Larry Kerber: What happens the 26th of August is Gary Warren or you people say,
give us an easement or we won't fill. There's no way I'm going to allow that.
If there's water on my property, take the water off and I'm perfectly willing to
let them come in if they'll take it off. It shouldn't be tied to something that
had nothing to do with it.
Councilman Boyt: I think the question is that the City Engineer is saying, in
order to assure that the water will drain, we have to have the ability to get to
the drain and that's what they're asking for. Are you saying you won't give the
City the ability to get to the drain?
Larry Kerber: Not presented like this. I can't give us a half acre of my land
for this easement. If something can be worked out. I look at this and this is
what I see. Give us a half acre of land or we won't take care of your problem.
That's what the letter says to me.
Gary Warren: We're saying that part of the problem is on your land which is the
culvert and the freezing of the drainageway and in order to properly keep that
maintained in a free state, we have to get on your land to solve the problem. '
That's all we're saying.
Councilman Geving: Larry, I think you're looking at this totally wrong. This
is really a letter in which we are asking for the maintenance easement agreement
6 1
6 .4i
IFCity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
II , so we can go onto your land legally and resolve this problem. This is not going
to take land from you. It's the only way in which we can legally go onto your
land and perform the necessary work that needs to be done to take care of the
' problem. If we were to violate your property by not getting your agreement,
then you have a right to come back to us for damages. We need to have this
I agreement. Don't feel that it's a way of getting or losing 50 feet of land or a
half acre or how many acres you mentioned. It's not that at all. This is
strictly a process that we have to have signed by you so we can complete the
work. Don't feel that we're trying in any way to take land from you Larry.
I This is to protect your interest. That's how I look at it and I think our
Attorney would verify that that we are only following the process here to keep
us all out of trouble from a city standpoint. You have rights and we're trying
IIto protect your rights.
Kathy Kerber: Earlier this spring when this first came up on the 2nd phase,
II Larry and I came here and explained. .. At that time the Council did say that
this problem. ..and just before that time I called you Dale and talked to you on
the phone about it and you said also, for this to get approved, these problems
had to be resolved. Now taking down the barn and taking down the shed...and
1 nothing has been done and as far as this letter from Gary, I spoke to Don
earlier this afternoon, we have not seem such a plan. They're coming in here,
they're going to fill our property and at no point have we seen the plan.
IThere's no consideration for us.
Councilman Geving: Maybe our approach wasn't the best here by sending a letter
to you and asking for your signature. I suspect we could have hand carried the
Iletter and talked to you and showed you the plan.
Larry Kerber: I guess that's what I'm getting at.
IICouncilman Geving: Is that what your problem is?
I Larry Kerber: I didn't have a problem. That creek has been there for drainage
for I don't know how many years, it was never a problem. Now, because it's
developed, the flow has changed. It now runs in winter, there's a problem. Now
to solve the problem you want an easement to maintain it. I can see why you
II need one. I do not think that that should be tied to the other problem of
keeping the water off my property. This was a problem created also by putting
this berm up in the back and making my land approximately 8 feet lower than
Itheirs.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like we've had nothing but problems with this
I develoent and with Kerbers not being satisfied with what Centex is doing and I
don't know why this continues to be a problem. If they can't get it resolved
before they come here, then they shouldn't come here. Let Centex and you Gary
and the Kerbers work it out. If they can't, I don't want to sit here and haggle
IIover this thing because we can't resolve it.
Larry Kerber: Exactly the way I feel. I haven't seen anybody. I just get this
Ill_ letter saying sign this or we don't fill and I don't think that's the way it
should be handled.
John Speiss: We've met with Kerbers on more than one occasion and it started
IIout with filling a small area and we've been before the Council at least two
II 7
2 91 ty Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
times on this issue and the issue is, the Kerbers have decided that they want us
to fill the property so their water runs into our pond, which is fine with the
Watershed and fine with the City and fine with every engineer around. Kerbers
thought that this would be the final solution and now, they have no idea what
we're talking about and I don't know what else to do. We've done everything.
We've offered everything and still it is not enough. They will not release us
from any liability if we fill their property so that their property does run
into the pond. They have always drained into that drainageway. If in fact
their property didn't drain onto our property before this. Now, it drains into
our pond which in turn drains back through the drainageway under CR 17. That
drainageway has been there before any of us, probably for centuries, who knows?
That has always been there. The drainageway has always been there and part of
the reason it flooded out this year was because there was no maintenance on it
and the pipe froze solid. There are weeds growing and it just hasn't been
maintained. We've have offered to, three different occasions, three different
ways to solve the problem and here is what we call the last thing that will
satisfy the Kerbers as long as 2 1/2 months ago, if we were to fill that up so
that their property would drain into that pond, they would be satisfied. Now
they can't recall that and that's what our letters have stated. The first time.
The second time and now that they're going to fill that so it can drain into our
pond, that held us up for a month with the Watershed District. They didn't know
what we were planning because Kerbers hadn't been able to decide. Now they've
decided and we got the permit to go ahead and grade. If we just fill up to
Kerber's, that's fine with the Watershed. That water can come into the pond.
Mayor Hamilton: The fact is that the Kerber's didn't have any problem until
your development came along and now there's seems to be problems existing and I
that's not right. They had no problem before. You altered the land
considerably in that area and now they've got a problem with drainage.
John Speiss: We didn't alter their property at all.
Mayor Hamilton: But you altered the property around them which altered the
drainage onto their property. You should be able to figure that out. What I'd
like to do is see this resolved prior to it's coming to us so I think that's
going to make it tabled.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I would go rather to table it rather than to set a
precedence of allowing a neighbor actual sign off on the City development
contract. I think this would be a dangerous precedence to set to require their
signature on the development contract. I would far rather table this until the
22nd.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that a motion? '
Councilman Boyt: I have a question. It seems to me that the issue is between
the Kerbers and the City. Is that where the issue is now? On the 50 foot '
easement?
Larry Kerber: No, I've still got a problem with Centex. All the while they
talked of filling this up. Getting right down to it in the end and it says they
will not fill or do anything for you. Fix the drainage problem on the south
where they break up that run. I talked to Tom Boyce and he said we will not do
anything to help you unless you sign a waiver saying that we're done. That's
8 1
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 *295
IIwhat you're going to be satisfied with and you sign that before we start. I
said, I will sign it after you're done and I can see everything is working. I'll
' have no problem with it and I don't think that's unreasonable.
Councilman Boyt: So there's two issues. One of them is with the City on the 50
II foot easement and the other one is with when do you have to sign off on the
grading?
Larry Kerber: Exactly.
ICouncilman Horn: I think there's another issue and that is, is the City going
to be the arbitrater in this case to determine what is going to work or are the
I Kerbers going to be the arbitraters in deciding what is going to work? The way
I see this, it should be our City Engineering Department who decides, gets an
agreement from Centex as to what they have to do to make it work. That's the
way I see this.
IIMayor Hamilton: That's right. It hasn't been resolved yet so I wish we didn't
have it here.
ICouncilman Horn: Do you agree with what Centex has proposed to make this work
with the easement?
IGary Warren: The condition of approval said that they had to prepare a plan
satisfactory to the City Engineer and that is what they reviewed and presented
to me and that's what I approved.
111 Councilman Horn:
And you believe it will work?
I Gary Warren: I believe with the filling on the property and the maintenance
easements and the new culverts that are proposed, it will work.
I Councilman Horn: Now the Kerbers apparently don't believe that or they'd be
willing to sign that off.
Gary Warren: What he's saying, if I'm interpretting him right, that he wants to
II wait and see.
Councilman Horn: See if it works? So we've got a chicken and egg situation
Ithat won't work.
Councilman Boyt: I think we can resolve this because if the City is requiring
Iit and if you're approving it, then why do they need to sign off on it at all?
Gary Warren: The City has no condition that the Kerbers sign any waivers of any
sorts except to give the contractor access maybe to the property. We are not
I making it a condition that the Kerbers waive their rights as far as any
recourse.
Councilman Horn: Except for easement.
Gary Warren: We're saying we need an easement to be able to solve the problem
or maintain the drainageway to prevent any easement so we have control over the
II drainageway but that's all we're asking.
II9
ss��
!,d
f City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see us resolve this.
Councilman Horn: So would I.
Larry Kerber: So would I but Gary, when did you come out and talk to me about
this easement? About this 50 foot easement?
Gary Warren: I haven't talked to you about the 50 foot easement. We talked
about the need for the easement out there.
Larry Kerber: Exactly. You said you'd like an easement. I said fine. We can
work something out. That was what, 2 months ago? 3 months ago? '
Gary Warren: What size easement would you be willing to give?
Larry Kerber: Let's talk about this. ,
Councilman Geving: Let's not negotiate here tonight.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table the development
contract for Curry Farms 2nd Addition. All voted in favor except Councilman
Boyt who opposed and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: (K) APPROVAL OF OBJECTIVES FOR SITE SELECTION OF PARK IN I
SOUTHERN CHANHASSEN.
Councilman Geving: I just wanted to say I commend the Park and Rec Commission '
for moving ahead on this southern park selection criteria. I think they've done
a lot of homework here with their musts and wants. I would like to discuss
however item 11. I'd really like to change that want to a must and at least
talk about it. The reason I say that, when we picked up the additional 20 acres
at Lake Ann, I thought it would be relatively easy to construct and redevelop
that area so we could put some ball diamonds and tennis courts there. The first
estimate that we got for reconstruction was several hundred thousand dollars.
It was considerable so I would like to recommend in 1(k) that that w be changed
from a want to a must. That it's very desirable that the land that's selected
accomodate ball diamonds, tennis courts, whatever else is planned. Soccer
fields and that we consider the cost of alteration in that area. So my only
suggestion here is to change that w to an m and consider the cost and the
possibility for some topography that will be conducive to that. Otherwise,
I like what they're doing and I commend them and want them to move ahead. Any
comments on that?
Councilman Johnson: If you're going to move that to an m, I'd like to remove '
the numbers of 4 ball diamonds and 2 soccer fields and just say, it's getting
too concrete there.
Councilman Geving: We don't know what we're going to put there. '
Councilman Johnson: Exactly so there's no reason to say, it's a must that we
have to have 4 baseball or softball fields or whatever. Being a soccer fanatic,
10 '
11. City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 �"� �
I'd go for 4 soccer fields.
1--
Mayor Hamilton: Under item 1, I'd like to see us say 80 acres rather than 50.
On number 2, land costs under $300,000.00, I'd prefer to see us look at a per
acre cost not to exceed $3,500.00 or something rather than just saying we're
going to go out and spend $300,000.00. If you look at it on a per acre basis,
it gives you a little better guideline when you're looking at property.
Councilman Geving: The other thing too Tom is that if you give someone a target
' and this is public information, they know we've got $300,000.00 to spend and the
bid is going to be $300,000.00.
' Councilman Johnson: Since we approved a referendum for $300,000.00, it's pretty
general knowledge that we have $300,000.00.
' Councilman Geving: I know. That's why I like Tom's suggestion.
Mayor Hamilton: But that doesn't mean that you have to blast it all. You don't
just walk up to a farmer and say I'll give you $300,000.00 for your land when
' it's only worth $200,000.00. Item 8, I didn't quite understand what the buffer
to TH 212 was supposed to be. Was that the future one that might be here in the
year 3000 or so? Is that what they meant?
' Councilman Horn: I suggest that we think about planning for transportation just
like TH 101.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, a buffer to TH 212. Explain to me what that means.
' Bill, you've probably had first hand information on that.
' Councilman Boyt: I think a buffer meant that the park might serve as a barrier
between a residential area and the road. That seemed way down on my list by the
way.
' Mayor Hamilton: Yes, it's a want so we don't know if the road will ever be
there.
' Councilman Geving: So would you get rid of 12 then Tom if you changed number 1
to 80? Just eliminate 12?
' Mayor Hamilton: I think rather than put a number to it again, I'd like to see
at least 80 acres and if you could get 150 acres and get a good buy on it and
stay within the budget, that's fine. I don't see why you have to put a number
' on it. Get the maximum number of acres for the dollars available.
Councilman Johnson: So you want to change number 2 to under $3,500.00 an acre?
' Mayor Hamilton: Not to exceed $3,500.00 an acre.
Councilman Boyt: I think there's a good reason for leaving it like it is. I
' think $3,500.00 an acre, the way this kind of matrix works, you could put that
in a want. Weight it as a very important want. I think the must is just there
to drop things out. It's really not there to tell you which is the best answer.
I It's there to tell you what you don't want to look at and we don't want to look
at anything that costs more than $300,000.00 because we don't have it so that's
' 11
6+
ty Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
why that ends up as a must. It's just a screen. ,
Mayor Hamilton: Then it's worded wrong. It should say land costs not to exceed
$300,000.00. It doesn't have to be under $300,000.00.
Councilman Boyt: So $3,500.00 an acre might be an excellent guideline and you
could just say, put that in a want. I don't want it to be more than $3,500.00
or you could put I want it to be as inexpensive as it can.
Councilman Horn: I think we're getting too picky over general objectives.
Obviously if something comes along that fits into the overall objectives,
they're going to go for it. I think we have to agree with the concept in order
to get the details.
Councilman Boyt: I think what they're looking for Clark though, is this
something that we're going to support so it is important to talk about.
Councilman Geving: I think we made some major modifications just by dropping
out specifics.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to say that we have as a want, if 80 is the
minimum size, that anything in excess of 80 acres ought to get credit for being
over that. This is an opportunity, it might be worth having a want that says,
offers unique recreational opportunities. Something we don't have in our other
parks. I'd like to see that added.
Councilman Geving: 13? I
Councilman Boyt: 13.
Councilman Geving: I would move approval of the objectives for the southern
park selection with the amended items and the addition of one other item, 13.
Councilman Horn: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Can I ask how item 2 ended up?
Councilman Geving: Number 2, land costs not to exceed $300,000.00 as a must and
a guideline of $3,500.00 per acre as a want.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so that'd be like a 14? ,
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the objectives for '
the southern park selection with the amended items and the addition of items 13
and 14. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTAIONS:
Henry Sosin, 7400 Chanhassen Road: I'm sure that to several of you people the I
sound of my voice is not only repulsive but onerous. I hope it is because
that's exactly what I'm here to talk about is the sound that to me is repulsive.
It keeps me awake at night. It wakes me up in the morning and it destroys the
12 ,
299
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
peaceful setting in which I hope to be living. I was so irritated by it a few
nights ago that my wife and I got in the car and drove around the City to find
II it. We did locate it. We went through proper channels. We spoke with Mr.Jr Chaffee who told us that there was nothing he could do because there was
no
ordinance and there was no regulations. I'm here for two purposes. One, I
' think the city needs such an ordinance if there's a problem and two, before you
go to that stage, I think if City Council would have a representative speak to
people who have particular problem, they may not even be aware of it, to be more
' than happy to fix it. This is the Victory Envelope Company. There is a very
steady loud sound which to me is driving us crazy. I hope you can handle it.
Councilman Geving: Did you locate- that?
Henry Sosin: Yes.
Councilman Geving: Are you sure that it's Victory Envelope?
Henry Sosin: As sure as I can be. I drove in my car to find it. It came from
' that building. I don't know what the source is. I would assume it's their
ventilation system.
Councilman Geving: The reason I ask that Henry, I too followed up on a noise
that I heard the other evening as I was down at Lake Susan looking at the
channel and I heard this loud buzzing sound and I couldn't figure out where it
was coming from. I went over on the other side of the lake, the south side of
the lake and stood on Mr. Klingelhutz' property and I detected that it comes
I from our wellhouse and it's the pump that's making that Waring sound and that's
what I detected as the sound that's very irritating to me.
' Henry Sosin: We may have two sources but I'm sure that the sound was coming
from this building.
' Councilman Geving: What time of the evening was this?
Henry Sosin: 10:00-11:00, but we hear it all day long.
Mayor Hamilton: I hear the same noise. I heard it last night very clear, loud.
Councilman Geving: If you did what I suggest, go over there on the side of the
' hill, on the south side of Lake Susan, you'll hear this sounds and I tell you,
they're irritating. Anybody who lives over there, you know what I'm talking
about.
' Larry Brown: If I might clarify. We received several calls on what people had
thought was the pump house and in fact what's going on is the contracter for
' Lake Susan Hills is watering some of the trenches that they've dug. Right now
you can't see their pumps because they're deep down into the pits. I too have
heard the sound from Victory Envelope as we have two separate sources there. I
tried to contact the contracter to remedy the pumping situation and we will keep
Iin touch with them but that is not our wellhouse.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, Daryl Fortier is here this evening. Maybe you could
' carry that message back to Victory Envelope. Maybe you could check it out
because it is certainly a source of irritation to a lot of people.
13
3
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I have been in communication with Victory Envelope on this
issue. I will supposedly be meeting with their president tomorrow on this. We
weren't able to get together today. I also traced this down. Environmental
acoustics is one of the fields I practice and they've got a big gas generater by
Lake Susan. That's what you're hearing down there but I have traced this back
myself because I heard it one night inside my home and traced it back. Victory
Envelope has not received any complaints of this as of yet. I was the first
person to talk to them about it and the first reaction is, we want to be a good
neighbor. We're going to investigate this right away and as soon as the
president gets back, he will be in contact with you so we will be working on
this.
Mayor Hamilton: Daryl represents them with most of their construction. I think
that the City Staff should follow up also.
Councilman Horn: That's exactly my point. I'm uncomfortable with the answer
that said we need an ordinance before we can deal with it. I don't like that
reaction. I don't think that's what we need. I think we have nuisance
ordinances. I think we can check those things out and we as a City need to try
,. and mitigate those situations. I'd ask Jim if that was a correct response?
Jim Chaffee: No, it wasn't. That was a little more blunt and pointed. I I
haven't even gone to look at it yet. I still have the note in my office. I
talked to Jay on the phone today. We coordinated it in...to see who could
handle it first. It wasn't no, we can't do anything about it. I just haven't
gone to look at it yet.
Councilman Horn: I think too we ought to be responsive to those issues when
they come up. If we set them in the basket someplace and don't take action on
them, it's the same thing as not reacting.
Councilman Johnson: The issue came up Friday and this is Monday and we're
reacting to it.
Mayor Hamilton: It's been there for a long time.
Councilman Horn: This reminds me of the Lyman Lumber thing. The time the
people in the company ever heard anything about it was when an issue came to us.
I don't know why people can't call directly also. Maybe you feel uncomfortable
about doing that but if somebody bothers me, I call them directly and I don't
think you need to feel uncomfortable about doing that to any of the businesses
we have in town. '
Henry Sosin: If it's my neighbor, I'll do that but a commercial establishment
that's 2 miles away from me, I think it's perfectly appropriate for the City to
handle that. That's what the City offices are for.
Councilman Horn: All I'm saying is, don't be intimidated and I'm sure with the
company... I guess my concern is, I think a lot of these things could be
handled without them coming to us.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, that's what we're here for is to handle problems.
14 '
IFCity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 y�
I .
FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7200 PONTIAC CIRCLE, KATHRYN HEDLUND.
' Councilman Geving: I'd like to start this and suggest that we got the staff
report from Jo Ann in a summation of our Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
' Jo Ann Olsen: What happened is the applicant is applying for a deck on one of
the Chaparral quad units. When we reviewed the site plan we found it was in the
front yard setback and required to go through the variance procedure. We found
' that almost all of the other quads in that area do have existing decks within
the frontyard setback. We couldn't find anything in the development contract
for a reduced setback for a deck. A lot of them did not have building permits
or else had been built as part of the quad when that was constructed.
Therefore, we were uncomfortable of recommending denial of this deck since
almost every other quad had it. Staff did make a recommendation to amend the
development contract to allow a reduced setback for the decks because there are
existing retaining walls and the decks are just going out as far as those, not
retaining walls but dividing walls. We felt that that would resolve any future
requests for the decks. It would appear that in the past that they had been
' approved without receiving variances and we just wanted to somehow clarify the
matter for when future deck permits came in rather than requiring them to go
through the variance procedure since obviously nobody else has. The Board of
Adjustments recommended approval of the variance but did not feel that an
amendment to the development contract should be approved or that any other
additional deck should have to go through the variance procedure also. They
also discussed reimbursement for the building permit fee.
'.� Councilman Geving: I think that's not correct. I recommended approval and
I made a motion to approve this particular item and it was denied. The vote was
' 2 to 1 to deny this variance request and to pass it onto the Council for
consideration.
Councilman Horn: What was the recommendation on the development contract? I
mean from the Board. Is that what the negative motion meant or the negative
motion suggested...
' Jo Ann Olsen: No, they made two motions. It was 2 in favor and 1 against the
variance so the Council would approve it and then they did recommend denial of
any amendment to the development contract.
' Councilman Horn: Unanimously?
Councilman Geving: Yes. And the reasoning there, if I can interject, we felt
that since the possibility of 15 quad units that could come in for a variance,
we didn't want to automatically, with a carte blanche amendment to the PUD give
everybody a chance to build a deck. For one reason, this particular deck is 10
' x 20. There could be any number of decks and any number of different sizes.
The Board felt that as a variance committee, the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals should look at every variance process and let each one of them come to
us and vote on it as a case by case basis. I believe that really would have
been the best way to go and still recommending that. That was the reason we
voted down the staff's recommendation.
Councilman Horn: Why wouldn't the others require a variance?
' 15
52City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Councilman Geving: Good question. They never came before the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. Our inspectors never caught them and then too, I think
there's some confusion in the quad units themselves. Their own Board has more
or less over the years recognized that some of these were built by the developer
and I think there was some assumption that it was okay to have decks so they
continued to build decks and the inspectors never caught them. So this is
really the first case that's come before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
requesting a variance.
Councilman Horn: I remember when this issue came before the Council and
I remember that Councilwoman Watson voted against it for this very reason. She
says I don't want to approve a development that's going to lend itself to all '
kinds of variance requests. That's exactly what we've got here. I totally
agree with not going along with the development contract.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we, Councilperson Watson was on the Council at '
the time that this development was approved. She had nothing to do with it.
Councilman Horn: She might have made the statement on the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hamilton: She might have talked about it further on down the road when
they were doing some twin homes over there but she had nothing to do with the
quads. Not a thing. They were all done. That was a long time before you and I
were on here. Not a long time but a year before. This has been 9 years ago.
It seems like it's probably some miscommunication between the developer and the 111
City since most of those quads were built with the sliding glass doors and some
of them were built with decks on them as they built them. There were very few
of them that were built with a window in the particular spot where the glass
door would go to go out to the deck. Actually, those units look, the appearance
of them is much better with the 10 x 20 deck than it is without. Some of those
units have put on like a half a deck, 10 x 10 or something. Not that makes it
look awful. That doesn't look good. It detracts from the property but when you
put a deck on, the way it appears those buildings were built to have a deck put
on them, it looks very nice. The half decks, as I call them, I don't think
they're, in my opinion, they're not nice appearing. They don't add to the
property at all but the full decks do.
Councilman Horn: Do they need a variance? So they all need variances
regardless of whether it's 10 x 10 or 10 x 20? '
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Mayor Hamilton: But see when they built those, there was kind of a dividing '
wall that they built with each building where it was obvious if you put a deck
out, you didn't interfere with your neighbors site. You weren't looking into
theirs and they weren't looking into yours so it seemed rather obvious what they
were attempting to do at the time they built them. It just wasn't caught.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask staff, is that dividing wall that the Mayor
just mentioned, is that on all the quads that are out there? Does that extend
10 foot into the existing setbacks so we have every one of those homes existing
non-conforming with the development contract?
16 '
II ' City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Jo Ann Olsen: Some of them don't have the dividing walls.
' Councilman Johnson: What about this particular one?
Mayor Hamilton: The only ones that I've seen that don't have it are those that
' are on the back side. Any of them that face the street have it.
Councilman Johnson: All of them facing the street have that extending into the
frontyard setback.
' Contractor for Applicant: That particular wall, if I'm not mistaken, extends 12
feet from the permanent structure, not 10. Basically the design for those is to
' set an angular divider wall from the top of the existing divider wall as privacy
to the other side. On that particular building we're building on the back side
and the request by the Homeowners Association to make an alternate...was a
consideration. ..
' Councilman Johnson: So what we've got is a structure that is currently non-
conforming because it extends 12 feet into, or whatever feet into the setback
' and what's being requested is a deck not extending as far into it as what is
existing extending into it. To me, I kind of agree with Tom on this one, is
that we let the horse out a long time ago and now we're trying to close the
' gate. I think that's an old saying of some sort. I don't know what it means
but, in this case I think I'd like a little more review but I kind of favor a
carte blanche with certain restrictions that a deck can not extend more than 10
foot out and it has to have this dividing wall and that it meet certain design
'- criteria. The developer, I don't know what recourse we have against the
developer. Whoever built those houses in the first place, built a whole bunch
of non-conforming.
' Councilman Horn: What you're saying is we should encourage future developers to
violate their development contracts so we come along afterwards and say it's
okay?
' Councilman Johnson: It's no longer the developer there. Now we're goin g after
the homeowner and that's not fair. Can we go back after the developer for a
' violation of his development contract at this point? Is the developer still in
business?
' Mayor Hamilton: Maybe it wasn't the developer. Maybe it was our inspector who
didn't do the job. What are you going to do then?
Councilman Geving: I think it was our inspector.
Councilman Horn: He didn't catch them.
' Mayor Hamilton: Maybe it was the Council who didn't catch it when they were
looking at the development contract.
Councilman Johnson: How about this licensed surveyor that did a survey that
doesn't show that wall either? I mean here we've got a house. I wonder what
the Board of Surveyors or whatever they're called would think of a surveyor that
doesn't catch a 12 foot long wall.
' 17
4City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 • II
Councilman Boyt: How many quad homes are out there?
Darlene Loving: 156 units.
Councilman Boyt: 40 then about.
Darlene Loving: 40 guards, correct. And that does not include the twin homes
that are down the block in Chaparral.
Councilman Boyt: How many have decks?
Darlene Loving: All except 15 and most of those were, I am a board member and a
relatively new board member of the association. Since I've been on the board,
prior to Kathryn Hedlund's wanting approval for a deck, one other homeowner last
year at 1016 Pontiac received a permit and was not required to get a variance.
Now prior to my being on the board, I would say over three-fourth's of those
decks that are on there were built by New Horizon at the time of this
development.
Councilman Boyt: I would ask the Attorney, does the City have any opportunity
to take action against New Horizon?
Roger Knutson: I'd really have to look into that. I don't know what the
development contract states. I would have to examine it in my office.
Councilman Boyt: If one of these decks was approved, given a building permit
last year, as is indicated, I'd like to know if that City Inspector is still
with us and if that inspector is with us, I'd like that person to get a letter
in their file indicating that they have not carried out their duties. I think
another thing that comes through here very clearly is the inspector may have had
a very good reason for not carrying out his duties and that's the fact that we
are working them way too hard. They don't have time to take the serious look
that these things deserve. I would like to see this deck approved. With 141
decks approved, it's too late to stop it, as Jay indicated and I would like to
see the Attorney directed to investigate the potential for the City to take
action against New Horizon because I think if we don't, we are basically saying
to developers, do anything you want. My third point would be that a letter go
in the file of the inspector, if they're still with us, indicating that we
expect more diligence.
Mayor Hamilton: I would second your motion without the last item on there. I I
don't know if we can determine that the inspector is here and I don't know that
it's appropriate because one was missed to chastise him and 130 others have been
built. I think there needs to be a lot of investigation before and I'm not sure
that it's worth it. Worth the staff time to go through all the files and figure
out who screwed up what and when and why and where.
Councilman Johnson: We should chastise the City Manager and let him chastise 1
his employees.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the City Manager has the message and they'll discuss it '
with the staff so these types of things don't happen in the future.
18 1
111 City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Councilman Boyt: I am alright with withdrawing that as long as everybody
understands that we are accountable and that means that staff has to do their
job.
Councilman Geving: I would like to replace that one with a memorandum from our
' staff to the Homeowners Association advising them specifically of our rules and
regulations regarding the addition of decks. When you need a variance. When
you don't because I'm quite certain after talking with Darlene earlier that
there is a lot of confusion over the last 8 or 9 years that this thing has
carried on from one board member to another and there's been some assumptions
made. This way the staff can give them exactly what our ordinance requirements
are so they can pass that on to their homeowners and more specifically to these
' 15 that are still out there and are potential variance cases. I'd like to
replace your item 3 with that suggestion.
Mayor Hamilton: Probably within your letter, encourage them to put the full
' sized deck on. If anybody else puts a deck on, make it the full size rather
than the half decks that do not do anything for the property.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to suggest a fourth. That we waive the fee on
this particular permit as far as the variance, $75.00 variance fee that she paid
because like you said, 141 have gone before without paying the $75.00 for the
deck. It doesn't seem entirely fair to me to have her pay her $75.00 fee here.
She's already gone through with her title searches and the other things to find
all of her neighbors within 500 feet and notify them of this. In the quad
homes, all the neighbors is a lot of neighbors within 500 feet. I think she's
' gone to a lot more than expense than that is. It's the least we could do.
Councilman Boyt: You make a good point except that that's what a variance fee
' is about is the staff time to investigate. I grant you that here are
apparently about 140 people out there that didn't pay the $75.00 but staff did
put the time in to investigate and it was... We've kind of drawn our line in
' the sand and said we're now aware of it and people who go forward, are you going
to relax this fee for the next 15 people who come in and apply?
Councilman Johnson: I'd like us to review whether we have to, for those next
' 15, whether we should give those 15 certain specifications of carte blanche
variance to say okay, if you build such and such a deck under such and such a
standards, this can become almost an administrative variance. It comes before
the Board and here's the standards for this variance. If you meet these. All
staff has to do is compare against those standards.
Councilman Boyt: We can't do that.
Councilman Geving: No, I don't agree with that at all. I think that's why we
have the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
' Councilman Johnson: These could be guidelines to the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals on what we want to see for the next 15 decks so there won't be any staff
time for those. So we'd be able for the next 15 also. . .
1111
Councilman Geving: But they do have to come before the Board.
Councilman Johnson: We've wasted more than $75.00 over arguing over it.
19
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
I
Contractor for Applicant: The $75.00 went for the application for a variance.
She also had to incur $250.00 and that's just getting a list of the homeowners
right in that particular area. That's between the $75.00, plus the $250.00
added to the time I've spent waiting and she's been waiting just to try and get
some kind of straight answers as to whether or not she's going to be able to get
a permit okay. That's where we're kind of asking that maybe this permit be
okayed free of cost to the homeowner.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know where you went to spend $250.00 that you could
have done a lot less expensive I would thing.
Contractor For Applicant: We were not told of any other way other than to go '
down, I believe it's Carver County Abstract Company and they charge through the
nose.
Barbara Dacy: Maybe what we could do is I'll bring back, I understand your
motion is to approve the variance but maybe at the next meeting bring back, or
at a future meeting, bring back an option for the Council to consider to
standardize looking at this request. I can appreciate your concerns to keep a
handle on these but to maybe address the homeowner's concerns, maybe we can call
it a site plan review and not necessarily a variance that requires a public
hearing because it is an unenclosed deck. We can standardize the setback and so
on. It might make your job easier and easier on the homeowner.
Councilman Horn: Have we set a precedent that 10 years from now the last one '
comes in and everybody's forgotten about this and you have to go through and
rehash the whole thing again.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you want to add that condition to your motion that the
$75.00 forgiveness? You did not.
Councilman Boyt: Sorry. I think on the one hand, I'll add it if we right now 1
say we're going to forego it for the next 15 people who come in here and not
charge them as any fee. I can see it as one lump but I have real problems if
staff is going to put some time in, that we need to be reimbursed as a City. We
don't need to have everybody subsidizing someone's request for a variance.
Councilman Johnson: We made the same recommendation earlier this evening, in
fact you made it, for the people before and staff put time in on that one. Well
over the $75.00. We published. We went to the newspaper and paid for
publishing in the newspaper. We made the same recommendation to that person. It
was slightly different circumstances.
Councilman Boyt: Quite a bit different circumstances.
Councilman Johnson: I don't see, these people paid $325.00 so far, more or
less. Can you see if 15 more times?
Mayor Hamilton: I will then, would like to add a condition to your motion that '
any of the other quads in that development not be charged $75.00 variance fee.
Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that.
20 1
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Councilman Geving: I feel very, very uncomfortable. I agree with what ust just
j
Y
said in adding that condition but I think it's very unfair to Kathryn Hedlund
' who spent all the time and effort in this test case, not to waive the $75.00
permit fee.
Councilman Johnson: It's for her too.
Councilman Boyt: That's what we're doing. For everybody.
' Councilman Geving: Okay, but I just heard a big objection.
Councilman Boyt: Only if we do it for everyone.
Councilman Geving: Okay, if it's for everybody, then we're in favor of it.
That's fine.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the front Y and setback
variance request for Kathryn Hedlund at 7200 Pontiac Circle with the following
' conditions:
1. Direct the City Attorney to investigate the potential of the City to take
' action against the developer, New Horizons.
2. Staff write a memo to the Cimarron Homeowners Association informing them of
the City's rules and regulations regarding the addition of decks.
I L 3. That the $75.00 variance request permit fee be waived in this case and in
the 15 possible future variance requests as well.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REALIGNMENT OF NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD./PLEASANT VIEW ROAD INTERSECTION.
' Public Present
Name Address
Greg Cray 320 Pleasant View Road
John Nikolai 608 Pleasant View Road
Herb Kask 115 Pleasant View Road
' Jim Wehrle President, Near Mountain Homeowners Assn.
Jim Meyer 6225 Ridge Road
Ken Wengle Near Mountain Blvd.
Mike Pflaum Lundgren Bros.
Larry Brown: On 2/27/88 the City Council directed staff to prepare a
feasibility regarding the possibility of realigning Near Mountain Blvd. with
Pleasant View Road. At that time the City Attorney was asked whether this
intersection constitutes a liability or not and the question was posed back, can
a design vehicle make it around this corner safely. Staff has analyzed this
21
amity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 '
intersection and found, the sketch that was included in your packet indicates
that a passenger car, and I'll qualify that, a passenger car only can make this
turn and just touch this center line in the island part. I should say, just
fii
remain off that. A failure was defined as when a car goes beyond the center
line into the oncoming traffic lane or has to jump the curb to negotiate that
turn.
Councilman Horn: Could I ask a question? This came up as a result of some...,
what do you use as a standard car?
Larry Brown: What's known as ASHTOL.
Councilman Horn: I mean is this a Volkswagon or Continental?
Larry Brown: The design standards are given by ASHTOL are a relatively large
9
car. They are going to facilitate your Lincoln Continental so there is room for
that. Staff received to analyze several options. The first option was to '
construct what we call a shark's tooth island and a 4 foot median and to remove
the existing island. This option would facilitate a vehicle similar to a school
bus. That being a single unit bus. It should be known that the cost of this
option is approximately $19,000.00. Staff then looked at, in light of the cost
of that option, looked at bringing these costs down to this sort of design which
again, involved widening out this curb. Widening out this lane to make a right
hand turn lane creating a shark's tooth island again and removing the existing
center island. That cost was approximately $16,000.00. That design should be
able to accomodate the single unit truck or small bus, maximum length of maybe
30 feet. The last option was for a total realignment of Near Mountain Blvd. or
Pleasant View such that traffic would be directed into Pleasant View
perpendicular or as near as we can get at this point. This option again, very
similiar to the one you saw last time with the exception of bringing this curb
around to eliminate a lot of the open area out here which might be confusing to
the driver. Again, this option is approximately $15,000.00. It should be noted
that the options, these last two options seem to gain the City only the
additional access of a single unit truck or small bus at a great cost. It's
staff's feeling that the Council has really two options at this point. Number
one, they could sign the existing intersection for these movements keeping in
mind that that is valid only for passenger vehicles. That they would prohibit
large trucks or buses from making that turn. Excuse me, buses or trucks from
making the turn or the other, at least in staff's eyes, it's recommendation
would be, due to the cost, would be to go to the full intersection of
approximately, at the engineer's estimate of $20,000.00 for the full
intersection which would accomplish what we're looking for and that's getting
school bus access as well. The $10,000.00 figure as brought about in your
report, which was thrown about at the last meeting, was based on using the City '
crews to do some of this work. This estimate on the other hand is based on
contractors being used.
Mayor Hamilton: Larry, I know that school buses obviously pick up children in ,
the Near Mountain area there, what do they do currently? Where do they pick up?
Larry Brown: Jim, have you reviewed that at all? I'm not sure what Near '
Mountain does.
22 1
IFCity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Well, it seems like somebody ought to know if we're talking
about letting school buses in or out, it would be nice to know if they even go
' in or out there. If they're picking up on Pleasant View now, maybe they don't
need to go in there.
' Gary Warren: It's my understanding, and some of the neighbors are here and
maybe they can comment, the school buses have been finding their own way in off
of TH 101 I believe. I talked with the school district, it's over a year ago
now about it then and they were planning their own access.
Mayor Hamilton: Vine Hill, I know they can get in there off of Vine Hill Road
and go through the development but I don't know if they use full size buses or
' not. It can't be any more difficult for a school bus to get in there than it is
for them to continue west on Pleasant View and make the two sharp turns.
They're going to fail that test too. Do they go down Pleasant View and pick up
' kids all the way down Pleasant View? Well, if you're saying they fail the test
here, they certainly fail the test down there. There's no way in the world that
a full size bus can make that sharp S turn and not fail whatever test you're
talking about. They've got to cover the whole road to make that turn. I know
' we have a lot of people here who want to make comments about this so perhaps,
I'll call on you one by one. You can come up to the microphone. If you give us
your name and address and make your comments, I'd appreciate it.
Greg Cray, 320 Pleasant View Road: That S curve you're referring to is much
easier to negotiate than this corner that is presently at Near Mountain Blvd..
I guess my biggest question was, why was it changed from it's original design?
Originally it had a much wider curve there than is presently there.
Approximately a year after it was built it was changed and made much sharper.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. I can't answer your question.
John Nikolai: Part of the answer to that is when one of the original
' stipulations in this development when it was proposed was that there be no
access onto westbound Pleasant View Road. It was started that way and later
argued successfully to open that access up. That's exactly why it's the way it
is now.
Greg Cray: I guess the other point I want to make is, it seems rather dangerous
to me the way it is constructed right now because as you come from the north to
' come to Pleasant View, it's very difficult to see traffic coming from the west.
Mayor Hamilton: That's true. It's not a good intersection. There's no
question about that. It's a bad intersection.
Herb Kask, 115 Pleasant View Road: When this intersection was originally
planned, it was the Village engineering department that requested it be built
' like this with a no right turn coming from the north going west on Pleasant View
Road because they did not want the additional traffic on Pleasant View Road
because they didn't think Pleasant View Road could handle it.
John Nikolai, 608 Pleasant View Road: There's a couple of things about this
intersection that need to be noted. First of all the stop sign, if you're going
to have an intersection there, it's about one car length too far back from where
it ought to be. What happens is that people stop and they move forward and you
23
ivity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 �
can't see to the right, to the west, and it's just about at the crest and they
really can't see too well to the east so they just start to pull out. They
don't stop again and there's a lot of near misses there. The other concern I
111 have is that the volume of traffic has increased substantially and obviously
when the proposal came through, the concern was there for that. It would
probably behoove the City before decisions were made about how this thing is
going to be constructed, to take a look at the volume of traffic emminating to
and from. It would be a little bit of money well spent. You'd be able to
determine just exactly what kind of traffic flow and volume to handle the
intersection. '
Jim Wehrle, President, Near Mountain Homeowners Assn: Back again. Hopefully we
can resolve this tonight. I guess just taking this from the top. First of all
I just wanted to note that we weren't interested in packing the place with 100
people tonight. We know you're well aware of this issue and how strong an issue
it is with the homeowners in Near Mountain but speaking on behalf of the
majority of the people there, just going back over the history a little bit.
This angle was put in there several years ago as a compromise to concerns about
Pleasant View not being sufficient large and having a lot of turns and what have
you to handle a lot of traffic. Going back over the records with Jim Chaffee,
I've yet to be able to find anything specifying that the Council or anyone in
authority authorized or voted that there would be no turn restrictions put
there. For the first four years that Near Mountain has been there, the angle
has served as a deterrent and that was it. If the homeowners in Near Mountain,
I'm bringing 165 up on the Chanhassen side, all bought their homes on that
premise. If that was the directive four years ago, the City is more than
extremely remiss in not having done it over the first four years, that we should
get this rude awakening in April. The second point I want to make, that you're
all aware of, for the record, late in the winter this Council approved the new
addition to Near Mountain which now is going to give access out of Trapper's
Pass onto Pleasant View with no turning restrictions whatsoever. That's an
accomplished fact. The hearings were held on that and that development is going
ahead and it really logically makes no sense whatsoever for there to be a
restriction on this one which is a quarter mile further away and not be one on
the other exit from Near Mountain onto Pleasant View. In effect you're telling
all the people at the one end of Near Mountain that you don't want them to have
access to the new park you just built for them but the people on the other end
of Near Mountain, it's okay which logically just holds no water. The third
point is, April 19th the no turn signs went up. I came here and spoke with you
about it that night and you agreed to take them down immediately. It was sent
to Public Safety Commission for review. Early in the month of May Near
Mountain's own internal public safety committee recommended that this
intersection be straighten out and on May the 19th Chanhassen Public Safety's
commission recommended straightening the intersection. If I could quote from 11 their Minutes, the Public Safety Commission after review of the problems
associated with the intersection of Near Mountain Blvd. and Pleasant View Road
feels that a design problem exists and was overlooked during construction. The
Commission thereby supports the local residents and staff in their contention
that this intersection be realigned to allow right turns. So that's coming out
of your internal public safety committee which is recommended at that time and
before that committee by staff as well. June 27th you directed that the staff
research these options and call for this public hearing with the signs to go
back up in the meantime for fear of the liability. Personally, I can only speak
personally on this, I have no firm feeling on whether that's really a dangerous
24
11
1' City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
III_ intersection or not. I know this afternoon Gary Warren made that turn
Blazer and found that he could do it. I tried to make the turn in my Celebrity
I and could quite do it without cutting over what I thought was the middle line
but since there's no painted lines, it's hard to tell. It is a difficult
intersection at best. Another subject close to some of your hearts. The issue
I here today really I guess puts forth four options. One is to leave it alone as
it is now with no turn signs which is just grossly unfair to 300`or 400 people
in Near Mountain, denying them access to go that way after all these years. Of
the other three options that Larry put forth here, obviously the best one would
I be to allow full access of fire trucks, school buses and everything else. I
want to emphasize the fact that the costs are cut in half if your internal crews
do this construction as opposed to the bid side of things but as Larry mentioned
Ito me this afternoon, in respect to putting these signs up and keeping them up,
such a rule under MnDot guidelines calls for a traffic sign to be reasonable on
the one hand and enforceable on the other. Here you've got a situation where I
I think you know that if you watch the residents come down Near Mountain and want
to go to that park or want to go to Excelsior, they're going to run that no turn
sign. I mean, it's human nature. You're going to find a significant number of
people who will do it, or else they will go a couple driveways up, turn around
I in the County Sheriff's driveway and then go back down that way anyway. I just
want you to keep in mind that I think that a vast bulk of the traffic that's
going down Pleasant View going into Excelsior, I feel for the people living down
II there because the nature of the drive has certainly changed but that's not just
Near Mountain's fault. You've got Fox Chase development back in there. You've
got Fox Hollow with access out through the park now and you've got thousands of
people right across TH 101 in Eden Prairie who aren't Chanhassen taxpayers like
we are, who have free and open access to Pleasant View that you want to deny to
us. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of logic there. There is a side issue
of speeding through Near Mountain that's a great concern to some people and the
I lack of slow signs, children signs or stop signs and it might have something to
do with that and some of these homeowners might want to address that but that's
being pursued through Mr. Chaffee at this point. Just in closing, I understand
I the people on Pleasant View's concerns. I don't think Near Mountain is
accountable for all their traffic and I don't know the fact that they are a
relatively small windy street makes them any different than us. We're a
relatively small windy streets, totally residential with hundreds of kids
I running around on them and yet we can't stop them from coming through Near
Mountain to cut through to go up to Town Line and on up to TH 7, which they do
on a regular basis. It's a two way street. I guess the public roads are the
II public roads and before you go putting restrictions on intersections, I think
the staff would agree that MnDot is overwhelmingly in favor of not restricting
unless there's a heck of a good reason to restrict. That's kind of all I've got
to say on this issue.
II
Councilman Johnson: How many homeowners are in the Association there? How many
homes are we talking presently?
IIJim Wehrle: As you are aware probably, Near Mountain has a Shorewood side and a
Chanhassen side.
ICouncilman Johnson: The Chanhassen side.
II. Jim Wehrle: The Chanhassen side, 165 residences. That's 165 households.
Better than 300 adults plus all the kids.
I 25
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
John Nikolai: Do your roads go up to the Trapper's Pass Addition internally?
Councilman Johnson: Does that include Trapper's Pass? Fl
Jim Wehrle: That includes Trapper's Pass. It's all part of Near Mountain. ,
It's all built internally. It's all contiguous and the people at one end of
Near Mountain eventually will be able to exit out through the other exit that
you approved several months ago. If they were forced to, to that windy route
back through all those children unnecessarily when they could right near by go
straight out onto Pleasant View. It's not logical.
Councilman Johnson: I just did a quick calculation, at $20,000.00 that's ,
$121.00 per homeowner.
Jim Wehrle: I guess our concern, a lot of people's feelings on that Jay is that
the City made a mistake in doing this and it's created a dangerous situation on
one hand and perhaps an unreasonable situation on the other and perhaps the City
should correct it once and for all now.
Jim Meyer: I live on Pleasant View and Ridge Road. I've lived there for 15
years and I remember when Peter Pflaum and Lundgren Bros. came and initially
presented the Near Mountain Estates and all the rest of it. Of course the
concern at that point was the density of the traffic along Pleasant View because
of the nature of the road, as he mentioned. The thing about it was that at the
very beginning I remember working with Peter Pflaum on this and his brother Mike '
is here tonight, is that that road was designed that way so that the road
traffic, MnDot would not give you an access on TH 101 so then he did the deal
and he came out this way so no right turn. In essence then the people coming on
Pleasant View can take a left turn going into his division, just like the signs
now show. My problem Mayor and Councilmembers is that with Fox Chase and with
Fox Hollow and with Chaparral and with all the rest of the developments, that
all the traffic, anyway we can to keep it down on Pleasant View and promote,
it's just a safety factor. The increase in traffic is definitely there. The
new intersection proposed down the road of course wasn't even talked about when
the initial development was planned and now that came when they bought the
Raweena property and that changed the whole thing. I'm sure there are plenty of
people on Pleasant View that would like to see that have a no right turn sign
too and I certainly respect the people's right to go wherever they want to go.
The point is, in terms of going to services, they drop onto TH 101 and go south
or north to the various services, to Chanhassen or to the other centers. I
guess the main thing is that initially we were promised that there would be no
right turn on it. That's the way all of us went along with in the approval and
now it seems that we're jockying for all these little changes. I respect the
one thing that he mentioned about going to the park which is right down the road
and that presents a problem. They can internally around to the new intersection
which seems kind of strange too. I guess the main point I'm trying to make
however is that the density on the road because all the other developments you
have approved present a significant traffic problem. I think you're all aware
of that. '
John Nikolai: Just a quick point. The speed issue is the single biggest issue
on that road. It has been since I moved in there almost a decade ago. The
other night I exited my driveway and was going to turn right going towards
26
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 -
' Excelsior and I'm almost mid-distance between TH 101 and CR 17. A blue pick-up
went by me extraordinarily fast so I thought, alright, I'm going to see where
III this guy goes because he was dressed, it was quarter to six and he was coming
home from work. It was apparent. I followed him over to the development just
off of CR 17 where all the quad houses are, that you were talking about. I
parked in front of his driveway and as he got out of his truck I said, do you
' have kids? He said yes. I said the speed limit on Pleasant View Road is 25
mph. I said I don't think you'd want me trekking down this road at 40 mph
because I was doing 40 behind you and you were pulling away from me. It's
really the single biggest issue. I don't deny the access either way. I go
through Near Mountain going... I'm not here to say that they shouldn't have
access on Pleasant View Road but I do say the respect has got to be there. I've
laid on the City to enforce the traffic laws, the speed limit. Let's get the
cars to slow down before somebody gets killed because in front of my house in
one of the most dangerous spots in the road because it's compounded...and do
want you want to do on this thing but the speed is going to kill somebody sooner
or later. There's no question in my mind. I don't want it to be me.
Ken Waggel, 6370 Near Mountain Blvd.: I guess my main concern on this
' intersection is the safety. Whether you're turning right or left, you have to
come out into the intersection to see cars coming from the west. During the
winter when snow is piled up, you have to go almost halfway into the road to
see. My house backs up to Pleasant View. I agree, the speed limit is unreal
' over there. It's the intersection itself. I used to go that way because our
babysitter was over in Greenwood Shores. I don't have to anymore but it is a
bad intersection for safety. That's more of a concern to me. It'd be nice to
I i turn right but the safety issue, I can get hit if I'm making a left turn going
towards TH 101. It's a bad intersection.
1--
' Councilman Geving: Can I ask you a question Ken? Do you agree with Mr.
Nikolai's statement that the stop sign is too far back from the road and that
you have to get too far back?
' Ken Waggel: The stop sign is back because this intersection, in order to be
able to see, your tip of your car has to come into the traffic pattern. You're
almost guaranteed an accident. I can be with no passengers and I still have to
' lean way forward to see eastbound traffic. It's just a bad intersection.
Billy Clyde, Pleasant View Road: I agree that the whole thing was designed
' badly in the first place. It's right at the crown of a hill. Today the Bachman
flower girl, which is really the only thing they put in there when they put that
block to go right, had her car parked there with 6 feet out into the road all
day and right at the top of the hill. I would say that getting rid of that
' flower bed for one thing. If there's going to be that traffic, I don't think
there's anyway you can really stop them from turning right. It's going to have
to be widened way out to the left there and even get those center islands out of
there. I don't see what good they're doing. Decorative yes but not practical.
I also wish they would do something about the speed along there. They go right
past the County Sheriff's house and don't even notice him.
Mayor Hamilton: Mike Pflaum, did you have any comments you wanted to make on
1 the design of this intersection or anything or what your understanding was when
that whole thing was built?
27
14
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Mike Pflaum: No. I'm Mike Pflaum and I've heard both sides over a Pe riod of
time, 10 years, as most people on the Council have too. I'm here as an observer
right now. If somebody has a question of our understandings, they can ask me
about it and I'll try to reveal what they are but this was a touchy subject from
the very outset. I think everybody is aware of that. I sympathize with all the
people. '
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. '
Councilman Boyt: Is the speed limit really 25 mph? '
Jim Chaffee: It's 30 from TH 101 to a point just west of Pleasant View.
Gary Warren: 800 feet west of Pleasant View Lane it changes to 25 from there
over to Powers Blvd..
Councilman Boyt: So where we start getting into the heavy turns...
Gary Warren: This intersection is 30.
Councilman Boyt: I hope that when budget time comes gentlemen, we all remember
this discussion because I think that everyone will agree that we can't enforce
speed laws.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't agree with that.
Councilman Boyt: Well, maybe you don't agree with it. I happen to believe that
we can not enforce. I think that the issue about the clear line of sight seems
to be a pretty important one and I'd like to know how we can go about getting
that. Another issue of importance to me is the cost of this whole thing. I see
aside from the business about the lines of sight and the danger of having to
pull into the intersection, I see that to me the biggest problem is apparently
the intersection is dangerous no matter what we do with it but given that, I
have no difficulty with signing it if it says the only thing that can't go
through there is something that's more than 20 feet long, that means that 90% of
the traffic can go through there. Now the problem is whether it can go through
safely I think is the bigger issue. I'd like to hear a little bit more on that
from someone. I'd be happy to see us enforce 30 mph but I just don't think we
can do it. We might do it one day one week but that isn't going to stop the
speeding problem. I think that having access to the park is something we'd sure
like to see and we don't want to encourage traffic through that development at
all so it seems really unfortunate that we're encouraging people to drive
through Trapper's Pass in order to get to the park. I'm sure those people
aren't going to be very happy about it. I think that the comment was made about
the latest addition of Trapper's Pass being approved with a regular
intersection. As I recall that discussion, I think the regular intersection
came out of these very concerns is that we didn't want to create another
situation like we have here. I'd like to see us clear up the lines of sight and
I don't think the City is in a position to spend $20,000.00 to correct this
problem and I think making it a $10,000.00 correction is taking City Staff away
from another problem that they're trying to work on and putting them on this.
28 '
II , City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
' It's not that we've got people standing around with nothing to do. I would like
to see us, if we can work this out in the shortrun by putting a sign that keeps
non-passenger cars from turning, I think we should do that. I think in the long
run we've got to do something to make this intersection safe.
Councilman Horn: I've been with this issue for many years and it seems to me
' that the best we're going to come out of this thing is a compromise. It was a
situation that was inevitable. I recall years ago there was a plan to upgrade
Pleasant View Road to alleviate some of these problems and that plan was, I
' would say, at a minimum not met with great success because people didn't want
traffic increase. That was well and good but if you do that you have to stop
development. There's no way that we can stop development. It's inevitable that
this traffic is going to be increased unless we tell some property owner you
' can't develop your property. I don't think Mr. Pflaum would like to hear that.
I don't think any other developer would or any other property owner at this
state whether he's a developer or not so to some degree we've created the
' problem ourselves by not improving our transportation corridors in this city.
We've had help with that process. It hasn't been the City alone that's done
that. If you look back at the Minutes of these things, that intersection was
' designed through recommendations of MnDot. Look at the total transportation
corridor problem that we have in this area. This is not a unique situation
totally for Chanhassen. We're a transportation deficient area. This just
points up one of the sub-areas where we have this problem. I'm a great fan of
improving of our transportation corridors because it's the only way we're going
to get out of this problem. Development is not going to stop. The only way it
will stop is if they stop running sewer lines out here which is the other thing
t that we hear from Met Council but it's just not
'� j going to happen. I think the
best thing we can do at this point is to have some type of thing to take the
City away from the liability of if we've created a dangerous intersection, which
' some people term as a City mistake. I term it as a City compromise to try to
alleviate an inadequate transportation system and I think what we need to do is
what Bill is recommending, is to make sure that vehicles that can not reasonably
make that turn, and I would suggest that a Celebrity could make that turn. I
' think any normal vehicle could make that turn, and minimize those but I can't
see spending a lot of money at this point and changing that intersection. I
think we should go through and compromise in this case and do what Bill is
' recommending on the sign.
Councilman Geving: I think this whole area has changed dramatically since that
intersection was put in there. I know a lot of the history on why that road and
' why that particular shark's tooth was put in there. The corner was created. A
lot of things have changed. There's a lot more density. There's houses there
that didn't exist in Chaparral that are coming through and going east. There's
people driving west to get home as Mr. Nikolai mentioned tonight. We've got
hundreds of more people today than we had in 1978 and 1979. I really believe
that now that we've recognized, legally and professionally we've recognized that
' a dangerous situation exists. Our Public Safety Director in his May 27, 1987
memorandum acknowledges that we've got a very difficult situation and in fact
says that it's a dangerous configuration. The Fire Department has made a
complaint to him. He's had complaints from school bus drivers and now that this
has been acknowledged and it's a written fact, it's a piece of paper that's
public information, if for any reason we didn't follow up and there's an
accident that happens and we haven't done anything to take care of this problem,
I think we're in a very serious liable situation. We must correct the situation
' 29
C ty Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 II
and I think we must correct it as soon as possible. I'm very much willing to
spend the money if it means that we can make that a safe intersection. If it
costs $20,000.00, so be it. I would like to ask though, there's a discrepancy
in my mind between the options and the alternatives. In our staff memorandum
you refer to options and yet on the Board you put alternatives. So Option 1 is
Alternative 3, is that correct? Is that how you made that distinction? Just so
we're all clear, Option 1 is Alternative 3 that you've shown on the board for
$20,000.00?
Larry Brown: Correct. '
Councilman Geving: I would like to ask our City Manager, since this is an issue
that may be coming up and may be in front of us tonight, since we have two
recommendations, to either do nothing at this time and wait until we can budget
for it in 1989 or should we do the project now and make a project amendment or
budget amendment for 1988? Can we do that in 1988? '
Don Ashworth: My concern is, at $20,000.00 I do not know where you could
potentially make a budget adjustment to accomplish the work yet in 1988. To do
a $10,000.00 option would mean that we would have city crews do it. The problem
is that we're getting late in the year. This is the timeframe that we normally
start hauling in sand and salt etc. and I really question our ability to do the
'work ourselves unless we have a nice fall where we literally would be able to do
that work. Assuming that we could do the work, I think that staff could come
back to the Council with potential options for how we could modify the 1988
budget. I would much prefer having it go to 1989.
Councilman Geving: If what you're saying, I kind of agree with you in not using I
city crews, even if it can save $10,000.00. This is the busy part of our year.
I know we're getting ready for the winter months and there's a lot of things '
that happen. If we were to carry this over to 1989 and we budgeted for it, even
$20,000.00, we still have the problem of what we're going to do between now and
the time that we can make the street construction because if we're talking about
1989, the earliest we could probably do the work would be next spring. This
leaves us wide open between now, we're talking the middle of August, to let's
say April or May before we could have a resolution to this problem. I don't
know if we could stand to hold on that long so we need to come back with some
other alternatives from a safety standpoint and maybe Bill's answer is the only
way we can go. If we can't do the construction this fall and we are going to be
stuck with 6 to 8 months, than we've got to find other alternatives. '
Don Ashworth: We may be too late in the year to even consider contracting it
because even as a small job, the engineering department still needs to prepare
plans and specs. They still need to officially get bids at the $20,000.00 level
and you're talking about 6 to 8 weeks for each of those two...
Councilman Geving: I was going to say probably at least 2 months of time that '
we have no control over even if we went the official contract route and we'd be
right into the winter season, November-December.
Councilman Horn: Plus the approval route. Keep in mind MnDot is the one that t I
recommended the intersection the way it is. If we have to go totally through
MnDot approval on this thing, that makes. ..
30 ,
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
II 1 Councilman Geving: I don't think so. I just want to make a statement, I think
the public has a right to use the streets and roads of our community and I think
that if people want to come out of Near Mountain and turn right onto Pleasant
I View, that have the right to do that and I want to facilitate that and make it a
safe turn. That's all I have to say.
I Councilman Johnson: I think putting up signs to tell people that anything
bigger than a passenger vehicle to turn right is just as good as putting up a
speed limit sign on Pleasant View. They'll have the same response to it as what
I we are right now. The same enforcement problems. However, since it is going to
be extremely difficult to do anything about this intersection this year, the
signs are really our only alternative at this time. I think we should, even
though we put up speed limit signs, but I think we should sign this at this time
1 with putting it in the 1989 budget to improve this intersection. I don't have
all the history on it as far as I wasn't on the Council when it was approved.
I know a lot of the Pleasant View people were opposed to it. They don't want
II the traffic. I think they've got the traffic anyway no matter what goes on.
They're going to have those cars going down there because the people take that
right turn. I see a lot of the cars when I drive up there are passing through.
I They come from TH 101, they go all the way. I think it's
• probably a minority of
the cars that actually come out of Near Mountain that turn in there but there
are cars that come out of Near Mountain and turn in there and there are cars
that come up Pleasant View and make that left turn. The same thing goes for
I Pleasant View turning to the north on that intersection. If you can't come out
of the intersection and make the turn to the right, you can't come into that
intersection and turn to the left. It's the same problem. However, I see that
as a safer alternative than going out to TH 101 and going up and trying to make
I that left turn. I would much rather try and take a left turn into Near Mountain
and go through Near Mountain than go to TH 101 and try to get back to Vine Hill.
As a matter of fact, if I'm going to Vine Hill I turn on Pleasant View and cut
Ithrough Near Mountain. I don't go TH 101. It's almost as dangerous as TH 7
over by TH 41 which is one of my least favorite places to try and turn left.
I'm not sure on how this should be totally paid for. Here's where the Near
I Mountain people are going to boo me. I think that the benefitting homeowners
should be partially assessed on this and I think also the whole city benefits
but to the biggest extent Near Mountain benefits. While the City, a lot of
I people use that so I think a portion of it should come out of general revenues
from the entire City to pay for this. It was a mistake many years ago between a
whole lot of people and I think that the biggest benefit is going to be to the
Near Mountain residents so I do believe that just as Lake Lucy Road is a benefit
to the people living along it. They say they weren't but we assessed them and
I think there should be. Like I say, even if we dumped the $20,000.00 option
and fully assessed the entire thing, we're only talking $121.00. I don't think
II the entire thing should be assessed but what I would like to see is the
$19,000.00 option which is Attachment #3 or Option 1, whichever the case may be,
done in 1989 and that the signs are put up indicating passenger vehicle turning
I only at that intersection in the interim. As far as the assessing part of it,
I need that to be looked at by the City staff. That's where I come from.
Mayor Hamilton: I think there's no question that Pleasant View Road is a bad
road completely from TH 101 over to CR 17. It's narrow. It's poorly surfaced.
A lot of blind drives. It's hilly. A lot of sharp curves on it and if the
speed is 25, it should probably be 20. I certainly think that we ought to and I
' believe that we can enforce the speed limit on there if we really want to. If
II 31
(_�'amity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
we do enough speed trap checks we can slow the traffic down. No different than
you can do in any other town on any other street. That along with the
intersection itself which is dangerous to make a right hand turn or any turn
actually at this point, I think we can address that this year yet. I can't
believe that it's going to cost $20,000.00 to improve that intersection to the
point where it can be a safe intersection. I feel that if one person's life is
in jeopardy of being lost, either through making a turn or through speed on that
street, then we ought to do something about it right now. Why should we wait
until someone's a statistic before we start doing anything about it so I think
we can be creative. I don't know what the limit is on having to bid out these
bids jobs. Was it $15,000.00?
Roger Knutson: That's correct unless you're going to assess, then it's down to
$5,000.00.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm not in favor of assessing it. It's a benefit to the entire
area and the community and everybody on the street. I have to believe that we
can make some corrections to that intersection that would be less than
$15,000.00 where we wouldn't have to go through a lengthy bidding process and
get the job done. Don is very creative in his financing. I'm sure he can find
the time. Take it out of your salary if nothing else. So I'm in favor of
improving the intersection so that right turns can be made safely. I do think
that there was an error made in making the intersection the way it is. I
honestly don't remember why that was done or the total discussion of that
intersection but since everybody, I just don't remember it is all. I think
there should be a right turn there but I want it to be a safe right turn. My
recommendation would be to make some improvements to the intersection. Make it 1111
a safe turning intersection. to it this year. to it immediately. Do it for
less than $15,000.00 so we don't have to go through a lengthy bidding process
and work with Public Safety Director, Jim Chaffee and his department and slow
the people down on that street. Set up a schedule so that can be accomplished.
Larry Brown: Did staff receive direction from Council as to which option they
preferred? '
Councilman Boyt: You're going to get a motion here in a second.
John Nikolai: I have just one quick comment. It occurred to me before you
spend any money, the least expensive thing you could do would be to pull that
stop sign out of the ground and move it forward. That's the best thing and
before you spend any money, I would encourage you each to go look at where that
realignment and proposed turn lane is and then literally sit at the approximate
height, you will not be able to see to the left. I'm not an engineer but I turn
there enough to know that the optimum point at the crest of the hill to look
left safely and make a right hand turn, even where it is now. If you go any
further to the right, you're going downhill, down a slope and it's going to get
worse. Look for yourselves. Let your city people tell you want to do. Move
the sign first and save a lot of money. If you don't like it then, then spend
your money.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to follow up on that with a motion. I would move
basically what's on the next to the last paragraph on page 2 of the note from
staff which says that we install a sign at the intersection. I would add along
with John that we move the stop sign to a more appropriate location. The sign
32 ,
ICity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
. - , that we would install would prohibit right hand turning movements from Near
Mountain Blvd. onto Pleasant View Road and similarly left hand turning movements
I from Pleasant View Road in the Near Mountain Blvd. by large trucks and buses.
If there's a second I've got a comment.
' Councilman Horn: I'll second it.
Councilman Boyt: The situation is certainly a troubling one. I would argue
that the $20,000.00 that Don could miraclously find in the budget is $20,000.00
' that wasn't there to get the necessary CSO officers. It wasn't there to hire
the Sheriff's people that would have been able to monitor traffic and with one
police car in 22 square miles, there is no way that the City can respond to the
' requests for speed control because if you put the car on 78th, you sure don't
have it at this corner. If you put it on Frontier Trail or wherever citizens
have requested this, it can't be done and to take this $20,000.00 and basically
throw it at this problem, is pulling it away from something else. I think we
have a means to deal with this problem better than it's been dealt with in the 4
years up until now. It doesn't remove the big safety hazard that's there but
I just don't think we have the $20,000.00 to spend.
' Mayor Hamilton: Anytime you take funds away from one project to accomplish
another, obviously you're taking funds away from something that you had planned
' on doing to accomplish something else. I don't know where the $20,000.00 comes
from but I have to believe that this project could be done for a whole lot less
than $20,000.00. The County has been very willing to help us with radar in the
3 past and I see no reason why they shouldn't be willing to do that in the future.
I That is an additional car that they put into our area to help us give those type
of services to our community. There's no question that we need additional
police service through the CSO program or whatever other way we can accomplish
' that project but I think we can still accomplish patrolling that street as well
as we can any other street which we have done on 78th Street. There's no reason
we can't do it on Pleasant View. We have a motion and a second, are there any
' other further comments?
Councilman Geving: I think we ought to consider the continent from Mr. Nikolai
about moving that stop sign.
' Councilman Horn: That's in the motion.
Councilman Johnson: So you're not doing any design changes in your motion in
the long run? Only sign changes?
Councilman Boyt: That's right. Right now all I'm proposing is that we do the
best fix we can on this. If we want to bring it back to discuss possiblities,
we certainly need to do a traffic study and we need to do some other things to
get a good answer.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, but your motion didn't ask for the best fix, it asked
for minimum signs and move the stop sign. That's the minimum fix in my opinion.
The best fix is to redesign the intersection and I agree that there seems to be
some missing on the feasibility study as far as what's the sight distance when
you start going downhill with the turn lane. I think that needs to be redone.
I'd like to see, short term I like your motion. Long term, I believe that we
need to do something with this intersection. I don't think the answer is quite
33
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
II
here yet. I think our feasibility study didn't quite reach the answer.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we've all talked about the budgeting process. It's
upcoming in the next few weeks and it needs to be addressed as a part of that.
Remember hearing that?
Councilman Johnson: Right, but I'm wondering, I don't want to leave this in his '
motion. I want to make sure that somehow it does get addressed. Are you
looking to doing some other modifications in 1989 in your motion or just leave
it at signs? That's the way I read your motion is that we do nothing further
than putting up signs on this intersection. If that's what your motion is, I'm
going to vote against it. If it's signs only and moving the stop sign.
Councilman Boyt: How about if we include a traffic study?
Mayor Hamilton: What's that going to accomplish? You're throwing money down a
rathole.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, then let's let the motion stand as it is. The motion
corrects the problem and it doesn't cost money we don't have. ,
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to install signage to prohibit
right-hand turning movements from Near Mountain Boulevard onto Pleasant View
Road and similarly, left-hand turning movements from Pleasant View Road onto
Near Mountain Boulevard by large trucks and buses and to move the stop sign to a
more appropriate location. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who [11
opposed and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: TRUNK SANITARY SEWER CR 16/CR 17 ASSESSMENT ROLL, IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT 86-13.
Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. 1
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Geving: I need to know whether the Eckankar property which consists
of 150 acres is totally zoned Rural Single Family. It has a lot to do with it
because I always was under the impression that we rezoned that property to
single family and that there was nothing there for R-4 or R-12. I thought the
whole property was RSF.
Councilman Johnson: RSF is north of that.
Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure. Is that true?
Gary Warren: Page 9 of the Assessment Roll Dale was based on the zoning map.
16 1/2 acres of RSF, 40 acres of R-4 and 50 acres of R-12.
Councilman Geving: That is the current zoning of the Eckankar property?
Barbara Dacy: That's correct.
34
1
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
II Resolution #88-80: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
Improvement Project File #86-13 Assessment Roll for trunk sanitary sewer for CR
16 and CR 17. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' AWARD OF BIDS: 1988 STREET SEALCOATING PROJECT.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to award the contract for the
1988 Street Sealcoating project to Allied Blacktop Company of Maple Grove,
Minnesota in the amount of $50,096.00. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
FRONT AND SIDE YARD VARIANCE REQUESTS, 7725 FRONTIER TRAIL, STEVE NELSON.
Councilman Geving: Steve Nelson is a new property owner over on Frontier Trail
and this was approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a 3 foot
variance to the 10 foot sideyard setback and no variance to the required 30 foot
' frontyard setback. Also, we waived the application fee of $75.00 because this
was previously approved in 1985 and it's just a reapplication.
' LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST, CORNER OF LONE EAGLE DRIVE AND NEZ PERCE, LOTUS
REALTY.
7
IIC Mayor Hamilton: This wasn't one that you had on your Board of Adjustments?
Councilman Geving: We did address this. We voted for denial based upon all
the situations. That was a illegal lot split and that it was a self-created
hardship and that the City is not approving the creation of a non-confomring lot
so those were the reasons.
Mayor Hamilton: So you denied it?
Councilman Geving: So we denied 10.
Mayor Hamilton: It didn't indicate that it was going to be there. I just had a
question. Would having a home on that particular lot improve the neighobrhood?
Councilman Geving: That's a tough issue. There's almost 10,000 square feet
there. I don't know what else will happen on that lot but the fact that they
illegally created it created the problem. I guess I'd have to say yes Tom to
your question.
Mayor Hamilton: I would think so too.
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 7 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT AND TO CREATE A NEW WEST
64TH STREET CUL-DE-SAC, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 64TH STREET AND HIGHWAY 41,
GARY REED AND HSZ DEVELOPMENT.
Councilman Boyt: I guess my concern is that the cul-de-sac's layout hinges upon
future development, doesn't it Gary? Where you want that cul-de-sac depends on
35
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
what happens to the rest of the property.
Gary Reed: ...placing that cul-de-sac, you get additional use of that lot and I
whatever is left over will be developed hopefully in a commercial situation.
Councilman Boyt: What I'm concerned about and I don't know if it's appropriate
for it to be the City's concern or not. I'm concerned that the way the cul-de-
sac is laid out, it creates a piece of property that is not going to be accessed
by the cul-de-sac. So we either are saying that somehow we're miraclously going
to come up with another entrance off of TH 41.
Gary Reed: We have it.
Councilman Boyt: So you have access to that. You don't have to develop at all
in this cul-de-sac, is that what you're telling me? That even if the frontage
isn't granted commercial, which would be rezoning. If it's not rezoned
commercial, you can still develop? 11
Gary Reed: We have an entrance onto TH 41 where the old drive-in was.
Councilman Boyt: That was my only concern. I didn't want to see us create a
future problem.
Gary Reed: We've checked now with MnDot and make sure that we'd be able to use
that access onto TH 41. Before we did that we checked with MnDot. They haven't
given it to me in writing.
Barbara Dacy: The access that you're referring to is a n roximatel in this
location where the existing entrance to the old drive-in but because 64th
Street is being vacated and because a full intersection is here, MnDot indicated
that this separation would be acceptable.
Councilman Boyt: But Mr. Gowen down there is not rushing to develop.
Barbara Dacy: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: And is this access onto TH 41 going to impact him? ,
Barbara Dacy: MnDot indicated that Mr. Gowen can continue to use his existing
driveway. '
Councilman Johnson: Does the, I guess it would be the west side of the cul-de-
sac, you say the first part you're looking to put commercial in. On TH 41 and
then you're looking for residential around this cul-de-sac?
Gary Reed: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: Is there enough room between your existing, those two lots
you're putting in there, the proposed house and the house, and the cul-de-sac?
Gary Reed: We have a preliminary plat with 7 lots...which all are...
Councilman Johnson: Will they all meet the 30 foot setbacks? I don't know if
you were here earlier for our discussion on setbacks.
36 ,
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
II Gary Reed:
y I, in fact staked out some of the lots and. . .
Barbara Dacy: The point you're making though is valid. I think that before
final plat, I know the Reed's have done a lot of sketch drawings and what we
need to meet with them to make sure that they have the appropriate lot width and
lot depth and so on.
Councilman Johnson: Prior to final plat? So that would be recommendation 10.
I'm not exactly sure how to state that. Prior to final plat that a sketch plan
showing adequate building setbacks, etc. is reviewed by staff.
Councilman Geving: The only concern I have is on the, I guess page 5, having to
' do with the drainage into our Herman Field area down the proposed pipe. I'm
really curious about how much drainage that's going to be and what's going to
happen once it gets to the turn in the pipe, where does it go? Does it sop up
into the ground by Herman Field? Are you going to create another pond or what's
happening? Larry, can you explain it to me?
Larry Brown: Yes, in dealing with the Watershed District, the Watershed
District felt that it was best to keep the pipe as far back from the lake as
possible. Eventually the ultimate point of this is to reach Lake Minnewashta
flowing through the grasslands and through the park area. This pipe, we tried
to coordinate it with the proposed drainageway that was proposed to Herman Field
and the parkland. It's been suggested to let Mark Koegler, the planner who
originated the Herman Field plan, to draft up his comments as well.
II
Councilman Geving: My concern is that we're not creating another problem by
pulling the water off of this cul-de-sac and dumping it onto this low area and
then channeling it down to the, they're still a long ways from the lake. That's
a long ways from the lake and I'm concerned that you might be creating an area
that eventually will turn into a small cattail marsh if there's a lot of this
run-off.
' Gary Reed: There is one down there now.
Councilman Geving: So there is something there existing now? We're not
creating it? Okay. You know it better than anybody Gary.
Gary Reed: The cul-de-sac, hopefully we're going to get... I have one concern
' that.. .grade on the...i.t would be coming out of the ground right at the distance
. ..and creating a dam in effect to that swale.
Councilman Geving: Where your existing home is you mean?
Gary Reed: Yes. On the west line of that property, towards West 64th Street
where there's a swale area.. .and then follow the swale all the way into the
marsh.
Councilman Geving: Will that pipe be above the ground there? The one that's
shown there? That will be underground?
A
t__ Gary Warren: Correct.
37
Lti
II
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Councilman Geving: Okay, I have no other questions.
Councilman Horn: I only have one comment. Hopefully in the future when a
majority of that develops, we'll be able to minimize the entrances onto TH 41.
I realize that with individual owners it's hard to get the development all
coordinated at once but I hope we can minimize that as much as we could so we
don't do what Eden Prairie did with TH 101.
Mayor Hamilton: Hopefully the Reeds are satisfied with the way this is coming
out. You're pleased that development is going to take place and that you're
going to be able to develop your property the way you want to. That was my only
concern. I know it may have pushed you into a little sooner than you wanted to
but. I would move approval of case number 88-17, the preliminary plat request
to create one outlot and two single family lots.
Councilman Horn: Second.
Councilman Johnson: With the 9 conditions and the 10th?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. With the conditions, 1 through 9 and 10. I
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision #88-17 to
create one outlot and two single family lots in the West 64th Street cul-de-sac '
as presented on the plat stamped "Received July 13, 1988" and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Reservation of a 25 foot trail easement over the proposed 8 foot bituminous 1
trail in the vacated 64th Street right-of-way.
2. The appliant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the
proper installation of this improvement.
3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
4. Utility easements located over the proposed sanitary sewer and watermain 1
between the existing West 64th Street right-of-way and the proposed
cul-de-sac right-of-way shall be shown on the final plat. These easements
shall be 20 feet in width minimum.
5. The applicant shall provide the City with a temporary easement agreement
which will allow entry onto the Reed property for construction of the
cul-de-sac and ponding site.
6. The proposed ponding site located at the southeast quadrant of the proposed
intersection of West 64th Street and the proposed cul-de-sac shall be
located such that a 5 foot buffer exists between the existing utilities in
West 64th Street and the 100 year high water elevation for the ponding site.
7. A temporary construction easement will be required from the Minnesota
Department of Trasnportation such that grading may take place within the
right-of-way owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation located
adjacent to the northeast corner of the parcel.
38 ,
1 , . City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
II 8. All
erosion controls shall be in place prior of the commencement of any
I construction, and shall remain in place throughout the duration of
construction. The developer shall periodically inspect the erosion control
and make any necessary repairs promptly.
9. The plat shall maintain the 64th Street street name.
10. Prior to final plat a plan showing adequate building setbacks is reviewed by
City Staff.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Geving: What I really want to talk about is, from a professional
standpoint and how I think we as a Council are the leaders in the community and
we direct our staff and we direct the various commissions and commitees who work
for the commissions. It bothers me a lot when I see letters that are written
directly to Councilmen as a result of our decisions. You've got to understand
that not all committee recommendations, not all commission recommendations are
ever fully understood and bought 100% by the Council. There are always going to
' be recommendations from commissions that are going to be considered. We're
going to buy them sometimes. Sometimes we're going to thank them for the
recommendations and make another move. What I'm bringing to the table tonight
II I
is a couple of letters that appeared in my in box from Park and Recreation
Commission. I think that they were totally out of line and that any commission
_ is out of line in responding to decisions that are made by the Council. They
' have to always remember that they are a recommending body and their
recommendations are not always bought off by the Council. We take it as just
additional input and so it bothers me a lot when I see people not working as a
team and not being unified as a team. We have to work together in order for the
common good of the community. I won't say any more than that except that it
does bother me when I see commission members writing officially to councilmen
who are trying to do their very best job in the best interest of the community
' and be criticized for it. That's all I have to say.
Mayor Hamilton: I would certianly concur with what you have to say only I'd put
it even more strongly than that. I was very miffed by the letter, one of the
' two letters that went out referring to, it wasn't even clear who it came from
and I'm a little surprised that our staff would even type such a letter and send
it out when there was obviously no one signing it. No one saying that they were
the ones writing it. They're doing exactly, it was obviously from the Park and
Rec Commission, somebody on that commission who thinks they're in a power play I
guess. It's one of the questions I've always asked when people volunteer to be
on various commissions is would it bother them if the Council did not, in some
cases, accept their recommendations? I think in all the cases that I can
remember, everybody has said oh no. That's fine. We understand the
relationship. That we're a recommending body and the Council makes the
decision. Well, there are some people who don't seen to be able to take that
and if that's the problem, they ought to get off the Commission, and I mean
that. If they can't follow the rules, if they can't play the game the way it's
supposed to be played, then they ought to go do something else. Their little
39
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
II
games don't go very far with me and I think it's real, real bad taste
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say a word then. I don't think the letter was ,
in, I wouldn't have written the letter but I do feel that we slighted the Park
and Recreation Commission in that we directed them to do what they did. They
took a lot of abuse. A lot of abuse to bring those recommendations to us and 11 the vote ended up really, they standing up for what we directed them to do.
They took a lot of abuse and we took a 180 degree turn around and walked away
from it to a point. I haven't seen those no parking signs come down yet. I
haven't driven by this week but I would have felt pretty bad.- There has been
times when everyone of us voted against the Planning Commission and Park and
Rec, Safety, every one of them. It is the nature of the beast but in this case,
I felt sorry for them because of the amount of abuse they took from the
neighborhood during the various meetings they were at. I was at some of them.
In fact, I made the mistake of seeing some friends outside and saying what are
you doing here tonight and an hour later I was able to leave. They then went in
and went before the Commission this way. While I don't believe that the letter
was a good idea, I can see where the people are coming from. I know that a lot
of people think we didn't take the turn around. I think that when engineering
does get around to reviewing, I don't know when they're going to, to reviewing
the no parking situation there, that Greenwood Shores will lose. When those no
parking signs start coming down, there will be more available parking there
because the only signs that the engineering staff is going to leave up are those
required for safety purposes, as I remember the motion. I think we're going to
have much more parking available within a very short distance of that park than
the 3 parking spots and 1 handicap that Park and Rec Commission so I'm still I
stating my no vote on that anyway.
Councilman Geving: Jay, I think you missed the whole point.
Councilman Johnson: I still don't think the letter was a good idea.
Councilman Horn: First of all, I totally disagree that it was directly our
charge to them. I think it may have been interpretted by them as our charge and
I read the Minutes of some of their meetings where I was quoted as what my
opinion would be and it certainly didn't represent my opinion. They may have
been misdirected as to what our charge was but I don't think it came out of our
joint meetings. I know that if they interpretted my charge correctly, it wasn't
what they interpretted the Council's charge to be so I think things got out of
hand and their interpretation of what they were to do was taken away from what
our original intent was but I don't think that this group turned around 180
degrees. I didn't interpretted it that way at all. I'd be happy to discuss
with you what my intent was and I don't think I turned around at all. '
Councilman Boyt: As you recall that evening was fairly charged with emotion.
I remember the comment being made that evening that one person on the Council
didn't even know why we were considering the issue and accused the people who
brought it in front of us of trying to beat the neighborhood over the head with
it. I think when you respond that way that it's reasonable to expect the other
person to respond to you. I happen to tell the Park and Rec Commission, some of
the members, that I didn't think they should send the letter but I can
understand when people devote their time as volunteers to an effort, when they
believe in it, and when it's not supported, they're going to have a reaction. I
think they did communicate. Now we can disagree as to whether your
40
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
' communication was justified or not but I think it would have been much worse had
they sit back and not done anything when they were very disappointed. They let
IIyou know they were disappointed. I think as adults I would expect them to go
ahead and take on the next charge full force with all the effort we have come to
expect of them. If they're disappointed in any of us, I would expect them to
' say that.
Mayor Hamilton: Then why don't they come here face to face and say it instead
of writing out some ridiculous letter which they did and not signing the
' letters. That's absolutely stupid.
Councilman Horn: And implying it was an unanimous decision, I talked with at
least two of the members who were not in favor of sending the letter.
Mayor Hamilton: Jay mentioned abuse, and I think the job of the commissions is
to listen to what the people in that community have to say and not to be abusive
to them. I received many complaints about that commission, about those hearings
and in particular about the Chairman and the way he handled the people at those
meetings and it was not very good. Their job is to listen, to communicate with
the residents of the community and to pass on a recommendation. I don't think
they listened very well. They were abusive to the citizens and I don't think
they listened and really took to heart and made a good logical decision based on
' what the community was saying.
Councilman Horn: In contrast to that, another touchy issue, the Planning
Commission dealt with this TH 101 issue which is highly more volatile than this
issue and we got letters complimenting them on their method of handling it.
They didn't always agree with the recommendations but they felt that they were
listened to.
' Councilman Johnson: Let me tell you the dedication of our Park and Recreation
Commission. They knew that TH 101 was going to be a sensitive issue and they
came here and they sat through the TH 101 issue even though, members of the Park
and Recreation Commission, to see how they handled that and their only purpose
here at the meeting was to watch how Ladd handled that meeting and they learned.
Mr. Mady was here doing that. I talked to him afterwards and he said, wow. I
really learned something from Ladd Conrad and Ladd is excellent at handling
people this way.
' Mayor Hamilton: Clark, you wanted to talk about center lines.
Councilman Horn: Yes. As many times as I've driven all the streets in the
City, it first came to my attention this weekend that we have some streets that
don't have center lines on them and it came very close with this Near Mountain
issue is the people crossing the imaginary center line in the road to make a
left hand turn or right hand turn. It just seems to me that it's pretty logical
if you don't have a target there for somebody to aim at, you're going to cross
tha center line. I'm wondering why we don't have center striping on our
streets. Especially the major ones.
Gary Warren: We do each year have a striping program that we're taking back to
the County and I believe they have on the late summer, in fact Park Drive in the
business park will be striped this year. Kerber Blvd. I believe we have on the
' 41
.; .
II
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
list. We do a few miles each year on the busier and more traveled roads just
from a policy standpoint. Most cities do not stripe residential roads.
Councilman Horn: Let me put another criteria in there. Some of our narrow,
dangerous roads might be better candidates like Pleasant View. That's all I
have. '
Councilman Johnson: Can I add something to his, as long as we're talking about
striping roads? It would just take a second. How about children's crosswalks
before the school year starts since we didn't get them striped last year while
school was in? Are we going to get them striped before school starts?
Gary Warren: Those are public works. Jerry Schlenk has that on his list. '
Mayor Hamilton: In the past we have done some of that striping ourselves and I
think it's totally inadequate. They're about this wide and they don't paint
them heavy enough. Let's get someone out there who does a professional job and
makes a nice wide crosswalk that everybody can see that will last through the
winter.
Councilman Johnson: I've seen crosswalks where the stripes are a foot wide and
5 feet long.
Mayor Hamilton: Especially where you're going across to the church. The old
St. Hubert's Church where kids are crossing there when they start their bible
study classes again on Wednesdays or whatever it is. There should be a well
defined wide crosswalk there. If we don't get that far this fall, I want to do
it anyway. Bill, you wanted to comment on the carousel building.
Councilman Boyt: To follow up on your point for a second. Getting there has a
lot to do with how much we ask the city staff to do. How many projects we throw
at them. The carousel building. It looks like, as much as I would like to see
Chanhassen have that building, the costs are out of hand.
Councilman Geving: Yes, we might as well forget it. It's a dead issue.
Unfortunately. We all wanted it real bad.
Mayor Hamilton: Don was out of town and I tried my very best to get someone to
move that building at a cost that was reasonable. It could not be done so I
called the developer and I said, it's yours. Knock it down. Burn it down.
Whatever you want to do but we can't do it. I could not justify spending the
kind of money they were talking about and without coming to the Council, I just
decided it wasn't worth it. It was probably worth it if we had the money but. ..
Don Ashworth: You couldn't find anyone anyway.
Mayor Hamilton: Stubb said they would move it but it would be 3 weeks and they
couldn't wait 3 more weeks.
Councilman Geving: I drove out there and looked at it too Tom and I just wish ,
we could take some pictures of that building because it's going to be gone
forever and if we ever had any thoughts about reconstructing something like `
that. Is it gone now?
42 '
IICity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
■
Mayor Hamilton: It probably is. That was a shame.
II Councilman Boyt: This was a good incentive to get out there and identify the
Y g g Y
good barns in town.
■ Councilman Geving: Yes, there's only three left.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think on the developer's behalf, I would like to say that
Fred Blocker was very upset. He did not want to see that building go. He
wanted to see someone move it but he didn't have any choice. He couldn't afford
' to move it for us. It was just in the way.
Councilman Geving: Mary, have you got any pictures of that from a historical
standpoint?
■ Mary Durben: I think the Herald might.
Councilman Boyt: I suspect Excelsior would have some.
Councilman Horn: It seemed from what I got out of this that time was a bigger
' issue than money.
Mayor Hamilton: Even money got to be. I think Stubb's, he'd do it if no one
else wanted to move it so his final bid to me was $26,000.00 to move it and then
we find the crew, the carpentry crew to take it down, they would move it and
then we'd have a crew put it back up. He figured if we were fool enough to pay
that, he'd take the money. I just wanted to comment on the Brooks facility over
here. The parking lot. It appears as though, Don and I talked about this and
it appears as though the developers have made a mess of the parking lot. They
put the curbs in wrong. There's a peak right in the middle of it. All the
curbs come up to a peak and I noticed that we had an approval for a liquor
■
license, non-intoxicating for Brooks and they're apparently planning on being in
there fairly soon. I'm not going to be satisfied with that parking lot staying
the way it is with the peak in it and with the curb about 2 feet higher than
where it's supposed to be in front of the Riveria so I don't think there should
be any occupancy allowed in there until that parking lot is made right and those
curbs are changed. I don't really care what it costs them. They've done it
wrong and they should do it right.
Councilman Geving: Can we stop them Gary?
Gary Warren: They're already stopped. I just got a letter submittal Friday
from the builders out there and what happened is, to save the 80 feet of storm
sewer, they moved a catch basin to the west end of the parking lot so instead of
draining like we planned, they kinked the parking lot to run it into the catch
basin. They have already agreed to remove the curb along the Riveria and
establish that 6 inches lower as the approved plan and they're asking to remove,
what would be allowed within four sections of that peak and round that off to
get 5 and increase their plant density to 4 foot centers...
Mayor Hamilton: I think it should be done the way the plan indicated it was
going to be done and not to get by. They do it right or.. .
43
�.-%�(.D KCi.ty Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 II
Gary Warren: That was my response to them was that we had an approved plan and '
we're going to work without any compromises but I would be willing to look at
some suggestions and that's what they gave me. Based on what you're saying, I
agree that it should... g,
Councilman Horn: Did BRW authorize that?
Gary Warren: No. BRW shot the grades to confirm what we had thought was the
problem out there and that's we used to get the developer on the spot.
Councilman Horn: What about the curbs out here that appear to be sinking on
main street?
Gary Warren: Those are the settlements in the sub-base that are going on.
Those will all be done before we do the work.
Councilman Johnson: Are you talking curbs or asphalt? '
Councilman Horn: I thought originally it was asphalt and I looked closer the
day they lay the curb... ,
Gary Warren: They did some jacking, mud jacking...
Councilman Johnson: When are they going to put the top coat? '
Gary Warren: We're within a week.
Councilman Boyt: I also missed a point and I don't want to put it on this
agenda but it seems to me we have a kennel license request that we have to, is
that going to be on the 22nd?
Don Ashworth: A kennel license request?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, there's been an objection to Wind Walker Kennels.
Don Ashworth: The process is we advertise and if there is an objection, it goes
onto a next agenda. I'm not aware that we have a protest.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. My point was building construction hours. I would like
to see the City at every building permit issue the hours and constraints on that
building. I have had enough of individual builders saying nobody told me.
I don't think we should have to fight that battle everytime a builder starts
putting a house up and they forget that they can't run through the night. ,
Don Ashworth: So you're suggesting as a part of the permit process that the
notice be included in there? ,
Councilman Boyt: I think it only makes sense that when somebody comes in for a
building permit, they're given the relevant development contract and ordinances
surrounding it because then by the time we have them educated, they've disrupted
folks and they didn't need to do that in the first place. 7:U
Mayor Hamilton: That's a good idea.
44
IICity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 - --
II Councilman Johnson: It's
almost standard hours aren't they? We could just
about have it added to our building permit form.
' Mayor Hamilton: That's what Bill is saying. Just put it on the building
permit. Those are your hours and it should be clear to them. If they can't
' read that then...
' TH 101 REALIGNMENT, UPDATE - CITY PLANNER.
Barbara Dacy: The reason why we put this on the agenda is to update you on the
Planning Commission's action last Wednesday and to warn you, so to speak, that
' this item will be on the August 22nd meeting also.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that going to be the only item on that agenda?
' Barbara Dacy: Some of you have already contacted me with specific questions or
alternative alignments I guess I'll call them and issues that you would like to
' see discussed at that meeting. What the Planning Commission did was to
basically recommend to the Council to amend our Comprehensive Plan to eliminate
the current language in the Plan which refers to that old TH 101 study that was
done in 1981. Some of you may remember that where 5 alternatives were drawn to
' look at the Dakota Avenue intersection and to improve it's function but as you
recall through the Broadened Study Area Report that Benshoof and Associates and
Fred coordinated that, that this proposed alignment was a recommendation of that
' study to improve the continuity of TH 101 traffic. What the Conunission did was
to recommend that the Comp Plan language be altered so that the City identifies
two options. One, the proposed alignment that was contained in the traffic
study across TH 5. Secondly, to look at what has been termed the north leg
option which is to take TH 101 across the Apple Valley site on TH 5 to the
existing Great Plains intersection and then south at the existing TH 101. The
Planning Commission's comment also was that they would prefer the north leg
' option but they understood that that option had to be reviewed by MnDot. The
vote was 4 to 2 with one member absent. So 2 of the members felt that the north
leg option should not be pursued.
' Mayor Hamilton: Should not be pursued?
Barbara Dacy: Correct. They preferred the south leg, if you want to use that
term.
Councilman Boyt: What they were really saying was that they thought that the
' north leg was sending a signal to the community that wasn't realistic. They
were going to be straight foward with the community. Say if you're talking
about delaying TH 5 for 2 years or more, that's not realistic and they didn't
' want to, although we received a lot of good letters in support of what the
Planning Commission did, I think the thing that they did was they steered the
community to an option that isn't an option in my opinion because it blocks TH 5
so people walked out of there with hopes. I think people walked out of there
' with the signal that putting the traffic on TH 5 and blocking it's development
for 2 years or more was a realistic option and I think the Planning Commission,
at least 4 of the members on the Planning Co ilission responded with something
that they hoped was true rather than with something that I think is going to
45
6
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
1
work out in the long run to be impossible for us.
Barbara Dacy: Another point too was that the Commission felt that although they
weren't presented that there were other options out there, they asked staff to
follow through as much as they could with those other options and do what was
necessary to confer with MnDot to determine whether or not those were options. '
Councilman Horn: This is the north option here?
Barbara Dacy: I guess what we're calling the whole thing is the north and south
leg. This being from TH 5 south, the south leg. The north leg option comes
from going along TH 5 and then hitting the existing TH 101.
Councilman Horn: Whatever happened with Benshoof's option?
Barbara Dacy: This is the Benshoof option right here. '
Councilman Horn: No it isn't.
Barbara Dacy: This is a refined engineered version of the Benshoof option but '
in concept what the Benshoof option was to cross TH 5 and connect up to
Lake Drive East. What we've done is, BRW has refined the geometrics in
conjunction with MnDot's standards.
Councilman Horn: The impression I got, this Benshoof option has been around for
quite a while. The impression I got was that the people at the public hearing
saw this as a last minute attempt that really wasn't very good. The comments I
got and I didn't hear them personally were that the presenters said, well yes
that has a lot of problems with it. Well, there's no way that you're going to
sell a concept if that's the way you present it. When I originally heard about
the variation of Benshoof's concept, it was purported to be a significant
improvement to that and from what I had seen, the Benshoof option was far
superior to anything that we had in the other 5 options so I was pretty excited
about it. Then to come back and get this kind of reaction, well it really isn't
all the good and it really isn't workable, no wonder we didn't get a good
response to it.
Barbara Dacy: You heard comments that at the meeting there were comments to the
fact that this is not a good alternative?
Councilman Horn: Right. That there really were a lot of problems with it.
Some of them haven't been addressed.
Barbara Dacy: I think maybe what the homeowners were frustrated with is that a
lot of the concerns were about pedestrian access and crossings and noise, the
detail design issues that we could not provide them at those informational
hearings. Only through the feasibility study are we able to look at the various
options. We recognize that it's the best alternative out there for north/south
continuity but we couldn't come back to them and give them definitive answers at
this informational hearings to all of their concerns. We couldn't provide them
with a sound yes or no on the north leg option and maybe they took that to mean
that there's just so many problems with this option, why are we even proposing
it.
46 1
IICity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
Councilman Horn: I think they got the impression that it was a last
minute
option that came out of the woodwork because TH 5 got accelerated. Even that to
I me is a misnomer. TH 5 didn't get accelerated. TH 5 got put back to some
reasonable semblance of what it was in the first place.
Barbara Dacy: I would agree with that and also too, we do have an application
on the commercial lot right where the south leg is proposed so another item on
your 22nd agenda is to either approve or deny a site plan for a 40,000 square
foot shopping center.
Councilman Horn: I think this Pleasant View situation was a good preview for us
to address this issue because this one has got 10 times the potential of
' disaster than that one. We're going to have to come up with a workable solution
and put in all the resources we need to make it work. I've had people who have
come to me and said they would volunteer to be part of any kind of special study
' or whatever it takes to get this going. As I see it, we can't hold up TH 5. We
can't leave TH 101 the way it is. We have to have something that works.
Councilman Geving: But at the same time you have to be realistic with the
' developer who wants to come in and put a 40,000 square foot shopping center in
and then wants to move ahead, what are you going to say? Are you going to let
that proceed?
' Mayor Hamilton: He's going to have to wait.
Councilman Geving: Are you going to let it proceed or are you going to have to
Iwait for 2 years to see if this highway thing goes through?
Mayor Hamilton: It won't take 2 years.
' Councilman Horn: It won't take 2 years. If he has to wait he has to wait.
It's a lot better than screwing up our whole transportation pattern.
' Mayor Hamilton: That's right. TH 5 has got to get done.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to see the part leading into this whole
' intersection. What's going to happen to the south where we cross over and move
back towards Al Klingelhutz' farm and move this way to the north? I'd like to
see the whole picture.
Councilman Horn: There is a picture there but this is the most critical part.
If this doesn't work, the rest of it doesn't.
ma Barbara Dacy: We will be receiving the official map for TH 212 the end of
ma ms August and as a part of that review, we will be looking at the other realignment
of TH 101 with the interchange of TH 212 and how that intersects with the
properties to the north.
Councilman Geving: That's what I'm referring to. I want to see that.
Barbara Dacy: We've got concurrent studies going on.
Councilman Boyt: I think what the Planning Commission did a 7
ood job of was
g
getting out people's objectives and where they were most concerned. Although I
47
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
II
agree with Clark that this needs to be decided ickl
qu' y, as quickly as we can, I
think we need to move to do it with as small impact as we can on the residential
area we've allowed to develop. '
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like there's a lot of questions that haven't been
answered or addressed. We're looking at four railroad crossings within a very
short distance. Is that going to be able to be accomplished? Closing off of
Dakota, I guess that's been addressed but not satisfactorily to me I guess. I
still want to know what's going to happen at that intersection. What's going to
happen with the current intersection of TH 5 and TH 101? What's going to happen
with Market Blvd. intersection? I think we need to see some information on
those projected. At least somebody's thoughts on those. Are they going to
become full intersections? Not intersections? I think they're all issues that
need to be dealt with.
Councilman Horn: The whole thing has changed too because Market Blvd. wasn't
even an issue when the first study was done.
Councilman Johnson: I think that with Fred sitting there I want to tell him
that I think that absolutely for sure saying that the north option will stop
TH 5 did not convince me. I don't know the arguments you used seemed awful weak
to me. To me it seemed like this is my opinion and damn well that's the only
opinion. Unfortunately I don't think that's normally not the way you work and
I respect a lot of your work. We need to find out how we can do the north leg
and not stop TH 5. Do we have to pay for, can we pay their engineer to design
the five Great Plains Blvd.? Pay any cost differences or what? How do we keep
that on schedule to do the north leg and the south leg too? To remove a problem I
from the north side of TH 5 and to make a similar problem on the south side
doesn't make a lot of sense to me. One of the problems on the north side we're
trying to solve is TH 101 going through a relatively residential neighborhood
and this is residential on both sides. On the south side we've got residential
on one side and neighborhood type commercial on the other side. It doesn't make
sense to run it through there. Can we run it behind the commercial which then
puts us two intersections within 10 feet of each other, which doesn't make sense
either? To me at this point, the north leg is a reasonable option but how do we
do it? My thoughts are how do we do it. Not we can't do it but how do we do
i.t. That's all I've got to say. '
Councilman Geving: What's the status of the cement plant? Where's that going
to be a year from now or two years from now? They're not due out of there until
1991. Can that be condemned?
Barbara Dacy: That will be an option available to the Council. We have met
with the Apple Valley people and taked preliminarily about the project. Getting
more information from them as to whether or not we should adjust the road
traversing the west part of the property or would it necessitate...
Councilman Geving: We always showed that cul-de-sac coming in there from the
north side of the road. North side of 76th Street. There was always a cul-de-
sac that came down and serviced Guy's and whatever else might be left down in
that area. I don't see that on the existing plan.
Barbara Dacy: 79th Street now cul-de-sacs in the Hanus property. It was my
understanding that at one point it was to go all the way down to Taco but I
48 '
IICity Council Meeting - August 8, 1988
guess at one point that...
IMayor Hamilton: I think Hanus built his building in the way.
Councilman Horn: Just what do we need to do to get this done?
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe to add to that question, what are discussing next week on
the 22nd?
' Barbara Dacy: There will be an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
identify these conceptual routes. The second item will be to adopt an official
map establishing the center line of the north leg and the south leg. By doing
so you're officially amending your thoroughfare plan and giving official map
status to those alignments. That's also a decision and a message to MnDot.. .
Councilman Horn: I think we should have some good data in place for that. In
my mind it's not going to be feasible to run TH 101 currently with TH 5.
I don't know the numbers but I've enough numbers on other studies about what's
going to happen to TH 5 that we don't want to do...
Councilman Boyt: If I could second that. I think what's going to be very
critical on the 22nd is that the issues that we've all raised have the best
' answer we can give for them so the business about what will MnDot say about
delays? Jay raises a point, how do we make it happen if we can or we can't?
It's a very political process but as much as we can we need to know and have
documented some way if we can. This is about the railroad crossings. I think
I maybe some of you have talked to Barbara about alternatives. I know I've talked
to her. We have reactions to those. If we don't have that information, we're
going to end up making a decision we're unhappy with.
Councilman Geving: I think to answer your question, I think we're going to need
an awful lot of staff input. You're going to have to carry the whole ball in
terms of alternatives. You've got to provide us with one heck of a lot of good
data.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that this might be the sort of issue in which
we want to direct staff to make it a priority and if that means that we postpone
other things on the 22nd agenda, that we do that.
' Councilman Geving: It might be the only thing we can have on the agenda. This
is going to be a heated place. I think we're going to have 100 people here.
' Councilman Boyt: We can't prolong this decision much longer and not delay TH 5.
Mayor Hamilton: Just so long as we have all the information needed to make a
decision. I guess that's the most important thing to me. We need a lot of
information.
Councilman Geving: Can you make sure our schedule is really light Don?
Don Ashworth: We'll talk about it tomorrow morning. One of the problems you've
got is that a lot of your advertisements are out 6 to 8 weeks in advance. I
need to talk to both Barb and Gary tomorrow to see what we can pull off but some
items may have been schedule up to 4 weeks ago.
49
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1988 II
1
Councilman Geving: I guess what I'm saying, we're all saying the same thing.
We don't want to be rushed into a decision on the 22nd just because we have an
agenda item that has to be solved.
Mayor Hamilton: Next week, just so you remember, we have a meeting next Monday.
It's going to be the assessment for the downtown project. There have been a lot
of very unhappy people when they got their notice of their assessments. I think
again we need information that asks for it, Gary I want to see the letters that
went out. I want to see the rolls. I want some previous history and any
information that has gone out to these people previously because I know there's
a lot of angry people and we're going to have a room full of folks again that
are just going to be raising hell. That's fine but I want to have, if the staff
has the time to meet with these people between now and next week and resolve
their questions, that's great but as a part of next week, if we have time also,
you may be thinking about anything in the coming years budget that you may want
to have in there so keep those ideas in mind of what you might want to include.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All '
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim '
1
50
1
at/a/rez)
I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 3, 1988
I Chairman Conrad called he
t meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. .
I MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
James Wildermuth and David Headla
IMEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner ; Jo Ann Olsen , Asst.
I City Planner ; Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer and Fred Hoisington, City' s
Consultant
I PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO IDENTIFY THE REALIGNMENT OF TH 101 ACROSS TH 5, CITY
IOF CHANHASSEN.
Public Present :
IName Address
Mark Senn 7800 Park Drive
Rome Roos 1450 Park Court
Don T. Smith 8012 Erie
Mike Wittrock 8022 Dakota Avenue
I Drew & Melanie Wright
Gene Heikkinen 320 Sinnen Circle
301 Sinnen Circle
Greg Gmiterko 8121 Hidden Court
Grace Johnson 3143 Marsh Drive
I Jack Atkins 220 West 78th Street
Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive
Bill Streepy 321 Sinnen Circle
I Elizabeth Kersch 271 Hidden Lane
Jeff & Holly Peters 8120 Hidden Court
Bruce & Cindy Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive
II Sharon Loeckler 8028 Erie Avenue
Tom Lehmann 330 Sinnen Circle
Larry Guthrie 520 3500 West 80th, Bloomington
Jim Lewis 8133 Dakota Lane
I Jan Coey Taco Shop
Janine Ringdahl 8032 Erie Avenue
Bill Davis Minnetonka
II Ivan C. Johnson 7910 Dakota Drive
Jeffery Cook 1800 Meritor Tower
Gene Borg 90 Lake Drive East
Ulri.co Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle
'
Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail
_ .— Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 2 1
Dacy: Staff would like to present our report in the following manner . I 'd II
like to have Fred Hoisington, the City' s consultant regarding the Year
2005 Transportation Study make a presentation first to overview the
project for the Commission and then I 'd like to follow that up with
staff' s recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application.
Fred Hoisington : Mr . Chairman , members of the Planning Commission, it' s
been quite a long time since we were here and discussing the broaden study
area . A little longer ago than we really hoped the interval would be. We
hoped we would be back much sooner . I know you've had a chance to review
that, re-review that again and I 'm not going to go over it in detail . The
good folks who are behind me here have heard it twice already so I know
they aren ' t interested in hearing me run through the whole presentation
again. But let me tell you a little bit about, first of all the
objectives of this plan amendment and TH 101 as we saw it in the broaden
study area were really three. One, to provide some continuity in the way
of a north/south roadway, major roadway through the City of Chanhassen and II
as it turns out, TH 101 is probably the only option that the City has to
provide that kind of continuity all the way from north towards the south .
To provide the acceptable levels of service on TH 5 primarily at the
intersections where we have continued to struggled throughout the course
of the studies that we 've done with trying to get the level of service
down to the point where traffic could move in the year 2005. When we look
at it today, we know of some traffic problems along TH 5 b'ut it ' s a little II
hard to visualize what it will be like in year 2005 when we have at least
twice and in some cases 3 or 4 times as much traffic as we' re experiencing
today. Another thing that we spent long hours on because the broaden
study area was done in conjunction with the downtown area , or kind of spun
out of the downtown studies , had to do with the separation of traffic .
Separating through traffic from downtown traffic. Not wanting those who
don ' t have to go downtown , to be forced to go there. So those are really
kind of the broad objectives that this prorposal for a new alignment of TH
101 our intent to keep. In looking through the broaden study area ,
remember that we had kind of a "S" curve sort of configuration for this , II or for TH 101 at TH 5, and that proposal is no longer valid . We hope you
had a chance to look at this one. This is almost, I think this is a third
or fourth generation alternative now in that it is geometrically
configured in a manner that takes or goes more through the center of the
Kerr property in the south leg but leaves the north leg basically intact
as it was originally proposed. Originally we had hoped that we could use
a portion of Lake Drive East as part of the TH 101 alignment . We know
you' ve got some concerns about that and the alignment existed but this is
a very difficult stretch to engineer . In part because of some of the
things that the neighbors have told us or expressed concerns over , we have
continued to look at alternatives and I ' ll tell you a little bit about
those later . But this is the alternative that presently is before you or
is a more detailed version of what' s before you tonight in the way of a
planned amendment. Just before we met with the neighbors the last time we
were able to , we received some information from our traffic engineers , Jim
Benshoof and Associates, having to do with the through movements that need
to be accomodated on TH 101. Just summarily what Jim indicated was that
there would be about 1,200 to 1, 230 vehicles approaching that intersection II
from the north and south during the peak hour of the day, which is the
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' August 3 , 1988 - Page 3
'C p.m. peak. Of those , 800 would go through the intersection . Of those ,
565 originate outside the study area, outside Chanhassen for the most
' part , past all the way through and go out the other side of the study
area . We' re talking about a fairly appreciable number in the year 2005 of
people needing to pass through the study area and of course that ' s in part
what the function of this street is intended to accomodate. On the first
we received another report from Jim, we have been trying to get these
piecemeal as best we could, that dealt with what we term the north leg
option as an alternative to this approach to dealing with TH 101 and TH 5.
' What that north leg option does is uses the north leg and then use this
TH 5 to the west and then Great Plains or present TH 101 south. So what
it does is puts all , in year 2005, all 800 of those folks that want to go
through that intersection, on TH 5 and forces it to take both TH 5 and TH
' 101 traffic for that stretch. What Jim has surprisingly concluded,
surprising to me because I didn' t think we had even a ghost of a chance of
that working in this case, was that from a pure traffic standpoint, it' s
' conceivable that we could engineer something that will allow that north
leg option to work. Here' s what it would take. It would take two left
turn lanes from the east bound movement on TH 5 to the south bound
' movement on Great Plains and two left turn movements on east bound TH 5 to
north bound TH 101. It would call for the elimination of the right turn
lanes at this intersection. The free right turns because we couldn' t
afford to have people weaving across in that relatively short distance ,
1, 000 or so feet. I wish we could say right now that that would work and
that we could get approval from MnDot for that kind of approach . MnDot ' s
indications have been historically that they would not be interested or
' would not entertain that kind of proposal . However , we will continue to
explore that with them because we think it is warranted that we continue
to look at that alternative and to look at others . I guess all I want to
do is tell you that it' s not as clear cut because it does take a complete
lane from this intersection down through Great Plains in order to
accomodate it and there are some serious questions associated with that
that only MnDot can. . . We know there' s a lot of opposition to this
' proposal from the folks who live further to the south. This is not an
easy decision and we certainly don ' t envy you having to make it or do we
envy the Council having to make the decision .
' Erhart : Fred , can I ask you a question? On this north route you' re still
proposing to move the intersection that you 've shown. Essentially to move
the intersection where the proposed . . . to use TH 5 as designated TH 101?
Fred Hoisington: That ' s correct. The intersection would stay where it
was or it is .
Erhart: Is today?
Fred Hoisington : Where it is right here now, shown here, in the yellow.
The north leg option would do that and then run the traffic down TH 5.
Now don' t get me wrong , I 'm not proposing that . I 'm just saying that
we' re still continuing to explore that because we haven' t exhausted it but
all indications are that we may not get it .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 4 '
C
Erhart : Excuse me, then you said you would eliminate the right-in/right- I
out intersection on Dakota?
Fred Hoisington : No , that would stay. What we'd be eliminating Tim, '
would be the south leg . If we could do that , we would take the entire
south leg off . Oh, excuse me, you see the free right turns , those would
not be able to stay if we used TH 5 as TH 101. 1
Erhart : Where you don' t have to stop?
Fred Hoisington: Exactly becase we can not afford to have those folks ,
making those free right turns into that huge volume of traffic on TH 5.
You'd have to weave across that lane of traffic if they' re able to make
free right turns . We just don' t think that ' s possible to do that . Excuse II
me, that' s what we were talking about .
Resident : Could you show that on the map?
Fred Hoisington: What we ' re talking about are these turns here. These
free right turns here and any down here. Especially this one because what
it amounts to is those vehicles would have to weave into that volume of
traffic , cross through it and then continue and make a left turn further
to the west. Again, we' re continuing to study what we will call the north
leg option and if it ' s approved by MnDot and it will probably take a good
two months, we probably won' t have an answer until November in that regard
but if that proves to be a viable option in this case , we can always
revert to that we believe and therefore do not have to build the south
leg . In the meantime, we feel that we need to continue to the process .
We need to continue it as it ' s currently proposed or there are some
serious possibilities here that I have difficulty with. You may not have
so much difficult with. We understand, we realize that the possibilities II
tonight are for you to approve, to table, to deny, although I would
suppose that denial might be a little bit difficult but if it were to be
tabled , you would run the risk, a couple of serious risks . One , as you
know, TH 5 is being accelerated for construction start 1989, completion
1991 and that would run out to CR 17. If we were to go to the north leg
option and have to add an entire lane, that segment would have to be
completely redesigned . It' s already in the course of being designed and
everything in transition back to the east and the west of that would have
to be redesigned as well to widened that so we could accomodate that
additional lane. If that happens , we lose two years . We will not be on
the accelerated schedule for TH 5 and they will probably break it at about II
the city' s limits. Maybe 184th. Very close to 184th we think. The
second risk I guess that you run is that we have a development proposed
that you also have on your agenda tonight , for the Kerr property which, I II
won ' t say we' ve been threatened but obviously there ' s some concern with
the delays that have occurred here. If that delay is further without any
real foundation, of course you risk a suit in that case. I don ' t mean to
make that sound too strongly but there are some risks that you have to run
and would have to run if we did not get approval from the Planning
Commission and Council . I don' t want to make this too easy either. It is
a tough decision to make but we did want you to know what the
ramifications of that happen to be. It may well warrant delay to allow
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
' August 3, 1988 - Page 5
' for further studying . We just simply are suggesting that the outcome of
that could be pretty negative as far as TH 5 is concerned and as far as
' the Kraemer property is concerned . With that, I, Mr . Chairman would just
simply turn back to Barbara and then would answer questions later .
Dacy: Based on that , the application that the Commission is considering
is looking at a few pages in the City' s existing transportation element of
the Comprehensive Plan . As the Plan is written right now, it makes the
general reference to the study that was done in 1981 regarding the five
' alternatives regarding TH 101. What the proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan will entail is merely adding language describing the
proposed project . I 'm just showing this not necessarily for everybody to
read at this time but to show you that what staff is proposing to the
' Comprehensive Plan is a written description based on the analysis that was
done in the Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Study. It summarizes
the objectives of the realignment and the results that were identified in
that study. The amendment would also include a general conceptual
realignment of TH 101. Again, the Comprehensive Plan is a planning
document showing proposed corridors and general alignments of streets .
' The exact design such that you see on the easel over there will be refined
during the construction feasibility study process . Staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as proposed in the staff report subject to holding a public
hearing at the Planning Commission and the City Council level on the
addition analysis regarding the north leg option is completed. In other
words , to restate what Mr . Hoisington just reviewed for the Commission, we
believe that the process regarding the Plan Amendment and the official map
should continue so that we reserve, so to speak, an alternate option but
reserving the opportunity to go back and re-evaluate the north leg when we
' get a response from the Minnesota Department of Transportation .
Conrad: For clarification, by proceeding with the mapping and the
Comprehensive Plan , I 'm sure the people who are here are real concerned
' with, when you do that that ' s like casting something in concrete. You ' re
saying that the process is to hold another public hearing when all the
data is in.
Dacy: Regarding the north leg option .
Conrad: Right. And at that time, what commitments have we made? We have
reserved , we have mapped it, we have amended the Comprehensive Plan to
really position it where the current proposal i.s. Not the north leg ,
let ' s call it the south leg or whatever . What commitment do we have at
that time, does the City have to follow through?
Dacy: We have merely identified in our plan that this proposed corridor
that the City is evaluating and conducting a feasibility study on. The
official map merely identifies the center line and the extent of the
right-of-way limits such that it puts the property owners on notice where
the official map goes through. That the City is looking at constructing a
road through that area .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 6 ,
Conrad : At that point mapping can be changed if the north leg is decided II
at that point?
Dacy: That' s correct . '
Conrad : This is a public hearing . That ' s why we have you here tonight .
Again, we have petitions in our packet which we have read. We have most I
of the notices that people have sent to City Hall that are in our packets .
We probably have history on the project for the last 10, not 10 years but
since we' ve been playing with TH 101. We' ve read through that . We' re
interested in your comments and we'd like to give you the opportunity to
speak to us at this point in time so with that, as I said before, if you
have a comment that you think is real pertinent to the issue, we'd
appreciate your comments . I 'm not going to force you to come up to the
microphone but I would like you to stand up, state your name and your
address and make your comments . Who wants to be first .
Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet, I live at Hidden Circle, 8071. Let I
me introduce myself a little further . I moved into the area about a year
ago. I built a house there in an area that I considered very desireable .
Very ideal to have a family home. I have two little children. One a
baby, the other one 2 1/2 years old. I chose this area because I felt it
was a good place to raise a family. I was a little dampen when I got my
first tax estimate for the property coming through but I guess that' s a
fact that we have the highest property taxes in this area here in
Chanhassen. However , when I was faced with the proposal that you ' re
currently considering , I felt like stabbed in the back. It ' s a very
special neighborhood. It' s amazing that within a few months of living
there, the neighbors have found a tremendous cohesiveness . Not last ,
because every house has at least one, if not several children. Small
children. Some of them, the ladies are still pregnant . I ' ve never seen a
place that had such a big population of really small children. And as
such, talking to the neighbors , we decided that this is totally
unacceptable to us. I 'm here as the spokesperson officially of 70 people II
that signed the petition and in addition to it a sheet that says I can
represent them as a spokesperson so I 'm not just talking for myself but I
did take the time to introduce me personally because I know that just II about everybody of those 70 people that signed their name onto that sheet
is in the same situation . Chose that place to have a healthy, serene
place for their family and their little children. Now, obviously as you
can see , there is a relatively low level concern here to basically route a
street through our backyard that is supposed to be 3 or 4 lanes , carrying
15, 000 to 20, 000 vehicles per day. Adding a second freeway inbetween
where our development is and where we are. Not to mention that there was I
absolutely no indication at the time that when we chose this area to live
that there would be such a thing in the works and I can guarantee you that
a lot of us would not have built there. We have made a commitment to this '
City. We trying to make this city our home and for our children and we' re
basically stabbed in the back with the project . It ' s , as I said , not
acceptable to us for relatively close concern. The threat of safety that
it poses to our children . Being cut off from the City plus all the
environmental elements . The pollution. The noise. Because that' s
considerable. Right now we' re shielded from TH 5 by a hill . That hill
Planning Commission Meeting
1 August 3 , 1988 - Page 7
C
would be basically cut down and not only cut down to TH 5 but would be a
crossing . And not only a crossing for that we hear TH 5 but a crossing
that would let an equal amount of traffic come north/south that is
' currently going east/west on TH 5. This is to me a very heavy concern and
let me add a few further aspects though I don ' t want to take too much of
your time because I 'm sure some other people want to talk too but talking
' for 70 people I believe I can take a little time. It ' s going to basically
destroy the desireability of our neighborhood. It' s going to decrease the
value of our properties as such. Already one house at least that I know
' of has gone on the market because of this proposal and undoubtedly there
will be more . My basic question is , is this the way the City of
Chanhassen welcomes a whole community, a whole segment of their community
after they come believing that it' s the place they chose and all of a
' sudden they realize they' re next to a freeway. I 'm very glad that Fred
Hoisington is seriously considering using TH 5 as an alternative because I
really even have questions about the project overall . The improvements of
through traffic on the intersections is only marginly improved by this
whole proposal . As a matter of fact, the main intersection that we' re
dealing with, the intersection of TH 5 and TH 101 is only improving from
an E level to a D/E level . Is this not even a whole step improvement? Is
that worth the cost? Millions? It ' s going to be several millions of
dollars. Probably 3-4. If I understood Fred Hoisington correctly, it
costs roughly a million just to do the building itself. It ' s going to be
at least 2 to 3 million to get the right-of-way and I understand that some
of these people have to be actually placed somewhere else which will be an
additional cost. One of the things that was also in the proposal is that
' intersections are too close together the way it is right now. If you look
at this drawing, I 'm not that familiar with Bloomington but I know about
it and I ' ve heard a lot of people , it' s like going through Bloomington.
There' s one intersection after another . It' s not really improving it much
' and the main points of foundation for the whole proposal , the three
points, the continuity north/south, the intersection improvement, I
addressed that , and the downtown traffic situation. Are we really
' responsible as a City to ram the north/south major traffic corridor
through an area where it doesn ' t fit anymore? I 'm sorry, this doesn ' t
really inspire me in confidence in the planning of the City. You don' t go
plan a major freeway after we have put in major developments for families .
A freeway type road like this would be a 3 or 4 lane road. It seems to me
something that should be planned a little further ahead. I do believe in
all fairness that it ' s too late to route that now through where this is
' proposed because it ' s my understanding that you are representing the
residents of the City and certainly the City Council is . I don' t know
whether we have any City Council members here tonight . I sure wish they
hear this. I would be awfully disappointed to find out that through
traffic interests under some extent , maybe business interest , come first
in this city before the interest of the residents and their children. An
interesting aspect , just to close my points here , I don ' t want to bore you
' too long but the proposal calls for TH 101 to be classified as a major
arterial . What is TH 101 now? It ' s an access road for people who live up
north and south to come to TH 5 basically to go into town. It' s a
collector . It' s not a major arterial and to make a major arterial out of
it, to encourage this incredible through traffic volume, what benefit does
that really bring to the city? I don ' t see certainly any that it brings
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 8
C
to me except a lot of dismay and probably a very good motivation to try to I
get another house as soon as I can. I guess that' s all I have to say,
thank you.
Don Smith : I 'm Don Smith, I 've lived here for 15 years . I 'm going to
probably second his motion but I don' t understand and I doubt seriously
that you ' re ever going to straighten out TH 101. It should have been II straighten out 4 years ago but one of the questions that I have to ask is,
is this being done in conjunction with the overall plans of the State to
change TH 101 into a north/south highway? To me they should change this II to something further east and the main route for north and south is either
going to be Powers , Kerbers , CR 17 or TH 41. Not the present snake bed we
call TH 101 . I don ' t care how you cut the mustard , you' re trying to put
in intersections where they don' t belong. You ' re talking about traffic I
into 2005, that' s only 15 years from now. You can' t drive through TH 101
now unless you' ve got skis or a snowmobile. I 'd like to know at the time
who ' s going to be paying for all of this . The roads and Planning
Commission certainly didn ' t figure the width of the road when they did
76th Street. It ' s too narrow now and I think all of this came together in
my mind when you put TH 101 together and cut out where it should have been
and put a courthouse that is now and completely eliminated TH 101 and that
doesn ' t make sense. They call it the Wizard of Oz plaza now and that' s
exactly what it' s turning into . I can' t see how you ' re going to punch TH
101 through an existing neighborhood with residents in it where you could II
use the railroad access , the farm buildings, the cemetary or the buildings
that are very limited there now, go further east and punch it south so
that it lines up straight so eventually 10 to 15 years from now when it
might go to the racetrack or get past the railroad track at TH 212, then
we ' ve got something to talk about . But north and south on TH 101 , where
do we go? You don' t go anywhere. For two blocks you ' re out of Chanhassen
so stop considering making this an accessway when it should be Powers ,
Kerber , CR 17 or TH 41. Not TH 101. It never will be. It ' s not intended
to be that way unless you rip it up now and make a 6 lane highway. That ' s
all I have to say.
Mike Wittrock : My name is Mike Wittrock and I live at 8022 Dakota Avenue.
I wanted to inform the City that I ' ve been going around to our II neighborhood asking people what their feelings are to the proposed TH 101
which has that south leg on it and I ' ve only met one person who didn ' t
sign my proposal . I 'm sure if I went around the community, everybody
would sign this except for probably 1 or 2 people that I found out was
real surprising . Pretty much I agree entirely with your comments . I also
think that this traffic that will generate on this Lake Drive, the way it
is proposed , that all the westbound traffic going to McDonalds would have II
to go on Lake Drive creating another busy street. All that traffic going
back and forth , we don ' t have an adequate crosswalk there and I think that
would be a hazard . I just wanted to mention that too.
Larry Guthrie : Good evening council members , my name is Larry Guthrie.
I 'm an attorney and I represent United Mortgage Corporation and Rottlund
Homes . The reason I 'm here is basically to show the support of United
Mortgage and Rottlund Homes who basically sold most , if not all of the
houses to most of the people here. They support the residents 100% in
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 9
It: this in their efforts to change the plan. I support the statements that
have been made prior to my speaking here. Specifically what ' s before the
' committee here is the proposal of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
and I 'd like to direct some comments specifically to that. Comprehensive
Plan is the plan that ' s supposed to be guiding the City in it ' s
development and that was in effect when United Mortgage started this
' development and it' s supposed to be a document that can be relied on by
people, the developers as well as the homeowners. There was nothing about
this proposal at that point in time and it ' s a major change that ' s
' affecting the lives of many people and that needs to be considered when
changing the guiding plan to guide the city in the future. The change, if
anything is to be made, I guess I would urge the Planning Commission to
consider the north leg option that ' s been proposed and eliminate the south
' leg. The reason is basically because psychologically and legally, once
the Comprehensive Plan is changed and includes this south leg, it' s going
to be difficult, I feel , for MnDot to agree and approve that yes , we ' ll
' take the north leg option if you' ve already approved the south leg option .
The Comprehensive Plan is going to be on the books . It ' s a matter that
has metropolitan significance. It has to be approved by the Metropolitan
Council and if you think you can just change the plan then back to
eliminate the south leg , that ' s not necessarily so . I would urge that you
get legal counsel with respect to your ability to freely do that. I don' t
think it' s quite accurate that you can say let ' s adopt a plan as it is
because we can eliminate that south leg anytime we want . I don ' t think
that ' s true from a legal standpoint and I don' t think it' s true from a
psychological standpoint . I think it would be a much better message and
' much better support on the citizens of the community if you tell MnDot,
look, the north leg option is the only way. If we can ' t get the north leg
option than we ' re not going to do anything at all . I think that ' s the
message you should be sending to MnDot . I think for that reason you
' should not even consider taking the south leg option. Thank you .
Jeff Peters : My name is Jeff Peters . My wife and I live at 8120 Hidden
' Court in the Brookhill development and the reason I came tonight is not
only to support all the comments that have been made so far but also to
voice some concerns that I had with regards to the proposed realignment of
' TH 101 . A year and a half ago when my wife and I decided to purchase some
property in this area, we did so because a similiar in a suburb in
Minneapolis , namely Plymouth, decided to pull a similiar measure on the
residents of Plymouth. It was a very unpopular decision. There were
' almost 1, 000 city residents at City Hall the night this proposal went up.
We were members of that 6, 000 and the meeting lasted until 2: 00 a .m. at
which time most of the people had left because most people do work in the
' morning. Nothing was ever resolved except for the fact that the City
Council decided to ram this through the residents ' throats and we decided
to move. We figured the old adage of not being able to fight City Hall is
' so true . The unfortunate part is that a few months after we moved , the
City Council was defeated by the Mayor and the proposal was never adopted .
We moved to Chanhassen because we felt it was a beautiful suburb to come
I(— to. It was a good place to raise our children and in general was the sort
of community we were looking for . When we moved here I didn' t make the
same mistake I made in Plymouth. I checked the zoning. I checked it very
carefully. I ' ve been through this three times . I 'm holding in my hand a
Min
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 10 1
document by the State of Minnesota showing any development on TH 5 which
concerned me at the time because they were proposing to, and still are,
widened TH 5 extensively. This covers all bridge replacements ,
intersections modifications and major capacity improvements along TH 5 in II
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and nowhere in this report is there any
mention of any improvement to TH 101 nor was there any mention of it when
I checked with the City Planning Commission , at that time , anything like
this . If there was, it was either well hidden or was intentionally left
out of any comments . I feel like we were seduced into buying the property
in this area knowing full well , this Council knowing full well , that this I
was going to happen . Unfortunately it doesn ' t affect any of you because
none of you live south of TH 5. You all live north of TH 5. What it' s
going to do is it' s going to lower my property value. It ' s going to make
a dangerous road for any children present and heaven help you if any II children ever get killed on that road . It' s just in general a very stupid
thing to do. TH 101 can not be straighten out. How are they possibly
going to straighten it out at Gray' s Bay? There' s no way they are ever
going to allow that to come across Lake Minnetonka. I urge you to stop
this proceeding . To stop further procedure on this modification . Adopt
either the north leg or can the proposal all together. TH 101 is not
a problem. It ' s TH 5 that' s the problem. Thank you.
Elizabeth Kersch: I have a question. Does the Council feel that they
have enough information to make a decision tonight?
Conrad : Maybe we' ll talk about that later on as we go around and you can
hear the commission ' s comments .
Elizabeth Kersch: Will a decision be made tonight?
Conrad : We' re going to make some decision as to what we want to do, yes
but remember my preface to this meeting. The City Council makes the final
decision. We' re looking at certain criteria . They' re looking at other
criteria. We' re going to pass along our recommendation tonight. It will II
reach the City Council in two weeks and then they' ll make the final
decision.
Brad Johnson : I 'm Brad Johnson, I live at 7425 Frontier Trail . Today I
think I represent the northern segment of the people who are concerned
about TH 101 and the traffic and also the downtown business interest which
we've been spending quite a bit of time at. I 'm very sympathetic to what II
the people to the south are concerned about as far as their traffic
patterns are concerned. We also have a major problem on the north side in
the area of St . Hubert ' s , Frontier Trail , Great Plains Blvd . and if the TH II
101 through traffic continues to go through that particular point, we too
have the same problem with our children . We have a school there. We have
a church there and therefore, I think we talk about the north leg ,
something has to happen on the north side because we are going to continue
to have traffic problems in that area. I don' t know Fred if you 've done
any studies as to what it needs on that corner but one of the problems
we' re having right now is we don' t have the ability, with the State
Highway going through there , to put any traffic control at the St .
Hubert ' s corner because the State i.s , I believe has said no to any stop
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 11
C
signs or anything like that at that particular corner . Is that true Fred?
St. Hubert' s and Great Plains?
Fred Hoisington : Are you talking where the stop signs were before?
Brad Johnson: Yes .
Fred Hoisington : That ' s what I understand .
' Brad Johnson: Because I understand the City has requested and they've
been turned down by the State , therefore we just have a problem that will
go on for some time in there. Those of us that have to go to work in that
area are getting caught in stacking . If we are in fact going to have 500 ,
' 600, 700 more cars going through there at peak time, traffic will be
backed all the way up to TH 5 right at that corner . I think that ' s just a
problem you folks in the south should be aware of is that the same problem
does exist on the north . It' s a community problem, TH 101. It ' s not just
your problem. Ideally probably 5 years ago if this had all taken place it
would have gone over so I think you should be concerned about that and I
guess it' s kind of funny, I think you come to a couple of other meetings
' and everybody' s complaining on the north side about what ' s happened
already. In fact, this is probably the only solution that' s available is
to get the traffic over to TH 5. The other problem that we do have is
that in saying that TH 101 is not going to be a through carrier . I do a
lot of work in downtown. Most people take the shortest distance between
two points to get there. I always use TH 101 when I 'm going north. I
do not use TH 5. It just short and it ' s quicker to go that way even
though once TH 5 is improved. I think a lot of people know that. We 've
done some studies trying to figure out , because our job is to create
retail traffic into the community from what we perceive to be the targeted
' market area which is over to Excelsior , TH 101 and those particular areas .
The only road that' s practical for north/south traffic is TH 101 because
there is no interchange in Excelsior at CR 17 currently to get into
' downtown Chanhassen. It ' s another 3 miles past TH 101 to even get to that
interchange. We' re blessed with two lakes we can ' t move. One is called
Lotus Lake and one is called Christmas Lake. In real life they do divide
' and make impossible that north/south traffic movement. As TH 5 the
corridor is improved, we are going to be blessed I guess with a lot more
people moving out here who anticipate they' ll use TH 5 to work. Traffic
will be coming over on TH 41. Traffic will be coming over on TH 5 and
' we' re just going to end up with more and more traffic coming from the
north looking for routes to get through and TH 101 would be one of them.
I don ' t think we can do much about that . The other thing we have to face
with is that we are in a school district with Chaska . They do a lot of
things in Chanhassen and during the winter , I live here , I probably spend
at least 5 to 10 trips a day on TH 101 to go to Shakopee where our hockey
arena i.s . You ' ve just got a lot of traffic on TH 101 that ' s just going to
' be there because it' s the only way as I understand. I understand that you
were told last time that Dell Road would not be a through road and CR 17
has terrain problems as I understand it. Again, most of us , even if the
1r- road was there , would not go west to come all the way around and go south.
It' s just not the way people do things. You can ' t control it. I guess
the message I 'm saying tonight is that we should probably, we ' ve got to
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 12 1
C
admit we' ve got a problem and obviously this one situation where we just
have the north leg is one solution. I don ' t know what the rules are. We
also have spent , the City $50, 000. 00. The communities have spent
$250,000. 00 trying to accelerate TH 5 to get it done. We' re only 10 to 15 II
years behind schedule as it is , to get that done and most of you take that
to work and I think you'd like to have that completed just like myself. I
guess my message is this evening , I 've been sitting through all these
public hearings and I can hear you, what you say. I don ' t think you ' re
going to change TH 101. It ' s going to have traffic . It ' s the only way to
get to town from my analysis and I spend a lot of time at that. I think
that you' re going to have to do is encourage the Planning Commission and
staff to look hard at the various solutions . I don' t know how you do that
in the mapping process . There are probably a number of different
corridors you can figure out still on the south side. I think we've all
mainly addressed the north side historically because we didn ' t have as
many residents over there and so my comments are today, I think if we
don' t do anything , you ' re going to have the same problem or greater on the II
side. I think you'd have as many people at the next meeting if they
knew somebody was going to say you' re going to run 1, 000 more cars down
Frontier Trail or in that area. You'd have the people here from the other
side of the community. It' s just that people aren' t as aware of what
exactly is all involved in this meeting so I think everbody is going to
have to work on this and somehow within the time that we have, which is a
year to try and figure out some type of solutions, that we can maximize .
1.
Rather than be totally negative, we' re not going to change TH 101. It ' s
there. It' s something you just can' t change. I think we all have to work
together on that and I don' t know how to do that exactly techically and
still stay within some type of time table. I think you have to address
the planning staff . Something will have to be done and this probably, as
Fred has said, is the last chance we have. Never the last but one of the
last . Thank you. '
Jack Atkins : My name is Jack Atkins and I live at 220 West 78th Street ,
also on the north side there and I guess I 'd like to throw my support with II
what they say that we shouldn' t all back a plan that nobody believes in
just because it' s the most expeditious way to do it . I think we should
have a plan we can all believe in that will really solve the problems
rather than compound them.
Melanie Wright : My name is Melanie Wright and I live at 320 Sinnen
Circle. I think Mr. Hoisington, what you ' re concerned about is your MnDot
money that you would get from MnDot to develop these streets . I think
another concern would be the money that it ' s going to cost to develop the
street going that way, the way he ' s got it planned . If it goes out to
TH 5, you' re not going to have to develop TH 5. It ' s going to be
developed so if you do route it on TH 5, it ' s going to cost the City a lot
less money. I think that should be taken into consideration too .
Uli Sacchet : There are three things that I think in all fairness have to
be pointed out in order to make sound decisions . I wanted to just
underline once more what he just said. I think an attitude of fear , the
idea that this is the last chance to do this is solely a very, very bad
foundation to make a wise decision . I haven ' t seen many wise decisions
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 13
based on fear . This thing about the risk we ' re taking in tabling this , I
think that it' s a much , much bigger risk that we take if we' re going to be
led to made a decision that is not founded on a complete set of
' information. If the information is not present and the research has not
been completed sufficiently, you will not be able to make a sound decision
and the risk of that is far greater than having to wait maybe two years
for this stretch of road to be out there. The last point, it was
interesting in the last informational meeting we had here, it was
mentioned that the State really doesn ' t have an interest in TH 101. They
' would like to turn it over to Carver County. I think that' s in dire
contradiction with this proposal of making it a major through traffic
road. Thank you.
' Mike Wittrock: What I forgot to mention too is that , the way it ' s
designed here, it has like a hairpin turn up on the top where it meets
78th Street and then they do the same type of turn onto TH 5 and it makes
' a real awkward type of intersection. I don' t know why they would want to
propose that . Then it was also mentioned about the stop light distances .
Where that Lake Drive intersects with Great Plains Blvd . , in the future if
you ever put a stop light there, it ' s probably too short a distance so you
have those two problems too. Another problem that you have, we mentioned
about this sound barrier . If you have a natural incline in the elevation
above TH 5 there, you 'd eliminate any possibility of a walkway if you
lk: removed the elevations there. That wasn ' t brought up. I guess that just
about covers it .
Larry Guthrie : I 'd just like to ask if the petition that ' s been talked
about for the plans , are they a part of the public record here that' s
going to be forwarded to the Council?
Conrad: We' ve got it here .
Headla moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
' Conrad : Basically what we do now is we go through Planning Commission
comments. Comments of the advisors of staff and maybe I ' ll start it off a
little bit and preface our comments a bit . I think highway and TH 5 just
is the number one problem that Chanhassen residents experience living in
Chanhassen . Without a doubt . When you take a look at the surveys ,
everything else is fine compared to TH 5. I think that ' s number one.
Obviously TH 101, as we' re looking at it today, has an impact . I think
the other concern, the thing that we' re looking at as a Planning
Commission is the concern of the entire City. Not only the neighborhood
that gets impacted but also the other neighborhoods that will be in here
as we take a look at whatever occurs in terms of highways and we find that
you put the highway, as TH 212 comes through, that ' s going to have major
If— impact on some of the things that we' re talking about here tonight .
TH 212 is going to be a major corridor that ' s going to be linked up to
Chanhassen . There are traffic implications and I 'm not sure if those have
arisen as you' ve had your community meetings or not but I think those two
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 14 1
(
things are of interest there. Of interest to the Planning Commission and II
we pay attention to those things as we make our recommendation. Just
wanted to give you that little brief introduction . Dave, what questions ,
comments do you have?
II
Headla : Let me start out with a couple of comments. I really take issue
with the gentlemen and the 70 people who say we stabbed them in the back , II
we have low level interest . I think the City has acted with high
integrity. We have a very capable staff that has played open the whole
time. Where I live, my neighbors come in quite frequently to talk to the II
staff. They don' t like what the staff tells them at times and I hear
about it but the staff has always been very open with them and they say
this is the way it is. This is the ordinance. I 've never known them to
be any other way and I really find that hard . I think that' s just
II
terrible that anybody would say something about the staff on that or the
City. Another comment , a plan we all believe in, I 've never seen a plan
of any kind that everybody believes in. That just doesn' t happen and it II won' t happen here . We can go an easier route but I don' t think that ' s our
job to go the easy route. I think we 've got to make a good decision.
Fred , on that north arm that you' re talking about . Is that similiar to
where Crosstown and 35 meets? Is there a similiarity there?
II
Fred Hoisington : The commons? If there ' s a similiarity, one this would
be somewhat diminished from that and that brings in. . .this would probably II
less the volume of traffic but nonetheless the similarities are. . . two
highways of traffic on one roadway. . .
Headla : The gentleman mentioned about many, many young people on the
II
southeast corner . In the future if we have a community center or whatever
up here, how are these young people going to get across the highway either
route? Have we given that a lot of thought?
II
Dacy: What we have told the folks at the informational meeting is that ,
as part of the feasibility study process , looking at the design of
whatever option is chosen , is that pedestrian access will be a major part
of that analysis . We will have to address the pedestrian issue as well as
the noise issue .
IIHeadla : Is one way better than the other for this pedestrian access? To
me that' s, we' re going to have young people and they' re going to try to
cross that road and either way, there ' s a high probability that one way
II
they' re going to do it compared to the other one. I think we've got to
avoid that . Is there a better route than the other?
IIDacy: I agree with your statement on the importance. We can not give you
any type of analysis or recommendation on which option would be better
than the other at this time. That will be included as a part of the
feasibility study.
II
Headla : The noise generation, I think Brad had some good comments on it .
The road, people are traveling up and down all along TH 101 and . . . I would II
assume you will address that particularly in that area. Either a noise
barrier or whatever. I guess unless there' s reason to believe that north
r
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 15
'C arm route is safer , I ' ve got to go with the present plan . It just makes ,
to me, makes more sense. It isn' t an easy decision but I think it' s the
right decision and a lot of people are going to be hurt by it but I think
111 that ' s a good decision overall .
Wildermuth : Fred , what would be the distance between the intersection
' that would cross TH 5, where TH 101, the north side would cross TH 5 and
the current TH 101/TH 5 intersection in the north leg option?
' Fred Hoisington: Just about 1, 000 feet.
Wildermuth: Does MnDot consider that enough stacking distance?
' Fred Hoisington: That is going to be part of the problem with MnDot.
That distance they consider rather short . What we have to try to
demonstrate to them, if we really want to pursue hard that north leg arm
option, that is no matter if the spacing is 1,000 feet , you can still
accomplish that. We think the numbers suggest that but we' re not sure
MnDot philosophically, they don ' t agree with this kind of proposal because
they' ve had to live with the commons and some other areas where this
l happened so they have some real struggle with , 1, 000 feet isn' t enough for
that movement .
I Wildermuth : I can see where those two lights are close together and the
section between full of traffic, emergency vehicles just couldn ' t get
through.
Fred Hoisington : Let me just qualify a little bit more , if there were two
intersections there, the one that is being proposed plus the one that
exists there today, that 1, 000 foot spacing is also not at all ideal
' between those two intersections . In any event, we have spacing problems
that can only be dealt with through good engineering and geometrics in
making traffic flow. There is no ideal spacing . We' re never going to
find any ideal spacing up and down this road to do that so I don ' t want to
suggest to you that the 1,000 feet won' t work because of the spacing of
the north leg but it will with the other . That spacing is too short in
' any case.
Wildermuth : I wish I could see a win-win proposal in this situation.
There doesn' t appear that there is one. Based on the different
' alternatives that we have seen and looked at , I think the proposal that ' s
being put forward now tonight is probably the best one to carry us into
the future .
Ellson : I 'm afraid I like the proposal and I 'm sorry to say that to the
people. I know I would be just like you and I would be here fighting it
tooth and nail . I think we ' re not making it a major thoroughway. I think
'
it already is turning into a major thoroughway and it' s already having
problems and I couldn' t have a clean conscience and say well , we ' re just
going to tell people not to use it anymore. It ' s just not going to be
improved . I can ' t see that that ' s realistic to expect people to go down
C to TH 41 or even CR 17 or something like that . I think a spacing problem
that you' re concerned with would also be a safety problem compounded if we
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 16 '
C
didn ' t do anything. I see a bigger safety problem not fixing the way it
is right now. I think that the Planning Staff is entertaining your ideas
of the north leg . If it wasn ' t for you people they wouldn ' t even be
looking at it. I think that they' re showing some sort of compromise or 11 attempt to compromise if possible and I commend them for even trying that
because I 'm not sure I would because that is a hard pill to swallow for
someone like MnDot . I applaud them for giving it a shot and taking what
they can and I would see approving with the contingent that if the north
leg got approval that it could go something like that but I can' t go along
with north leg or nothing. I think something has to be done. Granted I
it ' s a problem that should have been done 20-30 years ago. The fact that
it wasn' t doesn' t mean you can ignore it. It just means the further you
put it off the more and more people who are hurt by the consequences or
the correction if necessary so I 'm going to be voting according to the
Planning Staff .
Emmings : I have a question of Barb I guess . If we would adopt the north
leg option that they proposed and MnDot was to disapprove that in
November . If we were to say we want the north leg option. That ' s all
we' re presenting you and they disapprove that in November , what would
happen then? '
Dacy: It really depends on what happens on the land parcel where the
south leg is being proposed. You do have a shopping center application
currently pending on that piece. The City would have to decide on that
application, approve or denial and would have to look at either initiating
condemnation proceedings on that commercial piece or taking a chance that
that piece would not be developed .
Emmings : And if development went forward on that piece of land we might
be foreclosed from. . . '
Dacy: That' s correct .
Emmings: I think one of the overriding things here is that, and I guess '
Ladd eluded to it initially, is TH 5 is just a horrible road. It ' s
widening is of great importance to the City of Chanhassen as an east/west '
thoroughfare. I think TH 101 also is a horrible road and never will be
fixed up at the Gray' s Bay end and probably will never be fixed down at
the south end as you get closer to TH 212 either but nevertheless that is
am important north/south route. We ' ve got to have a realignment . I think I
that the way that TH 101 comes down and goes through the city at the
present time, through the downtown city of Chanhassen as it is , is
absolutely horrible. That we can' t live with. I think that the proposed II
plan is not a very good one . It may meet whatever criteria designers use
to plan curves and intersections and all that but it looks awkward. I
don ' t like the looks of it . I think that the north leg option is a good
one. I think that it keeps TH 101 in perspective somewhat in that it
isn ' t a good street/road but I was glad to hear that Benshoof thought that
maybe it could work. That gave me a lot of encouragement but again,
that ' s only a mediocre solution . I think we' re dealing here with a II horrible situation as it's exists, basically a bad plan to fix it and then
kind of a mediocre option in the north leg option but that ' s sort of the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 17
C
best one . The one that looks the best to me at this point in time because
it eliminates the problems on the north side that we heard discussed. It
eliminates the objections of all the people that are here and have spoken.
' It would also eliminate the need to condemn the shopping center land if we
knew that we could do it. Unfortunately, it looks like we' ll have to
condemn that property anyway because we' re going to have to preserve that
' option. I guess bottom line for me is this . TH 101 has to be changed .
I 'm for the north leg option but, I 'm strongly for the north leg option
but if we can ' t have the north leg option, than I would vote for this
' plan. I 'm not comfortable with voting for this plan when I think the
north leg plan is a better one and I don' t know why we don' t do it the
other way around. If other people agree that the north leg option is a
better one, maybe we could have that as our first alternative but make
sure we preserve our options to implement this plan if we can' t approval
on the north leg option .
' Dacy: If I may add , if the Commission wants on the Plan Amendment
application, as proposed now the language and the map solely indicates
what you see on the board over there. If the Commission decides to go or
to choose the north leg or both or the south leg or any one of the
combinations of the three , we can propose to amend the proposal that you
have before you to talk about both options . To talk about the north leg .
Identify it on the plan . This would also address the concern that Mr .
Guthrie had from the Rottlund Companies so two months from now if MnDot
does say the north leg can work, if they do in fact say that, that you
would not have to come back with another plan. Prepare the plan in such a
manner that it gives the City some flexibility to look at either route .
Erhart: First I want to clarify that not everybody on the Planning
Commission lives north of TH 5. I live so far south that I don ' t think it
makes a lot of difference in this case. I think number one in my mind
with the situation we currently have with TH 101 running or designated to
go through the downtown is not tolerable. It certainly isn' t tolerable
' with the redesign of the downtown street plan so I think that has to be a
number one priority to change that. By the same token, I don' t think that
we can easily go down and basically take what Lake Drive East, which has
' been on our plan essentially, more or less as a neighborhood street or
frontage or collector and at this point turn it into a minor arterial or
major arterial , whichever , without going through some very heavy thought
processes and unfortunately I think we haven' t done that yet . I have to
' agree with Steve that the alternatives certainly aren ' t fun but I ' ve got
to believe there are more alternatives than what we' re looking at and if
there isn' t, we certainly ought to somehow create a way that we can look
at those alternatives at the same time keeping on schedule with TH 5.
It ' s a little hard to look at the whole plan and to see that we have
somewhere around an estimated 1, 000 feet or more between residential
development on the south of TH 5 than that on the north of TH 5 and we
can ' t figure out some way to get TH 101 through there without going next
to somebody' s existing practically new house. On the other hand, I
question the emphasis on continuity traffic through Chanhassen because I
think the emphasis ought to be on, at the same time we remove the problem
with West 78th, just put the emphasis on creating better intersections for
those people going from TH 5 to TH 101 north and from TH 101 north to TH 5
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 18 '
as well as those people in the south going from TH 101 to TH 5 and back
south and not put so much emphasis on the continuity. I find it hard to
believe that even in the next 15 years that a majority of the traffic is
going to come up TH 101 or going down is going through town. A majority
of the traffic has to be going in and out of town. Now you've got some
figures there Fred that indicates that currently, they' re projecting that
half the traffic would go through. How do you determine that? '
Fred Hoisington: What they've done is to look at the socioeconomic
characteristics of the City in the year 2005 so they know about what the I
population estimates or what estimates are at that point. They also know
what the percentage of the through traffic is today and know that the
total sheer volume will go from 48% goes through of the total volume and
that that will reduce to 43% in the future. Just simply by using the
information that exists today Tim. BRW transportation studies have been
done . . .
Erhart: Do they put pneumatic sensors on the roads to determine the
traffic court?
Fred Hoisington: No , most of the traffic counts have been done by MnDot . II
Yes, some of it has been . . .
Erhart : How do they know a car coming down TH 101 from the north ends up I
going south, the same car ends up going south on TH 101 5 minutes later?
Through traffic , how do we know a car is going through TH 101?
Fred Hoisington: All the way through town?
Erhart : Yes .
Fred Hoisington: They know that from the information provided as far as
the base information from MnDot and from BRW. Studies that have been done
in the past , they know now based on the counting and all the studies of '
what people are doing now and they' re forecasting in the future and saying
that in addition to the growth in the City of Chanhassen, there will also
be a growth in that volume and those people will continue to do that .
Erhart : I guess I question that data because I feel what we really need
to do here is to improve the accesses onto TH 5 particularly with TH 212
and TH 5 being improved. I think that ' s where you ' re going to get the
emphasis. Again, one of the things I look at, again I haven' t done a
study on this thing or anything but somehow have we evaluated using West
98th Street option at all? I won ' t even ask for a response but somehow in
going through that today, walking through that area , somehow it ' s in that
1,000 or 1, 500 foot corridor there' s got to be some other options to get
through there is continuity is even required to the extent that I think
we' re talking about. In summary, I guess I 'd prefer to look at some other I
alternative. I think we have to make a change. I think the north route
on using TH 5 is preferable to using Lake Drive East because I think if we
do I think it makes you question our whole comprehensive plan and the
planning process . Lastly, I guess if it comes down to that is the only
thing we can do, than I think you really have to take care to answer and
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 19
spend some of the money that these taxpayers are spending on making some
major changes in Lake Drive East to make it compatible. The most
compatible with the problem they have including taking into consideration
the noise, environmental issues and how do the children now get over there
to the Q store and into the recreation areas and so forth . I just think
we' re talking about, if we have to use that road, we ' re talking about more
than simply putting up a couple of signs saying this is TH 101. I think
we have to do some major , major , major things if we' re forced to do that.
It' s coming down to , what do we do here tonight . Fred , could you repeat
to me again, I apologize to ask you this , but why, with the situation with
TH 5, why do we have to make a decision tonight on the mapping and comp
plan alteration?
Fred Hoisington : Tim, there are a multitude of things that have to occur
actually between now and January when the design of this has to be done
and in MnDot ' s hands . What they intend to do is if we can stay on this
course for the design that has to be done by our consultant' s , the City' s
consultants , and then hand this package to MnDot in January to simply
include it, they would have to review the plans but they could approve it
with their package and admit the whole package . The key thing is that if
we miss that time, then we miss being able to have this included .
Erhart : And that time is what, January?
Fred Hoisington: January, right. Now, if we go to the north leg , we
have a completely different problem because the City has no control over
the design of that leg. MnDot is doing itself through it' s own
consultants and they are much slower than we are. If they have to make
that adjustment, they will take, where it would take our consultants maybe
3 months to get the whole job done , it will take MnDot a year to get the
whole thing done so that alternative should continue to be explored and I
think we may come back, could come back at a later date and say listen ,
we' re going to lose 2 years but it' s worth doing to get the north leg
option. In the meantime , the process has to go on . We just can ' t figure
out another way to do that if we don' t get this completed and approved .
Erhart : If we go back and say we want the north leg option , and they' re
already redesigning TH 5 anyway, don' t you think they would incorporate
that with the design?
Fred Hoisington : Yes , I think if we can convince them that that option is
a viable one and if they can buy into that, then they will do that but
they will not do that on this schedule. They' ll do that on a schedule
that will go with begin in 1991 and completion in 1993. In order Tim, to
let the project and I think it' s June of 1989 , they have to have those
plans completed in January of 1989 and they can not get this stretch done
by January of 1989 if we change it . It ' s just a fact of life that they
can not . . .
Erhart : But you' re saying , if we want to give them our idea of where this
intersection is going to be today and they' re going to start doing their
drawings , or when this goes to Council , they' re going to . . .based on the
proposed location.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 20
Fred Hoisington : They' re already doing drawings as if we were going to d.
one of two things . Either leave the intersection kind of the way it is
or , if we can move fast enough to get this done and get it into their bid
package, then they will accomodate this into this proposal . . .
Erhart : And if our proposal is the north option . . .
Fred Hoisington: The proposal is the one we' re talking about tonight
which includes the south leg.
Erhart : How is it that the north option is so significantly different
than this? We ' re basically putting the intersection in the same place.
Fred Hoisington : That stretch between the north leg and Great Plains
Blvd. , the TH 5 stretch would have to have a center lane added to it in
order to be able to accomodate that traffic flow and volume to get the
second left turn lane incorporated. Their consultants are Barton Ashman
consultants and not ours which are BRW. In order to make that change it
takes them about 3 or 4 times as long as it takes us to do the one we' re
talking about so Tim, they can not do the north leg option and get it into
this construction package. What they will do is , they' ll forego it and it
simply won ' t get done if we do it here or they' ll cut it off at 184th and
they will do everything in Eden Prairie in the first construction phase
1. and shut everything down for 2 years and go west into Chanhassen. It just
can' t be done. If we had control over everything to do the whole thing ,
than it would be possible but there are so many things that are associated
with that, they can not adjust fast enough.
Erhart: Okay, so then what are we talking about doing with the north
option?
Fred Hoisington: What we will continue to do with the north option is to
study it and see if it' s a viable option if we can get through MnDot. If
MnDot says yes , we ' ll come back to you and say okay, now you can make your
choice. Which of these two options are you going to pursue and if you
choose the north leg, just understand that it ' s not going to be built
until 1991 through 1993 .
Ellson : Nor will the widening of TH 5?
Fred Hoisington: That' s what I 'm saying . The widening of TH 5 will not
occur until 1991 to 1993 in Chanhassen.
Erhart: Okay, those are my comments .
Conrad : I don ' t have a whole lot of new comments and I ' ll make mine
brief. I think everytime a neighborhood has something new in it there ' s
concern because it ' s a surprise . The concern for safety and well being
and property values are understood. I think we ' re concerned with that .
I ' ll stop and ask a question. Is there any benefit, other than routing
traffic to Chanhassen in having this additional road put through? Is
there any other benefit other than getting traffic through Chanhassen?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 21
Fred Hoisington : Oh absolutely. You mean to create a separation between
what amounts to through traffic and downtown destine traffic?
Conrad : Yes . That' s what I said . Is there any other benefit other than
that one? Other than eliminating some of the traffic going to downtown?
Fred Hoisington : I think so Ladd. In any community that plans , it tries
to provide some streets with a degree of continuity so that the traffic
that you want to put on those streets doesn ' t have to use residential
streets or streets of lesser classification. We' re having difficulty
doing that in Chanhassen because the streets are not a great pattern
necessarily and they wind around so it' s not real easy to move from let' s
say, off from a major street that' s over capacity to one that is purely
residential . In order to handle through traffic through the community and
to handle the traffic of the people that are sitting in this room right
now who aren' t necessarily going all the way through the City, whether
they' re going from one sector of the city to another sector of the city,
they have to have a way to get there so this not only serves people that
are going some distance but people who live here and in addition it
separates traffic according to functions so that people can get to the
places where they want to go and are not forced to go places they don ' t
have to go and that' s always been one of our major contentions that TH 101
is doing that. Forcing people downtown that don ' t need or want to be
there and that' s putting an overload on downtown and it ' s causing a lot of
people inconvenience who need to get places that can ' t do so , by going
down. . . forced to go downtown. I think there are a lot of good reasons why
a city does a plan and tries to establish a network that serves all
traffic according to destination and function and this is just one piece
of that puzzle . We don ' t have any other options . CR 17 kind of does it
but it doesn' t do what TH 101 can do.
Conrad : TH 101 is a pretty lousy road and nobody wants it .
Fred Hoisington: Exactly.
Conrad : We' re going to put in probably the best stretch of TH 101 in our
community that' s on the whole road from up on TH 55 or whatever . I think
if I saw some real benefits to the overall TH 101 strategy but no
government body wants it. I really have a problem with TH 101. I 'm not
concerned about this through traffic as much as I am as to it ' s benefit
for Chanhassen. We' ve dealt with it so many times and we' ve really never
come up with a very good solution because there aren ' t many good
solutions. That' s the risk we' re going to take tonight that we' re going
to look for some solution and it' s not there . I ' ve been around it long
enough to know that we haven' t come up with good ways to solve the traffic
problem on TH 101. Yet again , I don' t want to make Chanhassen the stellar
TH 101 owner when it' s of very little benefit to the community and I
really do mean that . I don' t know that there ' s a whole lot of benefit
here. We do have to solve the downtown problem of traffic. We do.
There ' s absolutely no doubt about it. When you' re not here in this
chamber , we' re hearing other residents talk to us about the really bad
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 22
traffic problems. Dangerous today. Dangerous today. You can ' t get out
on West 78th Street. You sit and wait. You' ve got to run. You got to
get out . It' s a real problem. We, as a community, have to solve that
problem. It may come back to your neighborhood, with the land in it,
solving that but I think there may be some other alternatives and I would
hope we can explore those. There' s got to be a better alternative.
There ' s just got to be. We have new TH 212 coming in . We' re saying TH
101 is going to be our access to downtown Chanhassen from TH 212. Becaus-
TH 101 now is playing a more major role in downtown Chanhassen and
Chanhassen access , I 'm wondering how this all comes into play. How the
curved TH 101, maybe it ' s not the beautiful , it is really a pretty road .
It slows people down. It' s just gorgeous going through the wetlands. I '
not sure that I want to change it yet on the other hand , we have TH 212
going through our community. It' s going to be there and people are going
to want to use it . It ' s going to be a better access for most of you than
TH 5. We' re going to have to get there and we' re going to have to get you
off and we' re going to have to get you to your homes . I 'd like to see
some kind of plan that shows us if there' s any possibility of making TH
101 work from TH 212. I 'm also interested in how CR 17 ties in because it
is a north/south. How does that interrelate with maybe that new access
that we have planned for the western portion of downtown coming off of
TH 5? There' s a right-in/right-out access . I don' t know. There' s some
loose ends here and I don' t know that I know enough information yet to
make some final decisions yet. We' ve got to move. As I said before, the
number one problem in Chanhassen is TH 5 and I tell you, we ' ve had so many
lobbying efforts and so much, we have to move and make sure that we' re not
holding things up. Now if we do, it ' s going to be by our own decision.
If we do decide that there' s a better solution, I want to make sure it ' s
Chanhassen ' s decision to delay TH 5 access to the community, not MnDot. I
want that to be ours and the community can have some kind of say on that.
Basically, I like the north option but I do want an option . I will go to
the south option if we can' t make the north option work. I want to make
sure what we do tonight iS give that north option decent chance of having
a good look at. I don ' t want to solve all of the county' s and the state' s
problems going north and south. I want to solve Chanhassen ' s with that
option on that north and I think I want to send a signal and Barbara
you' ve got to help us on that , or if the Planning Commission agrees, I
think we've got to send a signal that we' re equally interested in both
options at this point in time. I need legal advice or I need somebody' s
advice to tell us how we have that option to go either way and if it comes
back and it says the north option is possible , it ' s going to delay things
for 2 years, well I think that' s a Chanhassen decision that we' ve got to
make and that will be an interesting one . Then we can weigh things
appropriately. If I were to draft or make a motion tonight, I guess it
would be something that would approve what we see in front of us in terms
of the comprehensive plan text amendment but I would like staff to be
drafting in the interim. I don ' t want to word it , we can ' t word things
but I would like to have staff draft some language that by the time it
gets to City Council , that that north option is woven into that
possibility and that those are two equal possibilities at this point in
time. Those are my comments . With that aside, is there anything else?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 23
Headla : Yes , let me ask, Fred when you were involved with this , what type
of consideration did you give TH 212? The new route of TH 212.
Fred Hoisington : TH 212 was considered as part of the transportation
model when it was done.
Headla : I 'm saying , you still felt that this was the best alternative?
Fred Hoisington: I hate to even keep saying this but it is the only
alternative.
Headla : You had a good point there and I just wanted to make sure they
did look at it.
Wildermuth : Fred , did you look at the option of following the railroad
tracks? Picking it up on the current proposal instead of making the cross
at TH 5 along the tracks down to Great Plains Blvd . and maintaining the TH
101 and TH 5 intersection where it currently is?
Fred Hoisington : Are you saying come down in this fashion and then doing
what?
Wildermuth: Tying into Great Plains .
Fred Hoisington: Somewhere in here?
Wildermuth : Yes . Something like that . You' d end up taking the Hanus
building and probably that car wash if you came south of the tracks .
Fred Hoisington: A couple of problems with this . If we bring this road
down parallel to the tracks , then we have to take a real goodwick turn in
order to get it across the tracks at least this angle. That is extremely
difficult to do . He' s talking about bringing it down in this fashion and
then coming across in some manner or form like this and then tying in
right through here. The geometrics of what you have to do here makes it
almost impossible. You'd end up with maybe a 10 or 15 degree curve for a
speed of very low speed .
Wildermuth : Why a curve? Why not just a right angle? A stop light
there.
Fred Hoisington : You mean just come up like this and then come down in
this manner?
Wildermuth : Tie right into Great Plains .
Erhart: North or south of the railroad tracks .
Fred Hoisington : Well , we did not consider that as an option.
Erhart: He' s saying the same thing I did. Look at East 79th Street ,
extending that and making that TH 101 as an option.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 24
Fred Hoisington : In this manner? That can ' t be done.
Erhart: For what reason?
Fred Hoisington : Again , you have to get across these railroad tracks and '
if you had to get back, . . . in this fashion, it simply couldn' t be done .
I won ' t say you absolutely couldn' t put a right turn but then of course,
then we' re bringing back into downtown or what amounts to . . .
Wildermuth : At the edge of downtown you 've solved all the problems of
going through the neighborhoods on the north side and the school .
Fred Hoisington : There are geometric problems with that . There are
questions of whether we really solve any problems at all with respect to
relieving pressures on downtown. It' s very much a forced situation to do
that. Let ' s face it, you can do anything. It' s only a matter of whether
you do something that produces the desired results .
Wildermuth: Right, for the long term.
Fred Hoisington : And I 'd have to say that that probably, for a lot of
reasons would not achieve the objectives .
Jeff Peters : I just have a comment . I understand consultants . I work
with consultants everyday in my business and one thing I know about
consultants , there are a lot of them and they all have different opinions
based on their own biases . Is there any reason we can' t look at another
consultant to give us a second opinion on this? I don' t feel we have an
objective company here?
Conrad : I suppose that ' s possible. Mr . Hoisington has worked with the
City. I 'm real confident when he tells us something, I 'm real confident
in what he says . It is an option as you suggest . We could hire somebody
else but he' s really not trying to do something that ' s anti-city. He ' s
worked with us many times . He' s trying to find the best workable solution
and I think there may be another approach. There may be something that he
has overlooked but I guess want to support what. . .
Jeff Peters : I wholeheartedly agree with you but there is one thing that
I have found is that there is never only one solution. There are always
alternatives. I think it' s important that we find something here that is
a compromise between the neighborhood concern and the City' s concern both
on the north and the south side of TH 5.
Conrad : I think we' re all looking for that same solution and we ' ll pay
attention to your comments.
Emmings : Can I ask a question? In your comments you said something about
wanting to identify these alternatives as equal alternatives and I guess
I 'm thinking more along the lines of saying here are two alternatives .
The City feels that the north leg should be the primary alternative.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 25
Identify it as a primary rather than an equal alternative. Is there some
reason you don' t want to do that?
Wildermuth : I can ' t support that .
Emmings : I 'm talking to Ladd.
Conrad : I possibly could support that as long as I 've got the flexibility
to solve the problem if the north leg doesn' t work. You 've got to solve
the problem so as long as I 'm not locked out and the City Council ' s not
locked out from solving the problem.
Erhart: What are your plans , if we do the south leg, what are the plans
for Lake Drive East? Are you going to widened it past where these homes
are? Put up a barrier?
Fred Hoisington : What they do is they come down from about 4 lanes
crossing TH 5 with turn lanes and all and so forth down to 2 lane
intersection in the short term.
Erhart : So you' re just going to leave it the way it is over by. . .
Fred Hoisington: No, I suspect there would be improvements all the way
over to Great Plains Blvd . but because that intersection also has to be
part of this study, the feasibility study will tell us that and I don' t
know yet , exactly what that amounts to . But we would have 2 lanes
probably as you come to Great Plains Blvd . .
Dacy: Lake Drive East , as a collector on the transportation plan, as
you ' re aware we' ve done a feasibility studies for Lake Drive East on the
west side going through the business park and that has been identified as
a two lane road section.
Conrad : Have we ever looked into moving the TH 101 intersection further
west? Where the Holiday station is and moving that in there. Is there
another way to go south on TH 101 further west?
Fred Hoisington: Ladd , we are considering something of that nature that
would deal with the Market Blvd . intersection. Because we have to deal
with that whole Market Blvd. thing in light of some of the things that are
being considered right now, all I will say is yes , I will continue to
consider a lot of things here. We don' t look at this process as being
closed at this point. We look at it as a dynamic one that has to go on
and that it is continuing to change. What we' re trying to do is not
foreclose options too soon also so we can deal with this in the shorter
term. If we didn' t have to deal with TH 5 at the accelerated schedule
that it' s on , we wouldn' t even be here at this point in time in doing what
we' re trying to do.
Conrad : Is there a motion?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 26
Headla : No one else picked up on the safety aspect . Any particular
reason? When I hear about all these young people over there and the way
we 've got these roads going , to me that ' s got to be one of the central
criteria we should be looking at.
Emmings : Isn ' t the traffic though Dave going to be there. It ' s either
going to be TH 101 up here or it ' s going to be on TH 101 over here. It is
a problem and I think what Tim said did address that. He said if we' re
going to run this road down, we' ve got all these neighbors that have just
moved in down there and now they' ve got to cross a busier TH 5 because
it's bigger and a busier TH 101 because it' s bigger . We can' t be
satisfied with putting up signs like he said . I think he hit it right on
the head . We' re going to have to look at that as part of the feasibility
study and if we need pedestrian bridges or whatever to get people safely
across , we' re going to have to put the money into it but I don ' t think
that what we' re doing here is going to affect that that much.
Headla : I think it can in the recommendation that we put forward .
Conrad: I think we can do that when we have a route. A specific plan. I
think if we ran it south , we can recommend buffering. We can recommend
sound barriers. We can build stuff there but I personally haven' t gotten
into that detail yet because I don' t know where it' s going but I think
underpasses, walkways underneath the new TH 101. If it happened to go
south, I think we could consider that but we still have the TH 5 problem.
We still have that gorilla sitting there and I don' t know how to solve
that . It would be nice if we could get people under and over or whatever ,
TH 5. It'd be nice but . . .
Headla : I don ' t want to let this thing go by. If one is better than the
other , I think we should be looking , I think there should be a criteria
for a decision. That traveling criteria should be another one . I don ' t
know if you people take 62 to get to 35. That ' s deadly. 2005 and we go
through here. In 2005 I 'm going to be 75 and I 'm going to go whizzing
through here with all this traffic merging?
Erhart : The count , the through traffic count was 800 cars a day?
Fred Hoisington: The traffic approaching on both approaches to the
intersection where it wants to go through the intersection , in other
words, straight through going south.
Erhart: Was what? 800?
Fred Hoisington : No , excuse me Tim. That ' s the peak hour number .
Erhart: Oh, 800 per hour .
Emmings : At the peak hour .
Dacy: Between 4 : 30 and 5 : 30.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 27
Erhart : There are going to be how many car?
Fred Hoisington: 800.
Emmings : I 'm going to move that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment #88-5 as presented in
Attachment #1 with a change that would identify the north leg option as
the primary preferred route for TH 101 and identifying the proposed plan
as a secondary option in the event that the north leg option is not
approved by MnDot.
Erhart: I ' ll second that .
Conrad : Fred , in that language, does that hurt us in any way? In terms
of your being able to . . .
Fred Hoisington: That' s a good approach . As I look at it, both of these
have a possibility of being viable options. Excuse me if I said there is
only one option. There isn ' t but I think that' s a good approach to
dealing with this whole question. As long as we can designate , get on the
Comprehensive Plan and do the official mapping and so forth, then we ' re
satisfied.
Ellson : I just had a question , if that north option were granted , we
would then again go to the public and let the rest of Chanhassen help us
decide if we want to put off TH 5 for 2 more years? Is that the way we ' re
seeing it?
Fred Hoisington : No . If you decide on the north option, that would cause
the option but project, TH 5 in Chanhassen is put off for 2 years . There
will be no choice there . As long as the City understands that, that ' s
it ' s decision to make.
Headla : Say that again .
Fred Hoisington: If it becomes the north leg option is the one that MnDot
approves and that' s the one that then becomes implemented. Then you will
delay the Chanhassen stretch of TH 5 for 2 years .
Emmings : But TH 5 will be widened up to the Chanhassen border?
Fred Hoisington : Probably up to 184th . Somewhere in the neighborhood of
184th.
Conrad : Versus where?
Fred Hoisington: Versus all the way through to CR 17 I think.
Larry Guthrie: If the people who are planning TH 5 will accept our
consultant ' s plan for the cross intersection, why won ' t they accept our
consultant' s plan for the north leg option?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 28
Conrad : They just might . They just might . It ' s not precluded that they
won' t. What is precluded is that if they accept the north option, you
don ' t have TH 5 coming to Chanhassen for 2 years .
Larry Guthrie: I 'm saying, back to something he said, the reason for the
delay for 2 years was that the consultant ' s who planned the TH 5
intersection would take probably a year to incorporate this extra lane in .
Why couldn ' t our consultants do that plan and turn it over to them upon
being accepted? The same as they do for across the intersection.
Fred Hoisington : It ' s a different situation for this reason. When we' re
dealing with TH 101 we' re dealing with different alignments. It is a
State trunk highway alignment but at least it ' s not part of only MnDot
design at that point in time. They will not relinquish that to our
consultants . Their consultants will do that on their . . . all the
additional right-of-way as a part of that. Barton Ashman will need 2
years to . . .
Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment #88-5 as presented in
Attachment #1 with a change that would identify the north leg option as
the primary preferred route for TH 101 and identifying the proposed plan
as a secondary option in the event that the north leg option is not
approved by MnDot. All voted in favor except Wildermuth and Headla who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
Conrad: The reason for opposition Jim?
Wildermuth : I don' t think the north leg is viable. I think there have to
be other solutions other than the south leg or the current proposal . I
don ' t think it makes any sense , I think it ' s poor planning to look at
routing minor arterial traffic for 1,000 feet of a very busy state
highway.
Headla : I think the north route is very poor planning in a long range
term. . . .come 2005 we' ll have the south route and . . .decision.
Conrad : Okay, this item goes to City Council on August 22nd . I thank you
all for showing up tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL MAP FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF TH 101 ACROSS TH
5, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Public Present :
Name Address
Mark Senn 7800 Park Drive
Rome Roos 1450 Park Court
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 29
Don T. Smith 8012 Erie
Mike Wittrock 8022 Dakota Avenue
Drew & Melanie Wright 320 Sinnen Circle
Gene Heikkinen 301 Sinnen Circle
Greg Gmiterko 8121 Hidden Court
Grace Johnson 3143 Marsh Drive
Jack Atkins 220 West 78th Street
Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive
Bill Streepy 321 Sinnen Circle
Elizabeth Kersch 271 Hidden Lane
Jeff & Holly Peters 8120 Hidden Court
Bruce & Cindy Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive
Sharon Loeckler 8028 Erie Avenue
Tom Lehmann 330 Sinnen Circle
Larry Guthrie 520 3500 West 80th, Bloomington
Jim Lewis 8133 Dakota Lane
Jan Coey Taco Shop
Janine Ringdahl 8032 Erie Avenue
Bill Davis Minnetonka
Ivan C. Johnson 7910 Dakota Drive
Jeffery Cook 1800 Meritor Tower
Gene Borg 90 Lake Drive East
Ulrico Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle
Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail
Conrad: Barbara, we don' t need any staff report on that .
Dacy: Based on your previous motion , when you make the motion to adopt
the official map, you should identify both the north leg and the south
leg .
Conrad : Technically, should I open this up for public comment? Okay.
We will open it up for public comments . Relatively it' s the same item we
just talked about . We just have a different step that we have to go
through. Is there any comments relative to the mapping process?
Larry Guthrie : I have a question , the comments that were made . . . in the
crosstown comments . Is the north leg option supposed to be utilized ,
would there not be a signal at the north leg?
Ellson: Yes .
Larry Guthrie : So traffic from TH 101 would not have to merge . They
would just have to wait at the stop light and then they could immediate
get over to the left lane .
Conrad: It can be solved that way.
Uli Sacchet : I certainly want to take the opportunity to express that I
believe it is absolutely mandatory from the viewpoint of the people that
live down there that two options are both fairly accurate . Certainly the
north leg option has an equal value alternative to what' s currently
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 30
proposed . Also , I 'd like to ask a question . It has to be considered what
would happen at the intersection of Great Plains Blvd. where the east leg
comes into it if the current proposal would go through.
Fred Hoisington: You' re talking about Lake Drive East west of TH 101?
Uli Sacchet : Correct . It' s basically a "T" intersection at this point
which to me seems a very undesirable situation which would be an
additional point for the north leg option the way I feel .
Fred Hoisington: As I 've indicated in the past, I hate to keep putting
things off on the feasibility study but that ' s what it' s for is to deal
with design problems such as that and to try to determine what the costs
are and so forth so that will be answered . I ' ll say again , if it is
not. . .but it is viable solution that can be engineered.
Conrad : The north route , and I ' ve always been concerned about realignment
of TH 101 because I want to make it easy access to downtown. I 've always
been, I think those of you have been here , I 've always been concerned that
some of our routing is taking the highway too far away from downtown. I
want to make sure that people who are close have an option to use our
downtown services. There is that little added benefit in the north route
where we haven ' t routed people all the far . We haven ' t routed them
additional distances away from making that alternative choise of going to
downtown and visiting some of our businesses which I think is important.
Just as a footnote, I think that the north route does do that a little bit
better . Any other comments?
Mark Eidem: From what I 'm hearing is, what we ' re coming up with here is a
short term solution to a long term problem. The big issue here is whether
or not it ' s going to cost 3 years of construction time and whether or not
TH 5 is done. I guess what I 'd like to say is, why not wait to make the
right decision and do it right in 2 years . It ' s not that much of a wait
to do it right and do a long term decision.
Conrad : Yes , and that ' s what we like to do on Planning Commission. We
like to plan. We like information. If we do our job right, that' s what
we ' re doing . There are some other issues that are out there that we
haven' t talked about but there are other issues . This may be our only
opportunity to do something that ' s kind of good planning . Obviously, from
your standpoint it ' s not but from the residential neighborhoods in
Chanhassen , this may be the opportunity to do the good planning . I think
the folks over here who voted against the motion, they' re probably right.
Probably the better plan is the south route but in my mine , I don' t know
that we gain a whole lot from it. I don' t know that we gain much and I
really want to pursue some other neutral solution to the problem at this
point . I just don ' t see a real long term benefit any particular direction
on this one. TH 101 is just a real problem. It may never be solved and
it ' s one of those things you can study it to death and never come up with
a perfect solution and that' s what I 'm afriad of. As we study it to
death, we may lose the ability to solve the biggest problem Chanhassen has
based on what everybody tells us every other week when we' re here at the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 31
Planning Commission. So anyway, I hear your point and it ' s not that we' re
ignoring that. Conceptually we've got to agree with you. Any other
comments?
Resident : I 'd just like to point out if I could make this document a part
of the public record.
Conrad : Sure . Just deliver them to Barb Dacy here and she can do that.
Mark Eidem: Is this normal procedure where you approve something like
this with so many. . .
Conrad: Maybe not .
Mark Eidem: With something of this importance, how can you approve?
Conrad: We ' re approving some concepts . Actually I ' ll take it back. We
do that and when we see new developments coming into Chanhassen, we ask
for sketch plans. We like to see concepts before we get into some
details. In this particular case , I think it' s prudent to approve some of
these things right now so we have the alternatives because if we don' t
approve them right now, these alternatives may vanish. From a planning
standpoint, yes , maybe we should have more data but from being real wise
about it , we are protecting more of our options right now and that ' s
what' s important. At least that' s what' s important to me and maybe some
of the members on the Planning Commission tonight . We' re asking staff and
consultants to find more information. We' re also being forced into this a
little bit prior to when we would prefer to be looking at the issue but we
see the benefits are there. From a city standpoint, we' ve got to take a
look and we' ve got to make sure we' re not going to be forced out of having
some of these highway access problems solved for the entire city of
Chanhassen. We have to make sure that the rest of the community is aware
that if we change this to a north route, the rest of the City is going to
be missing a section of TH 5 for a couple years . They may not be pleased
to hear that but anyway, tonight we' re reserving some options. We don' t
have all the data in . We' re asking our consultants to get us more data
and we haven' t precluded some things also . Is there a motion to close the
public hearing?
Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve the adoption of the Official Map for the realignment of the two
routes as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the
Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan of TH 101 across TH 5.
The official map shall be prepared by BRW in time for City Council
consideration on August 22, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 32
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER ON 4. 86 ACRES
OF PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, JUST EAST OF Q-SUPERETTE, HIDDEN VALLEY
CENTER.
Dacy: Given the Commission' s previous action on the first two items, the
City Attorney has made a recommendation as to a motion that the Commission
should adopt . The motion would be to recommend denial to the City Council
because the location of the shopping center would be within the proposed
official map.
Headla : Since there are alternatives , are we better off tabling it?
Dacy: A motion to table is an option but the Chairman may want to pose
that question to the applicant. I really think it' s going to be up to the
applicant as to, well , maybe I should put it this way. The applicant is
aware of all the options . He has seen the language in the recommendation
to pursue the north leg option. He may still want to "take his chances"
and pursue his application. . .
Conrad : I think tabling keeps it away from the City Council and I don ' t
know that that' s the right thing to do either . Yet on the other hand I
think staff has made some comments on the plan and the applicant has not
incorporate those comments into the plan so I would feel well justified in
tabling the site plan until I saw the plan. Things like the two accesses
on the site plan. I don' t feel the applicant has considered what we
talked about the last time when we were here . There were some
recommendations that we made during the sketch plan or whatever we had and
I still don' t see that incorporated into the plan. I typically like a
plan going to City Council . The one that we see is the one I want them to
get and I don ' t see any plans . I don ' t see any of those modifications
made on the plan that we got tonight. There' s another option. We can
table it until we get those changes . We could turn it down. We could
approve it. We could do anything the Planning Commission so desires but I
think there ' s some rationale for tabling it for reasons other than the
location and the previous two items. Tim, what' s . . .
Erhart : I 'm for denying it . I think it' s more consistent with our
previous action here tonight and basically make a decision to remap it
which does not allow this proposal to work. I guess I wouldn ' t mind
asking the applicant what he wants to do but. . .
Conrad : I 'm sure they want to proceed . There' s no doubt about it but why
don' t you take the floor , being that you brought it up Tim, I ' ll let him
talk to us .
John Cairns : I 'm John Cairns , 4150 Multifoods Tower , counsel to the
developer . We prefer to see the matter go to the Council . We don' t think
there ' s a technical grounds for denial but you' re the commission and we' re
not and I don' t mean to stand up there and argue with you about the
technical grounds . You see the staff report . For your information , we
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 33
would consider denial in effect a condemnation of the property. Because
of the potentially your raising of the second alternative, the north leg
is , of course , fine with us because a lot of it has to do with what the
property here can do so I think that is helpful and I think the Council
ought to be the place where we decide whether or not they want to in
effect condemn the property by not doing what we thing the ordinance
requires them to do so we prefer to see you send it ahead and if it' s on a
denial basis, that' s the way we will see it go to Council .
Erhart : Yes , except the northern route still has the east Lake Drive
alteration. Could have even if we did do the northern route wouldn' t it?
Dacy: I 'm not sure I know what you' re referring to .
Erhart: If we had the north leg option, you still have to put in an
intersection where we' re proposing and you' d still be putting , still be
making a change . to Lake Drive East which would cut across this property.
Either way it significantly affects your property.
John Cairns: No, I don' t think that' s right .
Dacy: The north leg option would not have Lake Drive East crossing this
property.
John Cairns : As I understand the north leg option , the south side of the
highway stays as it is and the north side has a new intersection. Our
property stays intact there that' s why I 'm saying , we think the ordinance
compels the issue for approval of the site plan because we' re technically
complying and the effect of saying that there' s a secondary option that
may prevent that is in effect saying we can' t use our property and we view
it as condemnation of the property. That ' s really the City Council ' s
decision, not the Planning Commission decision that' s why we urge you to
send it forward and we' ll argue it out there .
Dacy: Dakota Avenue will still be closed off. There would be no change
to Lake Drive East in the area the applicant is proposing .
Erhart: Okay, I didn' t understand that .
Emmings : I agree with Tim. I just think we should do something that' s
clear cut and be consistent with what we' ve already done.
Ellson : If we deny this , can they come back if the north leg option is
approved? I guess that confuses me. If it all goes through and the north
leg option is the way to go and we ' ve already said , no , you can ' t have a
shopping center there, then they can' t? And it goes to the City Council
and they also do the same thing , does that mean they can ' t or can they
come back?
Dacy: They do have the option to reapply.
Ellson: Okay, then I would go along with you.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 34
C
Wildermuth : I agree with what ' s been said.
Headla: Denial is consistent .
Conrad : I don ' t have anything new to add .
Ellson moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of the Hidden Valley Center Site Plan because it conflicts with the
proposed Official Map for the relaignment of TH 101. All voted in favor
and the motion carried .
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO PERMIT GAS PUMPS ON PROPERTY ZONED BN,
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HWY
7 AND HWY 41, SUPERAMERICA.
Public Present :
Name Address
Betty Lang 2631 Forest Avenue
Allen Putnam 6285 Chaska Road
Bob Wagner 2511 Orchard Lane
Gene Conner 2521 Orchard Lane
Roman Mueller SuperAmerica
Bud SuperAmerica
Randy Peterson Real Estate Agent for Applicant
Roger Zahn HSZ
Sandy
Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item and
the Site Plan Review.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Allen Putnam: I live at 6285 Chaska Road which is just to the east of the
proposed site . That just off of the street I live on, TH 41 where the
traffic has been getting worse there more and more. I believe that gas
pumps located on this site , and this site has been brought before this
body in the past. Traffic was a major concern for this particular site
and by putting a 12 outlet gas station there, even any gas station there
would significant increase the traffic turning off TH 7 onto TH 41 to come
into that area . It would increase the traffic on TH 41. There are six
gas stations within a mile of that location currently in the Excelsior
area . Three of them located right on TH 7 . Because of that , I would ask
that this body deny the motion to put gas pumps at this location.
Betty Lang : I live 2631 Forest Avenue and I thought this was all cut and
dry before when you talked about this cute little shopping center that was
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 35
going in and nothing to us about a SuperAmerica . For one thing, they had
discussed before the run-off in which they were going to have a holding
pond . What kind of run-off are you going to have around Lake Minnewashta?
Another thing, . . .gas stations have been brought up many times and I don' t
think. . .
Conrad : Jo Ann, in terms of run-off?
Brown: Through the HSZ site , because it ' s fairly common that the parking
lot is going to pick up from the exhause fumes, etc. , part of the
structures that have been proposed here in the storm sewer system by the
Watershed District in trying to maintain the water quality, is a device
that would skim off the oils that could possibly enter into the ponding
system and the storm sewer system. So that device will prevent the oils ,
the gasolines heading straight through to the lake . All the water quality
issues have to be addressed through the Watershed District as well .
Conrad : Does this put any new perspective, having a gas station on this
corner versus a restaurant or whatever some of us might have imagined
before, your comfortable that the runoff from the gas station is not going
to pose any additional problems to water quality because of the skimming
devices that we' re talking about?
Brown : The natural run-off that we have through any parking lot, whether
it' s going to be a gas station or a restaurant is going to be the same.
I 'm not going to speak in regard to if there ' s a major gasoline spill
there. My previous comment regarding the gasoline station may be
corrected that we do have gasoline once in a while that maybe a couple
drops here or there or whatever that may come out of the spouts as the
customers fill his car , in that aspect the concentration of oils that come
off the parking lot could be increased. Thankfully HSZ, through their
planning of their parking lot , was concerned about that as the Watershed
District was and they did install , or have proposed to install a skimming
device . That device would in fact take care of not only the HSZ proposed
strip center but the run-off incurred by the proposed SA station as well .
Again, this would not take care of any unforeseeable event . I can ' t
imagine what would happen then but any expected use in this area would be
accomodated for with that skimming device .
Allen Putnam: Did Chanhassen run the number of cars that would be
expected typical at a SuperAmerica?
Randy Peterson : I represent the real estate investment firm. My name is
Randy Peterson. I have here officials from SuperAmerica that can answer
any of these questions and the design of the building to show you the
model. Would you like that done at this point?
Conrad : Go ahead . Why not?
Randy Peterson : Also , one other thing that I did in talking to staff was ,
we do have a hard time if TH 7 access is cut off . We have a very
difficult time. It may or may not work, like I said but we need TH 7
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 36
access if at all possible. That isn' t an issue here really and it' s being
worked on as I understand right now but that' s not on our . . . He asked a
question on the cars right? This is what it ' s going to look like. Roman
do you want to come up because you' re a little better advised on this .
This is a whole new design that' s coming into the cities . You' re one of
the first to be seeing this design and I ' ll let him take it from here .
Roman Mueller : We've all met before . I 'm Roman Mueller with
SuperAmerica. This is our latest prototype design that we' re proposing
for this area . Changes to a more residential style than our older flat
roof buildings. Going to a lighter style brick, solarium on it. The same
basic entranceway. You see a skylit area over the entrance. Different
signage appearance on the outside of the building with lighting up to this
edge. Putting a stripe trim on it. Trying to make it blend better with
the residential locations where we' re building more often than not these
days . One thing I 'd like to clear up what was stated in the report, there
are 6 pumps capable of serving 12 cars . Those are not 12 pumps . There
are more than 12 hoses . Each dispenser has 4 hoses on each side but only
one can be operated at a time giving a maximum of 12 cars to be serviced.
I just want to make that very clear . This is the style dispenser we' re
discussing . On the question of traffic that was brought up, we' ve done
numerous traffic studies at a number of different locations and each and
every one of these around the country has shown that over 80% of the
traffic that draws into our site comes from existing traffic in the area
so the impact of increasing the traffic flow in the area is not that much.
That ' s the simplest it can be put on the traffic issue . Yes , we do
increase the number of turning motions in the area but we' re not
increasing the traffic . There is some concern about theft in an existing
convenience store and I 'd like to point out one of the differences that we
have between ours and a majority of other convenience store operations .
That' s the number of people we have on duty in our shifts . They' re
running 2 to 3 people on duty. Using the buddy system more often than not
versus many of our competitors using a single employee at any particular
time making them more susceptible to theft because there ' s no one there to
watch but one person on duty. I think the issue of contamination was very
well handled . If people really look into the issue of cars driving onto
the area, you' ll find out that actually the asphalt is going to be putting
out more contaminates than the cars driving on it for the most part in the
initial stage of the project .
Conrad : Tell us a little bit about a disaster though . A disaster meaning
a pump, a spill . A major spill . Not just minor stuff . A car sitting and
idylling and oil and a little bit of gas , I 'm talking about a major spill .
How would that affect the particular drainage that our engineers have
looked at?
Roman Mueller : One of the things that is required of us and we do on all
our sites these days is there is a spill containment program established
for the store in which the grade in the area , all aquafirs , all water
systems are looked at. The drainage to them. The people that need to be
contacted to stop any type of a spill to contain it as it travels .
Notification of Fire Marshalls . Everybody we can think of is listed in
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 37
each store and it goes down starting at the first person to be called on
down so we can control it if it does happen. The potential is always
there . Anytime you have a human working with something that can be
spilled, it can happen. We' ve got an extremely good record at our stores
to this point in time. I 'm not aware of any major spills that we've had.
We' ve had some minor ones where a truck driver is not following the rules
and is not watching when he ' s filling and it will overflow. The
underground tank, we' re taking preventative measures now with a system
that will shut it off in the tank before he can overfill it . That' s
again, a part of the new system we' re putting in as well as the inability
for the gasoline to travel up through the vent pipes and be spilled out
through that area. We are addressing those issues because they are very
important to us as they are to everybody else .
Emmings : Will this store have access to that system?
Roman Mueller : This store will have that system. We are starting as of
this summer putting that system in every store. What it is , it ' s a
containment system at the tank that as you fill it , it begins to slow the
filling from the truck which immediately the tank driver is going to
notice. It begins to slow as it gets towards the top. If it gets to the
top, there' s a ball valve in there that shuts it off and then there' s a 20
gallon container above the tank that will hold all of the gases in the
line. So if he' s standing there, he shuts it off, he hasn' t got anything
to do with that 20 gallons in the line , he pulls the hose off . It will
dump into this secondary containment and as the tank is lowered by people
pumping gas , fuel will drain back into the tank. So the possibility or
the probability of an overfill is almost non-existent. At the dispensers
where the gasoline actually comes out of the ground , it ' s been required
for years for a valve to be put in there. If somebody drives across and
hits the dispenser , knocks it completely off the island , the valve
automatically trips and shuts . It' s just a very, very simple trip valve
that ' s in there so the gas can ' t come out of the dispenser then either .
Conrad: Talk to us a little bit about traffic. SuperAmerica is a real
fine operation and I 'm pleased to see , it' s just a good operation . It ' s
so good that I perceive, I get a problem with what I 'm seeing on the
board . Access . I still have the problem now, I have an additional
problem that if we don' t have TH 7 access , what that does to traffic
coming in . It' s like we' re begging for another problem here. We not only
have the other HSZ traffic that' s going to come into the site, we now have
a whole lot more coming in from possibly one site and location and that ' s
a real concern to me.
Roman Mueller : I think in just a very brief moment I had to read through
the staff recommendations, I thought that was pretty well handled in that
if the access from TH 7 isn ' t allowed , we don ' t get building permits .
Also, that issue is primarily something that ' s been dealt with the HSZ
development. Access , understandably this is operating , we are developing
only the lot area that you see in front of us . The accesses to the area
are whatever HSZ lives with . I didn ' t understand that access would be an
issue involved with our conditional use permit .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 38
C
Conrad : Well , did he reflect accurately the staff ' s report? My opinion
of how I read the staff' s report is, we would not deny their application
given TH 7 access . That' s the way I reviewed it . You ' re asking for , the
applicant shall not receive a permit until MnDot approves access from TH 7
but you haven' t conditioned it on access to TH 7.
Olsen: If it ' s found through that access permit to use that site can
function just off of that one access on TH 41, that ' s through MnDot, the
site could function separately. I think everybody is thinking that the
TH 7 ,access will still be permitted . If it doesn' t I think changes will
be made.
Conrad : How does this SuperAmerica affect all of the concerns , all the
access concerns because it is a high traffic generater. It' s not like a
restaurant where you have turnover every half hour . It is a high traffic
generater every hour. How does that impact what we've previously seen
with this whole site? In terms of traffic studies , should we refer to
Larry?
Brown: Two things , I 'd like to call your attention to condition 9 of the
site plan. It states that the applicant shall not receive a building
permit until MnDot has approved access permits for TH 7 and TH 41.
Conrad: So if they don ' t approve TH 7, then what happens?
Brown : Then it would have to come back to the Planning Commission. To
address your second concern, if you' re satisfied with the first .
Conrad : Well , that clarifies that condition.
Randy Peterson: Say Jo Ann, would that really take place, to come back in
because just eliminating TH 7 doesn ' t change our site plan though?
Ellson: According to this it will .
Olsen: The whole HSZ site will have to come back.
Brown: The HSZ site was , correct me if I 'm wrong Barb, was approved with
those accesses . Unfortunatley your site is a part of that plat . If that
plat does not receive approval , then there is really no reasonable way
that we can proceed with that . The second point brought up regarding
traffic, one of the things that staff looked at was, I believe the
gentleman from SuperAmerica brought this up as well , the majority of the
traffic that will be serviced by SuperAmerica in fact is already there.
How many people drive 30 miles out of their way to go to the gas station?
SuperAmerica right now is , I think you' ve heard their indication is ,
depending on this movement to direct the eastbound traffic into their site
and in onto the site from TH 41. From a traffic volume standpoint , people
would rather take this free right turn if it' s granted by MnDot , fill up
and continue the continous path back out to TH 7 than they would coming
+� here , waiting at the light , making this turn , getting into SuperAmerica ,
coming back out and doubling back. If in fact MnDot comes back and says
that no access is permitted at this point , more than likely it ' s bound to
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 39
reduce this traffic volume here because people are not as willing to make
that movement .
Conrad : No , I don ' t agree with that . You' re absolutely right , you ' re
going to do the most convenient thing. That right in access is very
important. I 'm sure it' s very important to SuperAmerica . I don' t know
that they'd want to be in this location if they have, the same logic holds
to get in 300 feet away from a site and try to work your way back to
SuperAmerica is not the most convenient access to a gas station either .
I 'm really concerned with the overall traffic . The amount of traffic that
now potentially is in that site. Either coming in right-in or exiting by
going through the HSZ site . Most of your gas stations are designed , you
get in and you go right back out to whatever highway. Now we' re routing
them, there ' s no right-out. There ' s no right-out as we go to the north.
You've got to wind through the rest of the site and then we go out to a
congested intersection because the rest of the shopping center is going to
be pulling in some folks .
Roman Mueller : Increasing the left turn off of TH 7?
Conrad : But basically at this point in time Larry, you' re not concerned
about the amount of traffic . The amount of traffic that' s coming to that
one intersection, that intersection will be able to tolerate in the
future . Assuming that there' s no right-in off of TH 7 , you ' re convinced
that that one access will accomodate all the needs for the HSZ site and
the SuperAmerica which could generate , I don ' t know how many cars an hour
but it would be a significant number of cars because it' s a good
operation . It' s a natural draw. People are going to go there regardless .
They' re going to wind their way through. Not as many as if they had TH 7
but they' re still going to get there. You' re not concerned?
Brown: Obviously it ' s a concern. From staff ' s viewpoint it' s not a very
good traffic plan as you mentioned here and staff surely would have loved
to have these issues all cut and dry before we had brought approval about .
Conrad : What internal , within the HSZ site , what internal traffic
problems do you see if the TH 7 is not there?
Brown: From the HSZ site , HSZ I believe , for their main access is going
to depend on this intersection on TH 41 right now. I don' t see any real
strong impacts with this . Obviously they' re not going to have, as
I mentioned before, the entire volume that they would like to see coming
off of TH 7 because some people are going to say, it' s more convenient to
keep on going through out to wherever but as far as the outlots , yes it
does have an impact because of the rerouting of traffic .
Conrad: How do you merge the shopping center traffic with the gas station
traffic? Is there any cross traffic there? It looks like there isn ' t but
how do you get the other shopping center traffic in que to get out on
TH 41? I 'm directing my comments to our engineer because I want him to
talk about it but jump in if you' ve got some answers .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 40
Roman Mueller : One thing I wanted to point out that I don ' t know if
there ' s confusion here or what, but the comment about people from the SA
wandering through the site is somewhat off because this is the access off
of the SA site to the service road onto TH 41 at this point. So they' re
not entering anything that is controlled drive . They are not wandering
through this area. They do not have to come from this point down and then
through and around . The access is here and the way our islands are laid
out, it more or less funnels the people in that direction.
Conrad : If we lose the TH 7 site and you've got people coming and going
out and then coming right back down, it' s a two way and the only access to
the site . Then as you exit, how do you merge that traffic with the traffic
from the rest of the site? How is that lined up? I can' t visualize it?
How do the parking people at the site get in line?
Emmings: If you ' re parked in here, how do I get out of there?
Roman Mueller : You' re going to have to go north up to the drive.
Emmings : Okay, so the only way into this, you can' t go in anywhere along
there?
Roman Mueller : Correct . Only at this point . Take off of let ' s say the
SA site and put a stop sign there. . . Keep in mind from our aspect, our
entire business is built around convenience . If a person can not move in
and out of our site with some level of convenience, we know that they' re
not going to go there . We go through the traffic issues very, very
closely.
Conrad : I 'm sure you do . I 'm sure you' re much more versed in it than I .
Allen Putnam: I have a question. Is the approval of the gas pump permit
and your convenience store tied together? In other words , you would not
do one without the other?
Roman Mueller : I ' ve never presented that .
Allen Putnam: I assume they' re considered as one?
Conrad : It ' s kind of confusing administratively from my standpoint right
now. In our public hearing we' re trying both together right now. In
terms of how they approach it, a public hearing has to be held for a
conditional use permit and that' s what we' re really going through but
we' re really getting into some site plan reviews right now which is sort
of fogging some of these issues .
Allen Putnam: I have another question that ' s related to , since he brought
out the model , related to the convenience store and that is, can you tell
me if in your convenience stores now, do you have any pornographic
( magazines?
Roman Mueller : No , we do not . They were pulled out a number of years ago
at substantial expense to the company. Bud, do you remember?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 41
Bud Kelp: Yes , they were pulled out approximately 3 years ago . We were
the convenience chain in the country to pull those books off of our
shelves at a cost , profit of over 3 million dollars a year but we pulled
it.
Allen Putnam: And you have no intentions of putting them back?
Bud Kelp: No sir .
Gene Conner , 2521 Orchard Lane: In the consideration of the original HSZ
proposal , one of the prime reasons that came up over and over about the, I
would say, the necessity for a TH 7 access was for emergency vehicles
service to that area. It hasn' t been mentioned here at all tonight. I
understand that the whole thing may not be viable but that was one of the
prime reasons, aside from business . Your emergency services are on TH 7
and you put a gas station in there, and I know that they take all the
safety precautions in the world, you are indeed increasing your risk of
the need for emergency services which I don' t think you can handle
adequately with TH 7 lost.
Roman Mueller : One thing getting back to the TH 7 access , it ' s really not
an issue with our conditional use permit.
Conrad : That is true . We' ve merged two issues here. We have and you did
it, not me. You brought this up. I was trying to keep the items separate
but you decided to come up and show us this and that is merging site plan
review with conditional use permit request and I was trying to keep them
separate a little bit so we didn' t do what you' re experiencing right now.
But anyway, as the Planning Commission operates, we will vote on those, we
will review them separately. Our discussion has merged the two together .
It' s still a public hearing .
Bob Wagner , 2511 Orchard Lane : We had a neighborhood meeting last
Thursday and of course some of the questions were addressed and the
opinion was asked of how I felt. I said I ' ll flow with the feeling of the
neighbors who are closest and that ' s what I 'm here to tell you about so
I 'm addressing not myself but several people . We' ve talked about , and
I ' ll try to jump over looks quickly, but we talked about cosmetics . Like
I have a mustache and this fella has a mustache , you fellas don ' t but we
all have faces and when we get right down to it, it ' s still a gas station.
However cosmetic they want to figure , we have a gas station . That brings ,
in my opinion, contamination in several areas . We've talked about the
possibility of contamination of fuel but I 'd like to talk about the
intensity. The 24 hour useage. The type of fuel . If we' re going to have
deisel there , I realize it ' s not likely but deisel fuel can pull that odd
truck in that' s running out of fuel to that thing at 2: 00 in the morning .
I 'm not excited about that . The hours I think are a big issue . We sat
before this group and said we want BN to preserve the integrity and
something less than commercial . When I think of commercial , I think of
gas stations and I think of 24 hours and I think a lot of the things we' re
looking at here tonight , which I don ' t think is the direction that the
neighborhood and this group and the group above this one has talked about
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 42
for 3 years . Traffic pattern has been mentioned and I don' t think we need
to go into that. The whole area to me is , is this good for the
neighborhood? Is it good for the area? When we talk about people drive
by this and they' re going to get gas if they need gas. Well , that' s
argument is good for people who drive by here and they can live in
residential houses here. People come by here and they could buy a
hamburger here if it was something else. I don' t lean to that argument
very strongly. I do lean to something much less commercial however and I
think that ' s been the intent and the integrity that the community and the
City of Chanhassen has worked for.
Gene Conner : Also , it ' s been stated that the petition of the SuperAmerica ,
station, and I have nothing against SuperAmerica. I buy a lot of gas at
SuperAmerica but the addition of a SuperAmerica station would add no
affect on the volume of traffic along TH 7 and TH 41, that' s probably
true. It won ' t increase the volume of traffic but there' s a hell of a big
difference between traffic flowing by on the highway and stopping ,
starting and the general increasing to the noise contamination , if you
want to call it contamination. I object strenuously to the concept of a
24 hour operation out there as Bob Wagner said . That does not fit at all
with what I think we were sold in a very fine selling job by HSZ
Corporation. The concept of a 24 hour fuel operation does not fit at all
with the neighborhood shopping center and with adequate berming and all
the rest of that , I think we were sold a very fine. . .
Bob Wagner : It' s not the win-win situation that Mr . Headla thought we
didn' t have last time and . . .
Bud Kelp : My name is Bud Kelp, I represent SuperAmerica as well as some
of these other guys . One of the things about the 24 hour operation, that
is a period of time when we do a lot of business . Our average transaction
in a 8 hour , 11: 00 p.m. to 7 : 00 a .m. , is approximately 175 vehicles .
Between 11: 00 and 12 : 00 we would estimate on an average of maybe 50. From
6: 00 to 7: 00 a .m. , on an average of 60. So from midnight to 6 : 00 a.m.
we' re talking about 65 or 6 1/2 vehicles per hour . In that period of
time, that is when a lot of cleaning up is done in the store. Stocking
the shelves , some of the paperwork is accomplished and policing of the
outside area. These are things that are done at night. A lot of times
your tanker comes and drops it' s gas so that they' re not there in the
daytime congesting the driveway, blocking the driveway, whatever . The
question was asked how many transactions a day would we assume we would
have. We would estimate approximately a total of 800 transactions . That
would figure out to be, if they just took it over a 24 hour period , 33 an
hour but there are peak periods obviously. They might double that amount
between 7 : 00 and 8 : 30 in the morning .
Bob Wagner: 800 per day?
Bud Kelp: Yes . 24 hours . That ' s in a 24 hour period .
Bob Wagner: How many did you say between 11: 00 and 7 : 00?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 43
Bud Kelp : We estimated 175 . That ' s an average . That ' s just between
11: 00 p.m. and 7: 00 a .m. . The other thing is that we cater to all people.
We have people going to work, everybody isn ' t fortunate that can just work
from 8 : 00 to 3 : 30 or 4 : 00. We' ve got people working second shift. We' ve
got people working third shift . These people , they purchase gas . They
purchase food items. They purchase things too. We' re there for their
convenience . It ' s a lot , we found , safer to be open 24 hours than it is
to have an 18 hour. We' ve had more incidents when the store closed at a
certain given hour , be it 11: 00 or 12: 00. There were incidents that
happened where the people were forced back into the store in a safe
surrounding . Our crime rate at SuperAmerica is extremely low. We don' t
even talk about it because we don' t have a lot of problems . I can' t even
' remember , I ' ve got an area supervisor here that could probably tell the
last time he had a store hold up. I don' t know if he even had one.
Area Manager : During my 3 years as an area manager , I ' ve had one store in
northeast Minneapolis that experienced a robbery. Basically my territory
is Burnsville, Eden Prairie , Mound and I 've had those stores for the past
3 years, I ' ve never run into any kind of threatening, life threatening or
robbery or anything like that .
Bud Kelp: I guess what I ' d like to sum up is that SuperAmerica wants to
be part of the community wherever we' re at. We encourage our managers to
join the local chambers or whatever . The company itself is city minded .
There are many, many things we do for the communities that we' re in like
what I just did recently was donating of bullet proof vests to Twin City
departments . We did that at a cost of half a million dollars . We did
that in Milwaukee as well as here. Every city, for every store that it
had, received 3 bullet proof vests compliments of SuperAmerica . We just
had the big run for MS . $250, 000. 00 was donated . This was sponsored by
SuperAmerica. We' re able to do these things, yes we are a big company.
There ' s no question about that but I think in each community we' re small .
We' re not big because we want to be a part of that community and we want
the store to be a part of that community. We offer jobs to children . I ' ve
been with the company for 23, going on 24 years and I came through the
ranks . I was a store manager at one point . I was an area supervisor at
one point. Today I 'm working with the zoning and permit end of it. I ' ve
seen a lot of young people come through our stores and today have very
responsible positions in the community and they' re thankful that they got
their start at SuperAmerica . As far as the 24 hour issue, yes it ' s
important for us to deal with. It is not mandatory for us . I wouldn' t
want to jeopardize the approval based strictly on the hours of operation
because we could compromise there. If it came down to it but there are
many things that need to be done during that third shift period of time.
We certainly wouldn' t like that option taken away from us.
Sandy: I understand that SuperAmerica has . . . in the Twin Cities . I don ' t
what percentage of them are 24 hour operations but I do know that they
have a store at the corner of Ewing and Lake in downtown Minneapolis that
is not open 24 hours and it is in a neighborhood. . . .a very clean store.
It ' s a nice store , that' s fine but it is not open 24 hours and it does
blend in with the community. I think having to change. . . ,which you
mentioned yourself during the night hours and my house is right over the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 44
corner , gearing down and then gearing back up is totally unnecessary
contamination in our community. This is a neighborhood. They should
conform to the neighborhood hours . They don' t go 24 hours a day. We
sleep at night because we work during the day and I think SuperAmerica , if
indeed you allow them to come in here, even though I do not agree that
they should because they have an access problem, they should conform to
the neighborhood .
Roman Mueller : Out of curiousity, can I ask you what the distance is from
our site to your home?
Sandy: Oh, what would you say Bill? I 'm right over the hill .
Bob Wagner : It' s one of the houses that borders the development.
Roman Mueller : You folks are obivously more familiar with the area than I
am. About 1, 500 feet?
Gene Conner : About that far .
Roman Mueller : Out of curiousity, which side?
Sandy: My house is right here and my neighbor is sitting next to me and
her house is right here.
Roman Mueller : So relatively well blocked by all of the development .
Sandy: I currently hear the trucks gearing down and gearing back up now.
Roman Mueller : I can understand that . You' re going to hear an amount of
highway. . .
Sandy: I 'm going to hear them going into SuperAmerica even more.
Roman Mueller : The noise wise, you' re primarily concerned by the trucks
going in and out of there?
Sandy: I 'm concerned by the 24 hour traffic . I 'm concerned by the
access. I 'm concerned by the sound contamination irregardless of what
you' ve said .
Conrad : Talk to us a little bit about trucks , diesel fuel and trucks
going into this site?
Roman Mueller : Currently it ' s not planned to have diesel fuel in there .
As long as we' re looking for a lesson on contaminates , diesel fuel is
actually the least contaminate that you can put products in the ground .
Trucks seem to be a concern. The trucks coming up and fueling with
diesel fuel , currently I ' ve been taking diesel fuel out of most locations
that have diesel fuel in it and it' s not scheduled to go in this location
N- so it ' s not going to be drawing the odd truck that comes in there . A lot
of the city trucks run on gasoline anyway. The noise that ' s in there,
there' s a condition in here under recommendation from staff that the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 45
public address system can' t be audible to any residential parcel . That' s
in the condition. I believe we can control that. That ' s not a problem.
We work with people on that all the time. Truck noise, I guess we can ' t
stop the trucks noise out on the highway and yes , there will be automobile
noise in the area no matter what . I would like to point out that our
building separates from the islands to the areas as well as the other
developments in the area . The vegetation that I ' ve understood is going to
be planted in that area, I had one brief glance at the overall vegetation
plan so that portion I can' t speak for . And if I remember correctly on
the recommendation from staff, they' re having us plant several coniferous
trees in that area to help block sound, light , etc . . We are addressing
that problem.
Gene Conner : Excuse me, this has gotten akin to , it sounds like do we
over here are trying to . . .SuperAmerica. That' s certainly is not the case.
SuperAmerica I think, certainly I would be, SuperAmerica proposes a fine
operation. As service station operations go, I have no objections to
SuperAmerica . The objection that I think we all have is that it does not
fit with what we were told that this site plan approval for HSZ was going
to be. It does not fit the neighborhood business concept of limited time,
rather low key, quiet operation. No matter how fine your operation is ,
you can ' t convince me that it' s going to be consistently quiet. It
certainly is going to be bright. It' s going to be lit up all the time. I
can understand how they'd be . . . 24 hour a day operation. I doubt if it
would be viable if it was completely limited to the hours that we would
like to see if gas tanks are allowed in there . . . . SuperAmerican but it
does not fit with what we were sold very hard over a very long period of
time. In rezoning that from a single family to residential area all the
way up to a business neighborhood. It' s exactly what many of us said we
were afraid of years ago. Once you start the commercialism, it is going
to go on and on and upward and upward until we lose control of it. We
feel we've lost control .
Sandy: This is indeed an escalation of what we had . . .
Bud Kelp: I have just presented some pictures that you can look at.
Lighting . The type of lighting that SuperAmerica uses at it ' s location .
Downcast lighting. It does not light up the neighbors , especially this is
ideal , if the closest house is 500 feet , they are not going to be affected
by the lighting of SuperAmerica. It is not going to shine into their
houses because as the picture illustrates , it ' s downcast lighting .
Headla moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Conrad : As we made comments , we ' ll vote on these issues separately. The
issue of the conditional use and the site plan but I think it ' s hard to
separate them as we talk so feel free to address both issues as we go
through the Commission. Dave, start at your end . What do you have to
say?
•
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 46
Headla : I talked to Barb about this . I looked at this place as very much
like the SuperAmerica at TH 4 and TH 5. I 've gone in there at many
different hours and I think the homes are pretty much the same as they
would be over here at TH 7 and TH 41. Barb, did you get a chance to talk
to Eden Prairie people?
Dacy: I asked Jo Ann to contact the staff.
Olsen : I discussed whatever issues they had for their Eden Prairie site,
if they had any problems or what good points or whatever . They did have a
traffic issue because with the improvements to TH 5 and TH 4, the traffic
was going to have to be routed through residential streets so that was
their major issue which was not a concern at this site. The lighting ,
they said if they could change it they would have the canopy lights which
we already have in a condition. The noise , it is also open 24 hours , they
have not had any conditions placed about that.
Headla : The 24 hour operation didn' t bother them?
Olsen: No, they would just reduce the amount of light, to receed them for
any impacts to the surrounding area . The major issue was again the
traffic , those commerical sites , they have a Chiropracter business there
also, using that residential street. That was a major issue. Other than
that, they had no real complaints from the neighborhood .
X.
Headla: One of the ladies that called me from that area was quite
concerned about noise and traffic . That' s why I was interested to see
what you found on that traffic. How big are those fuel tanks that you
have in the ground?
Roman Mueller : That we' re proposing here? Three 10, 000 gallon tanks and
one 12, 000 gallon tank.
Headla : So you' re bringing in maybe two tankers a day?
Area Manager: Most of our locations that are extremely busy get a tanker
a day. For a station of this size, it is more comparable to the one on
169 by Flying Cloud Airport and that gets a tanker every two days .
Sometimes one depending on the traffic but you ' re looking at unleaded
every other day. The same size tanks .
Headla : So that would be the maximum major truck traffic going through
there.
Roman Mueller : And we can , I should mention , control the hours that they
deliver . If there' s a problem there at night, we have it within our power
to tell them so that can be something to consider .
Headla : I 'd kind of like to see it go in there but we started out with
just office building in there and then we made the neighbors buckle under
and we let this other stuff. Now we' re going one more to gas pumps and
now this thing 24 hours . I don ' t know how far we should push these
people. That' s nothing, I don' t have anything against SuperAmerica at
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 47
all . I think maybe we' ve come to a limit. The only other thing I ' ve got
is I see an awful lot of conditions on the recommendations . When I see
all these conditions and it really tells me that your consultants didn' t
deal in earnest with the staff. Revise plan, revise plan. Revise the
landscaping plan . Provide plans . The site plan shall be revised . Revise
the plan. Why didn' t the act get cleaned up before this even came in
here? I just think it ' s excessive and somebody didn' t sit down and deal
in earnest with this ap.
Olsen : A lot of those are just , the landscaping issue and the lighting
issues were conditions of staff after it came in. It' s not necessarily
that the applicant didn ' t provide it.
Headla: How come so many revised plans?
Erhart : Did you sit down with the applicant and go through all this?
Headla: You talk about revised plans and we haven' t seen them and
obviously you haven' t seen them.
Roman Mueller : What are you referring to?
Headla : Items 2, 3 , 4 . I 'm on page 5.
Roman Mueller : Okay, I guess I was going through recommendations on the
Planning Staff . Their recommendations on a motion where there are 8
conditions on there.
Emmings : You' re looking at the conditional use permit . He' s looking at
the site plan.
Roman Mueller : Not having had a chance to go through it very well . . .
Bob Wagner : If this is an open hearing, I 've got a few comments too .
Roman Mueller : Most of these appear to be just clarifications on
ordinance questions. These are not a problem.
Headla : For this size of plan , I think it ' s an awful lot of conditions .
Wildermuth: We' re talking about the conditional use permit first right?
Conrad : When we vote we will be talking about the site plan and then the
conditional use but I think in terms of how we' re going through here, it' s
hard to not , the issues are so close that I can ' t keep them apart so
I think the comments Jim, can be made regarding anything. Site plan or
gas station. Conditional use .
Wildermuth : I really sympathize with the people in the neighborhood . I
certainly would not like to have a service station close by, within 500
and 600 feet of where I live despite the fact that SuperAmerica is
probably one of the class acts in the business . I 'm really concerned
about the traffic , the increase in traffic that ' s going to happen in that
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 48
area from that corner . It just looks like that ' s a corner that would lend
itself to a small office building . Accounting offices, something like
that rather than a relatively high intensity use . It ' s a confusing
intersection to begin with on the north side going into the Shorewood
Shopping Center and I think this is going to confuse it further . I think
that the intensity is too great, too severe for this particular corner .
Conrad : You mentioned 800 cars a day, I converted transactions to cars ,
whether that' s right or not, that' s what it is versus whatever else is
generated there. 800 is not as many as I thought .
Ellson : First I wonder why this didn' t come through with the original
site plan. I feel badly that maybe this was being discussed and the site
plan came through initially because they thought that would go through
easier and now this is coming in later . That would make me really angry
because as I said before, I was telling you people, you know it could be
worse , you could have a gas station on that corner and here a few months
later comes in that gas station. In our ordinance with a conditional use,
it has to meet a lot of different things such as it has to have approaches
for cars that are not going to create traffic congestion. It' s supposed
to be compatible with the surrounding area . It ' s not supposed to
depreciate the surrounding property values . I think based on these
conditions , it ' s not going to be able to meet these things so I 'd be
voting down a conditional use permit for pumps .
Emmings : I don ' t know where you start . I ' ve been here with this property
coming in front of us a few times and it' s obviously a commercial corner.
There were a lot of people who didn' t agree with that but at least to me
it was always obvious that it' s going to be developed as a commercial I
corner . We also went to some real pains to make sure that as a commercial
corner it would offend the surrounding residential neighborhood as little
as possible. I don ' t know exactly where that takes me but now we ' re in a i
situation where they' re asking us to take the second step and I 'm sitting
here thinking to myself, are we going to wind up with a gas station on
that corner and no shopping center because they wind up not liking that?
I feel like we' re taking step two before step one has really been taken .
Before we decide on this, I 'd really like to go back and look at the HSZ
thing and see if we want to pull our approval of that based on the fact
that there is one entrance. I don' t think, every time we' ve got a project
that ' s only got one entrance , we've said no . We make churches put in an
extra entrance to the site because we worry about access for emergency
vehicles . The gentleman out here pointed out the fact that fire equipment
for that area comes from the west on TH 7. They really need that right in
off of TH 7. I don ' t know why we' re spending all this time on this until
that issue is resolved. That kind of bothers me. I don' t know why we
have to look at this right now. Now I 'm going to shift gears and go the
other direction for a while.
Conrad : So you'd rather table it?
LEmmings : Oh yes . Like I say, I feel like we' re taking step 2. We' re on
mushy ground with step 1 and it' s just mushier when you get up to step 2.
That really concerns me because I really think there' s a possibility here
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 49
that if a station were suddenly to appear up there on the corner , we may
never see that shopping center back there. I don' t know how committed HSZ
is to it . I feel like Annette , and I have of course no basis for this ,
that they were probably dealing with these folks when they brought in this
other proposal . Not I don' t know if they were or not but I 'm suspicious
about it and I don' t like it. I don' t like the feeling I 've got about it.
That ' s offensive to me. If they had something on an overall plan for the
whole thing, we should have seen that whole thing. Maybe that didn ' t
happen that way. Let ' s assume it didn ' t but you' re still stuck with the
situation where we don' t know if the HSZ thing should have our approval
anymore . It was approved with an entrance off of TH 7. That entrance is
not there anymore and I think we ought to go back and make sure we know
what we' re doing there before we look at this one . On the other hand
though, I don' t mind this particular plan. If there' s going to be a gas
station on the corner , I don ' t mind this one and I even think that area
down there needs a gas station. Somewhere in that west of Excelsior . I
would say that if they' re willing to restrict the hours of operation. . .
Wildermuth: Isn' t there one across the street?
Emmings : No , there ' s not .
Wildermuth: Isn ' t there one on the frontage road across the street?
Emmings : No. I live down there. I have to go all the way into
Excelsior . It ' s no big deal but I do go into Excelsior to get gas . If
they' re willing to limit hours of operation, if they' re willing to tell
the tankers when they can come . It sounds like they' re willing to be
flexible enough so that we could probably put something together here.
Another thing that I personally don' t like is having all that pop and
stuff for sale piled up outside. I would want to impose a restriction on
that. I don ' t mind the looks of the building . When you pile up 432 ,000
cases of pop in front of it, it kind of takes away from the overall appeal
as far as I 'm concerned . I 'm uncomfortable , I feel like we ' ve taken a bad
first step and now I think we ' re being asked to take a second step and I
don' t want to do it. I want to go back and look at step 1 before I even
look at this .
Dacy: I can appreciate your concern about the right-in only to the site
and what was originally approved with the HSZ. I just want to clarify
that when the City acted to rezone the site to Neighborhood Business
District, in that analysis we changed it OI to BN and there' s a list of
permitted uses and a list of conditional uses . Whether or not , yes the
shopping center was proposed as a proposed user of the large lot but in
rezoning the site to the Neighborhood Business District and making that
decision, the Council recognized that there could be applications for
conditional uses such as convenience stores with gas pumps . That ' s why
it ' s a conditional use because it' s a different type of use that the
Commission has to evaluate whether or not the applicant is meeting the
standards of the conditional uses in the ordinance.
Emmings : Then , looking at it strictly that way, then I 'd have to agree
with Annette. That there are several conditions of the requirements of
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 50
the conditional use permit that this doesn ' t meet .
Conrad: Which ones?
Emmings : She read most of them.
Ellson: Traffic. Congestion.
Conrad : Traffic . Congestion.
Emmings : It will be aesthetically compatible with the area . What is the
area? Are we talking about just the HSZ site? I don' t think so.
Ellson : Will have the vehicular approaches to the property which do not
create traffic congestion. This is our basis right here. Or interfere
with surrounding public thoroughfares .
Dacy: But the Commission' s concern is that you want to make sure that the
right-in from TH 7 is there, then that can be a condition of approval or
if you want to make sure that' s going to be there and table action, that' s
another issue but when the HSZ plat came in, the traffic analysis for the
right-in off of TH 7 and the full intersection of TH 41 was based on any
use that was going to be allowed in that district could occupy those three
lots. The right-in only and the full intersection on TH 41 is the best
X. way to serve that center as a neighborhood business user . So are you
saying that the addition of the gas pumps is causing . . .
Ellson : More traffic . More congestion because people are stopping and
then going off onto TH 41.
Dacy: But just recognize that that was the way it was intended . Traffic
would come in off of TH 7 and go to whatever those two outlots were going '
to be used for and then travel out onto TH 41.
Emmings : But Barbara, that' s not quite fair because, and I ' ll tell you
why I think it' s not quite fair . That ignores the whole history of the
property. That ignores the whole controversy with the neighbors that
we' ve heard over the 3 years I ' ve been here and that had to do with the
fact that we don' t want intensive use of this property. It was a tough
vote to get people. Once we approved another shopping center in there and
that ended up not being approved. I made the motion on that. In fact
I remember making the motion. . .want to rezone this piece because we know
what ' s going there. Don' t ask me to rezone these outlots until I know
what ' s going on there and everybody said , oh no. You can ' t do that.
That's spot zoning or something . I got shouted down on that . No one
would swing with me on that . Should have done the same thing here because
what they did is they came in with a plan for a nice little low intensity
use shopping center and that ' s what we focused on . We' re not focused on
those empty outlots out there. They sold that to us as a low intensity
use that ' s surrounded by a residential neighborhood and we finally all
agreed to take the step. Okay, this is clearly a commercial corner , we're
going to take this step to this low intensity use. This isn ' t the same.
This is a much higher intensity use and yes it' s recognized as a potential
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 51
use under the BN.
Dacy: Don ' t misconstrue my comments . What I 'm trying to drive at is , to
make sure that the Planning Commission fully understands and identifies
valid reasons for denial based on the ordinance standards . I just wanted
to bring up the history when we looked at this site. That is a 20,000
square foot shopping center and that in itself does generate a lot of
traffic exceeding the 800 trips per day of SuperAmerica. I just want to
make sure that you' re fully aware of all that .
Emmings : And I guess what we' re saying is, if we don' t have access off of
TH 7, do we want to have approval of that shopping center?
Dacy: Right. I 'm not disputing those comments. If you feel strongly
about that , then you have the option to make that a condition of approval
but the statements regarding not meeting the standards of the ordinance,
I just wanted to make sure that you ' re aware of all that .
Emmings : Well , do you? How do you feel about the general issuing
standard , let ' s say 8 or 10? That it will be aesthetically compatible
with the area.
Dacy: They have exceeded our standards for construction. It ' s located at
a maximum distance away from the neighborhood.
Olsen : . . .with the new style of the brick.
Emmings : I agree with that. If we' re going to put a gas station out
there, that ' s the spot to put it . I agree with that and I have said , they
seem to be willing to work. If they' ll curtail their hours of operation
and when the trucks come, I could probably be sold on voting for this . My
problem is , without the access issue. . .
Erhart: The history is certainly a matter in this thing but looking at
where we are today and that we 've zoned this as a business district and
knowing quite frankly that SuperAmerica is willing to go in here
considering the questionable access , which I do think we ought to spend
more time at , I think we ought to be happy that they' re going to take that
outlot. That particular lot so you don ' t get a gas station on the lot to
the west because then you are going to have problems . I think what the
real thing you can do is make sure what goes into the other outlot is
compatible with the homes . That ' s it . I think you ought to look for a
restaurant and be happy you ' re getting SuperAmerica as opposed to, I won' t
mention any other names . That ' s the only comment I ' ve got .
Conrad: I don' t know what I had envisioned for that lot. I probably
wasn ' t thinking gas station at the time. I think if any operator is going
to go in, I 'd prefer to have a SuperAmerica than anybody else but I will
echo some of the comments on overall traffic patterns . That it just looks
real bad. We are looking at one parcel but as a part of the overall area
and it just makes me real nervous . Part of that is due , I think, City
Council has made some recommendations that may not be the same as what we
would have liked to see in terms of access and at least in terms of what I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 52
C
would like to see . I 'm probably playing with some old memories of things
that I envisioned differently with that parcel versus what I 'm seeing the
area turn out to be but overall I 'm still nervous with the traffic flow in
that area . It ' s not the site as much as it is , it' s not this particular
site tonight, it' s the overall site. It' s going to be tough for me, I
guess I don' t have as many problems with SuperAmerica going in there
because I 'd rather have a fine operator in there than somebody who' s not
so fine but I go back and I have to relate to what Steve has said. What
if the shopping center doesn' t go in and I don' t know if that' s
necessarily logic that we can use in making our recommendation here
tonight but it would bother me if the shopping center didn' t go in. You
had a comment?
Roger Zahn : I should just clarify this TH 7 access . MnDot had approved
that right-in only about a half a dozen times verbally at meetings and a
couple of times in writing . It wasn ' t until last Thursday when we got a
call from Larry saying that gee, now they may be questioning that issue.
That there might not be access off of TH 7 . It came up and obviously we
were a little surprised after having it approved so many times. We have a
meeting with MnDot on Friday. The result of that meeting is that I expect
the approval will be granted.
Conrad : But you don' t know.
Roger Zahn : I can ' t say before right now so obviously from my standpoint
I 'd have to do some rethinking if the access wasn' t granted. . . I can' t
speak for them. It certainly would add some issues that were addressed in
_he meek i.ng and w i-tom-some studies from o u r co n s u rts-n is that-bra a t yd-o n' I
think it would be a problem so the idea of making it conditional upon
approval of the TH 7 access doesn' t bother me at all . I would prefer it .
Emmings : Did they at least tell you when they would make a decision?
Roger Zahn: I hope to hear something by the end of the week informal but
I ' ve heard informal before.
Conrad : I don ' t want to delay this . It' s getting late tonight . I think
I ' ve heard SuperAmerica say things that I 'd like to hear. I probably
would want to put them into words or paper but the limiting of the truck
traffic and the diesel fuel , although that may be minor , it still may be
something that I 'm concerned with. I 'm concerned with the hours of
operation fitting in. I think that was , the concept of business
neighborhood is just that . It fits in. Other business neighborhoods that
I know of, it fits into the community and I will hold you to those types
of concepts . It fits into the community. We' re not fitting into TH 7 .
We ' re not fitting into the shopping center across the way. We' re fitting
into Chanhassen and the community that' s right there. I want that to be
done. I think the aesthetics of the building is a nice start but on the
other hand, there are some other things that I want to fit in and hours of
operation might just be one of those things . I 'm still concerned with
disaster. I heard some good things from SuperAmerica tonight and I
guess I need those things in writing . I need to know that our drainage
problems are solved even in a disaster situation. I want to know what
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 53
they are. I think that' s the biggest issue. I 'm not going to deal with
concepts and Larry probably, you folks have worked with it so much more.
When we look at it, we spend a half an hour looking at papers and we don' t
get into it that deeply but I want to know that we' re covered generally in
terms of run-off and I think we are. I think the skimming devices sound
great but I also need to know that disasters are taken care of too. I
heard those nice words tonight but I just wouldn' t feel good about having
a disaster on that site and not having us be able to handle it or have the
storm water system take it right to Minnewashta . I won' t deal with that
particular problem. I ' ve got to know we' ve resolved it and maybe they are
but I 'm not comfortable that they are right now. I guess the traffic and
the circulation of the site remains to be the biggest issue for me. Not
only the SuperAmerica site but the overall site . I guess this adds to
some of these other comments that Dave brought up. Should revise and
should revise . I think the revisions are pretty small and I 'm not holding
SuperAmerica or anybody responsible. I think it' s just a matter of staff
reviewing them and making those comments . I guess some of those things
I 'd like to have, when it gets to City Council , they should be taken care
of and there shouldn' t be that many revisions that have to come . I 'd like
to see those back here personally and I guess my idea tonight would be to
table this until we can get a better handle on some of the items. Maybe
until we get a better handle on the TH 7 item and that may be very simple.
You may just come back and say it ' s approved . I guess I have a tough
time, I 'm approaching it from an entirely different standpoint tonight
without the TH 7 access . I 'm just really caught up in overall site
traffic. It bothers me that I see some little lines on there that Larry' s
telling us that may be an access in there and maybe not through
grandfathering or whatever. I don' t know what that means but that bothers
me . It bothers me that we may have only one access to the overall
location and I don ' t feel good giving this site the go ahead when I don ' t
know that the whole location has two sites so my preference is to table
the item. I 'm sorry for the neighbors , maybe we do that tonight , maybe we
don ' t but we bring you in here every 2 weeks and take you through the
exercise but unfortunately when you' re in an area that has land in it,
that' s wanted , the good news is they' re a great operation. The bad news
is, they' re a great operation that wants to be in your neck of the woods .
I guess the only other comment I have, the only other thing that affects
me is this 800 car count. I thought SuperAmerica would pull in more cars
than that. I really did and 800 really seemed , I can almost accept 800 as
not being a major change in intensity because a restaurant might generate
400 or 500 . A gas station I thought would pull in a lot more and
especially the pulling power of SuperAmerica. They' re like putting a Cub
in a location where you can pull from 17 miles around versus a couple. So
anyway, for those reasons I prefer to have it tabled and maybe have it
back here when we have a little bit more clarification on TH 7 .
Headla: How do you people feel about berms between the highway and there?
Is that less secure or more secure for you?
Roman Mueller : We have berms in many, many of our locations put into our
site plans by conditional use requirements such as what you ' re . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 54
C
Headla : Okay, so that doesn' t bother you as far as property or anything
goes?
Roman Mueller : That doesn ' t bother us . Either does conditions for no
outside displays or sales, that was requested.
Headla : I thought that was a good point that Steve made.
Roman Mueller: It ' s not a concern.
Randy Peterson: All I was going to say was , what I 'd like to come away
with tonight is if at all possible is to be able to work out these
concerns of yours with staff and get your , if possible, your
recommendations to go to Council with because we are on some little bit of
a timeframe here. I 'd like to go that way rather than to table it because
we ' re scheduled also, and we can work out those conditions with staff .
Conrad : I know you can. I guess I ' ll leave that up to whoever makes the
motion tonight. We do that occasionally when we want to get rid of an
item. We' ll get it out of our court and we' ll kick it up to City Council .
If we don' t want to see it and we want to let the neighbors have their say
with the City Council folks , we will do that .
Gene Conner : There' s a lot of other concerns being expressed , may I
express one?
Conrad: Sure .
Gene Conner : The subject of conditional use permits came up and it seems
to me I heard Barb' s comments imply that gee, anybody who comes in with a
request for a conditional use permit, if it' s a nice plan, it really ought
to be accepted .
Conrad : I don ' t think that ' s the case . What we try to do on conditional
uses is detail what those conditions are. The City' s getting much better
at that . In the past we'd say it requires a conditional use permit but we
didn' t have any conditions so they'd come in and say gee, now we get to
look at it but there are no conditions so we might as well grant it but
we' re quite a ways away from that in this day and age, at least in
Chanhassen and the staff has gone through it, looked at the conditions .
Made their recommendations to us . We have a disagreement between staff
and Planning Commission on interpretation. Is the noise significantly
increased? Traffic increased versus what the staff perceived to be
permitted under a conditional use so I think there' s some differences of
opinion but the conditions are still there. Staff does not normally go
through, staff turns down many things because of conditions .
Gene Conner: I think I can assure you that this doesn' t fit our idea of a
conditional use that should be permitted .
Dacy: My comment was that this is why it' s a conditional use. It' s a
public hearing process with specific standards . The applicant has the
burden of proof to prove whether or not he meets those 10 standards.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 55
You' re saying that they' re not meeting those standards . That ' s fine . The
Commission then has to decide whether or not the information they
submitted about traffic and the lighting and aesthetic quality and noise
and no diesel fuel , if that satisfies those concerns .
Bob Wagner : It ' s just amazing that we' re even sitting here talking about
a gas station after the discussions that I ' ve heard the same group talk
about those . I just can' t believe it .
Allen Putnam: You 've expressed a concern about the 800 cars and using the
numbers that you gave me where you indicated from 11: 00 to 7 : 00 you have
about 175 cars. That' s from 11: 00 to 12: 00 you said 50 of them. . . With
those hours being the low hours , if you take the 50 cars per hour and take
the other 16 hours in the day, that adds up to 800 and then you put the
175 on top of that from 11 : 00 to 7 : 00, it' s already 975.
Bud Kelp: No, that' s including that. Subtract the 175.
Allen Putnam: I understand that but I 'm thinking the 50 cars per hour you
said you had between 11 : 00 and midnight. If you averaged that for your
daytime hours , which you indicated were busier hours , just the other 16
hours , excluding those 8 hours you have us, would be 800 cars. 50 by 16
hours is 800 plus 175 .
Bud Kelp: 24 hours time the 800 , you' re looking at 33 cars per hour .
Conrad: I think I want to do something here before we all go to sleep. A
gas station like maybe the Tom Thumb in their business neighborhood on
TH 101 is a low intensive gas station use. I think here we do , in my
mind , we have a little bit different intensity and it has been zoned
business neighborhood. It' s a real matter of perspective in terms of
intensity. They may get , in that particular location , they may get 4 or 5
cars for gas in an hour and that' s a whole lot different than 30 or 50 or
150 . Anyway, my recommendation was to table it for a little bit more
information and review it again and bring the folks back but I ' ll open it
up for any recommendation that somebody would like to make.
Emmings: Just as a quick comment, I think that Dave' s point is very well
taken . We shouldn' t get these with, this will provide you with an
opportunity, instead of having 17 conditions on here, it should come back
with 3 or 4. The rest of this should all be incorporated in the plan. I
think these are real hard to work on when they' re this long. Tim,
actually brought it to my attention. When we first opened this up he
said, what is this .
Dacy: A lot of these are standard conditions .
Emmings : I understand that but I think a lot of the stuff could be taken
care of even before it comes here and should be taken care of before it
goes to Council .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 56
Headla moved , Emmings seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit Request
#88-10 and Site Plan Review #88-10. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
Ellson : Are we saying until we know about TH 7 or are we tabling it
indefinitely or having a reason to come back?
Wildermuth : Do you want to put some conditions on the tabling?
Conrad: I think we can give staff direction in terms of what we'd like to
see them bring back. I think the items deserves attention and hopefully
can be back here in two weeks so we don' t destroy a time table. I 'd sure
like to see the neighborhood back here again but I think if we can give
staff some direction after this so maybe we can make the motion and then
tell them what we'd like to see . I think basically, traffic to the
overall site is a major deal . I think the pollution control or the
disaster issue for me is a concern that I 'd like you to work with
SuperAmerica on so we know how it would be handled and we would know if
it' s going to get into the Minnewashta system or not. Hours of operation
is probably a concern that we all have and whether or not that' s something
that could be worked in the staff report. Steve, you' re concerned with
the. . .
Emmings : Hours the trucks come to deliver and outside display of
1. merchandise for sale.
Wildermuth : Also no diesel fuel .
Conrad : And possibility maybe working with the SuperAmerica folks to
resolve any of the conditions . If they have to stay out there, that' s
fine. I don ' t think you need to do extra work to try and bundle them in
and make them do that additional work but if they can incorporate them in
their plans and the documents they' ve given us , it would be good to have
that so when it goes to City Council , Council can see everything in a
nice, neat package . Anything else?
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-904 AND SECTION 20-615
6 (B) , ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Conrad : I don ' t believe that staff has to give a report on that . It is a
public hearing .
Wildermuth moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Erhart : Page 3, item 5 , the way I read this now, it says detached garages
in all agricultural and residential districts. Clarify for me, are we
differentiating between detached garages and storage buildings?
Dacy: We wanted to make sure that a detached garage was . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 57
Emmings : But the storage building might be one of those purchased ones .
Erhart: I guess what I was trying to get to and Dave and I agreed on this
one is that on lots of, I guess we settled on 5 but anything of lots less
than 5, no one could build a building over 1, 000 square feet and it had to
be architecturally consistent with the house . Somehow that' s not the way
that reads to me. To change it to read that would be, say detached
buildings and storage buildings on lot sizes of 5 acres or less in
agricultural and residential districts must be architecturally. The 5
acres is gone completely.
Ellson : The little Sears storage building , you could put in those.
Erhart: On lots of 5 acres or less .
Wildermuth : I don ' t think you can do that can you? Do we want to do it?
Dacy: This is one that we discussed around and around and basically you
proposed it as this way.
Erhart : Well , if that' s what we agreed , that ' s fine . Is that what you
understood Dave?
Headla : I 'm not sure when this was here what I understood which one .
Erhart: The way it' s going here now is that on lots of 5 acres or less ,
they can go buy a Sears or a Mennards building of any size and put it on
that lot.
Headla : On 5 acres or less? You can put up a pole barn?
Erhart: Yes. Really anything .
Headla : Those little Sears buildings , there ' s nothing wrong with them.
Erhart: No, but I 'm talking about it could be a 10, 000 square foot pole
barn and they could . . . It says can not exceed 1, 000 square feet in the
RSF and R-4 districts.
Wildermuth : I don' t see how you can enforce number 5. Architecturally
consistent, what does that mean?
Dacy: We discussed that issue also . We had the concern that the size of
an ag parcel and so on, that there were a number of folks out there that
want to have the hobby farms and so on that would want a larger sized . . .
Erhart: I agree. I thought anything over 5 acres I thought is what we
were talking about .
Dacy: But we were saying for lots less than 5 acres or if there would be
occurrences of that in the ag area that somebody may want to put up a
1, 500 square foot building . The Commission talked about that and said ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 58
let ' s not restrict the ag areas .
Erhart : Is that what we agreed? Is that what you guys want? That ' s
fine. I thought Dave and I made a good argument that on these lot sizes
or 2 1/2 and 5 acres that tend to be clustered and they tend to be
neighborhoods and people put real nice homes on it and consistent
architecture. I thought we successfully argued that in those
circumstances, that they should not be allowed to put these Mennard' s
buildings on there. 2, 000 or 5, 000 square foot and if they really wanted
to do that, they had to buy bigger than 5 acres .
Olsen : A lot of those subdivisions , like Lake Riley Woods , the size
acreage that you' re talking about, have covenants that restrict storage
buildings like that. I know that ' s out of our control .
Dacy: Tim, are you proposing that that would be still , that the parcels
underneath 5 acres in the A-2 zones would also have the maximum of 1, 000
square feet?
Erhart : I thought that' s what we agreed but it' s been so long . More
concerning than the way it ' s written right now is that you say detached
garages for all agricultural . That means you could have 100 acres and you
would have to have your garage architecturally, unless you' re
differentiating between a detached garage and a storage building .
Dacy: Yes , we are. That' s why we made that clarification .
Erhart : I think you' re probably right . It ' s not worth battling over
anymore.
Dacy: If you ' re going to amend it, number 3 would be where you would .
Conrad: Tim, you lead us on this one. I 'm sorry. I 'm sort of burned out
and I can ' t help you much.
Dacy: We' ve got a stacked agenda in two weeks on the 17th . If you want
to table it . . .
Conrad : No , I don' t want to table it.
Erhart: It' s not that important .
Conrad : Are you comfortable with the way this is?
Wildermuth: Yes, as long as you don' t get into storage buildings. On my
4 acre lot I want to be able to put up a building to store antique cars .
You' re going to tell me that it has to be architecturally consistent with
my house , I 'm going to tell you hey, take a hike. But , I think your point
is that you' re talking about garages here right? Detached garages .
Erhart : Maybe Barb ' s right . Maybe the best way to handle that problem is
to have restrictive covenants in the development. If the developers say
these are going to be architecturally consistent , maybe that ' s the best
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3, 1988 - Page 59
way it ' s handled. I 'm willing to believe. . .
Wildermuth : I think it' s going to be tough to enforce .
Conrad: Tim, do you want to change some words here?
Erhart: No , I think it' s fine. I think it ' s fine other than item (c) ,
that 3 acres . You' re satisfied Barb, that ' s what we understood? If you
had anything greater than 3 acres you can build a shed on it first . Do we
all understand that?
Dacy: No .
Erhart : Isn ' t that what it says?
Dacy: In any residential district or agricultural district , parcels with
less than 3 acres . In the ag district.
Erhart : That means to me that anything more than 3 acres you can build a
shed on before you build a house.
Dacy: If the shed or building is storing agricultural equipment or
anything that could be directly related to the principle use of the
property as ag, than it would be permitted as a permitted use .
Erhart: Then the question is , is it 3 acres or should you remove
residential district?
Dacy: We want to keep it the residential district part in there because
you don ' t want somebody building accessory building and somebody might
have a lot prior to the . . .
Emmings : If you take out the clause that says , or agricultural district
parcels with less than 3 acres and just read around that clause it makes
perfectly good sense from that .
Erhart : Yes , just take out the phrase , or agricultural district .
Emmings : No, I 'm not saying that. I say leave residential district in
because it makes sense for residential . I don' t understand the
agricultural with less than 3 acres .
Wildermuth : Why would you say 3 rather than 5?
Dacy: It was reduced to 3 because there may be parcels that are 5 acres
or 4 acres that are in ag.
Erhart: It' s fine.
Erhart moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the following amendments to Sections 20-904 and 20-615 (6b)
and an addition to the definition of the City Code as presented by Staff .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 3 , 1988 - Page 60
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 20, 1988 as
presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Headla moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjounred at 11 : 35 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
UftIED!TflJ
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 9, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Jim Mady, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, and Larry
Schroers
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson and Ed Hasek
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Robinson moved, Lynch seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 26, 1988
as amended . All voted in favor except Boyt who abstained and the motion
carried.
REQUEST TO PURCHASE AND DEVELOP PARKLAND IN THE PHEASANT HILLS SUBDIVISION
AREA.
Sietsema: We recently received petitions from the residents of Pheasant
Hills area to provide parkland in the area. They had three requests .
That parkland be provided in the area . That the outlots that are there be
improved as parkland and the undeveloped lots be cleaned up. I did
forward the third petition to Scott Harr to take care of that one so that
leaves us with looking at the first two petitions . We were just out at
the site to see what the three outlots were like. Basically they' re wet.
They have water standing on them and they have a lot of topography. What
I would suggest is we ask the residents in the area that are here what
kind of parkland, what kind of facilities they' re looking for and start
off that way.
Mady: We just toured your subdivision and looked at the three outlots .
It was the general consensus of all of us that given the steep grades
existing , the standing water , the City' s ordinance against using wetlands
in any way, shape or form, we just can ' t see a way of making them into an
active playground type of arrangement. They are fantastic wetlands and
natural areas waiting to be preserved so what we' re looking for is some
ideas from the residents . What your thoughts are on developing possibly
an active play area because it is a park deficient area. The nearest
parkland to you, to my knowledge, is the Curry Farms park that is being
developed as a part of the Centex Homes development off of CR 17 and Lake
Lucy Road . That ' s i.t. The best you can get there, it looks like it ' s at
least three-quarters of a mile away so we ' re looking for some ideas .
Tom Klingelhutz, Tiqua Circle: I 'm the developer of Pheasant Hills . I 'd
like the record to show that I did not receive a letter or notification of
this meeting either by written letter or verbally. I wonder why. I think
I 'm the most involved in this thing . Why wasn ' t I sent a letter on it?
Sietsema: I'm sorry, I did not perceive this as your responsibility.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 2
Tom Klingelhutz: Then contrary to the wordage in the letter that was sent
to some of the residents in Pheasant Hills, the Park Commission did, in
1984 on January 19th , review this plan. You were at that meeting, right?
Sietsema: No.
Tom Klingelhutz: They did review this and I have the Minutes here. I ' ll
give you that as Exhibit 1 and here' s the outline of the Minutes. They
decided they would sooner have the money than the land at that point. Now
I 'd be more than willing to give them land at that point. Now I can' t
give you land . It' s platted . You can buy it from me but it' s costly.
Sewer and water is all in. The streets are in. There' s nothing I can do
but at that point, at that time and you were here, they were land rich and
dollar poor, right? You probably still are. So it was determined that we
would pay at that time $415. 00 a permit. I have Exhibit 2 which is some
more of the recommendations from the City. On outlots, we have been
trying for a year to give these outlots to the City. The County Assessor
had put a valuation ridiculous on them and taxed us for them. One of them
is at $32, 000. 00. There was no sense in us paying that. We had to go
through all the motions of getting abatement from the County which took a
long time. We finally have it. The City has the warranty deed laying up
here someplace.
Sietsema: It ' s not recorded though.
Tom Klingelhutz : But they' re not recorded . We know that. We checked at
the courthouse. The warranty deeds are up here someplace. If they can
find them, I don ' t know. If they can ' t, we ' ll find another one. We have
a letter from Barb Dacy dated May 11th. The city maintained outlot D as a
skating rink last year . They scrapped the snow. They flooded it which
was fine. My insurance company found out about it and I had to put a 3
million dollar liability insurance policy on it. It cost me over
$2,000. 00 so don ' t think I want to get rid of it. I don' t want it.
Outlot C, there' s something in your minutes here about the size of a
totlot. Bob Waibel said I understand. . . is 2, 000 square foot was
sufficient for a totlot. Outlot 2, I could get at least 3 walkout lots in
here. All the way over to here before you even get to the wetlands.
There' s a lot of flat land up here. I wish I would have known that you
guys were going over here, I 'd come over and showed you the lines of the
property lines. Again, I should have been notified. I know exactly where
they are. Recently I mowed the lots because I seeded them last fall and
we haven't had much rain this year . I 'm trying to get that grass that ' s
planted in there to grow. Now I have contracted a guy to mow it but he
hasn't mowed them yet. I have restrictive covenants in here, many of
these people that signed this petition, and I see the petition , have
violated the restrictive covenants in my area. They are also going to be
getting letters . One from me and the City so this thing works both ways .
Grass clippings , brush, old dead trees, all these things thrown on my
property, I don' t appreciate that . It ain ' t just the developer that ' s
having problems. The City, the developer has plenty of problems with
people. That ' s you. There is no problem, only people . I ' ve lived in
this town all my life. I built here for over 30 years. It used to be fun
to build here .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 3
Mady: Is Outlot C, is that here?
Tom Klingelhutz: There ' s a house being built right here and the property
is right here. . . There' s quite a large area that' s planted.
Boyt : Do you know how many feet it is from the road to the marsh there?
Tom Klingelhutz: Right here at this point, over by the lamp post, it' s
131 feet to the back corner and the marsh starts at approximately in there
but there' s a slope at about 110, 112, 115 feet back and the slope goes
down. I had to fill part of that with the idea that possibly it would be
an area that could be used .
Boyt : Is that pretty consistent around the curve, about 100 feet before?
Tom Klingelhutz: It comes over to a point about where the. . .and then it
drops pretty fast .
Boyt: So this is the area?
Tom Klingelhutz : Well over 10, 000 feet.
Boyt: We' re not making you use it. . .
Tom Klingelhutz: Well , from the restrictions I 've got . I 've done
everything you asked for right down the line. I have for 30 years .
That ' s what I 've been developing in town, for over 30 years. I ' ve done
everything according to what the City has asked .
Boyt: We don ' t find you at fault for anything here . We ' re just looking
at a way to get some parkland for the people who live in this area . It' s
not your fault that Park and Rec didn' t ask for land 4 years ago . That' s
no reflection on you.
Tom Klingelhutz : This just kind of excited me you know because I didn' t
know about it. I hear about it from some of my friends and some of my
other friends are sneaking around trying to stab me in the back you know
and it' s kind of a sneaky way of doing things .
Lynch : I have a couple of questions for you Tom. On that small outlot A
on the 4th Addition.
Tom Klingelhutz: Yes , that drops off. That ' s a street right-of-way for
future access to this property. I didn' t make a street but I left a 50
foot right-of-way in there for either possible or road right-of-way out to
Lake Lucy Road or . . .
Lynch : Frankly I don' t care . . .but as compared to this here.
Tom Klingelhutz: The wetlands are. . .and I think this, there' s really no
water in this lot . There' s a lot of water in back of houses here but
that' s about. . .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 4
Mady: It' s 80 feet from that garden on that outlot .
Boyt: Could I ask again how much, approximately how many square feet
there is along this area?
Tom Klingelhutz : In this area probably, I don ' t have the footage here,
160 feet from that point. . . It would be 412 feet all the way along to
this point so 412, we ' re talking about 139 up to this point . . .
Mady: Would anybody like to make a comment now? The Commission
recognizes the need for a playground, an active area . By looking at the
topo, it looks like we can probably make maybe a totlot, maybe a play area
there. I 'm not sure how much else we can do at this point in time. We'd
like to hear at least some of you.
Tom Steinkamp, 1771 Pheasant Circle: First of all I 'd like to say Tom, we
don' t have a problem with you. We realize that it isn't your problem.
That you went by what the City wanted at the time the land was platted .
There' s been some conversation with you. You talked about this portion of
Outlot C that would be available as a totlot . Personally, I don ' t know. I
have some pluses and minuses about that but I can understand that . Some
of the people in Pheasant Hills went to the City and asked them what' s
going on because it' s been our understanding that those outlots have been
turned over to the City. I think you told me that. You told some of the
people in the neighborhood that . I think that process has tried to happen
but maybe there' s been something wrong with it. I think a lot of people
at the City think they own it because that ' s why they agreed to flood and
maintain the ice rink. Had the guys at the Park and Rec Department known
that it wasn ' t their property, I don' t think they would have done that so
I think there' s some confusion here at the City, it' s safe to say. Our
problem is that, I think everybody here agrees that Pheasant Hills is
parkland deficient and we went to the City and said, what do we got to do
about developing some of this land into parkland or getting it up to
parkland standards now that the City owns it. We were told that the first
thing you' ve got to do is get a petition going to get some action rolling.
I didn' t think that it really needed to be any of your business and I
don ' t think anybody else here thought it either to be your business
because I don' t think you have to do anything about it. You've done your
share. We don ' t have any problems with Tom Klingelhutz or the development
itself. I think there were some things done wrong on the City' s behalf.
Back in maybe 1984 , some of you should have said well , no those lots can ' t
be considered parkland because at one time those lots were talked about
being parkland . It says that in the letter that we got but that decision
was made in 1984 and now it' s 1988 and now we've got to live with it so
what can we do about it. Personally I don ' t really like the idea of that
as a parkland. It' s pretty close to water. You know what kids and water
do and I don ' t know what liability that puts the City in if there ' s a park
within rock throwing distance of water. I think the City ought to buy
some lots from Tom and put a new park in . That ' s what I think ought to
happen. I don' t think it's Tom' s problem. I think it' s the City' s
problem.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 5
Boyt : Can I just say that a lot of our parks are on water . Lake Ann .
Lake Susan. Lotus Lake.
Tom Steinkamp: You staff a lifeguard though don' t you? But there' s a lot
more property and how many square feet we' re talking about. This is a
pretty small area . Although I think it could be graded to make it larger
and not ruin much or any of the wetland. There' s some area there where it
drops off before it gets to actual wetland so it probably could be made
even bigger than if you went out there right now and looked at it. It
probably could be made a little bit bigger . As citizens of Pheasant
Hills, we want the 3.6 acres that you said in the letter and I think we
all should realize that that ' s probably unrealistic too but I think we
should meet at some compromise between the two.
Boyt : Is your neighborhood a neighborhood of very little children or
older kids?
Tom Steinkamp: Very young.
Boyt: Are you interested in totlots?
Tom Steinkamp: Of the people that signed the petition , there ' s about 60
kids represented there. There' s probably another 10 homes that didn' t
have the opportunity to sign the petition that had kids . There' s probably
70 to 75 kids in the neighborhood. I would bet you all but 15 of them are
under 10. Is that safe to say? They are all zero through 8-9 years old .
Personally I don' t need full sized ballfields and tennis courts . I want
someplace to get the kids out of the street but some of the other people
have to make their feelings known too. I hope you' re not mad at the
people in Pheasant Hills Tom because that wasn ' t the intent at all . If we
had a problem with you, we would have come to you. We didn' t have a
problem with Tom Klingelhutz. We want the City to do something and we
realize that it isn' t really Tom' s fault at this point. Maybe it never
was Tom' s fault. He did what he had to do for the City back in 1984 and
now we want to do what we have to do with the City in 1988 .
Mady: Tom, let me ask you a question . What' s the cost of a lot?
Tom Klingelhutz: Somewhere around $34 , 000. 00 to $35, 000. 00 now. Average.
Boyt : Is that a third of an acre?
Tom Klingelhutz: They vary in size from 14, 000 square feet on up to
I think the biggest one in there is 22, 000 square foot. Maybe there are
some smaller than 14 , 000. I don ' t remember the sizes exactly. I know I
had some smaller ones. The 4th Addition basically has an average of
probably better than 15, 000 square feet on each of the 22 lots that are in
the 4th Addition . Some of the lots in the 2nd Addition were smaller
because of the road situation at the time. Lake Lucy Road was in there
and we made them smaller along there based on the fact that probably that
road would be there forever and you wouldn' t be able to build as nice a
house on it. It ends up Lake Lucy Road has nice houses on smaller lots
but it works out fine.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 6
Tom Steinkamp: I 'd like you to clear up a question I have. How does the
Park and Rec determine whether a developer like Tom Klingelhutz has to put
land aside for parkland or not or like this money deal that happened? How
does that work?
Lynch : There ' s a standard formulation that we look at plus the property
itself. Now oftentimes a piece of property is too small . 5 or 6 or 7
lots . It ' s not on the plan there. In other cases , if Tom really did his
home marketing, he had the meeting which I sat in on back in 1984, it
would be worth reading in the Minutes . The City Manager noted that staff
had discussed park meeting dates with Mr. Klingelhutz. This area is
designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a park deficient area , even then
on our 5 year plan it was and it has continued to be. However, Mr .
Klingelhutz ' property has severe terrain differentials. It may be
feasible to secure enough land for a totlot activities however finding
sufficient land area for ballfields, skating rinks , etc . does not appear
possible. Active sports areas are located at Minnetonka Jr. High. Now,
the thing that I wanted to point out , we' re really dealing with two issues
here. You' re immediate needs obviously would be served well with a totlot
and there ' s probably a place there somewhere that we can squeeze a totlot
in. A totlot is just not that large. The second question was answered
somewhere, in the subsequent . . .was a letter from Bob Waibel , City Planner ,
about the same piece of property at that time. He said the recreation
element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the majority of the
property is in a park deficient area and states that as development
occurs , the City will try to obtain a 5 to 10 acre parcel for future
neighborhood park. We' re still striving to do that. Unfortunately, the
property, as it' s developed up there, it has almost been a house by house
operation other than Pheasant Hills and the Curry Farms development which
we were able to get an actual park in Curry Farms but there hasn' t been
enough large. . . in that area .
Tom Steinkamp: That has less of a terrain differential than Pheasant
Hills?
Lynch : Well , yes because they made it so . The developer said I will do
this for you. I will grade this and there are always some trade-offs .
There are always some property in every development which is
undevelopable. The developer would always like to give that to the City.
The City doesn ' t always want to take it . There was , I 'm sure Tom
remembers this, before around 1984 the philosophy of the park board was to
set aside nature areas and since then it ' s become let ' s have active play
facilities for the folks youth so it was about that time when we were
trying to change our focus and say we need a flat area that we can put a
ballfield and a tennis court and skating rink and a picnic area . I never
realized what a development costs of just bulldozing a few hills flat was
until I got on this board and found out and looked at bids. It' s
inconceivable at this time in the City development that we could take a 5
to 10 acre lot that was hilly and out of the City pocket, bulldoze it to
accomodate an active park because you' re talking a couple hundred of
thousand dollars in earth moving .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 7
Tom Steinkamp: You' re spending a couple hundred thousand dollars here and
a couple hundred thousand dollars there, why don' t you spend it in our
neighborhood .
Boyt: We' re not.
Tom Steinkamp: The City is . Somebody is . There' s construction going on
all over around here.
Mady: . . .that ' s not available to us .
Tom Steinkamp: So at that time it was decided that let' s take the money
instead of the land .
Lynch : Right . The land not being suitable , we felt. . .
Tom Steinkamp: Now does that money go into the general park fund or does
that go into a fund specifically for Pheasant Hills?
Mady: It' s a capital improvement fund for the entire City.
Sietsema: But it has to be spent in your area . The money that we collect
from your area has to be spent in your area .
Boyt : How many homes are in the development? About 90?
Tom Klingelhutz : The original plat was around 89 I think and I think we
have 26 lots left . Something like that . The original fee was $415. 00.
Not it' s $425 . 00 so half I would say, it doesn ' t amount to much.
Lynch : Anyway, my point is that we' d like to do something . I think we
can do something on a totlot. We don' t have any idea where a 5 to 10 acre
park is going to go in that area . Now, we didn ' t in 1984 because of the
development pattern. We don' t now.
Tom Steinkamp: Who owns the property, maybe Tom can answer this , south of
the last house?
Tom Klingelhutz : Carrico .
Tom Steinkamp: Wasn' t that property for sale.
Tom Klingelhutz : I believe he was trying to sell it. He tried to sell
it to me once.
Tom Steinkamp: Didn' t he try to sell it to you but that ' s outside of the
sewered deal?
Boyt : Do you know what he' s asking for it?
Tom Klingelhutz : If it' s unsewered , I won' t build on it.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 8
Tom Steinkamp: And it can' t be worth that much because the only way he
can sell it is in 2 1/2 acre increments, is that correct?
Tom Klingelhutz: Now it ' s 10 acres .
Tom Steinkamp: If it' s for sale, obviously he doesn' t want to hold it.
Mady: Every developer always has their land for sale for a price.
Tom Steinkamp: Maybe I would suggest that you people look into that.
It' s a flat piece of property.
Mady: You have to realize that our budget doesn' t allow us to do much.
We are attempting to develop a large parcel for a community park in the
southern area . We had to go to a referendum to get $300, 000. 00 to do
that. The City is very limited in referendum abilities.
Tom Steinkamp: What' s the population density where you' re putting that
park?
Mady: That ' s a community park, not a neighborhood park. It' s a very
different concept.
Sietsema : I think that' s a good suggestion and we can definitely look
into that. I certainly wouldn' t throw that alternative out the window.
Tom Steinkamp: In the meantime , I think myself and I think some of these
other people have to get up and say what they feel too but myself, I would
be happy with a totlot . . .but I think in the future I 'd like to see
something larger than a totlot in that area of Chanhassen because the
closest thing I know of in size is Chaparral . I don ' t know what Curry
Farms.
Mady: Curry Farms is a 5 acre in that area that will have, probably when
it ' s developed it will have a ballfield, basketball court, skating rinks ,
totlot equipment. The way the Park Commission always has tried to work is
to provide active park area through development. Have it deeded through
the development process rather than to go out and buy i.t because we
certainly don' t have the budget to buy it. Your development looks like
it' s generating about $25,000. 00 so far . That will probably develop into
between $35,000.00 to $40, 000.00 when it' s all said and done. That would
not buy us a whole lot of land and development costs are astronomical .
We' ll try to work the best we can to find some kind of solution. Staff
will investigate the Carrico property to see what is available there and
we will pursue the Outlot C option. Once we have some information on all
this , we' ll bring it back on the agenda and that ' s when we' ll be
contacting you again concerning that. Is there any other comments ,
suggestions , ideas from the homeowners?
Pat Johnson: I 'm not in the Pheasant Hills area. I 'm in the Lake Lucy
Highlands area but we have the same problem. Although I understand
because our lots are larger lots that maybe they don' t come under the same
requisites for parkland as the Pheasant Hills area does . Maybe they do, I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 9
don ' t know but we' re just south on this map of Pheasant Hills just across
Lake Lucy Lane and we have, as far as I know, no parks or no parks
scheduled for development in Lake Lucy Highlands which is an area of
slightly a bit larger lots. I guess they are 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acres so
although I do know that there are lots available, I 'm not real wild about
having a park in front of my house but there is a lot at the corner of
Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane that' s relatively flat . About 2 1/2
acres. It' s technically in Lake Lucy Highlands. This gentleman, did you
develop Lake Lucy Highlands?
Tom Klingelhutz: No.
Pat Johnson: On the corner there and it' s relatively flat and it slopes
upwards. I don't think you have to do a whole lot of grading. Personally
my feeling is , I have two young children too and I 'd like to see a totlot
in the area but more importantly I 'd like to see some ballfields and a
football field . Coming from the City of Minneapolis where I lived
originally, I prefer the City' s idea of where they would develop the park,
maybe not for a ballfield or some swings , every 2 to 3 blocks whereas
here, I think in the suburbs, the idea has always been in the past let' s
develop these massive, huge parks , regional parks almost at the expense of
the neighborhoods and the neighborhoods I believe are the ones , the
neighborhood parks are the most important. It gets the kids hanging out
with sort of a common need. Maybe you could kill two birds with one stone
and develop a park for both Lake Lucy Highlands , which in area has got to
be the size of Pheasant Hills, although not as developed and also for the
Pheasant Hills people. The suggestion I have , I know the lot is available
for sale as I understand it from the neighbor who knows the fella who owns
it so that might be an option . I don ' t know what the price would be. I
think originally he paid about $28 , 000. 00, maybe $30,000. 00 for the lot.
Mady: We will look at that . Our standard for an active playfield is 5
acre minimum. We can probably fit a small softball field on there. It ' s
darn tough.
Pat Johnson : I think the comments about the water on the outlot , they are
important too because as parents , we' re kind of concerned particularly
when you' ve got a little pond or a swamp or something and you have a steep
grade, there' s some concerns about kids falling down a hill into that and
playing in that . Especially when you' ve got murky water , what have you.
The totlot situation and water , I agree don' t go together. I don' t know
if that particular lot has water or not. I agree we need something there.
Mady: Just about all of our, a lot of property anyway is adjacent to
either a natural area or a ponding area or a lake. Chaparral is and there
are methods to work with that without jeopardizing safety beyond an
acceptable level . We always do that . We make sure we' re developing a
park that' s safe. Are there any other comments? Otherwise, I think staff
has all your comments and ideas that have been brought forth and we will
review them some time in the future and if you signed up the sheet in the
back of the room, you will be notified as that comes available. I don ' t
believe we make another general mailing.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 10
Sietsema : I will mail to everybody who signed the petition again.
Mady: If you' re on the petition, and if you signed up in the back. . .
Sietsema : If you' re not on the petition , you should definitely sign it.
Mady: And check the paper because hopefully our agenda is published in
the paper everytime. Thank you for coming .
Resident: What kind of a time line are you looking at as far as
determining this outlot is appropriate? Whether it will be developed and
investigating other lots. What is your timeline for that?
Mady: I guess I don' t know. Staff ' s got a better idea . I can' t give you
a time line. We've got a lot of development going on right now. A lot of
heavy park items going on probably the next 6 months so I can' t give you a
good definition but we will look at it as quickly as we can.
Sietsema : There won' t be anything done , development this year because we
obviously haven' t put anything in the budget. We have a lot of projects
going on. I would say that we would look at this towards the winter and
be prepared to do something next spring .
Lynch : If there ' s something there that is easily developable as a totlot ,
what Lori is saying, we would not be able to put in this year. Our budget
is already put forward and approved . . . As regards to acquisition of land ,
you could realistically look at 2 to 3 years. If we found something next
week that we felt we could acquire and we felt we could afford and we
started the wheels rolling, you' re talking 2 or 3 years.
Tom Steinkamp: Can I ask that you get those outlots in your possession so
we can have a hockey rink this year?
Sietsema : We ' re working on it.
Tom Steinkamp: Number one and number two , is there any plans by the City
to do anything with any of those other outlots? Particularly Outlot B,
the one where the ice rink is I believe. The mailboxes are there and it ' s
6 inches of mud to get your mail .
Resident : Protecting a wetland is different . A wetland is . . .and stuff
but this is in the middle of the three additions. Something needs to be
done with that .
Mady: One, we can' t do anything until we have ownership. As to mow it,
you mean right down to the water? Down the hills?
Resident : I would like it all the way down.
Mady: All the way down to the water?
Resident : Yes . I don ' t know how everbody else feels about it .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 11
Mady: It' s hard to consider open spaces and I ' ll speak for myself , an
open natural area like that, I would never recommend cutting it. I would
guess if we have mailboxes on the outlot, that they' re probably going to
have to be removed. If that' s going to be city property, they' re going to
have to be moved . The only comment I 'd wanted to make and I know
it' s. . .is neighborhood trails. If we put a totlot or a park in your
development , how are we going to get those kids to that totlot? Are they
going to walk on the street or what?
Tom Steinkamp: That' s what they' re playing in now. You' ve got to cross
streets to get to it.
Resident : No matter where you put it , they' re going to have to go. . .
Boyt: Some people would prefer their kids on sidewalks and some would
prefer . . .
Resident : We want a totlot. . .
Tom Steinkamp: I don' t have a problem with my kids going , the
neighborhood isn' t that terribly busy of a neighborhood to have kids going
back and forth on the road . He' s quite right , they' re playing in the
streets now and that is my biggest concern about getting hit by cars in
the streets . My biggest concern is just get them off the streets and get
them to someplace that' s more natural for them to be playing in .
Resident : Long range and that ' s a valid question . If we develop a park
somewhere that right now there aren' t a lot of cars , what' s going to
happen several years down the road when those streets are used and those
kids have to get there? Are you still going to say the same thing or are
we then going to be coming to the Council and saying , we now decided we
want sidewalks?
Resident : My opinion would be, it' s safe to say that Pheasant Hills is
not going to get that busy. There' s only 25 more homes to put in there,
it won' t get more busy. . .
Mady: As the entire area develops , one of our ideas is we ' ll have to open
the street right-of-way in the Carrico property and if we put a park in, a
large active park in , we will put parking in with it. Although it ' s a
neighborhood park, it also has to be open to the general public . That ' s
how we tend to develop so I just want to make sure you understand . There
was one item here on what your thoughts are on trails. It doesn ' t sound
like you' re real excited about trails.
Tom Steinkamp: Do you have any kind of estimation as far as what totlots
cost?
Sietsema: $10,000. 00.
Tom Steinkamp: Will that come directly out of the fund?
Sietsema: Yes .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 12
Resident : See, now isn ' t that short sighted for us to take care of a
totlot today when we've got 60 kids that in a few years from now won' t be
satisfied with just a totlot. They' re going to want a field where they
can play ball .
Mady: $38 ,000. 00 probably won' t buy a field where you can play ball .
Resident: Just so we aren' t short sighted and put our funds. Maybe what
this other gentleman suggested , maybe we' re going to have to combine funds
and be satisfied with a centrally located area.
Tom Steinkamp: Did the people in Lake Lucy Highlands pay park dedication
fees when they bought permits?
Sietsema : Yes , they did .
Tom Steinkamp: Where is that fund going?
Sietsema: That goes in your same area .
Tom Steinkamp: So then we actually have got more than $40, 000. 00,
whatever it is .
Tom Klingelhutz : Is there going to be a park in Lake Lucy Highlands? As
far as I know, there' s not going to be a park in Lake Lucy Highlands .
Sietsema : The park dedication funds are earmarked for your area but we
haven' t acquire a park yet.
Tom Steinkamp: Do you know how much those funds, those revenues will be
eventually? From both neighborhoods.
Sietsema : I don ' t know how many lots are in Lake Lucy Highlands.
Pat Johnson: I would say Lake Lucy Highlands has in the area of 25, 20 to
25 but you must collect a bigger fee.
Sietsema: No. It' s $425. 00 per unit regardless of size of the lots .
Boyt : So that ' s another $10, 000. 00 and when Tom' s development is all
through, what' s that? $38 , 000. 00 to $40, 000. 00. But we don ' t have to
deal with those exact numbers . Your area is a range. It ' s a circle drawn
around your area. It' s not just Lake Lucy Highlands and Pheasant Hills.
Pat Johnson: But we could pull out of that , if we pulled 10 grand on the
totlot tomorrow and not build. . .
Boyt : We' re not going to ignore you, acting to give you a totlot . We ' re
going to continue to look at the needs of your neighborhood as it grows
and changes . As children grow, you need a tennis court . You come to us
and say no, the kids are growing, we'd like a basketball court or tennis
court . If the property is there, we' re going to look at what we can do to
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 13
meet the needs of the neighborhood.
Tom Steinkamp : . . . the $30, 000. 00 today, 5 years when we want the tennis
courts , he' s going to want 60 grand for it.
Resident : The area west of Galpin Lake Road that was mentioned in the
letter, is that considered part of our neighborhood?
Sietsema: Yes . Unless it' s outside the MUSA line. These are diagrams
that we go by. If we have land that' s in your area that becomes
available, yes we' ll go for it. We' ll buy it and it will serve that whole
area. It might not be right next door to your house. It might have to be
a half a mile away but it will be in your area and the funds that you paid
will go to developing and acquiring that land.
Resident : I would just like to say that for my needs, the area west of
Galpin Lake does not meet my needs at all because I believe that road is
much too busy for my kids to cross and that would not be serving my needs
at all until about 8 years from now.
Tom Steinkamp: In a letter that was sent out for this meeting seemed to
suggest that maybe a park would be developed west of Galpin Lake Road .
Sietsema : The reason I put that in . . .undeveloped land right now. If
we' re going to go through the development process, that would be the
logical place to look for additional parkland because it ' s undeveloped so
we could probably get a big chunk of land in that area because it' s not
developed there . Now to get a big chunk of land and buy up three lots
that are close together , the price is really high. Where we can get it
and waive the park dedication fee , we haven ' t spent any money. We ' re not
going to get any money for development but we can use the money in
surrounding areas to develop or other monies . We can budget for it . It
doesn' t mean that you've only got $40, 000. 00 that we' re ever going to
spend in your area because we' ve got areas that are developed that never
paid park dedication fees . They developed the ordinance went into effect
and yet we've provided them with park. Chan Estates is a perfect example .
They have a park down there that we got from their developer that they
dedicated but that was even before the park dedication ordinance .
Mady: A couple things you' ve got to really work down here. One is we do
provide community services , community parkland so some of that is bound to
come from there. Also, we do not get any of your property tax dollars for
our park development . Unless we go through the referendum process . . .
Tom Steinkamp: Does the County?
Mady: Does the County?
Tom Steinkamp: Does any of our tax dollars go for park to the County?
Mady: I don' t know. I can' t speak for the County.
Tom Steinkamp: What supports Lake Ann Park?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 14
Sietsema: Tax dollars pay for the maintenance and upkeep but for
development in that position, we generally. . .
Mady: To buy land or to put a swingset or basketball court or anything
like that, that does not come from your tax dollars.
Tom Steinkamp: How can they put that building on Lake Ann Park?
Sietsema: Lake Ann Park is a community park so that is a totally
different category than what you' re talking about in a neighborhood park.
The community park is developed and is acquired through tax dollars but
most of the neighborhood parks are funded through the park dedication fund
which comes from the money that it put into the pot from the building
permits . That ' s what we use plus the grant money that we get from State
and Federal grants. That' s what we use to develop the neighborhood parks
and acquire . We try to acquire through the development process because
then it doesn' t cost us any money up front. In one sense, there' s
development going in and they' re going to dedicate 37 acres of parkland,
we' re giving them 50% credit on their park dedication fees so that we have
half of that money to go in and develop those 37 acres of parkland . It' s
unfortunate that we didn' t have the foresight to acquire park property in
your neighborhood but the personality of staff changes . The personality
of commissions changes. The needs for sections changes. People maybe
didn' t even have any idea we were going to grow to the extent that we did
or that people were going to have those kinds of needs . It ' s
personalities . It' s perceptions and now looking back, we have to live
with the decisions that were made. Hopefully we' re making wiser decisions
in things that are coming up now and I have to agree , I think that we have
to look farther into the future than just a little piece of property for
totlots . If that can meet your needs for right now while we' re looking at
a bigger piece , I don' t think it will have gone to waste because there ' s
going to be a need for totlots 10 years from now too because those houses
are going to turn over and new families are going to be moving in. So
just because we put a totlot there doesn' t mean we can' t still acquire
some property.
Mady: To answer your question on the building at Lake Ann, the American
Legion is building that building. That was through their pulltab game .
That ' s where that ' s coming from. A generous donation by the Legion. I
think we've answered most of your questions hopefully. We will be getting
more additional information and coming back to you in the future but at
this time we can' t tell you when that' s going to be. We will give our
best effort in providing the parkland . We thank you for coming and remind
you to please sign the sheet at the back of the room so we can contact you
in the future.
CONSIDER DELAYING TRAIL EASEMENT ACQUISITION, TIM ERHART.
Sietsema: I pretty much explained everything in the memo. We reviewed
Tim Erhart ' s subdivision plan at the last meeting and our recommendation
was to require trail easements along the east side of the property and the
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 15
south and across the corner of the northwest side. Since that time Tim
has contacted me and asked that, he doesn' t want to completely be exempt
from providing trail dedication easements but he would like it to be
postponed , the actual dedication to be postponed until development
actually occurs . Tim is here . He may want to add more to that .
Tim Erhart: I didn' t quite understand, let me go through. There' s a lot
of thoughts that are running through this , the report that was made
because Lori and I worked together on trails for a long time here and I 'm
on the Planning Commission and how I really got involved in the trails was
it kind of goes back to when we lived in Eden Prairie and they had a
pedestrian trail system there. They had one around one of the wetland
areas there where the ducks and geese hatched and everything and really
enjoyed living in that part of the City for that reason. We became
concerned about two years ago at the Planning Commission when the Bluff
Creek Greens subdivision came in and it' s pretty close to where I live and
in fact I think that got approved before I was on the Planning Commission
and it had gotten approved without any trails on Bluff Creek itself going
down to the rivers. So I started looking into it, talking to Lori about
it. Don' t we have, we need to have a good plan for a trail system in the
south part of Chanhassen so when those developments come in, that the
Planning Commission would have a plan that we can get you the easements as
these areas develop so we all work together and on the weekends walk
around and walk up and down the creek east and west and north and south in
Chanhassen and we came up with a pretty good long term plan I think for
trails in the southern part of the City. I think as you all know, I think
the south part of the City isn' t going to develop, it kind of develops in
spurts . We ' ve seen a big one here because of the change in ordinance . Now
we' ve learned there. . .subdivisions in any great degree so I don' t think
we ' re going to see a lot of development but at least we do have a trail
plan and those areas that have developed, we do have the trail easments
along TH 101 and Pioneer Trail at this time. So the intent as I 've been
working on this thing was to make sure, from a Planning Commission
standpoint, that trail easements were provided in there with development .
Now the reason that my wife and I are going through this land split right
now, we are in kind of an unfortunate situation in that 1986 the State of
Minnesota passed a foreclosure law basically led to this situation where
basically the banks will not provide mortgages on a piece of land unless
the land with the house is less than 10 acres because they can ' t
foreclose , according to the new Minnesota law. We bought this land down
there 8 years ago and the balloon is up so it comes the time we have to
apply for a mortgage and the banker says no way unless you want to split
it. Make it 70 acres and 10, then we' ll give you a mortgage on the 10 and
the house . Okay, so we started the process with the application to split
the 10 so we could get a mortgage on the house otherwise it' s going to go
back to the contracter on April 25th so we ' re really not doing any
development. We' re not planning on selling any land at this point. We' re
really not doing anything with it. Just continue to live out there and so
although I was one of the biggest proponents of trails as the City
develops , I guess my feeling is , at this time is not the appropriate time
to try and get easements on this particular parcel . It is in agricultural
production . In going through some of the trails that were shown on this
plan, specifically the south property line which is a half mile long ,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 16
currently acts as a field road for this field here. Quite frankly, right
now what I ' ve done, what I do now is I allow people to use this trail and
it works real nice that way. There are 40 some households between the
group of houses here and here and the surrounding area, it's 40 household -
that use that trail and it' s real nice for them. It can be nice. That' s
another comment I ' ll make later but it ' s nice because they walk back and
forth and they have access . Allow them free access to the wooded area
which is to the west and they have two daycare centers down here and they
take the kids up and down and it' s nice. The fact is , for me it is still
part of, it is an agricultural production and that provides use for the
farmers to run their tractors and so forth. Regarding this area over
here, our plan, we' re considering building a house right in the middle of
that trail perhaps in 5 years or so , so that I guess would be, again if
they' re allowed to use it today until development back there, it would
really put a clamp in our plans . Of course , this one up here goes right
through essentially our pasture up here. Actually it goes on the highway
but we currently use it. I don' t know if it' s necessary to respond
specifically to the plan but I think overall , our plan is to move in the
back someday. Some day, maybe 10 years or 20 years and the ordinance
changes and perhaps somebody the rest of the area develops, I ' ll be the
first one, I want to have the trails there so I can walk and use them for
winter skiing but right now I just think is not the correct time to try to
put formal trails on here at this time. It is currently being used for
trails. The people who walk on it enjoy it. I guess that ' s my reasoning
for asking at this point not to look at those easements . I think you have
to have an area that' s continuous farmland and the only area that I can
think of that really is would be the one mile between CR 17 and 1 mile
east. There is no subdivisions in there. In other words , where the TH
212 freeway is going . There ' s really no homes that can get up to Lyman
Blvd. so we' re talking about a 2 mile square where there wouldn' t be any
pedestrians .
Schroers : We have residents from that part of town coming into the
Commission meeting and they say you have trails for pedestrians. You have
trails for bicycles . You have trails for cross country skiing and trails
for snowmobiles. Where are ours?
Tim Erhart : The snowmobile people, they' ve organized those trails . They
go out and contact the farmers and get that land and pay the insurance and
all this . That' s all well organized . . .
Lynch: . . .talked about horses. Where the Renaissance Fair , that area is
designated horse area . Basically about four old German farmhouse stuck
together and nothing around it before anybody can ride.
Tim Erhart : I 'm glad you asked that and maybe you can help me. One of
the proposals I have on the Planning Commission and I went to City Council
with tentative approval is to take that whole Minnesota River Valley from
essentially the Bluff on and stop development. I think the land is too
sensitive. The land is too sensitive because of the hills . We currently
have that area around TH 101 and TH 212 zoned commercial when in fact we
offer no commercial services and the speed of the traffic along TH 212
there really doesn' t allow stops . It' s really a very, very dangerous
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 17
situation. In addition too , I think it ' s a unique area of the City that I
think we should preserve. Eden Prairie has preserved it. They
essentially converted it to all ag and did not allow any commercial
development within there. I think we ought to do the same. There' s an
area where it would be totally appropriate for horse trails to be put in.
I 'm thinking about your question.
Schroers : I would tend to agree with you and I also think that you would
probably get a lot of support from the Commission, at least from my
personal point of view on restricting development in that area . I would
definitely be in favor of that and I agree that I think that that probably
would be also be a good area for a horse trail that probably is reasonably
accessable to the residents of southern Chanhassen who have horses. They
could get to those areas possibly without having to trailer their horses .
Tim Erhart: Yes , and where we could find that, we want to make sure we
set aside a corridor . The horses that are there, there' s not that many of
them concentrated right there.
Schroers : I like that idea .
Lynch: The folks that have been used to getting on their horse and riding
through your property or just getting on their horse and riding it. There
are a lot of short if all of a sudden the area develops and it ' s not
appropriate anymore. They won' t understand that it' s not appropriate
because they were there first and they rode their horses and the world ' s
not treating them properly but in the next 20 years , there probably won' t
be a horse .
Tim Erhart : The thing that I 'd like to do on this particular matter , I 'd
like to set an agenda , get this subject on the agenda. I 'd like to make
my presentation to this committee regarding the Minnesota Valley and get
your support as a body because I ' ve got the Planning Commission support.
Secondly, just to get your input . We' re taking it up on August 17th at
the Planning Commission. It would be a great recreational area and
addition to the green preserve in the City. The long term. I 'm talking
30 years .
Mady: In our Comp Plan process for Park and Recreation, we did specify
Moon Valley as an area we definitely want to keep some of it but the idea
of keeping the entire bluff to that boundary of Chanhassen makes a lot of
sense.
Tim Erhart : Until such time as the City can do whatever it can do for
additional finances or whatever it is conceivable someday. The other
thing is , of course the Federal government and they came in and purchased
everything south of that both ways but you have the north part up to the
top of the bluff preserved , you'd have a much greater opportunity to
sometime get funds to do the rest of it where the City would be involved.
What we' re doing not is just , we ' re precluding that and promoting
commercial development.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 18
Schroers : Probably one of the most successful ways to deter development
in that area is to designate it as park.
Tim Erhart : I just thought ag because I know what that does but park is
an alternative.
Mady: The problem is, if we designate it as park, we have to be able to
purchase it. Once the owner says I want to get rid of it, and the Comp
Plan says that ' s going to be looked at as park first , then we have first
right but if we don' t have the money, he then has the option to go to
whatever it' s zoned and I think Tim' s right . Agricultural zoning is
probably our best bet.
Tim Erhart : There is some economic value to it . They don ' t have to, you
don' t have to buy, the City doesn' t have to buy it because the value is in
ag .
Mady: What we need to do on this item then is to discuss whether or not
we want the easements.
Sietsema : Do you want the easements now or later? That ' s what you have
to decide. Now with this subdivision or later with development. Because
as I understand what Tim' s saying is that he' s still going to allow the
people in the area or whoever wants to, using his footpath but he doesn' t
want to give them over to the public because he doesn' t know how it' s
going to develop. It may be premature to plan now not knowing how it ' s
going to split .
Lynch : I don ' t think we've ever asked for an easement before development
anyway. Not that I remember .
Sietsema : Well , we record it when we record the plat so if he subdivides
now and we require the easements now, we would get the easements . If he
resubdivides later and develops later , we'd have an opportunity again to
get those easements at that time then we would know how the lot lines . . .
Schroers : You don' t see any problem on obtaining the easements in the
future along with development?
Tim Erhart : Not as long as it ' s on the Comp Plan . Any area now, the way
we've got it, any developer that comes in, if he' s got economic gain in
that subdivision, we get the easements everytime and I think we have a
very reasonable plan in our Comp Plan. I 'm on the wrong committee. I
asked for coffee one time, it' s probably still in the Minutes . It ' s as
far as it got.
Sietsema : Barb, doesn ' t buy you guys pop? I personally buy these people
pop.
Tim Erhart : I would prefer not to have anything at this time. Just to
continue allowing use of the south area. In fact, we' re working on
getting some signs and to put up signs and we' ll have our own little
signs . . .and we' re working on that.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 19
Mady moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
reconsider the motion of the prior meeting concerning Tim Erhart' s
property concerning trail easements and recognize that he has no reason at
this time to put in a trail easement along his property as it' s not being
developed at this time and hold that off until development occurs on the
property to review trail easements at that time. All voted in favor and
the motion carried .
APPROVAL OF LAKE ANN PARK EXPANSION PLAN.
Sietsema: Laurie McRostie is here to present the revised concept plan.
This is the first step before we get into grading and construction plans
for the Lake Ann Park expansion. Some of you might remember Laurie from,
she used to work with VanDoren, Hazard , Stallings and she did the Herman
Field plan. Remember that?
Laurie McRostie : Seeing I 've had an opportunity to work in Chanhassen
before and I 'm certainly glad to be back and have a chance to do it again.
My folks live in Chanhassen so I get out here once in a while to visit
them. I would say maybe this process started a little over a month ago,
maybe a month and a half ago where the City contact my firm and asked if
we could come out and provide a proposal for looking at a redesign and
expanding the master plan for Lake Ann and then doing the engineering
services and grading plan and the things that you need to do to have the
park built. I got involved then in looking at the park and just going out
and doing a site visit, talking to Lori and seeing what kind of things you
wanted to have there and looking at the plan that you had done previously
and trying to put all those impressions together. This diagram came out
of it. Where I 'd like to start with that is just to , I feel like there
are a lot of things going on out at Lake Ann. It ' s a large park, a little
over 9 acres all together and there are lots of opportunities that have
already been developed. I see the park kind of working in, I 'm thinking
about it almost in terms of rooms . You ' ve got like your existing play
fields in this area where the room starts to get to be really defined by
the strong edges that you' ve got all the way around the fields with the
berms and the vegetation and I think that that ' s something that is , I like
it a lot . It ' a a lot different that most athletic community parks where
everything is just flat and there are no trees and no shade and no
comfortable places for people to sit and look at things . You' ve also got
a picnic area up in this high spot where you 've got the volleyball court
and horseshoes are up there and there are some picnic tables and that kind
of thing . What' s going on there though is it' s got real steep access .
It ' s not accessible to maybe all people in the community. The elderly and
the handicap. You can get up there but it' s not as easily as other places
could be. You' ve got another area which is your beach area . It starts to
meander down here along the lake. Also, then your boat access starts to
form another area . The picnic things that go on there, with the
acquisition that' s happened with this whole addition to the park, I see an
opportunity to establish new rooms . New uses maybe. Expanding old uses .
Particularly your play fields. You 've got a whole area over on this side
where we ' re going to hopefully add as many fields as possible. Ultimately
three ballfields and two soccer fields . You also have the need then to
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 20
add parking in that general area . When I got on the site and started to
walk it, I really saw that this is probably the highest spot in the park
right here and you can see, you stand up here and even getting over to the
edge, floating over this way. You don' t necessarily have to be way out
over on the actually the 1010 contour . You've got incredible views . You
can see both back to the Lake and then you can see almost to the river so
it really gets to be, I think a prominent point. At one point I know it
was also thinking about it being as a place for the carousel building and
this diagram was prepared , since I heard that the carousel building is
definitely out but maybe there' s an opportunity for something else to
happen there that wouldn' t necessarily be the carousel building . I also
saw then, where you've got your playlot and the picnic shelter that the
Legion is building, it gets to be, and a lot of the high area, it gets to
be a real center for Lake Ann Park. I think the. . .areas focus around it.
You can see the woods from there. There' s this picnic area here. You can
see the beach. Maybe there' s an opportunity here to pull some things
together right in this area and kind of have a center that goes along with
your picnic shelter and that kind of thing. What else is happening here
is that, I looked at the entry to the park now because there' s been a lot
of discussion about the existing entry as well as an alternative or a new
access off of, who knows what this road will be called but off TH 5
basically. Where it will line up with the road right across the street.
Hopefully it will improved the entrancing and exiting into the park so it
will be easier to get out onto TH 5 here. Someday this might be signaled
or at least there may be stop signs that would stop traffic on TH 5 or
something like that.
Schroers : Would you be thinking of having two way traffic both ways or
would you be thinking of having an entrance maybe where it is now and then
running it around in a loop and having an exit out of the other side?
Basically one way.
Laurie McRostie : Probably not , would be my suggestion. When I get to the
plan I think I can develop a rationale that ' s coming out of this. What I
liked about the entries , you get a real strong impression about the park.
You immediately leave TH 5 behind and that' s because I think of the hills
that are there right at the edge. They make a real strong buffer right
now. It just adds to the character of the park. I think that ' s something
we should try to enhance and maybe improve or at least do try to duplicate
if the entrance gets changed to somewhere along this road which would give
easier access out to TH 5. I think that would be the main reason to
change the entrance to the park. I can ' t see from looking at what' s going
on out there , any other reason to do that. Because this would be
something that was supposed to be with the expansion, maybe you could
improve this entryway with minimal costs to accerelation and turn lanes or
something like that on TH 5. After looking then at the park in that
light, to develop a concept that would be able to use the entry as it is
and to answer your question now, this is still suggesting a two way system
that moves through the park and you can get to all the facilities that way
but you have to come back out the same way. I think that that gives you
the advantage of being able to control the entrance and exiting from the
park and that kind of thing. You don' t have too many entrances or two
gates that you have to staff and watch as long as you charge fees to use
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 21
the park. You want to control that as much as you can . This plan then is
keeping the existing ballfields where they are, in using the system that
you've already got in place and I think that there are a lot of advantages
to that. There has been a lot of talk about expanding fields , moving
fields , changing orientation and that kind of thing and I guess I would
recommend to leave them the way they are. First of all you don' t want to
take them out of commission and not be able to play on them. Secondly,
you' ve got an awful lot of plant material that ' s really old and
established there and it would be costly to move. I guess my feeling is,
I think you' ve got something . . .and actually we should try to duplicate it
and repeat it. I think there' s a concept out there that is strong and it
gives Lake Ann Park something that' s unique that a lot of other community
parks don ' t have and so that we could arrange the ballfields in the manner
that you see here , and these are all drawings so you would be able to have
regulation 300 foot fence lines on these fields. The design will take all
three of them so it' s a little bit bigger than these . Then also to lay
over a soccer field over one of the ballfields and then there would be
room in this area to actually have an independent soccer field . What that
starts to accomplish then is to have larger soccer fields in one area so
you can have group playings and that kind of thing so they' re not spread
out or put in a different place. And then it also keeps all of the
ballfields basically in the same area . The circulation system then that
I looked at was to basically keep the existing road system the way it is .
At this point to take out a new segment of it and come up into this area
of the park and start to use some of this vacant land for parking. In
addition to that , I would also like to suggest that we keep these hills
down by the boat and to not flatten them for parking or to not flatten
them into fields but to use them as they are now and to enhance the
screening that you've got there. To punch in a road at this point and
create another 78 spaces for cars . Maybe come through here, turn around
and come back out. If at some point it is decided that you do want to
have access into the park off this new future road , you 'd be able to do it
this way and extend about 700 to 800 feet of road right through here and
connect into this system and just have this duplicated through here and
not have to change anything at all down here except this segment of road
would be gone and you ' d have that segment .
Schroers : Did you say 78 parking spaces in that lower area?
Laurie McRostie : Right down here. There are 50 in this space and then 28
in that space. Overall I ' ve expanded, there are 382 parking spaces on
this plan . You have existing 180. That ' s in this area serving the ball
fields. You' ve got a few additional parking spaces up here but I didn' t
inlcude those in my totals because I don ' t think that they serve the
ballfields. People aren' t parking down here to walk up to play on the
fields . Another part of this plan that you ' re showing is , your concern
for two entrances or an exit to the park, it may work here to actually
just have one small road that would come off this parking lot. It could
be a controlled secured access. Maintenance people, once this road is
built, could use this as a back door . Any kind of emergency that we have
to come down here, somebody could get in through here and use that as a
backdoor . It might be quicker to going down this road than coming up into
the park than it would be to come through that way. Another consideration
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 22
turns a loop road is that you' ve got really a lot of topography up here.
It' s going to be tough I think to grade this area. It can be done and I
think it can be done in duplicating the same concept that you 've got in
your existing fields with higher slopes around the edges that can be used
for viewing or planting and that kind of thing but it' s going to get real
steep and crowded to try and bring a little road through here. I don' t
know that it really gains much more than expense. That' s why at least
this plan has not indicated a loop road. I guess my recommendation would
be that you don' t put a loop road .
Schroers : By a loop, do you mean just going around so it connects back to
the entrance road? What I was wondering about was a horseshoe type where
you would enter off of TH 5 possibly where it exists now and then come
back out to TH 5 as an exit only of one way traffic so you would still
only have one gate facility to control . There' s no need really to control
the exit. If you can handle larger traffic, say on like the 4th of July
weekend when you had a lot of people in there, that would be smoother .
Lynch: We talked about this on and off for years as the upgrade to TH 5
has been discussed and the ability to have a stop light at this point
opposite of the industrial park. My general opinion over the years is
that the park goes to waste for large activities . We can' t use it for 4th
of July. We don' t have the parking . We don' t have the entrance. Egress .
It just can not be used. Two of the things we need to do that would be
have, and this is the last time for this , four years ago the consensus was
that the present entrance would stay an entrance and would have a
horseshoe affair and in this area there would be an outlet only. As
Laurie mentioned earlier, you would only have to have the one gate then
because you only have one entrance. Also , this would be, if that
intersection had a stoplight, you could have magnetic, on demand signal
controls there so the stop light would only affect turnouts from here if
somebody was there. It' s not going to be one of these things where you
pull up and wait for 15 minutes at the light and there ' s nobody there .
The other item is we have insufficient parking community events there and
I think we'd probably all like to see more done with the parking on a
community basis . We were talking several years ago about additional strip
parking in this area , opening that up, bringing this down and here ' s our
hilltop here. Since this is gone in, we were talking about some
additional parking right in here before it drops off into a hole because
really now, just the firemen' s tournament overwhelms the parking . It
presents a heck of an enforcement problem because we have no parking there
and they' re supposed to get a ticket and then we give the Fire Department
a permit to have a tournament where we know there ' s not enough parking so
then we have to tell the police, tag everybody but these guys . Don' t
ticket these guys this weekend . Ticket the other people next weekend .
It' s a problem and it' s tough on the maintenance folks. It' s wet and they
leave ruts so we do need some concentrated parking right along the
ballfields and of course we put new ones on this side. We need more
parking for ballfields than exists on that side. We need to increase this
site I think.
Schroers : Mike, I don' t know if you or Lori knows but right now at our
7: 15 game or 7 : 00, our middle game, the existing parking that we have for
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 23
those three fields is maxed out . Just your normal league play. We' re not
even talking special events .
Lynch: What I 've noticed , I coached ball out there a lot, if you' re
playing on this field, if there' s no parking at this lot, they' ll park on
the grass there. There could be parking in that lot but they won' t go
there. They won' t go to the parking for the next so it almost has to be
based on per site . How many people is this field going to take? How many
places do we need there and not look at it as a total . I 'd sure like to
have 4th of July celebrations and other types of things out there. We
lose a lot of the use of the facility because of that.
Laurie McRostie : Maybe just to finish up the plan and then we can go on
but you' re right, this is absolutely a space. You 've got space to expand
these parking areas and I guess part of what has to be decided tonight is
what this commission wants to spend money on. One of the last page on
here is a very preliminary cost estimate of what this plan has described .
You' ll see that things get just to be expensive so that is something that
has to be decided is where do you want to spend your money expanding these
parking areas? Only build these parking areas and just the ballfield?
There are lots of combinations of things that can be done. This plan,
what these four additional parking lots is adding about 212 parking
spaces . I do think that we need to have it possible to expand in this
area so we can be directly related to those ballfields. It always amazing
that people that go to play athletics don' t walk to the fields but that' s
the way it is. Two other things that this plan is suggesting is that this
area up here , you expand your picnic area . Then there ' s an opportunity I
think to, at sometime in the future to put a large shelter in here.
Something where you can have those 4th of July activities and there' s just
a covered area where you can picnic. It' s not necessarily like the
concession stand that ' s planned out here or this park shelter . There will
just maybe be lights . Maybe water . Not other facilities in there but
just a great big shelter that would take advantage of those views each way
and start to connect the area. Then I also saw the opportunity along with
this more community passive area as a natural ampitheater with the
landform already going there . So you have shelter here and an ampitheater
going here where you could have pageants or plays that could go in
combination with those other activities that would happen all summer long
actually. So I think it' s a pretty simple plan. . . . it comes with
electric with the one , the field lighting and I talked with them today and
found out what the situation was because I ' ve been hearing a lot of
different things about where the power was and all that and there' s
conduits out to these lights but it' s empty. The power is still back at
the entrance gate . The man that I had talked to said that maybe a year
and a half ago he did prepare a cost estimate to get power out here so
that' s something the City has got in their file although, like everything
has gone up. To get power out here, we can' t just run wires . It' s not so
simple . There has to be a transformer and a new panel box put in and I
think that' s what got so expensive when we were looking at it before and
it ' s probably why you didn ' t do it at that time but that has not changed .
That figure is not included with this preliminary cost estimate. So I
don ' t know if you want to just quickly look at costs and maybe we can talk
about phasing it in or how the Commission sees it happening or what they'd
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 24
like to see happen here. What I did was the cost of the roads and parking
lots and have left out, this is a separate item, this future entry road .
To get just the parking lots and the road built, and then that area
restored and seeded, in these preliminary estimates was about $142, 300. 00.
Going down onto the three softball fields with the one soccer overlay and
then the soccer field independently, those fields, and that includes the
rough and final grading which is, I estimate in those road excavation
numbers. The backstop and the seeding and then also the ballfields have
about 1, 100 lineal feet around the whole ballfields with a 7 foot high
chainlink fence. The soccer field then again would be the rough and final
grading with . . .and seeding that whole area so with just the ballfields ,
the playing fields themselves came to about $80,500. 00 so putting both the
parking and fields , that alone came out to, this preliminary estimate is
$225, 864 . 00. We could maybe at this time, I 'm not sure where you would
want to put the future entry road into your budget. Maybe that ' s
something that should not come out of the referendum that' s been passed to
make improvements at Lake Ann. That should be something that' s not really
included because that gives us another $13 , 000. 00 to play with. There may
be things that may be far more beneficial and to save it or to plan for
this segment of road or a segment some other place in the park. I 've only
put a preliminary landscaping number in there of $30,000. 00 and there is
not a plan yet for that but until the grading plan is developed , there
would really not be a landscaping plan. The concept would be to duplicate
or replicate what you' ve already done. I like it . I think you' ve got
something really good going out there. I don' t see any reasons
necessarily to change that . The engineering fees are listed in here and
that was based on that final construction cost . 7% of that is a standard
engineering contract fee that we have with the City of Chanhassen . Then
there' s been a planning fee that' s been added to that. You see the fees
come up to about $29 , 000. 00.
Mady: The referendum was $300 , 000. 00 and that included bonding costs . I
believe we have to cover bonding costs . Two, in the Lake Ann capital
budget, we do have money at the present time. We have about $100, 000. 00
in the Lake Ann budget.
Sietsema : It ' s matching funds. It' s reserved for matching grant funds so
if the shelter down by the lake is approved, that would go towards that .
Boyt : How much have we got then?
Sietsema: I would say, I don ' t know. He was talking about $30, 000.00 but
I don' t know how much that would be.
Robinson : Is any of the rest of this subject to matching funds?
Sietsema : Not this park, no .
Mady: We can apply for grants but they' re not granting grants for this
type of development. Right?
Sietsema : We actually got a grant for this and we turned it down. It was
for $12, 000. 00 and at that point we didn' t know if the referendum was
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 25
going to pass or not . We had to say yea or nay right then and there was
no way we could afford the rest of the $300, 000. 00 just because we got
$12,000. 00 to develop but to go ahead and apply for grant money to help us
on this project, we just submitted applications in May so they' re not
accepting applications again until next May or June and then they don' t
let you know until the following December so it would be 1991 before we
would be able to start construction on grants , if that got approved, and
you don ' t know if it' s going to be approved again .
Mady: A couple comments . What' s your guess. If we were to spend, I know
the way Lake Ann exists right now and I 'm taking in some of Ed' s comments
too on the fact that some of the fields, Fields 2 and 3 are short and it ' s
conceivable we'd want to use Little League for 3 but number 2. . . I think
it' s possible for us to expand that field to 269 feet from home plate out
to the fences . It would be nice if we could expand that out to a minimum
of 285 with a 7 foot fence I think is the ASA approved. We can also
expand those parking spaces out there.
Schroers : I thought it was 275.
Mady: But that' s one of the thoughts I had was expanding that one field
so then we do have legitimate softball complex they can use the State
Tournament or anything . With the regulations right now, it can ' t be.
Three fields is nice but for a tournament, they like four .
Boyt : So where would you cut the one in? What area would you take it
because right now with these numbers we'd have to cut out the future entry
road and then you might have enough to get . . . so you ' re going to have to
cut a line from someplace else.
Mady: We might be able to just , city maintenance staff , street department
to expand the parking lot. Fairly minimal .
Boyt : But it ' s not included in these numbers though.
Mady: We can expand that area .
Laurie McRostie : You just practically have to run a blade and pave it at
this stage.
Boyt : What I 'm saying is if you want to change that field , you'd have to
take something from this sheet.
Mady: I ' d like to find out how much it costs to build .
Schroers : What you' re talking about, we have 269 feet now and we need 275
so we' re talking about just lengthening or moving the fence back 6 feet
but if we have to move all the trees that are planted along the outside of
the fence to move the fence back 6 feet , we ' re going to be spending a lot
of money to gain 6 feet of field space.
Mady: I ' ve been looking out there . The trees , the way they' re growing
right now with the fields , are touching each other and they' re. .but should
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 26
grow. We should probably be thinking of taking every other tree out right
now anyway and utilizing a lot of the smaller ones that can still be
easily moved .
Schroers : Transplanting them and using them. . .
Boyt: I think we should talk to a specialist about that.
Mady: They' re transplantable . I 'm even buying . . .trees that size. Ed
mentioned before that. . .
Schroers : They' re actually getting the point where they' re faily
borderline. I do tree transplantings in my job and I have transplanted
trees that size. However , you would rather transplant smaller . . .
Mady: What happens in the future as they grow larger?
Schroers : Large trees grow real close to each other in a woods. It' s
just how aesthetically pleasing do you want it? Do you want it to be a
real manicured look or do you have a problem with the trees growing
together?
Sietsema : If I could add something about moving the fence . Number one, I
think State Tournaments, don' t they just need four fields and we'd have
300 foot fences on Field 1 and the three new fields . That would leave the
other two for practices which would be awful nice. If we needed that
other field and that was a problem, we could make the fence higher rather
than moving it out to accomodate and they would probably allow it if we
were in a bind . Personally, I don' t know if it' s going to be worth the
expense to move it for 6 feet. I think we need to look into other
alternatives before we go and decide whether to move it.
Schroers : The grade drops immediately behind the fence too so if we' re
going to move the fence back 6 feet, we would also have to fill and grade
back.
Lynch : Wouldn' t it be a lot easier , if you' re talking 6 feet. . .
Hoffman: You would actually want to move it more than that .
Lynch : Why not move the backstop 6 feet?
Mady: Because you have a hill up there.
Lynch : We' ve got a hill there but that ' s a heck of a lot easier than
moving a fence.
Hoffman: We have no room. The out of bound areas there are so minimal
now that even the out of bound lines are a problem on Field 2 .
Lynch : Because of the hill?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 27
Hoffman : Yes . Because of the hill . The angle of what the grade is at
there now. How they graded at that angle is not exactly 90 degrees and
again, if you wanted to move it back to 275 , you' d almost want to move it
back somewhere between 285 and 300 right now for a State or a national
tournament right now they require a 300 foot field distance which we would
have on the three new fields and Field 1.
Boyt : For a State Tournament you' re required to have four fields which we
would have.
Hoffman: Not required but in order to go ahead and schedule.
Laurie McRostie: It would be worth it to put your money in.
Mady: That ' s what we wanted to find out. That was a question that I had
wanted to raise. I know Ed had that question previously.
Laurie McRostie : I think it' s a good question and maybe the expansion
occurs in the park.
Mady: Maybe they don' t do it for 15 years .
Schroers : To address your plan there, I like it. I like what you' re
saying . I like the idea of keeping the aesthetics . I think if you talk
to anyone who actively uses Lake Ann, especially the ball players, we feel
real good about the facilities that we have there. We think that Lake Ann
is as good as anyplace around and a lot better than most. We've all
played on a lot worse fields than Lake Ann and we also like the berm and
the hill effect with the shade and keeping the aesthetics intact would
certainly be what we would like to do . I think what we really want to
achieve, along with having more fields is an emphasize on the parking and
being able to get people in and out . It seems to me the horseshoe effect
and the one way traffic makes a lot of sense because you can have two
lanes entering and you can have two lanes leaving and you have parking
lots on both sides of the road so one lane can go off one way and the
other lane can go off the other way and it seems like a smooth, constant
uncomplicated flow. It' s just all one way. It' s just in and it' s just
out and making something easily accessible and exitable , I think that' s a
good idea.
Mady: I think you can accomplish that in the future with the, once the
new road goes in, Eckankar property develops , that is very easily done
with moving the entrance over so it' s right across from Chanhassen Lakes
Drive or whatever .
Sietsema : It ' s Park Drive.
Mady: Right now the park entrance is on TH 5 right there, moved in . If
you would exit high up on the right-of-way up in that area , it works
perfectly.
Laurie McRostie : I think that ' s a really good idea .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 28
Sietsema : Something else that we have to consider is that I doubt very
much, I really have strong doubts that MnDot will allow us to keep our
existing access once they extend Park Drive. When they put in that new
road. They won' t allow us to have that second access because they don' t
want that many accesses onto TH 5. Especially after it goes to 4 lanes
which is supposed to happen in the next year or so. When Park Drive is
put in , that will be a neighborhood or some kind of development which I
would think they could either come down to TH 5 or else shoot up and go
out and end up on Powers Blvd . somewhere . If it' s a development, like a
single family, they'd be going through neighborhood streets and going out
somewhere and maybe we wouldn ' t want that open all the time and that would
just be for heavy use or security or maintenance access. We could close
that off during normal park use and just use the one access that would
come off of TH 5 because obviously we don' t want an entrance coming into a
park through a neighborhood but for a special event or for a large
tournament or something, that would provide us with a second access to get
the traffic out more efficiently. But I seriously have my doubts that
MnDot will allow us to have both Park Drive and an access to Lake Ann off
TH 5 so if you want the horseshoe effect , I think it' s going to have to go
off of Park Drive.
Mady: The future entry road , the $13, 000. 00 for that, that will be used
for the gravel and bituminous, is that what you' re thinking there? So in
the grading plan you would actually grade it, not necessarily flat so in
the future. . .
Laurie McRostie : Right . You'd seed it .
Mady: So at a future date we would just go through there and lay off
blacktop and black dirt and put in gravel?
Robinson: Laurie, I think I missed something. On your first chart you
had the focus high point and you said that was the highest point for the
park. On the second one it looked like you've got that parking lot of 50
spaces . . .
Laurie McRostie : That' s true . I guess what I was trying to talk about in
the presentation is that this is the high point. Topographically but I
don ' t know that we turn to get anything over there in terms of park
facilities. You've got to keep bringing them into the park it would be
better and it still is high here and you still have the views off this
way. I think this would be trussed anywhere or be brought down a little
bit with that parking area . I don' t know if your question is leading to
the fact that we have parking on the highest point in the park.
Robinson : There would have to be some grading there?
Laurie McRostie: Right and as much screening as we can but to get the
facility, the useable , what you think, the useable parts into the . . .
Mady: I was looking at that area as an archery range. Maybe that' s what
that could be.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 29
Schroers : That' s kind of an in-house . . .
Hoffman: Some discussion on the soccer fields . As they indicated, it ' s
used now and in future use , the one that ' s indicated as the lying there
over the present Field 1, it' s currently not being used to any great
extent or not being used at all because of the scheduling of the softball
fields so there' s really not an opportunity for that to be used as a
soccer field. Then again , the new soccer field overlay would really not
be useable if indeed you put your fence in there. Right there's your
obstruction . That would not be useable as a soccer field and really, the
only useable soccer field would be the totally separate indicated soccer
field in the new development.
Mady: One thing we could do though is , until the south park goes in, not
put a fence on that field and then you just play it as an open field until
we have other soccer fields available. I would think that once we have
the 6 fields in here for fall league, if we have the need for soccer, I
would like to see us restrict the fall softball league to allow for soccer
for the kids in the City because we don' t have anyplace for soccer and we
can get by with four softball fields in the fall anyway.
Hoffman: The big use right now for soccer is the summer soccer. Summer
soccer leagues during the summer . The summer is the younger kids up here
and then the fall is the high school .
Mady: We may have to restrict Field 1 to the soccer and Babe Ruth
baseball and juggle scheduling for that and take softball completely out
of that. I don' t think it' s a problem with that because if we ' re
providing 4 to 6 softball fields out there and we can juggle one to have
at least 2 soccer fields available to the kids , that ' s a pretty good
trade-off at least until the south park develops .
Sietsema: But you can ' t have soccer and baseball going on the same field
in the same season.
Mady: If soccer is Tuesdays and Thursday and baseball is Mondays and
Wednesdays, that' s fine.
Sietsema : In the same season you can' t do that because that means you' ve
got goals in the middle of your baseball field.
Boyt : They have to line fields for soccer .
Sietsema: The lining isn' t a problem because they can play baseball over
the lines but you'd have your goals. . .
Mady: The goals wouldn' t have to be fastened down do they?
Hoffman : They' re fairly heavy.
Sietsema : They' re fairly heavy and you ' re talking, it ' s a maintenance
thing.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 30
Mady: We have maintenance people out there dragging the fields daily.
They could hook up their tracter to it and pull it off. I guess I don ' t
see it as more than a 10 minute task. It looks like we have enough space
for the new areas and we've got to expand what we' ve got. If we' re ever
going to be able to enforce our parking and get that park the way it' s
supposed to be, we've got to expand the one right next to Field 2.
Laurie McRostie : The landscaping number is one that could be easily
explained a little bit in terms of that parking as well as the entry road .
Future entry road . The grading cost have already been included in the
engineering and maybe that might be. . .
Mady: One of the thoughts I had was spading those trees that exist down
there to be utilized them, if we want to take the chance because they are
filling out to where they are touching each other now. That would save us
a considerable amount of money. We do have the tree farm but it won' t be
very big for a lot of years .
Sietsema: It' s empty.
Mady: Well , there' s quite a bit of trees in the back park there.
Boyt: I think we need to, unfortunately we need to keep the future entry
road in there . If we have the information from staff that looks like
MnDot is going to want us to do that, we can' t ignore that and be
responsible.
Mady: If we put parking in where the 28 spaces. . . . it would probably be
$30, 000. 00. If I remember Don' s discussion previously. . .
Boyt : Didn ' t we take in record monies this year at Lake Ann? Couldn' t we
use that for some of the expansion of parking? Is that designated?
Sietsema: It goes in the general fund so you could make the
recommendation to start a new policy to put that back into the park.
Mady: We were over $17, 000. 00 last time we heard .
Robinson: That' s what it was last year , $17, 000. 00.
Mady: This year already.
Boyt : We' ve over what our total was last year . That would be enough to
expand the parking.
Mady: I 'm sure the road maintenance staff could expand that parking .
Sietsema: It' s paying the lifeguards right now. It' s not like it' s not
being used for the park.
Mady: We paid those lifeguards out of general . What we' re saying , we ' re
bringing in more money that we anticipated during the end, let us use that
for development of the park.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 31
Sietsema: That' s fine . You can make that recommendation.
Boyt: How is it to run the entry right next to a parking lot? If the
future entry road were moved up, that 28 space parking .
Laurie McRostie: What I would recommend that you do with that is to
repeat this concept . The same thing that you' ve got on the edge.
Basically that's what this does I guess except for this blank and this
blank. You' re right that might save a couple thousand dollars .
Boyt: Would it make a big difference in the size?
Laurie McRostie : One thing and you ' ll have to decide this and I think it
gets to be a matter of aesthetics , that' s what you've got going here is a
really nice sense of entry into this park. You really feel like you 've
come someplace and it' s nice. Where this entry road is put, this
suggestion is it' s kind of coming between two hills and it' s starting to
do the same thing. You don't see parking until maybe you get around here
and then you can see parking lots . It depends on, you have to weigh that
I guess. Costs, what kind of impression you want people when they' re
coming there because you dump one parking lot in their way if you wanted
to. There are ways you can, you can heavily landscape that. You can
maybe push it not too much farther this way but so there ' s a little bit
more room there for landscaping, that sort of thing but that is an option
that would maybe start to save you some money. It ' s not going to save it
up front though.
Sietsema : I don' t think we should get too hung up on the costs because
these are estimates. I think what we really need now is your sense of the
concept plan so we can proceed from here. Unless there' s something major
that you want to add or delete that would affect the costs , those things
we can work out .
Boyt : . . .coming up $30,000. 00 short , that ' s not going to be a big deal?
Sietsema: I can come back to you with what those costs are going to be.
They' re not going to do just for the park. It will be for a major part of
the Fire Station and the truck and other things too so that money will be
split between the different projects. The bonding costs so that ' s not
just our , I ' ll have to come to you and let you know what our share of that
bonding costs is . If it' s just a third of it, then it ' s only $10, 000 . 00.
Schroers: I have a couple of questions as to the specific use of the new
fields . The two fields , are they regulation softball fields?
Laurie McRostie: This is the same size but we wouldn' t be able to have it
fenced and that kind of thing .
Schroers : Now in that plan we ' re not incorporating anything to accomodate
Little League, Babe Ruth?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 32
Sietsema: It would be converting Field 3 to Little League is what we were
talking about and then continue the Babe Ruth use of Field 3.
Mady: All we need to do on really on 3 is to add a mound. Reset the
bases, I would think until . . .
Boyt : They have to have dugouts .
Mady: To my knowledge, they don' t play regulation Little League in this
area yet. We can still play non-sanctioned Little League so we can get
away with it.
Schroers : Is there proposed lighting on any of the new fields?
Laurie McRostie: Not in this contract. I don' t think you can afford it.
Sietsema: No, that was never in the plan when we took it to the voters ,
no.
Mady: I like the plan with the exception I 'd like to see a little more
parking on 2, if that' s feasible on the plan. Since you' re going to have
equipment out there, I think that can be done at the same time but I think
that has to be addressed in this next year. We've got to get going .
Schroers : I agree that parking is essential .
Mady: It causes problems every year and we won' t be able to have a major
city function out there until we can provide better parking .
Sietsema: I agree. We have to have better parking but we' re not going to
be able to provide parking to accomodate a major city event. You don ' t
plan for your ultimate but I agree, there does have to be more parking .
That ' s a major consideration .
Robinson : This seems like, we ' ve talked about this a number of times and
I think what you' re showing us here is just about what we've hashed
through a number of times so, I really like it. Plus you have the little
natural ampitheater in there. The picnic area .
Schroers : I think you' ve done a good job and presented it well .
Mady: Do you need a motion Lori?
Sietsema : Yes . To recommend approval of the concept plan for the Lake
Ann Park expansion.
Mady moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve the concept plan for the Lake Ann Park expansion as
presented with the things that have been addressed by the Commission
concerning the parking. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 33
Schroers : The reason that I hesitated was on that, I guess I 'm not real
clear on what' s going to happen with the entrance and exit road yet.
Hoffman: I guess we just don' t know that .
Mady: In your concept it' s in the budget.
Sietsema: The way it will be developed right now is we' ll leave the entry
where it is right now and as things progress with TH 5 and they get more
clear direction and things develop, we can ' t move our entrance road until
the Eckankar property develops. Unless MnDot is willing to put in that
entrance and up 100 feet so we can get access off of Lake Drive Road . If
they' re willing to do that . . .
Schroers : My question is, I 'm not in favor of moving our entrance. I like
our entrance where it is. I think it' s a good place. My question is , are
we going to be able to do the loop or horseshoe effect where we can enter
in one spot and exit in another?
Sietsema : It won' t be immediate . . .
Schroers : I 'm familiar with a situation that ' s very similar to that right
now and what people do, they come to the park and they follow the road
until it gets to the end and then they turn around and come back out . On
a busy holiday weekend or whatever where you' ve got a lot of people coming
in , you' ve got all kinds of traffic flowing into a little area where it
all has to slow down and turn around and then go back to whichever parking
lot they decided to use or if they' re going to go back out or whatever and
it gets to be pretty congested and it slows down the movement and the
flow. That, in my opinion , is something that we would want to consider
provided it fits in with the development and the expansion of TH 5 and
whatever . If it was feasible, it would be a nice thing to do.
Hoffman: But again, if you just had an exit point and you call it an
exit, that doesn ' t necessarily mean you' re not going to have people that
try to enter too. If we still have the gatehouse, we still have the fee,
you' re going to get people who constantly try to drive through that exit
and get into the park.
Mady: We can handle that .
Hoffman: You just have to hire another guard and put up another
gatehouse.
Laurie McRostie : Something you said kind of, just jogged a part in my
mind that these people would come all the way through and then go back to
stop where they want to which , if you don ' t have a two way system, they
aren' t going to be able to do that. Because you do, sometimes you want an
overview. Just check the whole place out and then decide where you want
to stop and if you' re going to force everybody back out and then back in,
maybe you' ve just created another situation that gets congested .
Sietsema: I think we' re not closing any doors with this plan.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 34
Schroers : I just wanted to have that option open .
Sietsema: Until something definitely happens with the Eckankar property,
all those doors are open all the way along that east side of what we can
get off of and get out to Park Drive but until that happens , we don' t kno
what we' re talking about.
Schroers : Okay, I understand.
Mady: One other item to bring up concerning Lake Ann . Laurie mentioned
the carousel building. The carousel building is no longer available to
us . It was determined that the cost to move that structure, set it up and
get it ready would be well in excess of $100, 000. 00 so the City decided
that wasn ' t a feasible option to us given the budget constraints at this
time.
DISCUSSION OF 1989 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Mady: Before we go on Lori , a question. On our current budget, any items
we had to approve that don' t get built this year or any monies we have in
the budget that we don' t utilize this year, do we carry that over to next
year?
Sietsema : Yes .
Mady: We keep going with it? We' ve got like Laredo Drive trail approved .
If we spend that money next year on that, we don' t have to resubmit?
Sietsema : It will rollover . The way I understand it, we can roll it over
but we have to specify that that' s what we' re doing.
Mady: Now or specify when we do it?
Sietsema: Before the books are closed. I think I can just do that in
house when I do the estimated 1988 expenditures because if we budget for
$100, 000.00 and I estimate we' re only going to spend $75, 000. 00, they' ll
close the books on $75, 000.00 and put that other money somewhere else .
I ' ll make a note of that. I went over the 1988 Capital Improvement
Program with Gary and there were very few things that we wouldn ' t be able
to get done. Depending on, and I 'm sorry I don' t have an answer on the
Laredo and Carver Beach trail thing . I 'm still not certain what kind of
public hearings we' re going to have to hold and what kind of a process
that ' s going to be but as soon as we have the go ahead to give engineering
the go ahead, they can get out and do it and it' s only like a 2 to 3 week
project because it' s not going to take that much. They can do it in house
so he anticipates that if we get to him within a reasonable amount of
time, he can do that yet this year . When I say this year , I say it' s
before the snow flies. I ' ll try to have an update on that for you. In
fact , I may have a public hearing scheduled for the first meeting in
September on that. There are a couple of things that I needed to add to
1989 that I would suggest that we add . One was that, there' s some work
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 35
that needs to be done on South Lotus Lake boat access that we didn ' t
anticipate in the beginning. Some of the runoff and with the grass having
not grown there yet, everytime it rains , it fills in those swales and
those holding ponds and we' re having to dredge them out every time. What
Gary would like to do is to do some storm water work and he 'd like us to
budget about $5, 000. 00 to take care of those problems so we take care of
that park once and for all and get it corrected .
Robinson: How does he propose to do that? What kind of work?
Sietsema : It would have to do with stormwater work and I 'm not really
sure what he would do but it would involve rerouting the storm water. It' s
filling up the holding pond and it' s running out faster before it has the
time to settle out. That' s causing silt to get into the lake and runoff
into areas that we don' t want it to be and it' s also filling up those
holding ponds much faster than we anticipated so there are some flaws. It
just runs down that hill so fast .
Robinson : I noticed on the side, the west side of the driveway there , I
was just there yesterday, there are weeds in there and consequently
nothing is growing but weeds and that really washes . . .
Sietsema : They reseeded again this year and the contracter had to reseed
because it didn' t grow last year but having no rain, all that grows is the
weeds. The weeds have just an unbelieveable ability to grow with no
water .
Robinson : But that' s running off and that' s going down into the lake.
Boyt: We have, do I understand this for Lake Ann, $100, 000. 00 in
reserve. . .
Sietsema : The $100, 000. 00 is in reserve and that ' s to match the grant if
we get it for the shelter. The fishing pier, we thought we were getting a
grant for the fishing pier and as it turns out , we found out this week
that we' re not getting that so that was a grant, not a reserve.
Boyt: Cross this out?
Sietsema : Yes , you can cross that $30, 000. 00 off .
Boyt: Is that the same with all these astericks?
Sietsema: I can explain them. It ' s confusing . The astericks on Lake
Susan Park, that' s the cost for the grant application that we submitted
for the project at Lake Susan. The boat access and the fields and the
access road and all of that development. This is what the total costs
would be and that would come partially from a reserve. We have $50, 000. 00
on reserve for Lake Susan and some of that would be out of grant money and
then some of it would be out of the Lake Drive East .
Boyt: What is . . .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 36
Sietsema : That ' s the ballfields and tennis courts and the basketball and
the vita course.
Boyt : In Meadow Green , did we get the bleachers put in?
Sietsema: Bleachers put in, no. If you recall , when Gary Meister came in
and requested , we said when we got additional money we would look at it,
from the Chaska Lions, we would consider it at that time.
Boyt : Did we get any yet?
Sietsema: Yes, we did .
Boyt : How much?
Sietsema: $4, 700. 00.
Boyt : So we have enough to pay for these bleachers?
Sietsema: Yes , I would need your direction to go ahead and purchase
those .
Boyt : Yes , I think so since it ' s in the budget. I guess I had some
questions, North Lotus Lake, did we buy a boardwalk this year?
Sietsema : I 'm not sure if I ordered it. I know it' s not in yet but I
believe I ordered it.
Schroers : What is currently in that park right now?
Sietsema: Totlot equipment is in and the volleyball is staked but it ' s
not completed . The ballfield is in. The parking lot is in and the tennis
courts are completed and the parking lot over by the tennis courts is
completed .
Mady: Are they going to be blacktopping that parking lot this year or is
that something that we can budget later?
Sietsema : Blacktopping the North Lotus Lake, the one by the totlot?
Mady: Yes.
Sietsema: That would be a future project .
Schroers : The wind screens . . .
Sietsema: The wind screens aren ' t up but they' re ordered .
Boyt: Looking at Greenwood Shores, we need to direct that that money be
used someplace else?
Mady: Carry it over to next year .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 37
Boyt : $7 , 000 . 00. Not carry it over for that. Do we need to direct it
anywhere or just carry it over?
Sietsema: Are you talking about the totlot?
Boyt: The totlot and off-street parking, $7, 000. 00.
Sietsema : The totlot equipment was already purchased and we have to
decide tonight where we want to put it as an alternate. If you recall , we
were waiting to see what the outcome was and then we decided, let' s order
it and we can put it someplace else so we need to discuss that.
Hoffman: Pheasant Hills .
Schroers : I was just going to say, why don' t we use that for Pheasant
Hills because they' re someone, they want it and all we have to do is come
up with a place , to put it there .
Boyt : That outlot near the water could be fenced . We have the Carver
Beach playground that' s fenced. We could put a fence around two sides of
the triangle and put the totlot in the middle .
Schroers : Why don' t we do that. Why don' t we earmark that totlot
equipment for Pheasant Hills .
Mady: I 'm not comfortable with doing that tonight until we find out that
we can do it on that property. That property, Tom had said it was flat
property but it ' s still may be wetland . It may be Class B wetland and we
can' t even do it. We need to find that out .
Sietsema: Which outlot was that, C?
Boyt: Did we get the basketball court in at Carver Beach?
Sietsema : That ' s not done yet . They' re going to be a lot of paving work
later in the season and they' ll be replacing the one at Meadow Green Park
and paving that parking lot at Bandimere and at Chan Estates and also the
basketball court at Carver Beach.
Boyt : . . .the Carver Beach playground basketball court, $3 , 000 . 00 in 1988
and 1989. Is that what that is?
Sietsema : Yes . It shouldn' t be in the 1989 .
Schroers : They change the total down at the bottom, it looks to me like
there' s supposed to be $3 , 000. 00 spent in 1988 and $3, 000. 00 spent in
1989.
Sietsema : I know. I think I was moving it over to 1989 but I believe we
have the funds to do it in 1988 and we may as well do it this year rather
than roll it over .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 38
Mady: The question on basketball courts , where we have tennis courts
already existing, would it make sense to put a basketball pole along the
fence of the tennis court since you already have a hard surface there and
all the kids to shoot baskets there also?
Sietsema: We discussed that and felt that it would be conflict in uses .
Mady: As long as the rules are up that show that tennis has the. . .
Schroers : That would be hard to enforce and you know that the only time
the kids are going to want to shoot baskets is when the neighborhood
ladies get together to play tennis .
Mady: It' s the situation where we don' t have the funds to do a basketball
court right away, we could put a post up.
Sietsema: We do though. It ' s in the budget to do it . There was a reason
why because we had talked about that when we did the tennis court and . . .
Hoffman : Basically just because of the conflict of use .
Boyt: We talked about, what' s that park where they have a tennis court,
basketball court, all together . Running together with fences . It
probably saves in the grading or something .
Sietsema : We wouldn ' t be able to that at Meadow Green because there
wouldn' t the room without running into the ballfield area but there is
room out there to replace that basketball court and I would like to keep i
that into the 1988 budget because the people there did donate money to put
that in in the first place and we promised them that we would replace it.
Boyt: At Chan Pond Park, are we going to be hearing from Mark?
Sietsema: Yes , he was going to be on this agenda and in talking to Bill
Engelhardt, he got additional information that he wanted to include in the
plan and come back with something more complete.
Boyt : Are we going to spend this money this year? The master park plan?
Sietsema : The master park plan , yes .
Boyt: Landsacping plan. Off street parking . Should we roll that?
Sietsema : The off street parking should probably be rolled over and
beefed up. It ' s going to be, when we budgeted for off street parking, we
were talking about four parking spaces off of Laredo. Now we' re talking
about off of Kerber .
Mady: We were also having that done as a part of the Kerber improvement
but let' s handle that discussion when we have Mark ' s master plan.
Sietsema : If we' re talking about putting money in the 1989 budget .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 39
Mady: My understanding was that was going to be done as part of the road
improvement.
Sietsema : They' re going to grade as part of the road improvement but I
don' t know if they' re going to pave.
Boyt : Why don' t we hear this stuff?
Mady: Were you out at the site when Bill was talking?
Boyt : No.
Mady: That' s when it was discussed .
Boyt: Bill who?
Mady: Bill Engelhardt. We have to decide what ' s reasonable within our
budget.
Boyt : . . .the master park plan for Rice Marsh Lake this year?
Sietsema: Yes. I just recently talked to Mark and he 's going to be
working on the Curry Farms and the Rice Marsh and Chan Hills and all of
them all at the same time and come up with some plan.
Robinson : Bandimere Heights also?
Sietsema: Yes .
Boyt : And we still have the money for Herman Field?
Sietsema: Yes. That' s reserved and that we can' t spend anywhere else.
Boyt : Did we have fencing put in at City Center court?
Sietsema: No and I talked to Gary this morning about that when we were
talking about it. He ' s going to go out there and look and recommend
exactly would be the best thing to do.
Boyt : Where do we want it?
Mady: The hockey rinks . My recommendation at this point, not to spend
any money at City Center Park pending the next three months what happens
with the Task Force on the Community Center concept because if that goes
through, we'd be stupid to spend a lot of money to do something and then
tear it all out 2 years later .
Boyt: Should we roll it over to the next year?
Mady: I don ' t feel comfortable rolling it over either right now. My gut
feeling is that the community center concept is going to go through and
we ' re just going to be moving that .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 40
Sietsema: Better safe than sorry.
Boyt : Even though we don ' t spend it next but if it ' s not there at all .
Robinson: Do we have to determine that now? Do you have to determine if
you roll it over?
Sietsema: I need to know a rough estimate of what we' re going to be
requiring because it's going, the preliminey budget is going to go to
Council on Monday for budget discussion so they want a ballpark figure of
what we' re going to be asking for. Not necessarily items. They' re not
going to be getting our park by park item but they are going to be
getting, Park and Rec is asking for this much. Engineering is asking for
this much so I do need to have a really good idea of what dollar figure
we' re looking at. If it' s $50, 000. 00 or $100, 000. 00 or $150, 000. 00.
Boyt : If we don' t do this now, I don ' t understand what that, we haven ' t
talked about this.
Mady: I don ' t see any reason to talk about the rollovers right now.
We' re talking about next year ' s budget. We' re not talking about
rollovers . Let ' s talk about the rollovers later because that doesn' t have
any affect on next year . If we' ve got it in this year ' s budget and we
don ' t get the work done, we' re going to roll it. I don' t see any reason
not to.
Robinson : And that has no bearing on what we spend next year .
Sietsema: Well , it does . It' s added into the total . You' re actually
rebudgeting . You' re using money from last year that wasn ' t spent because
you' re adding.
Mady: But we' re not stealing anything .
Sietsema : But you' re adding it to the new total so we should discuss it
now so we know what the total is going to be.
Mady: We don' t even know what we' re not going to get done this year.
Boyt : I don ' t think there' s a lot of this year left . Realistically with
the history of what they've gotten done this year .
Schroers : I agree with that .
Boyt: We have September left.
Schroers : Even taken into consideration the fact that we have had ideal
and perfect weather , much better than you could ever expect for a normal
year , things have progressed rather slowly from the Park and Rec point of
view. I guess that' s just my personal observation.
Mady: The City doesn ' t do any paving until they do it all at once. All
the blacktopping at once.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 41
Schroers : And then it will seem like a lot more.
Boyt: Bandimere Heights has got their totlots in.
Hoffman: Lake Ann is done . North Lotus Lake is done.
Mady: Can we go to the back page? That' s where I got all my comments .
Boyt : Have we seen the Curry Farms Park master plan?
Sietsema: No, that' s being worked on at the same time.
Mady: At Lake Ann, it looks like we have $10, 000. 00 at Lake Ann for sewer
and water connection and $5,000. 00 for totlot replacement. Is that
supposed to be for sewer and water and totlot equipment?
Sietsema: The $10,000. 00, I think that is on the wrong line .
Mady: That ' s why I was wondering , if that ' s supposed to be sewer and
water connection and then totlot replacement is $5, 000. 00.
Schroers : Is that what' s currently started? The framework? The timbers
laying on the ground down at the beach at Lake Ann. Is that for the
totlot?
Hoffman: That' s all completed .
Mady: That was the totlot we did this year . This is for next year .
Hoffman: This replacement would be up by the ballfield Larry where the
old one is .
Schroers : But there is a bunch of timbers laying on the ground in the
area around that . . .
Hoffman: It' s all in. The timbers were a border for it with the pea
gravel inside and the totlot equipment is all in place.
Schroers : You ' re telling that that ' s clean?
Hoffman: That' s finished .
Schroers : When did that get finished?
Hoffman: I believe Friday or else Monday.
Mady: Okay, down to South Lotus Lake, we' ve got $10,000. 00 for general
improvement and then $15, 000. 00 for ballfield and $10, 000. 00 for totlot.
Sietsema : That should pretty much cover what Gary is talking about and
doing some landscaping and planting and getting the ballfields in there
and in place . There ' s going to have to be some grading done to do the
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 42
ballfields . The big pile of dirt is gone but it' s going to need to be
graded and fine graded and fences and infields and seeding and everything .
Mady: What kind of fence?
Sietsema: Backstop.
Robinson: Tennis courts . . . 1988 .
Sietsema: The 1988 column shows the original budget.
Mady: Carver Beach, $3 ,000. 00 for a basketball court .
Sietsema: Did you want to move the tennis courts back into 1989 on South
Lotus?
Mady: No . I don' t see a need for tennis courts . I ' ve taken my own
little study. I don' t see anybody playing tennis anywhere ever . I 've
never seen anybody on North Lotus Lake.
Sietsema: I get a lot of comment on the Lotus Lake ones and the school
ones .
Mady: I 'm looking at . . .use $130, 000. 00 plus dollars and I know the City
Council isn' t going to want to spend that kind of money. If you can walk
6 blocks to the school to play tennis , you ' re within the service area .
When we've got pressing needs at other places, I have a tough time asking
for another $25, 000. 00 for a tennis court .
Boyt: I don' t think they would take it out because one person . . .
1
Mady: I ' ve got the floor and I want to go through this whole list right
now and somebody else can make their adds and divisions. Carver Beach
$3 , 000. 00 for off street parking is fine. Minnewashta Heights , $20,000. 00
for a park shelter . There has got to be a better way. $20, 000. 00 for a
park shelter out there. We've got to do some serious thinking about
finding something else. At one time we were talking about the bus
shelters that the MTC uses. I can' t imagine they pay $20, 000. 00 a piece
for those things .
Sietsema: They are an awful lot of money.
Mady: We've got to find a better alternative than to spend $20, 000. 00
because if we' re going to spend $20, 000. 00, let ' s put a small parking lot
and provide a wind shelter and wind break. We ' re going to run out of
park development fees real fast . That' s my gut feeling . If we can' t do
it for $5, 000. 00 for basically a wind break, $20, 000. 00 is a lot of money
for something that ' s going to be used 2 months out of the year , 3 months
out of the year .
Sietsema: So you want me to cut that down?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 43
Mady: That ' s my comment . City Center Park, hockey improvements , play
surface. I 'm not sure what play surface is .
Sietsema : It ' s the pea gravel .
Mady: The pea gravel for the totlot? $2, 500. 00 for a warming house,
there again, we've got $2, 500. 00 there versus $20, 000. 00 at Minnewashta.
Sietsema : It ' s existing though. This is upgrading the existing warming
house.
Mady: We were talking about doing something totally different there. I 'd
rather, instead of spending $2, 500. 00 to fix that one, maybe use that one
at Minnewashta and do something nice at City Center where it' s going to
service a lot larger service area.
Sietsema : So do you want me to do anything to change that?
Mady: No. I guess the City Center Park, I have some real serious
concerns on making any improvements to that park without having a master
plan done.
Robinson: Plus I think your point is good on that community center . . .
Sietsema : We can take out anything. We can not spend anything but you
can ' t spend $40, 000. 00 next year on totlot equipment if you don' t budget
for it.
Robinson : Okay, but didn' t you say you need a number for that?
Sietsema: Right.
Mady: If we go to Bluff Creek, the access road for $10, 000 . 00, where are
we going to put that?
Sietsema: A good question .
Mady: Why are we even putting it in the budget? We don ' t even know what
we' re going to do with it.
Sietsema : That ' s part of what the $10, 000. 00 would do is find out how we
can get access to it.
Mady: Here again, we' re putting in a self parking , that' s where it ' s
going to go. I don' t like the idea of budgeting for something when we
don ' t even have an idea of what we ' re going to do . If we need to fund the
study, then let' s fund the study. Let' s not fund the whole thing. My
last comment is on North Lotus Lake Park. We' ve got that ballfield in
there. Next year we should have grass growing in hopefully. We have no
place for kids to play Little League in this city right now. That field
is big enough to accomodate that. It' s on a major street so we have no
traffic problems coming from a neighborhood park. I would like to see us
put a mound in there for Little League so those kids at least have a place
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 44
to practice when they can' t use the Legion field , the American Legion
field or Lake Ann. We have a very big need for Little League in this
city. Those kids don' t have a place to play and if we don ' t put them out
on this one, they still don' t and they won' t next year and the year after
because we can ' t afford it. I think if we upgrade that park with a couple
hundred bucks or whatever it takes to do it, so at least they have a place
to practice.
Hoffman: Specifically a Little League or Babe Ruth?
Mady: Little League. Babe Ruth can be handled at Lake Ann but they
can' t.
Hoffman : Presently Babe Ruth does not use Lake Ann at all . The only
field they use in the city is the Legion.
Mady: And they have first preference at the Legion.
Hoffman: And they had two teams this year . They' re looking to hopefully
three next year where at present we combine with South Tonka on the Little
League.
Boyt : But we don ' t want to combine.
Hoffman: No, we don't want to.
Mady: If there ' s a way of doing it at North Lotus Lake since it ' s on a
major street right now, we shouldn' t have the neighborhood problems with
traffic .
Hoffman: Just to clarify what exactly you and Sue were looking for .
Mady: I think it' s short term. That' s definitely short term. Maybe 2 to
3 years .
Schroers : I agree too . I think we owe it to the kids to try and give
them someplace.
Sietsema: So you want me to add $500. 00?
Mady: We've already got everthing in there with the exception of putting
a mound in .
Boyt : Do we need a fence?
Mady: No . For a non-sanctioned Little League , they can get away without
a fence.
Hoffman : I think probably you could get a snow fence .
Mady: Get by for this year without them. I think right now those kids
would just be happy to have a place to play and we have an opportunity.
Those are my comments.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 45
Boyt : Did we put an archery range in anywhere? I see it down here .
Sietsema: No we didn' t .
Schroers : We' re talking about it going in somewhere at Lake Susan. We
haven' t picked a site.
Sietsema : It was put into the Lake Susan plan that went for the grant. In
fact I should bring that plan to you.
Schroers : What was actually put in was $1, 000. 00 allocated for the range.
Sietsema: No, we had to come up with like a master plan, a concept plan
to submit to LAWCON when we made our application and I believe that the
archery range was included in that .
Schroers : Okay, so there was actually a location? It was plotted in.
Sietsema: Right, and that won' t happen that way without your approval of
the concept plan but because of time constraints , there wasn' t the time to
bring a concept plan back to the Park and Recreation Commission before
application .
Schroers : The only problem I have with that is how we' re going to get to
it.
Sietsema : That ' s included in the plan too .
Schroers : The access road. . .
Sietsema: It ' s a $229 , 000. 00 project.
Mady: And the City does have, I think it' s two developments right now
looking at going into that area . I talked to one of the councilmembers
here about a week or so ago. This fund comes out of our capital
improvement program. The City estimates that we' ll have 400 building
permits next year . That' s going to raise $170, 000. 00. Now we just told
people from Pheasant Hills that their money that they put in goes in
specifically to their development.
Boyt : Their area .
Mady: Their area . That ' s exactly it . We just told them we won ' t spend
it any other place but yet we' re spending $170, 000. 00 here, we've got a
policy problem.
Sietsema : We' ll spend that money in their area . I don ' t think that we
lied to them at all . I don' t think we misled them. I think we've spent
money where the population has been.
Mady: I know we do but when we tell them we' re going to spend that
$38, 000. 00 there, where do we get the extra money because we don' t get any
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 46
money from the City. My tax dollars don ' t support any development so tha
means if we do an improvement in a neighborhood park like Greenwood Shore-
that didn' t pay any development fees , we ' re getting that money from
somebody else for a neighborhood park.
Sietsema : That ' s true. Some areas we've gotten the land . We didn' t need
to acquire it so we had more money than we needed to develop that area .
Mady: When we tell a neighborhood that we' ve got $40, 000. 00 coming in
from there, we' re going to spend that there, that' s not a legitimate
statement because we ' re spending money almost every year in areas that we
never picked up a dime.
Schroers : I think it' s a legitimate statement . What we ' re telling them
is that when we come up with a suitable plan, that we will put that amount
of money back into their area . Not specifically maybe the same $38 ,000.00
that we originally got from them but we are willing to put that amount of
money back into their area .
Mady: We told them that money was already earmarked and what we' re doing
here is we ' re stealing future money to pay a present need someplace else.
Boyt : Remember when we went through that with Don a couple years ago. I
never really understood what he said but we' re supposed to have funds
going into 5 or 6 different areas but there ' s really no account that keeps
money, your Section A in Section A. We just have to eventually spend
money on that area .
Schroers : That ' s the same thing that I was saying . We don' t take their
money and put it in an account marked Pheasant Hills.
Mady: But we told them it' s earmarked . Their money has already been
earmarked.
Schroers : I think we told them that a number , an amount has been
earmarked.
Mady: What happens 20 years from now when the City' s full? We ' re
basically fully developed and the last house comes in with $425. 00 or
whatever it is then , and now we' re spending it someplace else? We' re not
going to spend it in this development. I think we have to be careful when
we tell a neighborhood that we' ve got that money earmarked because we
really don' t. We atempt to earmark or we attempt to utilize the funds in
the neighborhood but that ' s all . That ' s the best job we can ever do is
attempt. We can' t . . . that we' re going to spend $40, 000. 00 in your
neighborhood because in that neighborhood that $40, 000. 00 wouldn' t buy
anything. They want ballfields . They want this . They want that. They
want 300, 000. 00 worth of stuff there . There ' s no way we ' re going to fund
it out of our capital improvement program that I can see.
Robinson : And if they really went out and did some work to come up with,
here' s how we want our $40, 000. 00 spent tomorrow.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 47
Boyt : They can give us recommendations but they can ' t come in and say. . .
Robinson: But my point is . . .
Sietsema: I understand what you' re saying .
Boyt: That was my question to Don too. We, as commissioners were told
that money was set aside and I think Don thinks it is .
Sietsema: It' s collected. It' s real weird . The money comes in and when
it ' s receipted in the finance department it goes into a receipt that
tallies up how much we collect in each area so we know how much we' ve
collected in each area . At the end of the year it' s all dumped into the
major park fund. So we know how much we took, how much we got from their
area and it ' s all put into the major park fund and then we start over the
next year tallying up how much we got in each area.
Mady: But we don ' t save it.
Sietsema : It' s not like we' re only going to spend $40, 000. 00 in this area
because that' s all you contributed to and we' re not spending any in your
area because you haven' t . We do rob Peter to pay Paul .
Mady: So we can' t. . .that they' ve got $40, 000. 00 to spend because that' s
just not a fact.
Sietsema : I hope that that ' s not the way that it came across but I think
it ' s a true statement that they' ll get $40, 000. 00 worth of park services .
Mady: I 'm sure they will but I know that one lady stood there and said,
if we' ve only got $40,000. 00 to spend , maybe we' re being short sighted to
spend $10, 000. 00 on a piece of totlot equipment now because then we ' ll
only have $30, 000. 00 to spend.
Sietsema : I think I explained it to her that it didn' t work that tightly.
It wasn 't that . . .
Mady: We need to go further on the budget.
Boyt: On the budget, do you know out of the 400 permits , how many paid a
park fee this year?
Mady: All of them.
Boyt : No , because if they' re in like Lake Susan , they may have paid only
50% . How many paid the full $425. 00? I think that would be good
information to take to the Council saying look, we brought in $170, 000. 00
here and our budget is $139, 000. 00 so there should be no problem with
giving us this money. Can you get that number?
Sietsema: I ' ll check. I don' t know if they have it recorded that way.
I can more than likely tell you how much actually I took in than to tell
you who didn' t pay.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 48
Boyt : Don' t you think that would be a good number to have when you' re
presenting the budget?
Sietsema : Yes . I can get that for you before we finalize this .
Robinson: Did we put in 1989 anything for Pheasant Hills? Do you think
we should?
Schroers : I think we should put in about $38 , 000. 00.
Robinson: We've got that though. That' s in the reserve money.
Mady: I guess I have a problem right now with Pheasant Hills to do
anything until we know what we've got out there. Looking at the parcel
that Tom was talking about , I didn' t look that closely at the parcel on
the right side but it sure all looked like wetland. If he filled in a
portion, I would still consider that it must be a wetland because there is
water in the main portion of it now.
Robinson : Maybe we'd better go buy the Carrico property. I think we
should have something in the 1989 budget for Pheasant Hills .
Mady: $5, 000. 00 buys a small play structure.
Schroers : Yes, plug in the amount for a totlot .
Sietsema: To buy a totlot and the border , the first phase is about
$6, 000. 00.
Schroers : Or else designate the totlot that we' ve already purchased for
Greenwood Shores to Pheasant Hills. That even makes more sense I think.
Sietsema : I can do that .
Mady: That ' s fine. I have no problem with that. Greenwood Shores
because they don' t want it anyway. Where else do we have a totlot?
Boyt : We' ve also got $2, 000. 00 from off street parking in Greenwood
Shores. We need a park development plan.
Mady: I 'd like to roll that for next year .
Sietsema: I don' t know what you told me to do on this. You had some
ideas and nobody made a motion. If we could just go park by park.
$15, 000. 00 for Lake Ann Park. Nothing for Greenwood Shores . $500. 00 for
North Lotus . $35, 000. 00 for South Lotus .
Robinson: Plus the $25, 000. 00 for the tennis court from 1988 .
Sietsema: Okay, I ' ll put that in and you can decide in your motion if
that passes or not. I don' t know how to do this any other way. $6,350.00
in Carver Beach. $3, 000. 00 for general improvement at Carver Beach along
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 49
Lotus Trail . Nothing at Meadow Green . Off street parking , $2, 000 . 00 for
Rice Marsh Lake.
Mady: Do we have a sign there? I don' t even know where the place exists .
Sietsema: Yes. Basketball and off street parking for Bandimere. The off
street parking should be done this year so we could take that out .
$20,000. 00 for Minnewashta Heights?
Mady: I 'd like to see us review that.
Sietsema: Should we leave it in for now? $300. 00 for Chan Pond.
$45, 000. 00 for City Center . $11, 000. 00 for Bluff Creek. $3,000. 00 for
the tree farm and $5, 000. 00 for miscellaneous .
Boyt : So moved .
Robinson: Second .
Mady: The total then is, $139, 150 . 00.
Robinson: The basketball court at Carver Beach is this year?
Sietsema : Yes .
Mady: We' re at almost $160,000 . 00.
Robinson: It fits right in with the $170, 000. 00.
Boyt moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve the 1989 Capital Improvement Program as presented by
staff with the noted changes for a total of $139 , 150. 00 . All voted in
favor except Mady who opposed and the motion carried .
Mady: The problem I have with this is the tennis courts at South Lotus
Lake. I 'm not seeing good useage and $20, 000. 00 is a lot of money for
something that doesn ' t get a lot of useage.
Robinson: I disagree with not a lot of useage Jim. I was up here with my
kid one night and it was full that whole night there. The next night , it
was getting close to dark.
Boyt : During the day the cars are lined up. . .
Mady: At Lake Ann Park, in the 3 years I ' ve been here, this year I saw 2
kids out there once this year .
Boyt: It' s unadvertised .
Mady: That ' s the extent of people I ' ve ever seen out there.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 50
Hoffman: That ' s by far the least used tennis court .
Schroers : That' s not as accessible as a neighborhood tennis court so you
would maybe expect that you would get maybe a little less use. However ,
that is right on that jogging path and I ' ve seen people there from time to
time. It ' s not like they' re lined up and waiting but it does get used .
Mady: Just be prepared when the Council comes back and cuts this .
SITE PLAN REVIEW - SHOREWOOD OAKS .
Mady: I think we' ve all looked at it hopefully. The comment I had was
the new street, as near as I can tell it' s heading south off of that
circle and then it deadends. That' s going to go into another development
at some point in time. I think we should be getting easements along that
also .
Boyt : Doesn ' t this look a little bit like Pheasant Hills? Do you think
they need one of these lots taken out for a totlot? We normally take 5
acres . In fact normally we don' t take less than 5 acres but. . .
Sietsema : It may be something you want to consider .
Mady: We have a totlot at Minnewashta Heights though and that ' s just down
the street.
Sietsema : No , it ' s quite a ways . It ' s quite a ways and it ' s secluded .
You have to go along TH 7 to get to it.
Mady: Our Comp Plan talks about putting a park, a major park around Lake
St. Joe.
Boyt : Yes , but I think we ' re hearing from these people that they would
like it within walking distance. We can always request that and the
Council can turn it down but we would could request that he donate two
lots , 30,000 square feet for a small neighborhood totlot.
Mady: You mean give up all our park dedication fees?
Boyt: We could take a percentage.
Mady: We've got how many homes?
Boyt: 27 .
Mady: That ' s $100, 000. 00. They' ll probably get around $30, 000 . 00 a
piece. That' s what they' re going for so maybe a two-thirds reduction.
Schroers : I don ' t think it would hurt to run that by them.
Mady: It may not hurt but then the park maintenance staff to have to run
around to every half acre lot in the City to try to mow the grass every
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 51
week. That ' s something we talked about before. That' s not what we want
to be doing. We have a problem now with getting things done. If we have
to mow 30, 000 acres at 25 different sites around the City, we' re not going
to get anything else done but grass mowing ever. It' s a philosophical
thing . We Wtaalked about it before. We ' re not going to do it .
Scohroeros: Itgsel eltheepeoplepfromi_heasant Hills tonight . What are we
going to give them?
Mady: The people at Pheasant Hills bought their property full aware there
was no park in their area.
Boyt: But it doesn' t mean that we can' t look to the needs of the people
in this whole neighborhood are going to be. This is an amenity they' re
going to want. That their developer is not providing for .
Schroers: I think that' s why they were here tonight. They were telling
us that at that point in time the Park Commission was short sighted and
now they want something done with it and we' re stuck with their problem so
I think we should learn from previous mistakes or short comings or
whatever and try to avoid a situation like that in the future because that
Pheasant Hills situation could end up costing us a lot of money before we
get that straighten out.
Boyt : We' ve looked at a lot of these small developments and we say
they' re too small to take anything so we' re getting block after block of
too small to take anything when maybe we should look at something smaller
than 5 acres once in a while.
Mady: The area straight south of there, . . .developed .
Sietsema: No.
Mady: We looked at one in there someplace.
Sietsema : The one that this leads to is undeveloped.
Schroers : We talked about going up into the area just to the north or as
you' re driving up to the right of King ' s Point Road and looking at
acquiring future parkland in that area because it ' s an open space that is
undeveloped but the situation is that we would probably have to purchase
it. Then we talked about a trail and possible park with a nature area
around St . Joe but other than that and the trail , I don ' t remember talking
about anything else in there.
Robinson : Why do you say Lori , in your recommendation, however ,
requesting a minimum of 5 acres for park purposes .
Boyt : That ' s what we normally. . .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 52
Robinson : But couldn' t we have, even one lot for a totlot? Is that one
lot . . .
Sietsema : I was just reiterating what the policy has been in the past .
It' s not to say we can' t change our policy. The 27 lots will generate the
park needs and our formula for 1 acre for 75 people, that will generate
the need for 1 acre of parkland. Generally you'd need about 2 1/2 to 3
acres to put a totlot and half court basketball and tennis courts on. You
need at least that. That would be pretty compact. If you wanted just a
piece of property that would accomodate just a totlot, a lot would do it.
Schroers : Breaking the ratio down between the number of units , the size
of the development and the land that we ask for , would these 27 units in
this development, how would that ratio work out for 2 1/2 acres or 2 1/2
lots? Would we be pretty much on target there?
Sietsema : 2 1/2 lots? 2 1/2 acres would be too much. It works out to be
about 10% of the total acreage is what the 1 acre per 75 people works out ,
generally in the urban area and that' s exactly what it works out to . 27
lots equals 1 acre of parkland. The need for 1 area of parkland , which in
this case is 10% and I don' t believe that the courts would argue that that
would be a taking if you took 10%.
Schroers: And in 1 acre we could put a totlot, maybe a half court
basketball court and a picnic table or two.
Sietsema: That' s about all you'd get. That' s about what you could get on
an acre .
Mady: So we' re talking we' re going to get away from our policy.
Schroers : We' re not talking we' re going to get away from our policy.
We' re just boring some new thinking . New ideas .
Boyt: 10% is the policy.
Mady: What are we going from now on? The next time a guy comes in with
15 acre parcel with 15 houses, are we going to take a lot from him?
Sietsema : I think something you might want to consider then is that
getting it along the south boundary line, that you could hook up into, if
it develops to the south, you could require that they dedicate another
couple acres so then it would eventually equal to . . .
Mady: My problem here is , because we heard a group complain that they
don' t have a park we' re now looking at this development and we' re
changing . We do the same thing with the trail plan on the south when we
looked at the Gagne property. We said also we want a trail here and we
want a trail there and that wasn' t totally with anything we had done in
the past. We' re not being consistent at all and I 've got a problem with
that. The City should develop a plan on consistent basis .
Boyt: The plan used to be no trails at all .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 53
Sietsema : But as you go along and you find flaws in your plan and your
policies , then you change accordingly if you feel that that' s a flaw. I
guess that would be a matter of opinion.
Schroers: I 'm not suggesting that we change our policy. I 'm not
suggesting that we look for a new way of avoiding a situation like we ran
into tonight because I think once we get to the point where everything' s
developed , once we get to the point where Pheasant Hills is now, we' re in
a bind. It's much more difficult and much more expensive to provide what
we provide for them now rather than to do a little bit of creative
thinking and come up with a plan that we can plan something now and . . .
future complications and problems like this . I 'm not suggesting that we
change any policy. I 'm suggesting that we look at an alternative here and
see what we can turn around .
Mady: I guess my problem is I see us, we do this for this 27 housing
development, we' re going to have to do it for everyone. We have to make
sure we get a totlot in every. . .
Sietsema: The thought that you have to have consistency and you have to
have policies but when you' re dealing with some situations where it' s a
small development and it' s a very remote area where there isn ' t anything
else available and the opportunity of getting Lake St. Joe when it becomes
available , what is it going to cost us if that ' s not a sure thing so you
may want to deviate from your policy. It ' s not written in granite that we
can not accept anything under 5 acres but when you ' re in an area that has
a small development among an area with a lot of bigger parcels in the
future that are going to be developed , and you can see that' s going to be
a bigger development and we can acquire that then and they will use their
fees to help develop that and that area will serve them. Everything is
not, you' re not comparing apples to apples all the way along.
Boyt: North of TH 5 there ' s a lot of little pieces of property and I
think we' re going to miss out on acquiring any land because everything is
so small . . . I don ' t want those people to miss out on having an area for
kids.
Schroers : If we can go back maybe to what Lori suggested about asking for
something along the southern boundary. Is there something proposed there
Lori? Do you see this , do you know should it be something that
legitimately will happen in the conceivable future?
Sietsema: I have no idea .
Schroers : If we were to ask for our 5 acres along the south border that
we really don' t know when or if that will be available?
Sietsema : I have no idea about it . When it will come up for development .
I would not even venture a guess .
Schroers : There ' s nothing proposed at this time?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 54
Sietsema: Not that I know of.
Robinson : Which lots would be, are we fussy which ones?
Sietsema : Here' s a bigger site plan of the area .
Mady: Do you want a lot that' s on the south side so it can be expanded?
Robinson: We want it flat.
Schroers : That ' s pretty much all high ground up there. I just drove past
there yesterday and that' s , on the west side of the Parkway and it' s all
fairly high ground up in there.
Sietsema: . . .the least amount of grading up in this area .
Schroers : You need a motion on this tonight right?
Sietsema: Yes, and what you could do is just direct staff to let the
developer know that we' re looking for roughly an acre or whatever amount
of land that you wanted to, a half acre to an acre of land along the
southern boundary that would accomodate active uses . Then I could meet
with the developer or with the Planning Department actually and go out to
the site and look at what the topo looks like and what the land is like.
Schroers : I guess I would like to know how you feel about that. Would
you rather pursue it from that point of view or would you rather just
stick with the policy and say, let ' s just stick with our 5 acres and hope
that something becomes available?
Sietsema : Strictly from an administrative standpoint, having to deal with
questions and concerns down the road, I 'd like to see us get something .
From a maintenance standpoint , I 'd like to see us stick with 5 acres . If
I was buying a house in this, I would want us to go with an acre of
parkland so it' s hard for me to say. Given the situation that we' re
dealing with the west side of Lake Minnewashta where there isn' t any other
park in the area , the chance of it developing to the south I think are
fairly good.
Schroers : I agree.
Sietsema: I think it might be a good idea to try and pursue getting
parkland. That doesn' t mean that we have to throw Lake St. Joe out the
window. I think that' s still an option . I think that ' s still a viable
future acquisition.
Schroers : I think that could be a real hot spot if we didn ' t acquire
parkland there and none became available in the future. In that area, I
think you' re going to get the kind of people that are going to want
parkland and I think it would be. . .
Sietsema : Or else ask that they provide some kind of an association lot
in the area. Open space that an association would take care of. That
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 55
would remain under their ownership. That might be an option too . Then it
wouldn 't become public property but it would provide them with their open
space and that would take the maintenance responsibility off of the City
too. We wouldn' t be responsible for maintaining that then.
Schroers : That way we also wouldn' t be changing our policy either .
Robinson: Ready for a motion?
Schroers : Have you got one?
Robinson : I ' ll take a stab at one . That stab , work with the developer
and suggest either, like you said Lori , to designate some open area for
the dwellings or dedicate a couple lots on the south side for park use.
That an off-street trail be constructed along the through street.
Sietsema : Did you want that to go along the street that goes to the south
that looks like it will be a through street?
Robinson : Yes .
Schroers : Do we need to add in there that we want the results brought
back before this Commission?
Sietsema: No . I would bring that back to you .
Boyt: Second .
Mady: I have some comments . One , I think we have to study this thing .
Everytime before we can start looking at 27 housing developments that' s
looking for more parkland in a park deficient area that ' s fine. When we
got a concept, the neighborhood didn' t have a park, we' re using that to
base that on when they developed and now they' re coming to us, we have
neighborhoods throughout the City that don' t have parks within close
immediate walking distance to them and if we ' re basing this judgment on
that, we ' re going to be having people in here all the time telling us they
want to have a totlot next to , within a couple of blocks of them. I guess
I have a problem with that. I don' t think the people in Pheasant Hills
necessarily have a lot to ask for in a totlot . . . . there was a conscience
decision made there not putting park in. We need a park in that area .
I don' t know if a totlot there is the answer . I think we need to study
the overall question.
Robinson : Are you questioning what we told Pheasant Hills people tonight?
Mady: Partly that too. I have a problem, if we' re going to do this then
we ' re probably going to be looking at every developer doing this or we' re
sending a message out and I want to make sure you understand we' re sending
that message out that we' re going to be looking at this . We have to think
this through because this isn' t anything we' re doing on the Comp Plan.
The Comp Plan , we talk about 5 acre parks and now we' re going to a 1 arce
park and hoping we can pick up some more on the south. It ' s a small lot
and I have a problem with it.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 56
Hoffman: Something you have to back this up with is that that is clearly
a park deficient area where some of the other neighborhoods that don' t
have, they have something at least somewhat closer by.
Sietsema: I guess what I would compare it to is when the people that live
in the Chaparral area that ' s adjacent to the Carver Beach area and they
wanted the City to purchase the vacant lot for a totlot area because it
was too far for their kids to walk to the park. Well , they have a park
within four blocks that serves that area. They wanted one that was
closer . They had a couple daycares in that area and they wanted something
that was closer . I could see where that isn' t, you can justifiably say
that you are not a park deficient area and therefore, we would not deviate
from our policy of 5 acres.
Mady: I 'm just saying , we' re going to have this problem throughout the
City. This is not the first time nor will it be even close to being the
last time. We ' re going to have a lot of real small parks throughout the
City if we do this. We' re talking about going to a totlot concept.
Robinson moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to direct staff to work with the developer to suggest open space
under Homeowners Association control or dedicate two lots on the south
side of the development for park use. Also, to recommend trail
construction along the through street within the development. All voted
in favor except Mady who opposed and the motion carried .
REVIEW ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS : MOORING BOATS AND RAFTS AND PETS IN PARKS
AND ON TRAILS.
Sietsema : It ' s going to City Council . I just brought it more or less in
case you had any comments.
Mady: The only problem I have is two things. Two comments . One has to do
with dogs in parks. It says under restraint. I want to make sure that
under restraint means physical restraint . Some people consider that their
dogs get restraint when they can use a whistle or hand and speech commands
and I want to make sure that that legally restricts them to on a leash .
The other comment was, I talked to Scott Harr , at least on ordinances , it
sounds like an ordinance, if there' s a boat moored off the shore
illegally, they get 30 days to move the sucker before we can remove it. I
want to know how we get this thing changed so that it' s like parking
illegally in a parking spot. If it' s illegal , the City has a right to tow
immediately so we don' t have to wait 30 days to get it done . Do we need
a motion on these?
Sietsema : Not if you want to but you could put your support behind it .
Mady: Was there anything in the staff updates that we needed to talk
about?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9, 1988 - Page 57
Sietsema : One item on the memos that were sent to City Council . They
didn' t appreciate it. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Horn, I wasn ' t at the meeting last night but I understood that
they didn' t feel that it was appropriate that this Commission send them a
memo and other councilpeople responded saying that they did think it was
appropriate to get feedback from the Commissions .
Mady: I hope the councilmembers who responded that realize that we are
commission members but we are also taxpayers and we have a right to voice
our opinion . As making recommendations , if the Council doesn ' t seem to go
along with their previous recommendation or previous direction, they
should have to stand there . We don' t appreciate receiving direction and
then all of a sudden they flip flopping back and forth just to get. . .
Sietsema: The way I understood it , they didn' t feel that that was their
direction.
Mady: . . . that ' s my opinion and I 'm a taxpayer so let me voice it .
Robinson: Put that sucker to bed once and for all and be done with it.
I 'd rather not hear about it again .
Sietsema : I got some surveys in the mail that include maps that the Met
Council would like you to fill out.
Mady: One brief comment on when we have public hearings , and we ' ll be
having one probably in August, I attended the public hearing at the
Planning Commission . It went very smoothly even though it was a very
vocal and emotional issue, they' re probably very vocal . Ladd did an
excellent job of controlling it. The way he did that was the Commission
sits up here. They do not make comments , share comments with the audience
back and forth. They may ask the audience a question but they do not
respond to a question and then answer it right away. They wait until
Commission time and then they respond . They take total comments first .
That' s what it is is public comment and then it' s forwarded it that way.
You don' t have all this back and forth .
Boyt: But it is a time to discuss . With us it' s a time to answer their
questions .
Mady: But when you have a vocal issue , it' s very difficult to get
anything accomplished.
Boyt : It' s also very frustrating to sit on the other side and ask a
question and not be able to get an answer . Not be allowed to talk. The
City Council runs it more that way. We ' re the point before they get to
the council where they can get those things answered.
Mady: But we don ' t have the ability to do anything . I 'm looking at
trying to run an organized meeting and an orderly meeting . The ones with
Greenwood Shores , Pheasant Hills, it was back and forth and people keep
talking all over the place. That ' s just not organized. We ' re not doing
service to them or to ourselves . If they have a question after they can
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
August 9 , 1988 - Page 23
raise it but the best time for public comment, and that' s what they' re
there for, we' re not to comment. We take public comment and then we
respond with our comments .
Mady moved , Robinson 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