1m. Minutes 209
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 28, 1988
I
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . 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, and Jo
Ann Olsen
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
' approve the agenda with the addition of discussing the Carrico property on Lake
Lucy Road under Council Presentations by Councilman Boyt. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
' recommendations:
a. Approve Amendment to Article 16, Kurvers Point Development Contract.
IIi b. Resolution #88-125: Accept Streets in Hidden Valley Phase II.
d. Resolution #88-126: Accept Streets in:
' 1. Chanhassen Vista 2nd Addition
2. Chanhassen Vista 3rd Addition
3. Chanhassen Vista 4th Addition
e. Resolution #88-127: Accept Streets in Crimson Bay Addition.
f. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-421(11) of the Wetland
Ordinance to clarify that the City has control over Dredging Wetlands in
Public Waters Located in Lakes Wholly within the City of Chanhassen, Final
' Reading.
j. Accounts Payable.
k. City Council Minutes dated November 14, 1988
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 1, 1988
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
(C) ACCEPT STREETS IN RED CEDAR COVE.
Councilman Boyt: It's simply to change a word in our Consent Agenda from
accept streets to accept watermain. We're really just saying the streets are
built to our standards but we're not accepting any responsibility for those
since it's a private street.
1
:_s
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Did you get that Don?
Don Ashworth: That's fine. '
Resolution #88-128: Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve
item 1(c) with the change to read, Accept Watermain in Red Cedar Cove. All '
voted in favor and the motion carried.
(I) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT, DAVE STOCKDALE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. '
Councilman Boyt: My comments on this, I think the Findings of Fact that I see
here are just a flat out statement of what happened and they're certainly not a
statement of endorsement. Since Roger's here, my understanding is what we're
looking for in the Findings of Facts is how firm is the ground we're standing
on? As I recall this, I didn't think we were standing on very firm ground from
my perspective and when I read the Findings of Fact, I didn't see anything that
made it look stronger than I initially thought so I would like to hear Roger
talk a little bit about the princibility of this particular findings.
Roger Knutson: The Findings reflect what the Council's decision was. The
Council decided that the applicant, through no fault of his own, was unable to
complete the activity once his conditional use was issued. Under extenuating
circumstances, the Council should reconfirm those Findings. Reconfirm the
Conditional Use Permit and that's exactly what I provided here. As far as the
defensibility, if a similar situation occurs, someone could complain that we
don't treat them similarly. That's equal protection. That's what precedence is
all about. -
Councilman Boyt: I think the loophole there is what we would define as similar. 1
Rather than beating a dead horse here. The other point I want to correct is
that it indicates in here that we all voted in favor of this. I don't remember
that being the way the vote was. Somewhere we have here that the vote was
unanimous.
Councilman Geving: It wasn't a unanimous vote.
Councilman Boyt: The last page, page 109, all voted in favor of the motion
period and I would like that corrected. I clearly opposed it and would like it
so noted. There was an issue that came up that night and it was rather late and
lengthy about whether the City Council had followed it's own procedure. I'd
like to hear from Roger if he thinks we followed the appropriate procedure for
granting this conditional use permit. Was there in fact a variance required and
did we follow the proper procedure to do that?
Roger Knutson: A variance requires a public hearing. There was no separate
public hearing on what you did. What the Council did is reconfirm his prior...
Councilman Horn: .. .which was the unique feature on this variance and why we
granted it. '
Roger Knutson: Basically you granted him an extension less what you had already
2
- -r
IICity Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 211
done back in March of '85.
Councilman Horn: Item 6 is what differentiates on the Findings of Fact.
' Councilman Boyt: I understand that we're making the
ng case that we had granted,
or that this had been granted March 15, 1985. It's my understanding that the
' conditional use permit expire and I gather Roger what you're telling me is that
what the City Council did in fact was extend what would have otherwise expired
or what did expire and we went back and extended it?
rRoger Knutson: That's my understanding of what was done. If the Council found
that the Conditional Use Permit expired, then that would lead to a. ..then your
question is, should a hearing have been held on the variance request? Yes. But
the Council felt, a majority of the Council decided, in fact as I understood the
discussion, that the conditional use permit did not expire and that you simply
were confirming that it had not expired and keeping with prior actions. If it
' has expired, then the proper procedure was not followed.
Councilman Boyt: Well, that makes it clear to me. We either thought it had
expired or we thought that this particular one for the item, for reason number
6, there may be other reasons, had not expired. So the vote turned on whether
or not it had expired. Is that an accurate reflection of the other council
members?
' Mayor Hamilton: I'm not so sure that that was the pivotable point as I recall
it. I don't know that we even talked about whether it had expired or not. You
I, might think that it was more that there were conditions that were beyond the
applicant's control that caused him not to be able to move ahead. Consequently,
as I recall, we felt that he should have another chance and be given the
conditional use permit.
Councilman Horn: As a matter of fact, when we were looking on this type of case,
we were looking for something to be unique to this case that would differentiate
' it from any other one coming in. And as for similiar requests and in fact the
unique part of this case was that it had previously been granted. Had he
continued it he would not even be in question at this point. So in fact he met
' the original intent that he was given...
Councilman Boyt: My main reason for pulling it was not really to rehash the
ground. We've done that. It was simply to straighten out that I voted against
' it and will continue to do so. Thanks for the time.
Councilman Johnson: I believe I voted against it too if I remember correctly. I
' think it was a 3 to 2 on that one. I'm not sure but if they can double check
the notes. Jo Ann usually keeps pretty good notes on those.
Councilman Geving: I would only suggest, if those were the way the notes read,
they should be corrected. I think it was 3 to 2.
Councilman Horn: We should reconsider then the approval of the City Council
ILMinutes of October 24th.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Findings of
3
•TL
ei y Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Fact for Dave Stockdale Conditional Use Permit. All voted in favor except
Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 2.
VISITORS PRESENTATION: There were no Visitors Presentations.
AWARD OF BIDS: UPGRADE OF AUDIO EQUIPMENT, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like we've done this 2 or 3 times. I would like to 1
know what type of equipment. I guess something was missing here for me. I've
never felt that these little microphones work very well or the ones that you
clip on. Many council chambers and the State Capitol and the Metropolitan
Council, they all have the microphones similar to what's on the desk there. You
can turn them on and off easily. You can speak into them. They pick up your
voice very well and I guess I'm curious as to what kind of equipment is being
proposed this time. 1
Don Ashworth: The only thing I'm sure on the microphones, Todd has met with the
individual people. Both of them had recommended changing the speakers
into 4 speakers that would be 2 each on either side facing back out. And going
that
the microphones themselves would be upgraded. The newer ones have the ability,
they're voice activated so rustling of papers and other things will not activate
the microphone. Voice will. The other part of the quote would be to bring the
wiring back to where Nann is and in that process she would be able to bring up
or down an individual person. If we had a Planning Coaauission member who was
softer or sitting back, she would be able to bring that individual up.
Similarly if you had a City Council meeting and somebody was stronger, she could
be bringing that one down. Basically I believe the microphone is similar to
what we have in front of us. I do not believe that it is the tripod type that
you're referring to. The microphones that they would put in are very similar to
the new ones that they put into the Chaska City Hall and as far as I know,
they're finding those to work very well for them down there.
Councilman Johnson: I talked to Todd on this myself since electronics is a
hobby and it's a part of my field. One of the main differences is the
directionality of the microphones. These are basically almost 360 degree
microphones. The microphones we'll be getting will be more directional.
There's quite a bit of improvement. It's not going to look exactly like this.
He didn't really explain what they're going to look like. I would have liked to
have seen some pictures or something out of the catalog would have helped me a
little bit but it looks like it's going to be some good quotes.
Don Ashworth: Would you like to table for 2 weeks? I can get pictures. ,
Councilman Geving: I think it wouldn't be necessary to act on this.
Mayor Hamilton: I just haven't any idea what you're talking about. Equipment.
Councilman Geving: We've done this several times now and it's kind of nice to
know if there's any resale value on what we're already got. I suspect there's
not. It's kind of like used computers.
4
I City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
/.3
' Mayor Hamilton: It probably wouldn't hurt to have someone here from Southwest
Audio Visual if they're the low bidder. They can tell us a little bit about the
' equipment.
Councilman Horn: I'd like to get more information on what you're calling a
voice activated microphone. I think that's a misnomer. Typically it's a noise
' activated microphone and noise will set it off. I'd like to know what's unique
about this that it only responds to a voice.
' Don Ashworth: I don't know but paper, unless the paper is directly over and
you're intentionally trying to do it, but otherwise just background papers will
not trigger the microphone. I don't understand the electronics either. I will
' have somebody in.
Councilman Boyt: I think that whatever the solution is, the problem is that
people can't hear and I haven't been convinced that this will help people hear.
It may help us be picked up by the videotape but I'm not sure it's going to help
people who are sitting back by the walls here to clearly understand what's going
on.
Mayor Hamilton: It's part of what we want to ask I think. Is how it's going
to change the volume in the back of the room.
' Councilman Horn: The assumptions this gives is that you add more speakers
and.. .this will actually put four speakers up there. My assumption is that for
the audience to hear but I don't know what else they'd be used for. They didn't
spell it out in here.
Councilman Geving: Let's table this to December 12th and have the
' representative from Southwest Audio come here and show us what he's going to do
for us. We'll get some pictures and we can act on this. There's no hurry.
It's a budgeted item.
' Mayor Hamilton: Is that a motion?
Councilman Geving: Yes, it's a motion to table this.
' Councilman Horn: Second.
' Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the
upgrading of the audio equipment for the City Council Chambers until the
December 12, 1988 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ROSEMOUNT INC, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 2ND ADDITION:
' A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON EAW.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW.
D. APPROVAL OF GRADING PERMIT.
E. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
5
pity Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 II
Mayor Hamilton: Jo Ann, beginning with the Negative Declaration on the EAW, 11
would you care to give us a presentation.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant, because of the size of the proposed site, they are '
required to go through the EAW. They have submitted the EAW. It was sent out
to several referral agencies who submitted their comments and then the City
Council is responsible for recommending a negative declaration of the EAW or
else requiring that it receive an EIS. The major comments that we did, first
the EAW does have a 30 day period and what was submitted, since then the site
plan has changed considerably. The applicant is here and ready to point out the
different changes the EAW did not reflect. We did get comments from the DNR,
MnDot, the Met Council, PCA and that was really all we received comments from.
Essentially the comments were referring to what they would like to see done to
the site during construction as far as back sloping and add a sedimentation
basin. What they would like to see done to the wetlands so we did not find
anything that was really more to the positive declaration so staff is
recommending a negative declaration with the 8 conditions on page 12 of the
report. The applicant is here and would like to respond to some of the points
that were brought up by Councilman Johnson and again to review what changes had
been made to the site plan since the EAW has been submitted for review. '
Bob Worthington: Mayor, members of the Council, I'm Bob Worthington, Executive
Director of...of the Opus Corporation. I am here this evening to respond to the
specific issue of the EAW as well as later on the site plan which reflects many
of the changes that were made to the original EAW document which was submitted
to the City... Before I do that, since this will probably be a joint kind of
presentation, I would like to introduce some of the members of our team so that Ill
if you have specific questions you can associate the name with a face... First
of all, from Rosemount Inc. we have Mr. Steve Quest, Vice President and General
Manager for Rosemount. Jeff Schmidt, Vice President in Services and Human
Resources for Rosemount. Mike Escalli who is Construction Project Manager for
Rosemount. For our company, aside from myself I'm accompanied by Mr. John
McKenzie who is Vice President of the Construction Division. John Miller is the
Project Architect for the Rosemount facility. Dave Vangasser, Project Manager
for the Rosemount facility. Up until we received comments from Councilman
Johnson, we were going merrily along receiving very few comments on the original
EAW that was submitted to the State for review and comment. The primary concern
seemed to be with the EAW that we previously submitted with two areas of
interest. The first dealt with wetlands and how we intended to handle the
wetlands. If you recall in our original submittal, the EAW had as it's concept
that we were going to be dredging out both the existing wetlands on the site and
we're going to be bringing into those wetlands all of the storm water runoff
from the facility which reached a certain level within the. ..to storm sewer
which will be beneath Lake Drive East when it's extended and ultimately into a
secondary pond which was proposed by the City somewhere in the vicinity of Lake
Susan Park and then ultimately into Lake Susan where it would be contained.
That concept ran into a bit of concern by the Metropolitan Council who felt that
that system would create a stripping action in terms of the chain of lakes that
all of you are familiar with. It links Lake Susan, Lake Riley and the other two
lakes which make up the chain of lakes which Lake Susan is a part which by
definition then would create a churning which would create a phospherous level
which would degregate that chain of lakes. As such, we have to come up with a
means of mitigating that effect. What was not known to Metropolitan Council as
we presented the original EAW, was the fact that they were working on two things
6
A
ICity Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 1 5
simultaneously as measures to mitigate that effect. The first was not to have
1 all of the waste water drain into the wetlands but to talk about an internal and
external system of drainage which would have us preserving the one wetland,
III dredging out the Type B wetland to the west so they contain all the water runoff
in the two systems as well as the parking lot areas. We then have that overflow
into the storm sewer and ultimately into the pond...whi.ch would lessen the
I impact on the amount of water discharged into those areas as well as the quality
of the water. Also, there was some question as to whether or not we were going
to be taking water from the...processes that would be conducted within the
I building itself and discharging them into the same pond. At that time we were
not sure how we were going to be handling that system, especially as it related
to the cooling water. There were a number of options that were being considered
II and of course since the EAW was early in the process, we wanted to keep all of
our options open. Well, we are now here to tell you that there will be no
industrial waste water being used for cooling purposes. That will be discharged
into the pond or into the offsite ponding areas. The other water is going to be
I recycled 100%. ..with of course evaporation by and large is going to be kept on
site. In the processed water that's going to be used from the industrial
processes, that will be conducted within the plant...and discharged into the
I sanitary sewer. That discharge will be monitored and testing will be done.. .
control condition by PCA standards. Those two changes were sufficient, in our
opinion, to be enough mitigation to the concerns raised by the Metropolitan
Council. .. .from engineering might speak to that question of the water quality
I and the effect that we just talked about would have on the stripping actions
especially as it relates to phospherous if you had further technical questions
on this subject. So that was one of the major changes that was made to the EAW
that in our opinion would make the acceptability of that now much more certain
than it would have been had it been made in it's original form. We also did not
1- have at the time the EAW was submitted, a clear statement as it related to
II artifacts and historical or archeological that would be found on site. The EAW
had indicated that there was some suspicion on the part of the Historical
Society that there may be some historical artifacts that may be on the site but
they weren't sure. They wanted us to do a search and we surveyed. We hired an
II archeological consultant, Ms. Harrison who in a month period of time did do a
dig on the site and came back with findings, which in effect said that there
were no significant archeological or historical artifacts on the site outside of
I - one area. That one area is on the sloped area which is along Lake Susan which
is a portion of the site that we will show you in a moment which we don't intend
to do any development on. It is something that should be a concern to the City
- should it find that it wants to extend it's trail system along Lake Susan. If
I --- it does that, it should be so in a very careful manner so as not to interfere
''=with those two sites which they identified as Opus 1 and Opus 2 on the report.
-`r So we feel that we've gotten a pretty clean bill of health. .. Also, when we
I c were submitting the original EAW, the question of the alignment of Market Blvd.
as well as Lake Drive East were not sure. We knew that the Council was going to
=-be- considering-a-.couple-of alternatives which you subsequently made...an
alternative' which Mr. Ringrose from BRW, later on the agenda will be discussing
l -and was discussed a couple weeks ago and that alternative which has Market Blvd.
now tying Great Plains and TH 101 to south of the site is something that we have
- _ incorporated into our site plan too so that the access that was in question now
"is- no longer a. question. Traffic data that we submitted early on, as .
I understand from Jo Ann, for review by MnDot and review by the County. There
were only some slight variations that both MnDot and the County are recommending -
IIto be made to our data that we submitted in terms of direction of traffic. The
7
II
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 '
size of the street system has to be designed to accomodate that traffic or the
traffic control that the engineer sections will affect this site. That was
already known and made. Outside of those issues that we had received up until
Councilman Johnson's memorandum, we found... Last week we received in a
memorandum from Councilman Johnson several questions that were of concern to him
which were not made clear in the EAW which I gave a response to last Friday. I
think all of you should have received a copy of my response as well as the
nature of his memorandum which I'm sure he's better able than I am to talk
about. As of I would say about 12:00 today there was still a conversation on
many of the issues and it was our opinion that we kind of resolved some of the
substanative questions, if not some of the technical issues that we felt had to
be addressed in order for him to sign off on the EAW. I would let him tell you
what the technical issues are and then probably in terms of the use of our time,
thought it would be better to respond.. .technical issues so you know what our
position is. Outside of those issues, the EAW in our opinion is in a position
to be adopted. A resolution of negative declaration is in a position to be '
adopted by the City Council this evening subject to changes being made. The
comments that I just referred to and the comments that Councilman Johnson will
refer to in his presentation being made to that document that becomes a
permanent part of the... So with those comments, I'd just like to step back and
take a deep breath, pause and ask if you have any questions before we get into
other parts of our presentation.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask you Jay if you have comments you wish to make
specific to your memo and the responses to it.
Councilman Johnson: Actually I've spent a lot of time this last week. I'm '
sorry I didn't get a hold of this EAW earlier in the process but I was out of
town when the Planning Commission went through it and didn't review it at that
time or it would have been a lot longer lead time on these type of comments. In
general I did not find it a very good EAW but then I realized in the time
crunch, it's one of the first things that has to be done before there's a lot of
design on the project. One of the purpose of an EAW is to bring out the
environmental problems that may occur and design them out of the system early in
the process. Unfortunately the design started after the EAW got submitted.
It's good that the 119,000 gallons of cooling water which was for some reason or
another not called cooling water. There's a lot of little things, wording
choices taken in here that to a suspicious person like me, seem deceptive to a
point. Several things went right by Barr Engineering I must say and by
Dick Osgood in their evaluation of this. After I talked to them, they said
geez, we didn't realize that. Neither group admitted to realizing that the
119,000 gallons in the EAW was supposed to go to Lake Susan because it was going
to the storm sewer. Where does the storm sewer go? The storm sewer goes to
Lake Susan. The EAW asked a question, was where does the water go? The answer
should have been to Lake Susan through the storm sewer. The answer was to the
storm sewer. That very subtle little, not quite answering the question has
caused a few problems in the EAW and made it very weak.
Mayor Hamilton: I suspect that the reason for your memo is because of what
you're telling us but if you have specific questions or comments to make about a
specific item, I would appreciate if you would do that.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. We still have not addressed hazardous materials.
There's a lot of updating to be done on this EAW. If we do do a conditional
8
II Z.4 1y
, City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
II
--,-- approval tonight, there's a lot of things to be Y
changed here yet and it will
9
i have to come back before us I would assume.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what I'm asking you. Specifically what it is that you
would like to see changed or discussed. Just saying a lot of things does not
I accomplish anything. If you want to see some changes, you have questions,
please get to the issues so we can at least talk about them.
II Councilman Johnson: What's the mitigation of the loss of wetlands? Never
addressed. We are losing wetlands in this city right and left. We don't want
to continue losing wetlands. You're totally destroying a wetland and replacing
it with basically a storage tank for water. The Class B wetland is going to end
I up being a tank of water in the ground. It's not really a tank of water but it
does not serve any functional purpose as a wetland other than sedimentation
removal. How are you going to mitigate this loss? Are we adding more wetland
Isomeplace?
Bob Worthington: The issue of the mitigation of wetlands, so everybody knows
what we're talking about. The two wetland areas in question are shown here.
I One is a larger wetland. The other is a shall wetland. The EAW, this is called
a Class A wetland. This is called a Class B wetland. As stated earlier the
original intent was to convert both of these wetlands to holding ponds.
I Aesthetic as well as... After. . .the wetlands in terms of their quality and
their character, we decided that the Class A wetland had value for one of
habitat as well as for it's natural drainage characteristics for the area that
surrounded it and therefore should be reserved
p pretty much in it's current
state. So what we're doing with the first wetlands is we're not making any
change at all. With the second wetland, the decision was made to convert that
to a holding pond, if I can use that term, to handle the majority of the runoff
I from the site so that runoff would remain at the predevelopment rate. That
conversion is going to take place, the dredging material will come from this
wetland and the material will be deposited on site and become a part of the
I earth berms and used to landscape various areas. We'll probably be dredging
this to a depth which will pretty much take most of the water runoff from the
site and hold it on the site before it's discharged into the storm sewer and
ultimately into the ponding area here and into Lake Susan. What we're trying to
II do in terms of mitigating a loss of actual wetland vegetation, not necessarily
the wetland habitat but vegetation is we're going to be reintroducing around the
edges and even into the perimeter of this wetland, vegetation that will be
I comparable to what you're finding in this meadow type of wetland which would be
in the form of cattails and grasses.. .in the area consistent with your aquatic
vegetaion that you find in this area in addition to other types of vegetation
I which would compensate for the loss of some of that wetland. However, we are
not going to be able to.. .on this site any additional creation of wetlands to
compensate more than I'm saying in this scenario which is introducing more
grasses and things of that sort. I might add that on this site which is to the
I north which the Planning Commission at least felt was developed on the site,
which may be challenged later on but at this time, is another wetland area which
is remaining pretty much undisturbed. When you look at the net effect, we're
I talking about reducing the entire wetland basin from about 6.5 acres to about
5.7 acres. While that's significant, we still think that the measures that
we're taking here with preservation, restoration...we're coming pretty close to
L keeping the balance that is found in the second phase of what is proposed.
II 9
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
r
Councilman Johnson: You didn't list any alternatives. The last thing, the last
section 23 whatever it is, is to list your problems and what your alternatives '
were that you went through. You never listed any alternatives. One alternative
is to build yourself a pond over next to the parking lot or someplace that does
the same function of what you're trying to do in this wetland. Just leave the
wetland alone. The no touch alternative. Why is that alternative not feasible?
That should be in your EA. You say you want to do it but you don't say why you
can't do anything else. You could build a wetland elsewhere. Or I mean a
holding tank for your water. Not a holding tank, a holding pond for your water
elsewhere.
Bob Worthington: That's true. If we're talking about mechanical systems
replacing natural systems, you're talking about something that's not of course
going to be as cost effective nor are you going to have something that's going
to be reliable in terms of what you're attempting to do as the wetlands we're
talking about. We could look at the alternative if that is something that the
City Council, Planning Commission felt you ought to do but in this instance we
think that the solution that we came up with is the most cost effective and the
most environmentally sound of all the alternatives we could have for the
property.
Councilman Johnson: You're saying totally digging out this wetland and making
it 4 or 5 feet deeper would be different than artifically digging a hole '
someplace else and doing it? I don't see what the reasoning. Either dig a hole
where this wetland is or you dig a hole where some other cornfield happens to be
and leave the wetlands alone. I'm not convinced yet that that alternative is
not feasible. My main issue goes beyond just the long list of minor nit picks
and discrepencies that I gave you is the wetland at this point. I do not feel
that the alternatives have been reviewed completely.
Bob Worthington: Councilman Johnson, John McKenzie would like to add to the
comments being made.
John McKenzie: A couple comments we might add to what Bob has pointed out. As
a part of our overall design effort upon this site has been to address future
Rosemount needs as well as the plans that you see before you tonight. Obviously
using any of the remaining acreage for the purpose of storm water retention
would lessen the flexibility that Rosemount would have to look at expansions
down the road. Obviously part of the overall site size determination was made
consistent with providing for that future expansion capability. So as Bob had
mentioned, to do that, to retain the flexibility, the decision was made to
utilize the existing lowland "unbuildable" areas for the purpose that they're
most naturally suited for. '
Councilman Johnson: Okay, you've brought up another interesting point. You
talk about future expansion of the site. The State Shoreland Ordinance and the
City Shoreland Ordinance, which is just basically adopting the State's Shoreland
Ordinance, states 30% impervious surface on the site. You're now at 29% on this
site. That allows you 1% expansion. I hope everybody is aware that expansion
at this site could be very difficult. It's not a guarantee. I'm hoping nobody '
has told everybody that it's a guaranteed thing that you will get expansion at
this site 5 years down the road but I'd like to make sure it's said right out in
the public that it's going to be need proper variances from both the State and
the City to do it. Your big expansion here could really be tough to do without
10 '
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
I. —
adding more acreage to the site. What's going to prevent this small wetland,
that's just a statement there that you gave me a good opening for. The small
wetland is going to be several feet lower for it's normal water elevation than
the upper wetland. As such, will the upper wetland waters be drained away into
' the lower wetlands such as a well pulls water down to it's neighboring area when
it is relieved? I should ask first, what is the ground water level at that
location and are you going to be changing our ground water elevation down to 933
which is your normal water elevation in that pond? From what I detect out
there, the normal ground water elevation is probably something higher than 933.
Bob Worthington: We'll be able to respond as soon as we get the grading plan.
John McKenzie: We will be changing those elevations. I think the point to be
made is that through our drainage structure design and our storm water typing
' design, we can very closely control the amount of water that goes into each
wetland. The intent is to preserve the Class A wetland by controlling the
amount of water that goes into it. As we spoke earlier, we'll be using roof
drainage water to feed water to the Class A wetland. Again, it's something
' that's going to be very much controlled as well as the bottom of the Class B
wetland and retention pond. Again, with the clay material that's in that area,
we're confident that our design will deliver the intended purpose.
' Councilman Johnson: Are you saying water won't leak from the upper wetland to
the lower wetland and dry out the upper wetland?
John McKenzie: What we're saying is that we can control the amount of water in
' the Class A wetland. If that is a concern on the current design, the amount of
water, we can increase that amount. Again, there is a large amount of clay
' material between the two areas that I think will minimize that migration of
moisture from one to the other but if it's determined through working with the
staff or whoever, that we want to introduce a higher quantity of water in the
larger wetland, is very easily accomplished with the design that we're
proposing.
Councilman Johnson: Is there any variability capabilities so that during, after
tit's in, is there anyway to vary the amount of water going in there?
John McKenzie: I think that we could do that Mr. Johnson through the drainage
' structure that we'll be building in that area. They are different elevations of
where the pipes are intended to leave that structure passing through the two
Wetlands and if a problem developed there, I think it's something that sure
could be rectified.
Councilman Johnson: Because the way I see it is on a small storm, you've 9 of a
5 inch pipe going down to the small wetland a couple feet r guess it was up into
' the 18 inch pipe that goes into the larger wetland. So on a small storm that
doesn't raise up there, the upper wetland gets no water at all. It all goes
down to the lower wetland. - - '
11 John McKenzie: Again, the difference in the distance between the two pipes
could be made smaller to speak to that concern.
' Councilman Johnson: I don't know what the answer is. I don't know if anybody
really knows what the answer is.
' 11
`"'city Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 ,
McKenzie: think engineer's '
John cKenzze: I t k we have confidence in our civil enga.neer s design. I
think we have confidence in working with the city staff to get to a design
criteria that we all feel comfortable with. And like I said, I'm confident that
our design will deliver the solution to satisfy the criteria. And again, if
over time with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we see that we've not delivered
enough water to that wetland, without a major reconstruction effort, I think
that level could be adjusted.
Councilman Johnson: To put a stand pipe or whatever in there. There's a few
options there.
Bob Worthington: If you would like to have a stipulation which would be
incorporated as a part of the approval, either with the site plan or the EAW
which would indicate that the objective that you wanted to achieve which is that
there not be any dryness to the wetland, if I can use that term, but that it not
be made totally dry and the engineering system that you put in for drainage in
that area assures the City of that and we will comply with that recommendation.
Also, in response to your other question about the Shoreland Ordinance and the
fact that we are close to the 30% coverage requirement. Representatives from
Rosemount are very well aware of the fact that if they go into a second phase,
that it requires coming back and perhaps requesting a variance from that. They
are also aware of the fact that they would need to amend the current EAW to
reflect again the system of site drainage and development concerns. It may be
that also we would talk about a size that's going to be comparable to the second
phase or larger than we're talking about for the first phase, that might require
an EIS having to be prepared on the second phase before that can be approved.
So there seems to be a whole lot of checks and balances that are available to
the City to make sure that all the things that you're talking about or are
concerned about have been addressed. ...have been measured and the most
appropriate alternatives selected for the environment concerned once that second
phase is ready for development. I might add that that second phase as it now
stands will not be ready for development for 3 to 5 years from now depending
upon the growth program being injected by Rosemount for this facility. .. '
Councilman Johnson: The second phase does not stand real good with me as an
excuse for dredging out this wetland and not building a secondary wetland
someplace else. That you need to reserve the space elsewhere. I think at that
time is when you should cross that hurdle. - Right now we can solve our problem
by doing just that. Digging your hole elsewhere in the middle of the cornfield
and putting in a ponding area that would be nice and clean. You'll have grass
all the way around it. Your employees could come out and have picnic tables
next to it and sit next to it and have their lunch during the summer. You don't
want to do that this time of year but I think it would be aesthetically
pleasing, could be made into a pleasing, aesthetical attribute to the facility
if properly designed and placed in here. Right now the Class B wetland is
designed for the 100 year flood, the 100 year rain event. To maintain it which
is fairly standard design. To do that you have almost very steep sides. There
is very little ability for emergent grasses that are similar to what's there to
be planted. Cattails will be a couple inches in and then the water's too deep
for it. I've been talking with the Fish and Wildlife Service personnel.
They're the people who really want to maintain that B wetland as a wildlife
habitat. one way to do that is to minimize the disturbance of the wetland. I
was speaking with them and I think there's some room to negotiate on how these
12
I ''c2 1
'City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
II r- wetlands are designed. One thing was to design the Class B wetland for around a
25 year flood event with anything beyond the 25 year flood event filling over
into the Class A wetland. The larger of the wetlands. The affect on it would
I _ be very less often. It won't happen very often. The affect on the Class B
wetland would be a lot less. You would be able to design some of the Fish and
I Wildlife's 6 steps into your design at that point. You'd be able to put some
areas of irregular shoreline. You'd be able to put some 1:10 shoreline depth so
you could have some of that vegetation within the water. This is something that
II it was about 4:00 this afternoon I finally got a hold of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to discuss it with there and I think I may have discussed it with your
hydrologist too. That seems to be a viable alternative here. So we don't
disturb that Class B wetland as much and don't change it as badly. Then what
I that does is put some affect onto the Class A wetland but the affect is not very
often. Is not nearly as extreme as what the affects are on a B. So that needs
to be taken into consideration. Seeing if that can be engineered into this. If
II that could be, I think it solves a lot of problems. To me the ideal is to dig
your hole someplace else and leave the wetlands alone so we continue to have our
6 1/2 acres of wetlands here.
I Mayor Hamilton: Any other counci.lmembers have any questions about the wetland
issue?
II Councilman Boyt: On this particular part, on the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet, I have no questions. I have others on (b) through (e) but none on
this.
I
Councilman Horn: I just had one. I was a little confused as to what type of
EL habitat that they felt would be leaving this Class B wetland. I didn't see
anything in here except they said something about birds and small animals. I
I believe that was in Jo Ann's report. I didn't catch that in any of the other
reports. The other thing that confused me was they said that these would not
migrate to the Class A wetland. I don't understand what it indicates. It seems
Ito me that that would be the logical thing to do. Why couldn't these things
that are being displaced here, whatever these small animals are, why wouldn't
they move over to the Class A wetlands?
I Jo Ann Olsen: Those comments were from the DNR that they did not feel that they
would be exposed to the Class A wetland.
I Councilman Horn: That's what they said but I didn't understand why they felt
that way. It seems to be an opinion but they gave us no facts to substantiate.
What seems to be a big issue is preserving the Class B seems fairly weak.
I ; ' _'Councilman Johnson: Clark, I did discuss that slightly with than also.
Councilman Horn: One other one related to the phospherous count. It was stated
II in here that the studies have shown that the lake quality on Lake Riley is
decreasing. I- renember that we get comments every year on the lake quality on
all of our lakes and it seemed to me that some aspects of Lake Riley were
actually improving. I don't recall the details of what those were but is that
1 -true that the phospherous content is actually going up as a result of this
increased flow? I understand the theory behind it but is it really following
through in fact?
II
I13
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Jo Ann Olsen: I believe so. At least that's what Dick Osgood from Met Council
has stated.
Councilman Horn: Based on what? '
Gary Warren: I believe that is one of the priority lakes that they do moniter
every year. I believe that is based on a phospherous sample that is done every
year since 1982.
Councilman Horn: Even though the...is getting better, the phospherous content '
is getting higher?
Gary Warren: The sedudose reading is I think pretty tempramental. It's a
common criteria that's been used for a long time but the time of the year is
really important on some of those readings.
Councilman Horn: I guess I don't feel that that's an issue that it gives us any
reading because we're already set the precedent of allowing development and you
know that... That was the only question I had on the EAW.
Councilman Geving: The comments I have are linked primarily to the concerns
that I personally have and the concerns that I've received from homeowners
living in the area. Some of the things we want to make sure are absolutely part
of the negative declaration are the view to the south for the people that live
on Lake Susan currently are not impacted by this facility from a visual
standpoint. That is an impact. That there should be no direct runoff into Lake
Susan. I think we can say that this is true and that this is not going to
happen. It was a concern that was expressed at the last meeting and I think
that the runoff as being proposed will not be directed directly to the lake.
Another concern is the impact on the north slope of Lake Susan. A previous
developer that was proposing a lodge facility on that site had suggested that
there be steps be leading down to the lake and maybe even a docking facility so
their employees could go down to the lake. We want to make sure that that
doesn't happen. That nothing will be disturbed on the north slope of Lake
Susan. And if in fact the offer is made as a part of your proposal that this be
an extension of our trailways plan along the north side of the lake, I'm sure
that the Park and Rec Comnission would be glad to accept that because we already
have a good share of that area now. I don't know if we've got the entire length
of the 80 foot width that we got from Mr. Curry but maybe you can answer that
question for me Jo Ann. '
Jo Ann Olsen: We do have. ..
Councilman Geving: We do have the entire extent of the north slope? All the
more reason why that should not be disturbed.
Jo Ann Olsen: We don't have the entire extent of the slope. We do have a
trail.
Councilman Geving: We have a trail and is it approximately 80 feet, the 80 feet
that we got from Mr. Curry?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's shown on the plan. It is comparable.
14 '
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
II
Councilman Geivng: So then the statement that I made I want to make sure is part
' ! of the plan and that there will be no attempt to make a stairway or walkway or
to use that slope in anyway that might erode the slope eventually over time.
That we have proper erosion control measures in place and I was looking for a
plan. The plan is being suggested in the comments to us but I did not see that
plan. Is the plan available to us now?
Gary Warren: It's in the packet.
Councilman Johnson: It's in the site plan.
' Councilman Geving: The impact on the wetlands A and B, anyone who was familiar
with those two and I walked them many times, can fully understand that in dry
years those meadows will dry out to some extent, especially the Type B but the
main thing here is that we want to make sure that we can preserve to the extent
practical the wetlands that exists there now. I think Carrol Henderson's book
on Landscaping for Wildlife can be done. It is a good DNR pamphlet. I've read
it myself and can be part of the plan so I think you can mitigate the loss of
approximately one-eighth by using Mr. Henderson's plan. I think we need to ask
our question, does this EAW really assess the values of the project? Does the
project itself have any significant impact on the land as it exists now? I'm
quite confident from the discussions that we've had and the comments that are in
our packet with the 8 conditions, that I think those impacts are mitigated. I'm
confident that the DNR, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers who
did not comment, have looked at this and are satisfied that the 8 conditions
a will satisfy this. Then furthermore, I would like to make sure that the
comments by the Met Council on the 17th of November have been fully covered in
4.
this packet and that their concerns for Lake Riley specifically are being
' handled. Could you say for the record Jo Ann, the Met Council's comments and
concerns in their November 17th review are being handled?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes they are.
Councilman Geving: Okay, and then I'm satisfied. I'm very satisfied on the
part of Rosemount that they're acting in good faith. They've come before us
' trying to make sure that all of the questions and concerns of the City are being
covered and I'm quite satisfied that you've done that Mr. Worthington, thank
-- you.
' Mayor Hamilton: Just two comments. One on Dale's comment on the visual impact
. to the neighbors on the south side of the lake. If I remember correctly, they
were here several years ago and were very vocal about this property as being
' commercial/industrial rather than residential so I would think that it would be
rather difficult to have a building of this size not have some visual impact on
the surrounding area. However, this is the type of development that they chose
I to have rather than residential so I don't see that as a problem. The issue of
-.the wetlands, I have not heard nor have I seen anything here this evening that
would make me believe that what is being done is the least bit detrimental to
- the area or to the wetlands. Consequently I feel that what you're attempting to
do is good. I think the Type B wetland, I see no reason why vegetation once put
in there will not support wildlife as it is currently. I suppose I should
listen to the experts when they say that they don't think the wildlife from the
B wetland will go to the A but it seems rather unusual to me that they wouldn't
do that. I would think it's more a function of the area being more heavily
1 15
0e-3A
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
developed that's going to drive them out rather than something being done to the
wetland. So I like your plan. I like what you've done. I think your responses
are good and I hope we can continue to work on, I think we've come a long way
already and I think we're ready to approve this. Did you have anything else Mr.
Worthington that you wanted to say?
Bob Worthington: Just to the statements that Councilman Horn and Councilman
Geving have made and we have no objections to any of the conditions that you
would like to see reflected in the final EAW report be incorporated as a part of
that. We think that even though we've been on a very fast track process since
we undertook the project, that Rosemount has given us the guidance in their
discussions to be responsible. To be careful in terms of the environment. We
think we've done that. ...has evolved into something which in our opinion given
the nature of the...to the City and the Chan Lakes Business Park. I should just
comment on the aesthetic issue even though it's not shown on our site plan, as
most of you know who walked the site, there's vegetation on this side and
there's vegetation also on this side up the hill which is primarily preserved.
The vegetation in our opinion, in it's maintenance over time.. .will screen the
neighbors to the south as well as include a very nice visual enchancement and
natural environmental asset to.. .the visitors to the plant itself. .. .we have
gone a long way in making sure that the visual impacts.. .
Councilman Geving: Can I ask the councilmembers if they have any other
conditions they would like to add to page 12 where there are 8 listed
conditions? If there are, let's add them now and let's get on with it.
Mayor Hamilton: Why don't you make a motion.
Councilman Geving: I will make the motion at this time. The City of Chanhassen
as the responsible government unit wishes to establish a negative declaration
for the Rosemount facility EAW subject to the following 8 conditions and those 8
conditions are spelled out in the November 18, 1988 Council packet number 4A as
presented to us by Mrs. Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant Planner.
Councilman Horn: I'll second that. I do have one question. In condition
number 4, is the term, altered shall be landscaped for wildlife. That seems
like a rather vague term to me. Is that specific enough to work with? '
Councilman Geving: That's a title of a publication that Mr. Carroll Henderson
wrote and it's a DNR publication.
Councilman Horn: I understand that but this if you'll notice, is a
non-capitalized statement. Is that what you're referring to is that they will
follow all the guidelines outlined in that booklet?
Councilman Geving: Right.
Councilman Boyt: When we get to the Wetland Alteration Permit, those standard 6
steps that the Fish and Wildlife requires are indicated in that plan so the
bottom and contours and all that are... I
Councilman Geving: I think to answer your question, we should spell out, and I
thought it was spelled out earlier. Maybe it didn't include it here. We should
put that in there that Landscaping for Wetlands by Mr. Carroll Henderson of the
16 1
A ire
City Council Meeting - november 28, 1988
State DNR shall be the title that we might want to put in in condition 4.
II1 Councilman Horn: It seems rather vague the way it's worded right now.
Councilman Boyt: So let's add the standard conditions of the Fish and Wildlife
' for the development of a wetland.
Mayor Hamilton: But I think that Dale has said that Landscape for Wildlife by
' Carroll Henderson, is that the name?
Councilman Geving: Yes, he's the individual.
' Mayor Hamilton: That just be added. You capitalize Landscape and Wildlife, by
Carroll Henderson.
' Councilman Geving: For wetlands. Landscaping for Wetlands.
Mayor Hamilton: Landscaping for Wetlands, okay.
' Councilman Horn: As referenced in the DNR approval. Does anybody have an
idea? Do you know what that means in terms of impact to you?
' Jo Ann Olsen: That's just suggestions on types of vegetation that should be
used.
111 Councilman Horn: There's nothing terribly exotic in there?
Councilman Boyt: I have a comment. First, I guess I take exception to the idea
' that this development is going in without impact. I certainly wouldn't want to
communicate that to anyone. There is going to be an increased flow of water
through Rice Marsh Lake which will put more phospherous into Lake Riley and
that's without question going to happen. So I think what we're deciding is, is
' the development worth that. We're also tying it in and the Met Council tied it
into the Clean Water Project so when we consider later on we're going to stick
to our guns on the requirements of -that clean water project, we'd better
' remember that if we don't do something, Lake Riley is going to go down the
tubes. The Rosemount development and what they're proposing tonight fits right
hand in glove with the Clean Water project with money the City's already spent
and with commitments we've made but as that comes up for future vote, I hope we
' and the future council remember you can't have one of these without the other as
far as Rosemount without the Clean Water project.
' ;- , Councilman Horn: ; ._,was going_ to comment on. that later too but since Bill
- brought it up. It says in our Barr Engineering report that the City is holding
that project up. I was not aware of that and it seems to me that we shouldn't
be holding that up. It says the City is delaying the project because it hasn't
,resolved the Lake Lucy and Lake Susan access.
Jo Ann Olsen: We had established a resolution that the City Council adopted
giving a time line that we would be pursuing those boat access. What's
happening is that the PCA has been holding it on their table and is coming back
now and getting pressure to let's spend the money elsewhere. It's kind of
r laying it back on the City's lap saying we're holding it up. So we're still
working with them and we'll follow up and get an update on that but we are
' 17
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
I
getting at least to the workplan and then we might have to try to get the rest
of the money. They might take it back and put it elsewhere but it's not the
City's fault. We've done all we can do.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that'sa topic for another discussion.
Councilman Boyt: On point 6 of the 8 items, it talks about the City and MnDot
and TH 5. It says TH 5 must be in place, improvements must be in place prior to
the development of this site. As we will look at later on tonight, I might as
well point out to you right now that isn't going to happen. TH 5 will not have
it's improvements in place when Rosemount opens it's doors.
Councilman Geving: I agree with Bill. I would like to make sure that we don't
put a condition on Rosemount that really is impractical and I think that all
indications are from the DNR planners, even in a fast pace, they're going to
have a difficult time making 1990. To place this condition, number 6 in here,
if we stick with it, would mean that you could not proceed with this project
until that TH 5 improvement was in place and I don't believe that's going to
happen. I believe some of it will be made but I wouldn't want to make the
condition to hold Rosemount's feet to the fire. I believe Bill you're
absolutely right. I think that's a dangerous condition to leave in this the way
it's worded. I would like to amend my motion deleting item number 6.
Councilman Horn: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt: I think you're right in deleting that. I just think that it
doesn't delete the problem but we had best address those left turn lanes or
we're going to have problems.
Mayor Hamilton: Jay, you had a condition you wanted to add? '
Councilman Johnson: Well, not actually a condition but at the time we passed
off, I finished my discussion of the pond issue and you asked the other council
members to comment on the pond issue. I'd like to continue on the other issues
that haven't been addressed yet.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, we have a motion on the floor. '
Councilman Johnson: Okay, then we'll just start adding conditions then. The EA
must be modified to reflect the source, volumes and quality of industrial waste
water as required by the Environmental Quality Board. That would be condition
9. Also, describe the type and amount of solid and hazardous waste and the
disposal method or location. That would be number 10 and would be describe
their waste. These should all come back as a modification to the...
Councilman Geving: Is there a number under which those...
Councilman Johnson: Yes, under Section 20A would be the industrial waste water
should be updated to include the proper data as required. Section 24 should be
updated to describe the hazardous waste being produced at the plant. We want a 1::
complete document here that we can stand on years later. Section 4 should be
modified to show...
Councilman Geving: This would be number 11?
18
11
i c.li e
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Yes, it would be number 11 then. Proper topographic maps.
Councilman Geving: What is that called, Section 4? What do you want to do with
Section 4?
ICouncilman Johnson: Provide the proper topographic map as required. You're
required a 7 1/2 minute topographic map. They've provided a 15 minute. It's
II just a nit pick here. Section 11 should be updated to show the MWCC and Carver
County as requiring permits for industrial waste water discharge per MWCC.
Councilman Geving: Now wait a minute. Are you on number 12 or are you talking
Iabout number 13?
Mayor Hamilton: Number 9. You've got waste water on number 9.
ICouncilman Geving: You've got to be very specific here because you're giving
direction to these people to go back and make something happen. Are we talking
about number 12 or number 13? I have Section 11, to update.
IICouncilman Johnson: This would be number 13 then and it would be to update
Section 11 to show all the permits that are going to be required. The MWCC
IIndustrial Discharge Permit.
Councilman Geving: Wait a minute. That was number 12. Number 12 is Section
II i
1 11, Jay.
Mayor Hamilton: Upgrading of permits. Required permits.
ICouncilman Boyt: We have 20, 24, 4 and 11.
Councilman Geving: Anymore Jay?
ICouncilman Johnson: Okay, number 9 was Section 20A. Number 10 was Section 24.
11 was 4. 12 was there. Okay. Also in there would be the Carver County. Is
there going to be hazardous waste storage under the MPCA storage permit? That
IIwould be part of number 12.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that going to be part of number 10 or Section 24 or is that
ITseparate?
Councilman Johnson: That's part of Section 11 listing what permits are
required. .
II .A''.:'-. ...;.-_. a __ .__
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that will cover everything. -
I . Councilman Johnson: We could just say, if a hazardous waste storage permit is
going to be required, it should be listed here. I don't know if it is or isn't.
Councilman Horn: Excuse me,- aren't these things listed under separate
,1 development contracts? Why are they being part of the negative declaration?
This is standard procedure that we require of all...
I
1 19
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Councilman Johnson: These are items that are supposed to be listed in the EAW
which were omitted from the EAW. We're making a negative declaration on an
ki
incomplete document so I'm trying to get the document as complete as possible so
that our negative declaration is based on something.
Councilman Horn: But your thing that you're talking about with Carver County
comes up later in the development contract.
Councilman Johnson: Also. It comes up several different places. '
Councilman Horn: Is it necessary to spell out every detail here? Can't we just
say meets the standards of an EAW standard? ,
Councilman Johnson: Do you think this document that they gave us is complete?
Mayor Hamilton: Clark's question to you was, can't we put a condition in there ,
that the EAW must meet all the required requirements of an EAW statement?
Councilman Johnson: But how do you judge that? Who's going to become the
judge?
Councilman Horn: The fellow sitting right there.
Councilman Geving: And this board who is going to declare as a negative impact.
Councilman Boyt: How many more conditions do you have? '
Councilman Johnson: Almost none really. The other I'd like to see, and this
would be 14 then would be I'd like to see a discussion of the alternatives for
the wetland issue since it is now probably the single most important issue and
there has been no discussion of what the alternatives were other than this is
the one way we want to do it and this is the way it's going to be. I'd like to
see the EA to be a document that in the future when somebody tries to get us on
it, be complete so condition 14 would be to provide a discussion of the
alternatives for the wetland issues. I'm still going to try to hopefully get
than to do something to provide better wildlife habitat there. Those would be
my suggested modifications.
Mayor Hamilton: Based on what you've heard on the additional conditions, do you
have specific comments at this time on any one in particular? I suspect
what's s going to happen is, should we pass this, you're going to need to review
this and if you have specific comments about any of the conditions, I feel that
you should have the opportunity to bring those back to us. Either to be deleted
or corrected or changed or whatever the case may be.
Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor, I don't think any of the comments that have been
received outside of the last one which is the wetland comment is a concern. As
you know Rosemount currently has a couple facilities within this region and the
chemical issue, the hazardous waste, disposal of it's waste are being addressed
on the basis by these facilities so what we're going to be doing is taking the
now current practice and projecting this current practice for the operating
procedure for this facility as well. We're not totally sure yet that we can
discuss the alternatives of the wetland or if that means that we have to come to
a conclusion that Councilman Johnson's recommendation is the only one we can
20 ,
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
accept as being Council's direction on that issue, then we've got to know that
this evening. We think we have explored the alternatives. You may not enjoy
II _ the conclusion we came to which he obviously does. We think this is being
responsive. We think it is a good alternative and it is the one that we're
proposing. If Council does not agree with that position, than they should
' accept Councilman Johnson's position or recommend an alternative.
Councilman Geving: I would like to amend my motion to include a new number 9
which has to do with the reflection of waste water, Section 20A. A new number
10, describe the hazardous waste in Section 24. A new number 11, describing in
Section 4 the proper topographic map that should be included with the EAW. And
a number 12, to include a Section 11, update to show the MWCC and all the
' permits required for the EAW. That's the conclusion of my amended motion.
Councilman Horn: I'll second that amendment.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the City of Chanhassen as
the responsible government unit (RGU) establishes a negative declaration for the
Rosemount facility subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer use terracing and backsloping during construction of the site
' to divert all runoff away from Lake Susan.
2. The developer use temporary sedimentation basins to control runoff during
4 construction of the site instead of using the Class B ponding area proposed
in the EAW.
3. The storm sewer inlets or outfalls shall not be used without adequate
' filters until all construction and development, including the establishment
of turf is complete.
4. The Class A wetland be maintained in its natural state and maintain a 75
foot buffer and the Class B wetland which is being altered shall be,
Landscaping for Wetlands by Carroll Henderson, after grading is complete.
' 5. An addendum should be provided to clarify whether intersections at Hwy 5 and
Market Boulevard and Hwy 5 and Hwy 101 will be operating at level of service
D before or after Hwy 5 is reconstructed.
' 7. The drainage plan for the site should be coordinated with MnDot District 5
Hydrolics Engineer to ensure that the rate of runoff not increase to the
' Lake Susan outlet under TH 101 as it will be unable to handle any increase.
8. An industrial waste water discharge permit must be obtained from the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the discharge of industrial
' chemical waste water to the sanitary sewer and if an Army Corps of Engineers
44 permit is required for the project, a 401 certification by the MPCA is
also required.
It9. Update Section 20A to include the proper data.
10. Update Section 24 to describe waste water being produced at the plant.
' 21
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
11. Section 4 shall be modified to include correct topographic maps.
12. Update Section 11 to show MVCC and all other permits required.
1-11
All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried.
(B) WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission discussed the EAW but again, what they do
was proposing to preserve the Class A wetland and to maintain a level of water
in the Class A wetland for the roof drainage. They are proposing to alter the
Class B wetland to contain the majority of the runoff from the site. Staff is
recommending approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit. The Planning Commission
also recommends approval. The new plan that Rosemount has submitted contain a
lot more detail that explain exactly what will be occurring to both the Class A
and Class B wetland and they answer a lot of the questions that staff and
Planning Commission had. Again, we are recommending approval of the conditions
on page 5C and 5D of the wetland alteration permit and site plan. Those include
using the Landscaping for Wildlife booklet as a referral for landscaping the
northeast and westerly edge of the wetland. Maintaining it in a natural state
rather than just sod and seed. Also that we would have plans submitted
confirming that the 75 foot setback from the Class B wetland is being maintained
by the parking lot.
Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor, we've reviewed the staff report on this item. We
concur with it's conclusions and it's recommendations and I recommend that you II
approve it as suggested. I'd be happy to answer questions.
Mayor Hamilton: Bill, you said you had a question on this particular item. '
Councilman Boyt: I do. On page 5B of the report it talks about the wetland,
the B Class wetland. Normal water level 933. High water level 939. That's a 6
foot, what I call bounce. I guess I'm interested in finding out about how
wildlife survives a 6 foot bounce.
Mayor Hamilton: Who would like to answer that? Is there someone in your group
Mr. Worthington.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can put it a little bit differently. We're trying to
maintain some sort of wildlife habitat. You've indicated a commitment to doing
that and yet we're showing to retain the water volume that you need to retain,
that you're going to fluctuate this level by 6 feet. It seems to me that that's
a pretty drastic water height fluctuation and I'm just wondering how does the
wildlife handle that and how can you landscape and plan for that kind of a
change in water level?
Mayor Hamilton: Would it be fair to presume that the 6 foot increase would be
during the major rain storm? That increase, normally you'd be at the 933 level
or somewhere's near that?
Bob Worthington: That is correct Mr. Mayor. The high water bounce that we're
talking about is not going to be a common occurence. It's going to be that 100
year rainfall condition wherein you're going to have increase in that pond level
22 '
IICity Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
and as such have a differential at the top and the bottom in terms of distilled
I water and high water condition. Our assumption is that the low water level or
somewhere close to that would probably be average depth of that pond would be
maintained in those conditions and with the help of the. ..that you were talking
about and some other expertize from other sources such as Barr Engineering,
' design something that will keep the wildlife flourishing.
Councilman Boyt: I appreciate that answer. I think it basically says that you
' can't do it because as I read it, 100 year affairs happen all the time around
here. Certainly if you look at the last 3 years, you'd have to say they happen
every year and wildlife can't handle being drown. What you're talking about
doing here, I guess it gets back to Jay's point earlier and I think Jay did, as
long as it took to go through it, I was relieved to have the thoroughness of
your examination and piece the paperwork end of it which was much faster to read
than sitting through the discussion. But what we're really talking about here
' is you're building a well. Something that fluctuates, expands to fluctuates 6
feet, we don't have a lake in this city that fluctuates 6 feet and we're going
to create one so I'm just concerned that we're taking what's now considered to
' be sort of a semi-dry wetland and we're turning it into a pond. So I think it's
real important when we say in the conditions that on page 5D that you will
conform as best possible to the 6 conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
that in fact we change that to read that you shall conform to the 6 conditions
' of the Fish and Wildlife. I don't know why you couldn't conform to those
conditions. Other developments have. I think it's fair to ask you to do the
same.
II ] Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to just follow up on that. Supposing there's a 100
year rain, which we had one of I guess a year ago and the only one I can
' remember.
Councilman Boyt: How about Lotus Lake?
Mayor Hamilton: And when you go up to the 939 level, how long will it take that
wetland then to decrease to the 933 or 34 level which is where you want to keep
the level at? Maybe if I can follow up on that even further Mr. Worthington. I
' think you have a couple of retention ponds in Opus Park already and I know that
the level in those fluctuates at least 6 feet. They're down considerably now
and you have bafflers in those to take care of the overflow when they're at the
peak which they were 4 or 5 years ago. Is this going to be something similar to
' that where you can handle the overflow if it gets to 39 or higher?
Bob Worthington: You have to remember they are outletting water from these
' ponds into the storm water system which is going to be designed as a part of the
Lake Drive East improvement project. We're assuming that the sizing of the
pipes as well as the structures that are going to be designed to run off when
that occurs, is going to be such that that 939 level, once it's reached, is not
going to be maintained there for a long period of time. Now we don't have a
stopwatch. When you talk about what happens in the Opus development, all of
those ponds outlet into the storm water piping systems and then ultimately into
' Nine Mile Creek. We have had in the past 5 years, not only 100 but 200 year
events and have never had any flooding in our Opus 2 Park. I would say that
from my experience of the readings that have obviously are taken, none of our
ponds, once they exceed the high water level, stayed at that level after the
' rainfall stopped more than a half day. They typically crest at that point of
' 23
G23
�e�L4 Me
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 II
course depending upon what kind of volume is being received in the creek. The
Y
then start falling, some are within 6 hours after they exceed that high water
mark down to a low water mark. ..all means within a 24 hour period they usually
are down within a higher than flood stage...in terms of their water amounts. I
assume the same thing is going to be happening here. We are not designing this
to be a perch pond. To just receive water and whatever flows onto that water,
the natural evaporation takes it away. True, there's going to be a high creek
elevation from the low water to the high water mark and there is going to be the
potential of having some damage of wildlife and habitat. I think however that
that experience is going to be rare as it will gradually increased and as such,
wildlife will have an opportunity to go elsewhere. To higher ground or... You
have to remember again, one of the reasons that we're talking about mitigating
impacts and one of the reasons that we're focusing on the small ponds is to
preserve the larger ponds in it's natural, unaltered state. That in itself
should have a value regardless except for the Fish and Wildlife's conclusion or
the DNR's conclusion that there will be a migration at times of catastrophic
events to this other wetland or areas surrounding it or not, it's our opinion
that there will be sufficient time when there's going to be destruction of
wildlife. This bounce that we're talking about.. .
Councilman Boyt: Let's not lose sight of where our main. intent here is to
protect Lake Susan and further down the chain of lakes and so I just want to
point out that I think a 6 foot bounce is a big change in the water level and it
will impact on the ability of that ground to support wildlife, in my opinion.
But the need is there for some means of retaining water so that it doesn't run
quickly. I guess for my part I'm not particularly interested in having the
thing drain out in a day after a big storm because the idea is to slow flow into I
Lake Susan. I do have another concern about, you mentioned how we're trying to
protect the Class A wetland. I agree with you but your own statement says that
the water flow into the Class A is going to be reduced from what it is now.
You're currently planning, as I recall, to run the water that falls on your roof
into the Class A and that results in a smaller area feeding that wetland. What
are we doing to retain the level of water in the Class A?
Bob Worthington: Mr. McKenzie, I believe when this question was asked
previously made the comment that we can design the system if we wanted to have
as a stipulation of approval. . .maintaining certain water levels within this area
which is going to be a higher elevation than the shall pond. We can do that if
that is a standard criteria for protecting the natural habitat.
Councilman Boyt: Well it would be. I think for me, I think the Class A should '
have a volume of waterflow equal to what it has now.
John McKenzie: If I could just comment here. That's our intent and that's '
clearly what the design is intended to do as presented now. If we confuse you
with our comments, we're sorry but the intent is to replace the predevelopment
flow of water to the Class A wetland with flow of water through the storm
drainage structures.
Gary Warren: When staff had met earlier, our concern also was the fact that, I
think it helps maybe if you center talk of watersheds and not storms because in
dry periods we've seen them almost too big and dry and that's the natural cycle.
What we've focused on is trying to maintain a watershed that was contributing to
the Class A wetland and that is why the plan shows a certain amount of the roof
24 '
3 S
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
drainage and only a portion of the roof drainage bei ng actually piped to that
wetland. While they are going through parking lot improvements and catch basins
' y and everything, piping it away to the Class B wetland, we still did reserve a
portion of that to compensate for the amount of area that will be taken out of
that wetland's marsh.
' Councilman Boyt: So you're convinced that the A is getting the same waterflow
as it was getting before?
Gary Warren: It's getting what it would get.
Councilman Boyt: One last comment. I noticed that your parking lot had a
' little jag in it from where it probably started out being. Does that mean that
you've now been able to maintain the 75 foot setback from the Class B wetland?
' John McKenzie: From the Class A wetland.
Councilman Boyt: Class B wetland.
John McKenzie: The Class B, I think we're probably less than 75 feet but again,
to the extent possible, we're trying to respect the setback.
Councilman Boyt: Well, tell me why it's not possible to respect the setback?
Excuse me, but I don't understand why it's not possible.
II John McKenzie: Again, if we were to preserve the setback, we would have a
lesser volume of water retained so obviously it's a trade-off.
Councilman Boyt: Why wouldn't you just make the parking lot a different
' configuration? Why can't you put some of those people in the parking lot that
appears to be on the west side of the property?
' John McKenzie: The point is that it is no longer a wetland. It's a ponding
area. We've altered the wetland into a ponding area.
Councilman Boyt: I won't accept that because what we're doing is we're
establishing this and we're doing everything we can to maintain some wetland and
now what you're telling me is that no, we're not. We're going to destroy the
wetland all together and it is in fact a pond. Even if it was a pond, we would
' still have a setback requirement, would we not?
- Jo Ann Olsen: I believe we've always considered, even when wetlands have been
altered, that they are still wetlands and that the ordinary high water mark is
'''- ('the edge of the wetland where the 75 foot setback has to be.
John McKenzie: From that point it is. From the point of the alteration it's
not.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We would take it from the ordinary high water mark.
ICouncilman Boyt: So we're in? The 75 foot setback is covered? Thank you. I'm
done.
I 25
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
I
Councilman Johnson: As your current design, how many of the 6 conditions from
the DNR will you comply with?
Councilman Boyt: Fish and Wildlife?
Councilman Johnson: Fish and Wildlife, I'm sorry. Of the 6 conditions. ,
Councilman Boyt: It's on page 5D.
Councilman Johnson: Should I read them to you?
John McKenzie: From a quick review here, I think conditions (b) and (c) will be
the most difficult to comply with. Condition (a) , we are attempting to create a
free form as you see in the plan. Condition (d) we will comply with. (e) we'll
comply with and (f) we'll comply with so I'd say it's conditions (b) and (c)
that we'll be deviating to the greatest extent. '
Councilman Johnson: Now condition (d) , if you don't do condition (c) , condition
(d) doesn't make a whole lot of difference. To put muck back in the bottom of a ,
pond that's too deep to have any vegetation come out of doesn't. The other
thing I'd like to know about is a statement in a letter to me which also refers
to this I believe because we're talking about the water going into the Class A
wetlands from the roof. You state that you feel that it will be free of
pollutants and nutrients. I think I discussed this a little bit with you today.
The design of the air exhaust system from industrial plant will impact what
happens to the roof. I want to be adding a condition here is that the roof
exhaust, any industrial exhaust be designed to minimize deposition of any
pollutant onto the roof. What happens in a lot of cases, if you get a HBAC
designer who's used to just working with hot and cold air and not necessarily
polluted air, they design an exhaust stack that points toward the roof. The
polluted exhaust, which if it's properly dispersed up into the air, does not
cause a problem and impacts on the roof, leaving the pollutant on the roof to be
washed off. This has been seen at several sites so I don't think this will be
hard to do. It should be considered in your design. Now unfortunately I want
to inform the councilmembers and staff that doing this will mean that you will
be able to see the stacks. A lot of times the low stacks are done so they are
not visible but to me, as an air pollution engineer and industrial, when I see a
stack I know somebody is doing something right. It may not visually look good
but I know that they designed it right to where the pollutants aren't going back
down the building into the grass and surrounding areas. So that I'm very
concerned about. Of having good clean water going into that Class A wetland.
Since we haven't been told what type of industrial processes are going to be in
this building yet, which I'm sure you're going to tell you tonight yet at the
site plan review, I would assume we got vapor degreasers and used cholorinade
solvents. Probably wave solder machines that have leads, tins, resins.
Probably a cafeteria that has grease exhaust coming out. If that's not properly
designed, we'll be getting grease comments. Those are my concerns there.
Hopefully we can word a condition on here.
Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Jay? 1
Councilman Johnson: I still hope that they can work with the Fish and Wildlife
to compromise on this 100 year. I think there's still some room to get rid of
the bounce by going the 25 year and above storm, and there would be less
26 1
II ' 'City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
II
construction for you too because you won't have to dig it as deep, to put some I I of the very large storm events into the Class A wetland. While that doesn't
a achieve no touch, it gives us two better wetlands and not nearly as much bounce.
Bounce actually is the proper the DNR and everybody uses.
ICouncilman Geving: I just had a comment. Mr. Worthington, on item 3(b) . What
part of that condition by the Fish and Wildlife Service will you have difficulty
meeting? Is it the slopes or the 300?
IIBob Worthington: It's the slopes. If we are required to give shallow slopes,
then in effect we have to enlarge the area which means that we have to take more
land that's available.
II
Councilman Geving: How much more land? Could you get back to that 9/10ths of an
acre, 8/10ths of an acre that we lost before if you had to do it that way?
IBob Worthington: Mr. Dave Vangasser from our staff. Dave?
I Councilman Geving: How much would you add to the acreage if you did conform to
that slope requirement, 10:1 to 20:1? If you chose, let's say 15:1 as an
average.
IDave Vangasser: We did try and accomodate that to the best extent possible and
as I recall from discussions at the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission recommendation of approval actually read to the extent possible to be
used as a pond. I don't see that referenced to a pond any longer in the
Ii recommendations but we did try and design our ponds to maximize the shoreline
and we do have areas where we tried...
ICouncilman Geving: I don't believe you're answering my question.
Dave Vangasser: Which is? I can't answer that.
ICouncilman Geving: How much acreage would you have to put back in the Class B
wetland to meet the slope requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service?
I ' Dave Vangasser: My guess is that we would have to increase the ponding area by
- -maybe 30 feet all around it.
I )': Councilman Geving: What's wrong with that?
;';nrri` '-i
-- Dave Vangasser: You can't increase that in these two directions or in that
I -direction so we would have to go in that direction whereby decreasing the amount
of parking area.
`
Councilman Geving: So you're saying how many feet? 30 feet?
I Dave Vangasser: I was of to guess 30 feet in each direction but
g ng 9 again, 3 of
the 4 directions we're complying by...
11iCouncilman Geving: I would say that that requirement would be unreasonable.
Let me ask again, why you feel that that would be a difficult condition to
II meet? Is it economic? Is it that you do not have the space in that particular
- area? _ _
II 27
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Dave Vangasser: I think it relates to the intent here that roughly half of the
employees are going to enter through this east entrance and therefore we
designed our parking to accommodate half the employees as well as, that will be
the visitors entrance so it's going to be our visitors parking too. We've got a
criteria that the east parking lot to accommodate a certain number of vehicles
in order to work around the existing trees in this area so we save as many of
those as possible, we felt that we didn't have enough room in that area to park
the cars. '
Councilman Geving: Have you spoken with the Fish and Wildlife Service
specialist in this area, Paul Burke I believe his name is?
Dave Vangasser: I have not personally.
Councilman Geving: Is there room for negotiation on this point with the Fish ,
and Wildlife Service Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: The Fish and Wildlife... '
Councilman Geving: These are just guidelines.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. These are guidelines that the Fish and Wildlife prefer '
for forming a pond. We always just use them as guidelines but what they're
proposing, there's no...
Councilman Geving: Another question that has to do with the pond itself. Now
I!!
I've indicated somewhere in my reading that you were going to pump the 939, if
it reached 939 you were going to bring the water back in the Class A. Is that
correct? I don't understand that. I read that somewhere in my notes but I
don't know exactly where.
Dave Vangasser: The two wetlands are connected with a pipe and if the 100 year '
flood occurred and the water wanted to back up above the 939 level, it would in
fact back up into the Class A wetland as Councilmember Johnson has suggested.
Councilman Geving: Okay, thank you. I have no other comments. ,
Councilman Horn: Just a quick question. Would it be feasible to alter the Lake
Drive East and extend the pond to the north rather than taking the parking lot?
Dave Vangasser: You're saying use that as part of our retention requirement?
Councilman Horn: Rather than destroying the parking lot here.
Gary Warren: Another consideration had been talked on early in the process here
but since it hasn't been talked of further, was all this water is being piped
down to our storm water retention pond which you've seen in our feasibility
study we'll be talking about. There is the opportunity to relax the on-site
retention requirement for Rosemount and have it stored downstream in our pond
and enlarge that pond and make Rosemount for any increased piping costs and
ponding to accommodate that water. It does allow you to make these ponds or
wetlands to a smaller size and we can handle flow in our own basin downstream.
28 '
' City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
T Councilman Horn: Does that mean then that (d) could be met? We could downsize
this pond enough to meet these sloes?
Gary Warren: Theoretically we could let them take it all off site and not make
them modify the Class B wetland at all and we could accommodate it down in our
pond with the hydraulics we've got approved for that, I think we would. If we
' did that similarly, if we only had a request for that with the Charlie James
property. He did not want to have to pond and he was agreeable to pay us for
accommodating that in our proposed pond on the west side of Powers Blvd. on the
Eckankar property.
Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor if I could just repond to the one aspect. All of
' these conditions we knew when we were designing the drainage system but we could
comply with each of the conditions. That's why introduced the language as much
as possible and to the extent possible which kind of indicated a willingness on
our part that we did need to look at alternatives.. .
Councilman Horn: It seems to me like we're dealing with a lot of issues that
aren't really under this development's control here or trade-offs that would
' affect it so I think we have to be a little bit flexible in how we word these
things.
Mayor Hamilton: Jo Ann, I think Mr. Worthington mentioned that the Planning
' Commission language that was passed did state to the extent possible. Is that
correct?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: And if that's correct, why is that not reflected in the
' conditions as stated to the City Council?
Councilman Johnson: It is.
' Councilman Boyt: Staff is proposing to take it out.
Councilman Geving: As best possible.
' Mayor Hamilton: Okay, there it is. It would seem more appropriate in there
specific for (b) and (c) .
' Councilman Johnson: There is another solution to the slope problem to give them
extra room. If he needs 30 feet, we can vary the setback. Give them a 45 foot
setback and give them the extra 30 feet to make the pond a little bigger. In
' this case to retain the more wildlife nature of the pond and stuff, it may be
worth that trade-off, that compormise may be worthwhile seeking. I still
believe that we could redo, like Gary was saying, but I think we could also redo
' the pond elevation a little bit to where we use the bigger pond a litle more in
the-heavier rain events. Right now if a rain event above a 100 years, you use
the upper pond. In talking to the Fish and Wildlife people, the big bounce will
_ probably _kill most of your vegetation around the pond so with a larger area you
' -won't have nearly as big of a bounce on the larger situations. Once a year
bounce of a foot on the big wetlands would not cause hardly a problem at all. 4
- foot bounce on a cattail will kill it for the year. If you have a 4 foot bounce
''— in the spring from runoff, or after the cattails start growing you have a 4 foot
' 29
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
bounce, you won't see '
y your cattails until next year. That causes a lot of
problem from dead vegetation but there are still two possibilities to give them
the 10:1 slopes on 30% of the shoreline. '
Mayor Hamilton: I think as Clark pointed out, we need to be flexible on this
issue as the developer is trying to do the best they can conform to all the
conditions. We need to show some flexibility and you have one suggestion and
there are others so I would suspect that the staff will work within those
parameters to see that the job is done as it should be. Bill, did you have
another comment?
Councilman Boyt: To follow up on what you just said Tom. What we want to
establish though is that we would really like to see these 6 conditions applied '
to that Class B wetland. I know it says as best possible but as Jay has
indicated, we may prefer to flex another standard in order to get these. Is
that the sense of the Council?
Mayor Hamilton: That's a part of the best possible. I see it as a part of that
effort. As long as the staff understands that.
Councilman Boyt: I'm comfortable with that being in there, written the way it
is now. Gary, I have a concern that we not encourage this runoff into what is
going to be the City's sort of second stream filter in the park if we build that
pond down there. I would like to think that that's sort of just that. It takes
whatever runoff comes to it but that we not encourage that to become another
pond.
Gary Warren: The other...is that a larger pond normally works better than a
small pond. There is some economy of scale in consolidating these larger ponds.
Our maintenance staff and also the mechanics who service the sedimentation.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't that pond though in our park?
Gary Warren: It would be on the southwest corner of the park area.
Councilman Boyt: So the bigger we make it, the more parkland it takes?
Gary Warren: Yes, to an extent that's true. We also in the feasibility talked
about possibly addressing the sediment loading that we've been taking on Lake
Susan by enlarging that pond and routing Riley Creek into it also which I think
might address that. I think at this point, from the parkland's that I've seen
today, that corner of the property, you wouldn't be violating any plans as far
as recreational areas are concerned.
Councilman Boyt: Are you suggesting, to follow up on your earlier comment that
maybe the thing to do with this Class B is establish it to the 6 guidelines,
take any flow that it would no longer handle and run that over to what we're
proposing to build in the City park?
Gary Warren: Yes, I guess I'm proposing there are some alternatives and if the
Council chooses to stand firm on the 6 alternatives, to give Rosemount that
direction, than then in order to make that work, one alternative is that...on
the north property end, north of Lake Riley. There are ways of accommodating
that water.
30 '
si
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
II
Councilman Boyt: Is it possible for us to pass a situation then Tom where we
II -I are agreeing in concept that the wetland is going to be altered and that we're
saying that maybe we change as best possible to adhere to and then let them work
it out with staff what the best way to do that is?
I Mayor Hamilton: I think that's the direction I'd certainly like to see us go.
As long as Gary and the staff members understand that we're not, you said that
the Council is firm on these 6 issues. We're saying we want to see the 6 issues
I incorporated into their plan to the best extent possible. That means that you
need to be flexible in looking at alternatives and working with the developer to
try and figure out the best way to do it. If that means, as has been mentioned,
I that the 75 foot setback can be reduced to 45 or whatever level is required to
accomplish some of these things, I think you need to consider that. We need to
consider everything. Is that clear to what we intend? I think that's what the
council is saying. I'm asking Gary a question. I'd like to get some response.
IGary Warren: It makes it very difficult to enforce. If you want us to apply
our judgment, I guess we can do that but in my opinion, Jo Ann's, Larry's,
Iyour's are all going to be a little different on to what we think is acceptable.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe that part should come back.
I Councilman Geving: The point that I wanted to make was that the Fish and
Wildlife Service set these up as guidelines. They didn't set them up as
conditions to be placed on a wetland alteration permit. I don't think the Fish
III and Wildlife Service ever intended that. I work with the Fish and Wildlife
Service and I'd like to change the wording of this item 3 from conditions to the
6 guidelines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and use the just as that.
I They're guidelines for our staff and for the developer to work with, not
conditions but that they are guidelines and that you will meet those as best
possible.
I Councilman Boyt: On the one hand we're saying that we want city staff to work
with then but on the other hand we're not holding up any, call than guidelines
or conditions, as firm absolutes. I think if the City is willing to yeild part
1 of it's ponding, it's an advantage to everyone it sounds like and we're willing
even to consider a variance into the 75 foot setback, which we normally don't
consider. In order to buy that, we're saying that we want these 6 conditions
I held to. If we're not going to hold it to them, then for my part, I'll vote
against it because I don't think we've got anything. _ If we pass this with these
.-: simply as the best possible and we say the City is going to do everything it
can, we've given no one any guidelines. - -
IIMayor Hamilton: But if a motion is made to pass this, it's with the following
__.,conditions. One of the conditions is number 3. which will have 6 guidelines to
follow that have been established by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is a
I _ __. condition and one of the conditions has some guidelines that we expect the staff
to follow using some judgment.
Councilman Boyt: Let's take as best possible out of there and it's fine.
_ Mayor Hamilton: Okay. That's fine. That's fine because it's redundant anyway. -
II 31
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Councilman Geving: I have no problem with that.
Councilman Boyt: So conditions become guidelines and as best possible drops '
out.
Councilman Geving: The alteration of the Class B wetland shall conform to the 6
guidelines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as follows. That's the way it
should read in number 3.
Councilman Boyt: I would propose to make a motion that we approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit with the 5 conditions as stated and as amended. Strike "as
best possible" and include "guidelines" in place of "conditions" for item 3.
Councilman Geving: '
ng: I'll second the motion.
Bob Worthington: One point of discussion. If this is accepted here as a '
motion, we interpret it as giving us the flexibility to be able to look at a
number of alternatives that seem to be consistent with these guidelines and come
up with a solution that's acceptable to the staff?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. That's the Council's desire as I understand what
everybody is saying.
Councilman Horn: It seems to me it goes all the way to the extreme. If you
carry Gary's suggestion to the extreme, it says leaving the Class B wetland
alone and ponding entirely off site which mitigates all of these. '
Councilman Boyt: We could improve that Class B though.
Councilman Johnson: On Bill's last comment, I had a long discussion with Paul '
Burke today on improvement of the Class B wetland. His basic assumption on the
improvement of the Class B wetland would be that a very small portion in the
center of the wetland could be made wet which would give you a different fauna
within there which would give you different nutrient stripping but it would be
such a minor change it would be no good for any kind of water storage. If it's
big enough of an alteration to make a water storage, it's not an improvement to
a Class B wetland per se. It has changed, it is no longer a Class B wetland.
Now it's a water storage facility and it's a sediment control. Than you've got
to get these 6 conditions. I think that we should give within this also, the
guidance to staff of how far they can go. How far are we going to allow them to
go on the 75 foot setback? I would say we could change that to 45 feet. I
would also like to stipulate that the other two suggestions, that would actually
be on the change to number 4 where they say the 75 foot strip of land. We'd
have to add that in order to achieve the guidelines in Section 3 above, this
could be altered up to 45 feet. Something of that wording within item 4. I
guess the other two alternatives that were discussed as far as utilizing the
property across the street, is that Rosemount property?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: No, that's Opus' property and if Opus says it's buildable,
they want to put in a McDonalds there. No, it was White Castle, I'm sorry.
32 '
City ouncil Meeting - November 28, 1988
II — Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could stick with the issues so we could g et it
resolved in time tonight.
' Councilman Johnson: That was Clark's suggestion is that we go under there to
that point.
Mayor Hamilton: That's right. I don't think you need to include that. That's
something that the staff needs to consider. I think they've noted that.
' Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to add my item 6 to your motion that roof
exhaust should be designed to minimize roof impact of any pollutant.
' Councilman Geving: What is this now?
Mayor Hamilton: He wants to basically say that the exhaust will not be, the
' rooftop exhaust will not be directed at the rooftop.
Councilman Geving: What does that have to do with the wetland alteration
permit?
Councilman Johnson: The rooftop drains into the wetland. If you're draining
lead and solvents into the wetland, it's not too good for the wetland.
Mayor Hamilton: He's making some assumptions that there will be solvents and
oil and all kinds of things...
Councilman Geving: I don't have any problem with the condition.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, it's done.
Councilman Geving: But I would like to enhance the wording on the 75 feet in
terms of guidance and make that, allow the staff a 50% variance from the
' requirements of our ordinance.
Councilman Hoyt: I'll accept that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving"seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
Permit #88-15 with the following conditions:
1. A 75 foot strip around the Class A wetland shall be preserved in its natural
state.
2. The north, east and west edge of the Class B wetland shall be allowed to be
sod and seeded but will also be landscaped with vegetation suitable for
natural habitat and will not be mowed and instead allowed to revert back to
a natural state. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan with
the wildlife landscaping as recommended by the State Document titled,
"Landscaping for Wildlife".
11 3. The alteration of the Class B wetland shall conform to the six guidelines of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as follows:
1
33
C'a d z^)
!W a�3
II
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
II
ii
a. The basin will have free form (no even sided) shape to increase
shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting
birds.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for
at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation
II
as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water I
depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in
shallow water (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent
vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
II
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland
being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for
II
aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to II minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
II
4. A 75 foot strip around the Class B wetland shall be maintained from the 933
elevation. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide a revised plan Il
showing that the parking lot south of the Class B wetland is not located
closer than 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Class B wetland
once it has been reconstructed. Staff is allowed to have up to a 50%
variance from the requirements of the ordinance. II
5. The wetland alteration permit shall conform to any and all conditions of the
Site Plan Approval #88-12.
II
6. The roof exhaust should be designed to minimize roof impact of any
pollutant. I
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
(C) SITE PLAN REVIEW. II
Jo Ann Olsen: Again, the applicant provided an amended site plan to what the I
staff and the Planning Commission's concerns. The Planning Commission did
recommend approval. Two of the Planning Commissioners did not recommend
approval because they wanted the Council to understand that they had only
reviewed it in concept. The applicant has met a lot of the concerns. We still II
have 18 conditions of approval. We are recommending approval. That includes
meeting conditions of the EAW and conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit.
Bob Worthington: First of all, we would like to give a brief presentation of '
the site plan. 'There were many changes that were stipulated as conditions of
approval by the Planning Commission that related to the condition of the site
plan that they reviewed. Those conditions have been now reflected into the site
34
II
City Council Meeting - November 23, 1988
plan which we'll show you this evening. I think from that you can see the
changes from the Planning Commission Minutes reflected in what we are now
presenting. So for that purpose, for the purpose of presenting the site plan
I'd like to introduce John Miller who is the project architect from Opus who
will describe the site.
John Miller: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. It's been a real pleasure
working with Rosemount on this project because I know that they are intent on
' having a top notch facility so as an architect it's good to have that as a
working backdrop. They want a top notch facility. Speaking internally, as the
plant functions, this is going to be a state of the art facility with a lot of
employee amenities built into the project so the employees will feel very
comfortable working here so that it will not be felt to be a manufacturing type
of environment but rather more of an office feeling type of environment that
people in manufacturing can work in. At the same time, Rosemount is intent on
this being an attractive building. You might assume, having a 330,000 square
foot building on one story, it would look like a 330,000 square foot one story
building. This is not going to be acceptable to them and I think we've met the
' challenge to make such a large and low rise building an attractive one. We'll
be getting into some image things a little later here but we're really excited
about what we're cane up with so far with Rosemount. To get into this now, I'll
start with the site plan. I'll try the colored one here. You're probably
' fairly familiar with a lot of the issues since this has been up in front of you
quite a while here. As far as the building functions, maybe I'll just go
through some of the bigger issues. We have the building here with two entry
I ' points. One on the east side of the building which is 50% of the employees as
111 well as visitors coming in at this point. We have a west entrance which is
actually on the northwest corner of the building that would be another 50% of
' the employees. We have parking areas at each end of the building to provide for
both entries. Previously we had shown this west parking area more towards the
south, directly off the end of the building. At the Planning Commission review
it was felt that this might be an objectionable location in that it is closer to
' Lake Susan and possibly a distraction for people across the lake so what we've
done since then is rotated this parking around more to the north so it would be
further from Lake Susan. In addition we're providing some berming on the south
' side of that parking area to screen the parking and lighting of the cars from
the area to the south. We have on the north side of the building here some
loading dock areas that are screened by some berms and some landscape plantings
' that you can see shown here. While we are screening this dock area, we're not
really considering that to be a backdoor part of the building. We really want
to make that architecturally something attractive so that even though we are
screening it for the most part from traffic on TH 5 and Lake Drive, it's still
' going to be an attractive part of the building. The major image that the
visitors would encounter as they're coming into the building is from the east
side, we're developing a nice landscaped promenade up to the front door with a
' turn around. We've got a well landscaped visitor parking area here on the south
side of that promenade which would be directly adjacent to this major stand of
oak trees and other trees that are woodi.ng this whole slope of the site down to
the lake so we're trying to take advantage of these woods as an amenity for the
I parking and the building itself. Conceptually mmaybe I should just describe how
this building works. Maybe you can see that there's a basic rectangle here
that's 400 feet by 720 feet. This is the manufacturing and office function of
' the plant. There would be an internal flexibility within that rectangle of
office interreacting with manufacturing and the floorplan can kind of move back
I 35
9z14
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 . II
and forth as the manufacturing process is modified. This would be a high bay
type space with 18 foot clear dimension from the floor level to the bottom of
the structure. We have some perimeter type areas around the building that are
of a lower elevation that include, in this area we have a utility area which is
loading docks and then there's building services that are originated at this
point. We've got a major area here on the south side that is the cafeteria
area, including some meeting rooms and kitchens and these kind of functions
which incidentally is located here to take advantage of the wooded slope and the
views down to Lake Susan. So I think we've really taken advantage of the
amenities for that area. In addition, you can maybe see some smaller areas
around the building which we're calling personal service areas that are areas
that have conference rooms. That are hard wall type spaces that would not want
to move in the future. There would be toilet roans. There would be break
areas. Vending machines and this kind of thing and they would have more windows
that would be taking advantage of some of these views as well. That really kind
of summarizes how our site plan works. We've got, I'll just briefly point out,
we've got three major access points into the site trying to distribute some of
this traffic flow out onto the perimeter of Lake Drive and Market Blvd. so you
would have no major traffic problems. Other than that, I think covers the site
plan issues unless you have some questions on that aspect of it. I will get
into the exterior images now and some section work that we've done to the site
if you don't have questions on this.
Mayor Hamilton: Are there any questions on what's been covered? '
Councilman Johnson: Why don't we go through the whole presentation.
John Miller: This is our proposal for building image which is the view of the
building you would see from the east side of the building as you would be in the
parking area. What you can see here, this is the 23 foot high manufacturing
office box that I spoke about that is the flexible arrangement of office and
manufacturing. That's the lighter colored straight line that you see behind
here. I think you can also see that within that box we're providing a
substantial amount of glass, far and above what you would ordinarily see in a
manufacturing type facility. This is the result of Rosemount's desire to bring
a lot of light and vision into the manufacturing area for people that are
actually at the workbench putting together the components. Then we have these
lower areas that you'll see here and here on either side of the front door which
include these personal service areas. The glass areas on the other side would
be the break areas and conference roan type spaces that we would want the vision
out to the perimeter of the site. In the center here is the main entry which is
a point where the lower level massings here go underneath the actual larger box
creating a covered entryway and there would be immediately inside the door, a
shall reception area that would be looking directly into the manufacturing '
facility. The concept here is that people would not walk into a reception of an
office area but rather walk into a space where they could see what is going on
in the factory itself. The lower security area. There would be some signage
at that point. Materialwise, we are proposing a precast concrete material for
the manufacturing box which is the high base space. Then on the lower areas we
have a combination of glass and spandroglass. Spandroglass being glass that is
not conditioned but rather more for a visual amenity appearance from the
outside. Then we have in the opaque areas we have a masonry wall which is a
combination of textured concrete block and face brick. So you can see here we
have two different colors. The lighter color would be the textured concrete
36 '
'A
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
block and the darker color is face brick. Now we haven't quite resolved how
this blend works but basically at this point we are saying that on the east side
of what is a major entry side and visitor entry side, there would be a higher
proportion of face brick than there would be of the concrete block. On the
other sides of the buildings there would be a higher proportion of concrete
block and a lower level of face brick. So whatever that combination is, I think
you can see that the blend of the textures and colors and massing would be a
very attractive building that to me, at least, does not look like what you might
' expect from a building of this size and proportion. Are there any questions
about this?
' Mayor Hamilton: If you have something else, continue.
John Miller: These next two exhibits, I may be getting back to some of the
concerns expressed earlier. These are sight line studies that address the
' screening of docks and views to the lake and this type of issue. This top
section, here is one that is taken through TH 5, Lake Drive and the Class A
wetland and the east loading dock and then on through the hill down to the lake.
' So we have a high elevation of TH 5 here overlooking Lake Drive. By the way,
the vertical scale is exaggerated here so we're really not looking at this kind
of slope. Then we come up to the dock area here. The building would be located
here and then on the south side of the building slope down to the lake which is
' here. But this is showing that we're really substantially higher here on TH 5
overlooking the Lake Drive and that with the landscaping we've providing, we're
screening the docks here for the most part. There will be rooftop equipment on
the building which this is starting to indicate. Just what the exact
I , configuration of that is, we can't really say at this point. We're studying the
rooftop equipment location in conjunction with the daylighting that we're
' providing which is a combination of skylights and roof monitors. To some degree
the roof monitors will be screening the rooftop equipment although we're
approaching it from more of the standpoint that the rooftop equipment is maybe
not that objectionable and if it's well placed, it will be an architecturally
good solution to the rooftop equipment so we're not going to say that we're
going to totally screen all of the rooftop equipment. This is the slope down
the hill and you can see that these major trees here are going to be doing a lot
' of screening of the building, especially in the warmer months for the people on
the other side of Lake Susan. The second section here is taken through the west
loading dock which is at this point so we're sliding over here about 350 feet
' and then going that way. You again have TH 5 very high over Lake Drive. At
this point we're providing the berm to screen the dock at that point and then
likewise we're getting past the building and you have the hill down to the lake
that is heavily wooded. This other board shows two more sections. On either
' side of the building itself, the top section is on the east side which would be
going to this point. TH 5 is a little lower at this point in elevation. Still
above Lake Drive. This is our Class B wetland at this point and then the
building parking lot is somewhat lower than the building itself. Then we have a
major stand of trees here on the south side which you see down there. And then
sloping on down to the lake. The last section is one taken over here through
the parking lot and then across this flat area that is now a cornfield and then
I' down to the lake. This does not show TH 5 but Lake Drive here is at this point.
We have a drainage swale here on the north side of the parking lot. Some
screening at that point, a parking lot and then a large berm here which would
' occur at the south side of the parking lot here. That berm would be here and
that would really effectively screen the cars and headlights at this point from
' 37
"'Cty Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 '
people over on the other side of Lake Susan as well as taking advantage of the
trees that are on the slope. So I think we've pretty well mitigated that
problem.
Mayor Hamilton: Does that cover your site plan?
John Miller: I'm here for questions if you have any. '
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to first run through my nit picks, as I call
them. Are you familiar with our site plan application section of our ordinance
20-107 that says what's supposed to be in a site plan? Were you given our
ordinance? Do you have any idea what you were supposed to have submitted for a
site plan? Do you have access to our ordinance?
John Miller: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: First thing as you go through the ordinance is that your '
site plan is supposed to be signed by a registered architect, civil engineer,
landscape architect or other design professional to include and then it lists a
whole bunch of things that are supposed to be on the site plan. Nobody signed
any of the site plan drawings. A legal description is missing from the site
plan drawings. What I consider an adequate vicinity map which shows easements
and natural features in the surrounding area was not in the site plan drawings.
The site plan was supposed to show the grading and drainage and the existing
natural features. Topography, wetlands and vegetation. While it actually did
show the vegetation, it was so difficult to see it on the plans that we were
given, that I had to work very hard to find out that the road on your west site '
effectively removes about 3/4ths of some very nice established forest. It's
going to be clearcutting basically. All that area is currently forest. There's
an easy alternative on that particular site. If that vegetation had been shown
a little more clearly on the site plan, I think staff would have jumped on that
driveway a long time ago which I'm about to jump on in a minute. Then section
B-12 of the site plan review requires a list of all proposed hazardous materials
that are used in storage within the facility. That's a very important aspect of
our site plan review. That too has not been- submitted. .. .require signage but
your signage is probably going to require a variance from our signage ordinance.
I'm sure you're aware of that also. What I'd like to get back to then is that
tree issue. The tree issue is my main issue on this one according to my sketch
of the trees. I went out there and got my car stuck out there today and had
Brown Standard come tow me out. They're very quick.
John Miller: I believe by the way a lot of the material you were missing is on
the other drawing of the site plan.
Councilman Johnson: I went through them all. Hopefully they'll be upgraded.
You've got to have it so it can be shown on these. There's a stand of trees
which I colored in two shades of green. The dark green, which is shown here,
are the trees that are undisturbed by the grading for this lot. This whole area
was completely graded. This is a mature stand of trees. Maybe even, our
forester hasn't looked at it but maybe even part of the original great forest
type trees. This area which I have crosshatched in light blue lines, is a stand
of very big trees that appears to have been pretty well wiped out. There are
very few trees there at this time so an alternate drive going through that stand
of trees and getting around this stand of mature trees would be far preferable
38
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 64 d
to me. You can have this if you like.
John Miller: I think our intent was, when it came to actually locating that
road, was to go out into the field and verify to minimize the amount of cutting
that would be done. However, this option you've shown here I think is a viable
one. It looks as though we wouldn't be destroying too many trees to do that but
' we would want to look at that. The reason we approached it that way is just the
contingencies of getting the survey done and getting all the trees spotted and
that kind of thing.
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, your grading plan shows the entire area graded with up
to 2 foot of fill or soil removal which you put 2 foot of soil on top of the
' roots of a tree, it's dead. Or take it off where you're taking a lot of it's
roots. I think that issue has to be looked into very closely. The other one
which is very important to me and near and dear to my heart is hazardous waste
and hazardous materials. Hopefully the Rosemount people have brought with them
a listing of the types of hazardous materials that we should have seen with the
site plan review. You're saying that the list of hazardous materials is on
there and I just missed it someplace?
Jeff Schmidt: If it's not, it can be provided. I have the information of the
hazardous materials that we use and how we dispose of them. They are small
quantities and I can address them now or just send this in.
' Councilman Johnson: I'd like to hear a summary before we. ..
4 Mayor Hamilton: Sure, why don't you briefly give us what you have and what
-? Y � Y Y Y g Y you
do with them.
Jeff Schmidt: I'll address the hazardous waste that we do have on our site. We
are not a large generater of hazardous waste. We do have some materials that
are classified as hazardous waste by the nature of some of the cleaning and
degreasing that we do do. We do operate under an EPA Hazardous Waste permit
which we do have and we'd also have one at this site. We store chemicals on our
site only long enough to have them disposed of. We dispose through licensed
firms that specialize in that and that dispose themselves by the nature allowed.
It has to be every 90 days or sooner. Our internal guidelines are 60 days that
we use. The types of materials that we have are trichlorethane, freeon. We
have some flammable liquids that are the result of our soldering...process and
we have some corrosive cleaning compounds... The quantities on those, for the
trichlorethane and I went back over the last year and looked at average
quantities for the facilities that we'll be moving here and those
quantities of the trichlorethane are 3 barrels on the average per month. For
' the freeon, 4 barrels per month. For the flammable liquid, 4 barrels per month
and for the corrosive cleaning compounds, 1 barrel per month. We also do have
some non-regulated waste that are not considered hazardous waste by the EPA and
they are some water soluable oils that are, from what I understand, it's
possible that those can be sewered. We do not do that. We barrel all of those
and we send them out and that's another 4 barrels per month on the average. We
do also, for some of our cleaning processes, when we rinse some of our metal
products, we settle off from rinsing some of the grit that comes off from
sandblasting. We barrel all of that and dispose of that the same way we do our
hazardous waste. We also barrel our non-water soluable oil also. Those are all
items for those three non regulated waste on the average of 4 barrels per month.
39
4
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
That's the extent of the waste that we have in our current operation which are
exactly what we're going to be moving over here. Now, it could grow with the
that as we grow, but those are the kinds of chemicals. I
Councilman Johnson: Is the chemlab, as it's referred to I believe over at your
Eden Prairie plant, it was referred to in the EA as having a chemlab. I know,
if I remember correctly, the Eden Prairie plant you referred to a metal cleaning
or a metal plating operating as the chemlab.
Jeff Schmidt: Yes, it's our cleaning operation.
Councilman Johnson: With the nitrates and acids and stuff like that. Is that
moving to this facility?
Jeff Schmidt: It's actually sodium hydrocide that's being used...
Councilman Johnson: Okay, you're no longer using. Well, is that moving to
here?
Jeff Schmidt: There would be a small. It's not very large but yes, it would
because that's part of the process.
Councilman Johnson: That one you'll be getting your MWCC permit for.
Jeff Schmidt: Yes, we do have a MWCC permit also for that facility. We would
either transfer that or get a new one. We do have waste streams that we can
talk about and those kinds of things. Some of those things are hooked to our
II/
chemlab they've taken out as hazardous waste. Others in our rinse operation do -
go through the sewer. We monitor that flow. Actually they just changed our
classification from having to do quarterly to having to do every other 6 months.
Councilman Johnson: I just had one of mine go from every 6 months to every
year. I'd like to see us change our ordinance to require a completeness review
before any technical review of a site plan to where we don't get site plans that
have things missing to them. And that staff can just hand it back to them as
part of our ordinance. That's something that's on a side that I think we need
to consider in the near future to aid staff in review of these things. '
Mayor Hamilton: Bill, do you have anything on the chemicals or anything on the
site plan?
Councilman Boyt: I have a couple of quick items. We talked earlier in the
preliminary plan review about the possibility of installing some employee
amenities like ballfields, walking paths, that sort of thing. Have you pursued
that any further?
Jeff Schmidt: Only that relative to, we did dedicate as a part of the park
dedication part of the Park and Recreation recommendation for both trail fees
and park dedication cash and land.
Councilman Boyt: I'm familiar with that and it's going to help the boat access '
and the city appreciates that. I was just wondering as an aside since you do
have some property there that might be level enough for a playing field or two.
If you had pursued that and you've got some nice wetlands, you might possibly
40 '
_ .a.� w
II , .City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 -
Ipursue putting a walking path around and that's something that is up to
I— Rosemount and Opus and those folks.
Jeff Schmidt: I guess we have not encouraged that at this point.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we consider some additional conditions. I
I think that will handle the comments. There's one in regard to the proposed
signing that you're asking. It would be my sense that we've sort of dealt with
that issue here previously and that if need be, we should look at some sort of
I rewriting of our sign ordinance to reflect the needs of a large site. We talked
about that earlier and I would encourage you to take that direction rather than
to come in and ask for a variance on signage.
IBob Worthington: My understanding of the intent of that condition, that we
write a new ordinance. Come in and get the ordinance approved and then get a
sign permit.
ICouncilman Boyt: That sounds sort of lengthy but somehow or another staff would
sit down with you. What I would suggest is that you work with staff to come up
I with the proper ordinance language rather than a variance. That's just my
opinion of how you might want to pursue that.
Bob Worthington: Could I just respond to that? On the elevation of the
building, we're making space available for 2 building type signs. The
assumption we're making is that those areas will have a certain sign area which
will be accomodated. If we have to write a new ordinance in order to accomodate
that, then the question we have is, how long would something like that. If it
j takes too long it may affect the building drawings that we have...in order to
i_.- keep this project moving ahead. I'll just make that as a comment... We still
would like to have it, if that's the direction that Council would do that, we
I still would like to have the option of moving this along and come in and request
a variance...
I Councilman Boyt: To me that would certainly be possible as long as it was going
to be compatible with future language that we were in agreement to. That again,
it's just my opinion.
IMayor Hamilton: I think the staff has received direction from the Council to
update the sign ordinance. I assume and would hope that that's already
underway.
ICouncilman Boyt: I would suggest that we add 3 conditions to our list of 18.
Part of our Ordinance 20-1179 deals with replacement of trees. Staff has
I mentioned to you previously that if you remove certain trees you may be
requested to replace them on a per caliper inch equivalent basis. I would like
to see condition 19 added requiring the replacement of hardwoods on a per
I caliper inch basis in line with that part of our ordinance. I would suggest a
condition number 20, when we look at passing all these. That you move your west
parking access to minimize the removal of trees and that would be subject to
staff approval so you wouldn't have to come back through us but as you indicated
IL it's possible and I would like to put that down as a condition. Then as my last
condition, I think because of the earliness of the fire inspector's review, he
might have missed this point but I would suggest we add condition 21 that we
IIcomply with the hazardous materials identification requirements of our Public
41
II
250
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Safety Department. I'm sure you were planning to do that anyway but it's just
sort of a common acceptance that you'll be doing it. That's all I have Tom.
Councilman Horn: I think it looks like a good plan. I have no problem with it.
I think as a general guideline for signage, we should go by the requirements
that we approved for DataSery and that's what we're trying to structure our
ordinance after but I don't think that we should request that the Opus or
Rosemount people create our ordinance. As a general guideline, if you stick
with the requirements that they had which you can get from staff, that's what
we're trying to do on our ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: We changed the ordinance to do that.
Jo Ann Olsen: Their signs are different. They were...
Councilman Geving: I really don't have any major problem with the 18 conditions '
that were originally proposed. The problem that I just identified here is this
tree removal. I'm as much of a tree nut as the rest of the people here in terms
of trying to save as many trees as we can but I don't believe that we need to
put any additional or new requirement on Rosemount that hasn't existed for any
other developer. If in fact this is a new requirement, then I think it's
unfair.
Councilman Boyt: It's not new.
Councilman Geving: If it's not new, then I need to know from Mr. Worthington
whether or not this places a major hardship on the development of the proposal
if you had to replace on a per caliper inch basis, all the trees that might be
removed. Just the hardwoods. There aren't too many trees on this site. It's
fairly level. It's actually a cornfield. It has been for a long time. It's
been farmed but the only concern might be in the parking areas. Could you
respond to that Mr. Worthington?
Bob Worthington: I guess yes and no. No, the site is alarming and the
landscaping that we have proposed for the site is pretty extensive even though
we have a site plan in comparison with some other more compact site plans that
you're used to reviewing may not reflect as much vegetation as is actually on '.
this site. So we are already doing a substantial amount of landscaping. In
terms of the condition of replacing hardwoods, I assume that means oak and
maple. I'm not totally sure of what the vegetation mix is on the site. I do
know that for this area, we have quite a few oak down along in this area. Over
here I think we have a mixture of trees. Of course we move this road over to
avoid the loss of trees, then I would assume that if we cut down some trees that
are not hardwood trees, that we won't have to replace those trees.
Councilman Geving: That's correct.
Bob Worthington: I don't think, with the exception of this corner and perhaps
rhaps
what we're talking about in this location, that we are disturbing any other
trees that might exist on this site so we certainly would like to see at it to
see if it would create a hardship. I think it's...we, and Rosemount are very
interested in trying to create as nice enhanced site as we can in terms of
landscaping is concerned. We'd certainly like to explore it.
42
I .City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 y�
' r Councilman Geving: Do you have any other problems with any of the other 18
3 conditions? Are you familiar with the 18 conditions?
II ! Bob Worthington: The Planning Commission's recommendations?
Councilman Geving: Yes.
Bob Worthington: WO have reviewed those.
' Councilman Geving: I don't have any more questions.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't either and I'm going to move approval of the site plan
' #88-15 with the 18 conditions as stipulated and with the 3 additional. 19, the
replacement of hardwoods on a per caliper inch basis. Parking access to be
reviewed and changed. 21 being the hazardous materials requirements.
Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion.
Jo Ann Olsen: I just want to point out that typically with any site plan review
that all rooftop equipment shall be screened.
Councilman Geving: I think that's on there isn't it?
' Jo Ann Olsen: No, it's not. I didn't have it in there as a condition but
that's always is a condition.
I Mayor Hamilton: Based on the comments made about how they're going to do the
rooftop, and I understand from what I heard, they have decided how they're going
to do the rooftop equipment and exactly what's going to be there. As a part of
their architectural process, that may be a natural screening within itself so I
think that needs to be reviewed by yourself or by Gary and if you think it needs
to be brought back to the Council, it should be.
Councilman Boyt: Or just say as approved by staff. So condition 22, rooftop
screening as approved by staff?
' Mayor Hamilton: Fine.
Councilman Geving: Fine with my second.
' Councilman Johnson: I just wanted, we were talking per caliper inch basis.
We've talked about it so much up here that we know exactly what we're talking
about. I'm not sure if the definition comes out too well so I just wanted to
' expound upon that for just a second. What it generally means, if you take out a
20 inch oak tree, you can replace it with 20-1 inch oak trees or 5-4 inch oak
trees.
Mayor Hamilton: I would hope they understand that.
Councilman Johnson: It's not always that clear. And this is above and beyond
what the ordinance already requires of 1 tree every 40 feet and a parking area,
lh etc.. Just in case that wasn't terribly clear on why we were replacing per
caliper inch was.
43
zAtakm-y Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Bob Worthington: Again, our response is we certainly would like to explore it.
We have not done a tree inventory on the site. We don't know what the
implications of that might be. It might be that we have 50-40 inch caliper
trees on the site that have to go as part of this site which means that we have I
more trees to replace than we think is either feasible or reasonable and we may
want to come back and let the Council about that.
Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. We hope you do that if there is a problem.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Site Plan #88-15 '
with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant provide details on how the trash receptacles will be 1
screened.
2. The applicant will provide an amended plan showing the 75 foot setback is
being maintained between the Class B wetland and the parking area to the
south.
3. Additional landscaping must be provided along the westerly boundary of the '
northwesterly parking lot. The lanscaping shall include evergreens to
screen the parking lot from the north and west.
4. Should the feasibility study not include landscaping along Lake Drive, the
applicant shall submit a landscpaing plan providing perimeter landscaping
along Lake Drive. I
5. The north, east and west side boundary of the Class B wetland shall be
allowed to be sod and seeded but will also be landscaped with vegetation
suitable for natural habitat and will not be mowed and allowed to revert
back to its natural state. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping
plan with the proposed landscaping as recommended by the State Document
Titled, "Landscaping for Wildlife".
6. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Fire Inspector as stated in
his memo dated October 17, 1988.
7. The applicant shall submit the conditions of the Building Department as
stated in his memo dated September 26, 1988.
8. The applicant shall preserve a 75 foot setback around the Class A wetland.
9. Meet any and all conditions of the EAW Negative Declaration.
10. Meet any and all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15.
11. A revised erosion control plan which reflects Type II erosion control
(staked hay bales and snow fence) shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for approval prior to the commencement of any grading.
12. Site grading along Lake Drive and Market Boulevard shall be in agreement
with the finished roadway improvements for Lake Drive and Market Boulevard.
44
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Vii=
13. A 35 foot utility easement shall be dedicated along the westerly lot line of
the site along the alignment of the sanitary sewer as established by the
II feasibility study.
+ 14. The internal piping scheme for the building should address the need for
documentation of recycled or cooling water discharge in order that proper
' sanitary sewer credits can be identified if appropriate.
15. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for utilizing
' its ponding facilities to accommodate any storm water, less than the 100
year predeveloped runoff rate which is not being accommodated on site.
' 16. The on site ponding and storm drainage scheme needs to be coordinated with
the feasibility study alignment of the Lake Drive storm sewer systems.
17. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City to
' guarantee the proper execution of the final approved plans and
specifications for the site and provide the City with the appropriate
financial security.
' 18. The applicant has indicated that they will be recycling water. Details for
the cooling tower, appropriate screening, and plans which address the
connection to the City's existing storm sewer system, shall be provided to
the City Engineer for approval prior to the commencement of any
construction.
19. The applicant shall be required to replace on a per caliper inch basis any
hardwood trees that are removed.
20. The applicant shall move the west parking lot access subject to city staff
approval to minimize the removal of trees.
21. Comply with hazardous material requirements identified by the Public Safety
Department.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
(D) APPROVAL OF GRADING PERMIT.
Gary Warren: Just a point. Obviously Rosemount would like to get on with
grading. There are some things that have been brought up tonight, the least of
which is the tree removal that are impacted by what their final grading plan is
' so I think that some of these issues are going to have to be resolved before the
permit can be issued.
Mayor Hamilton: I understand that. That you're going to want to review these
things before you start anyway.
Bob Worthington: I think we would move on most of the conditions that have been
' outlined on the site so I don't see that as... The employees are very anxious
to...
45
i
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Councilman Johnson: What we can do to accommodate this is, what we're approving
here is the Grading Plan Sheet C-2. We could say with the exception of the
western side parking lot, the west parking lot area, yet to be discussed and the
ponding area that there may be some changes so we can get onto the grading for
the main building and the east parking lot and those areas that there isn't a
question on and just modify paragraph 3 so Plan B, Grading Plan Sheet C-2
excludes the areas where we have questions. Then we can get on with it.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems to me that adequate direction has been given to staff
so we needn't modify anything. Mr. Worthington's company is going to look at
the moving of the access to the parking lot. They also are going to work with
the staff on how the Type B wetland is going to be configured and we've given
them a lot of latitude to the staff on how this is going to be accomplished. I
see no need for us to start making any amendments to this. It's in your lap and
I think that's where it belongs. You know what the direction of the Council has
been and you can work with Mr. Worthington and with Rosemount to accomplish '
that.
Gary Warren: I guess I was going to say, I would rather have it that we clear
up these things before the dozer starts going because the last thing I need is
to have somebody saying I got 4 D-8 cats waiting and this road can't be changed.
Mr. Worthington has said they're going to address these things, we should be
able to get them wrapped up. I
Dave Vangasser: Could I just clarify? Our intent there, what we really want to
proceed on immediately is the building pad itself and that west parking lot is
not our intention, regardless of whether we got the permit right away or not.
It's not intention to proceed with that until summertime or spring.
Councilman Johnson: The reason I bring that up is, just talk to our Attorney 1
and say, what would you rather have? If they went ahead and did something, a
direction from Council in the Council Minutes or it written down in the permit
about thou shall not do this and just see what our Attorney would rather say on
that.
Roger Knutson: I think Clark's right, it's pretty obvious. The best thing to
have is the permit.
Councilman Boyt: I just want to ask a couple quick questions of Gary. We've
got hay baling in here right? ,
Gary Warren: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Number two. We are also requiring the terracing and
backsloping that's going to protect Lake Susan? Terrific idea. Glad we're
doing it. Then I'd like to highlight for Opus and Rosemount point number 6
under clean ups it says daily dirt clean up off the roads. Daily. We have had 11
a history of some difficulty with that with other developers. That's all I
have. It looks good to me. Let's get rolling.
Councilman Geving: I would move that we approve the Rosemount grading permit as
shown on the attached and presented to us tonight by the City Engineer that's
dated November 23, 1988.
46 1
• City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
_ Councilman Horn: Second.
IICouncilman Johnson: I'd like to move to modify paragraph 3 to include a
statement that reconfirms Council's direction that the permit can not be issued
until the, the permit for anything other than the site pad can not be issued
' until the staff is convinced that the modifications to the west parking lot or
the ponding has been completed.
' Councilman Geving: I'm not going to change my motion. I think that's already
covered in item 3. I think the City Engineer, being a professional, knows our
direction and intent. That was exactly what we're intending to do.
Councilman Johnson: I didn't ask you to change your motion. I moved to change
your motion.
Councilman Boyt: I'll second your amendment.
' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to make an amendment to the
motion to modify paragraph 3 to include a statement that a permit for anything
other than the site pad can not be issued until staff is convinced that the
modifications to the west parking lot or the ponding has been completed.
' Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Councilman Geving,
Councilman Horn and Mayor Hamilton voted in opposition of the motion. The
amendment failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
II i
Councilman Geving: Now I will change my motion again to restate my motion. We
approve the Rosemount Grading Permit as depicted on the attached November 23rd
' grading permit presented to us tonight by the City Engineer.
Councilman Horn: Second.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Grading Permit
' presented on the memorandum from the City Engineer dated November 23, 1988. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
(E) APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
Mayor Hamilton: Roger, did you write this or did you have you an opportunity to
review this? Do you have any comments you wish to make about it?
Roger Knutson: I did not write it. John Dean wrote it from the HRA. I have
glanced through it.
Mayor Hamilton: No comments? Okay.
Councilman Johnson: This is different than our regular development contract.
t__ This is more of a tax increment contract.
Roger Knutson: Yes, that's what it is.
' 47
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Did you have any comments on the development contract?
Bob Worthington: Only that there has been quite a lot of work between the
Attorneys for the City as well as our Attorney...
Mayor Hamilton: Do councilmembers have any questions about the development
contract?
Councilman Boyt: I have a comment. It indicates completion by 1990. I'd just
like to use this opportunity to say that, one of the things that is going to
happen here is that we're going to be selling you a good bit of water. This, I
think is a chance to put in a plug for the fact that we probably need to be
looking and building another well. We also need to look at the Lake Lucy Road
trunk watermain. We're talking about roughly 1.4 million in total expenditure
there and 1990 might be an awfully good target date. But that these folks
represent a big, everyday use of water and we just went through an awfully,
hopefully unusual summer but it pointed out that we just don't have a lot of
water. I think the development contract is great. I'm all for it.
Mayor Hamilton: I would hope that the staff has already realized that the major 11
water useage is going to be a problem and they have already started their
review. I'm going to move approval of the development contract for Rosemount
Inc..
Councilman Horn: Second.
[I
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Development
Contradt for Rosemount Inc. as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Bob Worthington: As a parting comment let me take, our greatest appreciation
for the indulgence and patience. As you know this has not been the easiest
project for any of us to put together and we muscled to this point. I think
many of the comments that were leveled at this project in terms of some of it's
incompleteness, is legitimate. I think the only excuse that we could give is
the fact that we were taking care of business and some of the details kind of
fell through the cracks. So in that regard we don't want this meeting to
adjourn, at least on this project, without you knowing the fullest and deep felt
appreciation for the work. The work of the staff. Jo Ann is gone. I hope she
hasn't gone for a reason. Gary. Others have just given a lot of time has gone
into this and a lot of effort. City Manager, Don Ashworth and we just
appreciate your support and help and think that you will be very pleased with
the product...so thank you very much.
Mayor Hamilton: Thank you and it's a pleasure to work with Opus. It always has
been and it's certainly nice to have Rosemount coming into our community and we
look forward to working with the Rosemount Corporation for years and years to
come. We're very pleased that you have selected Chanhassen to be a place for
you to locate one of your major companies.
48 '
II R
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
1 Councilman Johnson: And as the person that gave you probably the most trouble,
1 I do appreciate the quick response I got from Bob and everybody else. I do
II I
i apologize for not getting the EAW until last week. If I'd had it in October, we
would have been a lot better off today. It's my fault partially there, for not
getting it earlier.
IIACCEPT LAKE DRIVE EAST/TH 101 FEASIBILITY STUDY (CR 17/TH 101) .
1 Gary Warren: We've got a few people, familiar faces here tonight to run through
the highlights. Recognizing the time here, I guess we'll go at your discretion
on how much you want to get into it but we're looking to get Council acceptance
II of the document. We've already scheduled the December 12th meeting for the
public hearing. The notices are going out this week, if already so with that
brief introduction, I'd like Don Ringrose to head it off here.
1 Don Ringrose: I propose to be relatively brief as Gary said, in part because
there are going to be, first an informal public meeting to which all the
affected property owners will be attending on December 6th. Then secondly, the
1 formal public hearing before the Council so there's going to be a lot of
opportunity during those meetings... We were hopeful at the December 6th
meeting is beneficial to the property owners because it's a real opportunity to
sit down and go through proces and discuss the thing. But briefly, as you're
1 all aware, this project, which is not being sort of condensed into one document
is really the result of two projects which started... First the TH 101
I realignment which was in a sense initiated by TH 5 and secondly the Rosemount
II
project which you've just spent the last 3 hours reviewing. Each of them has
ni their own kind of driving force with respect to the schedule but both projects
are relatively... Rosemount wanting to be underway next year. TH 5 will be
1 fully underway next year.. .and we have taken some of the preliminary steps that
are required. The study which has been provided to you is basically a statement
of the conceptual design for all of the facilities and provides preliminary cost
estimates and a preliminary proposal with respect to assessments and other
1 funding sources. It's the first step in a sense of this 429 procedure, that is
the feasibility study followed by the public hearing and then presumably the
project can then proceed. The project, and I'll briefly go over this and I know
1 Gary was here two weeks ago and you've seen a lot of this. It's essentially the
same document but just for a refresher. The sanitary sewer basically, I will
give a workup of the northeast corner essentially providing service connections
Ito Ward's existing properties. In the Ward property, it's proposed a trunk and
lateral sewer system covering the whole area based on alignments of the roadway
which are generally agreed upon with the Ward property owners meeting with Fred
Hoisington. And the Rosemount area, sewer ultimately will be complete all of
1 the facility necessary underneath those... The watermain is again, going to be
basically the same essential area. Underneath all...under Lake Drive and then
again under the proposed TH 101...the city's water distribution system. Storm
t sewer up in the northeast corner is primarily to provide for the drainage that
will be needed in the reconstruction of the intersection itself in this area.
...will be discharging into the siltation pond to be developed in this area and
the trunk south underneath TH 5, connecting to the existing storm sewer system
and into the area south. Near the Rosemount water area, the storm sewer system
which you've discussed at some length which comes from the ponds, generally west
to the larger pond which Gary discussed. The other system on TH 101, going down
' and discharging into the creek but in this case before it discharged into the
49
1
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
creek, a proposed siltation pond is to collect the sedimentation and dirt. The
intersection of the area existing TH 101, again the small pond for that purpose. ,
Finally, the roadway improvements with respect to TH 101 relocation. It is the
alternative 2A. Realignment at Dakota using upgraded TH 5 and then the Market
Blvd. connection. With respect to Lake Drive, along the originally proposed
alignment, the jog here where we're suggesting that it we would continue to go
straight through, that jog is a relfection of the desires of the Wards since
they're hoping to develop their property...Jim Benshoof in terms of. ..aspects.
It is proposed as a part of this project to extend the street lighting system '
along the edge of this portion of Lake Drive. That's essentially the project.
The costs, etc. are all summarized in the report. It's not a small undertaking.
It's some 6 million dollars in total with the land acquisition. Major
acquisition of course you can see here where we do have to take one apartment
building. We realized that we could take one rather than 2 but a significant
amount. We think that the cost estimates and the consumption design are as
accurate as they can and need be at this point in the process. The point of
this project is still not as well defined as we'd like it to be but because it's
a needed project, it's the whole issue of how much do we assess and how much do
we get from funding sources. We have suggested in the report an assessment
proposal which is consistent with how you treated the properties in the downtown
area and how you've treated other properties in terms of your assessment policy.
It's not necessarily by any means the way to do it and I suspect as this project
continues on over the next 2 to 3 weeks, months, there are going to be changes
in that respect coming as a result from discussions with property owners and the
Council and ourselves get out to the citizens who are affected. So don't
transpond that assessment proposal like that's the way it has to be. There's Ell
room... As we've indicated, if a significant portion of the project is proposed
to be assessed, that portion is unfunded by assessments and we suggested that at
this point tax increment financing is a current alternative rather than
general... I guess with that I'd entertain questions.
Councilman Boyt: I had some questions when I got to the cost and that we were
going to assess this. The question that we always get asked during assessments
is, show me how this benefits me $80,000.00 worth of assessment. I assume that
you're comfortable that you can demonstrate that.
Don Ringrose: Over a demonstration is to.. . Otherwise what we've done here is
suggest you levy the assessment, the proposed assessment consistent with past
policy. The extent that, as I indicated earlier, that policy is offering an
equitable situations... We have for example, as illustrated and stated in my
report, reflected a $50,000.00 reduction on the assessment that would occur
against the church property. In a...level, we felt that that was probably never
going to fly. We've got to be realistic and there may be other situations that
we then kind of catch. The intent here in the process of what we've done is not
to try and zero in on the assessment. That's really a question that occurs at
the time the project is assessed. Once the decision has finally been made but I
appreciate that every property owner who is affected by this.. .assessment, wants
to have the most accurate estimate that they can have about what it's going to
cost them. Again, I suspect in the next 2 or 3 weeks most of...in respect to
that in response to what is meant. So I won't represent that everything on here
at this point is accurate. I won't say that.
Gary Warren: If I could add too Bill, we are adding or propose to add
facilities, watermain, sanitary sewer, roadway improvements that are obvious
50
-4 Cla
City Council Noting - November 28, 1988
improvements to the area by service consistent with a well and established
policy on assessments so those are, they always stand the test that those are
lit pretty straight forward assessments.
Councilman Boyt: Two more quick questions. One of them in regard to, this all
' implies that this all works. They will have access that they need. We have
traffic flow. You have studies and we've had several. The summary is that when
this goes in, it all fits together?
Don Ringrose: Functionally it should work.
Councilman Boyt: My last point is, do you have a blow-up of sort of the TH 101
' 78th Street intersection?
Don Ringrose: No I'm sorry, I don't. There is in the packet.
' Councilman Boyt: I've got it here but I was just wondering if for the people
who are looking at that. What I would suggest that you consider, and I would be
of the opinion that accepting feasibility study might be a little premature
' since we haven't had the public hearing. I don't know what this locks us into
but I'd sure like to have the flexibility to do something as a result of the
public hearing.
Don Ringrose: This in a sense says we've performed the study.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that one of the things we begin considering
is, when TH 101 comes down from the north, it hits 78th Street, you've worked to
make that as much of a right angle situation as you can but that works to the
disadvantage of people who want to go into downtown. I would think if you could
' make a right turn lane that was more sweeping, it might even create some sort of
little mini-island in there to...
Mayor Hamilton: Like it is now.
Councilman Boyt: To some extent.
' Don Ringrose: You're suggesting a free right.
Councilman Boyt: I'm suggesting a free right that's not so radical. That's not
' so much of a 90 degree. That it's more like the exit off of a freeway would be.
So people could make that turn into downtown. Maybe even avoiding the stop
light altogether.
Don Ringrose: We do need to be careful in terms of being too smooth and
appearing too easy. What you then have is, a merging movement and when these
vehicles come together, the person using this lane is not inclined or it's very
' difficult to look back. We need to be sure that we're treating it as an urban
intersection as opposed to say a freeway merging. We've got to be careful with
respect to that but a free right to an urban freeway, put it that way. That you
Inormally see at an urban intersection.
Councilman Boyt: I will predict that this won't work. It's just my view and
'•-- I might as well get it on record early that when we build this, it's going to be
amazing with in spite of all your engineering efforts, people are going to be
51
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
very upset that we've changed this corner. In spite of the mess that '
t zt is now
and that we're going to hear plenty of times I can't make that turn. Those are
my comments.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's very important to get this assessment roll out
on the 6th so the people that are being invited to this. Have the letters gone
out at this point?
Gary Warren: They will be going out by December 1st.
Don Ringrose: We do have, by the way, as I indicated before, I do have the mock
or proposed assessment roll.
Councilman Johnson: One thing, when you say this is not the final. The
assessment doesn't go to the assessment hearing. We get to the assessment
hearing and we say, well you were informed about this way back at the
feasibility study stage. At the feasibility stage you say address it then and
you're saying when you get to that stage, we already addressed it. It all
doesn't quite add up right now.
Don Ringrose: We have to have a place to start. We've got to have something to
change if you want to put it that way. We've got something to change now.
Councilman Johnson: That's been an excuse I've heard before on assessments and
when we get to the final assessment roll, we say hey, we've already gone through
all this. Then let's really go through it at the feasibility study stage and
get some real agreement.
Don Ringrose: See, if we're going to start making changes, we've got to get
some input before we can do this.
Councilman Johnson: I think the plan in general would be a vast improvement on
TH 101 going south. The long term prediction to cut it through the old, I guess
it's the old Klingelhutz farm there. I'm not sure who owns it right now but to
cut it through that property and straighten TH 101 completely out on the south
side would be an inmuense benefit to the City. I'm surprised we don't have more
accidents along that section of TH 101 than we do. I'm not exactly sure what
the amount of accidents are. I'm not going to be able to be here at the 6th
meeting but hopefully be very forward with the people on what the assessments
are and make sure everybody is very well informed on these assessments. ,
Councilman Geving: I've read through this. It's a very complete package as far
as a feasibility is concerned. I've always had a pet peeve that feasibilty
studies are always feasible. It never fails. The project is always feasible
and I've never seen one yet but I guess I'm most concerned about again, it's
already been mentioned that the accessibility of all of this. We're assessing
approximately a third of the project and I want to make sure that when the
people are there on the 6th, that they know fairly closely what's being proposed
even if we say that it's kind of fuzzy and kind of loose at this time and we
don't know exactly what. We should know pretty well because I know some of
these people and they're budgeting. They're budgeting several years from now
and they want to know pretty precisely what it's going to cost them.
Particularly the church for example and some of the other people.
52
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 261
Don Ringrose: There's only 20 entries and I'm sure some of those are duplicate
owners so we're dealing with a number of property owners that's manageable in
Iterms of time...
Councilman Geving: What are we going to do with those 5 properties up on
' Grandview? The Wills and Berniers and those people. How are they going to get
access under this plan? South of the Legion there. Right there. How are they
going to get their access?
Don Ringrose: I would suggest that the existing driveway which comes down here,
at least initially would simply be extended up to this intersection. To my
understanding in talking to Gary Ehret, that the concept plan for ultimate
' development of this which would incorporate access through public streets to
this property.
' Councilman Geving: That's a long way down the road. I really don't have a lot
of questions. Like I said, I'm just more or less concerned about the property
owners and the assessment. Also, the removal of the existing TH 101. The
timing on some of these things. When would this removal take place or would we
' leave it there until we were completely done with the modified TH 101?
Don Ringrose: My inclination a third time so we could review this without
' having traffic.
Councilman Geving: Would we vacate that street and move it all back?
' Don Ringrose: Vacate this.
Councilman Geving: How would we phase this project?
' Don Ringrose: The biggest...has to do with the Wards and it proceeds later.
Certainly with respect to Rosemount, this is necessary and it's necessary now
' because it's a major interest...at this intersection but I think our implied
commitment to MnDot with respect to the TH 1011/TH5 being done in conjunction
with this, we've still committed that we're going to take care of this so we've
got to get, I think, from here back to old TH 101. Whether we have to extend
' the temporary connection, we can make a temporary connection from here, the
shortest distance as a cost...solution, if that seemed to make more sense in
terms of trying to minimize expenditures.
' Councilman Geving: Could the timing of this meet, what we heard tonight with
Rosenount's timetable, by 1990?
Don Ringrose: Certainly.
Councilman Geving: No problem at all?
Don Ringrose: We have no problem keeping Rosemount. You make the decisions and
we think we can...
' Councilman Geving: That's sewer, water, streets?
Don Ringrose: This is essentially a one construction season project.
' 53
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
I
Councilman Boyt: . ..no problem but TH 5 is still a problem.
Don Ringrose: TH 5 is a separate issue. The construction and implementation of
all this work would not necessarily go all at once, even if the Wards want it to
happen. I think we'll be looking at this very closely in terms of TH 5. If
TH 5 is delayed, this. .. In fact, the original concept was that the City was
responsible for designing this...and construction of this over the highway
contract.
Councilman Geving: Excuse me, I had one more other question. There was a
comment made in the feasibility study or somewhere about how you were going to
build over that sedimentation area that you had 30 some feet of peat by the
existing wetlands. How are you going to build that without digging the peat
out?
Don Ringrose: Because of the depth of the peat and the...involved there, we put
a geofabric basically on the existing soil or vegetation and place fill over it.
Put an extra 10 feet on there and we'll let it sit for a year. We put something
in to monitor it. The time relationship and the settlement relationship of that
organic material settles very rapidly...very, very slowly. You monitor that and
at such time as it slows down to a point that's tolerable, you take the excess
dirt off. It doesn't guarantee that you're not going to have some...
Councilman Geving: Would you build that into your contract with how ou build
that road? I can see that breaking up. y
Gary Warren: We did that to Park Road in Chan Lakes Business Park was built
that way. In fact, it didn't settle too terribly fast. It hasn't settled as
much as the soil...but we did put a surface on it and we haven't put the final
wearcourse on it but it is a common technique.
Don Ringrose: When we get to that depth of peat, digging it out all the way is
so expensive that...
Councilman Geving: I understand. I just wanted to cover that because I heard
that term and I hadn't heard it practiced in the future. What was that term?
Don Ringrose: Surcharge.
Councilman Horn: When we send out the proposed public hearing notices, did we '
identify the amount of the proposed assessments on each notice?
Gary Warren: We haven't sent the specifics out yet. We will be sending a copy '
of the roll...
Councilman Horn: And that will go before the public hearing?
Gary Warren: That will be out this week.
Councilman Horn: Good. The other comment I'd like to make is the response to
the comment of this not working. I think there's a big difference between
something not working and somebody complaining about a change. I don't think
that, obviously Bill you can make your bet true every time that somebody's not
going to like it. The real question is, does it work or not. I think the way
54
1 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 : 6e
you've got this solves an existing problem of people going at TH 101 speeds and
coming around that sharp corner which has a poor sight distance and has no
intersection. What you're creating now is a situation where you're going to at
least give the people coming out from those side streets a chance to see a car
coming before they pull out. My other comment relates to your project funding
table and the cost tables. It would make it much simplier for me if you were
' consistent on those numbers. In one case you don't add the adminstrative costs
and in the other case you do add it and come up with a figure of 6.359 million
and that doesn't include any administrative costs. I don't understand why we're
' inconsistent. We put them in some places or not at all.
Gary Warren: the 6.3 does include that 25%.
' Councilman Horn: Well, that's not added into any of these other numbers up
above. If you look at your table 38 and 39, you don't get the results that
you're talking about in Part A. They're all 25% higher. Does 6.3 include the
25% or not?
Gary Warren: The 6.3 does include.
Councilman Horn: Then where is that added in? Land acquisition or the
administrative costs of 1.2? So that's all added in on C on table on 32?
Gary Warren: C is correct. That would be the administrative.
Councilman Horn: I think it would be a little more straight forward if the
tables matched the line items. That's all I have.
I.
Mayor Hamilton: I thou g ht this report was very complete and good. Like Dale
says, I've never yet seen a feasibility study that says you can't do it. I
guess just give it enough time and money you can accomplish anything right? I
think we ought to move ahead with the public hearing and with sending out the
notifications to all the affected property owners. Should probably somehow get
something in the paper about the meeting so it's not just affected property
owners but it'd be nice to have as many people here as may have an interest in
it because I think we should explore every assessment process possible including
' a citywide or anything else that we've looked at in the past to try to determine
what is the best way to do this and the most reasonable way to do it.
Gary Warren: We are, or at least my intent is to use the same list, in addition
' to the 20 that we have for the 429 process, to use the list that we used as a
part of the alternative selection process. We're getting notices out and we
will be putting notices on the doors of the apartment complex.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay. You probably should send notification to some of the
homeowners association groups that would be not directly affected but certainly
a part of their access might be affected. I think the more comments we get the
' better the process is going to turn out overall. I guess that's all I have.
I just hope as many people as possible are aware of this so we can get as much
input from the residents as possible.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have to get this published twice?
55
i
°"'�C�i-.'ty Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 II
Mayor Hamilton: No, the one is on duplication where we can put an ad in the
paper and then the other one is a published public hearing.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to suggest that when we have the public hearing, we '
also maybe, that Fred bring along or we prepare copies of the criteria we used
in making this selection. Maybe you bring copies of the 6 alternatives, the 6
or 7 alternatives we considered because I think one of the things that we're
going to continue to need to do over the next couple of years is show people how
this ended up being the best choice. Part of this acceptance of change I think
is understanding what we went through to get to this result. ,
Resolution #88-129: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept
the TH 101/Lake Drive Feasibility Study, File No. 88-22 and that the public
hearing be set for December 12, 1988 and the general forum for the public be
held on December 6, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman
c loran Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the agenda to move
item 11 to this point in the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SUPERAMERICA STATION '
LOCATED AT TH 41 AND TH 7, MAYOR HAMILTON.
Mayor Hamilton: I was not here that night when HSZ, I guess is the name of • 11!
their corporation. I have talked to them and they asked that some of the
conditions be reviewed. I said I think it's a good idea and I'm requesting that
those conditions be reviewed again. I would like to have the opportunity to
have some input on it.
Councilman Johnson: For a little discussion sake, during that night we had
quite a discussion. A lot of compromise. I think we ended up with some good '
compromises. SuperAmerica agreed. The residents agreed. We agreed. We
finally got it off at 1:00 in the morning or whatever and got it all compromised
out. We provided a review process for the conditions. We provided conditions
to SuperAmerica under which they should come back if those conditions are
causing them a problem and provide us the evidence that is causing a problem. I
think we did one heck of a good job that night.
Mayor Hamilton: Whether a good job was done or not has nothing to do with it.
I'm asking for the opportunity to make comment and to review the conditions that
were made on it. '
Councilman Geving: I will second the reconsideration because I feel that the
Mayor has to have the opportunity to at least be heard. We did spend a lot of
time that night. We went well into the late hours but I do believe that we have
to give him the consideration of reviewing the whole subject. If he has been
approached by SuperAmerica. We did have several tie votes that night and I know
that the tie votes wouldn't have been ties if the Mayor have been here so on
that basis I will second the reconsideration.
56
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
' - Councilman Boyt: I have a question. I assume that we're going to reconsider
right then? That if we vote to approve this reconsideration, we're voting to do
III it now?
Mayor Hamilton: No. No, we can not do it now. That's why it's on. There will
be nothing considered tonight. Under procedure you can not do that.
Roger Knutson: Under your By-laws.
Councilman Boyt: I don't think it's fair to these people to put on the agenda
that we're considering changing the conditions of TH 41 and TH 7. Have them
spend 3 or 4 hours here tonight only to come back 2 weeks from now.
Mayor Hamilton: Our procedures clearly state that if anything is to be
reconsidered, there needs to be a request made which is all this is saying.
' This is a request for reconsideration. If the motion is denied, then there
would be no reconsideration. I am requesting that these items be reconsidered.
Should the motion pass, it would be on the 12th agenda and notice would be made
to all affected parties. It's that simple.
' Councilman Geving: There's another thing. We can not proceed anyway. We have
no information. We didn't get a packet on this. There's nothing we can do.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, there isn't going to be any new information Dale.
1 Councilman Geving: There has to be. There has to be some new information
provided to the Council for us to act on.
Councilman Boyt: But there isn't.
' Mayor Hamilton: But you're going to have the information placed in front of you
that you looked at last time. Do you have that now?
' Councilman Boyt: There's no question that I remember it. We didn't spend 2
hours discussing it and going back and forth with tie votes, getting
SuperAmerica to agree that they accepted all those conditions and then forget
' what the issues were.
Mayor Hamilton: You probably have a very good memory. Perhaps better than
' everybody elses but nevertheless, I think everybody else needs to have the
information in front of them. You can not consider the item tonight anyway. By
ordinance you're not allowed to do that.
' Councilman Johnson: Specifically which conditions would you like to review or
do you want to open up the whole thing and start over? They're already under
construction. It's kind of hard to start over.
' Mayor Hamilton: I would think the ones that were mentioned to me, do you
remember which ones you and I talked about? Hours of operation they mentioned
' but they're not so concerned about. Delivery of fuels on Sunday. 3.2 beer
license. I guess those are 3 that come to mind quickly. I don't have the list
of them in front of me. I don't think that should make any difference what they
are. A11 of them can be reconsidered.
1
57 _
66 I City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Councilman Johnson: To vote for this, I would like to know exactly what we're '
voting to reconsider. Whether we're starting over from ground zero or if we're
only looking at delivery of fuel and 3.2 beer. We gave them an out on delivery
of fuel as far as provide us information. Are they going to provide that
information? The 3.2 beer we didn't give them an out on.
Mayor Hamilton: Since I'm doing this because I HSZ asked if I would and I said ,
that I would be happy to, I would assume that they're going to supply the
information that you may want to :oo. If they don't, then I'm probably not
going to vote for it either. It's as simple as that.
Councilman Horn: My only reservations in supporting this is we gave than an
option. We said we'd have a full council in two weeks and we could vote on it
then.
Councilman Johnson: And they said they didn't want that option.
Councilman Horn: I'm kind of curious why they want it now.
Mayor Hamilton: Because this is one of the ways that they can have those items 1
reviewed was to ask me, since I was not present at that meeting, if I would go
to the Council and ask them to reconsider the conditions that were placed that
night. I said I would be glad to do that. I would like to because I didn't
have an opportunity to comment on this.
Councilman Horn: That's why we suggested waiting until our next Council meeting
when everybody would be there and we would have had it all resolved by now.
Councilman Johnson: They said they didn't want to wait for you Tom. They
wanted to do it now. 1
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps after they thought about it for a while, I mean I can't
speak for than. I don't know what they want to do but I suspect that perhaps
they had thought of other things.
Councilman Horn: That's my only reservation because we were all concerned that
you weren't here that night.
Mayor Hamilton: I was concerned I wasn't too.
Councilman Boyt: If I might suggest. As a courtesy to you and following along
the standard practice, I can't see voting against the reconsideration. We've
given that right to everybody on the Council. If you're gone, you can have the
item reconsidered. From my part, I can tell you that they haven't moved to the
phase where they can generate any new information because it was all based on
demonstrating a loss. They're not operating. They couldn't demonstrate a loss
to me so I don't intend to change my vote. It occurs to me that it might very
well be, right now, that there's two other people on the Council that feel the
same way and if there is, maybe we can relieve the neighbors of the need to
return here. But for my part, I can tell you Tom, I will vote for you to be
able to reconsider it but I will vote against any changes in the consideration
of conditions.
Mayor Hamilton: Boy, that's having an open mind.
58 ,
' City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
1 _
Councilman Boyt: Well, it's not having an open mind.
IMayor Hamilton: You've got that right. You're consistent anyway.
' Councilman Johnson: I go right along with Bill on this and because of all the
work we did and because they sat up there and agreed to these conditions, for
them to come back and take a side door to come back in. ..
' Mayor Hamilton: I don't think they willingly agreed. When you've got a gun to
a guy's head, he's probably going to agree to do most anything. They want to
get under construction. I think if you go back and review the Minutes and see
the things that were said, you'll find out that it wasn't willingly that they
-agreed to all these conditions. That want to get started. All they're asking
for is to review them again. They may even have some more information they want
' to present to the Council. That's all they're asking for.
Councilman Johnson: There is some aspects as to whether they're complying with
the conditions in the first place as to whether the construction that they've
' started...
Mayor Hamilton: That has nothing to do with what I'm asking for. I am asking
the Council to reconsider the conditions and I'm moving and there's a second.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to reconsider the conditions of
approval for SuperAmerica located at TH 41 and TH 7 at the December 12, 1988
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' APPROVE MNDOT CONCEPT PLAN LAYOUT, TH 5.
' Gary Warren: This is our layout 1B. I've got it up on the wall here for
anybody who didn't notice it. Submitted to MnDot. It's similar to the previous
plan that we had which went from the County line to the east. This picks it up
at the County line and takes us up basically to Lake Ann Park. This is layout
approval for their layout. The next step then is this goes into their design
process which Barton Aschmann is doing the design on. Evan Green and Carl
Hoffsted are here from MnDot in case there are any comments. I guess depending
' on the Council's preference here, Howard Preston is here. Howard did a lot of
the review for us on the intersection. The mainline issues we have no problem
with. I guess it's pretty straight forward as far as the two lanes, two lanes
in each direction. We did take a look at, because of the background that we
have from our feasibility study, at the intersection of Dakota Avenue with TH 5,
-Great Plains and then Market Blvd. because we're concerned -that we had the
proper movements provided for. in MnDot's plan so Howard has spend quite a bit of
'
-- - time doing the look at the ultimate 2005 concept out there and those are the
sections that were provided in your documents. We also noted, since
anticipating 1990 construction, in order for MnDot to buy into the interchange
-=- confirguations, they're obviously going to be interested to see what the 1990
' traffic forecasting so there is a justified need for same additional forecasting
to solidify for MnDot's benefit, the actual drainage that will be a part of
those intersections so we'll also address that in this report. If you'd like
' - Howard to go in more details on this.
59
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask one question just to start off. You're
talking $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 for a 1990 forecast. Is that just the year 1990
or is that the time period between 1990 and 2005? Like 95, 98. The 1990's
really is close on the future.
Gary Warren: What we're trying to do is get, we know what the ultimate '
configuration is. What we don't know is, right now we think...so this would be
1990 or as best as we could get what the utilization of the system would be.
Councilman Johnson: I would think that you wouldn't want to build it exactly
for 1990 and in 1992 that it would fail.
Gary Warren: No, no. The approach would be to acquire the total right-of-way
for the ultimate section. To put in an interim median or whatever, to take up
the space that you don't need until whatever point in the future you modify the
median to get the additional lanes in.
Councilman Johnson: But are you saying that that wider median would be designed
for the year 1990 or would it be designed for. Okay, I see some shaking heads. '
Howard Preston: Part of the reason for doing this 1990 forecast is, we have a
handle on what the traffic volumes will be for 2005. Mr. Benshoof and his firm
did those numbers and we use those for our design. And we had recommended
designs to accommodate the full build-up that's implied with those numbers. One
of the questions that has come up is, the intersection of Great Plains Blvd. and
TH 5 is signalized now and MnDot assumes it will be signalized in the future. II
Dakota and TH 5 is signalized now and assumes it will be in the future. TH 101,
the north leg and West 78th Street is not signalized. TH 5 and Market is not
signalized. TH 101, the south leg and Lake Drive intersections are not
signalized. What we have to do is signal warrant analysis and we have to base
that on the volumes that will be there when the roadway opens up so that's the
1990 timeframe. We have to do some kind of analysis that says, what will
realigning TH 101 do to the transportation system if you take away all
additional development that is included in the year 2005 traffic volumes? We
don't want to warrant signals, traffic signals at these intersections based on
volumes that are going to occur in the year 2005. We have to look at the
timeframe when the construction will be completed so that's part of the reason
for the 1990 volumes. The other reason would be to determine whether or not
there are some interim solutions that will work in the short term but allow us
to build with the outside curb lines to accommodate the future need so that's
the rationale for that additional forecast.
Councilman Johnson: Can any of that be economically extended up into looking at '
some of our West 78th Street like Laredo intersection and what kind of traffic
signals or whatever should be down here? This seems to be a problem
intersection too. I don't know if you need a number generated would be useful,
the trips per day running through downtown that go down there would be of any
but I've heard a lot of complaints on Laredo for one as to whether it should be
4-way stopped or signalized.
Gary Warren: I think with any intersection, the study could be expanded and for
additional costs you can look at those. There may be some base information that
would lay there as far as trip generations but I think at this point, if you
60
I • City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
want to look at that, that should be a separate issue. At this po int we should
address specifically this concept.
I Howard Preston: It.. .the rocess too because at Laredo
P you have.. .
' Councilman Johnson: I was just looking to save a few bucks on looking at this
Laredo lane.
Councilman Horn: But you wouldn't get an accurate account when you get TH 101.
It's going to be meaningless at this point.
Councilman Johnson: But we still have a problem.
Mayor Hamilton: Are we concerned only about TH 5? I guess I'm a little
confused why we've got Great Plains and Dakota intersections indicating TH 101
' still being used on Great Plains when we've got other plans for TH 101. It
doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.
Gary Warren: These layouts do reflect the ultimate 2A process.
' Councilman Horn: Then why does it say TH 101 realignment and show Great Plains
Blvd.? That's exactly the question I had. If that's really the case, why do
you need two left turn lanes off of Great Plains if that doesn't accomodate TH
101?
Gary Warren: Southbound?
Ilj
ECouncilman Horn: Northbound.
Mayor Hamilton: This whole thing, the schematic for the TH 101 realignment
leaves a lot to be desired based on what other things we're attempting to find.
Especially when you start talking about putting those barriers in there.
' There's been many comments made by some of the property owners and I strongly
agree with them. We attempt to attract business to our town and then we make it
impossible to get to then. I'd like to know the rationale for that.
Gary Warren: The southbound TH 101, maybe I could address first. With the
request to have a median cut at West 79th Street, which has been the interest of
Amoco and the rest of the business community down there, in order to provide
' enough roam for stacking of vehicles, that's why we expanded the section at TH 5
was necessary. That's why all the lanes basically, you're almost building a
mini parking lot so that you don't have stacking vehicles into that West 79th
Street intersection which would prevent people from cutting through the median.
' Mayor Hamilton: This is proposed to be done by 1990? This intersection doesn't
fail now I don't think.
' Gary Warren: If you recall MnDot's plan was to have a median going all the way
north to the railroad tracks.
II1__ Mayor Hamilton: That doesn't mean that they're right either.
Councilman Johnson: But unless we can do the study to prove them wrong and
' prove that this will work, than all they're going to get is a median running all
' 61
v+Cty Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 •
the way up. ,
Mayor Hamilton: If it's not a State road, it doesn't make a damn bit of
difference.
Councilman Johnson: It still is a State road.
Mayor Hamilton: I just said if it's not and TH 101 does not go down there, it
doesn't make much difference what the State wants to do. We can do whatever we
want.
Gary Warren: I think our traffic generation on our intersection, we want to be
reasonable and consistent on how we apply some of this forecasting also. I
think the concept that's provided here does show that there is an alternative to
provide a safe median cut there but you do have to add some language to do that.
Mayor Hamilton: If this is supposed to be a preliminary, we're trying to
approve a preliminary layout for approval of this intersection, there's no way I
can go along with this. The intersection of TH 101 and Great Plains, there's no
way I would ever approve that. I will not vote for it.
Howard Preston: Service to the south side or the north side?
Mayor Hamilton: Both sides. I don't think it's a good plan for either side. '
Councilman Geving: How did those barriers get in there? That's the first time
I've seen this. The comment was made, well we'll just move the traffic from the
Legion around to the south side. That's not as easy as you think. You'd force
a lot of U turns for one thing down there in front of that Hidden Valley. I
don't know. I agree with Tom. There's 6 lanes there now. We only have 2
today.
Howard Preston: This is predicated on 2005 figures.
Councilman Geving: But you've got businesses that you're impacting.
Mayor Hamilton: That makes it even worse.
Councilman Horn: Plus, how does that compare with Market which is really going
to be TH 101 and an even busier intersection. It doesn't look like you've got
as many lanes on that that you've got here.
Howard Preston: Market did not have the constraints of trying to store vehicles
for a specified distance. I don't know if Gary mentioned that but for example
on the north side of Great Plains, in order to get the median opening for West
79th Street, the theory is or the concept is that all of the vehicles that will
be stacked up from the signal would be stored, the end of the que of the
vehicles would be south of West 79th Street so the idea is that anybody who
would want to come north and turn left onto West 79th Street would not have to
turn through 2 lanes of vehicles that are stopped for the signal at TH 5.
That's a dangerous condition so we did calculations that based on the number of
lanes and the number of vehicles and the signal timing that we would anticipate
at TH 5, where the end of the que of the vehicles would be. In order to
accommodate or provide this median opening for the left turn, I had said it was
62
City Council "Meeting - November 28, 1988
a given that that end of the que had to be south of the West 79th Street
intersection so there would be no vehicles standing through that intersection to
block that left turn. So given that assumption, it required 4 lanes southbound
IIin order to store up all of those vehicles in that specified distance.
Mayor Hamilton: Are you taking into consideration where West 79th Street is
going to join into Market Blvd. and Market into TH 5? I don't think, my opinion
is, people coming down and going west on TH 5 are not going to turn off on Great
Plains. They can go down to 79th and then there if that's a full intersection.
' This intersection is not going to be as busy as I think you're indicating on
here. It's going to be much easier to just keep going down to Market and turn
in and go right onto 79th Street.
' Howard Preston: What we used is the design volumes that Mr. Benshoof generated.
I was given those and we used those volumes as our design volumes when we
designed these intersections for.
tCouncilman Horn: That was with the 2 lanes.
' Howard Preston: Yes sir, that's correct. He had the system in his model that
was the 2 way so it had all the intersections at those locations and all the
connections that we're talking about. What it still- indicated was because Great
Plains Blvd. is the closest access to your downtown area and there is a lot of
' development expected or redevelopment of your downtown area, the traffic volumes
at this intersection remain very high. All of the traffic did not go away
because the TH 101 designation is moved. There was still a great deal of
' traffic being generated into the downtown area and this intersection was the
primary focal point for that traffic.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure there will always be a lot of traffic there but I
' still can't agree with putting up barriers to cut traffic off from trying to get
to businesses. That doesn't work.
' Councilman Horn: What you've done north is an improvement over the original
proposal which included the barrier in front of 79th so that's definitely an
improvement. My concern is still south. What's going to happen is exactly what
Dale said. They're going to come south, make a U turn around there and come
back to the Legion. Is that taken into account in your plan? Is the theory
that you're going to set a cop there all day and make sure they can't do that?
� 'rHoward Preston: The concept on the south side was, the analysis, the analytical
' process we went through is similar to the one we went through on the north side
-and that is, we took the traffic volumes that came from the Benshoof forecasts.
' We put it through this queing analysis to find out where the end of these que of
vehicles that go in the left turn lane to the through lanes would be. The fact
of the matter is, it comes all the way down to the very south side of the Legion
5-property. So it would not be possible to provide a left turn lane into the
' "Legion property without having these vehicles having to turn through a line of
- ` standing •vehicles. .I consider that to be dangerous. We couldn't recommend that
-so therefore that's the reason_ the design has resulted as shown on the figure.
' It would be possible, in my opinion, if we buy into the traffic volumes and the
traffic forecasts, to provide a left turn into the Legion property that would be
- safe because it would have to turn through a line of standing vehicles during
' peak periods of the day.
63
272 1 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Councilman Johnson: That's at 2005?
Howard Preston: That's in 2005. That is correct. '
Gary Warren: That recognizes current land use also. He plugged in the
Rosemount as a part of that site for example and recognizing a substantial
development potential, residential that we have with the Chanhassen Hills has
several additions to go. Lake Susan Hills West.
Mayor Hamilton: Then they ought to redo it and plug in the new TH 101
configuration.
Councilman Horn: It supposedly is.
Howard Preston: That is in there.
Councilman Geving: How about the Wards? Did you plug it in for the potential
Ward's development in that corner?
Councilman Horn: So all of Rosemount is going to come up to this intersection?
Mayor Hamilton: Or they're going to go west. '
Councilman Johnson: Most of them will go to Market.
Gary Warren: You will go to Lake Drive connecting in.
Councilman Horn: But this goes nowhere. All you're going to get out of here is
people in this housing development down here. That's my question. Where are
the people going to come from from the south? Just from this housing
development.
Howard Preston: There is commercial property that's along Lake Drive that is '
not yet developed. There's the shopping center, the legion club. I didn't do
the forecasting so I don't know how their zones worked out. I believe there's
also some commercial property just west of Great Plains Blvd. and south of TH 5
so there's more that's undeveloped commercial property there so there is other
commrecial property in the area that's feeding that intersection.
Councilman Horn: It has to drop down from TH 5 east, pick this up and then '
come back in order to continue west. That's the only thing that would make this
kind of volume. That looks like a real problem to me because people are just
going to come down to make U turns on this. That's all they're going to
accomplish.
Howard Preston: Either that or I guess one option would be for them to get onto
Lake Drive at Dakota and cane from the east if that's where they're coming. If
they're coming from the east, instead of making a left turn at Great Plains,
make it at Dakota, come along Lake Drive and make the right turn to get up to
the Legion instead of making the left turn and U turn.
Councilman Horn: But if they're coming from the north or the west, they're not
going to do that.
64
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Ii—
Howard Preston: That's correct.
II Councilman Geving:• And the bulk of our
population is to the north and to the
west.
Councilman Johnson: Coming down Great Plains Blvd. trying to get to the Legion.
Councilman Geving: I bet if you did a study of all the Legion club members for
' example, you'd find that nearly all of them would be coming from the north.
800.
Howard Preston: There are a couple of problems with making this left turn off
of southbound TH 101 into the Legion property. The first one is what I
mentioned, the problem with the queing of the northbound lane and these vehicles
' having to turn through that line of vehicles. The second one would be, if you
really wanted to accommodate that, it would not be safe to allow the left turn
on the through lane. You'd have to make it out of the left turn lane which
would then move the through lanes over to the west 12 feet. And if you do that
' south of TH 5, you also have to do that north of TH 5 in order to get those
lanes to line up and we were running into right-of-way problems already with the
width of the road north of TH 5. I can't tell you it wouldn't be possible to
1 do. I'm suggesting that there are implications that may extend even north of
the TH 5.
Councilman Geving: Did you move that entrance to the Legion Club as far south on
Olt their property? Right on the property line?
Howard Preston: Yes. I checked with Gary and we moved it to within what's
1 shown here. I believe it's 10 feet of the property because that's typical for a
setback.
' Councilman Geving: There's a little hill there now.
Howard Preston: We've moved it as far south as possible.
Councilman Horn: .. .proposal where you cut those. As I understand it, south on
Great Plains you're cutting both the Legion access and this next driveway off in
the first proposal.
Howard Preston: That was the State's suggestion. The right-in/right-outs.
Councilman Horn: This is obviously better than that but still an inconvenience
to the Legion however.
Gary Warren: There is no median shown on the south side. It is on MnDot's plan
' and I guess maybe they could address from their study the actual need for that
median. Carl Hoffsted and Evan Green from MnDot.
lk Carl Hoffsted: I'm Carl Hoffsted with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Mayor and the Council. I might be giving more of a little bit
of a status report here in relation to TH 5 and than the Great Plains Blvd.
intersection. The layout that you have seen on the wall is MnDot's layout and
we developed that about, started it prior to having final alternative selected
1 65
A
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 1
for the TH 101 rerouting proposals. We did include flap A there. That is
consistent with Alternative 2A to show a full intersection at Market Blvd.. We
did not do anything with the Great Plains Blvd. intersection because there just
wasn't time available to take a closer look at that. We have yet to have a
chance to look at the proposals being presented by BRW in the memorandum and we
would like to be able to work with the city staff and BRW in developing
something that would be acceptable to the City Council in the long run. I may
be jumping ahead here a little bit. I presume in your packets you do have the
resolution and condition 1 as it reads in the resolution, MnDot would have some
concern over that delay that we've presented right now. We would like to
suggest something that rather than shall be, that the proposals here be
submitted to MnDot for staff approval and incorporation into the TH 5/TH 101
layout plans. As far as the median opening on 79th Street, we've read a lot of
comments about that at the open house and the public meeting as well. I
recognize that as a concern and the fact that the rerouting of TH 101 is
probably going to take place and be turned back to a local jurisdiction, we
wouldn't have any problem with providing the opening at 79th Street. In
relation to the south leg of Great Plains Blvd., south of TH 5, our layout again
presumed that TH 101 was still routed as it is today when we developed that
layout. Obviously some things are changing and that's perhaps the need for
doing a traffic forecast to show where the local circulation and traffic is
really going to take place in this area of the new intersection of Market Blvd.
and Great Plains Blvd.. Therefore, if in fact the traffic does decrease on
Great Plains Blvd., why then the access to the Legion and to the Superette there
could be left open. Recognizing that the access to the Legion is relatively
close to the intersection, given that the traffic volume were to decrease, the
better distance that you can get from the intersection, the better the design I
will be. The better the traffic operation will be if there's going to be a
median...
Councilman Geving: Would you look at that double left hand turn on the south
side there. That's the one that I think we're concerned about.
Carl Hoffsted: ...had a chance to really look at this yet. We have two other
concerns. Probably just a quick glance. Number one, the intersection starts to
get faily wide. We have to look at it from a signing standpoint. We also have
to look at it from a traffic signal mast arm placement standpoint and provide
islands in the northwest quadrant and southeast quadrant for the traffic signals
where we would be getting into additional right-of-way in both of those
quadrants and probably will affect the businesses of both the Legion and Holiday
on the northwest quadrant. So there are some other things there that have to be
looked at as well.
Councilman Geving: Carl, would it be in your area of expertise to discuss the '
potential for passenger/pedestrian overpass across TH 5 here at this point? Is
that part of your analysis of what you would build into a traffic plan? We've
requested that through the environmental worksheet. '
Carl Hoffsted: Right now we don't have any proposals for a pedestrian overpass.
For a signalized intersection, it would be designed to accommodate pedestrians
with the depressed curbs.
Councilman Geving: Geez, that would be pretty tough. You're talking about a
freeway here.
66 I
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
1 - Carl Hoffsted: . . .signal indications as well. In looking at it, we'd have to
determine whether the pedestrian bridge could be provided. The landings within
the right-of-way without affecting the businesses in the area. The City of Eden
I ' Prairie has requested a pedestrian bridge at the TH 4 and TH 5. They are paying
1000 of that pedestrian bridge and the right-of-way.
ICouncilman Geving: Could you give me an idea of what that would cost?
Evan Green: $300,000.00.
ICouncilman Boyt: Is it the same cost if you go under the road? I think the
Park and Rec people indicated that their information said there was higher use
I of these things if they went down instead of up. What's the cost look like to
put it under the road?
I Carl Hoffsted: I guess at this point in time we really don't have an estimate
of going under the road. We've always been discouraging going under as being
kind of a safety problem in terms of people walking through there at night or
unprotected.
IICouncilman Geving: Thank you. I just wanted to air that because it's been of
interest to me.
IGary Warren: I think there is a possibility and I was talking with Evan earlier
today, of looking at the railroad. There will be a new bridge built, two more
lanes over the railroad track.
Mil
ICouncilman Geving: Up by the church?
IGary Warren: Yes. We could get a crossing there.
Councilman Geving: Let's not lose sight of that because I think that's a good
Ipossibility and a necessity.
Councilman Boyt: One of the questions raised by the Chan Estates neighborhood
was how do we get to town. How do our kids get to town?
I Councilman Geving: How do they get to school?
I Councilman Boyt: In the report that we received, I think it was recommended
that we have a couple of studies done for about $6,000.00 a crack. Do you feel
that those studies are needed?
I Carl Hoffsted: Yes I do. I think for number one, to look at the signal
- justification warrant for Market Blvd. and TH 5. Number two, to address the
Great Plains Blvd. and TH 5 area traffic.
Councilman Boyt: I would just ask you, isn't it obvious that you're going to
need a signal at Market Blvd.? It isn't obvious?
lbCarl Hoffsted: We still have to justify it.
L Councilman Boyt: .,Nothing's obvious?
II
II67
r r
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Carl Hoffsted: If it's obvious, you've still got to justify it.
Councilman Horn: Just a comment, I agree. I think we need a little more study
on this to look at the traffic volumes. It's hard to imagine we could get this
kind of increase so I'm glad to hear that you'd like to correlate with the
studies that have already been done. My sense is that in the past I've never
seen a traffic study come in too low so I'd be very surprised if we got one that
came in too low. Most of them I think undershoot especially when you look at
population projections and things for this area. Maybe we do need this. It's
hard to believe that some of these things are factored in when you look at this
Great Plains intersection but boy, it's hard to believe that you have to chew up
that much real estate for a road that's going to be downgraded as much as
Great Plains will be when TH 101 moves. That's all I have. ,
Councilman Geving: I'm looking at this memorandum of October 24th. It says
there will be no left turns allowed to these entrances on West 79th. Now that's
apparently taken care of?
Carl Hoffsted: Right.
Councilman Geving: Another question on the second page, or a statement. Then
the Amoco station would have to be served with one entrance directly opposite of
West 79th. You've taken care of that apparently also? '
Carl Hoffsted: BRW has.
Councilman Geving: BRW has but these were questions that MnDot raised. I have I
no other questions.
Councilman Johnson: The Planning Conunission discussed that a lot on the site
plan review last week with Amoco. What I'd like to do on the resolution is add
a third Whereas to say, Whereas, the preliminary layouts do not recognize the
realignment of TH 101. To put that into our resolution that we recognize that.
Then as they're talking there, change number 1 in here to be, shall be
considered as presented in the November 22nd memorandum to the firm BRW. Then I
added at the end of this, and phase construction of these intersections to
recognize that we may want to put the intersections in at this time under a 1990
forecast or 1992 or whatever forecast and then modify them in the future. So
we're not building a 2005 road in 1990 and have it sitting empty all this time.
Add a 5th item here in the resolution to say, pedestrian crossing of TH 5 shall
be taken into consideration. What we're doing is saying, we're looking at
MnDot's preliminary layout and saying, here's our criticisms of it. We're
approving your preliminary layout but we want to make sure these things are
pointed out. Also put in, not in here but in whatever motion comes up, the
authorization to spend the $6,000.00 for the additional study to prove that
these intersections will operate as BRW believes they will. It doesn't prove
anything but it better estimate it. If it's allowed I can do that as a motion
at this time. I don't think you've had a chance to talk on this yet.
Mayor Hamilton: Right. I'm a little surprised that Clark didn't make his
normal comment about traffic. Allowing it to move. I guess as I travel around
the metropolitan area and other states and cities, I find that the traffic seems
to be the worse in communities where you continually build barriers and try to
funnel traffic, force traffic into taking turns at specific spots. It moves the
68 '
n� 7
P7
• City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 ''7
IIbest in communities when you allow free movement of traffic just through the
I J g
marking and striping of lanes. You put lanes in here where so many towns now
I I have a lane where you turn left out of that lane in either direction. The lane
is not a traffic lane, it's a turning lane and that's where, those communities
have the best traffic movement. You can drive in there. You can get anyplace
I you want to go. You can turn easily. You don't see people running into each
other and the traffic moves. When you start building these blocks of barriers,
all you do is stop the traffic and then everybody is, you ruin business if you
stop traffic and you make a mess. I'm very much opposed to what I've seen here
I and I don't think we have the best solution. I'm not the least bit in favor of
it. That's my comments. Do you have a motion?
I Councilman Boyt: As I said earlier this evening, there are enough arrows, lanes
and directions that people are going to go into shock when they come into that
intersection.
ICouncilman Geving: It's just a mess.
Mayor Hamilton: The people in this town can't handle the little intersection
Iwe've got up here now and there's only 2 lanes.
Councilman Geving: This is 6 lanes. How much land are we going to be taking
IIwith these 6 lanes Gary? Have you got any feel for that?
Gary Warren: 100 feet. I'm saying total right-of-way.
Councilman Geving: I kind of like what Jay had to say about adding those
I 4
t several more provisions onto the resolution.
I Councilman Johnson: I'll make the motion, one that we authorize the expenditure
of $6,000.00 for the additional modeling, or up to $6,000.00. I guess the
estimate is $5,000.00 or $6,000.00.
I Mayor Hamilton: Is that one motion or are you going to attach that to the
others?
I _ Councilman Johnson: Yes, I'm making that as one motion. Item 1 of the motion
is that. Item 2 of the motion is approval of the resolution approving layout 1B
for TH 5, Flap A, S.P. 1002-44 with the added Whereas tossed in here saying
I . :.:whereas the preliminary layouts do not recognize the realignment of TH 101.
Modifying item 1 to read intersection configurations for Dakota Avenue, Great
_ Plains Blvd. and Market Blvd. shall be conserved as presented in the November
22, 1988 memorandum from the firm of BRW (attached) , and phase construction on
I v these intersections also be considered. Adding an item 5 saying pedestrian
crossings of_ TH 5 shall be taken into consideration. -
ICouncilman Horn: I'll second that.
Mayor Hamilton: Are you seconding both motions?
IIICouncilman Horn: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: There are two motions here. - ,
1 ..
I69
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to authorize the expenditure
of up to $6,000.00 for an additional forecast modeling to give the answer to
when the expanded median section would be necessary. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Resolution #88-130: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the resolution approving layout IB for TH 5, Flap A, S.P. 1002-44 with
the addition of the following changes and additions. Whereas, the preliminary
layouts do not recognize the realignment of TH 101. Modifying item 1 to read
intersection configurations for Dakota Avenue, Great Plains Blvd. and Market
Blvd. shall be conserved as presented in the November 22, 1988 memorandum from
the firm of BRW (attached) , and phase construction on these intersections also
be considered. Adding an item 5 saying pedestrian crossings of TH 5 shall be
taken into consideration. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
APPROVAL OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Councilman Boyt: Couldn't we table this? I guess we can't. It has to be done
by the 1st?
Don Ashworth: It's supposed to be done by December 1st. Todd had prepared
this. I wish that he were present to go through this. The legislature passed
this legislation. You really don't have a whole lot of choice about it. I'm
personally not that happy. I think that we do a good job in trying to pick the
111
best candidate for positions but you're forced to comply.
Councilman Geving: We do that anyway. Do you have to forward your selections '
and things like that? How are they going to get the statistics?
Councilman Boyt: They'll come and ask you for them.
Don Ashworth: They'll be asking. We'll be forced into maintainin g the
certificates.
Councilman Geving: Well, it's just good business anyway.
Councilman Boyt: I wish Todd was here too because I'm not real happy with this,
having gone through a couple of audits. It might be a reasonable first start.
I gather that the source of availability of numbers was Anoka?
Don Ashworth: Actually I understand that most of it is supposed to be for '
Chanhassen. I know the one from Anoka is in there but this supposedly came from
back from the State.
Councilman Boyt: It's not the one from Anoka, it's the availability charts
which are critical are from Anoka and I'm wondering, generally different job
families take in different geographic availability numbers so a senior planner
might take in a national availability number since we recruit nationally whereas
a clerk, who's going to take in a local community availability number. That was
one concern I had.
70 '
I X70
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
I-
i-
Don Ashworth: Could the Council act to approve this with the idea that I will
put the item back on to December 12th to make any modifications and then send
I1 them a modified plan at that point in time.
Mayor Hamilton: That's a good idea.
ICouncilman Geving: You have to approve it anyways.
I Resolution #88-131: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve
the Affirmative Action Plan with the condition that it be brought back on
December 12, 1988 for any changes. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
IICOUNCIL PRESENTATIONS.
I Mayor Hamilton: Then Bill wanted to talk about the Carrico, which was taken off
the agenda.
I Councilman Boyt: In the Park and Rec Commission notes that we received in the
packet, they went through a fairly solid discussion on the possibilities of
acquiring the parkland. As Dale may confirm, if you got out and walked through
Pheasant Hills and that area Dale, a lot of the comments I got was, we'd like a
I park. I know they're not a long way from a park but they feel that they're out
of walking distance from it and there's a lot of young families. I'd really
i like to encourage the Park and Rec people to pursue this rather actively before
I Carrico gets money stuck in an Attorney to get with Met Council and builds up
what could be cost back to the City if we buy it.
Councilman Geving: Where's the area you're talking about?
IICouncilman Boyt: You know where they made the new cut in the road?
IICouncilman Geving: Yes. Right in the corner there?
Councilman Boyt: It's just up from there. I don't remember the lady's name but
' the older woman and her husband.
Councilman Geving: Palmers?
I Councilman Boyt: Palmers, that's right. It's just behind them and a little bit
to the west. 12 acres.
I Don Ashworth: Before the city can make an acquisition, an appraisal needs to
occur. The appraisal of the property has been completed. I'm very encouraged
by it. That will be taken back to the Park and Recreation Commission. I do not
I anticipate that they are encouraging significant costs and I guess staff is
looking at that as a very potential purchase. We're looking at it very
favorably. The appraisal came back very, I think very good. I believe it's
$36,000.00.
Councilman Geving: I can't believe it. For 12 acres?
II Don Ashworth: Yes.
II71
(J$J
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988
Councilman Geving: How about for the cemetary? I think that's a bargain. We
ought to buy it tomorrow. '
Mayor Hamilton: If we can find the money.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth '
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim '
1
1
1
1
72
297
SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
LNOVEMBER 9 , 1988
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order on November 9, 1988 at
7 :10 a.m. The following members were present: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilmen Boyt and Horn. Councilman Johnson came late.
' Councilmen Geving was absent. Staff present: Don Ashworth, City
Manager.
CANVASS ELECTION RESULTS: A discussion was held on 1988 election
results for the Chanhassen Mayor and City Council positions .
RESOLUTION 88-118: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a reso-
lution acknowledging the November 8, 1988 election results
wherein Don Chmiel was elected Mayor and Tom Workman and Ursula
Dimler were elected Council members as shown on Exhibit A.
Motion seconded by Councilman Boyt. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Boyt, Horn, and Johnson.
Motion carried.
A motion was made by Councilman Boyt and seconded by Mayor
Hamilton to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 a.m. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Boyt, Horn and
Johnson. Motion carried.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 4
Olsen: They understand that additional right-of-way will be. . . It ' s not !f
really going to, we've been hearing 11 feet, 14 feet and it will impact
more the landscaping than it will impact the building itself. The
setbacks will be reduced. It ' s similiar to what happened with the new
storage facility on TH 5. They constructed a storage facility right where
that will be taking property but again. . . If they had platted the
property, you could require them to dedicate the additional right-of-way.
Wildermuth: I guess if I could ask the applicant, do you plan to take
that into account? The additional . . .
Jim Fillipi : There is approximately 15 feet between the front edge of the
canopy and the current right-of-way set us back at 25 feet so even if that
were moved another 15 feet, you would still have, and with the single
driveway going in, you would still have a totally conforming building and
canopy as far as the setback goes and as a good circulation route around
the pumps and the building .
Wildermuth: That would bring the roadway that much closer though. That
is assuming that they allow a single cut through the median. That would
bring the roadway that much closer to the pumps , the one island .
Jim Fillipi : We think that with the adoption of the 2A alternate and the
shifting of the traffic volume from TH 101 to TH 5, that will
substantially reduce the need for the widening and additional lanes in TH
101 at this location. North of the railroad tracks , you' re sitting with
one lane in each direction and then in this location you would not need to
take additional property to provide two lanes . . .and then if there are
median cuts. There may be some but with the 2A alternative adoption, we
think the pressure for additional right-of-way is substantially reduced .
Wildermuth: I guess the other point that I have is that I don' t see
satisfaction of the hardship test for a sign variance. That' s all I have.
Batzli : I thought we talked at length last time about access along the
north part of this piece of property someplace. Do you recall that at
all?
Olsen: The Gary Brown car wash?
Conrad : That' s the car wash. That' s Gary' s car wash and that ' s separate . 1
Batzli : Separate deal . Then I don' t have any questions on that. I guess
I was curious about the two future gas pumps , extension of the gas canopy.
What factors do you look at for not deferring that for review process?
Why did you decide that wasn ' t a problem now?
Olsen: In review of the site plan, it would still meet all the setbacks
and the circulation was still adequate. . .
Batzli : I was just curious what factors you looked at. I didn' t have an 1
opinion one way or another myself.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
IINovember 16, 1988 - Page 5
IOlsen: How it impacted the site plan itself whereas the separate car wash
was. . .
I Batzli : What percentage of the parcel right here is impervious? Do you
know? Is there any hope at all that that future addition will ever be put
in?
IOlsen : It can go up to 70%.
Jim Fillipi : We' re currently 57% is landscaping and in the future it
IIwould go to, if the future addition was put in, it would go to 35%
landscaping and 65% impervious under the future addition. Currently right
now you have 43% impervious.
IBatzli : In condition 7, Larry, is this your condition? The tank for used
oil?
IOlsen: No, it' s mine.
Batzli : Was there some specific tank that you would turn into to have
Ithem install?
Olsen : The City has been trying to establish locations that the public
Ican take used oil . Amoco offered to provide the tank facility for that.
Batzli : I guess I was just looking at the wording that you provided
I there. Shall provide the tank for used oil . What you' re really looking
for is a waste oil receptacle?
Olsen : Yes and they are showing that on the site plan and making it clear
Ithat it' s going to be there.
Batzli : I guess my right-of-way question goes away. In looking at the
I signs, I don' t know that there' s a hardship for a variance and I don' t
know that the applicant has really provided us with, did show that there
is one other than they want it and it' s a good trade-off. I 'm really not
in favor of it at this time.
IEllson: My first reaction to this is , I don ' t feel we need another
convenience store. I think we have Kenny' s and we have Holidy right
I across the street and Brooke ' s just up and we' re planning a PDQ. We' re
soon going to be Chanhassen, the home of the Dinner Theater and
convenience stores . Come on in . But this is their property and I realize
I from the standpoint of operating a business , this is the way it' s going .
I 'd like a nice service station there. I think that ' s what we need in
Chanhassen but they can certainly do with their property what they want
and I think as far as adding another convenience store, I can' t really
I stop all that. I agree with Dave regarding the display of outdoor
merchandise on the sidewalk is a good one to add to this. Maybe we
haven' t done it always in the past but I think it would be a good thing to
I add to convenience stores and this type of thing from maybe this day
forward or even since the SuperAmerica forward because I think that can be
a nuisance when you' re going in and out of a store like that and I don ' t
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 6 ,
think it looks nice. I think the location more than compensates this '
location for competing with Brooke' s. I don' t necessarily go along with
the square footage comparison of Brooke' s to this one. If we ' re going to
compare how you' re going to compete, you 've got a location over them by a II
mile so I really think that you've got an edge in other areas where maybe
they don' t. The square footage of sign isn' t equal . That really doesn' t
concern me and I don' t think that it' s worth allowing the canopy signage.
Emmings: On number 3, it' s the condition where they have to combine into
a central access with the center median when the cut across from West 79th
is installed. I think we should probably add a sentence to that, unless
there' s already some provision that plans for the central access should be
reviewed and approved by the City Staff before construction. I don' t
know, would that be done automatically? ,
Olsen: . . .that could be. . .
Emmings : Okay. Then in number 12, it says proposed buildings will be
moved 5 feet to the south. We' re only talking about the car wash there.
We' re not talking about the store itself are we?
Jim Fillipi : I think we'd move the entire site.
Emmings: That' s all done?
Jim Fillipi : Just to maintain the separate between the car wash and the
pumps. There is sufficient room to move it.
Emmings: I was just going to add the car wash . . . I just have, for my own
information Larry, water from the car wash goes into the sanitary sewer?
Brown: Maybe the applicant can address a portion of this but normally
what happens is that they are charged sewer area charges by the amount of
water that they use. Most often in this type of installation, they will II install a water recycler to cut down on the charges that they have to pay
to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Unless the plan has
changed, I ' ve been told that they are planning on doing that but the final •
affect is yes, it will go into the sanitary sewer .
Emmings: What are the considerations there in terms of where, why do you
want waste water from the car wash to go into the sanitary sewer? Because
it might have oils and grease and soaps?
Brown: Soaps become a large problem. Obviously you wouldn ' t want the
detergents flowing into the wetlands or lakes so it almost dictates that
it goes into the sanitary sewer .
Emmings : Would it matter what kinds of soaps you use? I don' t know. I 'm I
just curious.
Brown: It would really create a poor situation with nutrient stripping
which we depend on within the ponding arears and sedimentation areas.
That would foul things up.
1
1 ,
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 7
Jim Fillipi : The car wash is using recycled water . We have gone to a
high pressure, low volume. It takes approximately 18 gallons to go
' through a car wash. Previous history with the Waste Control Commission
has been. . .units for the rollover car washes so that' s the type of volume
of water we' re specifically talking about in terms of rollovers.
Emmings : While you' re up there, if I could ask you a question. You've
heard a couple people talk about merchandise stored outside of the
building for sale. Do you plan to do that?
' Jim Fillipi : The only place that we would have available for doin g that
would be just in a small sidewalk area in front because the sides of the
' sidewalk and the building must be cleared for the handicapped access. So
just the design of the layout of the facility does not lend itself to
stacking merchandise on the sidewalk. We normally would not have a
problem with a condition like that. Otherwise, a case of pop, whatever
would be placed out in front.
Emmings: What would be your reaction to a condition that there not be
' merchandise stored outside for display or sale?
Jim Fillippi : I don' t think it would have a major impact.
Emmings : Then my only other question is on canopy signs. I 've been here
through at least 3 canopies and I know you' ve never allowed a sign on a
' canopy and I 'm not sure why. We don' t have anything in our sign ordinance
about it.
Olsen : The sign ordinance does not really permit them.
Emmings: It doesn' t allow them but it doesn't say you can' t have them
either .
' Olsen: Exactly. It ' s just been sort of past policy.
Emmings: Right. Now we've done that with the last 3. I know we've said
' no signs on the canopies and then we've made that stick. Do we have any
canopies in Chanhassen with signs on them?
' Olsen: We have Q-Superette who has changed to Total . We allowed . . .two
sides.
' Emmings : Now why did we allow that?
Olsen: They' re clustered . . .
' Emmings : So we don ' t really have a rationale here to apply? That ' s all
I 've got. I don' t know what to do about the canopy signs. I think that' s
a tough one. If we've allowed it in the past when people have asked for
it but it seems to me that other people have wanted it and we 've said no.
1
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 8 1
Erhart: Let me get this straight. We do allow pylon signs . The issue of I
signs on canopies, I just don't know how many signs you really need. If
you have a pylon sign, wall signs, it just adds more visual garbage there.
I think we offer enough signs . I realize that when someone new comes down
the highway they have to be able to identify what it is but I think it' s
adequate. The existing pylon sign, how tall is that?
Jim Fillipi : It was built at about 24 feet for height . The key is that
we do not have any illuminated building sign and in the evening hours, the
only illumination that is done is the Amoco along the canopy. Typically
around the Twin City areas, food shops and homes are not lit at night. . . '
Erhart : The pylon will be lit. My question is, if you only allow a 20
foot pylon sign, this is a 24 foot height. '
Olsen: They're going to change. . .
Erhart : So even though they' re coming in with a whole new site plan, and I
I 'm not suggesting that. . .
Olsen : They' re going to change it a little bit .
Erhart: Help me again to understand, what' s the trade-off on signs? I
know you' re proposing to have more signage than what' s permitted but what II
is this trade-off you're talking about?
Jim Fillipi : The ordinance permits 80 square feet of signage per street
frontage.
Erhart: Maximum.
Jim Fillipi : Maximum. Or 50% of the wall area. We have more than
sufficient wall area to obtain 80 square feet on two sides of the building
that we' ve currently eliminated . The total area that we ' re asking for on I
three sides of the canopy, each of the ACM' s has an area of 11. 65 square
feet and at that point we ' re about 35 square feet in terms of the word
Amoco and that 's a trade-off of 160 square feet for 35 square feet.
Erhart: If that' s what it is, I guess I would agree with most of the
other conditions. I just don 't feel that it ' s necessary to have all that
signage and would like to maintain the existing ordinance and apply it
here. I don' t have a problem with outside goods as long as it' s kept
alongside the building . What I wouldn ' t want to see is to have materials
out by the street.
Jim Fillipi : We 've never put it out there. . .
Erhart: But when business gets tough and like you say, you get too many
gas stations and stores in town, sometimes you get creative marketing
ideas so, I personally don' t have a problem with the materials as long as
it' s alongside. Otherwise, I like the plan. I think it would be an
improvement to that entrance.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 9
Conrad : A couple questions . Jo Ann , you want , I 'm struggling with why we
want a right-in. The southerly access, you didn' t like the way it was
proposed as a right-in only and a no right out . I 'm curious why staff
does not like that.
Olsen: Mostly it came from engineering and Larry can speak to that and
' also Fred Hoisington and BRW will confirm that the way it' s designed was
similar to like. . .not designed well . People still coming to out . He just
felt that the way it was designed it was going to be more of a conflict. . .
' Conrad : There' s a good chance there' s going to be a center island or a
divider. I kind of like how that ' s structured. I like the right-in the
way it is . Although I understand that people will try to get out there
' too. Larry, what' s your thought on that? Obviously you had some input.
Brown: We had , not knowing MnDot ' s position fully the last time this came
' through the Planning Commission, I had suggested or rather in trying to
work with this and compromise, had suggested the right-in only. We said
that we would take a look at that as an alternative. Part of the problem
is, as Jo Ann mentioned , down at Q-Superette we do have a similiar type of
situation where we tried to restrict traffic movements. MnDot' s policy is
well established in that they don' t care for these islands because when
somebody, let' s take in this case, if somebody were to try and go against
' the intended flow, they actually create a bigger traffic hazard trying to
get around the obstacle that we've placed than if they were to have a full
movement intersection and just take the right hand turn. So you almost,
by trying to fix the solution, you almost create a larger hazard out
there .
Conrad : So there' s no scenario where you can imagine that this would be
appropriate?
Brown: I can' t rule it out as a total never situation but it ' s uses are
' limited. In this instance I would definitely recommend that be a full
movement intersection.
Conrad : Is that a detached car wash on the northern part of this? And
' then north of that is another car wash. Then to the east we' re going to
have some more car washes . Do we have any control on creating a little
car wash neighborhood here? I don' t know that there' s a significant need
for another car wash next to another car wash . I see a very marginal
utility.
Olsen : There ' s nothing in the ordinance that would prohibit the number of
car washes.
Conrad : So we don' t have any control , in this particular case Jo Ann?
It' s not a conditional use so we really are locked out of saying why are
we putting that there .
Olsen: I don' t know if we can speak. . .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 10 U
Jim Fillipi : I don' t know what the future will hold on the future of car II
washes. The car wash to the north and the car wash that we' re proposing
are for essentially two different types of customers . The one that ' s
going in on this site is a roll over . You can stay inside of the car .
It' s a drive thru one meaning that you do not get out and detail the car , II
do the drying or do the hand washing so it' s a two different market.
There ' s a situation in Brooklyn Park in which there is an Amoco facility
with the rollover car wash and after we were in, a full service with dryer
and detailer , that went into the north of that. And to the north of that
is a self service wash at the same time and all three are doing quite well
in that area because they serve different markets . '
Conrad : Okay, I ' ll buy that.
Batzli : Where do we find out if this is a brushless car wash? It does
have brushes? Install an obsolete car wash, I don' t know.
Conrad : I 'm with Tim. I don' t have a problem with outside storage of
merchandise as long as it' s controlled.
Headla : What do you mean, as long as it' s controlled? 1
Conrad: As long as we' re not putting it all over. In other words, if
it' s at the front of his store, underneath a sheltered area , like most
SuperAmericas are. Right by their door, I just don' t have a problem with II
that kind of merchandise .
Headla: How do you control just that amount? 1
Conrad : You say it' s limited to those 4 feet that surrounds your
building. There' s an easy way to do it. I
Headla : To me the problem is how do you really control it.
Conrad: If you mean monitoring, yes that ' s a problem but if you say you
can display merchandise within the 2 doors , entry and exit doors or
whatever , for those 4 feet between them. I think you can locate where that
merchandise can be displayed . Like we did to the garden center , where
they wanted to display their tractors, we did the same thing there. We
said you can present your tractors . . .
Headla : We did control that , yes . What about that one over here? Did we II
control that on merchandise?
Emmings: I don' t think it came up.
Conrad: That didn' t come up.
Emmings: I don' t think anybody thought of it. The first time we thought II
of it really was with the SuperAmerica.
Conrad : That would be a different situation because that ' s part of a
shopping center and then I 'd kind of react differently. But as a stand
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 11
alone, self contained unit , I think visually this stuff is away from the
traffic.
' Wildermuth : And it ' s not in the neighborhood .
Conrad: And it' s not in the neighborhood. It' s in a business area so I
' don ' t have a problem. In fact , I actually do like that merchandise. They
typically merchandise stuff that' s needed. It may be salt pellets. It
may be charcoal . It may be Coke . It may be a convenience to people and I
don' t have a problem with that. As long as it' s not abused and typically
good operators like Standard or Amoco or SuperAmerica, they' re good
merchants. They typically don' t abuse those priviledges. So anyway,
that' s my comment there. I don' t know, whoever makes the motion has the
power here. I don' t see a hardship on the signs although it does bring
out some interesting points . I think if we' re going to administer canopy
signage a certain way rather than not talking about it, I think our
ordinance should talk about them. Which therefore, I think the bottom
line tonight for me is to not allow them to do it but also to open it up
and take a look and see if that' s the way we want it. More than likely I
feel comfortable excluding it but I guess I 'd like to see staff review it
and present it to us and City Council so we can make an active decision
versus probably no decision that we've had in the past on canopy signage.
Maybe Pat Swenson had some thoughts back then. Right now Jo Ann I 'd sure
' like your work. The other thing that I heard was illuminated versus non-
illuminated and I think that' s an interesting situation too. At least for
us to review. See if there' s a difference. Those are my only comments.
' Anything else? Is there a motion?
Headla : Let me make a motion but let me comment first. I 'm going to
recommend that we go along with item 6 and my rationale for that is, until
' we can adopt a policy on canopies , I 'd like to see them all treated the
same. If we approve this, why can' t every single one come back in? I 'd
kind of like to see us be able to handle it before we go with it. I 'd
' like to make a motion that we approve Site Plan Review #88-11 with the
conditions recommended by staff . Then I 'd like to include in that, item
13, the one about the plumbing code. Larry I think was the one who can
put in appropriate words there.
Brown : The applicant shall submit details for the inflammable waste
separates to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of
' building permit.
Headla : You convinced me about the products out front.
' Erhart: Second.
Ellson : I want the thing about the displays . They' ve already said they
' don' t mind. They' re not going to object. If SuperAmerica agrees that
they' ve gotten this before and they don' t object to taking it off , I think
that it ' s becoming a real nuisance to people and I think these stores know
' that and that' s why they' re always bending on this issue. I think if we
had a bunch of people in , they'd all say we don ' t like it, like me. . .he ' s
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 12 1
already said they wouldn' t strongly oppose it and I don' t know why we' re '
trying to be. . .
Conrad : I 'm not trying to be a good guy. I 'm just saying, it' s a ,
convenience. When you think of what' s displayed outside.
Ellson: But you can' t even get outside parking. You can only go in that '
one little area where the door is. You have to walk on the street the
whole time and dodge cars and you can' t get up on the sidewalk. That
drives me crazy.
Batzli : Where am I going to buy my salt pellets though?
Ellson: They' ll have them in there. '
Emmings: I agree with Annette. The issue was brought up on the
SuperAmerica station. Partly because of the neighborhood but partly just
because I always thing that' s kind of a junky looking part of these kinds
of storage places. To me it' s one of their worse features . Just
aesthetically. I remember asked him what he felt about it and he didn' t
care. They didn' t care so we put that into the conditions. Now we've
just asked him and he doesn ' t. . .
Jim Fillipi : We do` care. . . '
Emmings: But there was no strong objection.
Conrad: They would have done anything. '
Headla : Who would have?
Conrad : SuperAmerica would have done anything that wasn' t a big
sacrifice.
Emmings: But I don' t know why we want to see a bunch of pop and salt '
pellets stacked outside.
Conrad : I don ' t think you do but . . . '
Emmings: You' re talking about controlling it but the motion doesn' t put
anything in controlling it whatsoever. '
Headla: What about that. . .right across the street?
Emmings : But here' s the deal . At that time that that thing was approved , I
we weren ' t thinking about it . That was not an issue on that. It was
never raised to us. It should have been raised to us here by the staff ,
in my opinion, because when they' re looking at this one I think they ought II
go back and look at what we did at the other ones and tell us what we did .
I wrote it down over on this one because I remembered it from SuperAmerica
but then like Jo Ann points out , that was a conditional use permit where
this is a permitted use. But as far as whether we have to do it here.
Almost every issue we take changes over time and if we use the rationale
1 ,
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 13
that we approved it once so we have to approve it forever , we'd still be
doing things , we could be painting on the roof of a cave or something. I
don ' t know. Things change over time, that' s all . We changed it with
' SuperAmerica. Now the question is do we want to continue to do that as a
policy or not? I guess a lot of people here, at least think in this
zoning area, we don' t. I guess I do.
' Ellson: And maybe this one is just a small part but the next one that
comes in will have a huge sidewalk and then you' ll it will be. . . I 've
' just got to say no across the board .
Emmings: And there' s nothing in this motion that permits any control
whatsoever .
' Conrad : Do you want to amend your motion Dave to include that kind of
control?
Headla : I really haven' t seen any compelling arguments . I keep thinking
about across the street and if we want to come up and say, this is going
to be our policy.
Ellson: You brought it up in the first place. You said we just had
SuperAmerica.
' Headla : I brought it up and I wanted to hear some arguments on both ways
and I was really leaning that we shouldn' t have it but then as I heard the
discussion , I thought no . They' re right , I think I 'm leaning the other
way.
Wildermuth: I like the whole idea . I 've got a bad back so I can just
' drive by car right up next to it and throw the salt pellets and that case
of oil right in the back. That' s great .
' Conrad : I don' t find anything wrong with it. Say the SuperAmerica down
on TH 4 and TH 5. You don' t even see it. It ' s a matter , it can get out
of hand. Bad merchants can abuse that. Good mechants don' t. They know
how to merchandise and they all do an effective job. I respect the lack
' of polluting, the visual too so I agree that we don' t want to do that.
That' s the reason we have the sign ordinance.
' Headla: Let' s talk a little bit about how you would control . Maybe there
is some means for that.
Ellson : But then who' s going to moniter some of these controls?
Headla: Maybe somebody' s got some constructive ideas that you could do
that.
' Erhart : Just require that any outside merchandise has to be stacked
within 4 feet of the perimeter of the building and it has to be in the
front or 6 feet.
Headla : To me that probably would be certainly acceptable.
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 14 '
Batzli : I can picture it if it' s a conditional use but this is a site
plan. What are you going to do if they don' t comply, yank their site?
Emmings : I have one other thing . I 'd like to amend , I mentioned it if
anybody thinks it' s important. On number 3, that the plans for that
central access should be reviewed and approved by the City staff prior to I
construction.
Conrad : Would you like to amend your motion Dave to include that?
Headla: Yes .
Erhart: Yes . '
Conrad : Thank you for seconding that Tim.
Emmings: The only other thing, is 6 clear to everybody where it says, the II
gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage, including the Amoco stripe
name. Can that be read to say that it would allow signage that didn' t
include the Amoco name?
Batzli : I think it' s including without limitation, the Amoco stripe.
Jim Fillipi : We can put the red, white and blue stripe on the canopy, not II
the name is what you' re saying?
Conrad : I would have to assume that' s true because that' s really design. I
I don' t think we' re into design stuff. We shouldn' t be. Okay, you
haven' t decided to amend your motion in terms of control .
Wildermuth: I don' t think we should. I think if there' s an intent, that II
there' s thinking that we should control outdoor merchandising in these
places, we ought to write it into the ordinance. ,
Headla : I haven' t seen Amoco, anyplace that I 'd say was really a schlauck
outfit.
Ellson : It' s not that we' re worried about. . .
Emmings: You all said that SuperAmerica was a very well run outfit too
but we didn' t let them have it.
Conrad: But that was a conditional use.
Batzli : And a neighborhood .
Emmings: The rationale here is very muddy.
Ellson: Let the Council grapple over it .
Conrad: Yes . They' re the ones that get paid. '
I
1 , '
Planning Commission Meeting
IINovember 16 , 1988 - Page 15
IHeadla moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #88-11 with the following conditions :
1. The self service car wash will require site plan approval .
2. The two future gas pumps and extension of the gas canopy are approved
Ias part of this site plan.
3. The applicant shall furnish in writing a statement that Amoco Oil
Company is willing to reduce the number of entrances and exits to the
Isite to a total number of one if MnDot grants the City a median cut
for the proposed island on TH 101. This entrnace would fall directly
in line with the centerline of West 79th Street. The costs for the
I reconstruction would be at Amoco' s sole expense. This statement shall
be provided to the City prior to final site plan approval . Plans for
central access shall be reviewed and approved by the City Staff prior
to construction.
4. The most southerly access shall not be located further south than the
existing southerly access and shall be designed for full traffic
Imovement (right-in and right-out) .
5. The convenience store shall be permitted only two wall signs.
I6. The gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage including the Amoco
stripe name.
I7 . The applicant shall provide the tank for used oil and shall allow it
to be open to the public.
I 8 . The applicant shall remove the cars , trucks , etc. , stored on the
easterly portion of the site.
I 9 . The plans shall be revised to include the proper storm sewer
facilities which connect to the City' s storm sewer system. The
proposed curb cut near TH 5 will not be accepted .
I 10. A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for approval prior to final site plan approval .
I 11. Details for the construction of the curb radius for the northerly
access will be provided for approval by the City Engineer prior to
final approval .
I12. The proposed buildings shall be moved 5 feet to the south such that
adequate maintenance for the existing utilities may be provided .
I 13 . The applicant shall submit details for the inflammable waste separater
to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of building
permit .
All voted in favor except Emmings who opposed and the motion carried .
II
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 16 1
Emmings : I think the plan is fine and I only want to make sure that the
I
issue of the outside storage and sale of merchandise is raised to the
Council . That' s the only reason I 'm voting it down.
Conrad: So Jo Ann, there are two issues that are coming up, that should I
be put on work que someplace. They may not be done by you for the next
month.
I
Olsen : Outside storage?
Conrad: Outside storage, yes .
I
PUBLIC HEARING: I
SIGN VARIANCE FOR A DOUBLE FACED PYLON SIGN (5 ' X 10' ) FOR METRO LAKES
WEST MINI-STORAGE ON PROPETY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED
AT 7800 PARK DRIVE, MARCUS CORPORATION.
II
Public Present :
Mark Senn - Applicant
I
Roman Roos - Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . I
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Mark Senn : If I could start by possibly correcting something that' s
already been mentioned twice tonight. Where our building was built, it I
was not built within the right-of-way for the expansion of TH 5. That is
an issue that you addressed prior to the approval of the mini-storage
project. At that point the State had no specific location for the highway I
but we knew it was an issue we had to address. Prior to approval of the
project we had three meetings, if I remember correctly with the City Staff
and State Highway Department right-of-way staff. At that time a consensus
was reached , both on our part and the City' s part, that it would be much il
preferred for the highway location to take a northerly location rather
than a southerly location from the current highway in terms of the
expansion. The reason for that was the City wanted to accomplish a I
service road servicing Lake Ann Park and tie it back into the County road .
That' s the premise we designed and operated on. Since then now the State
has come out with an exact location of the highway but we didn ' t see that II
at least until after our project had been started. In relationship to it,
our buildings yes , are affected by what are called the construction limits
of the highway. Not the actual highway right-of-way. When I got into a
discussion several weeks back with Evan Greene of the State Highway
I
Department, they had since our original meeting on this, researched the
issue and found out some federal funds were used in relationship to the
Lake Ann Park. . .some sort of fund that prohibited them using that land to ,
expand the highway. That' s been a. . .like geez we put a building where the
highway belongs but that isn ' t the case. We put a building where we were
1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
' November 16 , 1988 - Page 17
supposed to put it. Highway plans have changed and conditions have
changed and where everybody kind of thought it was going to, they found
out after it can ' t go there. Just to make a long story short, that' s
' basically it. As far as the signage issue goes , let me try to walk you
through why we' re in a hardship situation. Possibly the easiest way to do
that is to go back to when the project was originally approved. There
' were a lot of concerns at the time this project was built over the long
expanse of wall created by the mini-storage project. We agreed with staff
and then subsequently with the Commission and Council to limit the
' elevation of the building so only about 6 or 7 feet were actually sticking
up above the ground . We built the project into the hill per se and
limited the amount of wall space sticking up above the ground. Where the
building ' s are actually, I believe they' re around 14 foot clear at that
' point so we' re about 8 feet or so into the ground at this point. The next
issue that came up was, while we were still concerned about this wall ,
let' s put a berm in. So we agreed and we put a berm in. That berm was
designed to basically run the full length of the project which further
impacts that visual elevation. The next thing that came up was, well
let ' s beef up the landscaping . Let' s intensify the landscaping . Again,
no disagreement on our part to intensify the landscaping. Through all
these agreements , we had what we thought was an understanding, which has
now turned into a misunderstanding because we thought we were always able
to put up a pylon sign. Probably the easiest way for me to bring that to
' your attention is I ' ll refer to the September 8 , 1986 Council Minutes
which I believe you have in your packet. If you go to Page 9 . . .when the
issue of signage came up, the third paragraph down. Councilwoman Watson
' stated that she didn' t see anything about signage. Barbara Dacy stated
that from her understanding the applicant proposed one sign for the
property. Mark Senn stated that it would be located by the TH 5 side.
They hadn' t decided at which end of the building to locate it.
Councilwoman Watson stated that she didn' t want a big red and white sign
stamped on the side of the building. Barbara Dacy stated that the sign
ordinance will give them the right to install a wall sign or a pylon sign.
' That' s the premise we always have taken. That was the premise we created
on when we agreed to make all these changes along with the project. Those
changes now substantially affect the visibility of that northern wall .
' Now we've come to the point where we' re ready to address signage which
quite honestly on our list of priorities was fairly low. Getting the
project done was much higher on the priority list. When we looked at the
issue of putting signage out on the building , we quickly saw that we were
' going to have a problem from this building standpoint. One of the things
that caused that was , as soon as we had some units available, we hung a
banner up there on the outside of the building which I think you've
probably all seen and our manager started referencing that in terms of
getting people to the location. We had a number of people come in and
comment that we couldn' t find you so we went out and looked at the
situation again and again, a limited part of the wall is visible,
especially when you consider the berm in front of it and the landscaping .
The landscaping is going to mature and it ' s even going to make the
situation worse . Our plans were always to put a pylon sign off of one
' corner at the edge of the building, i .e. the northwest or the northeast
corner of the building. We' ve settled on the site and we would like to
put it basically on the northeast corner of the building . . .meeting the
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 18 '
setback requirements . . . The hardship was created by these agreements we
reached and by the conditions that have been created around it. This is
really not part of the hardship but it' s an economic reality to us and
that is that yes we are in an industrial district and we are in an
industrial park which you could argue a lot of different ways whether
mini-storage belongs there or not, but that's where we' re at. Probably
when you look at the city. . .you come up with one from a use standpoint.
The problem is, mini-storage is retail business . It' s not a typical
industrial business . We function off people basically calling in out of
the Yellow Pages or advertising saying do you have storage units available
and we say yes and then they drive down to find the place. Or it would be
on the basis of them driving by and seeing a convenience store in the
community, they' re back to the phone number or stop in. Our units are all
rented on a month to month basis. We function very heavily on a retail
basis rather than assessment basis so that again. . . is very important to
the success for our operation. Again, I really think we have demonstrated
a hardship. . . In relationship to the council minutes and the premise that I
we' re operating under, that we were allowed to put up a pylon sign and we
now find out after the fact no and if we would really like to request your
favorable action on this and allow the variance to put the pylon sign in .
I 'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have. I
Conrad: Jo Ann, ground low profile. What does that mean?
Olsen: That' s one of the kind that has the . . . ,
Conrad: Built right on it?
Olsen: Right . I believe it' s 8 foot high height restriction. 8 feet in
height.
Roman Roos : Some additional comments to what Mark Senn has offered to
you. One of the primary concerns at the time we put this project together
. . . in terms of stone walls and elevations and . . .accomplish that in the
landscaping . I think that was one of the most important. . .but it ' s
interesting to note that we did this project back in 1986 . We also know
that the sign ordinance. . .December 15, 1986. I guess the question I would
ask is , prior to that time, was pylon signs allowed? That would still
like to explain why Jo Ann has . . . We were totally cognizant that we could
put a pylon sign in. Unfortunately, as Mark said, it was a low priority
issue. . .sign variance to get it done now but it' s extremely important.
One final comment and then I ' ll sit down, according to Jo Ann about the
new ordinance, we could have 2 or 3 signs. . . We could also have 2 wall
signs. . .along TH 5. . . . it seems ridiculous to have to do that. . . This
might be a very logical approach. . .
Mark Senn : If I might even correct one thing please. The bottom of the
sign would be 10 feet off the ground. The sign would be 5 x 10. We
deliberately designed it that way because we don' t want to have any impact
on the visual sight angles coming off of that intersection on TH 5. We
don' t want that sign down so low that it' s going to impact the vision one II
way or another .
II ,
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 19
' Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart : The list of permitted and the conditional permitted uses in the
IOP District, refresh me Jo Ann, where does this fit?
' Olsen : In warehouse is what it came under .
Erhart: I wish you had had the Planning Commission minutes from this
meeting on this part because at that meeting I expressed my, I guess
displeasure with putting that particular business at that location because
it was , really was an ideal location for an office being right on TH 5.
In the same place, a home office for somebody. I guess the problem that
' you' re really stating and one that we have here is an area called zoned
industrial office park and what you have is a retail business which
doesn ' t quite fit the intent of the zoning district even though you look
' through the conditional and permitted uses , there' s several retail
oriented uses in there. It' s really not the best fit. I guess that was
why I was a little disappointed in the fact that we were using that site
for that use. I feel that even though maybe Barb had made an error in her
statement or whatever, as we look into it, I feel that it was clear that
the risks associated with moving into that site for a retail business as a
sign interest is pretty restrictive. Additionally, I guess my business is
' in that district and I 'm limited to the low profile, single sign and I
feel that if somebody is being permitted to put in a pylon signs , then
golly, I 'd like to have a pylon sign announcing my business there too. I
would not be favorable to a variance to this.
Emmings : Basically I agree with Tim' s comments. I don ' t know what
Barbara had in mind when she made the comment that she did but it' s
clearly in error and I think maybe what she ' s saying is , that you have the
right to install a wall sign or pylon sign. I think the fact is, there
just was no concrete plan on the table and she was saying, to me it says
' no more than whatever kind of sign they' re going to have that ' s going to
be coming in the future. There ' s no hardship here. I don' t know how we
can grant a variance. It' s not allowed in that area according to our
ordinance. I don' t think there' s anyway we should allow a pylon sign in
the IOP.
Conrad : Do you two feel that they have visibility? They can get
visibility?
Emmings : I think they' re going to have to find a way to get visibility
and if they' ve got . . .
Conrad : They' re asking for that .
Emmings : I don' t have to design their signs . To me that ' s their problem
that should have been addressed when they designed their facility.
I guess between the combination of ground low profile signs and wall
' signs, which they' re permitted, I would think you would get the visibility
they need . Even if they can' t, I 'm not willing to look at a pylon sign .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 20 I
Conrad : But they have some alternatives that might be more offensive ,
visually. I 'm just throwing these. They can put up wall signs and get
that awareness . That might be more offensive than what they' re
suggesting. I just want to make sure you know. I
Emmings : Yes but Ladd , if they do put up a wall sign, we have provisions
in our sign ordinance for what that wall sign can be, is that right? And ,
if they design it within the parameters that they' re allowed here, even if
we don' t like the way it looks , then that' s too bad for us at that point
I guess . They can do that anyway right?
Conrad: They certainly can.
Emmings: And I 'm never going to listen to anybody say to me, hey we can
do something ugly out there so give us what we want that' s not allowed.
Conrad : But it can be a trade. It might be a rational . . . i
Emmings: But then we have to say to ourselves, are they likely to go out
and do something ugly to get back at us or are they going to do something
that' s going to make their facility attractive and I think they' ll do the
latter . I hope so.
Ellson: I pretty much agree with them both . I can ' t really see how we II could say no to everybody else that comes along if we say yes to this one.
They didn' t have it in their original plans . If we had said yes , because
Barbara had seen it in the plans or whatever , then I think it would be
pretty much locked into it but they never really had it in the first
place.
Conrad : You don' t think that the berming and that shrubery is . . .
Ellson: I think the berming and the shrubery is what we require of
anybody in there. I don' t think we said, by the way do you want to put
some extra because we'd like it more. I think they' re putting in what
we'd require of anybody.
Batzli : Where else does the City allow warehousing like that? What other II
district?
Olsen : We allow it as a conditional use permit in the BF district. ,
Batzli : So they could either have gone in the IOP or the BF? That' s it?
Olsen : In the BF district we specifically state cold storage warehousing . I
. . .whereas in the IOP it' s warehouse.
Batzli : Do you know what the ordinance was prior to the 12-15-86 date?
Olsen: You mean as far as the pylon signs?
Batzli : Yes . Were pylon signs allowed back then? 1
, II
II .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 21
' Olsen: I can' t remember. I can find that out.
Batzli : Okay, so we don' t know whether the 12-15-86 codification amended
that part or added?
Olsen : I don ' t remember the pylon signs . . .would be permitted. I can
' double check that.
Batzli : I guess I 'm looking at it from the standpoint of, if they were
' led by the City to believe that they could have a pylon, they might have
some kind of case . If we had made them put in additional shrubbing and
berming and everything else and they thought they were going to get a
pylon all along and they didn' t. But on the other hand , if the Statute
read no pylons and this was one isolated instance in which Barb misspoke,
I don ' t know that they should have the right to rely on that at that
point. I think that should have been something that they should have
' checked and I kind of agree that that probably should have been part of
the plan and agreed upon in advance if they were really counting on
getting a pylon. I also have kind of a real sense that the low profiles
won' t work or the wall signs. Maybe that' s the case but I don' t know that
' I really heard them say that we can' t make it work with what we' re
allowing. At this point I 'm not for allowing the variance.
' Wildermuth: The mini-storage of the caliber of construction that that one
is is a good, quiet, non-polluting neighbor. I think they've done a nice
job with shrubery. On the other hand, as the industrial park really is a
good looking asset to the City and it would be the only pylon sign in that
industrial park. I agree with Brian. Unless there was a clear indication
that a pylon sign would have been permitted when you came in for approval ,
initial approval , I 'd like to see them make a low profile sign.
Conrad: Because you know it will . Do you think it will?
Wildermuth : I don' t think a lot of signs on the building are going to
work.
' Conrad : Speak to us on that issue . You obviously don' t want a low,
ground profile because you don' t feel it' s got visibility? You' re going
for height.
' Mark Senn: If we push the low profile signage right out to the limits of
the property, yes, it would be visible. We prefer not to push it out to
the limits of the property because we don ' t think, it really belongs there
and I think your ordinance prohibits that anyway. I think there are some
setback requirements of about 10 feet .
Conrad : What are we, at 10 feet Jo Ann? Yes . So if we push it back 10
feet, you' re saying it doesn' t work?
Mark Senn: 10 feet you' re going to be right by the landscaping.
' Regardless of where you try to keep. . .and especially the mature trees . . .
One of the things I ' ve heard mentioned time and time again up here is
there isn' t one other one in the industrial park but please consider , the
I
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 22 I
City did not ask any other building in the industrial park to limit their II
surface to less than 8 feet. That is a substantial different in
relationship to any other building in that industrial park. If I had 13
foot wall area, and don' t get me wrong. . .we wouldn' t even be having this
discussion. But I 've got a 6 to 7 foot wall and again, it was something
that we agreed to at the time because we were trying to build and design a
nice project . We weren' t trying to get into an argument. . . ,
Conrad: Wall signs can' t project over the height of the building. Isn' t
that right Jo Ann?
Olsen: Right.
Mark Senn: Ladd , if I could , one other comment. This wasn' t an isolated II
incident of the word pylon sign. This was talked about a number of times
during the planning stage of the project. You can probably even go back
to some earlier plans where we had it x ' ed out for pylon signs . We II basically threw the issue of signage out as something we really wanted to
address at that time because quite honestly, through the whole city
process we were redesigning that project. I remember at least 2 or 3
Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings. We made the changes
when we did some negotiating , etc . so that was just one of the conditions
that we agreed to come back and deal with it then. . .
Conrad : You may not have been involved with this . Were you around when 1
this came in?
Olsen : This one I think I was on maternity leave. I
Wildermuth: How far up on a berm can a low profile sign go?
Olsen: It can be, as our ordinance says , it can be built into the berm.
Roman Roos: Just one final comment. I think if we were to go back and
pull the other minutes , again , I 'm trying to make the position that we
went through a lot of detail to get to where we' re at today. I think we
really went through, the Minutes from the Planning Commission and the
Council Minutes, I think you' ll find . . . Again, we' re not trying to do
anything that' s detrimental to the . . .or to the industrial park but we feel
this is a compromise on our signage. It' s more attractive than wall
signage for retail use . . . 1
Conrad : Your guess Jo Ann would be that we tried to bury this project to
basically cover up the height of the wall for aesthetic reasons so it just
wasn' t a big wall in the industrial park. So we tried to make that wall
less of an impact .
Erhart : What more did you do than was required by ordinance in terms of
what the City was requesting?
Roman Roos : We came back with a site plan and . . .additional landscaping . 1
Erhart: Additional height on the berm or what?
i
II .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 23
Roman Roos : We also put the . . .elevations of the wall . The staff was
concerned that the look from TH 5 was . . .massive kind of wall so they
wanted a low profile. . . Now it' s true we could put a sign on the Park
' Drive side but no matter where we put it, it just does not seem to do ,
does not identify. . .
' Headla : I heard . .a couple of comments . One is the majority of his
business comes from the Yellow Pages . Those people come out and ask where
it is . I don ' t think you need a 15 foot pylon sign to tell people where
you are that are looking for you. They proposed one way to solve
alternatives to that problem. They proposed one way. It' s either that
way or no way. I don' t believe that' s the case. I think there' s other
ways to solve the problem so I would vote against the current proposal of
' the pylon sign but the City wouldn' t want to face developments coming back
with maybe some other alternatives . Maybe there is a possibility that if
there is a problem, maybe something on the roof is a logical solution to
the problem. I don' t know but I 'd like to see us . . .to possibility some
other solutions .
Wildermuth: That' s a scary thought .
' Batzli : I big mayonaise jar tilted to the side.
Headla : They don' t need this but what shape of building . . .
Roman Roos: You' re correct on the telephone. . . We' re also trying to
' attract traffic . . .but they will identify that they drove by this
service. . .
Headla : I think that ' s a fair comment but I think there' s probably other
' ways to get about the same effect that isn' t such a blatant markdown of
the land .
Conrad : Jo Ann, Brian brings up a good point. Have you gone back through
the Minutes and examined what we've led the applicant to believe?
Olsen : I went through the City Council Minutes in your packet. I didn' t
go through the Planning Commission Minutes . The fact is, is that they
still have to, they had to receive a sign permit in effect at that time.
They obviously did not request a pylon sign approval at part of their site
' plan . Why, I don' t know.
Conrad : It' s an interesting scenario . I think they weren ' t looking ahead
because we were trying to bury this project or make the ground profile a
little bit nicer so I can see how we may have lost sight of the signage
needs. I don' t know. I think there' s an option folks to table it. To
take another look at it and see if there is a compelling reason for a
' hardship or for the fact that we led them astray. I don' t know that we
did but I sure can see a little scenario here where I recall this coming
in a couple times and we were paying a lot of attention to making it less
visible. They did do that . They did listen to us and they did make it a
nice effort.
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 24 '
Emmings : Is the applicant asking us to table it? 1
Conrad: No. The applicant is not.
Ellson: Couldn' t we ask in the interim they look that up?
Conrad: We can do that too. I 'm just opening up all sorts of options to II
anybody who wants to take charge of the motion.
Wildermuth: That little mini-storage in Eden Prairie on TH 4, can you
remember what kind of sign they have? '
Mark Senn: A pylon sign.
Wildermuth: The place is almost hidden below the berm down there.
Mark Senn: The pylon sign sits right up at County Road 4 there. Right by
the street that you turn into that berm.
Conrad: Generally my comments , it' s not an impulse business. It' s not
where you flash a sign because you want to get the traffic to turn in 500 II
feet away but I do want to keep you visible. The bottom line for me • is ,
you are kind of a retail business and I think I want to make sure that
you' re visible. I "don' t know that you' re not however. You do have the
options and they' re probably not my favorite options of using the wall but
they are there. I honestly can' t think of a way around, right now I don' t
have enough data to tell me that there is a hardship. We' ve led you
astray. We did something wrong . There are some symptons . There are some
clues here and there but I don' t see it. It appears that there are some
ways , what I want to make sure of is that there are ways that the facility
can get that recognition and the name out there. As I say, it doesn' t I
need the brash , neon lights . It doesn' t need huge signage. It just needs
to be made aware that it ' s there for the passing traffic. I think there
are alternatives available. I guess right now I 'm having a real tough II time saying that we have a special circumstance that will preclude getting
us around or that will take us around the current ordinance. Unless you
come back in and show us that it just won' t work. As I looked at the
site, it looked like there were ways to do it so I guess what I need to do '
is either hear back from staff that we really did mislead the developer in
this case and whether we table it or send it along to City Council , when
it gets to City Council I think that whole sequence has to be well I
documented for City Council to review. If we did continue to lead them a
little bit away, I think we have an obligation to make the building
visible.
Emmings: But Ladd , I think Dave' s point is a very good one . We' re not
being presented any alternatives. One of the alternatives, if one of the
things they did was to put in extra landscaping or berming or whatever ,
maybe that could be modified to make more visible another kind of sign
that wouldn ' t be a pylon sign. Maybe the modification is in the extra
requirements or whatever . On the other hand, when I said tonight the
SuperAmerica went along with what we said and you said they would have
done anything to get their project. Well , maybe this is not different.
1
,
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 25
I 'm not persuaded by the fact that they made some concessions to the City,
that that imposes an obligation on the City to give them something that
nobody else in the IOP has and that' s a pylon sign which is real different
character to me. I think alternatives have not been considered here and
that might be a good reason to table it . But tabling would only be
meaningful I think if we wanted to do a complete review of the Minutes . I
' think I was here when this was considered . At least I remember the issue
and I don' t remember things about the signs. It would be kind of
interesting historically to review it. The only reason tabling would make
any sense to me is if we got a good review of everything that happened and
we were presented with alternatives . If we' re not going to get those two
things, then I don' t think it would require tabling. I think this is
something maybe we should do more work on before it goes to the City
' Council otherwise it could take them. See when I looked at this at first
it was a very simple issue to me. Now it' s gotten more complex and I
think maybe we need to go into some of these issues .
' Mark Senn : One thing on that. We' re limited right now to a 30 day
temporary sign permit.
' Conrad : You'd like to see this go forward I bet .
Mark Senn: We really need this to go forward otherwise we' re going to be
without any identification here pretty soon. To go back and address the
question of why we waited until now to comply. As I said, then we hadn' t
even, a pylon sign was allowed and we were talking 50 square feet, we were
so positive of the requirements of the ordinance, we were led to believe
we had a simple administrative procedure to run through. Only when we
came in to now do that at the end of the project, we find out that the
rules have changed . It ' s rather difficult for us to deal with.
Emmings: Did someone specifically say to you, yes you can have a pylon
sign if you want one?
' Mark Senn: Yes, on numerous occasions.
Emmings: And who said that?
' Mark Senn: The City Planner .
' Emmings : Barbara Dacy said that?
Mark Senn: Yes .
' Emmings: I find that absolutely unbelieveable .
Mark Senn: Read the Minutes .
Emmings: She mentions the pylon sign in the Minutes . There ' s no question
about it. I guess another thing we might do is find out from Barbara what
she recalls about what was going on back then.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 26
Conrad : The applicant would like us to move on it . That doesn' t mean we
have to but the applicant would like to have us make an action. Again,
whoever wants to make a motion, they can consider that . There' s some
benefit in going to the City Council. One, there may be some people there II
who remember it . On the other hand , if we table it we might be able to
give the City Council more accurate information historically. But the
applicant has a special problem too. They do need signage even on a '
temporary basis so it may be appropriate to move it on.
Headla: Let me ask the question. If it looks like this would be turned
down in our recommendation, what could we do to help you?
Mark Senn: In relation to what?
Headla : Like this 30 day limit on the sign?
Mark Senn: It' s my understanding that that ' s prescribed by ordinance.
There' s nothing you can do on that. You have 30 day max for a year
period.
Olsen : On a temporary sign. '
Headla : Okay, so if we table it, can we recommend that that be extended?
We' re looking for more information. It seems like that would be a
reasonable recommendation. This is a business we want to keep.
Olsen: They' ve got the wall signs up too. . .
Mark Senn: We' ll be happy to take that down if you want. We put it up
and found out it wasn't working anyway so we just have to take it down
when we put the other one out there . '
Headla: You' re looking for some identification for people looking for
you. '
Mark Senn: That' s right . We've been running into a real problem with
that. The temporary sign we have out there now on the corner , which is
the lit signs which we have to hook up an extension cord , is serving the
purpose right now.
Conrad : The applicant would like to move forward I bet you.
Emmings: You have no way to extend that?
Olsen: Actually they need a variance.
Mark Senn: I believe that' s a variance to the ordinance.
Conrad : I do believe the applicant would like to move forward so is there II
a motion?
Ellson : I ' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial II
of Sign Variance Request #88-18.
i
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 27
' Emmings : I ' ll second it.
Batzli : I think we should provide direction to staff. Whether that' s
part of this motion or whether that' s an additional statement after the
fact .
Conrad : Make it an addition.
' Ellson moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Sign Variance Request #88-18. All voted in favor except
Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried.
' Wildermuth: I 'm opposed. I 'm in favor of tabling the issue. I 'm in
favor of tabling it because I would like to see the background researched
to see what understanding there may have been, if there was an
' understanding.
Conrad : Annette , as far as your motion to turn it down, are there things
you would like staff to do between now and when it gets to City Council?
Ellson : Yes , as we discussed, check into the Minutes and the sign
ordinance at that time when they made their original application if we did
' indeed allow them. There are more references to a promise of a pylon
sign.
' Conrad : Do you want Jo Ann to contact Barbara Dacy to find out what her
recollection is?
Ellson : I don ' t really think that ' s necessary.
' Conrad: And the reason for your turndown is , do you believe there are
adequate ways to give the applicant the exposure they need at that site?
' Ellson: Right and I like Dave' s comment, there probably is another
option. It would have been nicer to have a choice of things instead of an
all or nothing kind of thing.
Conrad : Would you make any recommendation to the applicant of what to
present when they go to City Council?
' Ellson : Yes , I would also recommend that they present maybe some other
options like Steve had said.
Conrad : This item goes to City Council on the 12th and maybe there are
some things you can do between now and then. We'd sure entertain looking
at it again but I think instead of tabling it we had a sense that you
' wanted to take it forward so it' s there. Not with our favorable response
but you can deal with that .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 28 I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved , Batzli seconded to approve the i
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 2, 1988 as
presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT GOALS - DON ASHWORTH.
Don Ashworth: I 'm not quite sure exactly what you 'd like to accomplish so II
if anybody wants to ask any questions . Let me speak first to manpower. As
we moved into the 1989 budgetary process , in my own mind the planning
department was one of our most critical ones as far as being understaffed.
I 'm very concerned in that area . We made increases in some of our other
operational areas. Some of that does help planning out. Specifically the
whole code enforcement area . . . full time CSO. Full time Fire Marshall
position and of course we have Scott Harr who' s position is Chief Code
Enforcement Officer . Again, I think. . .planning with a number issues that
we're faced with or have been faced with. The Seminary problem, etc. .
Again, as we moved into the 1989 budget, I really believed that the best
make-up for what our current needs are , are to look for or to have in
place in the position of Community Development Director or Chief Planner .
That person should be a highly experienced individual . 10 plus years of
experience. Someone who could draw on experience from other communities
or anything with the private sector . A midstream or good planning person
who would be in maybe a 5 to 8 year range may be looking for that top II position or maybe not. Then really for an intern type of position. When
I say intern I 'm not talking about somebody right out of school . Maybe
somebody who has interned in another city where this is their first full
time job. With that type of department I really think that we could
better survive the type of problems that we' re facing right now when you
lose one individual it 's much easier to get along. Where you have 2
people trying to pick up for 3 rather than 1 person running a 2 member 1
department. It' s critical. Unfortunately we were not able to fund that
additional position as a part of the City' s general budget for 1989. The
issue is not dead. I have taken it back to the House and Redevelopment
Authority and they do have dollars . There is a definite benefit to have
in terms of the whole planning process in relation. . . I feel confident at
this point in time that they will look at that recommendation very
favorably. I may be coming back to you in a month and saying, they made a
decision not to fund that position but I don' t think so. I 've presented
it initially and received a very favorable and strong support. So that
would be, at least from my perspective, a recommendation of how that II department should be proposed and the number of people. Included in your
packet was the resume of Steve Hanson who was selected for the position of
the City Planner . He will be starting the 1st of December . It' s a II Thursday so he will be starting Monday which will be December 5th. In the
interim, we don't know from day to day whether or not Jo Ann is going to
be with us . If not, as you' re probably aware we have entered into
contractual service with both Mark and Fred Hoisington and they' re helping II
to split out the projects right now. Mark' s role would have to be
increased if . . . Are there any questions?
Headla: Let me make a comment. It was interesting going through the
resume. I didn' t see anything addressing what I think is one of the
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' November 16, 1988 - Page 29
' problems we have with the Village Hall . I don' t think the Village Hall
has been very highly favorable. . . You try to talk to the staff, and I 'm
not talking about Jo Ann or Barb or anything, but people are so busy they
' present a very cold, non-caring surface to the people who come in and have
questions . . . But the image is that, you' re in a cold business. You don' t
care about people. You've got this and you go on. When I looked through
Mr . Hanson' s resume, I didn' t see anything on how he interfaces with
people. To me, if you don' t interface. Typically engineers are the worse
with interfacing with people and I 'd sure like to see something about how
he interfaces with people.
Don Ashworth: That ' s an interesting point. Tim may want to take it into
account in this area. We interviewed probably the three top candidates .
The City Council interviewed those and the Planning Commission was invited
to sit in if they wanted to. Tim did come down to satisfy the Council
. . .and you may want to speak to this as well Jay but it is my belief that
' one of the primary criteria that was considered in that selection process
was exactly your point you' re bringing up . How well the individual
protrayed themself in terms of the friendliness, openess, as the type of
an individual that we would like to take and have representing the
' community. One of the candidates was not further considered at all . They
just dropped him because he had a negative image. The last candidate, it
was really back and forth for a long period of time but I think the final
' decision kind of going on his side was his personality.
Erhart: Yes, I agree Dave. I think that' s been one of the problems . The
' City has been so busy here the last couple years, it' s just a constant
battle between do I pay attention to that guy who' s walking up the steps
and wants something or do I get this agenda ready for Don' s next meeting .
That' s a tough problem and it really does add up there out on the street
for the public . So I agree with those comments but on the same token ,
I did have the opportunity to sit in on the interviewing process . We
discussed that problem prior to interviewing the candidates and
' afterwards. I think Mr. Hanson is as smooth as silk. I think he' ll just
be an excellent representative of the City. I think that was really one
of his top qualifications is that he just really presented himself well .
' I think we' re in really good shape there. Another question, I didn' t
quite follow you. Now what is the organization going to be. Jo Ann' s
going to be out for some time now. Is it just going to be Steve or did
I hear you say there was going to be a third person?
' Don Ashworth : I feel very comfortable that the Housing and
Redevelopment. . .
Erhart : Okay, but that ' s still and if though?
Don Ashworth: That' s still an if.
Conrad : But that would be like a community development director . What
position would they fund?
Don Ashworth : As I would see it, it would really be the lower intern
position. Steve really has the qualifications for a top city planner or
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 30 '
community development. Those are almost synonomous terms . Jo Ann does a
very good solid job for us in her planning position so I would see us
bringing in an intern type of a person. Somebody who has the degree.
Maybe has interned 1 or 2 summers somewhere. This would be their first
full time. . .
Conrad : When Scott Martin was here Don, he was community development
director. Is that right?
Don Ashworth: That ' s correct.
Conrad: But you went away from that concept. Was that because of budget?
Was that because of a change in the need?
Don Ashworth: It was really ironic because when Scott was brought in,
Kraus Anderson had just finished signing the papers for the downtown area
and everyone saw a very strong need to negotiate with all the property
owners downtown and the relocation of those people and acquisition of the
properties and all of the things that would be associated with the
downtown. Acquisition was actually funded like 75% by the HRA and 25% the
City. Scott had no more than got on board and Kraus Anderson said, we
can' t do this. We' re not going to be able to do this project. They
literally took away a good share of duties and responsibilities that we
had anticipated at that time that Scott would carry out . Although there II
is still work remaining within the downtown area as far as moving some
property owners, for the most part that is done.
Conrad: Who' s job is it to bring, I 'm not sure how we bring people like
McGlynn to town Don. I don' t know if realtors are doing the bulk of the
job or the City is but promotionally, bringing folks into the industrial
park is part of a community development director . Is that something that I
we need right now? Is that some direction that City Council has given you
in terms of we need an individual who is capable of bringing companies in
or is there posture really, we' ll expand when we expand? '
Don Ashworth : That' s going to be part of the goal process that we go
through with the City Council . We have 3 new people who are coming on so
their ideas as to . . . There are different postures . In some instances
people want to take an active position in going out and bringing into
communities . That might be the role of a community development director
or Steve' s responsibilities. Other cities are going to work with
companies coming in but not necessarily be real aggresive in putting
dollars on the table. . . I 'm not trying to evade the answer but I just
don ' t know the answer . '
Conrad : I think City Council has got to , the group' s got to tell you what
they want from the position. Because Dave brought it up, I 'm probably
going to get ahead of some of the thoughts but in terms of responsiveness I
to the community, I think Don as you know, the staff is doing a lot of
work yet we sure hear a lot of criticism. I think there has to be some
standards developed for the City or the City Planner or the planning staff II
or the people who are talking to the community or the developers. I 've
heard it from the developers just as well and without getting into names ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 31
and without making this , is not meant to be critical . It is meant to be
very positive. I think there has to be some standards in terms of how
long it takes to get something, a phone call returned or a project
' returned. There are just a lot of cases where it takes weeks literally,
more than one week to get a response or a follow-up phone call . That ' s
one thing that Don, you've got to probably get your arms around. You've
' got to assess cost and benefits and all that stuff. But the fact is , the
community says they call and staff is working on other stuff and they
can ' t get on those little projects . Those other things. I think there' s
got to be some standards. There' s got to be a commitment to the community
saying we' re going to, and that dictates staffing. If we' re not concerned
getting back to the resident within a week, than that' s okay as long as we
made that decision . But I 've heard it from the developers and I 've heard
' it from residents obviously. We hear it on projects that we bring up.
Projects that Jo Ann or Barbara can' t get to because there' s so much going
on. There again, what are those standards? What do we owe, how long
' should it take until we review something and get back and we' re not real
demanding here and we haven' t been. We've been more accepting. Saying
hey, they' re busy and they have been . All you' ve got to do is look at
what Barbara wrote in terms of what Planning Department accomplished last
year but still , many cases we just don' t get to the task. I think City
Council has got to tell you what they expect. We can be part of that
process but we don' t control the purse strings and I think that ' s a case
' where there' s just a standard out there that' s missing right now.
Batzli : I think that begs to question though. If you' re going to have
' standards on that, is the current staffing or proposed 3 member staffing
adequate to do that? Or is it adequate to do something other than to
react? What about proactive projects that we'd like to see done and they
don' t have time to do it at all .
' Conrad : Actually it' s not a criticism right now. I guess , not wanting to
be Don. Not at all .
' Don Ashworth : We should respond to people within 24 hours . That' s
basically the rule I try to follow. Sometimes people will call in and
they don' t want to leave a message. I ' ll call later and that type of
thing and about 3 days later I hear, well I wasn' t able to get through to
Don Ashworth but I never knew the person was trying to get through.
' Conrad : But I guess , throw off the comment, I can a similar example to a
developer . . .but that' s not the point . The point is , what the standard is.
If the standard is we can get back. We may not have a solution but we can
' get back within 24 hours . I think that ' s just the type of standards that
we need . Do we have a standards that says there will be a resolution or
an absolute statement on what we' re going to do? Is that a week long?
Obviously you' ve got all sorts of different types of problems you' ve got
' to respond to but that' s what I 'm looking for rather than accusing staff.
I think we' re really sensitive or feel that the amount of work that ' s been
process through here but in doing all this work, there are cases where
we' re just not getting back to the people .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 32 '
Don Ashworth: . . .and I included it into your packet , goals and objectives I
that the planning department had set for 1988 . . . That' s a process that
we go through each year with each of our people. Take a look at their
position description in terms of whether or not it accurately represents
what they think they' re doing . Sitting down then with their supervisor
and making sure we've got a supervisor is saying that' s what they should
be doing . Coming to a resolution. Updating the position classification
and accurately reflect what it is. . . Again. . .the position descriptions
for both the City Planner and Asst . City Planner . . . is really one of
setting goals. Staff goals for 1989. I think when Barb started, she went '
back and talked with Bill Monk and said, how do I do this. Bill had given
her advice. He said you set your goals for 1989 and if you set them too
high, you'd better make sure that Ashworth will keep a copy of what it is
and remind you of the jobs you didn' t get done. I think they were a
little more cautious in terms of some of the things that they put onto
that sheet of paper trying to make sure that they set their goals for 1988
were reasonable. The Commission , I may be wrong but I thought at one
point in time that you as a group also were looking at goals that you
wanted to see. . . I really think that you should because that gives myself
and staff a better indication and ability to work on what you'd like to
see and to do various things that you'd like to do or haven' t gotten done, I
whatever. Again, we've got a work program for . . .then we' re in a better
position to say, alright , staff can handle this . How we go about trying
to develop. . . I think that' s the process that the City Council . . . '
(There was a problem with the tape recording at this point. )
Don Ashworth : . . .The City Council will determine what the overall policy I
should be.
Conrad : Which outline I think sounds good . I think when we've laid out
our goals, I don' t know that they ever went anyplace. They stayed with
Barbara to my knowledge and probably didn ' t go up to City Council . Did
they? '
Olsen: I think they went to the City Council .
Conrad: Okay, but I don' t know that we got any reaction back and '
therefore, the loop, the nice loop is to have City Council taking a look
and saying yes, we agree and here are 12 more that you didn' t consider. I
think what you outlined Don is appropriate. '
Don Ashworth: I can' t remember seeing a sheet.
Conrad : Yes we did it . We had 5 or 6 items that we thought were r
important to accomplish.
Don Ashworth : I know I ' ve seen them in the past but I just can not '
remember this past year having seen that.
Olsen: I think the Council did receive them. '
Jay Johnson: Yes. We did review it.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' November 16, 1988 - Page 33
Conrad: There might have been somethin g that you added .
' Erhart: Do you have more to discuss or are you open to questions at this
point? Okay. What do you see for fiscal year 1989 in terms of, for
example in this last sheet that Barb' s done, it says planning cases. You
' can see that the workload has grown substantially from 1984 . Particularly
in terms of subdivisions . Fortunately litigations are down. What do you
see for, I see 1988 ' s not on here but what do you see for 1989? Are you
seeing the same kind of activity that we've seen this year? Less? More?
In terms of subdivisions and site plan reviews and so forth?
Don Ashworth: It's so. . . it' s really difficult to say. For budgetary
' purposes we use the mainstream developments . It' s higher than I would
have like to have seen. . . It' s higher than I 'd like because if- you don' t
achieve that, then we ' re going to get . . .
Erhart: The reason I ask Don, I think in particularly the last year .
Actually I should go back to the first year I was on the Commission 3
years ago, I think staff had time to support some proactive things and
some ideas we had to look into that and so forth. That activity has
really ground to a halt in the last year although I think it' s picked up
just recently. I guess for me personally, I didn' t get on the Planning
' Commission to review or be involved in public hearings and just to look at
it from a reactive standpoint. I felt there was some urgent, the City was
changing rapidly and I wanted to be involved with the change and make sure
' that we had a planning process that was at least staying with the changes
and hopefully if we' re doing a good job, we' re ahead of the change. I
feel personally that, the thing in the last year it ' s gotten real
frustrating simply because ideas were discussed and I think we know, I
' think we can speak for all of us, you already know you don' t even want to
ask Barbara or Jo Ann to do it because you know they' re spending 50 hours
a week and you know they just don' t have time. They have lots of meetings
' with developers and that' s saddening because that ' s the reason why I 'm on
this commission is to plan. I personally feel that if the activity is
going to remain at the same level , I strongly support the concept of a
community development director and 2 additional people. If we thought
back in 1985 or whenever it was , we needed one, there' s certainly more
justification today to create that position. I personally don' t feel that
we' re staying ahead in the planning with the rate the community is
' growing. I think some things are slipping past us. Missed opportunities .
I 'm not sure that our Comp Plan, although it may meet our legal
requirements, I 'm not sure that it' s effective the way we do it in trying
to develop real plans . As I look at Transportation and Mark, you've done
a great job. It' s great. It' s a necessary document. It' s very
informative but in the current format it doesn ' t really allow you to
prevent problems like the TH 101 issue and some of the other things that
' you always come back and say, golly, didn' t they know this or didn ' t we
think about this or why didn' t I think about this . I don' t think we can
improve on it because I don ' t think we have anybody who has time to think
' about it. I personally think we have to have full time people in the City
who look at being in that job for 4 or 5 years . To be looking at what' s
coming down the Comp Plan? What are the problems we can see. More than
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 34
just you Don. Look at what' s coming down and bring up issues in front of
the Planning Commission and try to say, hey let' s do something today to
avoid a problem in the future. I think with the staff we've had this last
year we haven' t gotten anything to try to do things today to prevent •
problems in the future so I fully support, if the development is going to
continue at the same rate, that we expand our planning staff.
Don Ashworth: I think again it' s an issue that we need to assess at the
Council level . How do they want to see. . . There is going to be a sudden
stop to development in the next 3 to 5 years , maybe less . We have a 1,000
new home subdivision south of TH 5 on Lake Susan. Eckankar of course they
have no inclination or desire to develop. Currently we have Saddlebrook,
Chan Vista and Near Mountain. I think those subdivisions are almost
filled . They may well be filled in the next year or two. How long it
takes that that can go on at Lake Susan South, we' re looking at. . .units
per year . Remember a lot of the population of the total units you had
were of higher density. We already have one application in for higher I
density just to the west of us here. You haven' t seen that much apartment
type of construction in the last 10-15 years . . . What this really comes
down to is, do we act on the issue of changing the MUSA line or do we
simply kind of gain a gasp of air which means taking a period of time
before we look to that change. . .and therefore not make that change. . .
Some of it may be out of our hands as well . The contract period goes to
the Year 2000 and the City will have to demonstrate that there' s a
necessity. . . If that is not done, there will be a very definite
restriction in development. I know that doesn' t really solve the problem
for the next 3 year period of time but we'd better prepare ourselves for II that reality if the City has decided that they do not want to see a change
in the MUSA line.
Erhart : You' re saying that there' s adequate for 3 more years of
development at the current rate?
Don Ashworth: Maybe a little more time. I guess I 'd stay with 3 because II
again, that 1,000 units is . . . The issue would be. . .planning process and
the actual putting it in the ground process of development.
Emmings: I don' t have too much that' s different than what' s been said. I II
certainly agree that we haven' t been able, because of how busy staff has
been and Barbara leaving, that we haven' t been able to do the kinds of
things that we would want to do and that is frustrating. I agree with Tim II
100%. On the other side, I think there' s a certain amount of, it would be
nice if we could find a way to forge some kind of a better relationship
with the City Council . I know that I , and I think others that we've
talked about, feel somewhat isolated out here. Felt like a lot of times
when things went up from here to the City Council , decisions got made up
there but nothing ever came back. It even took us a long time to get
staff to give us a checklist of what action they had taken on what we'd
done so we could see what they had done but even after that happened, we
didn' t really know why. I quit going to City Council meetings . We rotate
that duty and I 'd go sit out there and they'd never ask a question. There '
was a real feeling on, at least my part, I don' t want to speak for anybody
else, that once they had our Minutes , they didn' t care. That was also
1 '
Planning Commission Meeting
1 November 16, 1988 - Page 35
' frustrating so on the staff side there didn' t seem to be the time to do
the kinds of planning that we all wanted to do. On going up to the
Council , there never felt like we were doing things together . That we
were coordinated. Felt more like we'd take our look at it and then they'd
take their look at it. Maybe that' s the way the system is set up to work,
I don' t know, but if it is, I don' t know if that' s good. I think there' s
' work to be done on both ends of there.
Conrad: One thing I noticed on the job description Don, there's nothing
called PR. I think there really should be. I don' t know how you word it
but it' s just such a key area. Such a key responsibility. I think
Barbara and I think Jo Ann does an effective job in communicating but I 'd
like to see it. The other thing that I 'd suggest in the coming years, if
' we could come up with ideas and I know we keep some manual lists and
I used to keep a list of what we suggested for staff to do. Maybe every 3
months we asked where are we. I think after we go through some of this
' goal planning process, I think whether we computerize it or not, maybe we
don' t need that much sophistication but I think City Council should know
what' s been suggested on some periodic basis. Suggested for review.
Somebody' s got to manage staff time. Not only us . . .because it' s
economically. . . I think that work list should be constantly updated and
run by the City Council so they know what we' re looking at and they can
give some clues of whether they think it' s worthwhile or not.
Erhart : Don, the Comp Plan , who' s the owner of the Comp Plan? Is that
the Planning Commission' s Plan or the City' s Plan? Is it exclusively our
' job to keep that updated?
Conrad: It' s the consultant' s job isn' t it?
Mark Koegler : Typically it is , the document is the Planning Commission' s .
The City Council obviously will ultimately adopt. The Planning Commission
will closely monitoring . . .and at least start thinking about . . .
Erhart: I see in item 4 here in Barb' s letter to you Don that the
Comprehensive Plan now includes the trail plan that we developed a year
ago. That brings another point, something that was asked here some time
ago and I ' ll take the opportunity here to ask. What is the Park and Rec
committee' s relationship to this body? Is there any or how does that
work?
Don Ashworth : I think all commissions interact in their role in reporting
back. . . The Planning Commission is really the one who prepares the text,
' the document itself. To the extent that you obtain information from other
commissions , organizations, they are feeding that to you to make decisions
to incorporate or not incorporate. Then of course that goes to the City
Council .
Erhart : Are you referring to the Comp Plan or are you also referring to
subdivisions and other things?
Don Ashworth: The question was really for the Comp Plan .
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 36
Emmings: I think his question was broader . ,
Erhart : Yes , you asked a good question a few weeks ago. When I first got
on here, when we went through subdivisions we'd get the Park and Rec' s
recommendations and then we reviewed that and passed it onto Council . Now
it' s different. Now the Park and Recs passes their recommendation
directly to Council . We don' t see them unless for some reason they have
their meeting before ours and then we kind of get a summary. Am I wrong
Ladd? I might be wrong but that' s my perception.
Conrad: A lot of it. If Park and Rec had reacted to a development, I
subdivision, we'd always infiltrate it into the Minutes. There were a lot
of cases recently when they simply hadn' t met and we were reviewing the
items so we really, we didn' t have anything to review. '
Erhart : So anyway, I think what we' re wondering , what is the correct
procedure? Are we supposed to review the Park and Rec' s? 1
Don Ashworth: When it comes to the planning reviews , this gets to be. . .
because on one side we' re saying let' s not try to create bureaucracy.
Let' s be able to get people through the process , etc . and then that would I
go to this commission with that commission' s recommendation. . .onto City
Council . All of a sudden we' re in that 60 to 90 days just going through
the process. Typically what most cities carry out, if there' s a burning
issue that the Park Commission understands that the Comprehensive Plan
development, that there' s some trail section, typically the review of an
individual subdivision occurs by that commission and their recommendation '
would go directly to the City Council. Now if there is a strong feeling
by this body that the Park Commission is not really considering what you
feel to be important as far as the Comprehensive Plan is saying, and you
wish to consider changing that process or having the two groups meet and
say, we' re really not in agreement here. Our long range plan calls for
this type of trail versus the Park Commission, you seem to be approving
and making. . . Either of those two processes would work. Meeting with I
the Park Commission. That or saying, let ' s come down to a meeting of the
minds and in that process the Park Commission do an individual review as
it goes to City Council but at least you had a chance to interface with
them to see what they' re doing. Or we could explore the option of having I
their recommendation come back to you but I don' t think that would , I
think that adds a lot to the process.
Headla : Why?
Don Ashworth: Just because it does extend the time. '
Headla: Why would it? Like the Lake Susan. I think it' s extremely
important that we understand what they have in mind that we have to
incorporate in the overall plan. It's just imperative. Like over here by
Christmas Lake, whatever , I think it' s very important that we get the
major ones, I really think we should see a detailed plan. I haven' t heard
the rationale why we shouldn' t see them. 1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 37
Don Ashworth: The Park Commission has been meeting on a monthly schedule
. . .and the schedule here recently. . .did a review at the Park Commission
level . Another one the Park Commission is the Park Commission likes to
review their Minutes before that recommendation goes out to some other
group or to City Council . They' re meeting every 30 days and if a guy
comes in and it' s 3 weeks before the next meeting, then they've got to
wait for the next 30 day period of time to read the Minutes . Then it goes
to the Planning Commission. . .and then to the City Council , you've just
added 4 or 5 months .
' Headla : But that problem seems to be solved. I don' t think that' s a
problem. You meet once a week and you don' t review your Minutes. That
really isn ' t a problem.
Don Ashworth: I think the Park Commission has to meet . . . I think the
process has not been that bad in terms of them going directly to the
' Council with their recommendation. If on the major issues you'd like
to. . . that you did want to spend a lot of time, did want to make sure. . .
joint meetings or making sure that. . .
Conrad : I think we can call special meetings if we need it but typically
we' ve been processing stuff so fast because the Planning Department feels
under the gun to get it going , for whatever reason. I 've never felt
' compelled to push things through yet we always get the sense of urgency
from the developers that they' re going to die unless they get the shovel
in the ground within 12 minutes. Unfortunately we don' t know if we' re
dealing with some developers who didn' t do a good job of planning or
whether the planning staff has been so busy they couldn' t work diligently
with the developer . We don ' t know who we' re defending. That puts us at a
little bit of a, or at least me, at a defensive position. I don' t mind
dragging my heels to flush out some of the issues so City Council doesn' t
have to. Over the last couple months , well the last month or so it' s
slowed down to 1 or 2 items a meeting but prior to that, we were really
' processing stuff. Rosemount Engineering is another example of something
that we' re thrashing through and we went through some motions and really
didn' t do a very good job of any kind of input to that process. I 'm not
' upset , I 'm not concerned that Park submits their comments directly to City
Council but it typically comes in on the planning staff' s report. And if
it' s coming in on their report, it should probably be coming by us and if
it doesn' t, it's a major element that ' s missing that we haven' t really
' looked at . Especially in some of the subdivisions where we did have
disagreements with what they were doing. Don, I think the bottom line is ,
we have to see what they' re doing . They should really, we should either
be slowing the process down so we understand what ' s going on or the Park
and Rec ' s got to meet more frequently to get us the information. Not that
we' re reviewing it but it is coming out in the Planning packet and it
affects how we look at subdivisions and how we look at development. I
think it' s got to be there and it' s been missing in a fair amount of
cases . I don ' t know, maybe not a whole lot over the year Jo Ann. What ' s
your opinion? Is it just recent that it ' s been missing?
' Olsen : Recently the schedule haven ' t been clicking . I ' ve been getting
the memo from Lori and trying to get the packet. . . Her meeting is usually
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 38 I
sometimes falls the Tuesday right before you meet . I
Don Ashworth: The Planning Department is the lead department in terms of
anything . . . They are responsible for the agency referral notices out .
They' re also responsible for working with the various departments and
coordinating their comments into that. The issue is really wider than
just the Park Commission. They' re including any comments that might deal 11
with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. What their role has been in
the whole. . . The Public Safety in terms of the hydrant locations and
other types of conditions that may be set. You are seeing the staff
reports from Lori and Jim Chaffee, from Todd or myself as they may deal
with the Public Safety Commission or the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority or the Park Commission. During a lot of those incidents you' re
not seeing what action that specific group took on that recommendation and 1
how we bring that back to you, it still does not provide a workable
schedule.
Conrad : What' s your sense? Are we developing , I talk to some developers II
who say it takes us forever to get something through the City. What' s
your sense Don? Compare us to other communities . Are we reacting
comparably to other communities? We ' re obviously a growth area so. . . I
Don Ashworth: I think we' re way ahead of some of the other communities . I
think we do everything we can to get these through. Any city, you' ll hear 1
these same type of comments . What you' re hearing is not at all , I guess
I 'd like to insure. . .
Conrad : So really you' re sense and I think that ' s something that the City II
Council. I don't know how they deal with this or communicate to us but I
think we constantly feel that there' s a pressure to get it through. As I
said before, I 've never been sure if that 's as a result of just staff not I
having enough time to work with the developer and they' ve been out there
for 3 months waiting for somebody to talk to them and all of a sudden
they've got to get it there so let' s hurry and get it along . Are we
trying to catch up? Your feeling is that we' re doing a good job so
basically I would feel that we could start slowing things down if we
needed to. Not that we need to unduly do that but I think just hearing
your comments , I might not feel so obligated to move the developers
through. I 'd much rather have the staff do a better job and give them the
support saying , we don' t have all the data in. In many cases we don' t
have all the data in and until it' s all in, I 'd prefer not seeing it. I
think we should be supporting staff with that posture. They can just
tell the developer that the Planning Commission doesn' t want to see them
until it' s all in. But I think City Council also has to agree with that
philosophy.
Don Ashworth: I 'm sure that those comments will be considered and again ,
we will be going through a goal process to try to determine what the I
Council would like to have done. This issue is one of the issues that we
will discuss .
Erhart: Let me bring back the Comp Plan again because it relates to the '
trail plan. I guess a year and a half ago when the trail plan was being
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 39
developed , I guess I felt that I was representing the Planning Commission
on that effort at the time. It was the one that initially we became
alerted to this thing when some, particularly the lots down in the Bluff
' Creek Greens I guess were coming in and there were some, the Bluff Creek
itself was in that area and we got a discussion going about whether there
ought to be easements and so forth. So I took that particular subject and
' ran with it on these trails and we worked as a group here with the Parks
and Rec to come up with the trail plan. Of course our purpose for the
trail plan is mostly, again for land use planning . We put that together a
' year into a plan and bound it and accepted it into the Comp Plan. It was
very disturbing to me in this last referendum that that plan was changed
now as it was provided to the public without going back through the
process or getting anyone involved . I shouldn' t say anyone but at least
' getting all the poeple more involved in the development to the initial
document of the accepted trail plan. That went out to the referendum. In
fact it didn' t even have the City Council ' s involvement to change that. I
' don' t understand that I guess . I just don' t understand that. I found out
that the referendum. . .
(There was a problem with the recording at this point on the tape .)
Emmings : . . .you' re right but the question is, that was obviously, to me,
that was really an obviously a Planning Commission issue. You' re planning
' a trail system for the whole city and the Planning Commission doesn' t see
it? That ' s the part that, I don' t even care about the particulars right
now but I can' t imagine how that thing got on the ballot without the
' Planning Commission ever looking at it. Am I missing something there?
Don Ashworth: I don' t know of any real change that occurred from the plan
that you had approved with the exception of the position on the equestrian
versus pedestrian. . .
Headla : Did we approve the trail plan?
Emmings: We never saw one as I remember .
' Conrad : Well , we reviewed it.
Emmings: We did?
' Erhart : I don ' t know if we ever formally approved it.
Mark Koegler : There was at least one meeting that I know of with the
' Planning Commission. I don' t recall . . .context.
Erhart: I agree Don. I 'm not trying to go back and redo everything. Let
me just say a couple things. One is that this is right from the original
plan that we reviewed was a nature trail . "Nature trails are designed
solely for pedestrian useage." The work that I did for that , that was the
way I saw it and that' s the way the plan ended. But again, that' s behind
' us . Unfortunately or fortunately, I don' t know whatever , it didn ' t pass
and we get to look at it again. I really want to go forward in trying to
put together a trail plan. All I 'm asking is that when you do this , is
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 40 I
that when we put the plan together , we do get public input and we do get ,
the input from our elected officials so when we get to the referendum
we've got a plan that people have been involved with as opposed to the
concept that someone, some of the employees of the City are going to sell I
the plan to the public . If that' s the purpose for organizing a committee,
we' re starting on the wrong premise. I guess that' s what I 'm getting to
Don. I think we' ve got to get, when we make decisions such as , the I
example that I stated, is this City going to be involved in making horse
trails? That ' s an issue that I think needs some debate.
Don Ashworth: Part of the problem out of that, I think that we had a very I
energetic group who was trying to promote the trails and in that process
they made some changes. . .until 2,000 brochures had been printed and things
had appeared in the newspaper . . .
I
Conrad : Thanks for stopping by and talking to us . It' s almost 10: 30 and
that's usually when we talk to Mark.
I
CONTRACTOR' S YARD DISCUSSION - MARK KOEGLER.
Conrad: Mark, contractor ' s yard. We see your note. Anything you want to I
explain beyond what your note says?
Mark Koegler : No. I was going to offer you either a short overview of I
this or a lengthy overview and I ' ll give you the option of a short one.
Conrad : Yes , give us the short one just to get us thinking about it and
I
off the other subjects .
Mark Koegler : The southern part of the City, I guess it' s been an
interesting thing to watch, at least for me over the last 10 years or so
because when I first got involved with the City of Chanhassen , everybody
was waving this ordinance around that was 23 or 36 or whatever , I
prohibiting development in the unsewered areas . The Attorneys were all
excited about it. The clients were all excited about it and as you know,
subsequently that was struck down some years later . Then it was
interesting being on the outside watching what I perceived as this mad
I
rush of people to meet the deadline imposed as a result of the recent
ordinance change. All of these things had I think probably a more
significant impact on the southern area of the community than I II anticipated at the time they were occurring. So if you now direct to the
southern area of the city, it' s not at all what it was 10 years ago. It' s
basically becoming very residential and that has to have some bearing on II when you look at this issue and probably several other issues as it
relates to the ground . It used to be clear that it was either
agricultural or not but since that time, again back in the late 70' s, what ii
you' ve seen develop is now in almost three categories . There ' s
agricultural . There' s residential with the 2 1/2 acre lot basis that got
in under the wire so to speak and now we have residential at 1 per 10
overall density. In looking specifically at this contractor ' s yard issue, II
I had to look at that as how does it fit into those 3 very generalized
categories of use. I could argue that it could fit reasonably well
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' November 16, 1988 - Page 41
without significant irrigation measures in the two larger scale areas .
Either agricultural or the 10 acre parcels . In going through Lake Riley
Woods, I can ' t see contractor ' s yards fitting into the context of what I
think that neighborhood will become. In other words, I 'd like to see very
nice housing going in there. . .and that again taints my thinking again on
how we see it works. The bottom line in my comments on contractor ' s
' yards, after reviewing the issue. Reviewing how other communities , both
here and in the whole Metropolitan area look at these kinds of things, I
don' t find any instances where anybody really considers them anything
' other than industrial land uses. And you get into the scale argument. If
we bring this thing down to a mom and pop scale to try to allow certain
people to operate certain businesses , maybe on interim uses or whatever, I
think there is a certain area that begs the long term question of what is
' the best land use for the City in the southern part of the community. As
you' re well aware, Don talked tonight a little bit about the MUSA line not
being amended maybe until after the year 2000 because of the Lake Ann
' sewer agreement. To date there' s been no targeting of industrial areas in
the south and I don' t see that happening probably in the near term. . .so we
don' t know which areas these might ultimately fit into . It' s just a
random pattern. I couple that with the experience that the City has had
' in adminstrating these things. Probably when they adopted it, the 1 mile
separation sounded great. Now in reality that' s filled up and where do we
go from here. In an adminstrative context, I think once you allow them on
' any scale, even if it' s a mom and pop scale, it' s difficult for instance
if we say, you can only do this , you can only do this , you can only do
this. If the owner is there and the Planning Commission has changed ,
' Council ' s changed, staff changed and that began to errode over a period of
time so the commitment to looking toward the long term future use. . .the
best way that that' s served is maybe not allowing an opportunity to
continue any longer. At any rate, coming through all of this rationale,
I 've at least tried to lay out for you, my bottom line conclusion is that
I would question that contractor ' s yards are appropriate at all in the
unsewered area . There are clearly other areas that answered that question
' with a no. I don' t think it' s in the City' s best long term interest and I
think it raises some short term problems to do that. If there' s a strong
feeling in the City that you want to allow them on a limited scale, I
think there may be some techniques that could be used but I still think
you have some jeopardy on administrative, day to day operational basis in
trying to make sure that you stay with a consistent policy and control
this. So the recommendation back to you is to omit them from the A-2
' zone. If you choose not to do that, and try to scale them down, you put
them in more of the context of an accessory use. Not to create a new
accessory use category but to create language as part of the conditional
use that makes them accessory to a residential structure. So they are
strictly a family business . I think I even use the term family in a
possible definition. Keep in mind though that that is defined in your
zoning ordinance as it could be 500 people . Family means a lot of things
in today' s language. . . zoning ordinance. So there are some suggestions
there that if you take exception, you try to define it so that it
literally is a small scale accessory use but again, for discussion
' purposes , I put in some language, some area requirements that deal with
that. I think the possibility then of looking at, and this potentially
making a simple argument as part of this , looking at some of these rural
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 42 1
residential areas and . . .rezoning at this point in time is something that
may have some merit. So the recommendation back to you is to omit them
and if you do not find that to be feasible, to enact a control mechanism
similar to what' s outlined to try to make them a strictly defined
accessory use.
Conrad : Good job Mark. Interesting comments here. Dave, what do you
want to do? The result of this is for us to come to some kind of a
consensus and let Mark draft some language for us that might be a
recommended change to the current ordinance. So what we' re doing right I
now is setting direction. Whether we outlaw, make them illegal altogether
and grandfather in what we've got or modify it to some degree. Why don' t
you tell us what you think.
Headla : I like the ma and pa , open end . I can' t tell you why. When
I look through here it made a lot of sense and then you left this opening
and I thought the wording was good. In reading over your definition,
where you mentioned. . . , that one I thought could be used.
Mark Koegler : That was the second to the last page.
Headla: I felt comfortable with that but you still agree it has some real
reservations . This one has a lot more restraints than. . .and if you have
reservations, I gue'ss . . .
Mark Koegler : I wanted to make it clear in my comments. . .the zoning
ordinance. . .
Headla : But they can ' t expand from their present set up without another
application.
Mark Koegler : Correct .
Headla : Can that be an appropriate way to control that? ,
Mark Koegler : It solely depends on the consistency of the. . . It can be
if you have a good . . .to enforcing the policy. You had a couple of
variances tonight. We've seen hundreds of variances . . . You see a lot of
variance applications and each one is reviewing on "it' s own merits" under
normal procedure. It' s very difficult to put it out back from a motion
and say that ' s a reservation that you have but once you allow the
opportunity, it' s hard to say, well it' s now just a minor incident. If
you consistently can do that.
Headla: I 'd like to hear what Jim has to say. '
Wildermuth: I think if you look back at the open land in Chanhassen is
becoming increasingly more rural residential . Not agricultural . It
probably isn ' t a good place for contractor ' s in Chanhassen.
Jay Johnson: . . . in the definition where it talks about home occupations? II
Maximum of 1 employees . As such. . .contractor ' s yard .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 43
Conrad : Home is in the home within the existing residence. I was
assuming that this related to out, something outside.
Wildermuth : Accessory structure.
Emmings: It says it' s conducted as an accessory use in the resident' s
' dwelling unit. That' s the definition of home occupation.
Mark Koegler : Virtually every zoning ordinance of home occupation has
language in it that requires it to look for all intensive purposes , just
exactly like a normal single family structure. Any sign that it' s
anything but that, signage, parking of vehicles.
' Batzli : Something that Jim said kind of got me looking in here. Are we
trying to just limit it to like IOP? I agree with Jim' s reasoning that I
think in view of what' s happened in Chanhassen , it ' s becoming more
' residential, I wouldn' t like one next to me obviously. They start out
with great intentions but a lot of them get out of hand slowly and the
enforcement I think has been very weak. I would like to, if we can,
eliminate anymore.
Elison : I go along with Mark' s recommendation that they are totally
inappropriate in that A-2 or any kind of residential area. I wouldn' t go
' for allowing the mom and pop and I think it' s mainly exactly what he said .
It' s real easy to say that now but if I 'm the one later on trying to
interpret it and it' s a friend of mine and it' s just growing a little bit,
' you just don ' t want to have to deal with it . You'd rather just say black
or white. And no white but only if it' s has this. It ' s just too hard to
try to meet the constraints . You have no idea what is going to come
about.
' Emmings : Mark, you' ve done a really good job at distilling or
crystalizing the issue. Whatever side you might be on, you treated both
' sides and this is really a nice piece of work. I underlined two sentences
even though I basically agree with everybody else. One is that Chanhassen
is rapidly urbanizing and the other one is that in the long term they are
compatible only with industrial land use. And those are the two things
that sort of stuck in my mind as being what ought to control our decision
in this. This is a chance for us to do long range planning in the best
interest of Chanhassen down the road which is what we were just
complaining here tonight about not having the opportunity to do very
often. This is a chance to do it and I think we should just get rid of
them in the A-2. Get rid of them except in the IOP I guess .
' Erhart: I want to comment . I think Mark did just a great job of taking
all the issues of this thing and putting it in a 6 page thing and making
it so that it really makes sense, even though it pretty much agrees with
' what I said. You did a good job. It clearly spelled out the issues and I
won' t say anything else. I think you know my position.
' Conrad: I 'm like Dave. I think there' s something romantic and charming
about somebody buying 40 acres of property and . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 44 I
Batzli : And putting a bulldozer on it. '
Conrad : Putting a bulldozer in the garage and going out and cutting down
the forest every now and then. No, I still go back. There' s something '
romantic to that . There' s something nice. I can relate to somebody who
wants to do that. Buy 40 acres and maybe have a home occupation out in
their garage or their barn or something . '
Wildermuth: There isn' t going to be 40 acres left in Chanhassen.
Conrad : The point is , I don' t believe the MUSA line will move for 10
years. I think a contract' s a contract so we' re talking about for the
next 10 years we' re going to eliminate this to get ready for the next 40
years. I guess I don' t hear a lot of requests coming into town saying,
we' re not aware of a big demand for contractor ' s yards. I don' t feel
badly moving it one way or another as long as we restrict their use. I
sure hear a lot of sentiment for getting rid of it. I just keep thinking, II
when we' re talking at least 11 years away and maybe restricting somebody' s
alternative or option to use it at a less intensive use for , well actually
forever.
Batzli : But we haven' t been seeing these ma and pa people come in. We've
been seeing Admiral Waste people come in.
Conrad : And I think that' s a good point Brian . '
Batzli : If this were the case that we were seeing people who were
actually going to run a small business out of their home, I might be in
favor of that but we' re seeing larger scale ma and pa operations come in.
They' re not low level uses .
Conrad: I buy that argument.
Emmings: Isn ' t it going to take lead time to get rid of what we got so we I
are ready 10 to 11 years down the road? Don' t we want to do it now so
that what' s here clears out we don' t have any new applications to have to
consider.
Erhart : Let me state Ladd that I would be satisfied , I think we should
get rid of them for the same reason. I think you just get something and
it' s just impossible to get rid of later on . Not in 10 years but these
things go with the land. The other thing is if they grow, like any
business , if you have a business , every business has to grow almost by
definition. Very few businesses just stay small . Unless we can define
the little family business . It would be acceptable to me that if we
wanted to take what truly is the rural area of south Chanhassen and cut
this thing down so it' s a really ma and pa operating out of it' s garage
and then take the other half of south Chanhassen that' s essentially
residential , as Mark is suggesting , make it an RR such that it is totally
eliminated. I think that' s an acceptable alternative. I still think it' s
best to completely eliminate them. '
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 45
' Ellson: We had this 1 mile control supposedly in place and that just got
waived for the last one that came in. Even at the Council level so even
the controls you try to put in , it still has these. . .
' Batzli : It was a hardship. Come on.
' Ellson : I know. I 'm just giving you another example of, who knows when
that mom and pop is the next door neighbor and like you said Brian,
they' re not the ones coming in right now.
' Conrad: It sounds to me like the sentiment is to rule them out. In terms
of the best way to develop this , Jo Ann is it a wise idea to pass this
concept by the City Council? What' s the procedure you want to follow?
Olsen: You have that option. Either sending it to Council or you can
just proceed with a zoning ordinance amendment. . .
' Batzli : We need a public hearing . I would think we'd kind of want
Council ' s okay before we do that then.
' Conrad : It ' s one of those cases where I 'd like passing it up to hear what
they have to say before we spend a lot of time drafting an ordinance and
they say, well we haven ' t seen the other side of it. Although they
certainly can see Mark' s comments here.
Headla : They see our Minutes . If there' s a problem.
' Olsen: The Council will be changing too. If you want to pass it onto the
Council now and get their comments .
' Erhart : I would prefer to see this whole thing just go to the new Council
in whatever form we want to pass it up. Either as an amendment or just
for discussion.
' Conrad : There' s a lot of background .
Emmings: With Mark' s memo. Of course, there' s the experience.
Conrad : It' s all the cases of violations . Let ' s do this . Let' s pass it
up to them just in terms of, to get their comments back. I can' t do that.
' I was thinking that was smart to get their feedback but what do you think?
Do you want to pass it up for their awareness or do you want to make. . .
Headla : Forget that. We' re wasting time . Let ' s draft something .
Conrad: There' s a vote for a draft. Jim, what do you want to do?
Wildermuth : Put it up to see what their thoughts are.
Batzli : I don' t think there' s going to be a whole lot of amendments to be
done if we' re just going to eliminate it . It ' s kind of like cut and slash
from one section but with that amount of work that has to go into it, I
think we might as well just let them approve it before we waste more time.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 46 ,
Ellson: I think they know it' s coming too. I was at the last meeting
9
when they did that one. I think they' re looking for something on it.
Like Dave, if we bring them the amendment or what have you, it ' s like any II
surprise. What' s this we didn' t know anything was going on with this.
Erhart: Didn' t we bring this to Council once already? '
Ellson: They got your memo I 'm sure.
Erhart : I made a presentation at Council from the Planning Commission.
Olsen: They knew it was being considered. They know that staff is
working on it . '
Conrad: Annette , what do you want to do?
Ellson: I just said, didn' t you hear me? I said I want to go on with
Dave. Do the amendment.
Emmings : When you started out by member I was going to say let' s send it II
up. Now I 've had my mind changed. That' s how wishy washy I am. I guess
I think it is a waste of time because I 'd forgotten that we've already had
some interaction with them on this issue as to whether or not we should
work on this , as I recall .
Conrad: Yes , but they haven' t seen this.
Emmings : And they said yes , go ahead . I think maybe the thing to do
would be to say, let's delete it as a use except in the IOP and make sure
that we pass Mark' s report on and say, here' s a good discussion of the
issues. This is the way we' ve come down on it and if you agree with us ,
then act this . That presents them with a nice, finished product and
something to discuss .
Ellson : If not it will come back with comments .
Emmings: I guess I would say, let' s get the work done. '
Conrad : But that means we have to hold a public hearing before they see
it. '
Emmings: We' re going to have to hold one anyway.
Erhart: We' re going to have to hold a public hearing before they see it? II
Conrad : Right . As soon as we draft something, we hold a public hearing
and we pass it up. '
Emmings : Let' s go ahead and have a public hearing . I think it ' s alright
because they've already indicated to us that it was something they wanted II
to do.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 47
Conrad : To look into right but we don' t know what they want to do .
Erhart: I think the fact that there' s two alternatives here to this .
' Being that this is the issue that I ' ve been pushing, I wouldn' t mind going
back up and saying, look it, here' s Mark ' s report. There are two
approaches .
1 Conrad : So you'd like to forward it up for their information and input?
Erhart: Yes, I think so.
Conrad : I 'm for forwarding it up. Tim is for forwarding it up.
Batzli : Forwarding it up.
Emmings : So am I .
Conrad : Can we adminstratively send this forward to the City Council with
our opinion that we prefer eliminating them as any use in the rural area
and to have their comments sent back to us?
' Olsen: We can put it on the 28th agenda .
' Emmings : Can I make one more comment on this? It seems to me that if
we' re going to eliminate contractor ' s yards, I think it ' s important that
somehow we get a handle on what we' ve got in the City. Again, it seems to
' me about the only way, I don't know how it can be done but we ought to
identify every contractor ' s yard and find out the extent of their present
use. Whether it means going out there and taking photographs or whatever,
spend a day and drive around and take photographs of each one, I don' t
know what but find out how big they are so we don' t wind up with people
saying , since I can ' t go in here and have a contractor ' s yard , maybe I can
rent space from Joe who' s already got a contractor ' s yard and just put my
stuff in with his . Maybe we' re running a risk of that but we better get a
handle on what we've got. I don't know how that' s done.
Conrad : Jo Ann, when you take maternity leave, how long are you going to
be gone for?
Olsen : Three months .
Conrad : With Don as Mayor and two new people on Council , somebody' s got
to go through the background on this . Mark, I guess it will be you to do
' that . They really need a lot of background to look at the problem.
Olsen: Do you want that type of information before we go to the Council?
' Emmings : No . I just think if we' re going to close the door on these
things, we'd better know what we've got with it.
Batzli : One more comment . I think your idea to rezone it just to 2. 5
acre residential developments to RR is not a bad idea regardless of
whether we look at the contractor ' s yards.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 48
Emmings: Another thing that
g g goes on the list . Now is there really a list
someplace?
Conrad : Only if I kept it or Barbara kept it .
Olsen: We had that one updated that we gave you. _
Emmings: Do you have a list?
Olsen : We had one that you got in the memo . Then that memo that Mark
and I lists a lot of outstanding . . .
Emmings: Would you see that this gets onto the list? ,
Olsen: I ' ll just keep adding onto it. I ' ll keep that coming with each
planning packet because you wanted that and then add with that memo and
add what you want.
Erhart: To follow up on your comment Brian. I had this discussion with
Jo Ann today. I feel that we should do that. Representing south '
Chanhassen and living in an area where all these big houses are going up
and seeing what' s going on, I really firmly believe that if there is an -RR
area in the City, that is the most representative of the intent statement II
for the RR district. I 'd like to see us move to change the area where
those subdivisions are to an RR. If the Commission would ask staff to do
that, I would really support that.
Batzli : I think we just did.
Conrad : I thought we did. I was wondering if I thought of that or if we I
actually did it.
WETLANDS, HORSE TRAILS - TIM ERHART. '
Erhart : Jo Ann called me on this and I talked to you Ladd about it . I
think this is a bigger subject than just the wetlands thing. I guess , as
you can see from my memo on this thing , I 'm concerned about wetlands. On
the other hand, I 'm not sure that we have an issue yet. One of the things
that ' s going to happen , as soon as you get discussion with horse trails
and snowmobile, because if it' s horse trails then it' s going to be
snowmobile trails and it ' s going to be 3 wheeler trails. You' re going to
get a big, emotional crowd up here. That 's what was going to happen
tonight . So I asked Jo Ann, Ladd and I discussed it , we said let' s defer
it to another time and let' s find out if we really want to get into this
discussion. I guess I 'm hoping with the discussion that we had with Don
tonight, that we will go through, when we come up with a trail plan,
whether or not it has horses and snowmobile trails on it , 3 wheeler
trails, I hope if there' s a process that we follow so we come up with a
plan that represents what the public wants, then I don' t think we need to II
have this discussion right now on these wetlands and horse trails . If we
have a discussion in a timely and orderly fashion as the trail plan
I .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 49
develops so that' s why I ' ve sort of taken it off tonight. I 'd like to see
it happen in an orderly fashion.
Conrad : Given that the trail stuff will come back to us and we have to
decide and groups have to decide whether to leave it alone or phase it in
or do anything with the trails, I think it ' s probably worthwhile to defer
it to the time when it comes back to us and look at it. Unless Dave you
want to jump in and talk the issue tonight .
Headla: I don' t think we' re going to gain anything by talking about it.
I 'd like to see that trail plan redone. I don' t think it was
representative of what I perceive a lot of the people in Chanhassen would
like . Tim started it here and I think he' s got some good points that
' we've just got to talk about openly and hold it to the public' s best
interest . I live on the west side of Chanhassen, I 'm not sure we got the
best shake out of that.
' Conrad : Unless there' s a contrary point of view, we' ll just defer this
item as Tim recommended and wait and bring it up when the trails come back
to us . Any other items? Would somebody like to talk about any new
business?
Headla : Yes , I 'd like to bring up something . I was at the, Annette was
there too, at this meeting on Ches Mar. The comment came out again about
mailings that went out . This isn' t the first time I 've heard people say
they didn' t get this or that. I wondered, Jo Ann, some more work again,
but to me do you ever do a spot check to see if people did in fact get the
mailings?
Olsen : We keep. . .do go out , we use the property owners in the applicant' s
file. That comes through an Abstract Company and they guarantee proper
names and addresses .
' Headla : That says we' ve gone through the motions . We' re more interested
in getting the job done and to make sure we get the job done, it almost
seems that we ought to do a sample . On 2 or 3 mailings, pick out what you
think is a reasonable sample. Call the people. Did you get the letter?
' Yes , okay. If you find that say out of the 3 times you' re satisfied that
people are getting it, fine but right now, and the one that really sticks
in my craw is the property to the northwest of mine where Dave Johnson
sent out that mailing. So many people claim they never got it but I think
Dave Johnson in his own mind felt that he really did what he was supposed
to do.
1 Olsen : He notified a lot of people on that one .
Headla: But only 2 people showed up and some people felt well , you can' t
always just can ' t come in the middle of the week. I guess I would like to
see a check on some of the mailings to see if in fact the people did get
it.
Emmings: What can you do Dave? If you take an envelope and you put the
person' s name on it and put a stamp on it and put it in the mailbox, you
1
. i
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 50 i
find out they' re not getting it, what can you do? i
Headla: If I know they' re not getting it, I know damn well I can get the
problem solved but I can' t solve it if I think they' re getting it and
then I don' t know if they got it or not.
Ellson : You can send it registered mail . i
Emmings: What are you going to do?
Headla : You call the people up. So many people up. If you know in
fact you' re doing a good job, fine. You walk away and you know you've
done a good job. But if you don' t sample what you do once in a while, how
do you know if you' re doing a good job? '
Emmings : But if this time I call up 2 people and they didn' t get their
mail for whatever reason, does that mean I 'm not going to do the same I
thing next time? That is , address an envelope , put a stamp on it and put
it in the mailbox . What will I do next time?
Headla : I would go back and take a look at the process that I did do.
Maybe they used the wrong address . Maybe they had a misspelling. Maybe
it' s a different street address . There' s got to be a reason.
Emmings: There' s an easier way to do this. You just put a note on the
bottom of the letter that says , if you don' t get this , call the City. •
Olsen: As far as Ches Mar, that was a matter of a public hearing .
Headla : I knew you were going to say that but my point is , that isn ' t the
only time. If that was the only time I heard that comment, that would be 1
the end of the discussion but that isn' t the only time.
Ellson: It' s also in the paper right? If you've got an Affidavit of
Mailing , that basically says there' s supposedly to be 10 things sent out
and we've got a receipt that shows the Post Office got 10 things and
that' s as far as you can take it . If you show that you' ve got 9, then
you' re right. Somebody may not have gotten theirs . i
Headla : I get very frustrated with these comments . I come from more of a
database management. Database management is, you get data. You did the
job. Yes , I did the job. Here' s the response . I got the answers and you
did or you didn' t. Did we do the job or didn't we? Went through all the
motions . Hey, we' re great guys . The job didn' t get done. I don ' t care
about that. I want the job done. You don' t want to go through to the
final line and say yes , the job did get done.
Conrad: Trying to narrow in on the problem, and a lot of people say they I
didn' t get informed . Typically when they don' t get informed , they were
not the landowner of record which is what generally happens. The letter
of the public hearing went to somebody else but as long as staff says they I
sent a letter and they have an affidavit showing it, how are we going to
solve the problem? If staff says they sent it, where' s the missing, and
I
II ,
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 51
' somebody says they didn' t get it but it went to the right address . Is it
a city problem? It' s the best form of communication, other than calling.
' Headla : If people perceive it' s a problem, it ' s a problem period . I 'm
not going to say if it' s a people problem or a city problem but it' s a
problem for us and let' s get it resolved.
' Conrad: But what' s the solution?
Headla : You tell me what they' re real problem is and then I ' ll let you
know. I don' t know if there is a real problem or not but I 'm asking to
collect some data to see if there is a problem. If people complain about
not getting notified and we can say, hey we sent these mailings out. We
did a sample. We called the people. They are getting it. We verified
our process. I wouldn' t go any further .
' Erhart : What you' re saying Dave is to take one example and test it
through a test?
Headla : Do a test sample.
Erhart: Take one subdivisions or one public hearing . . .
' Emmings : All you' re testing is whether the post office can deliver the
mail . That ' s all you' re testing .
•
Headla : No, I 'm not . How do I know you' ve got the right name or the
right address?
Emmings : But you' re going to run into problems there because of the
' problem that Ladd just mentioned. People who get the notice are the
people who own the property. If they' re not the person who lives at that
house, it goes to them at their address . If they live in Florida , they
' get it down in Florida . But now is she going to call that person in
Florida to see if they got it because that' s the person. . .
Headla : I haven ' t heard anybody in Florida complain they didn' t get a
' mailing.
Emmings : Don' t take me literally. Do you understand what I 'm saying? Or
do you want her to call the person who' s living on that property and ask
them if they got it?
' Headla : If they send it to an address in Chanhassen , you call that
person. I don' t really understand. Are you objecting to having the
receptionist call somebody?
Emmings : No . Dave, I guess , it seems to me, and I don ' t care, if they
want to do it they can go right ahead and do it . I have no strong
objection to it but it seems to me that all you ' re doing is , you want me
' to take a letter addressed to Ladd and put it in the mailbox. Now I 'm
going to call Ladd up and say Ladd , did you get it? If he says yes . Now
I verified that, all I verified is that the post office can deliver a damn
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 52
letter . Now if he says no , what am I going to do next time? I 'm going to II
do the same thing. I 'm going to put a stamp on it and put it in the
mailbox .
Headla : No you' re not.
Emmings: Why not? '
Headla : You' re going to go find out why he didn' t get it?
Emmings: I 'm going to go to the post office and say why can' t you deliver II
a letter .
Headla: If I did that, the first thing I 'd go do is verify my mail . Did I
I have the right address on it? How am I dead sure that I got the right
address on it?
Emmings: Where do you get your addresses? ,
Olsen: From an Abstract Company.
Emmings: She gets them from the Abstract Company.
Headla: I tell you, so many things fall out when you start doing a test
sample on it , it ' s amazing .
Emmings : I think the Abstractor gets , it' s essentially the tax
information I think. She gets a list certified by an Abstractor .
Headla : You' re talking over my head. I don' t know what an Abstractor is .
Emmings? Okay, when I have to give notice to somebody. Say I 'm doing a it
project and I have to give notice to everybody within 500 feet of my
property, I have to go to an Abstractor . That' s somebody who keeps
records of land transactions like they do at the courthouse like the
County Recorder keeps. You have an abstract on your property or you have
torrens property. One or the other . You know what your abstract looks
like. That' s put together by an abstractor . They go to him and say, I
need a 500 foot property list . This Abstractor gives you a letter stamped
and certified that these are all of the people who own property within 500
feet of your property. Here are their names and addresses . That list is II
then given to the City as part of the application and they use, that' s how
they get their addresses and names of the people who have to be notified .
Then they do an affidavit that we gave notice to all the people listed on II
the Abstractor ' s certificate .
Headla: But then we want to test it to see if it works .
Emmings: The addresses that are on that list are the same addresses the 1
County uses to send the tax statement to you. By God, they probably have
it in pretty good shape. I don' t care but it doesn' t seem to me you' re
testing anything other than the post office. That' s my problem with it .
That ' s all .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
1 November 16, 1988 - Page 53
IHeadla : I wanted to tell the people who said they didn' t get notified ,
they can give an explanation.
IErhart : What percentage of the people in this group do you think would
tell you that they did get notified if you called their home?
IHeadla : I have no idea .
Erhart: Is it only 30%?
I
Headla : I don' t have any data at all to show which way to go.
I Emmings : What is the specific example you' re basing it on? Who didn' t
get notified about what?
IHeadla : The latest one, is the one on the Dave Johnson property.
Conrad: Who' s that?
I Headla : That ' s that contractor you know that I really went after . Where
he said he had sent the notices out to all the people around and he got
the addresses from here.
IOlsen: No, we did the affidavits .
IHeadla : You did the mailings?
Olsen : Yes , for the public hearing but he had a neighborhood meeting .
I Ellson: They' re saying they didn' t get notified for the neighborhood
meeting? That was his business but we' re saying . . .
I Emmings: Now if they didn' t get notice from him, that' s not a city issue.
If you' re talking about notice from us . . .
Headla: Unless you got the names and addresses from us and I have no idea
Iif he did or didn' t.
Ellson : So it may not even be a problem.
IConrad: There are cases where there are and usually they' re not the
registered land owner . They' re not the land owner . Somebody else owns it
I and somebody in Florida gets their mail and that' s a problem. I think
you' re talking about Jerry Eickus .
Headla: That wasn' t a valid meeting anyway.
IConrad : There' s nothing you can say other than the City sends out
letters. They have an affidavit. I think it ' s our obligation to make
I sure that they always do that. They do typically. I don ' t know Dave how
to solve that. I know what you' re hearing. People love to talk about, I
was not informed and that' s a classic. That ' s classic community
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 54 '
involvement stuff . I wasn' t informed of this. Nobody told me. '
Headla: But I don' t have any information to go back and tell them they
did get it . ,
Conrad : But you can say the staff has an affidavit showing that it was
sent. I think in this case, with Jerry Eickus, there' s an affidavit
saying it was sent and she' s saying she didn' t receive it.
Batzli : Then she should go to the post office.
Emmings : But there' s another thing too . You may be talking to a person
who' s outside, in the case of the 500 foot thing, you may be talking to a
guy who' s 1, 000 feet away and he doesn' t get notice. Then we may want to
address that. When I came on here to selfishly guard the lake I live on,
one of the first things I tried to get through here and was lucky and we
got through was a thing where if there' s development on the lake, not only I
do you give notice to the people 500 feet around but to all the people who
live around the lake because it impacts them all. So in that case, we
changed who gets notice. You may want to look and see if we' re getting
the right people notice. Now that would make sense to me. That would be II
doing something .
Conrad : I think it`' s our obligation when we hear that , that they haven' t '
been informed is ,. us individually, to follow up with the City and find out
why not.
Headla : Check the facts . '
Conrad : Yes . It' s got to be factual and we've got to talk to Jo Ann and
we say, okay show us that it went out. Then I think you can definitely go 1
back to that , and as long as we' re convinced that the address was right
and that the City has the affidavit showing it, I think we can go back to
that person and say, hey you've got to look at your mail . But I think
it' s our job to follow up on that. Anything else Jo Ann?
Olsen : I just need to know who of you are coming up for reappointment, if II
you still all want to be. . .
Conrad : Who' s coming up? I am. '
Olsen: You and Steve and Tim and. . .
Headla : Me. I think it' s me. 1
Batzli : It might be me.
Emmings: Now do we come up in front of the new Council or the old?
Olsen: Council did discuss what they wanted to do and the ad that I 'm
going to be placing in the paper will simply state that we have four
openings but the present Planning Commissioners who' s positions are up
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 55
still want to continue in that position. Make it clear to the public that
most likely those four positions will still be filled. That anyone who' s
interested can apply. Then the Planning Commission is to interview the
' people and the Council will take your recommendation. I just wanted to
know if everyone was still interested .
' Conrad: Is there anybody that is not interested in running again or being
appointed again?
' Erhart : Do we talk about pay first?
Batzli : Do we know for sure who the fourth person is? Is it me or is it
Dave?
' Olsen: There ' s four but I 'm sorry, I don' t remember who the fourth one
is.
' Headla : I think it' s me.
Emmings: I just want the record to reflect that if it' s the new Council
' that is considering my appointment, the only reason I was the treasurer
for Bill Boyt ' s campaign was because he had my son tied up in his
basement.
' Olsen : We' ll call you and let you know.
' Emmings moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 10 p.m. .
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Asst . City Planner
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
I ' .
ai
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION 4 rk 4
REGULAR MEETING :.�..
NOVEMBER 22, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Carol Watson, Sue Boyt, Ed Hasek, Curt
Robinson and Larry Schroers
' STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
INTRODUCTION TO NEWLY ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBERS.
Mady: I asked Lori to invite the new council members to our meeting
tonight. Apparently they didn' t show up.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Boyt moved, Hasek seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting dated November 1, 1988. All voted in favor
except Carol Watson who abstained and the motion carried .
REVIEW POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF PARKLAND AROUND LAKE ST. JOE.
Sietsema: As you are aware, the area around Lake St. Joe is identified in
the Comprehensive Plan as potential parkland and open space. That was put
in there well over 10 years ago and I believe the initial reason that was
put in there was to preserve it as open space. More so than for parkland
' due to what the land is. It ' s mostly marshland and wetland area. It' s
not anything that you could put anything active out there. Just by a
fluke I found out that a portion of that property, a 15 acre portion of
that property is for sale and someone has a purchase agreement to purchase
it. She happened to call me and find out how the trails were going to
impact her . Where it was going to go through that property. What type of
a trail and when that would occur . I went out there to look to see if it
' could actually go where the trail plan depicted it and it would have to go
around that second pond . I don' t know if you recall . There' s a little
pond and there' s Lake St. Joe and the trail goes just between the two
around Lake St. Joe and it couldn' t go there unless you wanted it to be a
' floating boardwalk because it' s really too wet.
Hasek: That ' s also in that area of tamracks up there isn ' t it?
' Sietsema: Yes.
' Mady: Which parcel is it?
Sietsema : It' s the northwest corner .
Hasek: Is that where that guy has all that machinery out there right now?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 2 1
Sietsema: It ' s past that. You go past that on King ' s Road and then it
turns and it goes straight south along the border of Victoria and
Chanhassen and that' s how you get back to it. They are buying the front
4 acres and they' ve already purchased that and they plan to close sometime
in the near future on the additional 15 acres. I told her that that was
identified as potential parkland and she indicated that perhaps maybe the
City would want to purchase it instead of them but they wouldn' t be I
interested in signing off on their purchase agreement unless they know how
we' re going to use it. They were going to buy it so that it would be
preserved, open space so they have a way to get down to Lake St. Joe. I
don ' t know what kind of concessions you would want to make.
Hasek: You' ve been out there and looked at it?
Sietsema: I looked at it. I didn' t trudge around in it too much because
I didn ' t have any boots and it was cold out .
Hasek: But it is wet? ,
Sietsema : It ' s all cattails and reeds and marsh type vegetation.
Hasek: Can we ask that for the next time we have a meeting that you get
an aerial for us so we can see at least .
Sietsema: Do you want to run up and get the aerial?
Watson : So we can see where that little pond is .
Hasek: I guess coming from that neighborhood out there, I want a park and
I think it ' s important to preserve some wetlands but I certainly don ' t
think that this particular thing fills the bill for an active park out
there. At all .
Sietsema: I definitely don' t think but we can look at the aerials.
Perhaps if we continue to purchase the land around the south part, there
might be something contiguous that would be more flat.
Hasek: You get south of that lake in there between kind of where that
little notch is in the City and Lake St . Joe, then there' s a huge hill
that drops down to both of those lakes. So that's what you'd be buying is
a sledding hill maybe or downhill skiing as opposed to a ballfield . '
Watson: Wouldn' t it be nice as open space?
Hasek: It' d be beautiful as open space but that isn' t what those people '
need out there. What they need is a place for the kids. If you look at
those two neighborhoods, my son has let ' s say 15 kids in our 35 home
neighborhood his age, within a year of his age. We don' t have a park.
The only place we' ve got to play is either in the street , in people' s
yards or down on the beachlot that the association owns and that thing is
only 60 feet wide. It' s just not there. Cathpark Park is across the I
highway would be fine if there was a way to get there but we don' t have a
trail system so that' s out the window. We don' t even own that park. We
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' November 22, 1988 - Page 3
own it but we don' t maintain it I guess.
Sietsema: We don' t own it.
Hasek: We don' t own it but we do maintain it?
Sietsema : We don' t own it.
Hasek: There' s also one up here that ' s in Minnewashta Heights and the
only way to get there is to go along the highway and I certainly am not
going to allow my kids to go. If you look at this area of the city, right
here, it' s completely unserved by public open space. Completely.
Watson: So you need ballfields and soccerfields?
Hasek: No, we don' t need ballfields and soccerfields. What we have to
' start with is a simple 5 acre neighborhood park in that area.
Watson: What do you want?
' Hasek: Anything to start with would be great . Something ' s that dry. If
you want to play ball there. I don' t think a ballfield is certainly out
of line but it might not be the only thing that needs to go in there. A
' soccer field, soccer can be played on ballfield. I think it' s more of a
neighborhood park and not making it recreational active for organized
sports.
' Watson: But 15 acres for $8 , 00101. 0101 of open space is awfully cheap.
Sietsema: It' s real cheap but if you' re only going to buy it to preserve
' it as open space and that' s what the other purchaser is going to do is
just leave it as open space, then there isn' t really much purpose. . .
Mady: They can' t do anything with it.
Sietsema: There isn' t much sense, if it' s going to be preserved
' regardless , why should we spend the money.
Watson: We could just acquire a trail through it. Let them buy it and
acquire a trail through it so that there would be. . .
Sietsema: Before they close they want to know exactly where we' re going
to put that trail because that may be a deciding factor on whether they
actually close or not. So they want to know what our intentions are.
Mady: A question on that . On the Comp Plan, that area is cited as a
potential park area or area we want as parkland. So the City has to sign
off, isn ' t that how it goes?
Sietsema: No .
' Mady: I thought they couldn' t sell without first presenting it to the
City.
1
f ' '
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 4 1
Sietsema: No . We can identify it as . . .
Hasek: They can sell it. They can do anything they want but if they want II
to develop, if they want to subdivide it all . . .
Sietsema: Right. If they' re going to develop it, that' s when we get the I
chance. So the plan is for the trail to come like this . What I was
saying is that, from the looks of it, this looked pretty marshy.
Mady: Where' s the 15 acres at? '
Hasek: See that hits the spot that we had nailed through that. All that
marshland and I don' t know how successful . . .floating bogs but you've seen
this back there haven' t you? This piece is for sale.
Schroers: Behind St. Joe?
Hasek: Yes . Around that pond . It ' s all tameracks .
Sietsema: This big stuff over here is trees but this stuff is . . . '
Hasek: That ' s tameracks, yes .
Boyt: Is that a tamerack bog?
Hasek: Yes .
Mady: You can' t do anything in there?
Boyt: Hennepin County just did a big project with tameracks . '
Mady: That' s the one down at Theodore Wirth Park but there' s also a big
one down in Carver Park but I don' t know what the cost to maintain that.
Schroers : High maintenance.
Watson: Do people go there? I don' t care how much it costs to maintain '
it but do people go to watch it?
Schroers : People go there but it ' s mainly school groups that go to an
organized thing. They' re bussed in, 3 or 4 loads of kids and the
naturalist will guide them through the area .
Watson: So you don' t have just the occasional people who might . . . I
Schroers : Well , you ' ll have an occasional person but you' re not going to '
have hordes of them going through there. But every once in a while
someone will go through there.
Hasek: I thought perhaps this right in here. . . '
Sietsema: They bought this 4 acre piece here.
IL
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 5
1
Watson: Ultimately if we could get this piece?
' Sietsema : I don ' t know that to be a fact because I didn' t actually go and
walk it.
' Watson: Should we put our boots on someday and go back there?
Mady: I don' t think that' s necessary.
Schroers : My questions are, first a comment, I think that would make a
perfect area for a boardwalk and it would be real nice but I 'm wondering
how much that' s going to affect our ability to buy other property in the
area that we would need for active use which is really lacking in the
Minnewashta area . That boardwalk would be more of a path and I 'm not sure
you' re getting the kind of use and activity as tennis courts, ballfields
and just a regular active area.
Sietsema : Right, and again, what I was eluding to earlier is that when
the Commission that was on the board 10 years ago when the Comp Plan was
put together and that was identified, they were a very nature oriented
group of people. They weren' t into ballfields and tennis courts and
active play areas. They were into let' s preserve all the places for the
birds and the deer to be. Mike was on at that time and he remembers
struggling because they wanted to keep the kids out of there to keep it
natural so they didn' t wreck it and that was the train of thought at that
point in time when that area was identified as parkland , which is still
fine. Which still is a valid reason. Still is a valid reason for
acquiring that type of land .
Watson: I bought it very much and I am probably one of those people who
was very into open space. I think there is a time coming in an area like
Chanhassen when we' re going to point out to our children something more
than about 2 acres is going to be tough. But I also would like people to
walk on it . I don ' t think we ' re trying to preserve it from anybody but
for everybody.
tMady: Just a natural open space.
Watson: Yes , but I would want that.
Mady: And not developed.
1 Watson: We can put the geese out there.
Schroers : I don' t feel that I got any input . By purchasing this , will it
limit our ability to get an active use area?
Sietsema : There' s only $21, 000 . 00 in the current park budget in the 1989
park budget that is not allocated for something. It' s $21, 000. 00 and if
we want to purchase the Carrico property which is going to be something
closer to $60,000. 00. We might have some money freed up if the Lake Susan
development , if a lot of that work can be done with the Lake Drive East
r
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 6 1
going through so our local share doesn' t have to be $100, 000. 00 but right II
now that whole $100,000. 00 is allocated for Lake Susan. So yes , I would
say that it would have some impact but it' s not , if you didn' t want to do
one project next year and put your whole $100, 000. 00 into land acquisition
for the Minnewashta area next year , your capital improvement program,
that' s a possibility. It would have to be 1990, not 1989 because there' s
already projects that are budgeted. I
Boyt : Another possibility, since the people purchasing it plan to leave
it as is, is to acquire trail access through the property.
Sietsema: Right, and we may want to enter into something, if they want to
sell it for development or something, let them know now that we are II interested in it if they don' t want it and purchase it from them later and
just preserve the trail easement at this time. That' s definitely an
option but with change of Commission, change of staff, you lose some of
those contacts and it' s hard to keep. . . '
Boyt : But the other question, can it be developed if it' s that wet?
Sietsema: Not under the current ordinance I don ' t think it would be able II
to be. They'd have to stay 75 feet back from the wettest area. From the
high water area .
Mady: The point that I ' d like to make on this is if they allow the land
to be sold to the new developers who may, even though they want to leave
it natural which is fine and great, it still does not allow anyone to walk I
on that property legally unless they get permission firsthand.
Sietsema: If we preserve a trail easement.
Mady: But then you still , yes you have maybe a 20 foot easement or 40
foot easement but through a tamerack area . . .
Sietsema: You have to identify where you want it to be.
Hasek: The point is that you won' t be able to leave any path that we put II
in there anyway. You're going to step off of that and risk. . .because
there is an allotment over a lot of those things.
Boyt: That' s what, Hennepin Parks has signs saying you won' t leave the
trail .
Hasek: Is Pheasant Hills the one that we ' re trying to purchase the
property?
Sietsema : The Carrico , yes . That ' s what we talked about last time .
Hasek: Okay, this property is the what property?
Sietsema: It' s Lake St. Joe. I
Hasek: There' s a name on it isn' t there?
r
1
' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 7
1
Sietsema : Kortgard is the people who are purchasing it .
' Hasek: My personal opinion is this . First of all , this was slated in the
Comp Plan that was put together approximately 10 years ago and should have
some sort of precedence over any other purchases that we might be looking
' at making regarding parkland . The second issue would be monies available
for the next year or the next couple of years. I think it' s important for
this commission to take some time at some point in the future here to
' maybe restructure some of their priorities and those priorities should be
based upon need and what I perceive right now, partially from the heart
and partially from the plans that I see, is a very specific and dramatic
need in the Minnewashta west area based upon no park service whatsoever in
that area. If we look at the Pheasant Hills property and the number of
units that is to serve and the number of people that is to serve, it' s
considerably smaller than the area that we are looking at serving in the
' Minnewashta West area. I am leaning towards looking at the purchase of
the property rather immediately in that area because the cost goes up as
it has in the Pheasant Hills area. I guess I 'm a little bit torn . We do
have a very active and vocal group up there that' s asking us for a park
but at the same time we' ve got an area on the other side of Lake
Minnewashta that' s been asking for one for quite a while and I don 't know .
that it' s necessarily in our best interest to use all of the monies that
' are available for purchases I guess as they come along if in fact we put
ourself in the position of not being able to purchase something in that
Lake Minnewashta West area. I guess that' s kind of the comment I wanted
to make. I think it' s important first of all that we purchase this piece
of property and use the monies that we do have available and then I think
we have to take a look at the future funds for acquisition in the City
' based upon need.
Sietsema: I have to agree that I think the priorities should be set . We
have development priorities that if we don' t acquire the land when it ' s
available, we ' re never going to be able to develop it . Where if our money
is short, we may want to look at acquiring the land that is needed in the
areas that we' re deficient and hold off on some of the developments so
that we preserve that and then when monies becomes available we can start
development again.
Hasek: That' s what I 'm talking about, the priorities. Are we in a mode
where we should be acquiring land now as opposed to developing land? It' s
nice to develop when you' ve got the parkland that of course you want to
start putting some things into it but you also have to keep your options
' open for purchasing as it comes along and if you don ' t do that, then
you' re just cutting your throat. You' re going to have one side of the
City that' s completely developed and the other side of the City that' s
completely undeveloped.
Mady: Here are some thoughts . In our capital improvement program, we
approved and the Council approved $169, 000. 00. We' re making a potential
' precedent we need to. There ' s $10, 000. 00 for Lake Ann Park for electrical
bills as shown that we already said we don' t need to do that. Down at
Minnewashta Heights Park, you threw $20, 000. 00 in and said well maybe
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 8
we' ll do something down there but we don' t know what we want to do .
There' s $30, 000.00 without even looking too hard at things that we could
maybe shift into buying some parkland. I agree we need to find something
out at Minnewashta. We've discussed it quite often actually in the last
couple of months about finding something on the west side of Minnewashta .
We've all known for a long time that area needs something badly. We just
haven' t any thoughts , any ideas of what we could do. I 'd like to see us I
be able to get out there and do a walk. Go out there and drive around and
walk the area . . .and see if we can buy it. I think we can get interest for
buying it before we get a developer or landowner. . . '
Sietsema: I would suggest that if the Commission is interested in
purchasing this property, that we should also look at the rest of the land
around the lake and what kind of access we' re going to need to access this
piece of property. We don' t want to buy a landlocked piece of property
that we can' t get to. So we look at the overall picture and what we want,
have some idea of what we want to do with it. It' s fine if what you want II
to do with it is to just to leave it as it is . That' s one option but so
that you know what you want to do.
Mady: The question on the map up here, the parcel looks like the property II
line goes right through the middle of the pone on the west side of Lake -
St. Joe. Does that actually encompass the whole pond? It' s hard to tell .
Sietsema: Yes. It would be just the north half of the pond. Does it
show on that one that it' s kind of an L shaped piece?
Mady: Yes .
Sietsema: Because I think that top half is the 4 acres that they' re
purchasing. So it would be the straight west then over to the city
boundary.
Hasek: The city boundary down to the lake. It goes right through the
middle of the pond.
Robinson: It looks like there is some highway under there? '
Sietsema: The city boundary is right here. This is Victoria so it' s this
piece right here. The lots on the north end of Lake St. Joe are built on
and there' s a lot of topography in there too. That' s where that junkyard
is or contractor ' s yard . What do you want me to do?
Mady: What are our thoughts here?
111
Robinson: I think we need some active land in that area and to me, it
just does not look like active land. I 'd agree with Ed that we've talked
about it before that we need something out there and we haven' t done
anything but this looks like a marsh to me and I don' t think, the price is
good but I don' t think we should even spend that kind of money just to
have it and get it owned by the City when we could let somebody else buy
it and keep it natural and if we could still have a trail through it.
I
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
INovember 22, 1988 - Page 9
IBoyt: I agree.
I Mady: My thoughts are kind of like Curt' s. 15 acres at $8 , 000. 00 an acre
is a pretty good price. For a wetlands it' s even a pretty good price but
the way it sounds, if this developer is not going to do anything on it
anyway, and if it' s as wet an area and dangerous as it sounds like it
I potentially could be, we'd have a tough time doing much with it anyways .
So my inclinations are let it sit as an active wetland which they can ' t do
anything with either and it will be preserved as open space that way
I through our ordinance as it now exists . We always have the option at some
point in time to go back and attempt to purchase it if we so desire it. I
think it would be a different price maybe at that time and maybe they
I wouldn' t be willing to sell but if the City at some point really wanted to
buy it, they could look at it . It' s not going to present us with
something that we have to have at this point in time.
I Hasek: If that is our intent, is to take an easement on it, is all we' re
asking for . . .a trail is all we' re looking for, are we thinking about
coming off the roadway or are we thinking about following that lake all
I the way around? If we' re thinking about doing that, are we going to be
cutting our own throats? Kind of like we did along the south side of,
where the owners desired to have it on the other side of the pond. South .
of Lyman Boulevard there. We had a place where we thought we wanted it
I and then it got pushed around and had the potential for a lot of it being
eliminated .
I Boyt : Here ' s another something to suggest to Council . Tamerack bogs are
unusual . I think they should enact an ordinance to protect tamerack bogs .
IMady: Isn ' t a tamerack bog an active wetland?
Hasek: This is protected. There' s no way that they'd ever get any
permission to do anything in here.
IBoyt : This might be a way to further preserve. When they had trouble
with. . .plants encroaching on the bog.
IMady: Carol , what are you thoughts?
Watson: I want it .
ISietsema: She wants geese too.
I Schroers : Looking at the overall situation, I 'm a conservationist at
heart. I definitely want to see that remain a natural area. I think it
would be nice if we could have a trail through there but I think to serve
I the needs of the community in that particular area better, we need to look
at purchasing active use area and I guess that I would rather not see us
tie anyone up on that when we don' t really have to to keep the area
natural .
IRobinson: I make the motion that we accept Lori ' s first offer and that is
to allow the Kortgard' s to proceed with the purchase of the land but work
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 10 1
with them to reserve a trail easement through the property.
Hasek: Second . '
Robinson moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to allow the Kortgard ' s to proceed with the purchase of the
land , working with them to reserve a trail easement. All voted in favor
except Watson who opposed and the motion carried.
Hasek: Do we want to talk about that?
Mady: We should. I think we need that information. ,
Hasek: I think our first choice would be , I think our first choice should
be to try to follow the wetlands if at all possible. Like I said, I don' t I
want to take the chance of cutting our throats in the future. It seems to
me though that if the guy to the south should ever sell his land for the
purposes of development , that there may be the possibility of some rather
huge homes going on it with a view over that Lake St. Joe. And if our
intent is to run a pathway around it , then you might run into some
resistence from that developer at that time wanting to do that. So I
think perhaps what we maybe should think about doing is putting a trail
into but not necessarily through that area . We could come off of the
property or off of the City street which is on the west side and acquire a
trail perhaps along that, or even along the northern shoreline of the pond I
and into that wetland without going all the way through it . There might
be some sort of a loop that maybe can go around St. Joe' s .
Mady: Some potential . . .? '
Hasek: If I owned that property to the south or even more so if I bought
that piece of property, I certainly wouldn' t want the trail running along '
the shoreline of that lake even though there might not be any reason for
lake access. That surely is a visual intrusion.
Sietsema : So state again where you' re proposing this to go . '
Hasek: I think we should try and either come around the north edge of
Lake St. Joe and into that area and perhaps lead that to whatever that I
street is on the west side. Something like this and then maybe back out
again or we should think about coming in along the roadway of this area . . .
I just think we'd really meet with a lot of resistance if we tried to go
along the shore.
Mady: The Comp Plan right now shows it through here. All the way around .
Hasek: I think the only way that we should think about this is if we
really feel that we have a position and power to get an access for out
there. '
Sietsema: If they' re going to develop, we do.
1r
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' November 22, 1988 - Page 11
Hasek: If we look at the one that we just had come in here where we had a
' trail easement and we ended up giving it up.
Sietsema : That was a little bit different because we didn' t acquire that.
We stuck that on during their plan. That was the justification for the
Council being able to go in there.
Hasek: Personally I would like to see it go through but does it need to
' go through I guess is the next question. Maybe that' s what really driving
my thoughts here. If this is the interesting part, do you need to go all
the way through that? Is this going to be a vital part of the link that' s
going up and down Minnewashta Parkway which may never happen now because
of the buyers .
Mady: To me that would be a natural part of it. Let them have a natural
' trail system in close to an active which would go down Minnewashta
Parkway. I really don' t think it has to go through there, to be honest
with you. I really don' t. I think you can experience the tameracks that
' are in there without going all the way through there and unnecessarily
encumbering any property.
Schroers : My idea of a trail in there would be to stay on the upper , more
' dryer part of it than just go along the edge and look into it. I would'
not want to cut into it. I think that does damage. It ' s no longer a
natural area. A trail down in the middle of it is very difficult to
' maintain . I would just like to see the woodchip walking path on the high
ground around the edge and disturb it as little as possible. It'd be a
very low maintenance, low cost type of thing.
' Hasek: Do you think we should think about coming through here then? That
would be the loop then to come around. . .around here and back up.
' Schroers : I would definitely not be in favor of cutting a trail through
the middle of it.
' Robinson: Is this down next to the lake?
Sietsema: No .
' Mady: Not easily. This place is surrounded by cattails .
Sietsema: Really the only way you can get down to the lake is over on
' this, off of Minnewashta . So if we wanted to continue to pursue that so
we get this feeling that this nature trail is the thing to come off of
Minnewashta Parkway and stay along the high water mark, you come around
' and make a loop like that. I don' t think they would like that.
Mady: I don' t either .
Schroers : I don' t think that it has to be anything big enough that it
would bother them in anyway. The actual path or surface, all it would
need to be would be wide enough for a couple people to walk side by side.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 12 '
I probably wouldn' t recommend that as an area for horse riding or anything I
like that. Just a walking path.
Hasek: Can I ask if that opinion is kind of the consensus? To try and
get to high ground and go around the lake. Is that generally what we' re
all thinking?
Robinson : I 'd sure agree with that.
Hasek: Maybe what we should do is just allow Lori and staff to kind of
negotiate with them. They know what we'd like to see and let' s see what
they' ll give us . If what they give us isn' t enough, then we've got
another choice. . .
Sietsema: We' re going to have to buy an easement. If we go a 20 foot
easement along the high and it' s $500. 00 an acre out there, whatever that
comes to and we'd have to figure that out . The other thing is that we 'd I
probably have to have it surveyed so we know where the high water mark is
so we have a legal description of that easement .
Hasek: Is that 4 acres separate already from the parcel? '
Sietsema: Yes .
Hasek: It is? It' s already been separated?
Sietsema : Well , they bought it separately.
Hasek: That means they subdivided their property so that means it must
have come before us then, or somebody.
Sietsema: Some of the larger pieces , I don' t understand .
Hasek: Maybe they can buy it by description until such time as the second I
piece of property is added and at that point it has to be legally split.
That' s possible. There' s only one house on the whole thing right?
Sietsema : Right . '
Hasek: Yes , that might be possible. But if you wanted to sell the other
15 at all , that should come before us at that point. I don' t know, does
that make sense Lori?
Hoffman: The $8 ,000.00, was everybody clear on that? That was for the
full 15 acres?
Mady: Yes.
Sietsema: Then the direction to staff is to go back to them and tell them
that no, we' re not interested in purchasing the property now but we would
like to preserve a trail easement in there. This is where we would like
it. The next question is , what' s the priority? When are we going to go
in and actually install the trail? And what type of surface would it be?
I ,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 13
They' re going to want to know that.
Hasek: When are we going to do Minnewashta Parkway?
Sietsema : What I could tell them, I could tell them what priority it
would have. So further on when we get to election results , I was going to
' have us talk about prioritizing our trails and taking a look at how we' re
going to pursue that.
' Hasek: Maybe we' ll have the timeframe then there.
Sietsema: Okay, I ' ll just wait for that. If I could amend the agenda.
' Jon Pahl is here to give us an update on his Eagle Scout project. He' s
the Eagle Scout that did the, or actually the Boy Scout, I don' t know if
he' s got his Eagle Scout yet , but did the landscaping at the Carver Beach
parking lot. Did a great job and he wants to get up and tell us about it.
' EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT UPDATE - JON PAHL.
' Jon Pahl : This is what I ' ve done to it. Before there was just grass up
to it. We started in August of this year with the posts , putting them in.
It was late August. In September , we found it real difficult with the
plans that you gave us Lori . Some of the measurements were off on this so
we couldn' t have a full 4 foot trail all the way around the parking area.
The total cost for this came to $1, 359 . 00.
1 Hasek: Did that include the bollards and stuff?
Jon Pahl : Yes .
' Hasek : The purchase of the bollards?
Jon Pahl : Yes .
Sietsema : How many people did you have work with you on it?
' Jon Pahl : 13 to 14. A lot of them came back twice.
Sietsema: Have you got your Eagle Scout award yet? When does that
happen?
Jon Pahl : Right now I figure around next March. It' s a long process .
Sietsema: So it' s under review right now?
Jon Pahl : Not yet . I have about another month before I can get into
review. They have a lot of paperwork.
Mady: I drove by this about a month ago and it looked fantastic .
Compared to what it was previously and what it looks like now, it' s like
night and day. If I lived across the street from it before it was done,
it was kind of an eyesore and just kind of spot in the road. Now it' s
beautiful . It ' s gorgeous . I 'd be proud to live across the street from
1
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 14 1
there because you know it ' s not going to attract a bad element. It looks II
like a park and it looks like something you should probably take care of.
A very, very nice job.
II
Sietsema : Did the park sign get put back up there?
Jon Pahl : Yes. It' s between those two trees. I
Hasek: Where did you buy the plant material?
Jon Pahl : We bought it from Hartman Tree Farm. I
Hasek: Did they give you a good price for seven. . . ?
II
Jon Pahl : I can' t remember exactly what it was now. There' s been one
person who already drove down to the playground.
Hasek: Through it? II
Jon Pahl : Drove between where the bollards end and the bushes. I
Watson: Did anybody see this genius?
Hasek: Did they ruin any plants? I
Jon Pahl : I 'm not sure. Since there' s snow on the plants.
Mady: . . . install some more bollards next year . What you might want to do 1
Lori is ask Dale to go over and take a look at that and see if he can help
the problem for the potential people driving down. If that' s the case , II we' ll have to do something about it.
Boyt : Can we get a letter to Jon that he can put in his file?
Hasek: Yes , attention your scout master or whatever . II
Mady: Also if you can put a note, a copy of that or something to go to
the Villager and the South Shore Sailor . We get some nice publicity. Jon II
gets some nice publicity.
Boyt : . . .before they get their award. We need to say he ' s working on it. II
Sietsema: Yes, instead of calling him an Eagle Scout, you are a Boy Scout
working on your Eagle Scout. So can you give me a list of your grand
poobahs? II
Jon Pahl : Sure. 1
Hoffman: The tops of all the posts , did you cut those?
Jon Pahl : Yes .
I
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IINovember 22, 1988 - Page 15
1 REVIEW RESPONSES TO TIM ERHART' S LETTER REGARDING EQUESTRIAN USE ON
TRAILS.
ISietsema: Item number 5 is the continuing saga of the equestrian use on
nature trails.
IBoyt : Tim has a shovel , I think it ' s taken care of.
Watson: I thought it was interesting that Mr. Headla wanted to know if
I Tim Erhart ' s. . .horse needed a permit and he better apply for one by the
end of November because he has never examined his pasture, etc. . I
thought that was a very interesting comment because it' s a very valid
I point. If he' s keeping a horses without a permit in the City, he should
get one.
Mady: I just think the same thing . I think everyone who was concerned
I enough to write us a letter, there are good points being made on both
sides and gave us some information that was eye opening for the non horse
person. I think we' re all richer for it and we have a better
I understanding of the equestrian trail situation in the city. If we. . .on
it in a good positive way.
Sietsema : The Planning Commission discussed this on Wednesday night and
I they expressed some concern that there were some changes made without
their review. When Jo Ann came back to me with that I said there ' s
nothing that' s been changed. Horses have been allowed all along. We just
I made that into a policy. They weren ' t not allowed before or disallowed
before. Prohibited before so we haven' t really made any changes. I don' t
think it' s a dead issue yet but as long as we keep up and keep informed
I and we know what our priorities are, staff still maintains that until
there' s an equestrian/pedestrian problem or conflict, that we should not
eliminate any uses just for the sake of eliminating valid uses of trails .
I Watson: I think we really are using fact on a relative volatile issue.
Who would have guessed that there would be people responding to the
interest in whether they can or can not use the system.
IMady: We discussed it to the point where we recognize that it' s not a
dead issue. That it needs to be reviewed from time to time as the need
I arises . We're comfortable with it . We haven' t gotten any really negative
feedback on it outside of Mr . Erhart ' s letter . We just take it as that.
We' re never going to have 100% agreement on anything. As long as we don' t
have any serious safety situations at this point in time or any safety
I situations at this point in time. Our current policy seems to be fine
and . . .
I Sietsema: There' s no action needed . I just wanted to bring that to your
attention.
Schroers : There never has been an incident has it? It just kind of
Ievolved as a political situation more than anything else.
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 16 1
Sietsema : Yes , I don ' t really know why it arose. All of a sudden it just II
was a problem for some people.
Hoffman : It arose as part of the discussions of the trail plan . The II
proposed trail plan and the proposed uses for it.
REVIEW ELECTION RESULTS .
Sietsema: I included the tally of the votes to let you know where we won II
and where we lost. I really don't know what the problem is with the
trails. When you look at the number of blank votes on the question, there
are only 175 ballots that were left blank on this question and when you go '
down to the councilmembers , there' s 2, 000 left blank. So it looks as
though, it would appear as though people were up on the issue enough to
vote one way or the other . I just think the City' s split on whether they
want them or not.
I
Boyt : There' s a minor problem. I think that it would have worked better
if they would have been called trails and sidewalks instead of just
II
trails.
•
Sietsema: Yes .
Mady: Two things. One, when I look at the trail plan that was shown, it II
looked to me, there was confusion in people in that we drew in every trail
that is or was or was going to be and $800, 000. 00 wasn' t going to build
II
all these. A lot of these are being, either exist presently or we have
developers putting in for us . I think it would have helped if maybe we
had two maps. One showing the entire plans. What the city ultimately II will look like. So many trails are being put in by developers . Some are
being put in by the city. Some already exist. The State' s going to put
in some. Then here' s what the $800, 000. 00 is going to actually buy us .
Here' s the parts we don' t have to pay for. Here' s the parts we have to
I
tie together . It might have helped . There' s always going to be those
people who vote against some of the trails . . .whether or not they believe
there wasn' t going to possible raise their property taxes . You' ll never II be able to convince some people. They' ll always believe it. No matter
what you tell them, you' re wrong and it' s going to cost some money. I
think they have about a third of the people in any city, not just our
city, who would be with any type of a program like this , be it an addition II
to a school , firehouse, city hall , anything that' s on a referendum that
costs money, you' re going to have at least a third of the people who will
vote no. They don' t even have to think about it, they' re going to vote II no . We ' ve got to get to the other two-thirds and we got to about half the
people in the City already who agree with us . The amazing thing on the
numbers , when I ran a calculator on them, that in none of the precincts I
did over 49% of the people vote against it. Not one precinct, at least
50% of the people voted against it. Of the total numbers . . .the entire
election so it' s probably not half the people who are against it . We just
didn' t get quite enough of the people who wanted it to vote. I
Hasek: I think that' s pretty negative numbers . Unbelieveable.
II
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 17
1
Sietsema : It' s pretty unbelieveable.
Hasek: What was final on it?
Sietsema : Two.
' Robinson: To me that' s the bad part . I don' t think that it' s our job to
sell this. I think it was to answer questions and get the information out
' so they have the information to vote. I would have felt better if we
would have lost it by a landslide which says , hey they don' t want it for
whatever reason but to lose by this small amount.
Sietsema : I think that' s a key point. If it would have lost by 200 votes
last time instead of 2, we probably wouldn' t have put it on again but
there' s such a great number of people who do want it.
' Hasek: The thing that disappoints me is that the area that I 'm in out
there, for some strange reason, I don' t know how much Minnewashta has been
' involved or how large that precinct is out there . I don ' t know the exact
numbers but I talked to an awful lot of people. . .
Boyt : . . . just invite 6 people from each area and talk to them about how
they voted or what they think about trails . Just what they think about
trails . Get some off the wall . . .random people. We don ' t know why it
failed. We heard two main reasons . Anything that costs money, they' re
' going to vote down no matter what and they don' t want a trail in their
front yard. But otherwise we' re guessing .
Watson: When conceiveably could we try this again?
Sietsema: Not in my lifetime .
' Mady: It sounds like the school will be going to referendum in late
spring and potentially the City may be going to a referendum at the same
time.
Sietsema: It' s my feeling that, I don' t think that we should take it back
unless we do some dramatic changes to it. If you cut it back and you do
some dramatic things to it. If you take it back one more time, I think
people are just going to get mad about it and vote no because they' re sick
of hearing about it.
' Watson: I was thinking like, can we get something this restructured in
some way and give it a shot in 2 years or something like that. You' re
right , you can' t do it right now but it' s still something . . .
Hasek: I think the community, there ' s going to be a lot of changes and I
think maybe within 2 years there will be enough people out there to
realize. . .
Watson: Because just because it was defeated doesn' t make it a bad idea
and I 'm certain it' s got to be back because it still is a good idea.
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 18 1
Boyt : I was in a neighborhood gathering this weekend and a couple of
people said, oh, the trails didn' t pass. Does that mean we' re not going II to get trails Sue? You mean not even on Frontier Trail , and you know all
the grief we've taken on Frontier Trail . I said that' s right. Not on
Frontier Trail . Well , we thought we'd get them anyway and these were some
of the people that had been up here over and over again saying we don' t •
want the trails. We don' t want them and misinformation all over the
place . They still don' t know what ' s going on. They still don' t know.
Robinson: But that' s their fault . ,
Boyt : The information is out there. It' s been in 3 papers . It' s been in
flyers. I
Sietsema : Yes , I really don' t know what else we can do. We put out a
brochure. We put it out in the paper . We got it to every single II doorstep. We sent flyers home with kids and we held public meetings. We
went to civic organizations and held informational sessions. I don' t know
how, you can ' t direct their eyeballs to read it. '
Watson: But it' s discouraging because these people are so opinionated
against it and yet when you give them about two pieces of information they
said, oh, I would have voted for that and I wanted to slug them because I
thought , if you' re so opinionated against it why didn' t you read the stuff
in the first place that would have told you but obviously they hadn' t even
read the stuff that had been out there to read and yet they were sure they
didn' t want it. But in 2 minutes they can change their minds.
Boyt : It' s not a mandate that we can' t come back again .
Watson: It' s going to be a couple of years .
Robinson : And then we get into some traffic changes . '
Mady: My gut feeling is that it' s going to take getting a couple kids
killed on the street before the people in the city are really going to I
wake up. I hate to say that but I look at it as , my neighbors , the woman
who lives across the street from me told me I had the only kid on the
whole street and if I couldn' t keep track of her than the heck with it .
We didn ' t a trail in front of my house because she was the only one.
Well , there are 50 kids under the high school level that live within 2
blocks of our house. She just doesn' t see them but they' re there and
they' re on that street. It scares me. It scares the hell out of me that II
we' re going to have problems . We had a group of people in here last
summer who did want us to put parking in their park because it would bring
more traffic on their street. And we asked them if they wanted maybe we
should put a trail on because they had a child hit on that street 2 years
ago. They didn' t want that. As it passed , we had another child hit on
that street. That street begs for a trail yet they don' t want it. I
don ' t know what it' s going to take to wake these people up that we have to '
get the kids a place where they can be without being involved with cars .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' November 22, 1988 - Page 19
Watson: You should see the people on Pleasant View Road that voted no .
Talk about a place where you' re going to finish off somebody' s kid. You
' go around that curve, those little kids that live down there are always
out in the middle of the road. All the time and frankly it' s because they
don' t have anyplace else to ride their bike because most of them don' t
have tarred driveways , which there isn' t much of a driveway anyway but
' there' s no way of getting those kids off that road and yet they didn' t
want it. I don' t understand. They never look at the aspect that we give
those kids a place to ride a bike up and down Pleasant View without
' risking their lives.
Boyt : The Laredo trail that' s going in was surveyed . The survey stakes
' are out and I came upon one of my neighbors pulling them out and I stopped
and talked to him. Told him why he shouldn' t do it and then called his
parents and told them they should call City Hall and make some
arrangements to have that taken care of. These kids are the kids who do
these things over and over again. Whenever there' s a kid in trouble.
I 've talked to those kids about that before . They know they shouldn' t be
pulling those out. Now they' re going to resurvey next spring.
Sietsema: Right, they won' t do construction. . .
Mady: My understanding was those surveys, all they did was find where the
roadway was and probably with a note on it .
Sietsema: They had to know where they were going to have to do some
' grading and that type of stuff .
Boyt: So that trail will be in in the spring?
' Sietsema : Right .
Mady: The money' s there.
' Sietsema : The Park and Recreation will see the plans for those in January
and there are some changes that need to be made and we' ll be discussing
' those in January. The next thing I wanted to talk to you about , these
election results, because the trail plan failed, I just want to get us
starting to think about prioritizing the trails so we can use existing
funding, the best way that we want to do it . The red line represents what
' are in place , and you can let me know if I miss anything . The blue lines
represent what' s proposed and what' s going to be done within the next year
or two. Either the developers are going to be doing it or we are or
' something. Highway 5, the one along TH 5 out to TH 41 will be done with
the upgrading of TH 5. Lake Susan Hills West , we' ll be putting theirs in .
Lake Drive East will go in when that road is extended. Laredo is planned .
' Carver Beach Road is planned . The ones in Curry Farms . The developer
will be doing the ones in Saddlebrook. The developer will be doing Kerber
and part of TH 5 are in. Lake Lucy Boulevard . The one around North Lotus
Lake Addition. So that gives you an idea of what' s being done so far .
' What I 'd like you to do is take your plan out and look at it. See where
these connections are. What it ' s going to connect to and where our next
priority should be because we do have money coming into the trail
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting II November 22, 1988 - Page 20
dedication fund that we are going to be able to start using next year . I
Start planning to use next year for use in 1990. I 've got this scheduled
for Mark to come in and talk about other funding sources . Remember we had
talked about tax increment and State Aid and the trail dedication fund and
he ' s going to come in and talk about what could potentially be done with
those other funding sources and help us prioritize and figure out what
alignments are logical to do next. Keeping in mind with this whole trail II
plan, the whole reason it was put into place, or the main reason it was
all put into place was for safety. I would imagine that that would be our
key when we' re prioritizing those alignments . I
Mady: If I could speak up on this . Right now I've got 3 priorities .
Number 1 is Minnewashta Parkway. At least those people have asked for it . i
They want it . The votes don' t reflect , which we have to remember , that
there' s a lot of people who live east of Lake Minnewashta who are also
part of. . . The second thing we need to build in, make connections like
from Lake Susan Hills West up to Lake Ann. To the park. That connection II
has got to be made. We have to make that connection .
Sietsema: Say that one again. Which one? I
Mady: The connection along CR 17, from Lake Susan Hills north to TH 5 so
they can get to the park. That connection I think should be made along CR
17 . The areas where the kids have to walk to school . Those kids are '
forced on the road no matter if they want to or not. One of those areas
is Frontier Trail but only up to Laredo. From Laredo north, from Frontier
north of Laredo, those kids don' t walk to school and if they don' t want
I
it, at least we can get some of the kids, because I know there are a lot
of people who live on the south side of Laredo on Frontier Trail who do
want .the trail and they have kids . II Boyt : One of the areas that has trails in southern Chanhassen and I think
if maybe we talked to those people who live in Chan Estates , they want
their kids to be able to get from Chan Estates across TH 5 into town. So II
I think that' s very important too. We know they support trails . I think
with the TH 101 realignment and when all that ' s taken care of, then we' ll
get some sort. . .
II
Robinson : Is Chan Estates in Precinct 3?
Boyt: Yes. That was Richard Donnay' s area. He was on the trail task
I
force.
Mady: That' s one of the things that concerns me. Bring people in to tell II
us what happened. What they thought went wrong. . .whatever with the
meetings . You get 10 people at a meeting is impossible for a lot of these
unless you went to a meeting that already existed. Had a reason to be II there besides the trail plan.
Boyt: We only had 4 people on the task force. That says something about
trails.
I
II
1 •
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 21
' Hasek: But I think 4 people, with the right 4 people can do an awful lot
of damage.
' Sietsema : Three of them were from southern Chanhassen and I think they
did their job. They got their area to vote.
' Watson : When we had the public meetings for the Comp Plan, all those
years when you sit there and on that commission, I remember sitting at
these public hearings and nobody would come. We would sit and chat among
' ourselves, wait an hour and pack up and go home.
Mady: The City' s been trying to communicate. That was one of the things
' that really kind of got to me in the current election was that we had all
these people saying the City' s not communicating. Not telling us what' s
happening and gosh, we hold these public meetings. The things are in the
paper and no one shows up. You can ' t force people to be there. You can' t
' force them to listen.
Watson : You have to tell them what they want to hear at the public
' meetings or they decide. . . If they can go and get the opinion that they
want at those public meetings.
Mady: I don ' t know how we can handle that but anyway, we have the
opportunity to do a few things on the trail plan. Those are my
priorities . Lori , I think you indicated to me that Minnewashta Parkway,
the rebuilding of that road was now further out in the future than the
' next 2 years .
Sietsema: Yes , it' s not going to be anytime soon .
' Mady: So there' s no reason to hope or wait for that. To me what we do is
there are some interested individuals in that area and maybe they want to
take the ball and run with it, so to speak.
' Boyt: Maybe we should hold a public hearing on this too.
' Hasek: I ' ll tell you what the opinion out there is. The people out there
want that trail to go first . They feel like, I think if they voted
against this whole thing it was because they were of the opinion that they
were going to be voting for trails in other parts of the city before they
' were going to get their own and they didn' t want to have to do that. It' s
ludicrous .
Sietsema: The logic of that just flew by me.
Hasek: I really honestly believe that that' s what happened. If we can' t
' be first, than we don ' t want anybody to have it. It ' s unfortunate but I
really honestly believe that' s what happened. I think there' s a very
drastic need out there . That' s why I pushed to get into Phase I but to
think that it' s going to be first is a pipe dream. It' s like they said,
' that road needs a lot of help and once that road gets rebuilt, than at
that point the trail goes in and we have to start pushing it. Start
hitting Public Safety Commission .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 22 '
Schroers : Who maintains that road?
Hasek: We do . It used to be a State Aid Road because it was a little ,
road connections but it was given back to the City. . .
Schroers : So that road is actually owned by the Street Department of
Chanhassen?
Hasek: Yes . That' s very unfortunate . I don' t think the road is within
the right-of-way. . . It' s been graded out of the right-of-way.
Schroers : If it belonged to the State or the County, we'd get the
neighborhood and residents involved along with the City to put some
pressure on them to improve the road and get the trail in right along with
it would probably be the best way to do that. Let' s give it back to the
State. '
Hasek: It wasn ' t a State. I think it was a County. I guess I feel like
maybe Jim and some of the other opinions that I ' ve heard here is it seems
to me that we ought to try and get those pockets of population that don' t
have circulations to schools and where they want to get. Get them
organized . I would say that if there ' s a trail within those areas that
tends to connect them to where they want to go within a neighborhood
that ' s fine for right now but it' s like Chan Estates crossing TH 5.
That' s the same as my neighborhood trying to cross TH 7 to get to a park .
Sietsema: And that will come with upgrading of TH 5. They' re planning to I
put in a way for people to get across that either by overpass or
underpasses .
Mady: Could we ask, we might have a little bit of money you could find in
our budget, ask for a survey of the road right-of-way on Minnewashta so at
least we have some indication of what we've got there? '
Hasek: I don't think we even have to ask for that. I think what we have
to do is we ought to petition the City to give us an accurate idea of
what' s going on out there and in some of the other areas in the City.
You' ve got topography for this City for crying out loud and you' re asking
developers to carry that ball . You look at what' s happening in other
communities and this metropolitan area , Chanhassen is becoming the
laughing stock. I think the city ought to survey their roads for their
own information, not the Park Board ' s or that the City is going to pay for
it. '
Boyt : If we could just request the City.
Mady: Ask the street department. If they' re looking at it they must have I
some idea . Maybe if you could request that a survey be done on that road
so we have some idea. We feel that' s a top priority and we need to have
some information before we can even hold a public meeting . I mean how can
you hold a public hearing when you don' t even know where the road is?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
1 November 22, 1988 - Page 23
1 Boyt : I don ' t want to put it number one on the priority list if those
people really don' t want it. They didn' t vote for it and I think we need
111 to hold a public hearing to find out , do they want it or don ' t they want
it?
Hasek: Exactly and I think you' ll find that they do want it . Like I
IIsaid, I believe that because it wasn' t number one stated on the plan. . .
Boyt : I think we' re still guessing as to why they voted . I think we need
Ito find that out and then we can go ahead and set our priority list.
Mady: We do have a petition with about 100 names from those people.
I You've got to remember , that precinct, Precinct 2 also includes a good
share of the land on the east side of Lake Minnewashta . There are a lot
of people who live along TH 7 there that are part of that area that don' t
really care if anything happens in the City because they identify
I themselves as Excelsior residents , not Chanhassen residents. So it' s
going to be very hard to look at the election results and really seperate
them out. Maybe a public hearing will be helpful . . .maybe 5 people who
I signed that petition a year and a half ago. I know sometimes petitions
aren' t a good feeling for what' s going on but at least we've got some
names there . Maybe we need to contact those people and invite them in
here to our meeting in December and say okay, we need some information.
IDo you or don ' t you? Talk to your neighbors . Let' s find out .
Boyt: Not the people on the petition but if we' re going to hold a public
I hearing and invite the people within a certain range of Minnewashta
Parkway.
I Watson: You do . It' s like 350 feet of where you' re proposing something
so it would be anybody within 350 feet of Minnewashta.
Sietsema: In this case it would be more than that. It would be the
Ipeople who are served that.
Hasek: You could go all the way across the north part of the lake then
I because actually part of the trail is to get people down to the Arboretum
as well .
I Boyt: We know it ' s a high priority to the Park and Rec Commission to get
Minnewashta Parkway taken care of .
Watson : But we' ve talked about it and talked about it . Maybe we should
I start having the public hearings . Find out what they want. Get the City
to go ahead and do some surveys . Find out where the road belongs. If it
is even remotely in the neighborhood of where it should be and where we
I could put a trail in . If we wanted to put a trail in before something ' s
done to that road, could we put a trail in safety not knowing that the
road is not going to destroy it at such time as the road is fixed .
I Sietsema: It' s going to come out of the Park Department if we have it
surveyed . It' s going to come out of our budget.
11
•
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 24 1
Hasek: I don' t think it has to. If it' s a public health, safety and
welfare issue, why in the world does the Park Board have to carry that?
Sietsema : Because we' re the ones who want to put the trail in there. If II
the street is just fine where it is , what do they need to have it surveyed
for?
Hasek: The City doesn' t know what the street is . The City has talked I
over and over again about making improvements on that road and if they' re
going to do that, then they' re going to have to have a survey so they' re
really operating from the same lack of information that we are at this
point .
Sietsema: But Engineering has indicated to me that they' re not going to
upgrade that road in the next 5 years.
Hasek: But the survey isn' t going to get old . I mean what' s the last one I
that we have on record? 1931 maybe.
Sietsema: But the point is , is that if we want the information, we' re
going to have to pay for it because Engineering doesn' t have any extra
money floating around either . If that isn' t a road that they' re going to
upgrade this year , they' re not going to go and do a survey for something
that they' re going to do 7 years from now. They' ll budget for that in '7
years and have the survey done then.
Hasek: Does Engineering do surveys for all of the public improvements
that they do or does it come out of the general fund?
Sietsema : It comes out of the engineering budget in the general fund .
Watson: If it' s not a priority, it' s not on the list.
Sietsema : But what I 'm saying is that Gary budgets for the projects that ,
he' s going to do and all the things that are in the scope of that project.
If Minnewashta Parkway isn' t going to be upgraded for 7 years , again , he
hasn' t budgeted for a survey to be done on Minnewashta Parkway now. So if II
we want that information, we' re going to have to pay for it . Maybe in 7
years they can buy it from us then when they do the road but. . .
Hasek: It' s public information and can be used . I
Sietsema : I know.
Hasek: Maybe we can work with them and get it done . Maybe they' ll be '
willing to kick in for their own information. Off the top of my head I 'm
saying we' re looking at $10, 000. 00 for survey that road . Especially when
it takes $400. 00 to get your lot surveyed.
Sietsema: It' s a lot of money.
Watson : That ' s why people will object to having a plat because it costs
so darn much money to get their property surveyed.
I
II
I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 25
Hasek: But it' s the piece of information that you need to begin to do all
Iof your work and here we are working without it.
Sietsema : So do we need the survey before we hold public hearings and
decide. . .?
IHasek: It would be interesting to have the survey in order to be at least
knowledgeable as to what we' re talking about. I definitely want to know
I where we may or may not have to acquire land or where we might have some
room and may not have some room.
I Mady: I was looking at the public hearing process , the first part just to
find out if we have the interest.
Hasek: I ' ll tell you, we do have the interest irregardless of what the
I election results show. The interest is there. What the people are going
to come here wanting to know is when are we going to build it. If we
don' t have enough information to tell them when we' re going to build them,
I we' re not going to get them on our side no matter what. It' s just not
going to happen. They don' t want to say yes to a trail that' s going to be
built 20 years from now and they' re living in the house today. They want
to see the trail . They've got a problem now with their kids that are on
I the road that can' t get to where they want to go . They could care less if
it' s built 5 years or 10 years from now. They want it built as soon as
possible. That ' s why I pushed so hard to get it into Phase I . I figure
I within the next 3 years , sometime we can start looking at that, that seems
to make some sense . That ' s rational . It' s reasonable and it' s something
that we can look forward to.
ISietsema : If the plan had been approved , I 'd go right out now and spend
the $10, 000. 00 to have it surveyed and hold the public hearings and work
towards doing it but , without knowing how much it' s going to cost to do it
I and without knowing for sure everybody that lives along Minnewashta
Parkway wants it and they' re not going to take us to Court for putting it
across their frontyard, without knowing a lot of those things, what do I
I do? Do I find out that everybody along there wants it and please see what
you can do to do it as soon as possible , sure. I ' ll go out and do a
survey and when I get that results , than I ' ll call you all back in and
I we' ll have another meeting and see exactly how it' s going to impact you .
Watson: That would be good .
II Sietsema: But I don' t know that we want to spend $10 , 000 .00 without
knowing that the 488 people that voted yes don' t live on Minnewashta
Parkway. Those 520 may be the ones that live directly adjacent to
I Minnewashta Parkway and they' re going to kick and hollar and scream all
the way behind the paver .
Mady: That ' s what I 'm looking for . We need to find out that first before
Il we spend.
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 26 '
Hasek: It certainly doesn' t hurt to have the public hearing . I guess I 'm II
a little apprehensive about what kind of information it' s going to give us
and how that will be interpretted by this Commission at this time. Maybe '
I 'm just over cautious.
Sietsema: What do we want to accomplish in the public hearing, the first
one, that we aren' t still interested in putting in a trail along 1
Minnewashta Parkway even though the trail plan failed? There are some
funding sources out there. Do you want it?
Hasek: Let me give you a scenario . Let' s say we fill the place with ,
people that say yes, we want the trail system. We want it so desparately
that we want it tomorrow. We don' t want it 5 years from now. We take
that information and say boy, they' re being unrealistic . We can' t do it
tomorrow. We know we can' t do it so that must mean they don' t want it
built. Would you think that? Or would you try to put it in 5 years from
now knowing that that isn' t really what they want anyway. '
Boyt : I don' t think we' re looking at 5 years . I think it' s tops on our
priority list. Do you think it will take 5 years to get it in?
Hasek: I don' t think you' re going to be able to put a trail down that
road without making major improvements to that road.
Sietsema: Another question you can find out from those people is are they II
willing to be assessed for it? We can do it next year if they' re willing
to be assessed for it.
Hasek: Why should they be assessed?
Sietsema: If they want it bad enough to pay for it. Do they want it that '
bad that they' re willing to pay for it themselves?
Hasek: I ' ll put myself into this . Let ' s say I lived there and I wanted
it really badly. Am I going to be assessed for it? Yes, I 'm willing to
pay for it . . .because there isn' t anybody else in town that' s been assessed
for it, why should I be assessed for something that should be my right as II
well as it should be everybody elses right .
Sietsema: It's a matter of getting it or not getting it. Or getting it
next year or maybe in 5 years or 20 years . I
Hasek: That's true but if I want a school in my neighborhood and there is
no school , do I have to pay for that school myself or is it the obligation II
of the community to help me pay for mine and I ' ll help them pay for
theirs?
Mady: We already tried a couple of times to get the whole community to do II
it and the whole community said no. So now we' re going to find out if
this one area wants it so bad , that' s one of the things we' re going to ask
them. Do you want it so bad, would you be willing to have it assessed
against you? Yes or no .
•
' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 27
' Watson: But I wouldn' t mind if there was a trail going through my front
yard that could take people down to Lake Ann, to connect to that park.
' That would be the problem. I wouldn ' t want to be assessed for that trail .
I don' t have any trouble getting down there and I guess I really wouldn' t
want to be assessed for it. I watch the people from Chaparral . . .go
through my front yard.
Boyt : I think we need to listen to that neighborhood . If they say we
want it in 2 years or we don' t want it, than that' s what we give them
' then . We give them that. If they say we want it anytime. We say we can
get it in. . .but we don' t want to be assessed but we don' t know what
they' re going to say to us .
' Hasek: You' re right.
Sietsema: I can' t believe that somebody would say if I can ' t have it next
year I don' t want it ever.
Hasek: It' s not that I don' t want it ever . It ' s just that the people
that are there want it now. They have the need now. My kid is going to
be 17 years old in 5 years . I won' t need it 5 years from now. I need it
today. I need this year. 5 years from now, I could care less about
building a trail for the next guy who lives in my house. My might not
have any kids . I 'm interested in building it for the children who are
there right now that need it . Today is kind of what I 'm looking at . I 'm
not looking at, I know that to ask for it tomorrow is impractical but I
' felt that the next 3 years was reasonable. Now what you' re telling me is
that the City isn' t even thinking about making improvements to that road
and like Larry, my gut reaction is that we' re not going to get that trail
' built without major improvements to that road. So if you' re talking about
anything that ' s beyond what I need , it' s outside of my range.
Schroers: I agree with that. It doesn' t even make good sense to me to
build a nice trail along that road . I think what we need to do , we do
need something to happen there in the immediate future and we should look
at maybe another way of getting it accomplished. I 'm wondering if the
City has any options or anyway of applying to the State or to the Federal
government for improvements on roadways when they don ' t have funds readily
available.
' Mady: They' ve already pledged the State Aid money for the next 2 years.
The Council did that about 2 months ago. All the State Aid money that the
City' s going to get for the next 2 years is already pledged to roads that
are going to be built.
Watson : Lake Lucy Road where we did get a trail and they went to Bluff
' Creek. It' s not that the use of those funds haven' t improved the system.
Sietsema: We do get State and Federal funds and they are being used but
they' re not allocated to go on these, on Minnewashta in the near future.
' Schroers : I would want to research that a little bit and find out if
there is a way that Minnewashta can be a priority.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 28 ,
Mady: I guess I 'm disagreeing with you guys in that I don' t really care
about the roadway. If the residents don' t want to pay to have the roadway ,
improved , that' s fine . They' re the people who have to drive up and down
it but to get the kids off the street, we can do something about that. We
do have funding sources available to do something about that. If we put a
nice trail next to a crumbling roadway, well , so the road' s crumbling . '
Schroers : As Park and Rec , could we do something in the way of a grant,
we call it Minnewashta Parkway but can we apply for some kind of a grant I
to make it a parkway? Do the street improvement with the plantings in the
middle somehow making us eligible for that type of a grant?
Sietsema : There' s not enough room for a boulevard down the middle of
that. There is enough room for the existing road and a bump in the road
and 5 foot trail next to it and that' s all that road right-of-way width,
that' s all we've got.
Hasek: How wide is that? That' s not 60 foot is it? Is it 40?
Sietsema: It' s bigger than we thought. With the topography in different
places , we can meander more than that but in some places that ' s exactly
what it' s going to be. I think it is a 60 foot right-of-way.
Boyt : If they put a new road in in 5 to 10 years and if they damage our
trail when they' re doing it, wouldn' t there be responsibility to fix that
trail?
Sietsema: Right . If we put it in next year , it would probably need to be
repaired or replaced in the next 7 to 10 years anyway.
Hasek: Tell me, just run through a quick number here to see what' s going
on. We' re guessing $10, 000.00 for a survey and I don' t think that that' s
far off at all . What did you figure for trails normally per mile? Is it I
$20,000.00? Let' s assume the worse case scenario. That would be a mile
and a half, a little more than that , so we' ll say $60, 000. 00 to build
that. How about acquisition? We don' t have dedicated trailway in there
so we' d have to buy the property.
Sietsema: We should be able to get it within the right-of-way. It ' s 60
foot right-of-way I 'm pretty sure but you've got some barriers in there.
You can get as much right-of-way adjacent to it as you want but without
mowing down big trees or filling in a big pond or part of Lake
Minnewashta , you' re not going to get it in there . '
Hasek: The part that I 'm thinking about is I guess adjacent to the lake
there. Right from probably a quarter , not even that, an eighth of a mile
north of . . .
Sietsema : It' s going to have to go on the other side from the lake.
Hasek: Then I know you've got. . .because those trees that are there are on I
the right of the property and there' s no way that you' ve got any road ,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22 , 1988 - Page 29
' there ' s only 6 feet between the edge of the road and those trees at that
point. That' s what I 'm saying. That road is climbing that hill or it' s
dropping down that hill and I don ' t think that road is , I think it' s close
to the center of that right-of-way and there' s no way you can build on the
side of the hill . Let' s just figure it will cost us $100, 000. 00 to put
that trail in down along Lake Minnewashta. That works out to
' approximately $100. 00 per voting household . No, per voter so it could be
as much as $200. 00 per household from people who want us to reduce taxes.
' Robinson : Good luck.
Hasek: How can you say that to the people who don' t want this as well as
the people who do and expect them to say yes, I want them? It' s just
impractical .
Sietsema: No , I don' t think assessment is the answer but I mean if they
all come in here and said they were willing to pay it.
Mady: But we don ' t know anything right now. That' s all I was saying .
' Hasek: I think you' re right. Even thought I 've got that reaction I think
they' ll be eager to come in.
'
•
Mady: Just point them out . Here' s the problem. Here' s our concerns .
Maybe we need to have them form their own task force so they can
investigate to see how they can get it done and come back to us or back to
' Council . I ' ll make the motion that we hold a public hearing on the
feasibility of Minnewashta Parkway to investigate the public ' s support on
a Minnewashta Parkway trail . Let them know that we have at this point in
time probably no way of doing it but we recognize the need and working can
get it done .
' Mady moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission hold a
public hearing to investigage the public' s support on the feasibility of
putting a trail along Minnewashta Parkway. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried.
Boyt : When we' re talking about public meetings , I was asked by a resident
' of southern Chan if we had discussed that in terms of park acquisition in
southern Chanhassen. They would like some input on parks . Parkland .
Where it is. What use it has so we might want to look at having a public
hearing on the southern area .
Sietsema: I definitely see that happening too . I have not contacted even
' the landowners yet of what we talked about last time so when we get more
information, so we have some options .
Boyt: It sounds like they have some ideas too about pieces of property.
Watson : Lori , in that article in the Sailor that talks about the boat
access on Lake Lucy, what is the timeframe for the public hearings on
r
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 30 I
that? '
Sietsema: We talked about that last time. I have it on the agenda to 11 update on that if you want to just wait.
Watson: Yes , I just read that article.
COMMISSION APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE.
Sietsema: The next item on the agenda is Commission appointment procedure I
and that was just to let you know what. . .
Watson: That you' re advertising and . . .December . '
Boyt: I have some sample questions and some sample criteria . When are we
going to discuss that? '
Sietsema : We can right now if you want.
Mady: I was hoping we could do that at our next meeting so everybody '
would know we should start thinking about that. His appointment is up in
January so. . .
Watson: That gives us some time to think about what .
Robinson: Do I have to reapply Lori? '
Sietsema : Yes .
Robinson: A formal application. Okay. ,
Mady: You have to be interviewed too.
Watson: He doesn' t have to fill out an application.
Sietsema: No, I can pull your old application but unless you want to II update it . So you want me to put something on the agenda for establishing
criteria and guidelines for selection?
Mady: Yes , so when we interview candidates we should have a set thing ,
that we ask everybody.
Boyt : I have something else . This is about Park and Rec sponsored
activities like Octoberfest and the 4th of July. If we' re going to be
included in working on those , I would like to have input into what is II going to happen here. I felt like we were manipulating the 4th of July by
someone else and we didn' t have information where it was going to be or
what was going to happen. Octoberfest, there were a number of us that
worked pretty hard there and that money went to the city staff fund which
is a nice fund but should we be working there if it' s not a park and rec
activity? It' s a city activity. We put a lot of hours into that.
II ,
I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 31
Mady: I ' ve also got on the school thing , the Halloween party, the firemen
I got a nice little pat on the back but we didn' t hear or see anything for
the Park and Rec .
Watson : You' re right. The firemen were so helpful .
ISietsema: In what?
IMady: In the Halloween party.
Boyt : In the newspaper they thanked the city staff and the fire
I department for the great party.
Sietsema: Who did?
IBoyt: The newspaper .
Mady: It just seems like, the Fire Department gets a lot of pats on the
I back and this is a question that I didn' t even have on here. I 've been
hearing a little bit of rumblings in the City of installing a firehall
racketball court. People lining up in town to fill all their open spaces
I who are friends of firemen . I want to find out about that a little bit.
Sietsema : Call Jim. That' s not a Park and Rec issue. You can call the
Public Safety Director and find out about it. I don ' t know a thing about
II it.
Mady: I 'm hearing things on why they' re trying to take .up all the time
I and now wait a minute, if they' re going to do something, opening it up to
firemen, they better . . .otherwise we've got enough things going on in the
city to worry about.
Boyt : Have you gotten 30 applications in yet Lori?
Sietsema: No.
IMady: I have a couple other things. Ed asked for an update on the Lake
Ann grading plan so I asked Lori to bring that along .
IHasek: How' s that coming?
I Sietsema: I talked to Lori this week and they are working on the grading
plan. We should be seeing it in our first meeting in January. We' ll see
the grading plan . This is just what you saw in your packets when we
approved the site plan. The first page is just a blob drawing of where
I different activities would go and then the second one is what we actually
approved . The major change in that from what we had looked at before is
moving the soccer field off of TH 5 over to the side there. The reason
I that that was done is because Lori really felt that our current entrance
into Lake Ann with that berm, you drive in and that berm just buffers you
in there so you feel like you' re away from everything . You don ' t hear
traffic. You don' t see traffic. You' re in the park and you' re away from
I
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 32 '
all of those intrusions . That was a nice, beautiful feature and she was
really relunctant to taking that out for a soccer field. Since it fit in
over in the elbow of that right-of-way, she thought that was appropriate
to put it there.
Mady: So you guys are aware, from the Community Center Task Force, one of
the members there has been really pushing for having this thing built on
the Lake Ann Park as it exists even though there are problems with no
sewer being available for another 10 years. He wanted to see us move all
fields and everything down toward the lake in that wooded area. We tried II
as best we could to explain to him that 's not really a feasible option.
We keep hearing comments out there about why don' t we do this or that. We
do have some people who don' t quite understand what the Lake Ann Park is . '
Okay. A question Lori , on the City Center Park play equipment, have we
gotten any contract from APT as to some indication that they will put
$10, 000. 00 towards the play equipment being . . .
Sietsema: They' re talking about it a lot and that they've heard rumors
that Park and Rec has budgeted some money but nobody' s contacted me and I
haven' t contacted anybody over there yet. '
Boyt : We don ' t know where it' s going to go yet.
Sietsema : That was just the point is that if the Community Center is
built on that site , it would have a big bearing on where that would go .
Mady: I think we need to contact them and find out what in the world
they' re trying to do. If there' s $10, 000. 00 worth of equipment, we all
know how much that buys.
Boyt : They would like to work with us . '
Mady: We need to get heads together on that. You mentioned the Carrico
land . Have you gotten anything? '
Sietsema: We got the appraisal back today and I haven' t looked at the two
separate pieces very closely. I ' ll put that on the next agenda . '
Boyt : Has anything been done about Mike' s. . .
Sietsema: I believe it' s on order but it takes quite a while. '
Mady: So we won' t get it until . . .
Boyt: Until the new Council is seated? '
Sietsema: I ' ll have to check on it . I don' t know if it ' s going to be in
by the 12th or not and that' s the last Council meeting.
Boyt : I would still like to host something afterwards.
Mady: Two other things I had . We' re getting close to the first of the
year . We have to start thinking about goals and objectives for the next
11
•
! ,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' November 22 , 1988 - Page 33
year . What we'd like to see us accomplish in the next year . We kind of
have done that with our budget. We should start thinking about that maybe
the last meeting in December to figure out where we want to head next
year.
Sietsema: There will only be one meeting in December unless you want to
meet Christmas week but I won' t be here.
Watson : Can we change the date of the meeting?
Sietsema: You mean the 13th?
' Boyt : Well , the 13th is fine.
Robinson: Lori , would it be helpful to put something like this in the
paper? Would that be informative to people and give them a little update
on Lake Ann?
Boyt : Mary Durben asked for information from the Park and Rec . She said
she would like to start covering it.
Mady: That was an idea I had over the weekend was the possibility of
maybe like once a month the Chair or somebody should write a letter to the
citizens and have it posted in the paper saying , here' s what happened in
the Park and Recover the last month. On the community center thing ,
there ' s still a lot of people talking about Lake Ann Park.
' Watson: As a good place to put it .
Mady: I had to point out to a couple individuals that one, the voters in
this town already approved redoing of Lake Ann Park. How do you now take
all that money away from doing that?
Sietsema: Council can do that. Just because the voters approved it
doesn ' t mean the Council has to spend it .
' Mady: The last thing I had on here, something the Planning Commission
does from time to time and that is to have the Chair position is kind of a
floating chair between Ladd and Steve Emmings. I just wanted to see you
guys doing that if that' s something .
' Boyt: I 'd like to see it rotate between everyone on the Commission
myself.
Mady: I don ' t mind .
' Boyt : We could get a different flavor to each meeting.
Watson: It would certainly be a different flavor but do we need it?
Sietsema: I' ll let you guys work that out . If you want to talk about
that before each meeting or whatever . I don' t care. I don' t think that' s
something that planning staff schedules or anything .
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 34
Mady: No, but it' s something that whoever the next chair is going to be,
should know before the meeting so they can get some ideas and thoughts
together .
Sietsema: Did you want to make a motion on that?
Mady: I just want some input .
Hasek: I think that ' s fine.
Mady: Do you want to do that alphabetically?
Hasek: I think you should know before the meeting but I don' t think you
should know anymore in advance. It seems to me like it would be real
easy, think about Council for example, if you' re sitting on the Council
and you had the opportunity to chair the meeting, which issues that you'd II
want to be on that agenda or at least try to pop them in? I think if you
know the week beforehand, or just the meeting beforehand just decide.
Mady: Yes, the meeting beforehand . Who hasn' t done it yet and who' s 1
next?
Sietsema: But I don' t think that if you' re not comfortable being a chair II
that you should have to be.
Hasek: That' s why we can put a schedule together . '
Boyt: We might as well try it once.
Sietsema: At the last meeting I talked about the Lake Riley chain of
lakes clean-up project and that everything was on hold until this big
magical meeting was held . To give you the history, evidentally, the whole II
project is a grant project. A federal grant project. It' s a million
dollar project that the federal , let' s see , it' s PCA, Pollution Control
Agency is funding and the local unit is the Watershed District. Watershed
District has asked Eden Prairie and Chanhassen to participate in some of ' `
the funding which would be for developing the work plan so we have kicked
in about $10,000. 00 each to do this work plan and the PCA is paying the
rest. The actual work that' s going to be done is going to be done by DNR II
so the feds are paying $500, 000. 00 and the DNR is paying $500,000.00.
Eden Prairie, Watershed and Chanhassen are paying about $10, 000. 00. They
met and got things going in January. The biggest thing that had to be II done was this substate agreement. In the meantime, DNR and PCA said that
they can ' t do any work or any rehabilitation on any lake that doesn' t have
public access. So that meant they had to come back to Chanhassen and
request us to put access on Lake Susan and Lake Lucy. I met with those
people in June and we got commitment from the City Council that yes, they
would indeed commit to the project by putting access on Lake Lucy and Lake
Susan and we got the grant for Lake Susan so we' re halfway there. We then II
held the one public hearing for the Lake Lucy access but we never got the
grant, the substate agreement back from PCA or actually the state level
1 ,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 35
which is EPA, that said we do indeed have the grant, or Watershed has
gotten approval for this. They couldn' t go ahead with the work plan until
' they know that they have the grant . I wasn ' t going to hold more public
hearings and rattle everybody' s chain and get them all riled up if we
didn' t get the grant so I didn' t have to have access. PCA meanwhile
contacts EPA and says there' s been no activity on this since January.
Spend the money somewhere else or give it back to us . So they held this
big meeting last week with all of the people who were involved and it
turns out that EPA, the State level has been sitting on the substate
agreement because they've had other projects that have been on the front
burner and they put ours on the back burner . They have to let them know
by the 30th of November how they' re going to spend all this money and
they' re not going to be able to do it . So, what they' re going to do is
give the money back, or allocate the money to other projects in the hope
that they get refunded in 1989 for this million project. So it ' s still up
in the air.
Hasek: Where does the responsibility for the failure of this thing lie?
With the EPA or our inability to get an access?
Sietsema: EPA. Because they got all the information. They said we need
to know where you' re going to have access and we need to know it by
November 1st . I said there' s no way that I can tell you on Lake Susan or
on Lake Lucy where and when we' re going to have access by November 1st.
First of all it ' s going to take a lot of public hearings. I don' t know if
I 've got LAWCON grant approval . There's a number of steps that I 've got
' to go through. I can get commitment that we will pursue access but I
can' t tell you all the details. So I sent them a schedule of our public
hearings. Of the LAWCON process and the whole thing . They evidentally
have some problems with our schedule and they don' t know if that
commitment is binding enough for them to allocate the money but they never
told me. That was last week when I went to that meeting was the first I
heard that there was a problem with the schedule . So they've been sitting
on it and it may jeopardize the whole thing but the bottom line is, is
that they' ve allocated the $50, 000. 00 to do the work plan and they' re
going to put the money into other projects and hope that it gets all
approved so they can do the project in 1989 . It looks like that is a
likely think to happen but it' s not guaranteed. So we really don' t know
for sure if the whole project is funded until January 17th .
' Watson: So we won' t be doing any public hearings on Lake Lucy until after
that time? If this is the only catalyst is to have accesses on Susan and
Lucy, than we don' t need to worry about it until after that. If the
access is going to be an issue regardless of whether this other . . .
Sietsema: No. See there' s no way that I feel we should pursue access
on Lake Lucy if this grant isn ' t approved . I told them that. I said flat
out, I 'm not going to pursue this any further until I know that you've got
a grant and we have to have it because it ' s a small lake and it doesn' t
need an access except for you guys to go in there and kill all the fish
' and restock it. But I do have to go through the process enough if the
LAWCON deadline is pushed up.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
November 22, 1988 - Page 36 '
Hasek: Am I to understand that the City Council gave approval to pursue
access and this whole project?
Sietsema: Yes , and we had a public hearing on that.
Hasek: When you had the public hearing it basically told us that we
didn ' t want, the people didn' t want it . Right? 1
Mady: The people who lived around the lake didn' t necessarily want it.
They didn' t know where it should go and they didn' t know about the fact
that. . .didn' t understand how anyone who ran for City Council could make
that comment when there was only one person who ran in the election this
last time, outside of the current people who are on the city commissions ,
who has even been to one of our meetings. How would they even know how
they operate?
Sietsema: Don Chmiel has been. '
Mady: He' s the only one. He was the only one who ran, he was the only
one who' s been here. None of the other people who ran, not just the
people who ran were attuned to our needs yet they made those comments
about communication and not being open to the people in the community.
Watson : That' s election rhetoric . It happens . It goes along with. . . '
Mady: But I 'm just saying. . .
Hasek: I think that some of the people that are elected are going to be
rudely awakened.
Mady: It really bothered me. I know I 'm on record right now but it '
really bothered me when Tom Workman said in the paper, in the Villager and
his comment was "throw the bums out" . He said it twice now in the paper
and he says well , maybe that' s not him saying it but when the man says it
twice, there' s something up here in his head and I think he should be in
these chambers 3 or 4 months in a row and find out what it' s like to be
under the gun sometimes . I think he' s going to change because we' re not
bums up here. I don' t know a commissioner in this or a councilmember who
doesn ' t do the best job he thinks he can do. We don' t always agree . We
don' t always agree with the Council and the Council doesn' t always agree
with us but everyone of us is giving at least 100% everytime we' re up
here.
Watson : I think the fascinating thing too is it doesn' t matter who you
are, you are one vote. You never get your . . .and it' s almost like there' s
this feeling that once you get here you' ve suddenly. . .you' re one vote.
You never get anymore or any less.
Mady moved , Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim