1v. Minutes II
//V 1-17
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 11, 1988
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara
Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori Sietsena, Jim Chaffee, and Todd Gerhardt
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: Roger Knutson wanted to
discuss a land transfer and Councilman Geving wanted to discuss the Metropolitan
Goose Hunt. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendation:
' d. Resolution #88-67: Approval of Change Order No. 1 for Public Works Garage.
e. Resolution #88-68: Approval of Change Order No. 2 for Ground Storage
Reservoir.
k. Resolution #88-69: Resolution Eliminating Plan Check Fees for Construction
' Projects Valued at less than $3,000.00.
1. Set Special Meeting Date for Assessment Hearings.
m. Resoltuion #88-70: Approve Contract for Lake Ann Park Expansion, OSM.
n. Approval of Development Contract for Minnewashta Meadows.
o. Approval of Accounts.
p. City Council Minutes dated June 27, 1988
' Planning Commission Minutes dated June 1, 1988 and June 15, 1988
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 28, 1988
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' CONSENT AGENDA: (A) APPROVAL OF MCGLYNN BAKERY GRADING PLAN.
Councilman Johnson: On 1(a) I've got, I'd like to add a condition 11 and I'd
also like to make a comment on the fact that the hours of operation, 6:30 to
11:00 p.m., we have 4 people living around there. It wouldn't have been that
tough to go and talk to those 4 people. I did stop and talk to Jim McMahon
today and he diverted the conversation elsewhere so I never really got an answer
MO from him as to whether he was too objectionable to that or not. I think that
would have been very simple to do with only 4 or 5 families to contact and ask
1 1
118 IICity Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
them beforehand. I
Mayor Hamilton: Is there some reason that condition 11 that you're wanting to
impose should be placed on this developer and not others?
Councilman Johnson: In fact I'm going to be hoping to put this on most every
developer. I'm talking to staff on adding this as kind of a standard condition.
I've observed this in several construction sites already. The condition that
I'm asking to add is about motor oil. Originally it was just motor oil and than
I expanded it as I got thinking about it. What I've seen at other sites is the
maintenance crew for the big bulldozers come out. They drop the bolt out of the
bottom of the engine and dump the oil on the ground and pull the oil filters
off. Leave them on the ground and then they change the oil on their equipment.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have some way that you think we're going to be able to
enforce this?
Councilman Johnson: As well as we can enforce any other condition we put on
into the other 10 conditions.
Mayor Hamilton: I think a lot of them are very easily enforceable and this one '
is going to mean that you're going to have someone at the site everyday
inspecting the ground where their tractors have been. It just seemed to me that
it's one that's going to be very, very difficult to enforce. It's not a bad
idea but it's very difficult to enforce.
Councilman Johnson: Anyway, I'd like to add it anyway. Let me read it into the
record then. Condition 11, any used motor oil, hazardous waste, hazardous
material or recyclable material resulting from the maintenance of equipment or
discovered on site will be removed from the site and treated and disposed of in
a manner consistent with the Carver County hazardous waste ordinances and State
of Minnesota laws, rules and regulations as applicable. It's kind of a general.
If you change your oil on site, you're going to do something other than to stick
it in the ground and if you do other maintenance with solvents, you're going to
do something with it. Or if you discover barrels while you're digging, you run
into barrels, you're going to do something with them versus moving them.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's common practice. '
Councilman Johnson: It certainly should be but it's kind of just a warning that
we'll keep an eye on it. 1
Councilman Geving: I guess I don't appreciate getting a major amendment to a
construction contract at this stage in the game. If it were a one time deal
that's one thing but this is something that you intend to apply across the board
and I think we need to talk about these kinds of changes rather than apply them
the night that we're going to approve a grading, drainage and erosion control
plan. That's all I have.
Councilman Horn: I'm wondering why he's limiting it to resulting from the
maintenance of equipment. This leaves it wide open for any other type of thing '
that's not related to the maintenance.
Councilman Johnson: Or it says, or discovered on site.
2 1
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 I_ 19
Mayor Hamilton: Such as?
Councilman Horn: Such as? Well, any other types of materials that you might
use in construction that would be dangerous that would be stored on there. Not
necessarily the maintenance. There might be some penta work preservatives or
something in that category.
Mayor Hamilton: I think he's included hazardous waste and hazardous material.
' Wouldn't that cover it?
- Councilman Horn: That's true but my point is, it's resulting from the
maintenance of equipment. I'm saying that's really not necessary. You want it
' be all inclusive. Whether it's used for that or anything else. Anything that's
on the site should be fair game.
Councilman Johnson: I agree with you. After material strike, resulting from
maintenance of equipment or discovered on site. So just say material will be
removed from the site and treated so the two low conditions.
' Councilman Horn: Right.
Councilman Boyt: It would seem to me that this is already covered by State
' Statute and EPA and all we're doing is putting in something that already exists
in the State level into a development contract. How does that change our
ability to enforce it?
IiMayor Hamilton: This is not in the development contract. It's one of the
conditions of the approval.
' Councilman Boyt: Real similar kind of thing.
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't increase our ability to enforce it but it puts
' notice upon the contractor that we're concerned about it and that we'll be
looking for it. If that thought did cross somebody's mind as to whether, let's
change our oil or whatever. Right now it's a common practice it seems to me.
I've seen it several places in town where they changed the oil on the bulldozer,
it's just drained out onto the property.
Councilman Boyt: I agree We've talked about this before and I certainly
support what you're doing. My question is, isn't it already available to us in
the same extent that we're saying?
Councilman Johnson: It's just a preventative measure.
Mayor Hamilton: Anything else on 1(a)? If not a motion would be in order to
accept it with the additional condition.
Councilman Johnson: I move we accept item 1(a) with conditions 1-10 and
condition 11 as presented here and as modified.
Councilman Horn: I'll second it.
Mayor Hamilton: I'll just make one further comment that I would hope the City
3
x.20
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 II
or the developer will notify all surrounding property owners. All of them. The
studio and the people at Kerber's. The nursery. There are several residents
around there and notify everybody so they know what the hours of operation are
going to be.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the McGlynn Bakery
Grading Plan with the 10 conditions as outlined by staff with the addition of
the following condition:
11. Any used motor oil, hazardous waste, hazardous material or recyclable ,
material will be removed from the site and treated or disposed of in a
manner consistent with Carver County hazardous waste ordinances and State
of Minnesota laws, rules and regulations as applicable. ,
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Gary Warren: One clarification. Is it Council's desire then that we include
this condition into our general conditions?
Mayor Hamilton: I think that should be put on for discussion.
Gary Warren: Roger and I will put something together and make reference to
State Statute. '
CONSENT AGENDA: (B) APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH BRAUN TESTING FOR ROAD RATINGS.
Mayor Hamilton: I just wanted to ask a question I guess more than anything. A
comment in here that there are several roads that we know are bad and we're
going to have tested. If we already know they're bad, why do we need to waste
money testing them to tell us that they are bad like we already know? It seems
like we're wasting money here.
Gary Warren: Bad is maybe a bad choice of words. Several of the roads, '
especially the present Minnewashta Parkway, we expect to have bad spots which
are going to require maybe total excavation, soil correction work whereas other
areas which we'll be able to, will only need a minimum upgrade such as the 1 or
2 inch overlay. The utility of this type of inspection is for us to be able to
get that type of a reading on any of the roads here that we consider to be in
non-sealcoating or on nonmaintenance type of a category so we don't just
blatantly remove courses of road that really don't need. Also, this does give
us the depth of the overlay, 1 inch, 2 inch or whatever that will save us some
dollars down the road.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I wasn't clear. It seemed like we were just having
them tell us something that we already knew.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Contract with
Braun Testing for Road Ratings as presented by the City Manager. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
4
II
121
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
CONSENT AGENDA: (F) WOODCREST SUBDIVISION.
Councilman Johnson: I think this duplicates what's probably in the development
contract on 1(f) . The way condition number 2 ended, the last sentence on it
was, all erosion control shall remain intact until an established vegetation
cover has been produced. Leaving it at that point some developers may be
inclined to go on their way as soon as their vegetative cover is produced, in
their opinion, go out and remove their erosion control so what I'm suggesting
we're add to the end of that sentence is, and the City Engineer approves their
' removal. In the development contract I believe what we say is the City will do
the removal. I think we worked out some way to where the developer could also
do the removal with your blessing.
' Gary Warren: With one exception on Woodcrest.
Councilman Johnson: And this is Woodcrest isn't it?
Gary Warren: Yes. From the data here, actually erosion control and some of
these are thoroughly covered in our general conditions. The wording is more
' appropriate in the general conditions because we spent more time with it there
and this is almost redundant.
' Mayor Hamilton: I would think so since we're the ones that are removing it. It
seems to me we're not going to remove it until we approve it to be removed.
Gary Warren: And that is in the development contract.
1[ Councilman Johnson: What I didn't want is the two conditions to be different.
' Gary Warren: When we actually compile the development contract, we get rid of
the redundancies and we put them in here so that there are key...that Council is
aware that we haven't missed or forgotten about. Sometimes it's hard to
remember whether we got everything.
Councilman Johnson: So do you have a problem with adding it?
' Gary Warren: It's really already covered in the general conditions.
Councilman Johnson: Of the development contract?
- Gary Warren: Right. -
- Councilman Johnson: It is at the discretion of the City.
Mayor Hamilton: I would approval of item 1(f) .
' Councilman Geving: Second.
Councilman Boyt: I have a comment before we rush into a vote here. On the tree
removal plan, I would like some assurance. When I read in Staff comments that
the proposed grading plan calls for the removal of all trees within the northern
half of the lots, I get nervous. I know we had discussion as it also notes in
staff comments that this will go through DNR and City Engineer approval. I want
to be reassured that they're not going to come in and just wipe the trees off
' 5
122
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 II
the northern half of the lot. That's on the last paragraph on the first
Pag e.
Councilman Johnson: The plans have always shown the entire areas to be regraded '
with a couple of fills. The entire north half of the lot except for maybe one
lot. I think I pointed that out last time.
Councilman Boyt: I thought that's where we got into the restraints about having
that approved before they were cut.
Councilman Horn: That's under 8(b) isn't it? A tree removal plan will be '
reviewed by the DNR forester.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. That's what we talked about earlier. Does that give us
the protection we need Gary?
Councilman Johnson: What do you think we're going to actually see there? Do
you think there will be any trees standing?
Gary Warren: I think you're right in that there will be a lot of trees removed
because that's where the storm sewer is going to be going. With the amount of
slope along the roadway there, in order to establish reasonable building pads to
handle the amount of material with side slopes and there will definitely be a
lot of trees removed.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geeing seconded to approve the Plans and
Specifications and the Development Contract for Woodcrest Subdivision as I
presented by the City Manager. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
CONSENT AGENDA: (H) AUTHORIZE INTERIM SEWER AND WATER SERVICE, BEDDOR
PROPERTY, WEST 184TH STREET AND TH 5. '
Councilman Johnson: I was going to pull it and I found out that the proposer
wants it pulled also until they can be here. Later on tonight. They weren't
able to make it here at this time. They want to change what they're proposing
here to us anyway and not ask for quite so much as what is here. What I was
pulling it for was the fact that there was not a clear concise statement in the
recommendation on the report. It just blended in within the report. I think
I understand the recommendation but on a consent agenda item I'd like to see the
last paragraph saying exactly what the recommendation is. That way there's no
argument from anybody at the end but I'd like to hold this one off until the
applicant gets here. I assume the applicant's not here yet. This is the Beddor
property.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I had a comment on this one also. I was a little ,
surprised to see that the item was on to authorize the interim sewer and water
service and then in the report is suggested that we deny allowing this to be
done. I think it should be stated in the consent that this be denied not '
approved.
Councilman Geving: It's the approval of the denial.
[:
6 1
123
ICity Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: That's not the way it comes across. The way I read (h) is,
we're authorizing interim sewer and water but the report does say that you
Irecommend that we deny it.
Gary Warren: I apologize for that. When we went to publishing the item, at
I that time we hadn't all the details for the sewer service and I was presuming
that we weren't going to have a problem because I was led to believe that there
was capacity built into the system. However, after looking into it a little bit
further we do, as I laid out in the staff report, have some constraints that we
I need to work with. I did have a phone call discussion with Mr. Darrell Fortier
from Frank Beddor's operation and he clarified to me that actually their request
for a commitment from the City was a little bit, what should I say, less
harmless than what I first reacted to in that all that they're asking at this
time is that any excess capacity, if any that we would have in our system at the
time that this property, which could be even a year or two down the road, at the
I time that this property was coming up for development, that if the City could
commit that yes, if we did have excess capacity after looking at our Park One
commitments, that we would be agreeable to servicing that property. Not that we
would just wait and say hey, we're going to service you. They understand that
1 we have commitments and such to the existing Park One development in which Mr.
Beddor obviously has an interest.
I Mayor Hamilton: So Darrell is going to be here to present some additional
information?
I i
Gary Warren: Darrell is going to be here and Bill Smith to clarify the
discussion and their letter request, yes. He thought that he probably couldn't
be here until after 8:30.
I Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table this item until later
in the agenda per the applicant's request. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
ICONSENT AGENDA: (I) AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE BIDS FOR 1988 STREET SEA
LCOATING
PROJECT.
ICouncilman Geving: We had authorized 2 mils for this operation. Over the last
4 or 5 years we've done a pretty good job in the city. I have no problem with
I what you're requesting Gary except that you're asking for $42,000.00 and we do
have $110,000.00 available. One of the things that I would like to see is a
complete schematic of all the work that we have completed to date by roads and
subdivisions and all the plans that you might have for the use of this 2 mils
over the next several years so that we complete all of the projects that we have
planned in the long term. I guess what I was looking for here is a map showing
just exactly what we have done and where we are going with the problem and how
are we going to spend the roughly $60,000.00 that will be not utilized for
sealcoating. Could you comment on that?
IL Gary Warren: We do have a complete map that hangs on the wall in my office and
I apologize for not including that, which does show per year what we have done.
That is what we looked at to review this year's programs. The difference in the
dollars from the $60,000.00 plus that looks like we wouldn't be utilizing for
Isealcoating this year, we are looking to utilize in some form of overlay project
7
u
128
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1255 2(A) AND 2(C) TO PERMIT
LARGER ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRED 4 SQ. FT., DATASERV.
[—I '
Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody need any additional information on this?
Councilman Boyt: No.
Councilman Geving: If we're going to vote, on the recommended change, I'd like
to ask why you put in residential properties? Does that have any value in the
IOP? In this case there aren't any usually in the areas. I'd like to strike
that word and just let it read, affect adjacent properties. Council have any
problem with that? I just want to strike residential and leave it read,
adversely affect adjacent properties of the general appearance of the site. No
other comments.
Mayor Hamilton: That's in Section 2.
Councilman Geving: Section 2(c) .
Roger Knutson: Is that in both sections? The word residential?
Councilman Geving: Yes. The word residential is in both (a) and (c) .
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Section 20-1255 2(a)
and 2(c) as amended. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 1 '
ADOPTION OF LAKE LUCY ROAD ASSESSMENT ROLL.
Mayor Hamilton: This item was carried over from the pervious council meeting
g
and there were some questions at that time that hopefully have all been
answered. Is there any Don that you think need to be addressed? Since I missed
that meeting, perhaps you could...
Councilman Geving: Maybe I could fill you in for a moment Mr. Mayor. We had a
good discussion on the 27th. received approximately 7 letters questioning
various areas of the assessment roll and that night we gave back to our staff a
number of these comments and asked that they research the questions that were
posed by the residents. I believe our file tonight would show that. I would I
hope that in every case where there was a resident who submitted a letter or
asked a question, that we record it in the official Minutes that they will
receive a response just like we received here at the Council tonight. That's
the extent of our comments to date and then I also asked as a part of the
comments to see if there was any other way that we could either defer the
assessments. Someone had suggested on the Council that it was a possibility
that we defer these assessments for a particular individual who may have a large
amount of frontage. We did get an Attorney's opinion on that and that is part
of our package. Then today I suggested to our engineer that possibly we could
extend the period of time from 8 years to 10 years. I didn't have the results
of that request but that's about where we're at Mr. Mayor. 61
Mayor Hamilton: And were you able to find out anything about the 10 year
extension?
10 I 1
I ' City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
129
Don Ashworth: I did that. I handed out this evening a sheet that shows the
107 effects of deferring the assessment. What occurs is the city continues to need
to pay those bonds. I used $120,000.00 as a total deferment amount. If the
Council deferred or changed all of than from 8 to 10 years, that amount would
really be $200,000.00 so it would mean in the first years instead of being the
' $3,000.00 showing, you would have to levy $5,000.00, $4,500.00, $4,100.00. That
would taper down to the year 1995 and then at that point you would actually be
receiving assessments back even though the bonds had already been paid. In
' those years we would receive $23,021.00 even though we had already paid the
bonds off two years prior to that date.
' Mayor Hamilton: Does that answer your question?
Councilman Geving: Yes.
' Mayor Hamilton: Do you have any other comments?
Councilman Geving: I don't have any other comments.
' Councilman Johnson: What does that do to somebody with $1,000.00 assessment?
With this going from 8 years to 10 years dollarwise do for them? Do you have
any idea on that?
Don Ashworth: Again, all of the figures are relative so instead of saying
$120,000.00, if you wanted to make it $1,200.00, then the payment would be
$258.00 in comparison to $228.00 so the individual then would be paying an extra
$25.00. It would be $25.00 less.
Councilman Geving: The reason I asked for that, we did receive at least one
letter requesting this very action and then I was thinking of several of the
people who had very large assessments and seemed to feel that if this were
extended out several more years, it might be to their benefit. I don't know. It
goes both ways.
Councilman Boyt: It strikes me that we're caught in a difficult position. We
' have a bill to pay that our auditors and attorney are telling us that this would
adversely impact on our bond rate, if I read that correctly. So on the one hand
we have people who are facing potential payments here of $18,000.00, single
individuals, which seems like a fairly high assessment to me. It looks as
' though we have no means of giving relief to those people. It seems to me if
we're talking about merely extending it from 8 years to 10 years, that it's
hardly worth the effort. Is that the best we can do and does even doing that
' then give us a negative impact on our bond rating? Don, does this adversely
affect our bond rating if we do it this way?
t Don Ashworth: Not if we would make the yearly levies that are shown on there
that I would propose. In other words, if you moved the entire schedule what it
would amount to is this next fall, staff would have to make sure that we levy
that $5,000.00. The following year, $4,500.00, etc.. As long as that were
done, then in looking at any one of those funds, you would not find a deficit
that I had eluded to in this report, or that the auditor had.
Councilman Boyt: So this is a possible option then? It seems reasonable but is
11
130 IICity Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
it significant? Do we have any people here that we might find out if they are
interesting in reducing their assessment plan?
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'm not clear that it reduces it. The payment is
actually higher if extended for 2 years longer.
Councilman Johnson: They'll pay more interest in the long run.
Councilman Boyt: More interest but it will be less per month.
Mayor Hamilton: Their payment will be a little bit less per month. Maybe
$30.00.
Councilman Boyt: So if you had an $18,000.00 assessment though, wouldn't that
amount to a good bit more per month?
Mayor Hamilton: It depends on your philosophy and how you like to pay those
things I guess.
Councilman Boyt: Can we offer this option and people can take a choice as to '
what schedule they want to pay off of.
Mayor Hamilton: There are several people here who are interested in this and
had made comments at the last meeting. Perhaps we could take a couple of
comments to see some of those who may be affected, whether you would rather have
it on an 8 year or 10 year, just to give us an idea of what some of your
thinking might be. Does anybody want to volunteer?
Don Mezzenga, 6731 Galpin Blvd.: Mr. Mayor, there are lots of questions brought
up at the last meeting that weren't given proper answers. If I may take a few
minutes, I would just like to review my objections to the assessment so those
points are very clear. May I do that?
Mayor Hamilton: If they're the same questions you made last time, I guess
everybody has heard them.
Don Mezzenga: They're a little better organized this time. I've had a week to
think about it and getting some help.
Mayor Hamilton: Be very brief I guess. '
Don Mezzenga: I'll be as brief as I can. There are three points. One, I
question the assessment of $22.00 per foot for the folks in our area. People on '
the west end of Lake Lucy Road. As I understand it from the Phase 1, the people
there were assessed $11.00 per foot because they had an existing road, therefore
less preparation and so on. We on the west end also had an existing road 67
road was there and the road had less work. We're assessed twice that which the
people were assessed on the east end for the same requirements. Point two,
Councilman Geving gave the only justification for my being assessed $18,000.00
for my piece of property and that was that he thought, he thought it was worth
it. Now that's kind of a nebulous answer. But his answer was food for thought
so I went to someone who does this for a living. My piece of property has a
very fine road to the west, County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard. It had a very
nice gravel road to the north which is not Lake Lucy Road. I asked this
12 '
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 131
assessor, this appraiser, how much has my property gained in value due to that
road? Now I had a road to the north. I still have a very good road to the
west. I mentioned after he gave me the answer that I was assessed $18,000.00.
This is an objective person. Don't know the man from Adam. He doesn't see
where you can justify assessing the road, that piece of property $18,000.00.
' The land value hasn't increased that much. The land was there before. The two
roads were there before. The third point is the one that's kind of a sore spot
with me and that is, some of the developed areas, for example the Pheasant Hills
area has some 50 homes. 50 homes. The total assessment for 50 homes was
' $9,600.00. Those people, those 50 homes use that new road to live. I'm one
farmer on the corner. I don't use the road. Never have used the road. If I
want to develop my land, I'll use CR 117. It's a much better road. The new
' road with the very horrible inclines they produced because they raised the bed,
makes access, at least the road for me if I were a developer, very poor. Let me
repeat that now. 50 homes, 50, were assessed totally $9,600.00. My one home,
' $18,400.00. This is a horrible injustice.
Mayor Hamilton: How many feet do you have on Lake Lucy Road?
Don Mezzenga: I don't know. I'm sure the City Engineer could tell you exactly.
Mayor Hamilton: How many feet does Pheasant Hill have on Lake Lucy Road?
' Don Mezzenga: I don't know that.
Mayor Hamilton: Zero. Just so everybody knows what we're talking about.
Don Mezzenga: Do they use the road?
' Mayor Hamilton: Everybody in town can use that road.
Don Mezzenga: Must they use the road?
Mayor Hamilton: No they must not.
' Don Mezzenga: Do they use it more than I?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. I have no idea how much they use it. The people
who live in Pheasant Hills do not have to use that road.
' Don Mezzenga: The point remains, there's a tremendous injustice here. I hope
that you men would put your collective heads together and try to resolve a
' horrendous injustice.
Mayor Hamilton: If we were to extend the original question was, we were trying
to find out if you or others were interested in extending it two year. The
' payment period. In favor of 8 years. 10 years.
Don Mezzenga: An extension would simply cost me a great number of more dollars.
I don' t need that. I appreciate your thinking about it. It's a valid
alternative.
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, when you build a road to a standard somewhat to Lake Lucy
Road, what does it cost per foot?
11 13
sis
1-3gty Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
11
Gary Warren: The cost per foot to build a State Aid Road would be $50.00 to
$65.00 a foot.
Mayor Hamilton: And we're assessing back to the propert owners $22.00 and...
Gary Warren: $22.20 and $11.25. 1
Mayor Hamilton: The $11.25, perhaps you could clarify that for us again. Where
the difference came in between the $11.25 and the $22.00. '
Gary Warren: The $11.25 dealt with the existing Lake Lucy Road alignment and
that the road was existing in some sort. The $22.20 was to address the new
realignment of Lake Lucy.
Mayor Hamilton: Are there any other residents that would like to comment on the
8 year or 10 year? Larry? '
Larry Kerber: I don' t want to comment on that but I've got a statement here
that is false. My name is Larry Kerber. I live at 6420 Powers and the property
affected is at the corner of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Blvd.. Gary's response,
I guess number two in your memorandum and I don't know if you guys base a
decision on this but that response is incorrect. I did not have a road. That
was accumulation of patches, sealcoating and dust. The road that was removed in
front of my property was installed in 1976 as part of the Carver Beach sewer and
water project. It's installed the same way to the same specifications. That
road is still there and it's in good shape. My road was in good shape before it
was taken out. It was a brand new road in 1976 and it was not accumulation of
patching and sealcoating. Further down Lake Lucy it was but not in front of my
property. I just wish you would consider that because it just does not seen
logical to me to have a brand new road in 1976 and 10 years later, a road that
I never used in those first 10 years so I don't know how I ever benefitted. It
was $600.00 per unit. I had no benefit out of it. To tear it out 10 years
later and make me pay for another road.
Mayor Hamilton: Thanks Larry. Do you want to comment on the 8 or 10 year?
Larry Kerber: No.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there anybody else who wants to make a comment. If not I
think we need to make a decision here. Certainly it's always hard to face
change and to accept progress I guess. I'm certainly hoping that all of the
streets in the City of Chanhassen will be paved one day. There are still a few
remaining that are not and those people who live on those properties that aren't
paved, they're certainly going to cost something to do that. I guess it wasn't
any different than when Clark and I had the street done in front of our house.
Everybody in town didn't pay for it but can use the street and I guess I wasn't
very happy about paying for it either but at the same time it needed to be done
so it's one of those unfortunate things. I think that the price we're assessing
the people along that street, it seems to me to be a pretty good buy. It's a
lot to pay, there's no question about that but a lot less than paying $60.00 a
foot. Any other comments?
14 1
City Council Meeting July 11, 1988 133
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that if we extend the schedule to 10 years, it
can always be paid off early by the individual property owners. We may give
some people an opportunity at relief. I'd like to see us do that. If that's as
long as we can extend it, then I think we should. I wasn't here when the road
was originally assessed and I've listened to this and tried to learn a bit from
' the discussion but the question I have is that the road is in and somebody has
to pay for it. So I've been asking myself is who pays for it and given the
bill, I'm not sure if we're in a position to turn around and start the hearing
all over again but we certainly can't reduce a $22.00 a foot assessment without
charging somebody else more somewhere else on that road. I gather there must
have been quite a controversy when it was originally assessed and now they're
coming back and I think at this point maybe the best we can do is extend the
payments. I'm not particularly happy with any of the answers. I just don't
have a better one.
' Councilman Horn: I just wanted to know if we had found out any more about the
drainage problem created because the curb cut was still in. Has that been
rectified?
Gary Warren: I visited the site last Friday again and the material that was
filled in, the curb cut, was done appears to be that of landscaping from the
property owner. We haven't moved it yet. We certainly can.
Councilman Horn: Have you talked to the property owner? This was the property
owner that was complaining about the drainage problem. Are they aware that they
created it?
Gary Warren: I haven't had a chance to talk to them, no.
Councilman Horn: It's important to get that resolved. The other problem that I
have with this thing is, it seems like we go about this whole thing a little
backwards. I meant we bond the thing and we set the bond rates up front and
then we come around to how we're going to pay for it at the end when we're
already cut off our options because the bonds are in place. We ought to know
what the options are up front and everybody ought to know what the bill is going
' to be upfront and you bond accordingly.
Don Ashworth: We tried to and at the time the hearing occurred on this, staff's
' recau«endations were known. Somehow you have to come up with the money to pay
for it. The project was built in 1987. It was bonded in 1987 and we felt that
the number of years was reasonable at that point in time and now we're
considering change. I find it difficult in responding other than that.
Councilman Horn: My point is that we always seem to defer the bad news until
after the thing is done and that is, how much am I going to get stuck with?
. ..well, that will come out at the assessment hearing.
Mayor Hamilton: We had estimates of the charges hearings prior to everything
1 else.
Gary Warren: Preliminary assessment roll and.. .
El Councilman Horn: How close were they?
11 15
134
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Councilman Geving: They were $21.00 or something.
Gary Warren: The actual assessment rates, Council chose to stick with the
original assessment that we established in the feasibility.
Councilman Horn: I guess to people is that they should bring those things out
before the project starts, not afterwards. If they want these extended because
our options are limited after that.
Councilman Geving: Just to remark on Clark's comment. These are not hidden. '
We always do a feasibility study before every project. I believe that we are
very close to the feasibility figures. I remember a figure of $21.00 or
something a lineal foot way back in '85 or '86 when we first discussed this and
we came in at about $22.00 something so I don't think we were far off and I
don't think it was a major surprise. The only thing that's not known at the
time that we moved ahead with this is the actual amount because that can vary
based on the problems that we might find on the project but for the most part,
all the figures were upfront and people have a pretty good idea of what's
happening. I'm referring right now to Bluff Creek Drive. We know right now
what that project's going to cost so this is, I don't believe there are any
hidden costs or any hidden agendas here. The only comment I did want to make,
I do believe r, should pursue the 10 year schedule because I do believe that
will give some relief. You could pay it up if you wanted to in the 8 year or
less period of time so 10 years will give them some relief. I did have a
question or two. I think that your comments regarding Mr. Phillip's letter,
Gary, are right on and if nothing else out of this project, we could pursue the
leg on the west end of this road and directional signs and anything else that [11
Mr. Phillips referred to. I think those are good comments and good ideas.
I have no other comments.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask Don a question. On an assessment like this
that's going to go against property taxes, can they pay it off early? I thought
you could pay it off lump sum up front or you're stuck. On a house payment you
can make extra house payments. Can you make extra special assessment payments
to pay it off early?
Don Ashworth: Yes, you can pay it off initially. I guess I'd have to ask '
Roger. Can I come in and pay one-half of my assessment?
Roger Knutson: Initially you can. In the first 30 days you can come in and pay
any amount you choose. A minimum payment of $100.00 and you can pay $100.00 or
any percent you want initially.
Councilman Johnson: And then after that? Say they get on a 10 year schedule? 1
Roger Knutson: You can pay the balance at any time.
Councilman Johnson: Anytime you can pay off the balance of special assessments
but you can't make just like one extra payment?
Roger Knutson: No. [)-!1
Councilman Johnson: The Carver County computer would probably get confused if
you tried to do something like that.
16 1
IICity Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 135
1 .
Councilman Geving: They don't have one.
Councilman Johnson: The other thing I'd like to do is a little more general. In
the special assessment loan fund establishing a City fund to help people who
like have an $18,000.00 special assessment. Who own their part of their annual
payment or whatever, can go against their special assessment and then it will be
placed against the property...at the time the property is subdivided or sold at
sometime in the future that they would then, that money would be paid back into
the revolving fund. Something to help these people with these large, you'd have
to start that fund and build it every year. It's not something we can do
tonight obviously but it might be something to consider to be available in the
next few years.
Mayor Hamilton: Any more comments? If not, a motion would be in order.
Resolution #88-74: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve
pP rove
the adoption of the Lake Lucy Road Final Assessment Roll as presented over an 8
year period. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' APPROVAL OF OFF-STREET PARKING PLAN, GREENWOOD SHORES PARK.
Lori Sietsema: This item was discussed a year ago at which time the Park and
Recreation Commission was directed to monitor the concerns brought up by the
residents at that meeting. Having done so, we found a minimal number of calls
to the Carver County Sheriff's Department and therefore we began to review the
parking plan that was proposed last year. The Commission heard a number of
concerns from the residents concerning the limited turn around area. There were
conflicts witn cars and pedestrians using the same entrance and it was difficult
to monitor the parking situation from the street. Also, they had concerns that
we were letting cars down into the park. Taking these concerns into
consideration, staff was directed to revise the parking plan. The revised plan
shows four parking spaces just inside the park entrance and Mark Koegler is here
to discuss the details of that design.
' Mark Koegler: The direction that we were given by statf and the Park and
Recreation Commission was pretty well summarized, which was to look at
' alternatives and if the decision was made to put parking in that park, where
would be the best location to place it. After serious discussions with the
Commission, it was decided that by placing the parking at the top end of the
park, there were several advantages. First of all, the spaces were easier to
assess by somebody coming in as to whether or not they were full yet to a
certain degree the berm that is in place at the present time, which exists
primarily off on this side, would be retained to screen the parking to some
' degree from the street. The previous plan, you may recall, we had parking
spaces down on the lower level. Obviously, by moving them up, that lower
portion can be returned to the park as green spaces if you will. All or part of
' the gravel that serves that lift station area can be removed depending on.. .
From there we planned really to complex a series of embellishments for this.
Also, having some landscaping around it to improve the appearance of the area.
The bicycle path which would connect down to the existing bituminous which stubs
Ol out here and comes around to Lake Ann. Initially the concerns of the
' 17
136
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
bollards.. .to control the lift station area to control parking only into that
upper area. That is the philosophy behind making that a shared parking from the
lower section to the upper.
Mayor Hamilton: Thank you Mark. Councilmembers have any questions they'd like
to ask Mark?
Councilman Boyt: How big is the parking area is square footage Mark?
Mark Koegler: The spaces are 9 feet wide and counting them all, there's four of '
them by the way, and counting the aisle width behind them, they are about 42
feet in width. The other being the driveway coming in so the parking area, with
the exception of this driveway, we have dimensions of 36 feet by approximately
42 feet.
Councilman Boyt: 8 feet or so of that is driveway down to the lift station?
Mark Koegler: That would not include any of the driveway down to the lift
station. Through the parking area, yes it would but once you cross to the other
side of the bollards, the control point would have to be calculated in with the
additional gravel extending on down.
Councilman Johnson: If you've got four in this park and the fifth car comes
down, can they turn around and go out of there forwards or do they have to back
out?
Mark Koegler: No, they would have to back out and that was part of the reason '
that it was placed up above so that a car could come in and you could readily
see the four spaces just as you entered the area. It would require a backing
movement. The thinking was to try to keep to a bare minimum the amount of
improvements that would have to go into the upper portion of the park.
Councilman Johnson: I certainly don't like people backing out onto streets.
Another thing is, is one of those parking spots going to be reserved for
handicapped?
Mark Koegler: That could be. That's at the discretion of the City as to how '
that sign is proposed.
Councilman Johnson: I would certainly want at least one spot in there reserved
for handicap. I think anyplace we have parking we should reserve a handicap
spot. What do you think it would take to give us adequate room in there to turn
around? A little bubble down at the end or something. '
Mark Koegler: To be honest with you Mr. Johnson, I think we would have to think
about relocating the parking down at the lower part of the park. There's kind
of a neck, if you will, that comes out here as you approach Utica and it really,
physically, to try and lessen the impact on either of the residents on either
side. At least my recommendation would be, if you're going to look at a turn
around...you have to go back down to the lower portion of the park and probably
use some of that existing gravel to the lift station access. There may be
other ways to do it but I think you're going to have impact to the adjacent
properties.
18 • '
II
i37
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
' Councilman Johnson: I'm not trying to get a 50 wide and 50 foot radius
cul-de-sac or anything in here but some method to where somebody could back up.
'0 I know probably in my little Horizon I could probably do it but with my wife's
station wagon I couldn't.
I Mark Koegler: Conceivably you could put a little "T" hammerhead type thing off
on the north side. So when you pull in and point vehicles...is going to impact
that residence somewhat also.
I Councilman Johnson: It's a narrow street. It's curved. There's quite a few
kids down there. I'd rather people be looking at where they're going with the
amount of child traffic in here. I'm in favor of the parking but I want it to
Ibe where we can back out of there face first.
Councilman Geving: Mark, I'm looking at your estimate of costs here and it
I comes to $6,900.00. Pay particular attention to $2,200.00 that you have
included in your estimate for bituminous walkway and bike lane. Why do feel
that that's necessary to connect that Lake Ann bikeway that's blocked off now at
the bottom of the hill to this park?
IMark Koegler: That item specifically came from the Park and Recreation
Commission that they wanted a safe access into the park where the pedestrian and
I bicycle access would be totally separate from the other access...into the other
bike path area.
Councilman Geving: So you're circling the bike path and trailway in front of
Ithe parking area. If we were to put this in, what would be your estimate of
annual maintenance and upkeep of this little four unit parking area? Do you
have a figure for that?
IMark Koegler: I don't have a number that I can give you that I think would have
a lot of credence off the top of my head. It would be a relatively low number
II because you're maintaing that access for the lift station purposes year round
anyway. Then it becomes an issue of are you going to open it up in the winter
or not and so forth but the actual maintenance of the gravel parking area, if
it's graded properly, is very, very slight.
ICouncilman Geving: So you didn' t give me a dollar figure.
IIMark Koegler: I don't have a dollar figure on me.
Councilman Geving: You feel it's negligible and not a major...
IMark Koegler: I certainly think so in light of the fact that you're got a lift
station there that you maintain access to.
I Councilman Geving: Are you showing a parking area that would be sufficient for
a medium size car?
IMark Koegler: Yes. The spaces are 9 feet by 20 feet.
1 Councilman Geving: What's your reaction to Councilman Johnson's suggestion for
I� a turn around? Obviously you're going to pull into this parking lot area and
then when you reverse, you'll be backing up and making a turning movement. Is
I19
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
it feasible in the space that you've got there to do that? That you could have
fi
a slight turn around area where we could be pulling out into the street heading l
face first?
Mark Koegler: That's certainly possible. One way to look at that would be to '
extend the parking lot further to the west. Add another space, if you will, and
use that for turn around purposes. The practical problem of that is going to be
enforcing that as a non-parking area. You can sign it but that's going to be a
problem and we're trying to avoid making problems and enforcement problems. The
only other reasonable solution that I see again is to go back down to the road
area where there is one...and come up with a sign down there.
Councilman Geving: Does your plan also call for the removal of that rock down
there by the lift station and placement of sod over that? Is that the plan?
Mark Koegler: With the exception of the...used for lift station access.
Councilman Geving: How much are you going to have to dig out of that lot area
to make it work with the park itself. What's the depth that you're thinking of?
Mark Koegler: It's sporatic. We just dug down a little bit in a couple of
areas and the rock that was there, ...washed down to that area. ...all of that
would have to be removed and top soil brought in.
Councilman Geving: For $100.00, I don't think you're going to get much rock
removal.
Mark Koegler: We're hopeful that, that was just basically a cost of straffing
that and transporting it back to the top side. We'd like to use as much of that
as possible. A portion of it will have to be done...
Councilman Geving: I'd like to ask you one more question. A good share of your
costs are associated with the bollards. Is that a pretty safe way of putting in
a parking area and making sure that it will stay there over time? Is it a
physical chain that you would place between the bollards? '
Mark Koegler: It's very much the same approach the City of Minneapolis uses
around their parkway system. It's a substantial 10 by 10 bollard with a cap on
it with a heavy duty chain that swings inbetween. In gravel parking lots
situations such as this, that is commonly used. It's effective and as
aesthetically pleasing as possible to control that. To have an improved parking
lot with the curb and gutter and so forth, obviously you won't have the
definition problems that you would here.
Councilman Geving: Talk for just a moment with us, if you will, on the
plantings. The Ninebarks and the Crabapples. Is that your suggestion for the
area?
Mark Koegler: Yes, it is. Obviously a simple planting plan, we're trying to
provide screening of the area. We're trying to provide a little bit of seasonal
interest in color. The area will be largely screened by the berm which we had
kind of around to the north. There will be more impact to people that are
coming from southbound in terms of actually seeing the parking lot. We would
certainly be willing, that's a suggestion at this point. I think that's
20
' City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
called...for next year and the residents that abut that, have a particular
choice of...they wanted to see.
' Councilman Geving: Thank you Mark. I appreciate it. That's all I have.
Councilman Horn: What was the original price of the totlot that was proposed
for that park?
Lori Sietsema: $5,000.00.
Councilman Horn: Wasn' t there something else? I guess it was just the bollard
and chain improvement for the park entrance.
' Lori Sietsema: At one time they had talked about volleyball but without
clearing trees, they didn't know if they wanted to clear trees to make room for
a volleyball court.
' Councilman Horn: I assume it would be a Park and Recreation recommendation that
if we approve this to put the parking in that they would also put the totlot in.
' Is that correct?
Lori Sietsema: That's correct.
' Councilman Horn: So in effect we're talking about an additional expenditure of
approximately $12,000.00 rather than $7,000.00 just for the parking lot?
Lori Sietsema: We have budgeted for the totlot.
Councilman Horn: I thought that was taken out of that budget when the parking
was not added.
Lori Sietsema: That's true. They would budget again for it in the next year.
Councilman Horn: So in effect we'd be looking at 1989 budget item of $12,000.00
for that park, if that was put in. If I recall, that's what percipitated this
in the first place was spending money for a totlot and volleyball court. I have
' no other questions.
Councilman Boyt: I've already asked my questions of staff. I'd like to use
that transparency before you take any comments. The Park and Rec and the
Council has been discussing this over the past year. We received several
letters and I tried to take that information and summarize what I thought I
heard the community saying were their concerns. The community of Greenwood
' Shores. They were basically safety problems. The added traffic and the
entrance and exit visibility that Jay talked about. The fact that we might be
destroying the natural beauty of the park. Increasing crowding of the park and
' leading to noise and parties. I think those topics have been discussed very
thoroughly. There must have been 60 pages of Minutes with this item.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that it? Do you have any other comments?
Councilman Boyt: If we're going to take a vote, I've got some comments but
before that, no.
' 21
40
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I know there's a lot of people '
Is there someone who wants to make any comments asra spokespersonof for Shthes group.
We've all had an opportunity to read all of the Minutes from the Park and Recup.
Commission so we're aware of your comments. We're aware of their comments. We
have received all of your letters. I would appreciate it if you don't hand out
that much information. '
Jan Lash: We highlighted the important parts.
Mayor Hamilton: We can't take the time to study it.
Jan Lash, 6850 Utica Lane: You don't have to do it. I thought you could read
it over the next year. We've got a petition here with 132 signatures out of 83
homes. Councilman Boyt, I think did cover most of our major concerns. We have
been to 4 or 5 Park and Rec meetings this year. Several people have discussed
these. They did address some of our concerns. It didn't ever really put a stop
to the idea of the parking. Last week I checked into the history of the whole
thing a little bit, which I think should weigh a little bit on the decision
here. I sat up until after 1:00 in the morning one night reading Minutes from
the Greenwood Shores Association. Minutes that date back into the 60's and
correspondence with the City Council and Park and Rec and everybody. I think
that a lot of people feel very strongly about this issue. A lot of people have
lived there for over 20 years. Initially when they moved in, it was for
neighborhood use only. It isn't anymore and we know that but at that time it
was neighborhood people who cleared the lot. Paid their own pocket money to
haul in the sand. Spent many, many Saturdays making it a nice park. Therefore,
they feel that they have a personal interest in it and they would like to see it
stay that way. I guess we feel that that $7,000.00 or $12,000.00, if you put in
the totlot, we would rather see you give it to Lake Lucy Road assessments and
make everybody here happy because we really don't see the point in it. The
people who are willing to use it, obey the rules of it, are willing to walk the
540 feet or whatever it is that we've been told it is. Personally, my family
has a speedboat and we would like to try to use Lake Riley. We've gone to Lake
Minnewashta. We've never been able to get in. There's never any parking spots
available. I don't call up and complain because I can' t get in there because
I'd have to get up really early in the morning to get there in time and I choose
not to do that. I would rather go somewhere else. I guess I feel that that
applies to this situation also. If you don't want to walk 540 feet, you could
possibly find another facility that's closer but I really don't think you'll
find anything that is much different. We've done some checking over at the main
beach at Lake Ann. The walking distance is very comparable. We've done checks
with the Chaparral Park with the baseball diamonds. The distance is very
comparable there. To other facilities we think it's comparable and we think the
way it's set up right now, it perfectly suits our needs and anyone else who
wishes to come over there is perfectly welcome to come. I don't think anyone
has ever been chased out of there except for the people who come and break the
rules and then they're chased out by the residents. Not by the police. I can't
think of anything else right off but if I do I'll come back.
Mayor Hamilton: Did Bill's overhead adequately address your concerns Jan? The
neighborhood's concerns.
Jan Lash: I think the traffic. The safety, visibility factor. We have a video
that we brought tonight to show you actually what driving a car. I don't know
22 '
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
141
if we would be able to do that. I think those are the two main fears. The
increased crowding. I think now on many, many days when I'm down there during
the week, there is probably for sure 30 people. On the weekends there's quite a
bit more than that and I really don't see that it can accomodate a great many
more people and I think it would detract from the people who do want to use it.
One of the reasons they look forward to using it is it's not as packed as a lot
' of the other beaches. To put more people in there, it's probably going to take
one of the main attractions away.
' Councilman Geving: May I ask you Jan, of the 30 people that you saw down there,
were they mostly residents? Did you recognize most of them?
Jan Lash: Sometimes they are. On Father's Day we were down there and there
' were over 50 people and until 3:00 in the afternoon, I did not know one person
down there. But we did count that day 7 violations as far as parking and dogs
and other things like that.
' Councilman Geving: How do you feel most of those people got to the park?
Jan Lash: Most of them walked or rode their bikes. A lot of people ride their
bikes. I see a lot of people coming over from Chaparral on bikes. I see people
taking the trail system from the main lake beach.
' Mayor Hamilton: I just had a couple of comments I'd like to make. In looking
at the plan that's been developed by VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings, four parking
spaces, $1,730.00 per parking space. The way it's laid out, they're going to
have the bike path coming kind of around the south side of the parking. Also,
' with the trail going directly into the parking area so you could, I suspect if
you put that there to park so people will get out of their car and walk directly
' down this path to the beach, which they probably won't use anyway. But it's
certainly an attractive spot for kids to be riding their bikes or to be walking
and to be walking behind cars as they're coming out or going in. So I certainly
don't like that part of the plan. I guess generally on the whole idea of having
parking there, it seems to me to spend the amount of money and the time that
we've spent on this particular project for four parking spaces is not the most
intelligent use of time. I can't think of any reason why there needs to be
' parking in this park. It is used by a great many people. People can walk
there. They can ride their bikes there. They can drive up and drop their kids
off or people off, whoever wants to go there. People can walk over there and
ride their bikes from the Lake Ann main park. It can be accessed in many
different ways and to put in four parking stalls does not seem to me as though
we are opening it up for the general public to use. I'm not sure what some
people are trying to prove by trying to ram this down the neighborhood's throat
' and I really don't like it. All other parks in the City do not have parking by
them so I would suspect that if the Council should prevail and pass this, then
we better go look at every other park and make sure that we have parking in each
and every one of those other parks that don't need it so we can waste some more
money. This should continue as a neighborhood park. It serves the neighborhood
well and I think as the neighbors had stated, it was developed by the
neighborhood. It was paid for by their funds. They did turn it over to the
City a number of years ago. The City has maintained it since. It serves a
great many people and I think the people who are, or anybody who wants to use it
can use it, as I said before so we're not eliminating anyone from the use of
that park. So if we can by tonight's action put this to bed once and for all
i23
142
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
I
and whatever the action would be, whether it's to open the beach or deny it, we
would also say this will not be reviewed for a period of time.
Councilman Geving: I'm kind of the senior member of the Council and so I can
refer to historical problems that we've had with this area along with some other
problems at Carver Beach. We took steps to eliminate and try to resolve the
problems that we had. For example, a number of years where there were parties
and it was a great hangout. It was a great place for kids. Beer parties and 3
to 4 years ago, maybe even longer than that, we decided to get tough and do
something about it and that's when we really tried to close off the access to
this particular area. I think it's working. I think it has been working. I've
had a chance now to go to the park. In fact I walked all the way over from Lake
Ann because I wanted to see how far it was. One of my original comments way
back in 1980 I believe when I tried to get to the park and had to walk quite a
ways and I realized that this was not an easy way to do it because of all the no
parking signs but I found that it wasn't really that tough. If you go down to
the park at Lake Ann, walk along the paved trail, it really isn't very far to
get to this place if you want to get there. My personal feeling is let's leave
it alone. I really think that we've solved the problem once and for all and I
don't believe that we have to treat all parks alike. I think that there is a
difference in parks. Differences in neighborhoods. Differences in how we view
a park and how it's supposed to be used by our people. Originally the 75 homes
or so in the Greenwood Shores area, it was really only maybe 35 or 40 and it's
grown up a lot in the last couple of years. We've added Chaparral. We've got a
lot of area in Carver Beach. People can still walk across the road and get to
this park so I believe that we don' t have to treat every park in the City the
same. They are different. To make a blanket statement that every park should
have parking, I don't believe is correct. I believe that there is enough
sentiment on this particular issue that really we should listen to the people.
They're trying to tell us that they're the ones that use the park. They will
police it for us and that's exactly what we told the commission, the people a
year ago. We said, let's test this area for one year and then we'll take a look
at it. I believe that based on our guidance here tonight, that there has been a
minimum number of calls to the Carver County police. There has been virtually
very, very few instances that I'm aware of, where major problems have occurred
at this particular park in Greenwood Shores. I don' t know of any major problems
so I think there is a certain amount of policing going on by the residents and
the fact that that really is closed. I believe too, that there is a
realtionship with our people who are residents of the area. They've tried to
make this an attractive area. Again, I walked down there just yesterday. It's
clean. It's nice. It's a nice family area. It's the kind of place where you
want to bring your kids to play in the sand and swim. I agree with the Mayor.
I think we ought to leave it alone. Settle this issue once and for all. We've
been at this now for 4 or 5 years and let's just leave it nice and let the
community enjoy it. That's all.
Councilman Horn: I have no problem with leaving this the way it is. I think '
the thing that really precipitated this item and where the idea got across is
when we, in my opinion, went overboard with the no parking signs. I think we
can have no parking signs if they serve the primary purpose which is safety. I
think if our public safety group goes down there and determines which no parking
sign are necessary for safety reasons, we can leave those in. Any other no
parking signs can be taken out because it...of trying to keep something for the
exclusive use of an area. I think that's what the Park and Rec Commission is
24 11
143
II
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
trying to get rid of by saying that they're trying to develop exclusive use so I
have no problem with this. I said originally when this item came up, I felt
that if we are going to have restrictive parks, that the City and it's general
funds should not spend any more money on adding new equipment to it and I still
agree with that. But the neighborhood didn't seem to have any problem with that
either. In fact I haven't heard anybody in the neighborhood say they want a
totlot down there. I think we should eliminate any of the unnecessary no
parking signs. Not spend any extra money down there except to maintain it and
enforce the laws that exist down there and just leave it at that.
Councilman Boyt: I haven't heard anybody want to take, off the Council, say
that we should take the parking out of Carver Beach. You put it in there last
I year.
Councilman Horn: We put it in earlier.
Councilman Boyt: Last year we reopened the parking for Carver Beach. It was
closed. We didn't have 100 people show up in the neighborhood but the issue
was the same. It's accessibility to the park that couldn't be accessed easily
t otherwise. We've had that park open and that park had a previous record of
complaints years ago. It doesn't have a record of excessive complaints today
but there is open parking there. Those two issues do not follow hand in glove.
The issue is enforcement. The issue isn't availability. We have on the Council
' committed the resources to enforcing park regulations. I want you to explain to
the people at Carver Beach why they have parking on a difficult road to drive on
but they've got it there. But we're not going to put it here. Or what are you
going to tell the people at Chan Estates Park where the ballfield is? Where
it's right in somebody's backyard. What are you going to explain to them why
there are places for 20 cars to park over there but we're not going to put in
' this park? That's not equal treatment. Every park is not the same but that is
a narrow twisty road. It's somebody's backyard so it's very closely related,
some are backyards to houses and yet the City hasn't hesitated to put parking in
there. This is an issue in which, it really is, accessibility. Four spots in a
park are not going to turn that park into some sort of public fiasco.
Especially if we follow Jay's suggestion and make one of them limited to
handicap. We're talking about a place where people can go, drop off their kids
and probably on a good many days, park there and make the park easier to use.
We're not talking about a dramatic change in that park. People already park
there in the access that's used by the City and chained off. Residents park
there in the access chained off. You look at the complaints that were called in
and I assume the neighborhood is calling complaints in and we have 14 complaints
called in last year. That's not a dramatic number of complaints for a public
park or for a private beachlot. It's unfortunate that there have to be any but
' anytime we have an open piece of property, you're going to have to police it and
I think that's where the City's efforts should be. We've got a street there
that's certainly not safe. One of many in our town that are too narrow to
' handle traffic. I don't think that we're going to be able to go down there and
remove those no parking signs but I'd hate to say to somebody, you have to walk
540 feet because we can't put a parking spot in. Where we could very well put a
parking spot in, is not appropriate. If you look at the Park and Rec's
5-- discussion and the fact that they unanimously voted to put this in there, it
indicates that the general public feels there should be parking in their parks.
I went down and talked to some of the residents. I know, given your turnout,
I'm glad that your organized and you're presenting your point of view. When I
• 25
1.44
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 II
talk to people who don't live in your neighborhood about this issue, I haven't
found anybody who said, you know, I really don't think there should be parking
there. I know that in your letters you've indicated that yes, you have people '
who live in several of the developments outside of yours who use the park and
say, gosh we'd rather not have parking there so I've seen those comments. I'm
telling you that what I've heard and talking to people is a little different
than that. To me this is an issue of policy. I guess unlike some of the other
members on the Council, it's my position that the parks that the public is
involved in, that the public pays for any service, should be open to the public
and that means there should be parking available there.
Dick Lash: You can park wherever you like.
Councilman Boyt: I'm telling you that every park should have parking available
so people can access it directly. I'm not treating your park any differently
than any other park. I agree with Mr. Geving when he says the City should be
responsive to the neighborhoods. This is an extremely difficult issue but my
particular position is different than his and I feel that the Park and Rec group
has established this can be done with reasonable safeness.
Councilman Johnson: I'm in pretty much agreement with Bill's comments. I've
been driving by for the last year, both this park and the park at Carver Beach.
I've utilized the park at Carver Beach several times when the folks from
Scotland came to town. We took them down there to Carver Beach to show them the
beautiful little park there and have a little picnic and did a little fishing.
Probably 3 to 4 times a month, sometimes several times a weekend or in the
evenings driven by and I have yet to discover an incident going on at the park. '
The closest I got was somebody parking in the roadway there which when I called
them, they stayed in Greenwood Shores when they went home. A lot of people stop
in there, drop the kids off and then drive their car up a few blocks and then
walk back so they can take their innertubes and whatever out. I don't think 3
parking spots and a handicap spot is going to deteriorate this park. The only
other park that I know of without parking right now is at Lake Susan and that
doesn't any access right now because there's no way to get access to it. It's
not feasible to have access to that until we get Lake Drive West put through.
There maybe be another neighborhood park that has no parking signs around it but
I don't know. Clark's idea of getting down to only those required for safety
means, to me that there would only be a few signs. I'm not sure if Public
Safety has even looked at this issue at this point and how far away from the
park that would be. I would assume it would only be on the curb so there would
only be maybe 100 foot of no parking in there. But I don't like parking on that
narrow street. I'd rather see 3 spots plus a handicap spot. I don't think it's
going to deteriorate. Opening up Carver Beach Park has not caused a problem at
Carver Beach. There was one evening where some fishermen were playing some
music a little bit loud, after 10:00 and the Sheriff stopped by and asked them
to leave. The park closes at 10:00. Beyond that, I know of no other incidents
at Carver Beach Park that I've seen. There may have been some. I haven't seen
the police record on Carver Beach. I don't think that opening up this one is
going to cause anymore problem than anyplace else. The way the set-up is here,
the officer or CSO will be able to drive into the parking area and have a better
look down and see the park actually better than they can now from the street.
Resident: And back up onto the street.
26 '
IICity Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 145
IF Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'm not for backing out because that's what you've
got right now is the people pulling in and backing back out onto the street.
I ' That's the situation you have now but when we put parking in here, I want the
people to be able to turn around. Whether we take one of those four parking
spots or add a half spot or whatever. It looks like we're not going to do it
I until the 1989 season so I would like to see that ability to turn around somehow
added to this park. That is not a good intersection to back out of. That's my
only complaint with the design of the system. I think if I lived in the
neighborhood I'd probably be complaining just as much. I know when they were
I developing behind me I was as wild as anybody else complaining. Most of the
things I said have somewhat come true. I'm still in favor of it. That's how
I'm going to vote.
ICouncilman Horn: As one who pushed very long and strong to get parking back
into Carver Beach, I think there's an important factor in here and I totally
I disagreed with the previous Council in closing that parking off. I hate to see
a right that was granted to a particular area taken away because of an
enforcement problem. You're penalizing everybody for what a few people do.
However, I think we have to be sensitive to what precedent this is going to set.
I The difference between this park and Carver Beach Park is the original intent of
the Carver Beach Park was that there would be parking there. This body took it
upon themselves to take it away. All we did by restoring it was to put it back
Ito the original intent that it was put there for in the first place. That's
what I see we're doing here. This park never had any parking in it. We're
changing the intent of what this park was established for and that has an effect
lit on people just like taking away the right that people enjoyed has an effect on
people. I was one of the people that used to park my canoe Carver Beach Park
and couldn't launch it anymore because the parking was closed off. It affected
a lifestyle that I had become used to. What we're doing here is doing the same
I thing. I think that's what we're looking at. It's fine to have a consistent
philosophy on how we do things but we also have to keep in mind the reason
things were done the way they were in the first place. We have to study history
Ito find out what was what. What you see here is that this park was developed as
a City park. Was given to the City by the people. I think that's something we
have to consider that might be different.
ICouncilman Johnson: A lot changes with the years.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question for you. When did the City put in the no
II parking signs?
Mayor Hamilton: Since I was- here 10 years ago.
1 Councilman Boyt: When they put the no parking signs in outside of this park,
they took away parking. They took away parking. There was parking there and
they took it away.
IICouncilman Horn: That's my point.
Mayor Hamilton: That's why Clark is saying he thinks the no parking signs on
the street should be reviewed and those that don't need to be there should be
removed, if I understand what you're saying correctly.
II
27 :.
r
146
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Councilman Boyt: This is what we started on a year ago. We want some rkin
access. The question was discussed at that time or shortly after that, can we
take the no parking signs off the street. I think we had a request from one of
the neighbors to do that. We didn't do that. We didn't do it because it's not
a good corner for people to park on. That's what got us into where can we put
parking? There's been a fairly logical process followed in getting to this
point. If we decide to not put parking in the park, there isn't a good place to
put it for 540 feet is what they said. So the issue is, do you want people to
be within 540 feet of that park or not?
Councilman Horn: Can I ask Jim Chaffee one question? Did we go along with your
recommendation on where the no parking signs should be for public safety or did
we increase that to cover areas that were not raised as an issue of public
safety?
Jim Chaffee: I can't answer that. I wasn't here at that time...
Councilman Geving: Let me ask the same question in a little different manner
nner
Jim. Clark's suggestion is to review those no parking signs and remove those
that don't fit. Or based on your best estimate, your knowledge Jim, come back
to the Council and tell us. Those that either should remain or pull some of
then. Would you have any problem with that?
Jim Chaffee: No, I would not.
Councilman Geving: What is your assessment of this area right now in terms of
the no parking? LI
Jim Chaffee: Along the curve there, there certainly should be no parking.
Exactly how far it extends back, I haven't been there for a while. I'd have to ,
look at it.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to move on with this. I'd like to make a
motion.
Dick Lash: Mr. Mayor. One thing. Could I make one comment before you vote on
this? My name is Dick Lash of Greenwood Shores. Mr. Boyt...I think is the one
with a conflict of interest with his wife on the Park and Rec Commission. I just
think that would swing his vote. It would swing mine if my wife was there.
Ed Hasek: You've heard from the neighborhood on their comments. I'd like to
just take a few minutes to put something together for the Park Board to tell you
maybe where we're coming from. First of all we're generally acting under, what
we feel is your direction on this issue. Policies trying to make parks
accessible to the general public within the City of Chanhassen. Not to specific
neighborhoods. I would suggest that if we do not put the parking in this park,
we should consider changing the policy to have parking in no parks. I feel very
strongly about that. The reason that we have looked hard and strong at this
particular park is because it has a beach. Beaches are becoming very hard to
come by. I would submit that if we go through any development that comes up on
L.711
the lake anyplace in the future, the chances of us getting property to put a
beach into that lake from that developer are virtually non-existant. They're
not going to allow that to happen. It's too valuable so we have a commodity
here that we'd like to use and we'd like to use it for the citizens of
28 ,
II
151
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Chanhassen. Four stalls again, is not too many to request for that particular
park. Personally, I would like to see the original 6 to 10, I think we were
' talking about. 6 or 8. 500 feet is not close enough to any particular
recreational area. They keep making the comparison with Lake Ann. Now I would
submit to you that we've got a lot that's immediately adjacent to what is
' considered the beach area down there. Not the sand per se but it is adjacent to
the beach area. Actually, this particular park, I believe if we had the graphic
up here, is probably still about 200 feet from the sand so there is a comparison
' between that particular park and this one. If in fact there was parking on that
street closer than what exists out there today, then in fact you have taken
parking away as you did in Carver Beach and we as a commission would like to see
that replaced. I guess in viewing the situation out there on site and looking
' at where the parking exists, I would have to agree with where the location of
the parking signs is because it's going to be very difficult to get it much
closer unless we consider something in the neighborhood of the parking bays
' which would have to be built adjacent to the existing parking lanes out there.
I don't know that there's right-of-way that could accomodate that. It's a very
hazardous corner. Granted, parking doesn't belong on that corner. However, 500
' and some feet, plus or minus, can not be considered accessible. The whole point
is to get people into that park. Whether you can walk there or if you have to
drive there and pull your wheelchair out of the back of the car to get down to
the beach. You have to be able to use that park. Thank you.
' Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to make a motion for consideration. I'm going to move
that the City Council direct City Staff to do no additional work in the
Greenwood Shores Park on either parking nor totlot or increased equipment or
Ik trail connections. A trail connection I guess needs to be done at sometime but
the park should not be improved in any way at this time. It should be left as
' it is for use by the people who are currently using it which is a great many
people. That is my motion.
Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion.
Councilman Horn: Do you want to add to that the review of the no parking signs?
' Mayor Hamilton: Oh yes. I would put that in there.
Councilman Geving: I'll amend my second.
Mayor Hamilton: That the Public Safety Director review no parking signs to
determine if any of them can be removed and if they can, they should be removed.
' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the City Council direct
City Staff to do no additional work in the Greenwood Shores Park on either
' parking, totlot or increased equipment. Also that the Public Safety Director
review the no parking signs to determine if any of them can be removed, and if
they can, they should be removed. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Horn voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Boyt and Councilman
Johnson voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of
3 to 2.
29
152 IICity Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Jan Lash: Mr. Mayor, could I ask you how soon it will be up for review again or
are the residents going to have to go through this each year?
Councilman Geving: Four years. Another Council can bring it back.
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW TO AMEND A PLANNING UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CHES MAR FARM OFF OF
TH 41, LOTUS REALTY.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal. The original PUD '
was to...existing uses to the farm to the zoning. There was a duplex, an
apartment building, two duplexes and a single family residences. The applicant
now is proposing to increase the units and the single family lots. One of the
plans to include the single family home located up here now has been sold off to
another individual so that's not included. Also, the duplex has been sold off
and that is not included. The six unit apartment that's being proposed is split
into two lots so it can be developed as duplex. The house that was moved onto
the site, is proposed to be a single family lot. Then they are proposing an
additional sixth single family lot. The area is in the unsewered area. It does
not have water. The ordinance currently now regulates a minimum of 1 unit per
10 acres. The proposal far exceeds this. The ordinance also requires a minimum
lot size of 2 1/2 acres for lots not serviced by sewer and water. The lots that
are proposed are below this minimum. There are steep slopes on a majority of
these lots. The lots located on Lot 2, Block 1 have a lot of improvements to
the existing structures on them. Staff has visited the site with a soils
consultant. It's going to be difficult to site two approved septic sites per I
lot. Staff is recommending that the concept plan does not meet the requirements
of the ordinance. We are recommending that it not be approved. The Planning
Commission also agreed with that. They felt that it was not in conformance with
the Zoning Ordinance and that they should come in with a new proposal. For the
City Council tonight it's a four-fifths vote for approval of the concept plan.
Mayor Hamilton: Councilmembers have questions of Jo Ann? If not, Bradley, did
you want...
Brad Johnson: If you guys would pass this around. This is the original
photograph of what Ches Mar Farms used to look like, for your own information.
It was taken from an airplane in 1930. Basically, the reason that we are
proposing something...is that the property itself has been deteriorating over a
number of years. I think in the case of the Planning Commission, they don't
have to deal with economic issues but it's a problem that the City... The
property has gone through three owners in the last several years. Each time, it
never quite worked out the way they had planned and slowly but surely the
buildings have been burning down and/or deteriorating. At a certain point in
time, we felt it would be necessary to correct it. Mr. Kirt came in here about
4 years ago and had it...basically any existing zoning. Through the assistance 11 of the planning staff with the thought that he'd be able to sell the parcels
off. He has been able to sell a parcel that is located here and a parcel that's
located here. The duplex is back here and there's a single family gatehouse
here and then this is...the Gross' that is located here. He was unable to sell
any of the balance of the property. The main problem is there is a six unit
apartment building that has existed there as long as that photograph has been in
existence and it's had probably some great days and some bad days. In real
life, it's a real nice duplex but it's not a six unit building. It is difficult
30 ,
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 153
finding people who are willing to live in that type of unit. Periodically Mr.
Kirt has picked it up and had to come back and put clean it out. Basically it's
'
Ir something that's just a real problem. Unless he's had relatives living on the
site, he's just had major problems. That is the problem essentially. It's not
anything else and the valuation has dropped. Secondly, we've got, you can check
' Mr. Chaffee here, there were a number of Public Safety calls out there and this
is just typical of what happens when you've got this type of rental property.
It slowly degenerates. It just does and people just don't care. Especially
with absentee owners. Our proposal is in concept only. We're looking for
' somebody to give us some direction as to what we should do with the property or
it will continue to go down in value because that's just too expensive to
maintain as it is. The proposal basically is, in concept, to take and transfer
' that value of what land we have from the existing two family home and the costs
that he has incurred to maintain it and transfer it all onto other lots so they
can lower the selling price on the duplex so we can find someone to buy it.
' That's the whole idea. In other words, right now the valuation on that is too
high for anybody to be willing to purchase it. Secondly, this has never worked
as a sixplex for years and years and years so we'd like to convert it back to a
two family home. We think we can accomplish that with that kind of transfer is
' approved. Now, that's the problem. The solution to our problem, probably from
the process point of view is that this is currently in a PUD so we are proposing
an amendment of the PUD. We're looking at the addition of an additional 20
' acres so we would not increase the density on the site. This particular
proposal has a total of 9 lots. Two new units which were used by the Naegele
property which we purchased just using up the additional density. As we
understand it, and staff can correct me, the reason that you have a 1 in 10
ruling out in that area is you have these agreements with the Metrpolitan
Council that that's what it's going to be. Is that correct?
' Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. Metropolitan Council dictates that all.
Brad Johnson: So I went to Metropolitan Council and asked them if it would be
' okay, in concept only, to just change densities in there as six unit be there as
four ones and a duplex. They, in concept, did not have any problem with that.
The next issue then is if the zoning currently requires a 1 in 10, it's our
opinion that we can be governed in a number of different ways. We can look at
' this as an amending of an existing PUD. We can't change what's there. There
just happens to be a six unit building on that particular site. Previously
there were probably 14 or 15 units out on that particular site. That's what we
advised the Council here. Now in that process of going through the Planning
Commission, they came back and said, they did not like primarily the size of the
lots. Remember we're doing a concept thing, so we kind of amended the plan, and
we just got this done today, so that we now meet all the rural, in concept, we
now meet all your rural. These are all 2.5 acre lots. We've reduced the number
of lots. Our problem is where the two buildings are now. The duplex. We can
not probably reduce that so that it's 2.5 acres per unit. So we came in at
' 2.27 and 2.07. This then comes very, very close to meeting your rural lot
requirement size. Probably because the building sites are now farther away from
the plane, or a flat surface, probably meet that to take a requirement and we
feel that that's pretty close except for the 1 in 10. That's kind of where
we're at. So if we can get by the 1 in 10 and forget that. Deal with it as a
PUD and use 2 1/2 acres as a lot size that we're trying to achieve, we can
probably come up with a plan that would fit in concept with what we think the
Planning Commission required. We don't think this would come in as a 1 in 10
' 31
1154Y Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 II
because of already the building that's there. The second thing is the road
entrance system that's there. Currently there's an easement that runs all the
way back. It's only 20 feet wide at the entrance versus the 50 required. Here
again, when they went through, they changed everything to a 50 foot wide
easement and it could go to 60. We have a problem at this point. The
neighborhood objects violently to anything that looks like a public road and
they would prefer to have it remain as a private road at least until there is
sewer and water available. Therefore, the request is that they may go along
with this as long as the road remains private. Now at one time this parcel was
controlled by everybody but whoever did the ultimate layout of this set it up so
it would be impossible to put a 50 foot wide road in there. We have set aside a
50 foot easement running along this side of the property in case the public road
sometime or public property would have to be brought in. The proposal in
concept and we do something out there within the rules. As I say, with this
particular plan meets most of the rules except for the 1 in 10. We're kind of
studying our cases and we're staying in the densities, exactly the density
that's out there and we've added 20 acres. I think we've done everything we
can, and as I said, the solution is just to stop the deterioration of what's
happening. We have through this plan now attracted people who are willing to
come in and develop it and live there. We're in the process of actually
starting that process anyway with the hope that we'll be able to accomplish it.
This remains an outlot with a trail system someday to get down to Lake
Minnewashta.
Mayor Hamilton: How many feet do you have on Minnewashta?
Brad Johnson: 200. '
Mayor Hamilton: What would your ideas be of developing that?
Brad Johnson: Our current ideas? Currently we're setting it up as an outlot. '
Mayor Hamilton: So you'll be back in requesting a dock or something?
Brad Johnson: I don't know. We've been reducing the number of lots and the
cost of doing the outlot and dock and everything is starting to get out of
control so all we're showing here now is just a trail down to here, from our
point of view. The homeowners at someday can buy it. It qualifies I think as a
beachlot. Size. There are some problems down in here because it's really a
marshy area. Somebody would have to spend some time but we decided that the
type of dock, it would have to be a floating dock or something, we'll just let
the homeowners association worry about it at a later date. Originally our plan
had docks. If you look at it, the original one had docks, tennis courts and
everything. In the process of losing a couple of lots, we had to take out all
the amenities. I think I understand the rules. One, you'd have to figure out
how to get around the 1 in 10 situation. Two, I don't know if this fits the
Comprehensive Plan where that is, or if we would have to amend it. Three, I
think at that point we meet almost all of the rules. Jo Ann, she pointed out
and correctly so, we should be concerned about the soils because she was there
for the perc tests for sewer systems but that will be the next step. We thought
this idea was okay and then we'll go back and work with the City folks to make
sure that we're not, it becomes an engineering problem. The only other big
issue I see is the public versus private road concept.
32 -'
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 1 55
Mayor Hamilton: You or Harold, spoke with somebody on the Metropolitan Council
and I know there were comments in the Minutes about that. Perhaps you could
refresh my memory about that conversation.
Brad Johnson: This had to do with the, strictly with the density issue.
Harold Ness: My name is Harold Ness and I went with Barb Dacy over to Met
Council and talked about the idea of changing or creating the six unit, in unit
concept, for six single family. In this case we would use two of them for the
' double and then four of them in single family lots. They said they felt that
would not violate the Lake Ann Interceptor rule. I think Pat Pahl is the
representative of this area.
' Mayor Hamilton: Who was that you talked to?
' Harold Ness: The lady's name was Pat Pahl.
Mayor Hamilton: Pat Pahl. She's a...
' Harold Ness: Staff member. She's a staff person in charge of this area.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you go there Barbara?
' Barbara Dacy: Yes. I was in attendance at the meeting that Mr. Ness is
referring to. What I would recommend that the Council do also, Ms. Pahl does
now have another job with Met Council and on other issues over the last couple
months, when they change staff over there, sometimes we get a different
interpretation and I know that's frustrating for you and it's frustrating for
the City as well. Also, given the fact that they have submitted a new plan
' today, staff feels a little uncomfortable having the Council act on this. I know
it's some minor changes that you're calling for in the intent of the Planning
Commission approval but it might be worth it for the Council to table action on
this item for two weeks until we can receive a letter from Met Council...
Mayor Hamilton: As a concept plan, I didn't know we were going to approve
anything other than to just make comment whether we would like it or go along
' with it. If it could be refined in someway that would seem to be workable.
Barbara Dacy: My only concern there was that the ordinance requires a four-
fifths vote on concept plan approval and if general comments are made to proceed
for the applicant to the preliminary plat stage. If the case is denied, I'm
just concerned that the applicant gets the correct message from the Council and
that all of a sudden we see more information and then you have a change of heart
' or a different set of requirements.
Mayor Hamilton: I would encourage the applicant to talk to Marcy Waritz and
' Dirk DeVries who are Metropolitan Council representatives who have been a great
help to us in the past in this community. Show them your plan and see what
their feelings are. They're the ones who's blessings you may need eventually to
accomplish what you want to do.
Councilman Geving: There's another point too Mr. Mayor. I don't believe that
there's any attempt tonight to get the Council to comment one way or another or
give you any kind of assurance that we'd go for this plan. The plan that you
' 33
1 56
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
showed the Planning Commission was entirely different than the board that you
switched around and showed as Plan B tonight. I'm not prepared to comment on
that issue because we didn't get any comments from the Planning Commission
regarding your Plan B. Staff probably just say themselves for the first time
when you turned this around tonight so I'm very uncomfortable, other than to
give you my views on what you're attempting to do but not to go to a vote
tonight of any way or to encourage you even. '
Brad Johnson: When we left it at the Planning Commission, they did not vote on
it... What we're really interested on is the 1 in 10 concept. The ability for
us to actually use the density however the plan is laid out. The ability for us
to use the density, assuming Met Council should go along with it.
Councilman Geving: Brad, the comments that I made are relative to staff input
which is extremely important to us and Planning Commission seeing Plan B. Until
that happens, I'm not real anxious to really give you very much encouragement on
this plan.
Mayor Hamilton: However, on an overall basis I think we would have enough,
looking at both plans, to say whether or not it's something that we may want to
see them pursue or not pursue. I don't think that's a very difficult decision
to make.
Councilman Boyt: Can I comment? There are a couple questions that I would have '
for you. I think you've addressed several of them. The sewer and water
constraints. You're certainly going to have to clear that up. I think for me,
Met Council is the deciding factor and I think it is for you as well. If Met
Council approves this idea, you have my support. I think that what you're
trying to do is a definite improvement to the community from what I've read and
I would encourage you to pursue this. I would also encourage you to pursue the
first plan. I think the idea of a PUD is to create common open space. I guess
that first plan may have even bigger sewer problems with it and there may be a
lot of other reasons why you wouldn't want to do it but if it was strictly a
matter of what's the best layout of a piece of property from a use standpoint, I
don't have difficulty with a 1 acre lot and common area but it may have building
problems.
Walter Whitehill: I beg your pardon. Would you repeat that. '
Councilman Boyt: Sure. What I said was, if it's possible to create a common
use area for everyone, I don't have a problem with that. My problem is...
Walter Whitehill: ...1 acre lots.
Councilman Boyt: I said with 1 acre lots in a PUD concept.
Walter Whitehill: This is not a PUD concept.
Councilman Boyt: It is a PUD concept.
Mayor Hamilton: It is a PUD. That piece of property is zoned PUD right now.
That's what we're looking at.
34
11 ' . City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 1.-57
II Walter Whitehill: But what they're proposing here will not meet the PUD
requirements.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. I guess we're not debating that issue right now.
Councilman Boyt: What I'm talking about is a constraint on our development in
II this area. It's sewer and water and the Met Council and if they can deal with
those two issues, then I'm in support of what they're attempting to do to the
piece of property. I don't have constraints greater than the Met Council's or
1 the sewer and water concerns in regards to their lot size. That's something
that other people have set those constraints up. I'm happy to live with the
constraints they've set up but I don't have greater constraints is what I'm
saying.
IIWalter Whitehill: You don't feel any obligation to stay at the 2 1/2 acres per
lot?
1 Councilman Boyt: If you're talking about general development in the area
outside of this...
IWalter Whitehill: That's what it's all about is general development because
that's the restriction and you say you have no. ..
I Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you could tell us who you are. It seems like you're
talking a lot. Maybe you could give us your name and address.
Ili , Walter Whitehill: I'll be glad to. I'm Walter Whitehill and I live just south
of this area. You have my letter and I object to this proposal. First of all
I object on the grounds that you are increasing density. With the number of
II people that are housed in the current housing that is there, compared to what
you will have if you have $300,000.00 homes, you're going to have a lot more
people. You're going to have a lot more toilets. A lot more sinks and a lot
more wells. Now I speak with authority on wells. I had 13 years of experience
I with the Department of Agriculture in Texas and I can guarantee you that the
water table will drop when you punch in these additional wells or start
drilling. I'm concerned because I've got well south of here and if my table
II goes down to where I can' t pump, then I'm in serious trouble. Number two, there
is already a sewage problem coming off of this property onto my property. It
was there when I bought the land so it is a pre-existing condition and I belly
ached to nobody but I guarantee you, I promise you that if you approve this and
I the developer goes ahead with it, and there is additional effluent coming down
and I've got a way of measuring it now, I will bring legal regress against the
Council, against the City and against the developer. It's not a threat, it's a
1 promise. I shall do that. Now, when you put in these additional homes and you
have all the water draw down from the water table, it has to go someplace. It
comes out of the ground and goes down the toilet or sink. It's going to come on
II my land and I can't tolerate that. That's my principle objection. I don't want
to lose my well and I don't want to lose my land. It was mentioned here that 2
or 3 other developers have bought this land and went bankrupt. They were, to
pardon the expression, stupid businessmen. Each one thinking he could outthink
the other guy and make this go. Now we've got a fourth developer who comes
along with the same idea. He's going to buy it and he's going to make some
money and now he's asking the City, hey, it didn't work. Bail me out. Help me
I change this thing when I went in with my eyes open and I didn't see all the
35
II
t58
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
problems that are coming up and now I can't make any money on this. Please,
Chanhassen, bail me out of trouble. Pass some new rules so I can develop this
thing and make my money. I don't think that's the job of the Council or the 1
City to do that. I know that if you put in these nice expensive homes you'll
get more taxes which will help the City in total but I don't think that's the
idea of the zoning is to develop more tax money. I think what you have to do is
console with the common interest and that's what I'm asking you to look at.
Tonight he said that with this new proposal, Plan B, if you forget the 10 acres,
and I'm saying you can't forget the 10 acres right now, but if you do he said,
then we meet most of the rules of the 2 1/2 acres. Not all of them. Again,
what's the Council going to do. Are you going to require the people meet the
rules or not. Can you fudge a little or can you fudge a lot. When you start
giving leeway to fudge, I think you're getting in some deep water. I'm asking
to rule this on the basis of the existing regulations. To take an awful hard
look at the very likely probability that there's going to be more effluent
coming onto my land and if it does, you have my promise.
Councilman Geving: Walter did '
g= , you submit a letter to us? You said we got your
letter.
Walter Whitehill: Yes I did.
Councilman Geving: I don't have a copy in my packet. 1
Walter Whitehill. I was told that it had been presented.
Jo Ann Olsen: No. It got in the Planning Commission. I forgot to include it. 1
Councilman Geving: Would you make copies for everybody.
Walter Whitehill: I was told it had been submitted to you. I apologize.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to continue if I might Mr. Whitehill. Gary, we've
just heard about an existing sewage problem on the surface and I would assume
you're going to follow up on that pretty quickly because we don' t accept that
problem, in spite of what Mr. Whitehill might feel that he bought. As I stated
earlier, there's certainly sewer and water constraints on this property. I
would encourage Mr. Johnson to continue to pursue the development of this piece
of property. It takes a four-fifths vote but from what I've seen, I think you
can work through the problems. However, the problems, as you know, will have to
be worked through.
Councilman Johnson: I think there are considerable constraints on here and
looking at the property, even Plan B is going to be very tough to get two sites
for septic systems. While people have a right for water to flow off of their
property onto somebody elses property, they have no right for sewage to do so.
I'm with Bill on that. We're going to have to follow up on that failed septic
system if that's what's happening there as quickly as we have for everybody
else. How many people are currently living in the duplex? Or the sixplex as
you're calling it. I
Brad Johnson: At one time there was probably 12, 15.
Mayor Hamilton: And right now?
36 1
x59
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
II jr-
Brad Johnson: There's one family with 7, 3 singles. 14 people.
Councilman Johnson: And then this particular structure you want to convert to a
duplex where there's only two families in it. I haven't gone out to look at
the structure. I should have but I didn't get out there. I never considered a
Planned Unit Development going into the RR district, or being an expansion as
such. I have a lot of problem. I know something needs to be done here but I'm
' not sure if this is the right time or the right plan. As I read through our
Planned Unit Development district rules, I can't find that it restricts it to
the sewered areas. That PUD isn't restricted in place. A PUD can be anywhere
as I read it. Maybe it is allowed as such. I have trouble thinking that it is
a good way to use a PUD to get around this. I'd like to see all the lots at 2
1/2 acres. I'm not totally wild about the 1 in 10 rules that's being forced on
us by Met Council. The 2 1/2 acre I think is our rule. The 1 in 10 is Met
Council's rule. You're definitely going to have to look for the well drawdown
problems. Hopefully you won't have too much of a problem with these small wells
and depending upon which aquafirs you're in. The sewage is going to be a
tremendous problem. Like I say, I want Planning Commission also to take a look
at this Plan B before I have any kind of vote on it.
Councilman Horn: That pretty well summarizes my comments too. I want to see
' Planning Commission look to review this plan. I want to see staff's input on
this plan. To give a recommendation. It's the first time they've seen it so
it's something that we can't do. Also, I'm concerned about the Metropolitan
Council. I think you want to be concerned not just what they tell us upfront on
this thing but the little caveats they have a way of sneaking in on the backside
of the project as they did on the Lake Ann Interceptor because I can just see at
some point where we would come in with another request to them and they'd be
throwing this up in our face saying that we violated their rules here, and
therefore you can't have this other proposal when it makes sense so I think we
need to get that very clear with them because we've run into that problem
' before. Also, the sewer issues need to be addressed and they have to work. I
have no fear of being sued if we have our staff go in and make competent
judgment on anything that we do in terms of the sewer and water. I think we
' have to be very careful on how we approach that. We can't bend any rules on the
two sites just as we do on every other site. I understand the concept of
improving when it doesn't work for a developer. I don't have a problem with
that. I'm concerned about improving it from the City's viewpoint. If the City
' wins and the developer happens to win too, I don't have a problem with that. It
doesn't have to be the City win and the developer lose situation. It's better
if it can be everybody wins. If that's what happens here, I think it will be
' better than what we've had in the past on this site and I would go along with it
but I don't want to see any deviations from any of our established policy on
this with the possible exception of certain areas which we have deviated in the
' past if the averages work out right. One of them comes in at 2.4 and the other
one compensates at 2.6, I would deviate that far but the average has to make
sense.
Councilman Geving: Back in October, 1985 when we passed the original PUD, the
concern that we had at that time was that this PUD would not increase in
density. It was a very important issue and we talked about it for a long time.
' My feeling is that we should stick with our 2 1/2 acre minimums or anything
that's very close to that because as we look down the road for other developers
' 37
[ 0
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
and their proposals that would come before us, if we deviated a
P Po , lot from 2 1/2
acres, I think we are opening ourselves up to a lot of problems. I'd like to
stay with the 2 1/2 acre minimum. Have it go back to the Planning Commission.
Have our staff put the input on this. I am very concerned on the water runoff.
The sewer issues certainly have to be addressed. As far as I'm concerned, they
haven't been. Again, I think density is the issue for me. 2 1/2 acres is a
must because I know we're going to see lots of other developers who will come in
here and want us to bend the rule just a little bit for them and I agree with
what Brad is trying to do here. Whether it's Brad or anybody else, I'm not
always in favor of trying to ressurrect and save a person from economic hardship
but the reality of the situation is that we can make a nice development there
and if there's something that we can do to make that happen, I think that we are
the winners. Again though, it must meet our minimum standards. If it does
that, I'm all for it. I'm in favor of sending this back to the Planning
Commission with those comments and let's take another look at it but not
tonight. We've given you some direction. We've given some thoughts on how this
thing might work and I want to make sure that all the bases are covered
including Mr. Whitehill's or anybody else who lives in the area who has concerns
about water well drawdown. Water runoff from the properties. I'm kind of
concerned a little bit too about this beachlot that may face us in the future
and I'd like to see a total plan rather than just this development. If he's
even thinking about that as a potential, I know we're going to have to face that
in the future as well so you'd better put it in there Brad. Include it in your
plan so we see the total plan that might happen over the next several years on
this property. There was one question that I had that staff brought out. That
is, the parcel that's included in the convenant that could not be subdivided.
Can you address that for us Barbara or anyone? It was included in the staff
notes and also the Planning Commission notes on a covenant that covered the 21
acres. How does this affect the Plan B that was posed tonight?
Jo Ann Olsen: What was brought out was that, during the Planning Commission
review they saw that outlot as just being used to keep the density down and that
it wasn't really going to be used as part of the lot, although this plan does
use some of that outlot area as buildable area but I think at that time they
said it was not going to be subdivided and it was always going to remain open
space. '
Councilman Geving: I'd like to have that issue addressed because what people
say in a planning situation and what actually happens in the future are two
different things. I remember Mrs. Swenson saying exactly that. That she was
concerned about the density issue way back in 1985 and she was concerned that
this exact thing would happen. That eventually that piece of property would be
included in the net density so make sure that that's part of the discussion
that's brought back to us. That's all I have Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we've covered all the points. I guess everybody is
concerned about the water and sewer and those issues need to be thoroughly
addressed. I think all the alternatives need to be investigated as to what type
of sewer system you can put in there. I think there are some alternatives we
need to look at. I like the planning that I see. I think it's a good plan.
Either one of them but I also want to get comments from the Planning Commission
on your new plan. We have a blighted area there that was a beautiful area at
one time. I think we have an opportunity now to clean it up. To make it a real
nice part of the City of Chanhassen there's no reason that just because that's
38 1
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
x61
II — out in the country a little bit that we shouldn't be concerned about cleaning
fr that up just as well as any other part of town. I'd encourage you to go ahead
II with the plan also.
' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the Concept
Plan to amend a Planned Unit Development for Ches Mar Farms until after the
Planning Commission has had a chance to review the new plan presented at the
City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Gerry Eikaas, 2761 Ches Mar Farm Road: In the last Minutes I think it said my
name was Aikenspot or something but it's Eikaas. We did send a letter to
councilmembers and to the Planning Staff asking if we could please be notified
of any change or any plans and that has not occurred and I'm just asking out of
courtesy when you set up the meeting at the Planning Staff or City Council
meeting, if you could just send us a notice.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we have your name and if you give your name to Barbara.
t Perhaps if they didn't know how to spell your name last time, it was hard for
them to find you.
Councilman Boyt: Did we get that letter?
Councilman Geving: I don't remember seeing it.
Gerry Eikaas: That was sent for the first meeting and I sent it everyone on the
' Council. We also sent it to the Planning Staff with my right name and address.
It was signed by everyone that lives at Ches Mar Farm.
' Councilman Horn: Outside you said you didn't send it as part of this package.
You sent it directly to us?
' Gerry Eikaas: No. I sent it to the City Hall.
Councilman Johnson: I think it was under Adminstrative Section several months
' ago wasn't it? It was quite a while ago. I do remember a letter from Ches Mar
and I said, what's going on here?
AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR LAKE LUCY ROAD WATERMAIN.
Gary Warren: Just briefly, to give you an overview here since everybody is
pretty familiar with our situation. This is an item that has appeared before
the Council back as far as 1979. The City's water system is split into two
service areas. High pressure zone and what we call low pressure zone system.
' It implies that it's deficient but it's lower than the high. Three quarters of
our users, basically from Yosemite Avenue to the east are in that low pressue
zone area and are serviced by Well #4 down by Lake Susan and by Well #2 in South
I Lotus Lake park area. We just recently added our new ground storage reservoir
is in the low service area and added needed capacity into that area. The high
service zone is on the west side of the City and is serviced from Well #3 off of
' Galpin Blvd.. It services about a quarter of the users. Primarily up in about
the Lake Minnewashta area. As we pointed out in the past and previous
39
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
feasibility studies and most recently in 1985 the water study, a needed
improvement to the system is the trunk watermain along Lake Lucy Road to
interconnect the two systems on the north side down. Along Lake Lucy Road to
basically connect the Well #3 into the low pressure system. They basically are
pumping at the same service area and the water from Well #3 is sent through a
booster station to get it up to the higher elevation to the higher zone there.
A couple of things come with that. One, is Well #3 is about 1,000 gallons per
minute pump, a major pump like for Wells #2 and #4. However, it only has a 250
gallon per minute back-up up in our high school well. Council took action as
you saw from the attachments here and I'm sure many of you are familiar with it,
having been there, to do necessary modifications to Well #3 at that time and
also, to upgrade the capacity of the high school well from 150 to 250 gallons
per minute. That was done and that's all the farther we can really develop the
high school well. So by making the interconnection between the low pressure
system and Well #3, we are able to utilize pumping capacity of Wells #2 and #4
to feed into the high pressure zone and likewise we are able to utilize Well #3
to pump back into the lower pressure system to serve as addition pumping
capacity. Well #3 currently runs about 5 hours a day on the average whereas
Well #2 is running in the primer mode, we've been up over 20 hours a day before
the sprinkling restrictions so #2 and #4 and definitely the work horses because
of the large amount of the system that they're feeding and Well #3 could help to
take some of the peak off of those wells. At this point in time, in light of
I guess what I would call almost a void in our system here, I thought it
appropriate to bring it back to the Council to reconsider and taking a fresh
look at the Lake Lucy Road watermain because as we all know, even with the
reserve capacity, storage capacity you have in the system, the ability to
develop the water and pump in the system is a real key for us as far as staying '
ahead of the game on sprinkling ban problems.
Mayor Hamilton: When was the last feasibility study done?
Gary Warren: 1980.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could refresh everybody's memory and so everyone has
an understanding of what the feasibility study will show us.
Gary Warren: The purpose of the feasibility study would be to take a look at
constructing the watermain connection along Lake Lucy Road to actually establish
the feasibility of doing it, for one thing, and also to look at the cost for
constructing that improvement as well as funding scenarios. Whether any or all
or none of the costs would be assessed to the abutting property owners or
benefitting properties.
Mayor Hamilton: I know there are some residents who are interested in this and
just so they know that by doing a feasibility study doesn't do anything other
than to give us additional information.
Gary Warren: We look at this as typical, I guess 429 public improvement
project, if the Council authorizes it, which would call for a public hearing
after the feasibility study was done. Invite public comment and then allow an
evaluation on the basis of the Council to decide whether to proceed forward with
each step or not. We do have about 1,300 feet of the 18 inches. It would be an
18 inch watermain and we do have 1,300 feet of that already installed. We did
it as a part of the Curry Farms 1st Addition but we did not look at the local
40 I
MEM
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 j 63
benefit from an assessment standpoint.
Councilman Horn: Did you also include in that other examples of this type of
facility? How it was funded or any deviations that we've made from our
traditional funding methods?
Gary Warren: Yes, as I'm sure you're referencing here, with than Hills trunk
watermain for example. There we had a combination of local benefitting
property, that had a residential assessment and also a large participation of
funds...
Councilman Horn: The other thing I'd like to see addressed in there, would
' there have been the same had this been done in conjunction with the road
improvement project?
' Gary Warren: The intent, just to clarify everybody's mind, is that we have
enough right-of-way out there and such that we would not be tearing up Lake Lucy
Road.
Councilman Geving: Not just intent.
Gary Warren: That we would not be disrupting Lake Lucy Road.
Councilman Horn: If you were disrupting it today, would you plan the sewer
differently than where it is now because that will be the obvious question that
everyone will have?
IGary Warren: As far as the cost?
' Mayor Hamilton: We talked about that when we did Lake Lucy Road. Why not do
the water at the same time and I don't remember what the reasons were why we
didn't but I know that we did talk about it.
' Gary Warren: In going through the record, all that I could obtain was the
discussion, there was some question about Well #3 and that it could be brought
up to higher capacity and also developing the high school well to a larger level
' of service which was the direction the Council went which at that time provided
us maybe 24 hours of reserve, which is reasonable with a service area for that
time. With the expansion we're seeing now, that is cutting...
' Councilman Geving: Gary, is it possible that this entire project, for
feasibility purposes only, we're only talking feasibility here, could be funded
' by means other than assessments? I'm talking 100%.
Gary Warren: There's always the options of utilizing trunk funds. Trunks funds
currently show a cash balance of about $270,000.00. We're estimating the
project to cost about $350,000.00 so there is a shortfall there. I'm sure
through a general tax levy or there are other alternatives.
Councilman Geving: Those would come out, like Clark is mentioning, in your
alterantives.
'�. Councilman Boyt: My comment would be, what you've told us, it's easy to
recognize that this is a critical situation. I don't think it's critical to the
11 41
164 II
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
I
people who live pn Lake Lucy Road and I think I would support the direction Dale
might be headed din. I'd be opposed to assessing the people on Lake Lucy Road I
for this. We need to pursue other alternatives with the thought being, at least
from my standpot, we're not going to assess people that have a functioning
well and an exiting working system. If they want to join it, then they can pay
whatever the fee is to attach.
Mayor Hamilton::e This is a citywide benefit and to loop the water system
completely is really a benefit to everybody in the City so I see that as
certainly not something that should be born by the folks who live on Lake Lucy
Road. I think we need to keep our vision open and look at all alternatives but
certainly looking- more to how we can fund it without assessing anyone. 1
Councilman Geving: There's another issue though too Tom. Don't we have the
regulation thatdrequires hook-up within one year if the facility is available.
That we might hive to address that. If people do have a working system, they
might be able toy part of that particular persons, you might want to refresh us.
Gary Warren: .'s 1 or 2 years but it's within 150 feet also. '
Mayor Hamilton ;d-That should be addressed within the feasibility study.
Councilman Gevix : I don't want to force anybody into something that might cost
them a lot of--money if they're got a new system and it's working even though we
do have a polices•and an ordinance that covers it.
Councilman Horn I think too, which will bring out in the feasibility study,
Y
what our philosophy has been. I can remember the statement saying, if your well
isn't broke now it's only a matter of time until it will be and the assumption
is you'll be tying into it. A lot of people paid a lot of assessments based on
that. It's going- to come down to the same, just like Tom mentioned earlier.
You were the last guy who paid for the water system in front of your house even
though you had ayrworking well and now the Council comes along and decided to
change the policy-:on how we assess this thing, I'd be a little upset. I don't
think none of usrcan make the statement on how this should be done until we get
the history... '
Councilman Geving: Based on that, I would move that we authorize the feasibility
study on the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain as proposed to us tonight by Gary
Warren with all the comments prepared here given by the Council, to be included
in the feasibility study.
Mayor Hamilton; ,Ir'll second it. Did you guys have any comments? Brian or '
Larry, did you gays have anything you wanted to comment.
Larry Kerber: , C•uld homeowners hook up to this or is this strictly a trunk? '
You could hook up a house to it?
Mayor Hamilton: Right. '
Larry Kerber: okay, how is it going to affect places that have water already
like my property?
Mayor Hamilton: :,,,You mean you have your own well?
42 11
ICity Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 1 65
Jr-
'- Larry Larr Kerber:
No, I have city sewer and water.
Mayor Hamilton: You're already hooked into it? You won't be changing your
hook-up?
Larry Kerber: I mean if you decided to assess the homeowners, would I be
assessed? I already have sewer and water. I'm talking about my parcel on the
corner of Lake Lucy and Powers.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think it's kind of hard for us to answer that now. I guess
that should be part of the study to address properties like yours and what the
alternatives would be because we just don't have the information. Brian?
Brian Tichy: Gary, are you setting the pipes on the north side of the
road?
' Gary Warren: The current 1,300 feet is on the north side. The actual original
feasibility looked at the south side and had a sketch on that but there wasn't a
lot... The fact that we have 1,300 feet on the north side, they're not going to
be...
Brian Tichy: To hook up...
Gary Warren: We would jetjack underneath the road.
Resident: If you come on the north side, how much beyond the right-of-way are
you coming into?
Gary Warren: I don't know. We'll have to look at it.
' Resident: You're already at my front door.
Mayor Hamilton: That's part of the feasibility study. It's hard to answer
' that.
Ted Coey: I think the reason a lot of us are here is because, as you know with
' Lake Lucy Road being a problem and we've already got an assessment, in the
future on the interceptor and we're going to get this and what I'm saying, we're
all concerned about being able to afford to live there.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what you heard us saying. We're concerned about
the same thing.
' Ted Coey: I appreciate your comments and what Dale and a couple of the other
councilmembers said. We like it there and I don't want to have to move because
of a $20,000.00 assessment. I have problems with $4,000.00 on this road...
Mayor Hamilton: Our goal is that you'll get hit for nothing.
Ted Coey: That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you.
43 -'
t ty Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 II
Resolution #88-75: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
authorize the feasibility study for Lake Lucy Road watermain as proposed
including the comments made by the City Council. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW TO EXPAND FIRE STATION, 7610 LAREDO DRIVE. '
Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody have any comments, questions? A motion would be
in order. '
Councilman Boyt: I have a comment. I think that we should, there's a comment
in there about the addition of sugar maples. I think we should make that more
specific and say, we want about 25% to be sugar maples.
Barbara Dacy: 25% of the total trees?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with the silver maple? '
Councilman Boyt: Maple trees, how would that be?
Mayor Hamilton: Any maple tree is nice. What are those red ones with the red
leaves.
Councilman Boyt: Those are red maple. Maybe there's general agreement that we
[111
want to fix a percentage on that. The other thing I thought was worth some
discussion here was Planning Commission member Batzli brought up handicap
accessibility. I guess philosophicly, we're building a public building, it
ought to be handicap accessible.
Councilman Johnson: By State law.
Councilman Boyt: It's a little frightening the cost of putting in an elevator
P 9 or
into the fire station. Somehow or another I think we have to deal with the idea
that the building is completely handicap accessible. '
Barbara Dacy: You may want to address that from the construction standpoint.
We...with the builder inspector, it's not required by State Law. Going beyond
that, you might want to address that.
Jim Chaffee: When I attended the Planning Commission, when they did address
this, it was my impression that he was getting at the voting that was going on
at the fire station. He was, I thought, that was going on down in the basement.
It's not. It goes on upstairs. It doesn't address your concerns about being
totally handicap accessible. The cost of the elevators is way beyond our
capacity at this time. It is not required by Code.
Mayor Hamilton: It's a fire station. It's not someplace where handicaps should
be going. We're not going to have handicap people as fire people, I wouldn't
think.
44
' City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 167
Barbara Dacy: The main level is handicap accessible. It's the lower area that
we're concerned about.
' Councilman Boyt: The basement.
' Councilman Geving: That's basically a basement. Isn't that really what we're
talking about? Training for the fire fighters.
Mayor Hamilton: Just by the nature of the...
Councilman Boyt: I understand that. It's sort of philosophical.
' Mayor Hamilton: I agree. If we could somehow work in handicap accessibility. I
think it's unfair the way we treat handicap people but when you have a situation
like a fire station where you really need to be an able body person to partake
' in that activity, even though we use that facility occassionally for something
other than a fire call. There are some meetings there, it would be nice if we
could have some way to accomodate handicap people.
' Councilman Boyt: The main floor is going to be. We're going to have the curb
cuts and all the things that we need to consider there. And I was impressed
that you put in lockers for women so maybe we're going to get some female fire
fighters in there.
Mayor Hamilton: Just following up on what Bill's saying, see what else you can
do for handicap accessibility. For the building. Any other comments?
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Site Plan Review
' #88-5 for expansion of the- Fire Station based on the plans stamped "Received May
23, 1988" and subject to the following conditions:
1. Concrete curbing shall be added to the north side of the proposed driveway
entrance to the new apparatus storage area.
2. The landscaping plan shall be amended to indicate a species for the proposed
trees along the south lot line and to attempt to save the Sugar Maple on the
northeast corner and install 25% maple trees.
' 3. A revised grading plan shall be supplied to the City Engineer for approval
prior to final site plan review.
1 4. Calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer which verify that
adequate flow and pressure conditions will be met to meet the demands for
the sprinkling system.
' 5. Adequate fire hydrant spacing will be met as part of the plans and
specifications review process.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' 45
AM
Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 11
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 20-813 TO ALLOW CHILD CARE
CENTERS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT, FIRST
READING.
Mayor Hamilton: I think Redman Products already has a daycare center in their
facility.
Barbara Dacy: That's correct. That was under our former ordinance ,
ce and the
former ordinance did allow that type of accessory use.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's a great idea. It's really neat that companies are
willing to do that.
Councilman Boyt: I think we need to be specific about the users of the daycare
center. I think they need to be limited to children who have parents employed
in the Industrial Park or maybe even with that particular employer where it's
located. I don't think we want to encourage licensed daycare centers to take
people from the general public in an industrial office park. It's a real good
idea for the children of the people who work there.
Councilman Geving: I think that's probably already built in.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you know what the scope of your operation is going to be
Dick?
Dick Warren: The primary purpose of course would be for the employees of
Instant Webb Company. What you run into is we have some fairly significant
costs that are associated with regulations. Construction really has to be built
during contingency so, I'm trying to find a good way of phrasing this. I think
that it would make the thing a lot more doable if you had the escape hatch of
opening it up to other people in the office park, if for whatever reason... It
would make the project a lot more feasible over the long haul.
Mayor Hailton: I think that's what Bill and Clark are saying. As long as it's
for the people in the office park, people who work there. Not necessarily
someone who works up on TH 7 and wants to just drop their child off at your
daycare center since there are other daycare centers to handle those type of
folks.
Councilman Boyt: I think we need to word that someway because as it stands now,
anyone could come in and say I want to put a daycare center in the IOP.
Barbara Dacy: Not as a permitted use. We have to have an established permitted
use in the industrial first before you can have an acessory use.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, I guess that covers my concern.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Request #88-10 to amend Section 20-813, Permitted Accessory Uses of
the IOP, Industrial Office Park District, as follows:
(4) State licensed day care center.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
46 I
II ' 169
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COMPLETE LAKE ANN PARK SHELTER.
'1 Lori Sietsema: In the memo it says that there is a letter attached to the
Chanhassen Legion and I found that my packet didn't have it.
' Councilman Boyt: Is that as a result of the action taken by Park and Rec? You
sent a letter as a follow-up?
' Lori Sietsema: No. This was an attachment and I don't know how it got excluded
from the package.
' Councilman Johnson: They were quite busy on Friday night trying to get all
these out.
' Lori Sietsema: It's a letter from me to the Legion just outlining what
I understood their position on the Lake Ann Park shelter.
Councilman Geving: This is interesting on this electrical work. At first we
' were just going to have a bulb practically hanging from the ceiling and an
outlets so we could plug in some cookers. It was going to be a low key, low
budget electrical amount of work. I'm surprised by this $8,000.00.
Lori Sietsema: The bulk of that is getting the electrical from.. .
Councilman Geving: I know it's bringing it all the way up. Is that true then
that most of the cost is really that?
Lori Sietsema: Yes.
' Councilman Geving: Because I don't recall a whole lot of electrical work within
the facility itself. Have we ever gotten any money at all from the Legion Club?
Lori Sietsema: Yes. They made two payments last .summer. Each payment was
$250.00.
' Councilman Geving: That's kind of skinny.
Mayor Hamilton: It just seems incredible to me that this little shelter can
' cost so much. It's just amazing. I don't know who's ripping who off but I
think somebody's getting their pockets full and it just irritates me everytime I
see this. $1,758.00 for concrete, the only concrete work that's been done has
' been to set the damn thing. Unless that price includes pouring the floor in
there.
Lori Sietsema: Yes. It's pouring the floor.
' Councilman Boyt: What was the process you went through in getting bids for
this?
Lori Sietsema: I contacted four local contractors and two of them were willing
to submit a quote for finishing the project at the site.
Councilman Boyt: And this was the lowest?
47
1.70 II
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Lori Sietsema: Yes. The Woitilla's was the most by $5,000.00.
Mayor Hamilton: On the 4th of July weekend the Rotary used that shelter for '
their concession stand and it worked out quite well just the way it is. It
would be nice to finish it I guess. Put in a cement or some kind of a floor or
asphalt or something in there. It worked well. We used it. It was just fine.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe you guys would be interested in picking up the... ,
Mayor Hamilton: Not a chance.
Councilman Horn: I would make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the '
Park and Recreation Commission.
Councilman Geving: I'll second that. But that recommendation says that we go
back to the Legion and force than to pay the money to cover this and finish it
up.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Rec Commission was relunctant to amend the budget '
to spend money for this project. Instead of the City taking it over and sending
them the bill, they wanted to put it back in their lap and say, go with your
original plan to finish it with volunteer labor or donations or whatever and
start making your monthly payments.
Councilman Boyt: Haven't you already just about basically done that with this
1_11
letter?
Lori Sietsema: No. This letter just outlines, it would still be the City that
would be contacting the contractor to finish it. We would then add, I don't
know what, the options are outlined as far as what we would do. The Legion
agreed to pay $25,000.00 and then the question was, who was going to pay the
rest? Were we going to just only do $25,000.00 worth of work or was the City
going to pick up the additional or are we going to go back to the Legion and
make them...
Councilman Boyt: The philosophy of the Park and Rec Board then was to say that
the Legion has committed to building this shelter. We're sure that they will
follow through on that commitment and that's the nature of your motion? Thank
you. '
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the recommendation
of the Park and Recreation Commission to deny the budget amendment proposal and
that the Legion should continue to work on the shelter and begin paying the
monthly installments on the existing loan. All voted in favor and the motion ,
carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW METAL BUILDINGS IN THE BUSINESS OFFICE AND I
INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICTS, FIRST READING.
Barbara Dacy: When we last looked at this, essentially what the ordinance
amendment recommended was basically items (a) and (b) from the Planning
48 ,
1 1' 1
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Commission. The Council
was very concerned that we really weren't saying what
we had intended to be which was number one, prohibiting polebarn buildings. So
we went back and did a little bit more research and looked at some other
community's ordinances. The question as posed before the Council is how do you
want the ordinance to regulate commercial and industrial construction. Would
' you want to permit a metal exterior such as the one that Bernie Hanson was
recently approved or do you want to implement a policy where there would be no
exposed metal walls on the surface. We have drafted an ordinance which would
1 accomplish prohibiting a pole building but would allow an exposed metal
exterior. Rightly so, the manager has added some comments regarding the
recommendation that the City pursue an ordinance which would prohibit exposed
metal wall surfaces. We would have to come back with amended language. For
' example, where he has allowed for construction that utilizes a metal roof system
so we would have to clarify that policy... So that's the major question
tonight. We've given you an example of one ordinance in another community.
Mayor Hamilton: Isn't the building that the Chan Video and MGM building that
they're in, I believe that's a metal building.
1 Barbara Dacy: The Saddlery building is...but I think MGM is concrete blocks.
Mayor Hamilton: Because the exterior of that is nice.
' Don Ashworth: If I may just follow up on my comments. I think we should allow
for metal buildings in the BF district and farm area and as part of contractor
yards. Right now there are literally restrictions from Opus which stops metal
1: building construction within the Business Park. The areas that we potentially
have left to see commercial and industrial development are all on lots that have
high visibility from various directions. The Burdick parcels have high
1 visibility from TH 5, CR 17 and realigned 78th Street. The parcels that could
be generated or created out on our east side which would lie between Lake Drive
East and TH 5, again have high visibility from the highway. I'm not really that
1 concerned about the ability of a property owner to do a facia. Again, similiar
to West 79th Street. West 79th Street, I think came out very nice. The
Saddlery, Dr. McCollum's office. Those are all metal buildings. They look very
1 nice and the reason is, you don't really have any perspective there of the
depths of the buildings themselves. You see the facia. You don't really see
the sides nor do you see the rear portion with the railroad tracks behind.
That's a lot different situation than for example the Riveria. They have a
1 facia there but you catch the whole side view as you're going by on either side.
You don't even notice that they have the facia on the front. It's not long
expanse of depth that I am quite concerned with. I tried to mull through my own
1 mind how you might do something where you would again do a partial type of
thing. Something like we did with Bernie Hanson. We screened two sides of him
and made 50% of each of those wall areas covered with materials other than the
1 metal but I don't know of any way you could potentially do that. Again, on the
Burdick parcels and the parcels on Lake Drive East, I guess I came to the
conclusion that I really think we should not put this ordinance through at this
point.
Councilman Johnson: I'm kind of split both ways in that I don't want polebarns
up but then I do see on the industrial side of things, there are times when the
1 metal building for high bay purposes or whatever, and strictly cost purposes of
doing some people in. You can put up a building by Butler or various other
1 49
a ty Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 I
manufacturers that have some pretty good facia on them, even on the sides. I
They're not just straight sides. They're indented and whatever. They've got a
texture to them. They can look pretty good. They're not going to be looking
iii
like a brick building or something. It's not going to be as fancy but somehow I
don't think it's reasonable to totally restrict metal buildings but then I don't
want to see a building that is just straight, quansant hut or metal building,
metal roof and absolutely no style to it. The town does have a certain class to II
it. We have put up some pretty classy buildings. If you talk about a
contractor's yard within the IOP, I don't think it should be there either. I'm
not sure this is what we want. A polebarn is what a contractor's yard, they're
II
not looking for a fancy metal building.
Councilman Geving: I'll keep my comments brief. I think we should allow the
II
metal buildings. I think there's room for them in our city and they can do a
nice job with the facia. I have no problem with this. Bernie Hanson's building
was as nice as any. In fact, you were even fooled by some of the ones that are
already up like the Saddlery. I thought that was a wood building so I am in
II
favor of allowing the metal buildings. That's all.
Councilman Horn: I think there are certain metal buildings that are
II
appropriate. i don't think this shot at the ordinance goes far enough. I think
just saying that because it has a wood pole construction, that it is not
adequate. I think that more... I disagree with Jay. I don't think the Butler II building is appropriate in this type of district. I think there are certain
metals that are. I think it boils right down to the same issue that we talked
about before, how do you specify what's a pretty metal building and what isn't.
at we have here I totally agree with the City Manager that this doesn't give I
s�
J�' much protection. I think we need more teeth in it than this. I think
.L.�� there's a place for them but you can' t leave it this loose.
Councilman Boyt: I appreciate the staff including the ordinances from
surrounding communities. When I read them, Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington and
Burnsville all deny metal buildings. I'm opposed to them. I don't see that
they can't build them in Eden Prairie so let's go over to Chanhassen and build a II
metal building. Initially I thought gosh, it should be possible to build a
metal building but if we have some pretty outstanding communities that have said
you can't build them here, then I think they don't belong in our industrial
II
area.
Mayor Hamilton: I wouldn' t be opposed to building them as long as we can review
II
each building and look at what the exterior treatment is going to be so that we
have some say in what the outside will look like. A pole building is not really
a pole building. It's more than just that. It's not a couple of poles going up
for walls. It can be a pretty significant building but as long as the exterior II
of it meets our requirements and the way we're trying to have the community
look, I guess I don't seen any problem with building one of those. That's my
thoughts. Basically I'm in favor of them as long as we can control them
II
somewhat. The exterior facade.
Councilman Johnson: Does this ordinance do that for you though? I don't think
II
it does.
IIIMayor Hamilton: No it doesn' t. It has to change somewhat.
50 I
1 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 `7
Don Ashworth: I would recommend that the Council table this and allow us to
take your comments into consideration and came back with something.
I r
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table action on the Zoning
I Ordinance Amendment to allow metal buildings in the Business Office and
Institutional and Industrial Office Park for further staff consideration. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
I Councilman Boyt: We saw some price figures in here that indicated that
something called a double skin metal treatment was up in the price range of
other types of building materials that were more appealing. I think staff
should consider rewriting this, if we're going to have metal, that it be
something that's the finest standard of metal that we can require.
1 CONSENT AGENDA: (H) AUTHORIZE INTERIM SEWER AND WATER SERVICE, BEDDOR
PROPERTY, WEST 184TH STREET AND TH 5.
1 Daryl Fortier: I'm Darrel Fortier from the architectural firm of Fortier and
Associates. I'm here to represent Frank Beddor Jr. who is the owner of Park One
and also the owner of about 42 acres of property in Eden Prairie that we refer
1 to as the Craig Morton property. A minor brief background of the history of
Eden Prairie property. When Mr. Beddor Park One, he also looked for some future
expansion and that was to be into Eden Prairie simple because he had already
purchased Park One and Park Two, which is the Chanhassen portion of the
Industrial Park. His plans have now changed but at that time he was aware that
111/7 there were no utilities available to the Eden Prairie property. There was a
feasibility study issued and during that feasibility study, the overall plan
I which we had presented to the Council and Planning Commission at that time for
Park One indicated that Frank's intent was to put up about a 200,000 square foot
building in Eden Prairie and also perhaps use of an office building, although
I that was very far sight and not of Frank's concern. Since that time the
feasibility study was approved and a lift station, because of it's topographic
difficulties, was installed and the sanitary sewer and a water stoke was
provided at least facing Eden Prairie, in case there was capacity there. Frank
I is now in a situation where he has the opportunity to see that property
developed and to assist in the development of the rest of Park One which is now
on the market for development. In order to do that however, he is seeking
I confirmation from the City that the City is willing to extend utility services
to the extent possible. He in no way is asking for a commitment that says
Chanhassen will indeed provide sanitary sewer and water to a 250,000 square foot
I building. That might cut his own property short. He'd be cutting his own neck.
He does not want to do that. He is only looking for a consensus or a written
opinion from the City saying that he would look favorably upon extending utility
service on an interim basis only to the project in Eden Prairie to the extent
I that capacity is available or to the extent that the developer would be willing
to upgrade the lift station to make capacity available but not beyond that. I
guess that's the extent of my clarifications.
Councilman Johnson: I had a question whether Met Council would have a problem
with us extending sewer into Eden Prairie. I don't know what Eden Prairie's
MUSA line situation is. Whether that's an allowable sewered area or not.
I51
1 74
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
Daryl Fortier: It is within the MUSA line but you're right, there are many
other conditions and concerns that would have to be addressed. Again, we are
not seeking confirmation that you solve them all. We're saying the project has
to stand on it's own merits. There has to be capacity there. It has to be
approved by Eden Prairie. If Eden Prairie does not have utilities available, we
are looking for a position statement, if you will, from Chanhassen, saying that
you would be willing to provide this service to the extent possible and that
includes capacity and it includes approval from other organizations. It is
simply a state of willingness, if you will, or looking upon with favor upon
extending this service. That's the extent of it.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like there's some information that we need to have
before we can say we would or wouldn't and for what period of time is another
thing. To extend it for how long? I would suspect that if we did this, we may
want to say it's only going to be for a period of time. Whatever that may be,
it's not going to be indefinite. '
Daryl Fortier: We're optimistic that utility service will neer be provided to
Chanhassen. The City of Eden Prairie has indicated that they are willing to
provide utility service but on their schedule and their schedule says that after
TH 5 is upgraded, they will extend utilities to this site as part of their
continuing utility expansion plan. At that time, of course it has to be hooked
up. We would see that a point condition under which if the applicant were to
come in saying Eden Prairie was not ready, we need it for 2 years, 1 year and we
also believe that the applicant would have to pay all costs incurred.
Councilman Horn: How do they tie that to the TH 5 issue?
Daryl Fortier: I'm not sure why Eden Prairie has done that.
Gary Warren: The way I understand it, it relates mostly to water and that
realignment of TH 5 and the filling and to construct a watermain at this time
and then to have when TH 5 comes back in on top of it and buy the watermain
would be a tremendous...
Councilman Horn: I recall that...do we do that?
Mayor Hamilton: No.
Councilman Geving: But that was a different deal Clark because Shorewood had '
made a decision by it's Council not to provide city sewer and water ever. So
that's why we didn't look too happily upon that situation and we turned them
down. We weren't going to provide their service for them if they weren't going
to help themselves.
Daryl Fortier: If a resolution were granted, we certainly have no objection of
pointing out that it is conditional upon the project's merits. Upon the
capability. Upon the interim service period being defined. It is really the
willingness of whether or not the City of Chanhassen is comfortable in providing
interim service to another community, Eden Prairie until the highway is
completed.
Mayor Hamilton: I would see it not as supplying a service to another community
but carrying it to the applicant, Frank Beddor. We've worked well with Frank in
52
ICity Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
II
irir7 the past and he's been good for our community and hopefully we've been good for
him but there are some questions I'd like to have answered prior to making a
decision on it. What the excess capacity might be. What Metropolitan Council
might say. Those issues are key to me.
II Councilman Geving: Wouldn't we have some thoughts too about some watering bans
that we've had in the City of Chanhassen this summer and people have been really
doing a good job to assist us in this effort and then we turn around and say,
gee we've got so much water we'll give some to Eden Prairie and help than out.
II think we've got to think about, as pretty well through the process and make
sure that we do have that kind of capacity because I suspect if we put this in
writing to Mr. Beddor, he's going to take it to the bank and it's a commitment.
I It's a commitment that he's going to give to a developer and to the sale of that
property. It's more than just a nice to have agreement. This is a firm
commitment on the part of Chanhassen to make sure that that water flows and the
II properties are sold and the people, the new developers get the water that
they're anticipating so I think there's more to this, as Tom says, than just
saying yes, we're going to do it. We've got to find out whether we're capable
of doing it.
IIDaryl Fortier: You are partially correct there in the portion that Frank will
take it to the bank. Yes indeed, this is one of the issues of whether
II development occurs next year or whether it occurs in 3 years. There is a
difference here. The issue of capacity is one that's going to be very tough to
resolve regardless of how you go about the numbers because it's going to be
directly related to what the development in Park One is. Currently, Park One
It Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 have put in a separate lift station which serves
sanitary sewer. It excludes the lift station that was denied for Park One so
those two are effectively cut out of the capacity that was engineered into it.
II Similarly, Lots 3 and 4 are only at about 50% of our projections for their use
so they're under capacity thereby creating some extra... We would also have to
look at, regardless of what- the engineering numbers were to begin with, we would
I have to look at how Park One is going to be developed. It would be, at best, a
very rough estimate. If it continues to develop the way it is now, it certainly
will not reach more than 50% of it's expected capacity. If it were however,
suddenly to have a development in Block 3, say we want to put up a 6 story
I office building or some other use, that may exceed the capacity. It will be
very difficult to pin that down in advance. That's why the study for capacity
is going to be difficult to answer your concerns. We are seeking approval only
I for excess capacity and rely on that, again, Frank owns Park One and he does not
want to do anything that is prohibitive to development of Park One.
I Mayor Hamilton: Hopefully Gary and you can work together to answer some of
these questions that we have. It's kind of a chicken and egg thing because we'd
like to see what you got planned and you want to get our okay before you start
planning and I don't think it's going to work that way for us.
Gary Warren: After Daryl and I had a chance to talk earlier today, if indeed it
is a commitment for us to provide any excess capacity, I guess I could be
!)-- comfortable in that respect with the understanding that in order to establish
that we have excess capacity, that really is going to necessitate an engineering
study on it's own. Whenever the petition or whatever comes in, you say, okay
I now we have a viable development here. There's one on that whole.. .and that is
alright, what is that development and what are it's uses? Even now,...or just a
II53
t i Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 1
shear guess so that kind of trips the mechanism that this is.. .and then we say, '
alright here is where Park One has developed to and what the capacities are and
do a base study, if you will, on the City expense. That is where we still have
the control to say, well we don't have this or we do. ..
Councilman Horn: My gut feeling tells me we need Lake Lucy trunk before any of
this takes place.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see something in writing. A resolution
actually placed before us that with all these if, ands and buts written down
into it so I'd recommend or move that we table this until we get the further
information and everything in the proposal as we've got in front of us on paper
is opposite from what was presented tonight so I'd like to just table this until
we get an accurate proposal of what exactly you want. '
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table action on the
request for interim sewer and water service to the Beddor property at West 184th
Street and TH 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ACCEPT PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES, HIGHWAY 101 REALIGNMENT.
Resolution #88-76: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to accept
the proposal for Engineering Services for the Highway 101 realignment. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Geving: The discussion that I'd like, I'd like to make sure that '
everyone who lives in the area that would be affected by this, fully understand _.
that if this should go through, Dakota Avenue and some of those places might be
closed and that we'd want to hear about in the future that they didn't get the
word so I'd like to make sure that everybody along the line is aware that these
things that happen might affect. How you get that word out, I don't know.
Residents of Chan Estates and businessmen, the whole works. You know what I
mean.
Councilman Johnson: And on the north side along Great Plains Blvd..
Mayor Hamilton: Be creative. Everybody. In the apartments. In the Meadows.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Geving: I don' t know what our current status is, where we're at, but
I have seen already the applications for the September Metro Goose Hunt which is
going to take place on September 1 through 10 in the metro area and I want to
know what we're going to do in Chanhassen. Are there areas that are closed off?
Will there be an allowed hunt on the farms and so forth? Jim, could you tell
us?
Jim Chaffee: I think you're going to find that we're going to face the same
issues that we did last year in regards to shooting north of TH 5. By ordinance
anyone who wants to shoot north of TH 5 must come for Council approval prior to
the shoot and that is only particular to DNR sponsored control methods for
54 -'
' City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 177
' geese, deer, what have you. Last year we ran into the problem of timing.
People weren't aware of this particular part of the ordinance. They were coming
I in before action could be taken before they had enough time so I think if we
publicize it as soon as we find out. Let people know that we they have to get
their applications in in plenty of time for the Council to take the appropriate
action. I think we would clear away about 90% of the problems that we faced
last year.
Councilman Geving: Precisely why I'm bring it up tonight so we can get ahead of
' the game and let people know.
Councilman Boyt: There's a big difference between this year and last year. I
think it's July 15th is the last day they can apply for a permit from the State.
' I think it would be a waste of money for us to go out and advertise this because
it's decided.
Councilman Geving: That's only the State application that goes in. They still
have to get the permit, approval from the land owner. If Mike Klingelhutz wants
to open up his farm for hunting, he still has to get approval from the City to
' let those applicants who were successful come out to his land to shoot geese.
Councilman Boyt: So what would you be thinking that we're going to advertise?
' Councilman Geving: I just want to let the Mike Klingelhutz' and everybody else
know who are planning on a hunt on their properties, that we still have in place
some approval processes that they've got to come to the City to get that permit.
Councilman Boyt: I would say then, if we can do it, we should set a deadline of
'
whatever, what's the first r t meeting in August?
' Barbara Dacy: August 8.
Councilman Geving: The big complaint last year from these people was that they
' didn't know and then we didn't have a meeting before September 1 so they didn't
have a chance to get their applications in. That was the problem.
' Councilman Boyt: Can we set August 8th as our deadline for applications or
August 5th or whatever is sufficient time to get it into the packet?
Barbara Dacy: At least 10 days.
Councilman Johnson: Because staff's going to have to go out there and review
the site.
' Councilman Boyt: We're already out of time.
' Councilman Geving: I'm just bringing it up for staff.
Mayor Hamilton: So we're prepared more than we were last time.
Councilman Johnson: DNR didn't come up with the idea or announce their plans
until August last year did they?
Councilman Geving: You're better organized this year.
' 55
qty Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 '
Mayor Hamilton: Just so you're on top of it and they're aware of it.
Councilman Boyt: My point is that if we advertise now, it sounds like it's
going to be pretty difficult to get everything in and settled by our August 8th
meeting. If we have to put it off from August 8th to the 22nd, that's a week
before they're going to shoot. That's ridiculous to be making a decision at
that point. I would think either we get it done so it's on the August 8th
agenda or we don't do it.
Jim Chaffee: This is only particular to areas north of TH 5.
Councilman Boyt: So can we do it by the 8th? '
Jim Chaffee: I think so.
Councilman Johnson: Last year we more or less restricted it to landowners '
shooting for their own, not for profit. I know there was a gun club that wanted
to come in and shoot on there. I think there were some underlying impression I
got that some people were trying to turn a buck on it by making their land
available at a price to these people. Are we looking again to saying that this
is for the local landowners and their friends to come in and shoot and this is
not a commercial venture? '
Councilman Geving: See, what you don't know Jay is how much money is passed
under the table even though it looks like just a friendly shoot. These guys are
charging $25.00 and $50.00 a day.
Mayor Hamilton: That's not uncommon. I don't think you can blame a farmer for
charging someone to come onto his land to shoot. There's no reason why we
should restrict that.
Councilman Johnson: North of TH 5 there shouldn't be.
Mayor Hamilton: Wherever they can shoot. If the want '
it, that's up to them. It's none of our businessy to charge someone to do
Councilman Boyt: As long as it's safe.
Mayor Hamilton: As long as it's safe and as long as it meets our ordinance, '
it's up to them. The next item, Roger wanted to talk about land transfer.
Roger Knutson: I'll be very, very brief. Dale Ahlquist is also in the
audience. I believe you all have a letter from Chaska Investment Company on
this item. I won't read it to you. I have no personal knowledge of the facts
other than that and discussed it briefly with Dale and with Karen and some
people in City Hall. What appears the best people can tell is that the City
owned the adjacent parcel and there was a land swap. We got the parcel where
the small maintenance shed is now and we transferred this piece by deed back
some 20 years ago or 15 years ago and the deed is missing. Now Chaska
L-71
Investment has sold the property and it seems that the land is still in the
City's name and they would like you to sign a Quit Claim Deed. I have nothing
else for you. If you have any questions of Dale, he's here.
56
I
City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988
179
Councilman Johnson: Do you need to research this?
I Roger Knutson: There's nothing else to research. We have researched it as much
as the records go. There is no deed out in the City.
Councilman Geving: Would you describe exactly where this is? I'm confused on
the location.
Barbara Dacy: On TH 41 just opposite...
' Councilman Geving: Our old maintenance shed at Copper Hill?
' Barbara Dacy: Right. That's one parcel and the other parcel is opposite.
Roger Knutson: It appears we got the old maintenance shed property and we
swapped this parcel but the folks that we swapped it to lost the deed or put it
' in their pocket or whatever and they did not record it.
Councilman Johnson: So do we still own the other?
' Roger Knutson: Yes. We own this too.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the land sale for
Chaska Investment as noted. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton
y moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to move the assessment hearing
date for the trunk sanitary sewer project from July 25, 1988 to August 8, 1988.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m..
' Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
57
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 6, 1988
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. .
g P
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli , James Wildermuth and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst.
City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst . City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBIDIVISION OF 2. 38 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 1. 64 AND .74 ACRES
' ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 2841 NO.
MANOR ROAD, MARY SCHUMACHER.
Public Present:
Name Address
John and Mary Schumacher 2841 No. Manor Road
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
' Emmings moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad : Steve, any comments?
Emmings: I have no comments. I think it' s appropriate.
Ellson : Ditto .
Batzli : I just was curious about the shed . Do we usually do that? Not
remove it?
' Olsen : It has been done , yes .
Batzli : Is that just as a matter of course , we normally kind of
grandfather these things in?
Olsen : A lot of times there' s conditions that they have to remove them if
they're in bade "shape, they have to remove it upon building permit appli-
cation for that lot.
Batzli : But that' s usually handled then when there' s a building permit
for that lot?
Olsen : If it' s something that we want to be removed .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 2
Batzli : I don ' t have any other comments .
11
Conrad: Jim?
Wildermuth: No .
Conrad: Dave?
Headla : No .
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #88-15 as shown on the plat stamped '
"Received June 8, 1988" and subject to the following condition:
1. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be responsible for paying appropriate lateral
assessments for sewer and water when connected if not already paid.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 1. 3 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 15, 000 SQUARE FEET
AND ONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED AT II
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 77TH STREET AND FRONTIER TRAIL, VIRGIL
SCHLOTTE. 1
Public Present :
Name Address '
Alice Schlotte Rt . 1, Cokato
James and Arlene Zimmerman 7602 Frontier Trail
Ross and Gigi Sullivan 7522 Frontier Trail
Bonnie Mihalko 222 77th Street West
Ted and Kathy DeLancy 7505 Frontier Trail
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Conrad : Do you thing that there is evidence that the applicant could '
bring in that would make staff comfortable with the buildability of the
lot? You' re saying one good alternative is to get more information to
give it a chance.
Olsen: It would show us the amount of fill that would be required and how
steep the driveways would be with the whole lot. It would show drainage rand
new drainage patterns and it ' s just we' re more comfortable seeing that
now than conditioning approval on receipt of those because once it ' s a
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 3
lot, you can' t deny a house being located on it .
'
Alice Schlotte: How would we do it? There is a house on the one lot.
What we ' re trying to do , we would like to make three lots . If nothing
else, we'd like it at least to be two lots because we want to sell that
house with retaining the other two.
Conrad : Staff is telling us that , and those of us who visited it, it' s a
different lot from a buildability standpoint. It ' s a tough lot to build
' on and they' re asking for more information. We have some choices here
tonight that can be to basically table the item right now and have you
work with staff some more . If you read the staff report, they basically
said it's not, and maybe I 'm reading this, I ' ll have to look at the words
again , but they' re not real comfortable with the site as a building
location and possibly, if they got more information, they might be able to
recommend to us that we allow the subdivision. As the applicant, would
' you like to see us go forward tonight without that information and there' s
a good chance without that information we' re going to be kind of negative
on it but at least you get your hearing here and you get to move it to
' City Council . That ' s what it does for you. However , without the
information there ' s a great likelihood that City Council will also table
it or turn it down. I guess it's up to you. We can do it a couple ways
and it ' s really our decision on how we want to do it but I guess I 'm
' asking you right now how you would prefer to handle this. I guess it ' s my
strong recommendation that we table it and that you work with staff to
help them get more information. A better handle on the subdivision. More
'
information so they can possibly give us the feeling that it is a piece of
property that is subdividable.
Alice Schlotte : Of course , our ultimate wish would be to go into three
lots but I can understand your feeling on that. . .to approve the plat
with a condition and of course no building could ever take place without
approval anyway but we'd like to sell the house separate from the other
two lots . That' s what we kind of are counting on . We' re just kind of
stuck because we can' t move . . . Of course, like I say, no building can
take place anyway until it was all approved . Your soil and all of that so
basically we' re working on tonight is the house. The lot that has the
house on it . To get that away from the other two .
Conrad: Jo Ann, as she says, she ' ll merge Lot 2 in with the oulot. You
still probably have some of the same concerns .
Olsen: We would just like to see what the impact of making that lot into
a buildable lot will be for the surrounding areas of that lot. We would
just be more comfortable than seeing that now. Once again, if it is
created as a separate lot, it ' s a buildable lot .
Conrad: Did you hear what Jo Ann Olsen said? She said even if you merge
the outlot with the second lot, staff still has the same concerns with the
buildability and clear cutting and fill for a second house. They really
' are still not comfortable. Even though we ' ve taken care of the outlot
problem, we still have the buildability problem of the second lot.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 4 ,
Alice Schlotte: We have no plans for a house on that. We would be '
comfortable just letting that stay until maybe other things can . . . We
would just like to get it divided off of the house right now.
Conrad: When we do that though, it' s like when we allow the subdivision,
it' s like saying a house can go there. It' s like you' ve met our
ordinance. It' s telling you or a future purchaser that the City believes
a house really can go there and right at this point in time, staff has not II
made that commitment . They have not been able to justify it yet. With
more information, they might be able to but right now they're saying , just
splitting off a lot as a commitment to the future buyer that Chanhassen
says it' s a buildable lot and we haven' t made that commitment yet.
Alice Schlotte : Of course it has to be, anyone that purchased that '
property would have to get a building permit and bring that lot up to par
to do that so I don' t see. . .
Conrad : Building permit looks at different things than what we' re looking 11
at right now. They' re more technical in some respects. Would you like to
have us go through the public hearing process and hear what we have to say
based on your choice of merging the lots together?
Alice Schlotte : I think so .
Conrad : It' s a public hearing . Are there any comments on this particular
proposal?
James Zimmerman: I live at 7602 Frontier Trail which is right across the
street from this proposed site. First of all, this land we' re speaking of
is very undesirable land as far as building anything on it. That ' s my
first concern. A second concern is Frontier Trail in the past few years
that I 've lived there has been kind of a unique situation with
having. . .trees and things like that. I would like to see this land just
left as is without any building . . . Also , the lady from the City was
talking about drainage and the adjoining home situation. We have a
horrendous drainage problem where we live right now. Although I ' ve got it
draining down from our property, . . .directly across in this area and if
that would have an effect on our land or not , I really don ' t know but
there is definitely a drainage problem. It' s existing presently. I 'm
speaking for myself and my wife . There' s probably five families that live
right on Frontier in that area and adjacent to that property. There ' s
another family here but none of them are interested in having this thing
happen. . .
Alice Schlotte : Do you understand we' re not going for a building permit? II
We' re not talking about building on that land.
Ross Sullivan : I live at 7522, right next to these people. Maybe 1
I missed something here but I thought when you first started talking about
this you were talking about clear cutting the property and having a 20
foot setback or a 30 foot setback. What are we setting back if we' re not
going to build anything and why would we be cutting trees down if they' re
not going to build anything?
11 .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 5
1
Conrad : Once we allow a subdivision, when we allow a subdivision through
1 the City, which is basically we' re splitting a lot here, it means that the
second lot is buildable . Right now we' re not convinced . If they separate
this lot out and say we' re not going to build anything, it doesn' t matter
' because sooner or later somebody' s going to want to build that and right
now, when we subdivide we have to apply our subdivision. . .
Ross Sullivan: You' re approving this for building by dividing this off,
is that what you' re saying?
Conrad : Yes . We have to apply our subdivision ordinance to this
' particular piece of property assuming that it 's going to be built and
assuming that it' s not going to be turned into a park or something like
that.
Ross Sullivan : I 'm not proposing what they do with their property but I
personally bought my house because it was in the woods and it just kind of
1 in a city but in the country so I guess to put a house across the street
from my house and cut all the trees down would make me very unhappy.
Arlene Zimmerman, 7602 Frontier Trail : I would like to see this stay as
natural habitat for the owl . It ' s absolutely a wonderful place for birds
at least through the field , not for a house. I would love to see it stay
that way because there 's so much building going on anyway and the land
gets less and less it ' s natural . One of the beauties of Frontier Trail is
to drive down that part where you don't see a house for 20 feet from the
road . It ' s a beautiful area . It provides a lot of shade and I also would
like clarified exactly how many lots you' re speaking of. She' s speaking
1 of a lot with a house to be divided and then she ' s speaking of two more
lots. You' re speaking of the house and the lot and one more lot and an
outlot. How many lots specifically is she speaking of?
1 Conrad: The request that came in tonight was to split off one additional
lot and then to designate an outlot besides that one additional lot.
That's the request that' s in front of us .
Arlene Zimmerman: Is that a possibility of two lots to be built upon?
' Conrad: Possibly. The staff is saying that the second lot, the outlot,
would be extremely difficult to build upon. There may be something in the
future that could happen to make it buildable. The staff's recommendation
' is , a possibility is to merge the outlot with the number one lot to be
split off and just call that one parcel and have us react to whether we
feel that that should be allowed as a subdivision with a whole series of
conditions. So we could grant that subdivision but have a variety of
conditions that would relieve some of the concerns that we may have with
that property and maybe some that you may have also.
James Zimmerman: Can you define the difference between a lot and an
outlot? I really don' t know.
MINS
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 6 '
Olsen: Legally there is no difference. An outlot can still be deemed as
a buildable lot.
James Zimmerman : So we 're really talking two lots . '
Olsen: Yes, technically.
Batzli : There is a definition in the City Ordinance . It ' s a platted lot
to be developed for use which will not involve a building or which is
reserved for future replatting or development.
James Zimmerman: Thank you. If she's concerned about selling the
existing house , that house sits on a fairly nice lot just as is . I don' t
see why they'd have any problem selling that regarding these other lands.
Alice Schlotte : It ' s got to be divided from that land .
Elison: She has to sell that house along with the whole land. ,
Alice Schlotte : We' d like to just break that piece off.
Bonnie Mihalko , 222 77th Street: My husband isn't here right now but our
concerns are with trees because in our backyard is thick with trees and
we' re concerned about what we'd be looking at if this is divided. Also , I
we' ve had drainage problems like these people and we ' re concerned if there
is fill brought in, it would have to be expensive from what we' re looking
at. We' re wondering where exactly the run-off is going to be and that our II
lot is going to be the run-off. That would be something that we don' t
really want . We don' t want to be run-off for this other place. Also ,
we' re concerned that our lot is going to become one lot because our house
has to be sold just like their house is. We don't know. . .and that ' s
pretty much the same. I guess that ' s our concerns . Mostly the trees in
the backyard and what we'd be looking at. If we'd be looking at another
house being back up to ours , . . . it' s really not what we would like. '
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Headla: Larry, what' s this, two neighbors have talked about drainage
problems. When I looked at it , it seemed to have a nice berm on Frontier I
Trail . When I looked over the edge, I couldn't see any. . .but where' s this
severe drainage problem come from? Or do you agree there is a drainage
problem there?
Brown : I would agree that what I 've seen and what ' s been shown on the
plan would support that there' s a drainage problem there. Your plan shows
a culvert right now that exists under Frontier Trail and unfortunately, as
I 've been told and as the document shows in your packet, fill has been
brought in. I went out searching to find the end of this culvert because
this end was unrecoverable. This fill had been placed over that, at least
to the best of my knowledge from where I could tell the location had been
due to the existing topography. Right now extending off this draw and
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 7
over on this side, the water , the drainage comes from this direction and
normally before the fill had been placed, would have flowed through this
' culvert and down a main drainageway. Now recently I 've been hearing the
same complaints as we've heard this evening and my belief, at least the
information that I have, is that because this culvert is plugged with the
' fill, it may be obstructing the natural drainage path that did occur
before that fill was placed. I know one of the gentlemen back here, at
least I talked to some of the neighbors , he' s in this drainage path and
has complained that this area has backed up in the past so to the best of
' my knowledge, that' s the drainage problem that now exists.
Headla : Thanks . I didn' t agree with that. I didn' t see the pipe. If
' this went through, who' s responsibility or would somebody have to open
that up? I assume that would be a condition. Who would pay for that?
' Brown: That would be at the developer ' s expense.
Headla : And that would go under the property if the house went in there?
Brown: I guess that will be part of the questions that you resolve by a
structural engineer or another engineer . There' s obviously several
options to it. They can reroute it in either direction if they care to.
' Headla : The reason I was interested in that drainage and I really looked
at it, there' s a severe grade there and to start filling, and I haven' t
seen anything of what they plan to do but I can just see that house
' walking down the bank in 10-15 years. Just an inch and if it' s in the
wintertime, the people have a mess and the village has a mess . I guess
just with that steep grade and no other information, I can' t vote in favor
of this .
Wildermuth : That culvert does not have an easement associated with it,
right?
Brown: To the best of my knowledge no .
' Wildermuth: So technically the property is not in violation of anything
by placing fill over the exit of that with an easement? If there' s no
dedicated easement?
Brown: Because they' re blocking the natural drainage path, I might think
otherwise.
Wildermuth : But it wasn ' t natural before that culvert was placed .
Brown: True but you are creating an upstream problem.
' Wildermuth : The point is , without an easement , the culvert could be
relocated. It could go somewhere else without a dedicated easement. I
sympathize with the property owner in trying to split Lot 1 from Lot 2 and
the outlot but it almost appears as though the original plot was set up
because, especially the outlot area would be unbuildable without a
variance and I think it would be difficult to get a variance to set the
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 8
house 20 feet rather than the 30 feet. If the City would require the 30
foot setback, the chances are probably good that if you placed enough fill
in there to get the proper elevation for the house , the angle that the
holes would fill would not be contained on the lot. It would spill over
into the adjoining property.
Conrad: Is that DeLancey' s?
Wildermuth : Yes . I guess I would not be inclined to support this.
Batzli : I agree with Jim' s comments except I don' t know that I would say
I would not be inclined to split it. I guess what I 'd like to see is have
all the neighbors come up and buy it from the owner. I think that would
make everybody happy but I think that I 'd like to see more information on
whether this lot could be buildable and I would like to see it tabled.
Ellson : I have nothing new to add.
Emmings : I have a question on the map that came in the packet, you said
this property is a long skinny, what appears to be a lot. Is that a lot?
Is that your lot?
Bonnie Mihalko: Yes .
Emmings : So your lot runs the full length of this property just to the
east of it? I basically go along with the comments that have been made. I II don' t think we' ve got enough information to approve or deny it and I think
we ought to table it so they can get more information into us.
Erhart : Let me ask you this , is the only reason that you' re against the
subdivision is because of the slope? Jim or Dave?
Wildermuth : Not the slope but the amount of fill required .
Headla: That' s by far the major reason but Frontier Trail has a lot of
character and to reduce that setback from 30 to 20 feet, I don' t think
it's fair to the rest of these people. '
Erhart: Okay, but are we being asked to reduce the setback here?
Batzli : That's where they show a house.
Wildermuth: If Lot 2 was split off and sold separately and somebody came
in with a proposal to build on it, that would be the first thing they
would go after undoubtedly is a variance .
Erhart: Over the years and even before I was on this Planning Commission,
I 've seen a number of subdivisions come in with a slope and it seems to me
the general conclusion was and I even heard some of our previous Engineer
people say essentially that you can build a house on any slope and make it II
structurally safe. My comments are that that would not be a reason that I
would vote against a subdivision. That is not a valid reason to vote
against it, I would also agree that we should not allow a variance for the ,
IF
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 9
setback. That it should conform to the same rules that the neighbors have
had in developing.
Conrad : I wouldn' t feel good about sending this to City Council even with
a negative vote. I think from a property owner , to give this a chance,
' there should be more information to staff. I have to treat staff like
experts in this case and the experts who know far more technical
information than I do are saying don' t go for this one until we get more
information and it' s just that cut and dry for me. I think it' s to your
' benefit that we would table this. Very possibly there might not be the
information that would allow the subdivision but on the other hand , it' s
the only thing that' s going to get the subdivision through in my mind is a
' little bit more information so City Staff can deal with the problem but I
agree that the position on the lot is going to significantly change the
environment with clearcutting that will have to be done. I 'm not for the
' variance that would grant it closer to the road. I think the fill will
roll over to the next property and I guess I just see a lot of problems
with this particular parcel. I 'd like to see some answers. Some
technical information so at this point in time, rather than turning it
down and passing it forward to City Council , I think it' s to everybody' s
benefit to table this and have the applicant work with the staff to try
and give us a little bit more information on what would happen to this
plan. Is there a motion?
Headla moved , Wildermuth seconded to table the preliminary plat #88-16 as
' shown on the plat dated "June 13 , 1988" for more information. All voted
in favor and the motion carried .
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 1. 66 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 19,421 AND 52, 854
' SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED
AT 3605 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, GEORGE WAY, JR.
Public Present :
' Name Address
' Claudette and George Way, Jr .
Robert Way 3605 Red Cedar Point Drive
3605 Red Cedar Point Drive
Tom and Kathy Paradise 3755 Red Cedar Point Drive
Lori Lobitz 3720 Red Cedar Point Drive
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report.
' Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
' George Way, Jr . : It' s my mother ' s land. My father had it divided before
but he didn ' t quite comprehend what had been done I guess . . .dividing it up
so it can be more easily sold . We' ve had some. . .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 10
Kathy Paradise : My name is Kathy Paradise and this is my husband Tom. We
live next door . When we bought our property which was actually bigger , it II
was zoned single family along this loop. By moving out here we moved out
here to get away from being closed in. We don' t feel that the lot is
large enough to accomodate two homes and the area being as built up as it
is, we' re concerned about over populating the area.
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Has this been decided if Lot 1 . . .
Dacy: Lot 1 is proposed at 19,421 square feet. That' s where the existing
home is .
Erhart : Lot 2, excuse me.
Dacy: Right and the newly created lot would be 52, 854 square feet so it
would be over an acre in size.
Erhart : Okay, so these are as big as the big lots that are typically II found in the area. What was the reason for not putting a new driveway out
to Red Cedar Point Road?
Dacy: That' s still an option. The applicant or a future lot owner of Lot II
2 could install this new driveway or improve the existing one.
Erhart : Okay, so it' s just a matter of convenience?
Dacy: Yes .
Erhart : And that' s not a problem with us?
Dacy: No.
Emmings : I don ' t have any more comments . It seems like an appropriate
division.
Ellson : I think the size of the lots are good sized especially for this '
lake area. I think it's a good split.
Batzli : I guess in visiting it I was surprised to see how big it really
was. In speaking with at least one of the neighbors in there, his only
concern was that the roadway be maintained as it was so they have access
for the current people who live on the south end of the property and I
think he ' s going to be the one that' s most affected by it . I was kind of
concerned because it looked swampy down there and I asked him if was wet
down there. He basically said that the previous owner had a garden down
there and it actually wasn' t swampland. That destroyed all my questions
and I think it ' s appropriate.
I
U Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 11
Wildermuth: I agree . I think the subdivision looks appropriate but in
view of that low area there as you drive through, I 'd like in addition to
' the staff recommendation, I 'd like to see an easement , a drainage easement
established where that corregated metal culvert is on our map.
Batzli : Won't that be within our easement? Our right-of-way anyway? Our
50 foot condition .
Dacy: You' re right, the 12 inch corregated metal culvert.
' Wildermuth: Yes . Do we need anything additional? If there's a 50 foot
easement , street easement?
' Dacy: Right . The recommended size of the easement would cover that area .
' Headla : Where was that 50 foot easement going to be? On Red Cedar Point
Road?
Dacy: No , it would be located roughly on the westerly side of Lot 2 and
' probably a portion of Lot 1.
Headla : Okay, and that' s going to take care of the people on the hill?
' Dacy: Right, it will be located down to the southern property line where
the other properties begin with their driveways .
' Headla: There' s only one house up there now isn' t there?
Dacy: No , there' s four houses .
Claudette Way: But they go up the hill in the back.
' Headla : Yes , the Pierce house burnt down.
Batzli : They rebuilt it.
' Headla : Along Red Cedar Point Road , did the Park Commission look at this
at all?
Dacy: Yes they did and they had no comments on this particular one.
Headla : They aren ' t interested in having the road a little wider , an
easement so people can ride or run or walk? That road is so narrow and if
people are parked there and you had to bring the fire trucks, it could be
a terrible mess .
Dacy: If the Commission wants to add that as a recommended condition for
staff to analyze, that' s fine. To the best of my recollection, I don' t
think Red Cedar Point Road is on our overall trail plan but if you feel
that 's important. . .
Headla : When I park my car on that road , people came awful close to me.
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 12
Claudette Way: Are you talking about Minnewashta Parkway? 11
Headla: No, Red Cedar Point Drive. If there is any real emergency that
whole place is just going to be a mess . I thought there would be some
plans. Larry, what do we do with that swale that' s in there? The
drainage. People can ' t fill that in or if they fill it in they have to
have a culvert or what happens? That' s a natural drainage area.
Brown: If it' s a drainage area , I don' t think it would be advantageous
for either one of the properties, either Lot 1 or Lot 2 to obstruct that
drainage. If Lot 2 obstructs the drainage they' re going to get an
overflow condition over the road anyway. They' re going to end up with the
drainage and certainly Lot 1 could obstruct the drainage.
Headla: I was thinking of the people to the east. If any fill went in
there at all and water could run right down to Mr . Benton then couldn' t
it?
Brown : I 'm sorry, I guess I don' t understand your question.
Tom Paradise: On the southeast corner and. . .and the drainage flows to the
southeast corner .
Headla : It' s close to the southeast . Now if somebody wanted to put any
fill in there, then it could go onto the neighbors and then into what they
call a swamp here on this drawing . Do we have any way to protect people
from that? 1
Dacy: One of the conditions of approval is that we get a drainage and
erosion control plan for a building permit for Lot 2. In looking at the
site, I think the most natural location for a building pad is going to be
in front of the pines but you never know. There could be somebody that
would want to locate the house in the rear of the lot.
Headla: I 'm thinking like in 10 years. If you look to the southeast with
the natural drainage, I think people might be hesitant to put something in
there and I just wondered if we had any way to stop that? Not that it' s
necessarily detrimental . I don' t want to leave that but if someone would
start putting stuff there and then it would flow right into the swamp then
into Minnewashta .
Brown: If I may make a suggestion, staff is going to have to be looking
at this lot through the building permit application process and we will be
attentive to the drainageway. The other option that you eluded to is
maybe 10 years down the line Lot 2 could possibly be subdivided and again
we would be looking at that drainage.
Headla: So one way or another you. . .
Conrad : I don ' t have any problems with the subdivision . Although it' s
not as big a lot as maybe you'd like to have, it certainly exceeds a lot
of the current standards. A lot of us moved out here for larger lots but
again, this particular case, this is larger than our standards in the area ti
I Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 13
Iso it meets that and I feel comfortable with the subdivision. Is there a
motion?
IHeadla : Let me bring up something just for discussion. How did the rest
of you feel when you went down that road? Did you feel uncomfortable
Iwhere there are so many people back there and it' s narrowness?
Batzli : Are you talking about Red Cedar Point?
IHeadla : Red Cedar Point , yes .
Batzli : I looked in my rearview mirror as I was idling there on the
1 street looking to turn into the driveway.
Emmings : It ' s been developed for so long and it was put in in such a
I hodge podge anyway, what can you do? I don't know what you can do on this
application to straighten out that mess?
Headla: If we start asking for like 20 feet. An easement for 20 feet.
I Maybe it should be 10 feet. I don' t know but we 've got to start
someplace.
IWildermuth : But to get it all the way.
Headla: It' s just like. . . , you don' t get everything all at once but get
it by evolution . If you start now, eventually I think that could be
I
possible.
Erhart : You want to get a total of a 66 foot easement on Red Cedar Point
I Road so you want 33 on this property? Is that what you want? What is it
now Barb?
IDacy: Red Cedar Point Road I believe exists as a 40 foot right-of-way.
Erhart: So what you' re saying if you ought to increase that. . .
I Headla : I guess that is 40 feet . Is that adequate for a car and
emergency vehicles?
I Dacy: A typical city right-of-way is 50 feet . We could look at an
additional 10 feet to be dedicated to the Red Cedar Point Road right-of-
way. That would give 30 on the south side and 20 on the north side. 50
I feet is adequate for the road surface plus an off-street sidewalk. Again,
whether or not there ' s going to be a sidewalk there or off-street trail ,
that's something that the Park and Rec Commission would have to look at.
I Erhart : Wouldn' t it be more fair just to ask for their half of 5
additional feet because you don' t know what will happen to the next
door . . .
IHeadla : There ' s still a lot of land that can ' t be used down there . Maybe
it should be 5 feet on this side but it sounds like that should be coming
from us . I think it' s a good suggestion from the Planning Commission that
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 14
we take a look at that. 11
Conrad : Are there any priorities on that Barbara , from the City
standpoint, to upgrade that particular road?
Dacy: Not at this time.
Erhart : I think it' s been our policy in the past , at least in south
Chanhassen on the subdivisions we've had that is anytime a subdivision
comes in, we try to get the , you know TH 101. Although there is no plans
for TH 101 except to close it I think, everytime we' ve asked to bring the
easement up to what the State has recommended and we' ve done it. If it
applies here, I don 't think it will adversely affect the property. ,
Conrad : Maybe there' s a motion that we could have the staff make a
recommendation to City Council in terms of expand the road easement on Red
Cedar Point .
Headla : That would be the way to get the ball rolling . Let me make that
motion then. I
Conrad : And remember Jim has something . You were taken care of.
Wildermuth: I was just going to make a motion. I move the Planning ,
Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-11 based on the
preliminary plat stamped "Received June 8 , 1988" subject to the conditions
1 through 4 set forth by staff and to include a condition 5 that staff t
analyze the roadway right-of-way requirements for Red Cedar Point Road to
bring it up to standard at some future point and make that recommendation
to the Council . '
Headla : Second .
Batzli : I 'd like to amend his first condition. I think he wants to amend
his own first condition to go along with what Barbara suggested and that
is, that the reservation of the 50 foot drainage easement is not
necessarily going to be along the westerly side of Lot 2. I propose with
a friendly amendment that it be changed to read , reservation of a 50 foot
drainage, utility and street easement generally along the westerly side of
Lot 2 with final alignment to be determined by City Staff. 1
Conrad: Jim, would you amend your motion to read as such?
Wildermuth : Sure. '
Headla: Second.
1
Wildermuth moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #88-11 based on the preliminary plat stamped
"Received June 8 , 1988" subject to the following conditions :
r
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 15
1. Reservation of a 50 foot drainage, utility and street easement
generally along the westerly side of Lot 2 with final alignment to be
determined by City Staff.
2. If Lot 1 is to continue access along the existing gravel driveway, an
' appropriate driveway access easement be executed with Lot 2.
3. If Lot 2, Block 1 further subdivides , a street shall be constructed at
the benefitting property owner ' s expense within this dedicated roadway
' easement to service what would be all five lots .
4. A drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted as part of the
building permit application process .
5. That staff analyze the roadway right-of-way requirements for Red Cedar
' Point Road to bring it up to standard at some future point.
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RELOCATION OF THEIR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AND
I CONTRACTOR' S YARD ACTIVITIES TO PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK
AND LOCATED AT 8301 AUDUBON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF PARK
ROAD, MERIT HEATING AND COOLING, INC.
Public Present :
Name Address
ISteve Berquist Applicant
Tom Quammen Applicant
I Bob Schoker Agent for Merit Heating and Jim McMahon
Jim McMahon 8301 Audubon Road
IJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad : The plan that they submitted that you gave us tonight , a little
I bit of a time table. Do you have any comments on the plan and the time
table to guide us? If this 1988 , we' re talking about 3 years out . Can
you give us the down side to approving the request as is without those
improvements?
IOlsen : It ' s just that we' ve always required those improvements to be
made. There are reasons to have those improvements . As far as paving and
I widening of the roadway for truck traffic and things like that. And the
landscaping to screen the activities. It is also difficult to, they did
not want to make that investment at that time but that could be the case
I in 1991. We are requesting a feasibility study to see how sewer and water
will be extended to the site and how much it will cost . There are some
key factors .
r'
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 16
Conrad : Can you enforce a bonding requirement for something like that
that would guarantee?
Olsen : A letter of credit in a development contract .
Emmings: . . .these conditions all met or have done a plan. . . ,
Conrad : And you know what a pain that is .
Emmings: I don't know. What is it? '
Dacy: Not necessarily revocation of the permit but if they can ' t
accomplish their future plans then they have to do the improvements to the II
site.
Emmings : That ' s what I 'm saying . They' re given a choice.
Dacy: But not revoke the permit.
Batzli : What if they don' t do either one? '
Dacy: If they don' t do either one, then that is grounds for revocation.
Emmings : That ' s what I 'm saying . Either do what you' re telling me to do
or do what you said you were going to do or you lose your permit.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Steve Berquist: This is brand new to me. I 'm not quite sure what I 'm I
hearing but my basic bone of contention is the conditional use permit as a
contractor 's yard. I understand regardless we'd end up operating under a
conditional use permit. If our business was deemed to fit into an IOP
district, would we not then fall under Section 4, Temporary Structures and
uses?
Dacy: That ' s been repealled from the ordinance. '
Steve Berquist: That' s been repealled from the ordinance. Did you know
that? She ' s saying that temporary structures and uses has been repealled
from the ordinance. Well , what I 'm going to present, I had written out
some things that I wanted to talk about . From the word go, when we first
began to submit our application for land development, Jo Ann had said that
they were going to look at us as a contractor ' s yard and I understand
that. I understand where that conception would come from but I think in
this case that interpretation of Merit Heating and Cooling opearting as a
contractor ' s yard may be flawed. Section 16-2 permits a variety of
businesses to operate in the IOP district . Number 1 on the list is
offices . We have offices. Number 2 on the list is warehouse. We have
warehouse . Number 4 on the list is trade shops . Now I couldn ' t find a
definition of a trade shop in anything but we do sheet metal work. We
install furnances and air conditioning systems in residential and
commercial establishments. We call ourselves subcontractors, yes but in
II
I Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 17
Imy opinion that ' s the extent of us falling into the definition of a
contractor ' s yard. We use trucks to get to our job sites. The only
I equipment that we load is a furnance or air conditioner out of our
warehouse in the truck. We don' t have heavy equipment. We don ' t have
trailers . We don ' t have any backhoes , loaders , trenchers or anything
I similar. Section 28-14 defines contractor 's yards as vehicles, equipment
or materials commonly used by building , excavation , road construction,
landscaping and similar contractors. I contend that given these
parameters of the conditional use permit as a contractor ' s yard is an
I inappropriate interpretation. I know my business. You are here, you' re
not familiar with exactly what I do so I feel it ' s in my best interest to
take some exception and try and explain where it is we' re coming from.
I I 'm asking the Commission it be in order a reexamination of the ordinance
interpretation or approve our request for a conditional use permit for
useage of the property as per our development allocation.
IConrad: We can have legal counsel take a look at the ordinance. Is that
the next step in this case or would that be a possible step Barbara? To
see how the ordinance applies to this particular thing or are you so
Iconfident right now, or Jo Ann , that fits within the definition?
Dacy: We maintain our recommendation that it is a conditional use permit.
I Yes , we could have the Attorney write a formal response and analysis . The
fallback position is, if it' s not a contractor ' s yard then it is either
some other type of use or as the applicant suggests , a permitted use. I
know the applicant wants to get started and really doesn' t want to see any
I delays in the review process . The Commission can go ahead and act on the
application one way or the other .
IErhart : Barb , let ' s say it' s light impact . What are the conditions?
Ellson: Or a permitted use?
IErhart : So what? Any permitted use . What are the requirements?
Emmings: He' s going to have to make the same improvements .
ilConrad : The improvements that we ' re talking about are going to be yours
whether you' re a contractor ' s yard or whether we categorize you some other
Iway. Do you understand that?
Steve Berquist: I understand .
IConrad : The only thing you 'd be getting out of is the conditional use
permit and that' s it. You still have to meet the ordinances that would
apply to whatever you' re categorized as and almost all of what the city
I staff has recommended to us tonight would still be applicable to whatever
you' ve, however you'd categorize.
I Steve Berquist : So what you ' re telling me is that even if I stamp widgits
in a 6 , 000 square foot building and I wanted to move my facility to a barn
and at some point in time then develop the land and build myself a
building and sell off the rest of them, I would still have to pave all the
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 20
to have it torn up when that area does become viable for development , it's
not good business. We'd love to. If our pockets were a little deeper and
we were a little bit more the risk taker , heck yes . Let' s try it . It' s a
nice site but it'd be a foolish move regardless of how deep our pockets
were . That 's why we ' re asking to operate out of the farm on a temporary
basis and then as Chanhassen continues to grow and develop and the office
park continues to build and things get much, much more entrenched , then it
will make sense and at that time I assure you that development will take
place and we will bring everything up to snuff. It 's not like we' re
saying we will never do it. We' re just saying we' ll do it when we can and
it makes sense to do it.
Tom Quammen : I'm Steve' s partner and I guess I 'm pretty ignorant as far
as all the ordinances go but how I was looking at this proposal with Jim
and us trying to buy this was that Steve and I are renting a space from a
guy and I 'm looking at it like when I used to rent an apartment. Then I
got real rich and bought a house . This is just our first step as far as
trying to buy a house, so to speak. All we want to do is run a little
heating business out of this house and barn for a short time and who knows
what the future' s going to do. Like Steve says, there' s so many vacant I '
buildings around, why build more? I really didn' t think it was going to
be quite this complicated. I understand your folks position completely
but we' re just some little peons wanting to get a small little hunk of
Chanhassen dirt and that' s really what it amounts to.
Jim McMahon : I 'm the landowner but I guess the one thing we all have to
remember here is that, as I listen to what they've said and listened to
what you' ve said , they' re just asking to postpone doing all the extension
and so on until it makes sense from a dollar and cents standpoint. I
can' t see where it' s going to be a detriment to the City or that it
doesn't make business sense or it doesn' t make sense from development.
Conrad : Where do we draw the line in similar situations like this?
Jim McMahon: When the City' s full .
Conrad : Let me relate it to a neighborhood . Let' s say it was a
residential area and this may be a bad analogy so bear with me, but if you
live in one parcel and it has certain standards and somebody moves in next
door to you and the City applies totally different standards, you have II
just totally different standards that the City for some reason gave, how
do you justify that? Under what course? How far do you go? We have not
slipped our standards in the IOP area yet and you' re the first one. You
have the opportunity of being the first ones to ask us to do that so it' s
a litle bit more difficult. We don' t have necessarily the reasons yet ,
although we certainly understand what you' re trying to do. It' s not that
we' re not empathetic with that , it' s just that what do we tell the other ' I
people? The next one that comes in and says, we have 100 employees and we
really don ' t want to connect up to City water and sewer . Do we tell them,
well , that' s okay? How do we make that decision?
I 1
Steve Berquist : First of all , this is the only structure in the IOP
district that is not, there' s no other structure of this nature. The
IF
' Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 21
situation will not happen unless someone puts a barn up and then comes to
you and says can we occupy it. The other thing that I find interesting
' is . . .
Conrad : Let me ask you why we should justify the septic problems where we
now start taxing maybe a septic system that 's not intended to really take
care of a whole lot of people?
Steve Berquist : Let me address that septic system. First of all , the
' sewer and water is 650 feet from the property so it's a ways. The cost of
that is prohibited . As far as the existing services that serve the
building, Jim has 5 people that live there full time. Himself, his wife
' and three children, one of which is a teenager , and 5 people living ,
washing, bathing, do all the things that people do with water , will
generate a significant amount more water than we will . The staff report
' refers to a total of 18 employees . It' s a bit misleading because in truth
what our operation consists of, for 8 hours a day is 2 secretaries plus 3
additional office people. We've got 5 people that come there at 8 : 00 in
the morning . They' ll drink coffee during the day so they use the
' facilities now and again. They' ll wash their hands. You 've got 3 sales
people who are there a maximum of 2 to 3 hours a day and installers and
service people that are there first thing in the morning and then last
' thing at night and that is it. There' s no washing. There' s no bathing .
There' s no dishes. There is no useage even approaching that of a family.
The report from Sullivan Services says that the sewer system is working
and operational to the best of their knowledge. I was out there when they
' pumped it. It' s a two tank system with a drainfield and I can' t guarantee
that it is in perfect condition. I can ' t guarantee that it will continue
to work forever but if it doesn ' t or if you folks want us to put in a
' holding tank to be pumped every 6 months, we' re amenable to that. I don' t
have any problem with that . As far as the well goes , the report refers to
an aging well system, again, where we've got a family of 5 using the
' facilty, using a 4 inch submersible well , a family of 5 plus Jim watering
30 to 40 horses . Those suckers get thirsty. So again, our needs are
going to be as I stated before. We' ll be making coffee, washing hands.
That's really it. Be using the water faucet. Our useage of water is
going to be fractional compared to what a family uses .
Conrad: Anything else?
Steve Berquist : One other thing I wanted to mention is that , as a matter
of course, staff sent out letters to everybody that owned property within
' however many feet and I don' t think that any of them are here. I would
take that to mean there are no exceptions to be taken by the adjacent
landowners .
' Conrad : In that report that went out , what was on the notice?
Olsen: Just the use of the property.
Batzli : Not the fact that it' s non-conforming .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 22
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla : . . . I can' t but help think that when they came in, they bent over '
backwards to put in something right away. They hit it hard to come in.
They made a real commitment. When DataSery came in, we forced them, II you've got to live by the ordinances. We didn' t break down at all. We've
been doing that with people. Now housing contractor ' s, whatever , we've
been treating them the same. We'v been consistent. Now a gentleman comes
in and he' s got some pretty good arguments but I don' t see a financial
commitment on his part. It' s all bet on the come. It' s up to us. I 'm
going to put in that sewer and water and I 'm going to show I 've got real
plans and I could live with some of the other stuff but to see bare bones
on his part, he' s taking away but he' s not putting anything back. Not
making a commitment. Based on that, I ' ll vote for denial .
Wildermuth : I think the ordinances that have been established are
appropriate. I sympathize with the situation. It is unique. It is a
single structure of it' s type in an IOP district on the one hand . I think
the ordinances have to stand. '
Batzli : I agree pretty much with what ' s been said. I sort of feel like
we' re being asked to subsidize their investment into a future land I
development plan without letting us know what they' re going to do and that
and us subsidizing it, I guess I would vote to deny it at this point .
Ellson : Before the plan came in for the 1991 improvement, the staff '
report said that you had no future plans because they depended on Opus and
the future subdivision of the property. So from the time that they wrote
this report to the time that you had that written up, it seems like you
made some future plans . I 'm not sure how well thought out they were. If
this was something that you did just to help it get through but I agree
with your first thoughts that you were probably not planning for the II future because you wanted to know what Opus was going to do and you wanted
to know other things so you really hadn' t planned the two buildings but it
seemed like the two buildings came up just because you heard staff was
going to deny it. I don' t like the idea of temporary at all . It may be
what you said initially that it isn' t economically feasible for you right
now to take advantage of this opportunity. I 'm not sure if you can arrange
something with the property owner or what have you. It doesn' t seem like II you' re agreeing to any of the conditions . Like Dave said , maybe if you do
half or whatever and you had the agreement that after 3 years it was not
done, something I might go with that if I saw an approach from your side
that you' re willing to do that but like the other commissioners said,
we've certainly stuck to our guns and made people change their signs that
they' ve had across the world and everything like that because we have
these ordinances and it would be awful tough on the next one that comes in II
if we let this go. To try and do something like that to them. I would
probably deny it unless I saw that you'd be willing to do at least some of
them. '
Emmings : Basically I go along with the comments that have been made so
far. I don' t believe in anything being called temporary. I don' t believe
I
' Planning Commission Meeting
July 6 , 1988 - Page 23
it. There ' s no such thing as temporary. It sounds like it' s a buyer ' s
market out there. It sounds like there' s a lot of space available in the
' IOP and maybe that' s the most appropriate thing for them to do. I don' t
know but if there' s all that empty space out there, you ought to be able
to get something at a good price . The only thing I 'm not clear on is , I 'm
' not sure I know what they' re asking for to know if we should move to deny
this or if we should move to recommend to approve it with the conditions
which are essentially the same thing. I 've got to know what, I guess we
' have to know that before we know which one to do.
Dacy: The staff report says all three.
Emmings: It says one of our options is to deny the application because it
doesn' t meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and one is to
recommend approval with all those conditions and those conditions would
bring it in line with it. 1 and 3 are really identical. How should we
handle that?
Dacy: It depends on how the applicant wants to pursue the application.
' They could ask the Commission to go ahead and act on the application
maintaining the position that they don' t feel that the paving is
appropriate is now and have the Commission act on it. They might get the
' same response at Council . They might not.
Emmings: I guess it' s the same thing in effect.
' Conrad : You either say it positively or negatively.
Erhart: I pretty much agree with everybody elses comments. I understand
' the strategy of the developer and why it may seem the obvious thing to do
from an individual ' s standpoint. It is the worse thing that we could do
is plan to even consider such a request . It just goes totally against the
' planning process that we have created here at the City of Chanhassen. I
think we' ve done a pretty good job but regarding the issue of whether just
simply deny it or approve it with conditions , my personal feeling is it
would be totally unfair for the rest of the owners of buildings and
businesses in the park to approve what is now a single family house for
use as an industrial . That ' s not to say that I couldn' t move my business
from the Hiteman Building over and put it in his barn. I think if I came
' in with that request , you ' d all be appalled . This is really no different .
You've got a few more employees but the situation is the same. Again,
I have a similar comment that we' re asked to subsidize someone' s
' investment. I think that' s simply what it is . I think just a simple
denial is appropriate .
Conrad : Are there any standards that we could justify slipping as
' somebody would move in to that area? So to speak, it is on the other side
of the track. Is there any rationale that you can come up with for me
that would say it' s separated a little bit?
Jim McMahon : How many facilities like this are in that park? May I ask
that question?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 24
Conrad : How many facilities?
Jim McMahon: How many houses and barns are located within the industrial
park?
Conrad : Right, we have one.
Emmings: I guess the flip side to that is , how many people want to run
their business out of a house and barn? It's not, you' re trying to jam a
use into a set of buildings. I think there ' s a real big conflict right
there. It doesn' t make sense. You wouldn't put your barn in a warehouse .
You don' t put a business in a barn.
Jim McMahon: They' re asking for a temporary use of that. '
Emmings : We don' t know what that means .
Elison: The situation of someone saying we don' t want to do the berming
right now. We don' t want to do the curbing right now. That sort of thing
can come up in any of the IOP' s . i
Conrad : It' s just really tough to rationalize . You can rationalize some
of these things . Temporary and whatever but not all of them. Not all of ,
them. Just because there' s a house and barn there, there are these other
requirements and you can' t, these other requirements are there regardless
of whether there ' s a house or barn there. Are there any of these
restrictions that you feel comfortable with, that could be slipped for 3
years?
Wildermuth : I think the curbing . I think a hard surface roadway is
there.
Steve Berquist : It was our intention from the beginning , especially after
talking with Jo Ann about what would be required and they wanted some
additional parking and what not , so they had an engineer . You talk about
making a commitment, we' re making a substantial commitment not only in
terms of the money because we' re going to end up spending a lot of money
to be able to operate out of there. It' s like putting a size 12 foot in a
size 9 shoe but it is temporary.
Emmings: In 25 years? How long? What does temporary mean? 1
Steve Berquist : Did you say 25 years?
Emmings: Yes. Who knows what it means?
Steve Berquist : I ' ve tried to use 1991 as some kind of a ground . Can you
tell me how long it' s going to be before the City of Chanhassen will be
able to support additional structures beyond the tracks?
Emmings: I don' t have to. I 'm not asking for your approval . I
I
r
' Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 25
Steve Berquist : You' re asking for me to be a soothsayer and I can' t be.
What we' re looking to do, we' re buying this for an investment of course
' and we' re trying to operate out of there with the least amount of
disturbance to the existing property as we possibly can. We' re willing to
grade. We' re willing to bring in Class V and make the parking lot
useable. We' re certainly willing to landscape and hide, for instance
we've got to roll off sheet metal into the old furnances and stuff . We' re
certainly willing to screen all of that stuff. It' s not a major
investment, I grant you, but nevertheless it is an investment. It seems
' to me that major investments aren' t warranted in that if things go like we
think they' re going to go and in 1991 we do put the whole thing under the
blade and subdivide and put up two buildings, that investment will be
' right down the tube. It doesn' t make sense . If you were in my position I
think you'd feel the same way that I do. What I 'm saying is, I will
certainly do , if you want us to put a holding tank in to supplement the
' sewer system. We' ll pave it with Class V. I think blacktop is a bit of a
strong request . As far as the feasibility study conducted by a registered
engineer to provide sanitary sewer and water , we all know that the cost of
running sanitary sewer and water from it' s present location is going to be
' prohibited and the location of those facilities are written in that
report. Ms. Olsen herself, if I remember the report properly eludes to an
expensive proposition. We' ll comply with the conditions of the Building
and Fire Inspector. We' re going to end up bringing it up to the fire
code. We' re going to end up increasing the electrical service. We' re
going to end up spending money to bring in additional phone service.
We' re going to spend money to upgrade the heating and air conditioning
plan. We' ll put in an air conditioning plan. We' re going to spend money
to sheetrock and take down walls and put in carpet. We' re going to spend
money, you get my drift.
' Conrad : We know and we also know that development is an expensive
proposition. That's why I 'm not in it. It' s a tough deal and this
' Commission sees people trying to develop stuff all the time that maybe
they shouldn' t be doing.
Steve Berquist : One last thing , please bear with me. My initial
submittal to the City I referred to it' s going to depend on what Opus
does. Like I said, Opus borders the property on two sides . This was a
tentative plat of lots and as you can see, there's a road that runs
directly from Audubon to a cul-de-sac and right here is Opus land . Yes ,
it depends on what Opus does to a degree. We could make that a clean
cul-de-sac but if we' re able to strike a deal with Opus and extend this
' road back further into the park, that may benefit all of us . The City and
both developers so it' s not like we ' re attempting to get away with
anything or hide anything. The problem i.s , as I 'm sure you all
understand , is that on the other side of the tracks it tends to get
nebulous .
Conrad : Going down these things that we think we might be able to slip.
Landscaping. Any feeling we could slip our standards there? Building and
Fire Inspector we wouldn' t slip on there . Sanitary sewer and water .
Would we consider that?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 26
Batzli : I don' t know that we' re even requiring any of these conditions .
I thought we were merely asking for a feasibility study as to an
alternative. That didn' t sound to me like we were really requiring these
conditions.
Olsen: We would want to do a feasibility study. . .
Conrad: But that' s getting water and sewer there. That' s the way I read
that.
Batzli : The best alternative to provide so you' re just trying for the
best way to provide sanitary sewer. You don' t mean that there' s an
alternative. I read that as basically saying he could have a holding tank II
and drill a new well .
Brown: Part of our concern was obviously, and I think the applicant
eluded to this, it may be prohibitive costwise to extend these services to
a site and therefore we need some sort of guarantee that the existing
system will support. . .
Conrad : So your comment is not to run sewer and water there?
Brown: It also incorporates that. We need concrete evidence, even
though I ' ll look at that and State Aid is too far away, we need to explore II
the alternative because again, this is within the MUSA area and it' s use
suggests that it should be serviced by sewer and water . If the
feasibility study comes back and says that (a) the costs are prohibitive
then we, on the other side of the coin , need documentation stating that
the existing services will supply the demand.
Dacy: Just carrying that one step further , if the study comes back and r
says that there is no feasible solution to provide sewer and water to the
service, then the City may want to look at deleting that parcel from the
urban service area but up until this point it has been included in that.
Again , the feasibility study can identify a feasible way to make the
connection. Some time in the future that property has to be hooked up if
it' s going to be in the urban service area and the study can tell us how
much, who' s going to benefit and how can it be paid for. Through
assessments or . . .
Batzli : Why would anybody want an IOP area without municipal water and r
sewer?
Dacy: Exactly. If we take it out of the urban service area, then it r
would have to revert back to ag.
Emmings : I note that on the Fire Inspector ' s letter , he made it a
condition that there be a total sprinkler system in the barn for both
levels and also the house and I guess my question, maybe the engineer
could answer it, if there' s a fire in the barn, can you pump water fast
enough out of that well to service sprinklers?
r
r
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 27
Brown : Yes . That' s been a common question as of late . It does
involve
the addition of pressure tanks onto the site but that' s being done more
often than not in the rural areas that are requiring sprinkling systems.
Emmings: So it could be done with the well that's there?
IIBrown : Correct .
Olsen : But there will have to be. . .
Brown : Not knowing , I want to clarify your statement. Not knowing the
existing well , but that sort of plan is certainly possible.
Jim McMahon : On the question of whether or not the water and sewer is
feasible to that property. There are two ways that it can be brought into
the site . I 'm aware of this because . . .who were interested in that
property and they did a study. . . in conjunction with Opus . . .
Conrad : Any of these other requirements that anyone would feel
comfortable slipping or delaying? The driveway?
Batzli : I think there ' s a big redundancy between (a) and (f) . I 'd be
willing to get rid of one of them.
Conrad : If there ' s a feasibility done that said it ' s not feasible to
bring sewer and water to this site, then we would probably kick it out of
the urban service area right? The financial . . .
Erhart: I 'm having a hard time following this. Most landowners would
just jump up and down to get their land put within the MUSA line and have
it zoned IOP. With the growth out here, it ' s simply a matter of time and
that land , I know that piece of property because I drive by it often, it' s
just a matter of time somebody with the money to do it right is going to
want to buy that piece of property to build their own corporate building
on and I just can' t imagine why we would screw around with this temporary
stuff given all those facts . I just can ' t imagine .
Conrad: I 'm just trying to keep this, I 'm looking for a way that, is
there a way to justify it? I 'm probing here and there and I 'm trying to
extract that. We owe that to the applicant to see if there' s a way and
that ' s what I 'm trying to do here . If there ' s not a way, I think then we
stick to our guns . Without lecturing, I think one of the things Planning
Commission can do is to add some reason to ordinances . Sometimes they
don' t have to be enforced to the letter of the law and sometimes that ' s
why you have a public group involved . Yet on the other hand , I think
we ' ve all been around here enough to know that our ordinances are pretty
good and we've updated them and we' re pretty comfortable with what those
ordinances are doing for us . Anyway, my only comments . I really don' t
know how to justify slipping some of the requirements. I don' t know how
to do it in one case and not in the other and when somebody doesn ' t give
me those rules that can say in this case you allow it, in that case you
don ' t, then I have a real problem of allowing the variance or slipping the
standard. I think if I had seen a very definite plan, a 3 year plan that
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 30
Conrad : Is that agreeable to everybody? Okay. Is there somebody that
would like to give us a little show? I I
Frank Kramer : I'm Vice President of New American Homes . We started
working with the City staff approximately a year ago in working on the
site plan for this area that we' re going to present . Back in December we
met with City Staff and they said, will you work with us through the
legislative session? We think we can funding proposed for the TH 5/TH 101
alignment. We' ll know a lot more. In the first part of June, the 5th of
June, we met with City Staff again and we were on your last Planning
Commission agenda. We wrote a letter to the City Manager and said that if
we get a letter from the City stating that we' ve met all the requests and II
all the ordinances and all zoning ordinances, we agree to be tabled until
the next meeting . We never received a letter back so we really should
have been on the last meeting. We' ll make our presentation but this will I )
be the second meeting we' ve been tabled at . We' re holding a very
expensive piece of ground and we tried to work with City Staff and I hope
you take that into your consideration when you decide what you' re going to
do about this. With that, I ' ll have Jack Boarman from Boarman Associates
who ' s the architect make the presentation.
Jack Boarman: We basically, just to illustrate some of the background, we
started the project by coming to staff and going over the various planning
and zoning issues. This is TH 5. This is the Lake Drive East. This is
the intersection point. The setbacks . The signage. All of those have
been worked through various revisions and various preparations to get it
just right . I think we have that . One of the things I wanted to point
out, I think at an earlier proposal that we went over with staff , we have
a little bit more than 40, 000. In reviewing the actual final submittal as
revised, we do have some interior landscaping islands and 40, 000 square
feet. All those numbers reflect compliance , I think with some revisions
that we submitted to staff later on.
Erhart : A question to make it clear , the design is based on the existing
road?
Jack Boarman: Absolutely.
Erhart : And we want to delay it so we can redesign it around the proposed
intersection?
Jack Boarman : I think, if I could hold this up, this is our property
right here so as you can see . . .
Erhart : It has a major impact on it .
Jack Boarman: It cuts it in the middle. After several revisions , I think
this sheet represents the compliance as finally revised. A lessertive
plan than that is represented here . From the standpoint of the design of
the facility, we' ve got pretty much all the schematic and design
development drawings done. We' re working on final processing . Within a
short period of time would be in a position to pull a final building
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 31
permit. This project really begins at this point with the larger retail
facility here. We've designed this end of the building so it really has
' some good visibility so there' s really very little rear of the building
kind of exposure. Heavy landscaping across here. Another larger facility
here. Smaller spaces through here. A central tower element and focal
' landscaping in through here accessing off of this tree columnated access
drive here . Heavy landscaping through the islands in through here. Then
heavy landscaping on the berm that runs through here and through over here
and a berm across the back which is going to be Norway Pines and Spruce as
' a barrier back here so the rear of the building really doesn' t have a
problem as far as exposure. The overall design theme of the building , as
the completed design, we tried to relate to the high quality of retail
' design that ' s being introduced and expanded over the years here in the
community. Obviously this beautiful model out in the lobby represents
your potential and there' s construction going on and I think the design of
' this, with this central pylon tower element with a clock and a central
canopy element . This is at the intersection of the columnated driveway
off of this intersection and onto the road here so as you come in, it
really is the focal element. It' s high enough that from TH 5 you see it
' as well . More of a village square kind of look to the facility. A
combination of brick and wood and metal roofing . Again , similar to the
design palate that you have established here now, the series of higher
entry elements with lower will give it a sense of not being a horizontal
kind of building but a building that has a series of focal point
entrances . We spent well over a month looking at different design
' sketches. The roof design is, in some areas, a straight truss that slopes
in. In other areas it drops down and over and down and up so that it
maintains a gabled edge but has a lower recessed area for screening
equipment and that type of thing . We' re very, very sensitive to providing
' a very high quality design image. We think that this location is
outstanding . It ' s the type of thing that provides not only an excellent
design for the community but the location is inherently a very important
' spot and we want to make sure that the design is of the high quality that
befits this kind of location. I think at that point I would open it up
for any questions about the design.
Conrad : Any questions that we may have of the design? The one access
point is something that intrigues me. Just one.
' Jack Boarman: I think there has been some discussion with staff about
even a second access point up here and we would think that that is fine.
We were actually more concerned about creating controlled points of access
' as the level of this road intensifies . Naturally through development, not
through realignment of TH 101. The point of our interest is that this
drive right here, as a frontage road with a controlled entrance here and a
controlled entrance here is a very viable type of street layout for this
' type of project and also for the traffic. This location, of course, is
kind of at midpoints between these and provides an organized location for
a major turn in and out. Obviously as the development proceeds, we would
' assume that this road here would be designed to take the type of
development activity, traffic that we' re talking about so we'd want to ,
for safety sake, try and concentrate the intersection points so that even
if it became a left in or out if there' s some kind of geometric to this
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 32
intersection that might be improved for the sake of traffic flow, it would
be a planning issue. Having an exit point in addition like this, you
could have two of them. That wouldn' t bother us but we were concerned
about the traffic effect on movement out here. It' s going to be a lot
more traffic movement out here than there would be on our internal street
as our engineer notes. ,
Conrad : Any other questions?
Erhart: Do you want to kick this around? '
Conrad : Sure.
Erhart : Right now you' re looking at moving Lake Drive East further west?
Dacy: No, TH 101.
Erhart : Or TH 101. Further west right in the middle of this development .
So that means two questions. Why do you want to move it further west and
then want happens if you move it further west? What' s going to happen to
your development? What you' re proposing.
Jack Boarman: It' s pretty serious . '
Dacy: Your first question is why the realignment, is what you said. Why
are we going across TH 5?
Erhart : I understand that. We' ve already approved that for the Comp Plan
we' re working on.
Dacy: But what are you saying by moving it? '
Erhart: Why do we have to cut across that property? Why can' t you just
use the existing?
Dacy: There are a number of engineering standards that have to be met in
order to be approved by MnDot. For example, the angles of these '
intersections . They have to be a minimal angle. There has to be
appropriate stacking distance from the TH 5 intersection. As a matter of
fact, I think the original concept was a little farther over to the east
but in order to get as close of a 90 degree geometric on TH 5 as possible ,
they had to move towards the west , get a proper crossing over the railroad
and get into a touchdown point over at Lake Drive East. So what I 'm
trying to say is that there are engineering reasons why it' s being
proposed as it is and that' s why we've got our consultant trying to fine
tune that to make sure that that can be accomplished and be acceptable
to MnDot. '
Erhart: Are we trying to work in the proposal as much as we can?
Dacy: As proposed right now, it cuts right through the middle of the '
property. They would not be able to build a 40, 000 square foot shopping
center.
II Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 33
I
Ellson : Haven' t you told them that since the conception of the
Idevelopment idea?
Dacy: Right and what we' re looking at now as part of the study too is to
I determine exactly how much is going to be left over to see if there is a
use remaining . They' re obviously saying, I can ' t build a 40, 000 square
foot shopping center. We accept that but we need to find out the exact
construction limits and so on.
IJack Boarman: If I could only add this . The setback limit is 30 feet for
any development plus the setbacks for the building and the view, I don' t
I want to draw on this but if you took this piece and you came back to that
amount of distance plus here you are, you'd have a developable piece
that ' s a sliver . Really very, very small and that' s the end result. Now
II is it true that the alignment of TH 101 has had a series of discussions
prior to this engineering plan?
Conrad: We've been working on that for quite a while.
IJack Boarman : Sure and I don' t think the actual drawing of this type
really has been, I have several drawings in my file of concepts that cut
I all the tip of our piece and head into Lake Drive and through a lot of
different configurations. The point I 'm getting at is we've been working
with that issues as long as, maybe not as long as you have but certainly
over a year. As we've developed this plan, the road alignment has been
I
getting more and more detailed but it ' s also been more and more moving .
Obviously it' s not moving in a more complicated direction.
IErhart: When did you buy this property?
Frank Kramer : In 1983.
IIDacy: They were the original subdividers of Hidden Valley.
Jack Boarman: We've been working on this design about, the first time we
I looked at it was about 12 months ago and it went through site plans and
stopped and started. My only point I wanted to make is , this is, having
been in the business 15 or more years , dealing with highway department
I issues is always a big issue and they have very good geometric issues that
they want to have. I think we' ve taken the approach that the road is
under design and therfore is not in place and we' ve seen already 2 or 3
different alignments and obviously the use of this project, if it were
I
here and done, it would certainly affect the design and layout of this
because that ' s the case with these apartments over here . Any of these
buildings that are done and up certainly have affected the location of
I this . The use of this property is not , this building isn' t done yet but
this is clearly a subsnative use that if it were in place, would affect
this location . I think we' ve been trying to see where this thing is
I actually going to be located and we've seen it in other locales . Whether
it' s over here or whether it' s over here , it certainly would have been
less detrimental to the developer and yet, if this were in place, clearly
those types of alternative locations to this one would have been more
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 34
seriously looked at. Maybe that' s the best way to put it. Anything on
paper is cheap. You can do it over and over and move it around. I think
that ' s kind of the issue we 're hoping to see happen . '
Batzli : Is this configuration the one we looked at when we were looking
at the church? Was that the one that BRW was working on?
Dacy: This one is different than the one we looked at the time of the
church' s application. It shifted over more to the west on the basis of
MnDot. Again, August 22nd could come around and the Council could deny a
land use plan amendment . There could not be a project for realigning TH
101. We need to decide that. The Council needs to decide that once and
for all and that' s what we've got to ask. Through the public hearing
process, the north leg option of trying to take the traffic down on TH 5
and south on TH 101 has been a suggestion and I can assure you that the
room will be packed full of people at the Planning Commission and the
Council asking very good questions . We need to do that traffic
analysis .
Erhart : Where are we proposing the funding come to do this intersection? ,
Dacy: There is still an outside chance that we' ll have legislation
reintroduced in a special session next fall to extend the life of the
Economic Development and Tax Increment District to Hennepin County. The
City, I think it' s fair to say that the City Staff at least is committed
to trying to find as many funding options as we can to get this project
the public support so that' s one avenue . There' s always bonding avenues .
Erhart: Isn' t the fact that they' re going to redo TH 5, isn' t that going
to pay for all the improvements whether it' s at one location or the other? II
Dacy: What MnDot has said is that they will construct, they will be
willing to pay for the improvements within the right-of-way. At minimum, 11 if we can not get the roads built in conjunction with the TH 5 widening,
that we would at least try and achieve to get everything in place here
first before constructing the remainder of the roadway. It' s another
reason why we need to know some of these cost implications . MnDot is
really looking at this as a City project. We' re looking at MnDot and
saying , but hey, this is a trunk highway that is carrying more than
Chanhassen traffic so we' re trying to determine some costs and approach
MnDot with some proposals at some type of cost sharing and then finding
some financing alternatives that maybe we can work some type of financing
agreement out to accomplish the realignment .
Erhart: I think the plan that you've presented is very nice and it' s a
higher quality than the one that we' re currently putting in downtown from
appearance wise. I think the one downtown is pretty nice. ,
Jack Boarman : The point that I want to make is that we' re within 30 days
of being able to finish documents and we' ve been doing it for 14 months
and we' d like to continue.
' Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 35
Erhart : If you went through the process here in the next 60 got
s and of
approval , when would you start construction?
Jack Boarman : That' s getting closer to the fall .
' Frank Kramer: It' s not only a matter of construction time but the tenants
we have lined up ready to go right now are saying , are you ever going to
get this thing off the ground and are we going to go someplace else? With
that, also with us tonight is John Karrens our Attorney for New American
Homes and he would like to address the Commission also.
John Karrens : I 'm John Karrens , counsel to New American Companies . I
don' t mean to play the heavy on this one but I think it might be useful
for you to understand how I see this from my planning standpoint which is
simply, they've gone through a lot of effort in a very, I think, effective
' working relationship with your staff on the basic site plan and it does
comply in all respects with what you' re basic requirements are and it is a
permitted zoning use. I am bothered by the idea of simply letting it set
aside given the fact that it does put what we' re required to do on the
' site what you plan. I often do site review plans myself when I was on the
City Council of Minneapolis and I realize as volunteers you' re sometimes
caught with these things a little bit but basically the ordinances are
' drafted to set up the negotiation that worked here to develop a site plan
that conforms. I can fully understand if we had a major hook in here and
we' re asking for a variation of our conditional use permit or something
like, it might be appropriate to set it aside when we comply fully but on
these advise and consent site plans, it seems to me that it needs to move
forward now since we ' re in compliance. I 'm bothered by the idea of
tabling it with on a somewhat related, I think somewhat speculative
project. Now our clients have looked at this now for well over a year on
this particular design. I know when we had discussion with NSP over the
easement that runs across the front of the property on TH 5, even at that
time there were several different alignments because NSP at that point
wasn ' t quite sure how long their power lines . They' ve now gone ahead and
apparently built so I would really urge that this pass forward to the
Council now and we'd like to see the Council at least approve it
recognizing, as I think your staff has in the report, that we've done what
the City expects us to do . We' ve done a site plan to meet yours plans and
specs. I 'm troubled by the idea of setting it aside for a while here
' since we' ve already been set aside once. We'd like to move forward to the
Council and get past that point and obviously the factors that go into
this basically or partially and I think the near to this stage project .
' We' re been sitting on the caring cost here which is quite substantial now
for several years and the market out here has gotten much stronger you
know, I think from the development activities in your community. This is
a very strong community and now I believe the time has come to move ahead
' and do this project which we' ve been carrying for several years at a cost
so I would urge you to push ahead to Council now in acknowledgement that
we' ve done what you've asked us to do and we comply. We do meet your site
' plan regs in every respect . I ' ll be glad to answer questions .
Erhart: Barb, does this in fact tabling this before, was this on the
agenda?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 36
Dacy: No, it was never scheduled .
Conrad : I hate to play the heavy here but on the other hand, we' ve been
looking at the realignment of our highways for quite a while. We've been
looking at TH 101 and solutions . We' ve been looking at traffic flow
problems in Chanhassen and it' s not that City Staff just dreamt this up.
We've been playing around with it and we finally worked it into a
comprehensive plan. That plan is documented and it' s there. The exact
alignment obviously has been moving around but it' s not that there hasn' t
been attempt. I see a City Staff that has laid out a very agressive
schedule where they' re saying we are going to do this and we are going to
do that and we' re going to turn this around in a month. That' s pretty II aggressive type stuff. If you've worked with cities before, you know that
cities don' t always move that fast. Sometimes you don' t get on an agenda ,
and I 've worked with many different planning commissions and councils and
you don' t get on the agenda for 4 to 8 weeks , just getting your turn in
those rapidly expanding communities like Apple Valley and Burnsville. I 'm
pretty comfortable what I heard tonight that City Staff is not, if I saw
them trying to delay something , I think we 'd say there' s something wrong
but I didn' t get that feeling tonight. I feel they' re trying to explore
the other options and those other options may fall away after , the highway
that goes through is going to have a whole lot of input from the
neighborhood but that' s just critical based on what this group has been
doing for the last couple years, and we have been playing around with that
for that length of time. Again , I 'm speaking for myself and the other
commissioners certainly can comment on these things but I see those two
things. One, it' s in the comprehensive plan and two, we' re really
aggressively going out, not trying to delay a project because we like
development and this looks like a good development . Something we 'd like
to have here but we'd be doing a disservice to the community if we didn' t
take a look at how we ' re going to shuttle people from the south Chanhassen
to the north and people from other places south through the town. I guess
I 'm not real sensitive to some of the comments . I don' t think we' re
delaying excessively and I think we specifically do owe it to the
residents of Chanhassen to take a look at the alignment. Conduct a public
hearing and work with you as quickly, as extraditiously as we can. I
heard staff give you that commitment and I think that' s pretty good . Any
other comments?
Headla : We could take the approach to deny it based on the reasons you '
just gave us so it would go to Council and let them decide on how critical
the realignment is.
Dacy: I would recommend that we not take that approach.
Headla: Why? ,
Conrad : I don' t think it ' s good planning . Dave, when it' s not good
planning, then I don' t feel that just getting it out of our court is
smart. When it' s a close call and it' s a question of whether it' s good or
bad planning , yes, let the Council have at it but in this case it' s just
good planning . It makes sense that we take a look at this . They for sure
I
' Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 37
are going to be talking to the Council members and staff knows that
there' s a parcel here for development. I 'd love to have it in that, I 'd
' love to squeeze it in there if we could . I think that would be neat but I
think we do have an obligation to conduct some of these public hearings.
I don' t know if we need to bump it up.
' Headla: I don' t have the feeling of the sense of urgency at Council and
what ' s the difference. That bothers me.
' Dacy: I 'm sorry, you said the sense of urgency?
Headla : Yes .
Dacy: There is a window of opportunity here with this widening of TH 5.
I have to believe that if we can' t accomplish the realignment of TH 101
and redo Dakota Avenue and so on and put in all those improvements and
spend x amount of dollars, then if that window passes, it's going to be
very difficult to come back and start all over and start working up a
plan. I think there is an urgency here. We have an opportunity to work
' with MnDot in trying to accomplish this new realignment. MnDot is saying,
hey Chanhassen, make a decision. Are you going to build the street or
not? There' s a window here that we have to look at.
' Conrad: Tim, what's your druthers on this one?
Erhart : My impression from talking to Council people, they' re very
' serious about getting this intersection at this time. Secondly, I think
the getting intersection improved is priority number one and this
development, as much as I like it, I think it comes second to that so I
' think we ought to table it.
Emmings : I think denying this would be abusing our discretion. There' s
' no valid reason to deny it so I don' t think we should deny it. I think to
approve it would be sticking our heads in the sand when there' s a
substantial possibility that a road could go through the middle of the
project so I think it' s appropriate to table it . I also agree with Ladd ' s
' comments about the fact that this is going to be moving along very
quickly.
Ellson : Table.
Batzli : I don ' t have anything further to add .
Wildermuth: Table it.
Headla : Table it.
' Conrad : Any other comments back to us?
' John Karrens: I think we' ll be heard at the public hearing on this too.
Conrad : I would hope so .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 38
John Karrens : This conception , I hope by anybody here, that is a very
expensive piece of road with the development that' s zoned properly and
designed like this. I can see that there ought to be a better way to get
traffic across TH 5 to the site. . .
Conrad : We' ll take you through the process with public hearings and we' ll '
take it through with you as quickly as we can.
Jack Boarman: Just one other comment, I seem to hear people saying it' s
either or. I would only ask all of you to say, can both happen? No one' s II
disagreeing with the value of the TH 101 issue but let' s not make it an
either or thing. A highway pays no tax base. This certainly will .
Conrad : I think we'd all like to have you have it there. I think if the '
road really did go by, if we could sneak it by, the value is going to
be. . .
Jack Boarman: I made a comment earlier about plans not being very
expensive, I said they' re cheap but I meant if there was a building there ,
it certainly would be a key factor in the alignment of the road . Since
there 's nothing there, we have plans on paper, it 's not considered as
heavy or as seriously in affecting the Highway Department' s CAD system
that they' re laying out there in geometrics. I would only ask you to join II
with us and maybe making the leverage on their CAD system as they lay out
their geometrics to be a bit more of a range. A bit more flexibility so
both things can go.
Conrad : We' ll be real interested in hearing your perspective, if we have
the alternative of bringing TH 101 in front of your shopping center
because that ' s got to quadruple traffic and I ' ll be interested to hear how I
you react. If TH 101 doesn' t go through or if it moves away. I guess if
it doesn' t go through, it just doesn' t go through. You take the local
traffic but if TH 101 goes in front of your center, that' s just got to be
a boom to filling that baby up.
Jack Boarman: That sounds very exciting and if you could help this kind
of go in front rather than through the heart, that would be great. '
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission table Site
Plan #88-6 until August 3, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-695 , 20-715 , 20-774 ,
20-795, AND 20-815 TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS
FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO RAILROADS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, CITY OF
CHANHASSEN.
Conrad : Any questions on this? 1
' Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 39
Emmings : One of the things that I wondered if we should do, when we
talked about the off-street parking, there' s no minimum setbacks, we said
' it is hard we' re still subject to screening requirements . I just wondered
if we should, if I come in as a developer and I read that I don' t have
anything in the setback, I automatically think, by god I can go right up
' to the edge. I just wonder if there should be something in (a) and (b)
that just say that they will however be subject to screening requirements
or conservation easements.
' Dacy: We can add like for (a) , except where. . .
Emmings: I don' t know where the screening requirements are. Just so they
don ' t look at this and think gee, I can go right up to the edge.
Batzli : So what do you want to add?
' Emmings : I don ' t know. Jo Ann said it .
Olsen: We' ll be adding that you have to meet the requirements of whatever
landscaping requires .
Emmings : Essentially saying there is no minimum setback.
Conrad: When it abuts .
Dacy: Except when required by the landscaping , Section 20- which will
be the landscaping ordinance.
Batzli : Can' t we just say except as provided in our?
' Emmings: Right. Anything like that. Just so the person doesn' t think
they' re free to go up to the edge. Make them aware of these because when
1 they' re looking at this part, they' re thinking how close can I get and
let' s make them aware right there.
Batzli : Where is our landscaping screening?
' Dacy: Article 25, Section 20-1176.
' Olsen : As far as landscaping it' s 1 tree per 40 feet at least .
Dacy: I think we should just refer to the Article in the amendment.
' Emmings : What brought this to my mind is this . We were talking about
something down here behind that was against the railroad tracks. What am
I talking about?
Conrad : Instant Webb and Lyman Lumber?
' Emmings : And they said they were going to have no setback but there was a
conservation easement which in effect wound up giving them a 20 foot
setback. That ' s what brought it to my mind and I guess there may be other
ways that we want to impose easements or other screening because there' s
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 6, 1988 - Page 40
. . .stuff somewhere and that ' s going to be a conflict. They' ll say I don' t
have a setback requirement. I get to go up to the edge.
Conrad : I think it' s good to have it in there.
Emmings: Yes. Bring it to their attention right away. Then it won' t
raise the question.
Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #88-11 to amend sections as shown
in Attachment #1 with the following additions :
SECTION 1. Add :
d . The minimum setback is twenty-five (25) feet for side street side
yards. '
With the additions to 1 (d) as discussed to bring attention to the fact
that there may be screening requirements or conservation requirements. I
SECTIONS 2-7. Add :
d. The minimum setback if fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential '
district without being separated from the residential district by
a street or railroad right-of-way.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: '
Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated June 15, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor
except Erhart and Headla who abstained and the motion carried .
Wildermuth moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 20 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
11 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 13, 1988
Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
IIMEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson
Steven Emmings, Brian
Batzli and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth and Tim Erhart
II STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Planner and Larry Brown, Asst . City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 7 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND TO CREATE A NEW
64TH STREET CUL-DE-SAC ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 64TH STREET AND HWY. 41, REED
ADDITION, GARY REED AND HSZ DEVELOPMENT
Conrad moved, Batzli seconded to table this item until July 20, 1988 . All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE RURAL DISTRICT ON
PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF HWY. 41 APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5 , WESTSIDE BAPTIST
CHURCH.
Public Present :
Name Address
Brian Pike Westside Baptist Church
Jim Dalhart Architect for Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Headla : You say they looked at the site . Did the y take borings or is that just an opinion?
Olsen : We did not take borings at that time. There was a big hole being
dug with the Lake Ann Interceptor so he did get an idea of what the soils
were like and then the topography. There was area to work, it was just
that we had not been given any information to prove there was a boring
site out there .
Emmings : Is the applicant here and does he want to make a presentation at
this time?
! .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 6
II
If
Brian Pike: A block.
Olsen : A communication block. What I ' ve been saying is we need , for us
' 'II
to go to Met Council , the only way that they' re going to accept it, that
Land Use Plan Amendment, is if there ' s no way that he can provide septic
sites so I ' ve asked the applicant some information to confirm it. He has
been under the opinion that maybe we don' t even need to do that. ' II
Emmings: It's pretty clear to me though, what needs to be done here is
you have to identify the two sites that you propose for the septic . Get III
your soil borings in so the staff can look at them with our consultants
and we can make an informative decision then as to whether or not we 've
got sites here that can be used for the septic system or not. fl
Batzli : I think what he' s trying to say is he submitted one set of
borings and if that area is not acceptable, he doesn' t want to have to go II
and take a second set up in the trees . I think what he' s actually trying
to ask the staff is, have they examined those soil borings so is there at
least one primary site available. II
Brian Pike : Because Met Council says if there' s not two , then we are a
hardship case. They've also mentioned another thing to us about a land
swap that they' re willing to do and that we weren' t informed of until just
I
the other day.
Emmings : It seems to me that all this stuff ought to be done before we I
look at it. It seems to me that that can' t be resolved at the Planning
Commission . Ladd , I 'm going to ask for your guidance on this . It would
seem to me that we're looking at issues that we don ' t normally look at .
This stuff usually gets ironed out before we get it and that' s further
evidence to me that the thing ought to be tabled until everybody has their
act together and then we can look at it. What do you think?
Conrad : Yes . We need the two separate sites . I
Brian Pike: We' re asking to go hook up to the Metropolitan Council . We ' re I
saying that the septic sites to us aren' t necessary and they' re not
necessary because, as we look at the site and as she went and looked at
the site , it is a site that is a hardship case and it would be considerd
as an exception.
I
Emmings : But then go convince them that you should be hooked up and then
bring your plan back and that' s fine. We won 't worry about the septic
sites .
Brian Pike : Convince who? _
Emmings: The Metropolitan Council .
Brian Pike : It' s these two that I have to convince.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 7
Emmings: Okay, staff first and then Metropolitan Council . You' ll have to
do that but we can' t do anything. That' s preliminary to coming in here.
' Headla : You' ve got to do step 1 before you move to step 2.
Dacy: The soil borings need to be done period.
' Conrad : We don' t know if the first borings are good or bad and you' re
saying that you don ' t want to do the second ones until the first ones are
' in and I think we need to see both. We can go to Metropolitan Council and
say it' s a hardship. I guess I would have a hard time saying that there' s
a hardship if you have to take down a tree and I think we ' re as sensitive
as any community in the Twin Cities when you talk about taking down trees.
We want to preserve trees like you do but if you were asking me if taking
down 1 or 2 trees or something is a hardship that would require us to go
to Met Council and say this is a real hardship, I think I would have a
' hard time saying that. If you said we have to level 4 acres of property,
that may be a hardship but I 'm not hearing that . You' re not giving us
enough information to make any kind of decision. You' re not providing
' staff with the minimum that our ordinances require for us to process
anything so I think it's just best, before we set direction and say we
agree with you that it is a hardship or we disagree. I think you really
have to get all sets of information into us .
Brian Pike : I guess when they asked us for two sites and we looked at all
the disturbed property from Metro Council ' s line going through, we
' couldn ' t see two sites and so that was the basis for applying to Met
Council for a variance.
' Conrad : Our staff is saying there are. With their technical advice
they' re saying there are two sites so I think between you and your ,
whoever ' s helping you do the engineering and the city staff, I think
you've got to narrow in on that.
' Jim Dalhart : I 'm working with the church. I couldn' t find in the zoning
ordinance but I believe it does say that you need city approval to remove
' trees in the forested areas . You basically answered that you look at 4
acres as large quantities?
Conrad : No . I made that stuff up. Don' t hold me to the actual words
' that I used. The key, and we spent some time making sure that in the
unsewered area we don' t want to pollute . Therefore , our new ordinance ,
and it' s relatively new, requires two alternative sites. A primary site
' and if that one fails somewhere down the line , we want to know that
there ' s a secondary site. We don' t want to encourage pollution. Whether
it be from a house or a church or industry. That ' s the reason for that
' ordinance and it's relatively new and we' re doing things that I think
deserves the environment that your church would like and the community
likes. That ' s what Chanhassen is asking for right now. We have to know
if there are those alternative sites . Once we know that , then we can
' proceed. If we know that there' s not a secondary site available, we can
react to that but right now we don' t know and that ' s why we' re saying we
can' t even provide you any advice right now. We need to know if there 's a -
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 8 '
secondary site . That' s sort of the next step that you've got to go
through with our staff and your engineering people and come back to us
again .
Jim Dalhart: Part of the church' s concern is simply. . .
p y. . . This is the first
unit building and a site in the trees they would have to pump probably up
to it . That ' s another reason the church was relunctant to go that way. ,
Emmings: You have to only identify it on the site. You don' t have to use
it but you have to identify it.
Conrad : But you would be forced to use it if the first system failed .
Brian Pike: According to Met Council , then they would look at it if our
first system fails. Is that right? Is that what you read on that letter?
Olsen: If your system fails and there ' s an alternate site, I believe that
they would wish that you use that.
Emmings : You don' t know how they' re going to be looking at that. Met
Council doesn' t exactly stay constant on issues either and you get 10
years down the road and you have a failure in your septic system, they may
have a whole different idea that yes , they would accept you as an
exception at that time. Maybe at time you 'd be pushed out even further
but there's just no way to know.
Headla : Why are we spending so much time talking about Met Council? We
aren' t even part of it. Until they satisfy the staff requirements , you
don' t do anything so listen to the staff and then they' re going to work
with you and if there isn' t a site available, then you've got their total
support in going to Met Council . But by doing an end run on them, I think
you' re just delaying the activity.
Brian Pike : Sir , we ' re not trying to do an end run on them. '
Headla: That's what it appears when they say you've got to do these
things and Met Council says you've got to have their support .
Brian Pike: The way this thing proceeded was, I was told to come up with
a letter from a soil consultant that said there isn ' t two sites . I went
and brought a soil consultant out there. He looked and he said , well
there isn ' t. So I sent the letter in and they she went out there with the
City Engineer and they looked over the property. They didn' t do I believe
any test. No tests so on his opinion, it came down to two opinions and I
can understand taking the City opinion. I wasn ' t trying to do an end run.
The guy, my person that I was willing to pay to do the soil borings said
there aren' t two sites out there. You said your City Engineer said there
are.
Emmings : Did he base his opinion on borings?
Brian Pike: He based it upon, no.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 9
Emmings : You can hire an expert to say anything .
' Brian Pike: We hired him to come out and do soil borings and he said
where? He said all of this is disturbed land.
Emmings : Maybe by coordinating with our consultants and staff, maybe they
' can identify the likely sites and your man can do the borings.
Communicate with the staff and get them what they want.
Brian Pike: We did and she said probably the end result of this is having
your guy and our guy going out there on the property and look it over . A
lot of this communication has been in the _last week here.
' Emmings : I've got one question on this . From time to time I 've heard
about the extension of Lake Lucy Road out to TH 41. Where does that come
in relation to this property?
Olsen: We have only an approximate location.
' Brian Pike : Nothing ' s been set in stone from what we've been told .
Olsen: The approximate location is in here.
' Batzli : Are you going to be reserving the right-of-way?
Olsen: As an easement? We are reserving it at this time but there ' s
' nothing to prevent them from building on it at this time.
Jim Dalhart: The church couldn ' t build on there?
' Olsen : Not if we don' t have an official right-of-way.
Dacy: We wouldn' t recommend it.
Emmings : First of all , does anyone else have any other comments on this
or is there a motion?
Conrad moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission table this item
until the applicant provides the required soil boring data locating two
acceptable septic sites on the property to the City Staff. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
' Headla : Do you know what the Met Council is doing? They just keep
playing hardnose? It seems like this would be an ideal situation .
' Dacy: The Lake Ann Facility Agreement has a lot to do with that. To
allow one property to hook up, you can have a lot of implications from the
Met Council ' s standpoint for all of the properties along the MUSA line
' there. Number one, there 's no acreage available to land swap. Number
two , the City has to do a parcel by parcel analysis of the entire
MUSA line if we want to add additional acreage in so it' s going to be a
MIN
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13 , 1988 - Page 10 '
timely process with no guarantee for any applicant to get acreage added . '
Headla: So it isn't just the aye or nay, there' s a lot of other things
that affect it?
Dacy: Yes .
i
PUBLIC HEARING:
REPLAT OF LOT 6 OF SUN RIDGE ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS (2. 5 ACRES AND 39 . 8
ACRES) ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT THE END
OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OF SUN RIDGE COURT, 1/2 _MILE NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD ON
AUDUBON ROAD, ROD GRAMS.
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item.
Emmings : Barb, just one question. If he add the 20 acres out there to
the 40, he can only put two houses on all of that 60 acres , is that
correct?
Dacy: That' s correct . There' s one existing house here so he 'd be allowed
one here and then one still on the big lot . '
Emmings : He could divide it up anyway he wanted to but. . .
Dacy: He gets two more units and that' s it.
Emmings : Is the applicant present?
Dacy: I don ' t know what happened to him. Although he does, he is the
anchor for Channel 9 so he' s probably at work.
Emmings : Are there any members of the public that are here to comment on
this . It is a public hearing.
Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
Headla : There' s a driveway coming off of Audubon. Can you show me on the II
map where that would be there?
Dacy: As part of the original plat approval , I think that was right here '
between these two lots. The road entrance is just to the north of that
and there is a driveway to an existing house to the north of this site.
Headla: There' s a couple of homes there isn' t there?
Dacy: Yes . The existing house here . There ' s that huge house that' s ,
being constructed here and then this lot is built on and this one too.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 11
' Emmings : Isn' t there one more further to the west?
' Dacy: Yes. I think that one is too.
Headla : I thought there was a driveway exit off the road to the south of
the last home.
Dacy: To the south of this one?
Headla: The last home that' s there.
Dacy: Another one of those lots is right _at the base of Lyman and
Audubon. There is the street and the two driveway accesses. That was
approved in the original plat.
Headla : Okay, I just want to make sure. When I stood in that driveway I
' wasn' t really sure. They said silos on this one drawing we got and I
started looking for silos and I wasn' t quite sure that I was right where I
should be.
Dacy: The drawing is referring to the existing house up over on the east
side of the property.
Headla : I didn' t have any notes here so , I don' t have anymore .
Batzli : I was going to ask about condition 4. The developer agrees to
' extending Sun Ridge Court. Wouldn' t this be the type of thing where we
reserve a right-of-way over Lot 1 so we can extend that?
' Dacy: That already is of record .
Batzli : There is a right-of-way over Lot 1?
Dacy: Yes .
Batzli : It ' s just not shown on the , I guess there ' s a dotted line. That' s
already reserved, that right-of-way?
Dacy: Yes . There' s a 60 foot easement .
' Batzli : I saw the dotted line there. I didn' t know that was already
reserved . I thought that was like contemplated type road . That was my
only question.
Ellson : It looks fine to me.
Conrad : Barbara , the reason we can not require the applicant to put a
road into the 39 acres is, when there is potential access in the future
and/or we ' re designating it as an outlot? What is it that you hang your
hat on to say we don' t need access to it at this point?
' Dacy: We can hang the hat on a couple of hatracks . One being , the
ordinance does allow a private drive for a landlocked piece in the rural
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 12 '
area . I didn' t refer to that but that ' s possible. Number two is that by
conditioning this to be an outlot and to remain unbuildable until an
access situation can be resolved with the acreage to the east , we can
require extension of the street at that time.
Conrad : Good . No other questions .
Emmings: I just noticed when we were out there in the circle of the
cul-de-sac , the sides were washing , probably from the rain we just had .
I just wondered, do they have to put curb around? Are they required to do II
curb out there?
Dacy: In the rural area , no .
Emmings : I don' t have anything else. Unless anyone else has any other
comments, is there a motion on this?
Dacy: I was just thinking of Mr. Batzli ' s idea . I guess it wouldn' t hurt '
to make a statement conditioning to rededicate the 30 feet on Lot 1 just
to make sure.
Batzli : Who has the lot to the west there of that line on Lot 1?
Dacy: I don' t know if that' s still under the subdivider ' s ownership or
not.
Batzli : But that' s already platted too? '
Dacy: Right. Just to clarify it so it doesn' t get lost.
Emmings : So you' re asking that the motion be amended to include in
paragraph 4 the statement that the existing easement what?
Dacy: The existing 30 foot future street easement along the west lot line
of Lot 1 be reindicated on the plat of the 2nd Addition.
Headla moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission approve '
Subdivision Request #87-25 based on the plat stamped "Received June 17,
1988" and subject to the following conditions :
1. Compliance with the recommendations of Mr . Machmeier and Mr . Anderson.
2. Redesignation of proposed Lot 2 as an outlot.
3. Dedication of the final plat of a 75 foot utility easement over the
Williams Pipeline .
4. The developer agrees to extending Sun Ridge Court to the southerly
property boundary of Outlot A if an application is pursued for Outlot
A. This extension of Sun Ridge Court shall be at the sole expense of
the applicant and shall be consistent with the City' s standards. The
Planning Commission Meeting
IIJuly 13, 1988 - Page 13
existing 30 foot future street easement along the west lot line of Lot
1 be reindicated on the plat of the 2nd Addition.
II5. The applicant shall supply the City Engineer for approval a grading ,
drainage and erosion control plan for each lot as part of the
buildingt permit process .
IAll voted in favor and the motion carried.
IPUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE ON PROPERTY
ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 18800 WEST 78TH, LYMAN
ILUMBER.
and
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 30, 000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AUTOMATED BUILDING
COMPONENTS BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND
ILOCATED AT 18800 WEST 78TH STREET, LYMAN LUMBER.
Public Present :
' Name Address
John Waldren Applicant
I Dwight Larson BRW
Alan Nordby Eden Prairie
IIJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on both the Conditional Use Permit
and the Site Plan Review.
1 Emmings : One thing it said that kind of confused me. It said they' re
going to move a fence and somehow that reduces the amount of coverage on
Ithe site? I don' t understand how that. . .
Olsen: One of the original plans, the fence was located up into here.
I Emmings : The point is Jo Ann , isn ' t coverage the amount of impervious
surface taken as a percentage on the amount of land. Regardless of where
the fence is , there wouldn' t be more land .
IOlsen: No, they are removing lot coverage . They' re moving the fence into
an outdoor storage area and moving it up into there so they are providing
Igreen space.
Emmings : So they are converting some impervious area to open?
IOlsen: Technically impervious is still debatable but yes .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 14 I
Emmings : Is the applicant here? Do you wish to add anything to the
staff' s report or have any comments on the conditions that have been
imposed by Staff in their report?
John Waldren : I 'm with Lyman Lumber Company. The only thing that I might
add is that somehow we are viewing this as a continuation of development
that we originally talked to Chanhassen in 1975 when we located here. The
actual construction started in 1979. For your information, the building
that ' s going to be added on to the ABC building is going to be exactly
like that. It' s going to be painted the same color . Same precast
concrete. All that . This one shows the landscaping that is required and
that' s not what we' re proposing to do. What Jo Ann showed you up here and
double the trees that are on there. I think it would be good for Dwight
Larson from BRW to show you the landscaping plan that we've been talking
to Jo Ann and Barb . I 've added a few to that because they said they'd
probably like it better if we could do some clustering of the trees and
have some evergreens in there and things like that . Dwight can show you
that. I don't know if you want to get into it. There' s a couple of
conditions on there that we had questions on.
Emmings: Why don' t you go ahead.
John Waldren : Dwight can go over the landscaping and then there' s , where
the parking is, it calls for curb and gutter and he wanted to talk about
whether that really does impede the drainage flow there because it' s right
next to the gravel storage area. Basically it was just to show you the
clustering and your access in. Dwight? ,
Dwight Larson: For the record my name is Dwight Larson and I 'm with BRW.
I don ' t think I need to dwell greatly on the landscaping because I think 11 it' s pretty well covered. I will just say, as Jo Ann has said, along this
side, the south and the east side of the site , the applicant is pretty
much doubling the amount of plant tree material that the ordinance
requires and at the request of staff , we have used a mixture of conifers ,
Black Hill Spruce in this case, with Red Maples. Also at their request,
instead of simply having a line of trees , we' ve clustered them as shown on
this plan. With that I would like to move along to condition 12 on the
site plan recommendations which has to do with curb and gutter along the
edge of the parking area. As this run shows , the applicant is proposing
to pave this parking area which is required by the ordinance and use a
gravel storage and staging area. Condition 12 in the staff memo
recommends that curb and gutter be placed along the edge of the parking
area. Normally when curb and gutter is used , it ' s used for one or two
reasons . One is as a barrier or two , to help drainage. In this case ,
since there' s no sidewalk along here. There' s no street. There' s no area
for pedestrian would normally would be walking or an area that we need to
protect like landscaping, it doesn ' t seem necessary that we would need a
barrier at that point . As far as the issue of drainage, the drainage
scheme for this entire area is for the runoff to surface flow, sheet flow
in this direction to a detention pond and an inlet in this corner . By
putting the curb and gutter along here, we would actually be interrupting
that normal flow and instead of having sheet flow across the staging area ,
we would have a situation where the flow would be concentrated down in
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 15
this area which would produce more potential for erosion and those sorts
of problems. So on behalf of the applicant, I would like to request that
the item 12, that that one be deleted so as not to require that curb and
gutter be required along the paved area. John, would you like me to
discuss the fencing issue also? Okay. The conditions in both the special
use application and the site plan application have required and the
' applicant is providing a wooden fence that' s completely opaque all along
the east and the south sides but the applicant is concerned a little bit
with vandalism. With a wooden fence the slats could easily be pulled down
' and people could more easily get through a wooden fence than a chain
linked fence . The applicant would like the sections , I believe it' s item
3 in the site plan memo and I think it ' s number 2 in the special use
request that have to do with removing the chain link fence. The applicant
would like to have a chain link fence immediately behind the wooden fence
so that it wouldn' t be visible from outside of the site but yet would
provide the protection that he needs for all of the merchandise that he
' would be storing .
Emmings : So the height of that chainlink fence would be 6 feet also?
' Dwight Larson: Is that right John? It would be the same height as the
wood fence but it would be behind the wood fence and not visible from the
street. I would like to look at the sight lines that will be provided
' with the fence that the applicant will build . The top drawing would be
the view from 78th Street from the frontage road and you can see from the
3 1/2 foot eye height on the road with a 6 foot fence and an 8 foot stack
' of lumber or whatever they would be storing in here, even if it were moved
over immediately adjacent to the berm that the applicant is proposing , you
could see that stack clearly would not be visible from the street. The
' same situation applies on the east side of this site .
Emmings : Are you representing to us that 8 feet is high as any lumber
gets stacked?
John Waldren : The designated use for that area is a staging area which
would be the loads are put together to take out to the job sites and those
' have to go on the truck bed and the highest they can go is a 8 foot level .
So that would be out in that area. In the area that' s to the north where
we ' re screening a lot of the east side, you will , if you drive up there ,
you will still see some of the tops of the bunks of lumber back in through
the yard there . It' s just that as the yards and trees mature, you ' ll see
less and less of that area but out front, yes it will be what fits on a
truck and that' s 8 foot high. As Dwight is showing , if you put it right
to the edge and that would be the last place we'd put it because then we
wouldn ' t want to go any further down the staging area with it. Where the
trucks get loaded is at the other end of this .
' Dwight Larson : Unless you have any questions for John or myself , I
believe that' s all that we want to present.
' Emmings : Before we open it up to any more comments , do you want to react
to the two proposals that they've made. Number 12 on the curb and gutter?
IIIM
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13 , 1988 - Page 16 ,
Olsen : I ' ll defer that one to Larry but as far as the fencing . That' s ,
fine with us.
Brown: The curb and gutter , after being reviewed from the City Engineer , ,
he had stated that the curb and gutter , number one will help maintain the
pavement end from disruption. Number two , the plans show a storm sewer
system, a manhole is shown about in the middle of the driveway for the
proposed parking area and it was the City Engineer ' s feeling that the
drainage could be directed from this parking lot area to that manhole so
it would serve as a catch basin. Instead of having sheet flow across the
staging area, have it picked up by that underground storm sewer system and
route it through that system. That was the reason for the curbing . - This
also would, as Dwight eluded to, we felt that it was an advantage to have
a curb there . To have traffic flow concentrated so they would have a
defined area and not be free to enter the staging area at any particular
point . That was a strong recommendation.
Alan Nordby: I live in Eden Prairie on the north side of the lumber yard . i
My question I guess is, is this going to increase the volume of traffic?
There will be lumber and so forth in that area beyond what it is
currently. As to the letter that you received , we too have concerns about
the amount of light and the amount of noise that we had at night
particularly and obviously do not want that to increase and would prefer
to have it decreased.
Emmings : Is there traffic from this?
Alan Nordby: No , the traffic within that . What they' re doing is they' re '
moving that lumber with the forklifts and so forth and at 4 : 00-5: 00 in the
morning we hear this bang , bang , bang , crash , bang . This type of stuff
that has a tendency to make it hard to sleep. That was my concerns . If
they' re going to increase the noise level of traffic in the interior .
Emmings : Maybe Mr . Waldren, could you address that? '
John Waldren: The hours that we do work there vary because we ' re
supplying the construction industry and it' s a seasonal business. The
copy of the letter suggested to restrict the hours from 7 : 30 to 7 : 00 p.m.
at night. For an example what would happen, number one we probably would
lose a lot of customers because all our competitors are able to be on the
job site between 6 : 00 and 7 : 00 in the morning so we wouldn' t be able to
give the service to our customers . Number two, if we didn ' t start work
until 7 : 30, at that time of day on TH 5, the traffic is backed up all the
way to Chanhassen so it would be 10: 00 by the time we got to some job
sites.
Emmings : His question, as I heard it was, with the addition that' s being
made here going to increase the amount of traffic or the amount of noise
coming out of that over a level that it is now?
John Waldren: I don' t know exactly what you' re asking because in one case
we' re cutting down the yard space toward that end of the yard . At least
we' re knocking 30 to 40 or 2% of our lot coverage we' re knocking off in
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 17
that direction of the yard which will put it up in the front part of the
yard. We' re using it for a staging area so the trucks are getting loaded
' in the morning and you' re going to have the most work traffic right there
because it' s going to be loading a whole bunch of trucks.
Emmings: So some of your forklift guys will in fact be moving to the TH 5
end of the site?
John Waldren : Some of them would but I honestly can ' t tell you exactly
' which way it' s going to go because we' re doing this expansion because the
place is getting more towards capacity with what' s there right now so
there will be some increased business that' s coming out of there but the
delivery times are limited . We can' t go onto most of the job sites before
a certain time in the morning with the delivery activities but there are
going to be times where the contractors want to have their , most
contractors want stuff out in one day. If we can' t get it, they go
' someplace else. I can sympathize with you guys right across the way but I
don ' t think we ' re doing anything that' s against the use of that site .
Emmings: I think we can also assume that they' re not increasing the size
of their building so they have less work to do.
John Waldren: We' re increasing the size of the millwork building, not
the lumber yard part of it. The millwork building is actually the
facility that' s at capacity right now. This looks like the last
development on that site because we' re at maximum so we figured we might
' as well do it all at one time and we' re done with it.
Emmings : Anyone have further comments here? Is there anybody else here
that wants to be heard on this from the public?
Batzli moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad : Out of curiousity, the original site plan was approved , we
' granted more impervious surface than we should have.
Olsen : It' s not really clear why. We did check all the Minutes in the
file. . .
Conrad : But it looks like the applicant is doing some things that I think
are appropriate to fulfill the intent of that ordinance. I guess I 've got
' two concerns . In terms of the drainage and the curb, I 'm not sure yet .
Larry, in your mind, is it a real strong conviction that we have the curb
there?
Brown : I guess I would say that it' s not a real strong conviction , no .
Normally, as Dwight pointed out, the curb is normally essentially for
safety reasons . The reasons that are stated are still valid but if that
' curb was not there, it' s certainly not . . .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 18
II
Conrad : Do we improve drainage by having the curb there? Do we improve I
anything by having the curb there? There are ways to engineering to
engineer the water through the manhole and off to the holding wherever but
are we improving the drainage?
II
Brown: By having the manhole that ' s shown on the plan, turned into a
catch basin and having that drainage picked up through the storm sewer
II
system is no longer having to run over that gravel staging area .
Conrad: And is that good or bad?
I
Brown: That is , in my opinion, good because once the water has a --
tendency, we've all seen the tendency of pavement to be affected by water
due to freeze-thaw cycles and therefore it' s better to get that water as
II
soon as we can into a storm sewer system and have it conveyed through the
storm sewer system versus having it run over land into a gravel surface
into or along side and have it puddle alongside the edge of the bituminous
II
and go through the freeze-thaw cycle and have a ragged section of
bituminous. Normal practice would like to get that into the storm sewer
system as quickly as possible. Not that we have 25% slopes out here that II are going to cause an erosion problem but we usually like to see it in the
storm sewer system.
Conrad : The second and only other issue is the noise . I do emphathize
II
with the neighbors and even though they are in Eden Prairie they still are
very close to Chanhassen. Eden Prairie folks work in Chanhassen . They do
a lot of things here. They spend their money in downtown. I 'm concerned
II
with their impression. I think the noise is a factor to me . I guess a
5: 00 construction site across from homes is a problem. I don' t know that
this application is going to change anything yet it ' s also a time that we
can take a look and say should we do something about that noise? Because
II
it is, they are doing what we deemed that area can do , I think the
applicant is on fairly sound ground yet on the other hand, hours of
operation is certainly within our control . When there' s not much of a II transition area, you can only have railroad tracks there. I ' ll ask the
neighbor , what kind of noise are you experiencing? Are you talking about ,
is this a—frequent occurrence? Is this every morning? Is it during the
II
summer I suspect?
Alan Nordby: It ' s typically during the summer , the noise. I would say
practically every morning . I
Conrad : And when you say 5: 00, do you mean 5 : 00 or are you exaggerating?
Alan Nordby: No. Generally it 's somewhere inbetwen 4:00 and 5: 00 that it II
starts . I would say at least 3 days out of the 5 it starts by 5 : 00.
Conrad: Barbara or Jo Ann, I suppose the only thing that we have at our
II
disposal to change this would be berming or limit hours .
Olsen: It' s real low in the back. It is heavily vegetated down there. I
Conrad : So berming ' s out? -
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 19
Olsen : Berming would prevent sound more than the vegetation . . .
Conrad: Probably not practical . What are our standards for industrial
area in terms of hours of operation? Do we have any?
' Olsen: We usually limit hours to the contractor ' s yard where it' s a
conditional use . I don' t know that we have limited hours in the
industrial . . .
' Conrad : Annette , go ahead . I 'm just going to leave it there for the time
being. I don' t know Steve. I don' t know what to say on this one. - I
' think 5 : 00 noise is a problem, in my mind and although this particular
request I can' t say is going to change so I don' t know that this
application for expansion should be held up. Yet on the other hand , it' s
the only thing that we can review noise as it affects neighbors and more
' than likely I ' d like to hear what other people are thinking in terms of
the impact of the noise in the neighborhood to the north.
' Ellson : I think you' re probably right although I think the time to have
asked him was when he originally came and wanted a site in Chanhassen. I
don' t think you can after , what was it 1975 or something , when they
started and we said, go right ahead. Be a lumber yard. Be in Chanhassen.
' You know the builder ' s requirements and to come back 8 years later and
say, by the way we don' t like the noise that comes with your business. I
think if you' re really concerned with that , it should be right when they
' come in. If you want a lumber yard in Chanhassen, say 7: 30. Now do you
still want to build here or not? I don' t think we can say, build here ,
give you all these four phases approved and then later on come back and
' say. . .
Conrad : And there weren' t any neighbors across the railroad tracks at
that time either .
Ellson : That' s another thing I was going to say. When someone builds
right next to the area where it is zoned from residential to something
' else, that' s also their responsibility. Who are going to be my neighbors?
To look into things like that too.
' Conrad : But empathize with the neighbors who moved in and they' re not
going to check and say do you work at 5 : 00 in the morning so on the other
hand , buyer beware is something they should be aware but really, are you
going to go over and say, what kind of expansion? Are you going to really
work at 5 : 00 in the morning?
Ellson : I think they probably were right from the inception . Being a
lumber yard , that' s probably year round so I can' t see limiting their
hours . I think that' d be terrible business for them. It'd be awful of us
to come back and say, now cut off 2 hours in the morning and 4 hours at
night or something like that . I think they' ve been a good industry for
' the community. I 'm impressed that they' ve gone above and beyond some of
the fencing because I don' t like the wire fences much and they' re putting
in the opaque fence. They' re doing extra trees and landscaping and they
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 20 '
seem to be following every one of the staff 's recommendation as possible.
Here we just had somebody who fought tooth and nail in not trying to
cooperate with us . I 've seen their history and it' s very cooperative and
I like their plan. I 'd like to see it go and that it' s approved. I can
see allowing the curb and gutter . If the City Engineer thinks that that ' s
important, than I would think it' s important. I would waive it if it
wasn' t a very strong conviction on his part .
Batzli : I think we need a 35W type traffic noise barrier, is what we
probably really need but since that' s not going to happen. I don' t know
what to do about the noise. I can empathize because I live in a
neighborhood that' s being built and every morning, all summer for the last
couple years at about 6: 30, which isn' t as early as this gentleman is
being waken up, but the graders start grading and the carpenters start
pounding. I 'm kind of going to miss them I think when they' re gone but in
the meantime it' s aggravating and I empathize with that and I don' t know
what to do about it. I can' t help you Ladd. I did have a question about
condition 11 for Larry. He wants to see details for the proposed control
structure on the southeast corner of the proposed staging area. I didn' t
know what he was talking about there.
Brown: The plans show, if you look on page 2 of the plan set, the plan
shows the ponding area , a proposed control structure , a catch basin with
restrictive plate. My motive there and I made reference in one of the
other conditions, they are hooking into the existing catch basin system
along the frontage road and I 'm real concerned about the capacity of the
downstream line that goes out to TH 5 ultimately. Since that is the case ,
I need more detail on that structure to find out what kind of flow is
going to be going through there .
Batzli : Does the applicant here know what he needs to see by this
language?
Dwight Larson : Yes. '
Batzli : Because I didn' t know. I guess I 'm all in favor of allowing them
to put a chain link fence hidden behind their wooden fence that they' re
required to do. I think that condition 13 of the site plan should not
only comply with the conditions of the Building and Fire Inspector but
applicable law and those are my comments . Otherwise I think it' s a good
plan. I like the fact that they' re finally putting maple trees in there
and I then I noticed that the staff wanted to put something else in too ,
but okay.
Headla : I don' t want to restrict their working hours . We wouldn' t do it '
for the Press. We wouldn' t do it for DataSery but I 'd like to work the
problem in a different way. Ladd , you asked the question and I never
heard the answer to the gentleman from Eden Prairie. What kind of noise
do you hear?
Alan Nordby: Typically what I hear is the clanking and banging of the '
forklift tractors and I don' t know if it ' s dropping the large pallets of
lumber or what . There' s banging and crash type of noises that I 'm
I
1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 21
assuming it' s the dropping of large pallets of lumber .
Headla: You know some way you could work that problem to reduce that type
of noise, assuming they' re dropping their loads of lumber? Is that a
reasonable thing to do? Is there someway we could work out that problem?
' John Waldren : Probably where some of that is coming from, like say a rail
car is sitting there and they've got make sure they' re got it seeded on
the forks good so they hit the side of it. It ' s not too often where
' you' re dropping the lumber . You want to get it in as good of shape as you
can but usually what they' re doing in boxcars like that. . . They might be,
they stop to do something and the forks go down to the ground because it' s
a hazard to leave them up. So everytime you get out of the forklift , they
t drop their forks down. I 'd have to go and walk around the yard and listen
to the noises and see exactly what somebody is doing .
' Headla : I really think that' s a much better way to work the problem and
maybe it' s just if the operator ' s aware of the noise. Training of an
operator. You might get more results , minimize the problem that way than
' putting up your berm or whatever . I 'd kind of like to see that looked at.
See some operator training if you feel the operators can reduce that type
of noise .
John Waldren : Is the worse problem at 5: 00 rather than at night then?
Alan Nordby: Typically, because it is so early and there are no other
noises , railroad traffic or anything else, that it' s more obvious at that
time of day.
Headla : Is there any reason that we couldn' t have them put some
landscaping in the back? Some of the trees there? Even some maples .
Something that grows fast and they give you quick cover .
' Olsen: There are some existing . . .
John Waldren : The only part that' s not covered right now is to cover the
' railroad wnere it comes onto the property.
Headla : How high is that?
' Olsen : It' s mature vegetation . It looks like what' s up in front.
Headla : The one thing I think should be in there is your lights are awful
' high. I can see why you would put them that way at one time but now I 'm
wondering if you wouldn ' t lower them on the poles . I think you could get
the same effect .
John Waldren : We' re planning on doing is any lights pointing in that
direction, we' re planning on either moving them to the other side and put
them south than end up putting lighting on the far side .
' Headla : So there shouldn' t be any visible then to the north?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 22 '
John Waldren : We' re willing to change that around . We weren ' t aware that
it was causing a problem.
Alan Nordby: Typically it' s in the wintertime when the foliage drops off
the trees that it' s a problem.
Headla : And that' s when the lights are on most the time. '
John Waldren: We keep the lights on for security.
Headla : That' s all I have. '
Emmings : I would like to , if it makes sense , I would like to add a
condition to the conditional use permit number 3 that we grant the
conditional use permit as long as there' s compliance with all the
conditions in the site plan. Just so those two are tied together. Does
that make sense to do that?
Headla : I did have one more question. Does the Fire Department require
any additional equipment due to this structure?
Brown: No .
Emmings : I guess I basically feel like the noise is unfortunate and
I don't know what to do about it either . I don' t think their hours of
operation should be curtailed . I know there are mornings at my house when
I 'm awaken by traffic on TH 7 where I wished people wouldn' t drive down
TH 7 and this may be a little different than that but I think Annette is
exactly right. I think the time to look at this was when this first came
in. He' s got a huge investment out there and they' re probably operating
now pretty much the way they were back then and I don' t see that this is
going to , it' s not like they' re doubling their business out there or the
outside business that makes the noise or something like that. It' s not
that big a leap. I just think it' s just awfully hard to deal with this
and I think Dave is exactly right. If they can be a little sensitive
and I think they' ve shown that they are . They' ll move the lights . They' re
putting up two fences which I think is pretty extraordinary that they' re
willing to do that . If they could be sensitive to their operations in the
early morning hours to curtail some of that noise, that would be the best
way to solve that problem to the extent it can be solved .
John Waldren: Can I make a couple of comments? I don' t know how much
responsibility we have to the residents over there. Maybe they should
talk to Eden Praire because typically, Eden Prairie had this whole site,
this industrial site next to a residential site within their domain and
they probably require some kind of sound buffer but yet they let a builder
in Eden Prairie build something without a sound buffer . . .so I would sort
of suggest to you that. . . to Eden Prairie to have a sound buffer put up
because it drops way away. Like Jo Ann says , it would be awful hard to
put a berm there but on their side it doesn' t drop away. It' s on the
higher side of the railroad tracks . Maybe, I don' t know if Eden Prairie
would end up doing anything at this date in there that would help from
that end . In the lumber yard , covered storage is at a premium so you
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13 , 1988 - Page 23
don' t usually put them all in the building . A lot of times you put them
around the outside. There is a very good possibility that at some point
' in time in the future that we would do some more covered storage or
something like that. We will be sensitive to the neighbors on that side
and the first place that we can look at is putting the lumber . . . We are
sensitive. We try to be good neighbors to the 30 or 40 people that built
on that side. When we originally built there in 1979, we went to
considerable expense to put up a nice berm at the street level area and
then with this 10 foot retaining wall type of thing where the City went in
' when they were putting the road and took the fence down and took all the
dirt from the berm that we put up and used it to construct the road . When
they put the fence back right along side the road. Now we' re taking and
moving that fence back where it was originally so we can get the lot
coverage that we had before. So, we' re trying to be good neighbors.
Conrad : What do you think about the curb?
' Emmings: I think that should be negotiated between them and I have no way
to even think about it.
' Conrad : Let' s ask the applicant what they think? Is that a hardship to
put that in? Tell us more.
' John Waldren : We' re willing to do whatever the engineers says at the time
we submit the plans for approval . If he says you've got to have it, we' ll
do it. If BRW talks to them in the meantime because they haven ' t had much
time to go over it. He was busy and they' re busy so if they get something
to it included in there that says we need it, we' ll do it. If they talk
and they say we don' t. . .
' Emmings : I guess my impression would be, since it' s from our City
Enginer , we ought to put it in there and if they can talk him out of it
before it gets to City Council , then they can. . .
' Conrad: That' s a good way to do it, if you can talk him out of it.
' Emmings : Anybody else have more comments? Let' s take the site plan
motion. The first motion that appears in the packet.
Conrad : I ' ll make a recommendation that the Planning Commission approves
' the Site Plan Review #88-9 as shown on the plan stamped "Received July 6,
1988" with the conditions listed by staff with a revisions to point number
3 where we might reword it that would say the applicant shall , instead of
' the word replace , the applicant shall cover the chainlink fence with a
wood fence to screen the existing outdoor storage. And with the addition
of point 14 which would read that the applicant shall submit a proposal as
' to how they feel they can limit noise between the hours of 5: 00 and 7 : 00
p.m. , possibly through the use of on-site signage or other training type
of things that could be done within their own company.
' Batzli : I ' ll second it.
1
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13 , 1988 - Page 24 1
Conrad : Under discussion, all I 'm doing is saying , I think what I heard 1
here was really right. I don' t want to impose anything on these folks .
They' re doing some things that I like and I think what they can do is take
a look at their operation. Even something just as simple as a sign for
some of the new opeartors saying watch the noise level . Be careful . That
seems simple but I think that type of thing out there makes some sense of
the fact that there may be some people sleeping . What I 'm asking for is
simply a little letter by the time it comes back to City Council that says
we recommend that we will implement these type of things to help our
neighbors in Eden Prairie out. I think that would show the good faith
effort that I know you can do.
Emmings : Another thing along that line too Ladd would be, Mr . Waldreri
said they need to load up materials to get them out to job sites and then
he also indicated some on loading rail cars . Maybe if it is from
unloading rail cars , maybe they don' t have to do it at that time. I don' t
know but if they could look at whether or not they do.
Batzli : What were the hours that you said?
Conrad : I said between 5: 00 and 7: 00.
Batzli : Are you just talking about the morning?
Conrad : Yes .
Batzli : So you don' t mind that they' re unloading and loading at 11: 30?
Conrad: I could back that out and just open it up to just general
comments that I might have if you'd like me to. I guess those are the
hours that bother me the most and that's what I heard. I think maybe they
had some other recommendations .
Batzli : I was comfortable with that . I was just curious that we' re
intending to genrally limit the noise outside of an area where we consider
regular business hours .
John Waldren : You guys are getting into a touchy subject when you mention 1
any hours at all because we are willing to do, it ' s not a problem to do
signage or training . We do regular safety meetings about every 2 weeks
so these sort of things we end up bringing up. The next meeting will be
one of the things that' s brought up. I ' ll ask the manager of that
operation to go and I ' ll probably go with him, to see what exact noises
are there and to see if we can do something about them. I 'd be willing to
write a letter that the first place , there' s going to be more outside
storage, not covered storage, the first place that we would consider would
be along that back fence to act as a noise buffer . At 5: 00 to 7 : 00 in the
morning in the summertime is the prime time where if the contractor wants
his load , it' s got to be in that time .
Emmings: I think all he ' s saying is , take a look at what you ' re doing
during those hours . If there are things that are noise genrators that you
don' t have to do at that time, maybe you could tell us about that or if
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 25
there are little things that you can do to make it quieter , tell us about
that or tell us that you' re going to put up signs . He' s just saying, look
' at your operation in those hours . See what the noise generaters are
outside that the neighbors are hearing and get back to the City about what
you might be willing to do about it .
' Conrad : I 'm not asking you to change your operation but I am asking kind
of to reemphasize your training program and if that' s a little sticker
that goes on the horn of the forklift truck that says neighbors are still
' sleeping, something that simple. Those are the types of things that I 'm
looking for that I think you can do. I think that ' s just good management
and I think you'd want to do that. That type of stuff.
' Headla : I 've got a question. Does that meet the sign ordinance Barb?
When he said signage, I was thinking, I thought, are we putting 4 x 8
sheets of plywood on the back wall now? I had trouble with the
' terminology there and I understand what you want and I think that' s fine.
Emmings : Is there any further discussion on the motion?
Headla: Yes . I don' t like the timing .
Emmings : Elaborate .
Headla : I don' t like any time restrictions on that.
' Emmings: You mean to diminish noise at those times?
Headla : Submit a plan as to how they might minimize noise during the
whole 24 hours .
Emmings : Do you want to amend the motion and see if you get a second?
' Headla: Alright. I 'd like to amend the motion that we do not specify time
but that we ask the applicant to work on a plan that will minimize noise
during the full working time.
' Emmings : Is there a second? The amendment fails for a lack of second .
Conrad moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #88-9 as shown on the plan stamped "Received
July 6, 1988" with the following conditions :
1. The applicant shall provide an amended landscaping plan which provides
evergreens interspersed with the proposed maples and additional
' landscaping on the east and south side of the proposed expansion .
2. The applicant shall provide a plan which moves the chain link fence,
located on the east side of the existing outside storage area ,
' approximately 30 ' to 40 ' into the site and shall sod/seed and
landscape the increased setback area to maintain 74% lot coverage.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 26 I
I 3applicant shall cover the chain link fence
. The a
PP nce with a wood fence to
screen the existing outdoor storage.
II4. The applicant shall redirect or relocate the lights on the site away
from the residential district to the north.
5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the 1
Watershed District Permit.
6. The applicant shall provide the City with calculations which verify I
adequate capacity for the existing water and sanitary sewer services .
As an alternative, the applicant shall provide the City with details
for the installation of new services for the proposed building
I
addition .
7. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer for approval calcuations
which verify that the existing storm sewr system along West 78th Stret II
will adequately handle the additional capacity due to this
application. These calculations shall give detailed flow values for
the proposed site and the capacity for the existing site to the end of
II
the outfall .
8 . Erosion control shall be in place prior to the commencement of any
II
grading, and once in place, shall remain in place throughout the
duration of construction. The developer shall be responsible for
making periodic checks and repairing any damaged erosion controls II promptly.
9. Details regarding the pavement section for the parking area and the
proposed staging areas shall be submitted to the City Engineer as part
II
of the final review process .
10. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval a typical
II
section for the proposed curb cuts and bituminous paving which is to
occur along the access of 187th Avenue prior to final site plan
review.
11. The applicant shall submit details to the City Engineer for the I
proposed control structure shown on the southeast corner of the
proposed staging area . 1
12. Revised plans which include curb and gutter along all sides of the
bituminous parking area shall be submitted to the City Enginer prior I
to final site plan approval .
13. The applicant shall comply with conditions of the Building and Fire II Inspector.
14. The applicant shall submit a proposal as to how they feel they can
limit noise between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a .m. , possibly
through the use of on-site signage or other training type of things
that could be done within their own company.
II
I . .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 27
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed p pp ed and the motion carried .
' Headla: I think we ought to be in effect for the whole working period .
' Emmings : Is there a motion on the Conditional Use Permit?
Headla : I 'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission approve
' Permit Request #88-8 with the recommendations of the Planning Staff .
Batzli : I ' ll second it for discussion purposes. I think there were some
changes.
Emmings : I had proposed a number 3 that said that we include a condition
of compliance with all conditions of the Site Plan approval and I think if
' we put that in as the only condition and wipe out these two conditions
that are down here, we'd really have everything wouldn' t we? Because both
of those are included in the site plan .
Olsen: Yes .
Headla : Say that again .
' Emmings : If we took out 1 and 2 in the staff report and just had one
condition and that condition is compliance with all the conditions of Site
Plan approval . In other words, they have to do all those things in order
to have their conditional use permit. That ' s all we really need.
Headla : That ' s what this is about. Aren ' t these the two deviations to
the Site Plan requirements?
Batzli : No , those are in the Site Plan .
' Headla : Or the builder ' s requirements . These are the only two exceptions
in what we require.
' Emmings : No , they' re not exceptions . They' re just conditions that are
imposed on the conditional use permit. I guess what I 'm saying is, why
don ' t we just make sure they comply with everything that we ' ve already
imposed on them and then let them have their conditions .
Batzli : Or would you just like to make it a third condition?
Emmings : I don' t care.
Headla : I ' d feel more comfortable with it as a third condition . What ' s
the disadvantage to doing that?
Emmings : Because 1 and 2 are already included as conditions under the
' Site Plan approval . That' s all I was looking to be more efficient but if
you want to add it as a third one. I 'd just like to see them tied
together is all .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 28 ,
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded an amendment to install a third n
co dztxon
which reads, the applicant shall comply with all conditions established on
Site Plan Request #88-9 . All voted in favor of the amendment and the
moiton carried.
Batzli : Do we want to make condition 2 to correspond to the condition
that Ladd proposed in condition 3 in the Site Plan regarding covering of
the chain link fence?
Emmings : To be consistent we should do it that way. '
Conrad moved, Batzli seconded an amendment to change the second condition
to replace the word "replace" with the word "cover" . All voted in favor
of the amendment and the motion carried.
Headla moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-8 as shown on the Site Plan
dated "Received July 6, 1988" with the following conditions :
1. The applicant shall screen the proposed outside storage with 100%
opaque wood fence and with the proposed landscaping . 1
2. The applicant shall cover the existing chain link fence on the east
side of the existing storage area with 100% opaque wood fence and
provide landscaping along the fence .
3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions established on Site
Plan Request #88-9.
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25, 000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON
PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT LOT 3, BLOCK 1,
PARK ONE 3RD ADDITION, WAYTEK, INC.
Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report .
Emmings: There' s nothing in our staff report that tells us what you folks
do. 1
Olsen : Storage of wire.
Emmings: Okay, I 'd like to know what' s going on here. '
Wayne Larson: I 'm Wayne Larson, president of Waytek. We' re a wholesale
distributor of wiring , wire fasteners , covering material . Anything kind of II
hardware related. We sell strictly to industry. We have only, as you see
on the plans , inside storage. Basically we' re a pretty clean operation. --
I . ,
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 29
Emmings: It is all indoors?
Wayne Larson : 100% .
Headla : What kind of wire and insulation?
' Wayne Larson: The wire would be wire that' s used in construction or in
automotive or trucks , trailers , battery cables . We've got a trailer
' cable. We have all different types of wires. UL approved wires. Things
of this type . Fasteners . You see these little types of fasteners that go
on the ends of the wires. All items that you buy called Scotchlocks. 3M
manufactures them. Things of this type . Cover material , look at the hood
of your car , you see that corregated looking material , we sell an awful
lot of that .
' Emmings : Are they right across the tracks from this residential area in
Eden Prairie also?
Wayne Larson : Yes .
Emmings : You heard what went on here just now. Is there anything about
your operation that you think neighbors across the track would find
objectionable? Lights and noise? Hours of operation?
Wayne Larson: Our hours of operation are from 7: 30 to about 5: 00.
tEmmings : And again it' s all indoors?
Wayne Larson: The only thing is we have the semis that back up and that
would be on the west side. We have some noise loading and unloading .
Emmings: Have you had a chance to read the staff report?
Wayne Larson : Yes .
' Emmings : And you' re aware of those?
Wayne Larson : The builder is here .
' Craig Larson: I 'm Craig Larson from LL White and Sons . We' re the
designer and contractors of the project . We agree really with all the
conditions with staff and the additional screening requirement, I think we
' can reach agreement with what additional is needed and we' re in agreement
with that. The other conditions really don' t have any problems. You
brought up the question too of the residential area across , as far as the
' construction period, I don' t see that we' ll have any problems either . We
very seldom would start anywhere before 7 : 00 in the morning and typically
only work until about 5 : 00, maybe 6 :00 in the night so I don' t think you 'd
have any disturbance there .
tEmmings : Has the staff looked at this from the point of view of a
residential neighbor in Eden Prairie? Looked at the proposal .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 30 '
Olsen : Yes, and it is a very quiet industrial use.
Emmings: This is not a public hearing is it? Then we' ll just see if
we've got comments . Dave?
Headla : On condition 5, give me a yardstick of how you ' re going to
measure that?
Brown : When we reviewed the plan and most of the conditions that have
been stated, such as condition 6, takes the utmost care in trying to keep
the construction outside of the newly laid street. From what the plan
shows here, there should be no reason to disturb the bituminous mat out
there . It was simply put on there as a notification to the applicant that II
we will be watching that street out there because it is a newly
constructed street . The cross gutters, construction of the concrete cross
gutter is probably one of the most sensitive issues as far as anything II that would come close to disturbing that street. Construction of that can
be done without, hopefully without causing any construction to Quattro
Drive.
Headla : I thought you were after that they just break out your roadway
of Quattro Drive. Is that what you' re really asking?
Brown: What' s that?
Headla : Do you have some way of really measuring that? In case they do,
unintentionally but in case it gets broken up for one reason or another,
do you have any recourse?
Brown: I doubt that we would have any recourse at this time. It' s simply II
to notify the applicant that we will be watching. We do have the power to
shut the operation down if we do see damage occurring .
Headla: So that's what this really gives you?
Brown: Correct.
Headla : Okay. That' s all I have.
Batzli : You indicated that you wanted to delete items 8 and 9 . The ,
financial sureties and the utility easemnts?
Brown: Correct . '
Batzli : I don' t have any questions .
Ellson: I think it looks good. I 've always said we need a good wire '
distributor in Chanhassen . So welcome and I think it looks good .
Conrad: One comment here in the staff report analysis. Those areas of
heavy vegetation , this is all someplace else on the southwest or I don' t
know, another portion. The building pad, is there much that needs to be
F
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 31
' removed from that area? So it' s pretty clean . You' re not concerned with
that?
Olsen : What we' re saying is they' re working around a lot of these .
Conrad: Because they have the fortune to be on the agenda with the
' previous applicant , that' s kind of the kiss of death, to take one subject
into the ground. In this case we' re not too uncomfortable, I 'm not
uncomfortable that they' re going to disturb the neighbors but in future
cases if they sell, expand or whatever, do we need any kind of, are we
concerned with a building going in and how they impact the residential
neighborhood? I didn' t see in the staff report anything talking about the
direction of lights on the building. The sodium vapor lights . Can we
' just assume that that' s taken care of? How do we monitor those things Jo
Ann?
' Olsen : The lights , they have to be shielded . . .
Conrad : Is that in a building code or is that in an ordinance?
Olsen : It' s a commercial site plan requirement would be shielding of
lights .
' Conrad : And does Larry go out and make sure that happens?
Olsen: It' s the Building Inspector that does it.
' Conrad : In terms of noise in the future, do we care?
' Olsen: Sure we care. Again, we don' t have any specific regulations but
as far as site plan approval and conditional use permit . . .
Dacy: Everything will be indoors .
Conrad : Yes , right and that' s why I said , what about the future . Let ' s
say they expand.
Dacy: Outside storage, than a conditional use permit would be required .
Emmings: As far as the noise too, I 'm aware of it. A case I was involved
' with at one time where the PCA came out to where these big loaders . . .and
the neighbors, there were some neighboring houses and they came down . . .and
they shut them down.
' Olsen : We do have that control and if it' s thought it dangerous and
Public Safety is working on a new noise ordinance . . .
' Dacy: We' re currently purchasing a decimil meter .
Emmings: I don' t really have any comments. I keyed in on the same one
' Dave did , number 5. I didn ' t like the language that says they' ll take the
utmost care. Well , baloney, they' ll do it. I ' d just reword that to say
the applicant and contractor shall keep Quattro Drive intact throughout
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 13, 1988 - Page 32 I
the construction process and let them know that that ' s a condition. But I
I don't think that' s a big point. All and all , I think it' s a good
application and unless there are more comments, maybe somebody would like
to make a motion.
II
Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
II
approval of Site Plan Review #88-8 as shown on the Site Plan stamped
"Received June 13, 1988" subject to the following conditions :
1. City Council approval of the ordinance amendment regarding parking and II
building setbacks adjacent to railroad tracks .
2. Additional landscaping be provided along the southwest side of the
II
proposed docking and parking area . The additional landscaping shall
include evergreens for year round screening.
3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the I
Watershed District Permit.
4. A standard concrete cross gutter shall be installed at the
II
intersection of Quattro Drive and the proposed 24 foot driveway. This
cross gutter shall be installed as per the detail enclosed with this
report . (Refer to Attachment No. 2) .
I
5. The applicant and contractor shall take utmost care in ensuring the
City that the newly-constructed Quattro Drive shall remain intact I
throughout the construction period .
6. The storm sewer plan shall be revised to show the connection to the
existing storm sewer stub along the westerly right-of-way boundary for
I
Quattro Drive.
7. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
I
approval prior to final site plan review.
8. Meet the requirements of the Public Safety Director .
II
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor I
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 30 p.m. .
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
IPrepared by Nann Opheim
II
kL,P
' CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 12, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Jim Mady, Larry Schroers, Carol Watson, Mike
Lynch and Curt Robinson
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Hasek
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
1
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS : HOCKEY ASSOCIATION.
Rich Larson: I 'm here with Scott Simonson representing the Chanhassen-
Chaska Hockey Association . We are here because of the small rink, the
' barn building that I believe you are all familiar with. That is a
building that is owned by Bloomberg and they have expressed interest in
doing one of two things. One is to, they would like to move their scene
shop back into that building as it was . That was the original purpose of
' it. Two, if that is not possible, they would like to see an increase in
the rent . Our proposal to your committee is that there is a person there
now other than Bloomberg, basically a general manager type person that has
' proposed this rent increase which is unknown at this time . We would like
to know if the City and Park and Rec Commission would be interested in
forming kind of a negotiation committee. A couple of people to sit down
and talk with these people and see what exactly it is they' re looking for
' and try to hammer this thing out . I believe that they can move their
scene shop there at considerable expense we feel . If we' re evicted in
that building , we are left with nothing for the foreseeable future. At
' least two years. That we know is a fact. So we need some help here and
we would like to try and get together . It ' s early enough now. We don ' t
want to press this at a last minute where both sides are kind of at each
' other ' s throats . Everybody knows the improvements and things that have
been placed in the building . The cost. Lori has all the details. Rent
figures from last year and I think what we ' re looking for is somebody from
this committee along with maybe myself, whatever to go sit down with
Clayton and find out what it is they want .
Watson: What is it currently? Rent.
' Sietsema : Half of what they bring in.
Watson: What does that amount to dollarwise?
Hoffman: Approximately $1, 700. 00 this past year .
' Watson : They want to take more than 50o is really what they' re saying?
Sietsema: If they rent it to somebody else, they can get $2 .00 a square
' foot and that would be on an all year basis . Right now they' re getting
$1, 700. 00 a year which is virtually nothing .
Park and Recreation II
eatzon Comm�.ss�.on Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 2 '
Rich Larson : Quite frankly, that is nothing. We know that. ,
Boyt: But that was their, they knew what they were doing.
Rich Larson : Correct. That ' s one of the reasons that Clayton is there. ,
His job is to get that operation profitable and one of the ways they' re
going to try and do it is to make use of the facilities that they have.
They are not going to try and get profitable at our expense only but they
are making an attempt to get things looking a little more black than red.
It ' s understandable to a point.
Watson : What did we do before we rented it? I haven' t heard much about
the Hockey Association.
Scott Simonson : Nothing . We played outside. '
Rich Larson: Outside and the key here is that that rink is designed
specifically for the young , beginning , the termites they call them, by age II
level kids. The 5, 6, 7, 8 year olds. It is not designed for the older
kids . We can use it. That' s fine but the key is to keep the young
beginners and their parents, which is very important, out of the elements
as much as possible.
Sietsema : To give you a little history of what I understand the way it
all came to pass and how we got to where we are is , 3 years ago the stage
shop was in that building and they were looking to expand to not only
being a scene shop just for the Dinner Theater but to move so they could
be operational building scenes for maybe Prine ' s studio and make a profit
above and beyond what they do for the Dinner Theater and to do that, they
needed more space so they moved into the old lumber building . They' ve
been there for three years and quite frankly, the way I understand it,
it' s not working . They' re not making any money so we need to go back and
they' re looking at renting that space that they' re in now and making some
money off of that . If they do that , then they need to put their scene
shop back someplace else. If they rent space, they' re going to have to
pay $2.00 to $3. 00 a square foot for it and why should they do that?
They' re contention is, why should they do that if they've got a perfectly
good building that they have sitting there that they are virtually letting
the City use for almost nothing. Bloomberg doesn' t want to come off to be
the big bad guy in this because he' s been a good guy for the last 3 years
letting us use this for such a pentence. But he also, with Clayton there,
it just doesn ' t make sense to him as the manager of that company to be
paying money for space when he ' s already got space that he owns. I don' t
know if they' re got a renter in the space that they' re in right now. I
don' t know how immediate that they want us out of there. They haven' t
come to us actually and said we want you out . They' re just saying that
that' s a possibility if they get a renter and things progress. If they
get someone for that other space. But you ' re right, we do need to sit
down with them and ask them exactly what they want for rent. If it ' s
going to be $2. 00 a square foot , we ' re going to be pretty hard pressed to
pay that kind of money.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 3
' Watson : What are our expenses basically there? How much could we afford
to pay them and still pay our expenses?
' Sietsema : We' ve been losing about $1, 000. 00 to $2 , 000. 00 a year on this .
Watson: So we' re already losing a lot of money on this .
Rich Larson : One thing that we have, the rates have been low. There ' s no
doubt about that. What you charge to us. However, one alternative is
' that we believe that that building that is only being used basically now
during the cold winter months, has potential to a certain degree as a
soccer type practice field . It' s a cement floor in the summertime.
Roller skating. Any number of things that can be investigated at the City
' level and see if there is a potential to increase revenue that may
possibly offset a rent increase, which of course we don' t know what it ' s
going to be but that ' s what we want to sit down and talk to these people
' about. That is a potential .
Schroers : Did we make the improvements on the building that we talked
about as part of the condensation problem was concerned? Have we done any
of that work?
Sietsema : The Hockey Association has done virtually all of the
improvements that are in there. They' re put in the boards and the viewing
room up above and the changing rooms and everything but the condensation
problem. . .
' Rich Larson: The condensation problem actually was eliminated by the
Zamboni , which is what we felt would occur .
' Schroers : Did you have good luck , I didn' t get out there Sundays but did
the Zamboni work out well?
Rich Larson: It worked great. Beautiful . Biased or unbiased as I may
be, it really did make a difference. Not only to ourselves here in Chan
but the people that also paid to use the facility. It made a lot of
difference.
Schroers : Where does the money go that people pay?
' Sietsema: It goes to pay the electricity and the rent basically. The
rink attendants .
Schroers : There isn' t money left over to deal with an increase in rent?
Sietsema: No, we lose $1,000.00 to $2,000. 00 a year on it.
Lynch : How many square feet are we talking about?
Mady: I was thinking about 15, 000. The rink ' s about 60 by. . .
Rich Larson : It' s not. . . , 90 feet?
I
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 4 1
Schroers : How much money has the Hockey Association itself stuck into 1
doing the things like the changing rooms and all that sort of thing?
Scott Simonson : We can go back on that and I can look up the records and
find out the exact figures for you. Either call it in or write it in,
something like that but I think last year we spent, for the viewing room
and some painting and the stairways, it was like $600. 00 to $700.00 we put II
into it.
Rich Larson: I know we've put in some real cash expenditures over the
last few years of a minimum of $7,500. 00. I
Sietsema : Does that include the $3 , 500. 00 for the lights?
Rich Larson: Yes. That includes the lights. That we can account for '
towards the intangibles which is free labor but real dollar expenditures
that not necessarily have been paid back but through one form or another,
that' s been real money that' s flowed through there.
Schroers: I would think that would lend support that you've made somewhat
of an investment.
Rich Larson: Our contention is this , we don' t want to get to that point
but okay fine, it' s your building. We' re there. We made the
improvements . Now what guys? We take everything out? Who pays for that?
There ' s a lot of things involved here.
Schroers: What you' re really looking for is an equitable solution and you
want to stay there?
Rich Larson: Stay there, correct . It' s our only alternative for a 1
minimum of 24 months the way we see it.
Boyt : When is the Lake Ann . . .?
Sietsema: We ' re hoping to start this fall .
Boyt : One alternative we could look at is using the carousel building . I
It' s 80 feet in diameter .
Mady: Are they thinking, talking about putting a rink in there?
Boyt: No. They' re not thinking about doing anything specific but it' s a
big building . I
Sietsema: It ' s a round building that ' s 80 feet in diameter .
Mady: I think we' re a tad short . I
Boyt : Well , they have 60 foot.
Mady: A standard hockey rink is 85 by 25.
j
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 5
Boyt : I know but they' re not dealing with that now.
with a 60? They' re dealing
Rich Larson : Is the length 200?
Mady: Yes .
Rich Larson : Okay, then we ' re at 120 I guess . We' ve about 40 feet short.
The size of that building Sue, that' s the minimum. You really wouldn ' t be
' able to go any smaller surface wise . Not necessarily the building .
Useable surface.
Scott Simonson : The other thing here is the kids and the age level . If
' we lose that service, there' s no ice available. Most city ice is already
taken up by other associations .
Boyt: Outdoors or indoor ice?
Rich Larson : Indoor ice.
' Schroers : I was just commenting about our referendum. It ' s too bad that
that fell through.
' Rich Larson : We obviously feel the same way. But that' s the process and
we accept that. We ' re going on from that.
Sietsema : How much can the Hockey Association pay for an hour of ice time
there? If we raise it from $25. 00.
Rich Larson : What were we paying last year , $25. 00?
' Sietsema: We raised it $5.00 an hour last year .
' Rich Larson : What we' re paying in the full fledged , full tilt boogy rent
is $90. 00 an hour. That's what we' re paying now for the rest of the
program. For the other 90% is what we are paying for .
Mady: Outside of the, we have some Chan kids playing with the Minnetonka
Association don ' t we?
tRich Larson: Correct.
Mady: I personally wouldn' t have the City subsidizing the Chanhassen
' kids. That would be both the CAA and the Minnetonka program, but like
Eden Prairie , do any of their kids come over here or Shakopee or anybody
else?
' Rich Larson: Not on a scale that ' s really worth discussion. Other than
Minnetonka. They' re really the ones who use. The problem there is when
we talk dollars , like the $25. 00 fee that we pay now. This rent thing
' ends up being something dramatic and we try and pass that onto our
visitors . They' ll simply say thanks , but no thanks . That' s what we ' re
concerned about. That we don' t want to get into a position because to a
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 6 ,
certain extent , if the people that we have brought in from other 1
communities have helped to keep the losses in that building at a minimum.
Lynch : If they' re serious about the profiting of this, there ' s absolutely I
no way that we could ever afford it. The only way that it' s going to
amount to truly is if we rent the space for $2 . 00 a square or for some
intensive use in the short winter months and then some very light uses
I imagine in the summer . There' s no way the City could charge for that .
I 'm sure the Council is not going to like to subsidize to that extent.
Rich Larson : And that we understand and that is , I think 90% of the ,
reason that I 'm here now is that we feel with the proper approach, we can
maybe offset that .
Sietsema : There' s no decision that can be made tonight without sitting
down with Clayton and I think we ought to get. . .
Rich Larson : And basically say, okay here we are, here you are, and what
do you want out of us?
Sietsema : So staff and maybe one of your group and someone or two of the
Commission, we if we'd all sit down in a room with Clayton and try and
figure out exactly what are their needs and how soon and when is it all
going to happen. Are they going to all of sudden come to us one day and
say we' ve got a lease on the other space , we need it by the end of the
month. You 've got to be out of there. After we got it in full running
gear , that could be pretty tough. But there ' s going to be some expenses
for them to get that building up and going too because the bathrooms don ' t
work and there' s no heat in there right now. I don' t think that ' s a major
thing for them because it' s all there. It ' s a matter of getting it in a
working order . Again, there' s no decision that we can really make except
to get an idea from the Commission of whether you' re in support of
continuing our end of the deal of the rink. If we want to continue the
rink operation. If you didn' t want to continue it at all , then we
obviously wouldn' t proceed .
Watson: We should determine who' s going to go along .
Sietsema: I wouldn' t anticipate that you would want to terminate the
whole thing since we just bought a zamboni but that is a decision that. . .
Schroers : How kids are in this program?
Rich Larson : In the mites , 60 some kids now. For three months and then
the termites.
Scott Simonson : Figure another 10% this year . That ' s generally the way
it's been going. 1
Mady: One of the things , another cost to add is if you can figure out
another use for 9 months out of the year. Something that could bring in a
small revenue into the building. Whether it ' s just short term rental
space or whatever . Space as it is isn't going to be useable for a lot of
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 7
things and when we were meeting with Clayton 6 months ago or so when we
were talking about the community center in that area , he was saying , geez
you can store boats down there. I 'm not so sure that that ' s a proper use
in the zoned area and I don't know if Council would allow it but those are
other applications . I think at this point what we ' ll do is direct
to start looking with you staff
g y guys and the commission and you can get Clayton.
We ' ll poll the commission members to see who ' s interested in handling the
project. Being involved in that. Speaking for myself and basically most
of the commission is very. . . the youth hockey program as it exists is doing
a good job. That use is unique down in that building. The free skating
and such so it ' s providing a benefit to the entire community.
Boyt: Are the hockey coaches going through the training that the CAA
coaches go through?
Scott Simonson : We just went through a coarse last week.
Boyt: Is it the same as the City?
Scott Simonson: No . We went to a guy by the name of Bob O'Connor and
Dick Gerard and we were there for 3 days , 4 hours a night. Three of the
coaches from the Chanhassen area were there. For the little kids it ' s
just the skating. They need that and a lot of times, as a small kid , when
I grew up I skated outdoors . Kids now days won ' t do it and they won ' t
learn the same way. They' ll say, I 'm going to quit because it ' s too cold .
Boyt : As a Commissioner , I can ' t support the Hockey Association unless
it ' s coming from pretty much the same philosophy as the CAA. We ' re here
to teach the kids to have a good time. . .
Scott Simonson: We teach that philosophy. In fact, when we start our
meetings out at the beginning of the year , that type of a pamphlet is
given to the parents.
Boyt: Is it given to the coaches?
Scott Simonson: Coaches read it.
Rich Larson : .Just to answer your question Sue . There' s actually a two
part answer to that because body that coaches or assists as a coach or as
a trainer in District 5 which is the district that encompasses a large
area, is required by the insured actually but by District 5 and by the
MAHA itself, which is the Hockey Association , the other hockey league in
the state, to attend a school at the beginning of each year . What Scott
is referring to is something that ' s in addition to that. It is an
acredited thing. It's put on by the big district people. In fact, if you
coach a team and you did not attend this school that they put on , you ' re
gone basically. Obviously the game is forfeited then so it is a good
program.
Boyt : And the coach who is paying players is no longer coaching?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 18
His lot is this piece. This big square here. This is the T Bar K, do you
remember that one where we went through the back of their yard and now it
actually goes up to the street and comes down here . Here ' s the trail that
comes through his property. This is the Bluff Creek trail so it ' s an
offshoot that follows a wet area that shoots off of Bluff Creek.
Boyt: Who owns the property around the pond?
Sietsema : He does . Tim does .
Boyt: That' s a beautiful piece of property.
Sietsema : Yes , he has that trail in. He has a trail going around that
pond that is in.
Watson: Can we buy a trail from him too at the same time we did this
easement or can we get an easement from him so we have that?
Sietsema : Yes . It' s just a matter if he' s willing to do it.
Watson: Could we propose it to him at the same time to get this easement
if we could get the one for the trail around the pond because that really
isn' t a thing to happen, to lose that .
Boyt : The pond area would be. . .
Sietsema : I 'm a little confused . I thought that Tim would be here and
what confuses me about this is that I sent Tim a letter asking him if he
was interested in dedicating that trail area to the City that he should
let me know in writing so I could get a surveyor out there and he never
contacted me back. Maybe he knew he had this on the line and figured we ' d
just take it then. I don ' t know what he' s thinking . I kind of thought
that he'd be here. At any rate , I don' t think that we should close the
door on our plan for that 66 acres because it does connect into some
really nice natural areas . Granted it will take the same amount of
grading probably as the Lake Ann Park expansion so there is substantial
grading but it would be conducive for ballfields as well .
Schroers: If we were to apply for an easement, would we be free at that
time to allow for people to use those trails for riding their horses on
them?
Sietsema: Unless he puts a stipulation that the City would accept that we
wouldn' t do that?
Schroers : But if we put a stipulation in that to make that one of our
stipulations that we would want it to be available for riding .
Watson : If we don ' t make it available down there, there isn ' t any other
place we can do it.
1 .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 19
Mady: What he ' s asking us to do , as I see it , is just take an easement
with us being able to determine what goes on in an accomodating way and
' he ' ll have to see that we' re going to have horses down there, he ' s got to
know now which I think we' re going to anyway. I don' t want to see
hassles. Tell him on that particular piece we' re going to do it because 2
years down the road and we' re looking at another piece, if we don' t tell
that person that we' re going to do it and he comes back later and says no
you can' t do it. I don't want to have that kind of a battle.
' Sietsema: If we own the easement , we can do what . . .
Schroers: That's basically what I was asking you. If we obtain the
' easement, then can we let the horse people on if we want or can we do
anything that we want or is there anything else we can do?
Sietsema : I 'd have to ask the City Attorney for clarification. I think
that if we own the trail easement, unless it specifically says that it' s a
pedestrian easement only. If it' s a pedestrian easement only, than we may
' be limited legally to only a footpath type of pedestrian easement or a
bicycle trail or walking trail or something but if we leave it as a trail
easement, I don't think they' ll close any doors.
Schroers : That would be good and I would certainly propose that we would
go for a trail easement and not just pedestrian.
' Sietsema : I think we need to make certain that the Council is aware that
we don' t want to, that we would restrict motorized use of this but not
necessarily the horse use . So the thing now, if perhaps a developer down
the line says what kind of uses are you going to have on this trail , I 'm
not sitting around. . .
Boyt : I guess we need a definition for that kind of trail .
Sietsema: Yes , a nature trail , we need to know what the means .
Watson : If that covers all these trails .
Boyt: Do we have that definition?
' Sietsema : I don ' t think we do at this time. I ' ll have to check in our
trail plan and see if it includes horses or not. Again, the
recommendation of staff is to approve the proposal contingent upon
dedication of a 20 foot wide trail easement along the southern and eastern
boundaries in the wetlands in the northwest corner . Again , I think we
should let Tim know that this isn' t necessarily thrown out on the
' consideration for the southern park area .
Mady: I ' ll make a motion in that we go with Lori ' s recommendation as to
obtaining a 20 foot wide trail easement along the southern and eastern
' boundaries of the wetlands in the northwest corner. Also, that we
continue to consider this parcel as a potential parkland in the southern
area and that staff discuss with Mr. Erhart as to the possibility of
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 20 1
obtaining additional easements in trails that already exist on his
property. Does that sum it up?
Mady moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve the subdivision as proposed contingent upon obtaining II
a 20 foot wide trail easement along the southern and eastern boundaries of
the wetlands in the northwest corner. Also, that the Park and Recreation
Commission continue to consider this parcel as a potential parkland in the II
southern area and that staff discuss with Mr. Erhart as to the possibility
of obtaining additional easements in trails that already exist on his
property. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Boyt : I think we need to move on this southern parkland pretty soon
because I think these pieces are going to come up and we' re going to miss
them. Tim might have plans for this and this might have been our chance
right here.
Mady: The meeting in two weeks we' re going to discuss this . '
Sietsema: I have a couple of things to add before we go on too far . Are
you all getting , you' re keeping from ARPA? Did you get a think in the
mail about this IPD? The Commission has $500. 00 in the budget for
conferences under travel and training . Since this is a local conference
and the one in the fall , the annual fall conference is also local , it' s in
Bloomington , you could probably send two commissioners to each one if you
so desired to go. There' s a special Board of Commission forum on Tuesday
evening , that ' s August 23rd . They' re going to be discussing marketing ,
public relations and liability and the interrelationship among them. It' s
something I 'd like to see the commission go to just so you have more of an
idea of what it takes to do programming and what' s involved. This
commission has been really geared toward parks in the past and although
you' re getting more and more into the recreational programing, I see you
going more into that direction. Having more of a say into what the
different events and programs that take place in the City and I think this
would be a good conference for commissioners to attend , if anybody' s
interested.
Watson : We would see if something comes up like the Hockey Association
and the softball team that wanted sponsorship and stuff. We are dealing
more, have to face up to the fact that programs are not self-supporting .
Ultimately, . . . is probably going to be to maintain programs that are
currently in the City.
Boyt : There are cities that make sure all the programs that they sponsor
and that they do themselves. They charge enough so they. . . That ' s one of
the things they' re going to talk about.
Sietsema: Yes , and I think that ' s where the marketing comes in. We may
be able to come up with some, we might be able to network with these
people and find out some things that could go on in that building and the
I
II ,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 21
marketing you techniques need to
q y get the information out to the people and
get them intrigued enough to register so that we do have the money coming
in . The bottom line is , programs typically, and I don' t know, typically
in the metro area, programs do support themselves . That' s the way they
are designed . If you get outstate into , and I did some research on this
' back when we were doing the community center studies and cities such as
Albert Lea and New Ulm, they' re more of a rural town. I don ' t know if
their income or their residents are not, they figure if they make 50% of
what the program costs , they' re doing good so they automatically run
everything at making 50% up in the user fees. In the Cities area, they
don' t feel that that ' s , unless you' re in a lower income area , they don' t
feel that that's the way they should be run. Typically they are self
supporting programs. Our softball programs are all self supporting . Our
karate classes were self supporting. Our CPR classes were self
supporting . Most of our baseball things that the CAA runs , they don' t
' have anything to subsidize those things so they either have to make their
money in user fees or in donations from local area businesses and
sponsorships and that kind of thing .
Lynch : And fund raisers .
Boyt: They haven't had fund raiser in years .
Lynch : That ' s too bad .
Schroers : I would be interested in attending .
Sietsema: Okay, did you get yours then?
' Schroers : Yes . I don ' t know that I kept it though.
Sietsema: Why don ' t you just let me know because if we get more than two
people from one agency to go we get a discount so let me know if you ' re
interested and I ' ll do the registration.
' Boyt : I 'm interested in the fall one.
Lynch: I would think probably in both.
' Mady: That ' s the 23rd of August?
Sietsema : Yes . The deadline is August 6th so please let me know by then.
' This is a lot of money. It' s $135. 00 a person. I think it' s a lot of
money. It' s a lot of money for the IPD.
Robinson: Is it making meetings . . .
' Hoffman : That' s two days for $135. 00 for registration.
Mady: A two day conference.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 22 1
Sietsema: It ' s Tuesday from 9 : 30 to 4 : 30 and Wednesday from 9 : 00 to 4 : 00.
If you want the one day, the one day registration is $95. 00. Then there' s
a Board of Commission seminar which is $22 . 00 per commission to a maximum
of $100. 00 per agency. So if you weren' t interested in that full day
thing , you could just go to the Board of Commission seminar .
Mady: Maybe after the meeting tonight we could close out that thing.
Hoffman: You could send the whole Commission to the Board of Commission
seminar .
Sietsema : Yes . We could send the whole Commission and that' s on Tuesday,
August 23. We could do it instead of a regular meeting . ,
Boyt : Where is it?
Sietsema : Sheraton Northwest . I-94 and US 169 . i
Hoffman: That ' s the accomodation.
Sietsema : You ' re right it is .
Hoffman: Brooklyn Park Community Center . The special Board and
Commission forum is from 7 : 00 to 9: 30 Tuesday, August 23rd. Registration
and light supper begins at 6 : 00 p.m. . Both Dr . Compton and Kowlowski will
discuss marketing/public relations and liability and the innerrelationship II
among and a local Attorney with many years of experience in municipal law
will present the state of legal liability as it currently exists in
Minnesota and time will be allowed for questions from the floor .
Questions may be submitted in advance. That' s the two main speakers that
are doing the full conference or doing the special Board Commission forum.
Mady: Let' s do it as our meeting. We have a horrendous meeting agenda
set coming at that time.
Sietsema : I don' t know that we could do it instead because we ' re not
going to have any other _items at our next meeting. I don' t know. It' s
hard for me to know but I just wanted to bring it to your attention.
Mady: Why don' t you make a copy of that and at our next meeting we' ll let
you know.
Sietsema : Alright. Anybody have any questions on the Administrative
Section?
NEW PROPOSAL FOR COMMUNITY CENTER, JIM MADY. ,
Mady: Do you want to do that first or the proposed community center?
Lori asked that I let you guys know that it ' s going to be discussed
tomorrow night. There is no task force officially for the community
center . Six weeks ago the City Council acted to not form a community
1 ,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 23
center task force and at that time I had already been working on a concept
so at that time I started establishing two guys, here' s an opportunity,
maybe we should take a look at this and present it to the Council . So
that' s what I 've done. I ' ve worked in concept utilizing the City Center
parkland and a portion of the school property. We' re talking with the
Chaska School system.
Boyt : It ' s called the Chanhassen School System.
Mady: What it will entail is building a free standing building that would
connect it to the school gym area between the school and Coulter Drive
utilizing all four acres of the City Center Park land. We would have to
' relocate the hockey rinks and the winter skating area and this plan shows
moving one of the balifields and adding another ballfield. We' re also
looking at the property on the north side of the school property which
goes all the way to Santa Vera that's approximately 4 to 4 1/2 acres of
land . It' s currently owned by Doug Hanson and it is being listed on the
market for approximately $170,000. 00. We are thinking about making an
' offer to buy that property. . . so the price doesn ' t go up. The developer
currently and for some time has not had an idea of what to do with that .
It' s zoned for multi-family and he has no plan really at this time.
That' s why he' s got the land, it' s listed although not officially on the
1 market .
Boyt : I don' t think it goes out to the road . There are apartment
1 buildings adjacent to it.
Mady: The property to the north that could . . . is really a park itself.
' Watson: There ' s a strip of land basically between those apartments and
the school parking lot area that ' s along Laredo Drive.
1 Mady: This is the concept you' re looking at. We met two weeks ago, the
people who had signed up for the Task Force, most of them were there
including members from the Citizens for a Better Community Center . They
' initially got the idea that it had some merit . What we want to do now is
see if we can get a little bit more information and then go to Council so
get their approval to form a task force and to investigate funding because
no matter what we do, we have at the most right now a half million dollars
in funding available if the trail system goes through so we can ' t build
this whole thing anyway for the first five years but we can build a good
share of it. We' re looking at how we can phase it . Other plans , Bob. . .
' the school system had indicated that it may be a possibility of utilizing
some school bonding for it . Bob indicated that the school system would
like to have an opportunity to expand the elementary school but because
1 they have a problem with expanding common areas , the cost or utilizing the
gym it should be connected to it, the school gym be available to the
school use, that it would solve some of their problems also . So it' s now
in the discussion stage.
' Boyt : It ' s a interim use .
1
. II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 24 ,
Watson : There are also other things. Every time you go across a city
line, you ' ll have a repeat of what was in the other community. The school
district in the City where we' re trying to build something that would be a
mutual use, it seems to me we' re wasting money. . . Schools build gyms and
the community builds gyms. It seems like somebody has got to build an
auditorium someday. ,
Mady: I agree . This is what the concept is right now. Chaska apparently
is going through the idea that they may. . .a year from now. This thing
goes to referendum in November .
Robinson: You do have a group that ' s continuing to work on it?
Mady: Unofficially we' re working. The task force hasn' t been officially
formed . I 've worked on this and pushed for this because I 'm very, very
interested. '
Sietsema : There ' s definitely a group of interested people that want to
see a community center in Chanhassen that are willing to meet on a regular ,
basis. They' re the people that applied to be on the task force if it was
continued and then it didn ' t look like there was anything to task force
about.
Mady: One of the concerns, they had it that little piece of ground to
build it on. When we bought at Lake Ann, buy a portion of the Eckankar
property but the Eckankar people indicated that they'd be willing to sell
it to us at their cost, what they valued the property which at this point
is $79 ,000. 00 unless you get sewer into it . If you go out to look at the
Charlie James property right over here. Again, it would take $79, 000. 00
so after you' ve put $800,000. 00 into it, you can' t build anything . If
that' s the case, we are stuck for 15 years with nothing basically.
Watson : You can ' t explain to them. We' ll just buy that land over there.
Do you have idea what that land is worth? I mean , just buy that land over
there.
Boyt : Then they say, what if we can' t buy it , just take it? Can ' t city' s
do that? They do.
Mady: Since it' s going to impact the City Center Park, you should be
aware of what we' re doing .
Sietsema : In the process of this discussion I ' ve been involved somewhat.
I ' ve maintained that I don' t believe that this Commission would be in
agreement to put a community center that meant we' re going to wipe out all
the facilities we have at City Center Park because that is a nice
facility. It ' s well used . It' s used by, for what is there, we could use
more fields in that spot so if putting a community center there meant that
we couldn' t have at least 3 ballfields and an ice skating rink and what' s
there, then I personally couldn't see eliminating already well used
facilities for something new. But if we can do both, I think it' s a
wonderful idea. In that respect, I think that this commission should be
I
I .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 25
aware that that' s what their oal
g is .
Lynch : What I like about it is the fact that they' re , and the part that I
didn' t like about the old plan was the fact that there ' s outdoor
facilities adjacent to it and not Filly' s Bar . I didn ' t like the downtown
location although I didn ' t say anything. I kept my mouth shut.
' Mady: On the Adminstrative packet . The letter to NSP from Gary Warren,
the sample ordinance which was Section 2 (c) talking swimming rafts left
overnight on the waters of any lake must be anchored directly out from and
within twenty-feet of lakeshore site owner. That' s way too low. I was
' thinking more of the lake out from the shoreline.
Sietsema: No, it's not out from the shoreline, it' s within 25 feet. It' s
' got to be directly out from your property or within 25 feet.
Mady: Either side?
' Sietsema : Either side. Out from and within 25 feet of a lakeshore site.
That' s a little unclear isn' t it?
Mady: Yes . . . . so it ' s at least at a depth of 8 feet or something . That
needs to be reworded.
' Lynch : I think any permanent mooring . . . this says about restricting
waterway.
Sietsema : Restricting waterway? I don' t understand .
Lynch: Your passable waterway freely. A channel would be one of them.
Utilizing the drop off point pattern onto this stuff . On our lake there ' s
' certainly specific waterways that boat traffic uses. Here, you can stick
it out there .
' Sietsema : This is just an amendment to an existing ordinance.
Lynch: But in the existing ordinance, is there anything that discusses
obstruction of boat traffic?
' Mady: How far is that slow no wake zone out from the shoreline?
' Sietsema: About 100 feet .
Mady: That ' s for most cases , sufficient for a raft .
Lynch: But even then, you wouldn' t want to put a channel of boats , you
wouldn ' t want to put it within 100 feet because that channel is fairly
narrow. Even a slow wake zone, you don' t want to plop a raft in the
middle of it.
All
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 26 '
Schroers : What this ordinance here is saying is that in the evening the
guy' s going to have to come and pull his raft into within at least 25 feet
from shore to get it out of the lake? Is that what I 'm reading? I
Sietsema: The intention of this is so that if you have a raft, you have
to put it out in front of your property. You can' t put it out in front of
park property.
Watson: The one over at Carver Beach is what we' re talking about. ,
Sietsema : For our purposes, that we don' t want rafts launched and boats
moored off of park property.
Watson: And we have.
Robinson : It has nothing to do with the distance out in front? ,
Mady: No, it has to do with the sides .
Schroers : That' s not clear when we read it .
Sietsema : And this is a first draft. Public Safety is working on this
with Roger so I ' ll bring it to his attention. '
Schroers: To me it sounded like they had to put it within 25 feet of the
shore at night.
Sietsema : Okay, I ' ll ask him about it.
Lynch: This would eliminate the raft that' s down there now? '
Sietsema : Right .
Mady: I was reading Scott Harr ' s letter , has Scott gone down there and
does he feel that there are boats getting on the old access too? Has he
looked at that? He ' s not saying they are but is he saying there might be
that chance?
Sietsema : All he' s saying is that they told him that they saw that they
were so he' s not going to say that they' re not because there' s no evidence
of it. He can ' t tell them you' re wrong .
Lynch: Doesn' t Al say there' s some 4 wheeler tracks across it?
Sietsema : Way last spring but there' s no evidence of anything going in
now.
Hoffman : Recently Dale said he sees no indication that anybody has gone
across that grass.
Mady: I 'm not in favor of throwing bollards all across that property or
doing anything to it.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 27
I
Sietsema : There is a sign up that we put up.
Watson: Let ' s react to a problem, not. . .
Lynch : Not a maybe.
Watson : Not a something that ' s just kind of in the minds of people who . . .
Mady: Those are the neighbors who live on the lake and they see it .
Watson : We don ' t need to look for trouble. We can react to a problem as
it comes up. I hate to see it get all fenced up. North Lotus Lake Park
sure looks pretty.
ISietsema: It does?
Watson : That parking lot and the tennis courts and all that stuff up
Ithere, it really does look nice.
Lynch : When I drive to come over here , the troops were all going up the
street with baseball bats on their shoulders .
ISietsema : To North Lotus?
Lynch: Yes. Every night now.
Sietsema: Play in the dirt?
ILynch: Anything that' s flat. They have no problem.
Mady: They can play on that just as well on any of the fields that were
seeded and grass has been growing for 10 years right now is dirt too so . . .
Lynch : I had a question on this letter from Scott Harr . What prompted
this?
Sietsema: He went to a Lotus Lake Homeowners Association meeting and they
had a number of concerns .
Lynch : Did they call and ask that somebody in staff attend?
ISietsema: Yes .
Lynch : Some of the items here are sort of self explanatory but some of
them escape me a little bit. What they thought the problems were.
ISietsema : The letter is to the person who had the problems . I ' ve heard
all the complaints about a zillion times because I get the calls too. What
Ispecifically?
Lynch : For instance, the gate attendants keep records of questions .
I
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES 11
JUNE 23 , 1988 I f
PAGE 2
OLD BUSINESS (Continued)
A general discussion of options , costs and philosophies was held. � )
Bernhjelm noted that Edina' s response times averaged 10 minutes
for non-emergencies and 4 minutes for emergencies . Takkunen
noted the need for a review of service levels , times and related
numbers prior to setting any goals for 1989. A feeling prevailed ' �
that the County Board was allowing and budgeting for minimal
levels of service. To continue a successful contract , the
Sheriff 's department , i. e. the County Board, will have to grow I )
with the City of Chanhassen. Bernhjelm noted that more will
cost . Wenzlaff noted that service levels are set by the City
Council.
Staff Priorities (retreat) was explained by Jim Chaffee. Jim
felt the position allotted Public Safety in no way indicated this
area to be of less of a priority to the City staff and Council.
Waring Siren , Minnewashta Park: Chaffee noted that Metropolitan
Council money would not be available to install such siren at the II
park as part of the existing building plans.
NEW BUSINESS - Chaffee reviewed the 1989 budget plans which may
include a request for a boat to supplement County Water Patrol
activities on the City lakes . Also being considered were addi-
tional vehicles.
i
Chaffee stated he was generally pleased with the deputies and the
service being received from the County.
Takkunen inquired into the status of the Annual Report and the
1988 budget . Chaffee stated these were priority items on his
agenda , however , he felt he was very busy and spent a lot of time
answering citizen complaints and concerns. Takkunen suggested
that the Annual Report and budget issues were , to her , a higher
priority than letters to citizens such as were noted in the
Commission packet . Jim disagreed and considered his responses a
priority.
Meeting adjourned at 10: 15 p.m.
Next meeting: July 21 , 1988 at 7 :00 p.m. at City Hall
Agenda to include: 1. Joint meeting with Park and Recreation
i I
Commission.
2 . Lotus Lake Patrol and update.
submitted: R. Wing
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 27
Sietsema : There is a sign up that we put up.
Watson: Let's react to a problem, not. . .
Lynch: Not a maybe.
Watson : Not a something that' s just kind of in the minds of people who . . .
Mady: Those are the neighbors who live on the lake and they see it.
Watson: We don' t need to look for trouble. We can react to a problem as
it comes up. I hate to see it get all fenced up. North Lotus Lake Park
sure looks pretty.
Sietsema: It does?
Watson : That parking lot and the tennis courts and all that stuff up
there, it really does look nice.
Lynch : When I drive to come over here , the troops were all going up the
street with baseball bats on their shoulders .
Sietsema: To North Lotus?
Lynch: Yes. Every night now.
Sietsema : Play in the dirt?
Lynch: Anything that' s flat. They have no problem.
Mady: They can play on that just as well on any of the fields that were
seeded and grass has been growing for 10 years right now is dirt too so . . .
Lynch : I had a question on this letter from Scott Harr . What prompted
this?
Sietsema : He went to a Lotus Lake Homeowners Association meeting and they
had a number of concerns .
Lynch: Did they call and ask that somebody in staff attend?
Sietsema: Yes .
Lynch: Some of the items here are sort of self explanatory but some of
them escape me a little bit. What they thought the problems were.
Sietsema : The letter is to the person who had the problems. I 've heard
all the complaints about a zillion times because I get the calls too. What
specifically?
Lynch : For instance, the gate attendants keep records of questions .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 28
Sietsema : They just asked the question, does the gate attendant have any
idea how many boats are launched and when is the cut off time etc. so he's
just responding , yes they do keep records.
Lynch: He says the gate attendants are trained on how to deal with unruly
people and so forth . I stopped down there a couple of weeks ago.
Sietsema : Were you unruly?
Lynch: I tried to be as much as possible to check them out .
Sietsema: Were you the one that threaten the girl there the other day?
Lynch : I just asked them how are things going . . .we' ve got boys down here
sometimes so I had to chase a couple out. But we did have a bad one?
Sietsema : Yes . Evidentally, there was a guy who , the parking lot was
filled and he wanted to park and she told him that you can' t park on the
street and the parking lot is filled , you' ll have to find another place to
park. So he was going to go park his trailer on a spot that already had a
trailer in it and she told him he couldn' t because when the guy comes back
with his car he won' t have a place to put his car and he went and did it
anyway. She told him he couldn' t do that and he threaten here basically
by saying, well , I ' ll deal with you. How did it go?
Hoffman: That' s what he said. She was just intimidated by this person.
He said, I ' ll deal with you if you don' t let me park there. I don' t care
who you call , I 'm coming back to talk to you.
Sietsema: She didn' t dare call the police because he came back and his
car was towed or tagged , he was going to deal with her . She didn' t know
if the police would stay there and protect her . How long are they going
to sit there with her until this guy comes off the lake and he came back
and there was a ticket on his car. She didn' t know what he meant by, I ' ll
deal with you. She was very intimidated .
Mady: Has Jim Chaffee talked to her about how to handle that? I would
hope that anytime one of our park attendants feels intimidated or
threatened, even if the person has their boat on the water , they call the
Carver County Sheriff Department to get involved because they go out on
the lake and they can pull that guy.
Sietsema : Well , they will be calling him because she did take down his
license number and everything.
Mady: The one I wanted to mention before the meeting goes on, on trails.
I see they' re starting work on Kerber Blvd. with the sewer . I hope
everybody knows we' re going to get new curb and putting a new trail .
Sidewalk trail on Kerber Blvd. and it ' s not coming out of the park budget.
That 's fantastic. It' s going to be great.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 29
Boyt : Would you talk to , who is it , in the City who oversees that type of
stuff. These construction workers are parking their cars in the road and
trucks in the road and they' re not putting up any sort of barriers . They
just stop, they leave their trucks halfway out in the road. It' s real
dangerous .
Mady: The other thing I wanted to bring up, the fact that TH 5 is being
expanded. Right now, if you notice in Eden Prairie from Prairie Center
Drive past McDonalds on that side, if you' ll notice on that side, they are
putting trails in. The State is putting a trail in and they are going
through. . .
Schroers : What' s the status of the trails going in along Carver Beach
Road from Powers up to the park?
Watson: And Laredo?
Sietsema : Gary asked me to give him a map on where we wanted those trails
and I just have to figure out what kind of public hearing meetings we have
to have.
Schroers : Is that going to happen that year yet?
Sietsema: Yes , he' s hoping to.
Schroers : Before winter?
Sietsema: Yes , he' s hoping to.
Mady: I talked to Don and we' re probably going to have to have a public
hearing on that. Which will bring us down to, since we' ll be dealing with
the public on that, we might as well start talking about Council action
last night. You should have seen the crowd we had up here.
Watson: I got no less than 5-6 notices to come to that meeting in my
mailbox .
Boyt : Did you?
Watson: I knew I wasn ' t coming .
Mady: On Greenwood Shores , they came in here and they were fairly unruly.
The Mayor , Mr. Geving, Mr . Horn saw fit to deny access to the remainder of
the City to that park. The Mayor went so far as to say, he didn' t
understand why the Park and Rec Commission was wasting their time and
Council ' s time bringing this to their attention when it ' s obvious nobody
wanted it. Mr . Geving said words basically to that effect.
Watson: Do we get the playground equipment?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 30
Mady: No . They' re not doing anything in that park. Council asked us to
do nothing in that park. They are going to be asking Public Safety to
look at the no parking signs that are littered throughout the street there
but basically we' re not going to. What happened last night is, the 40
people that were here were able to convince the remainder of the Council ,
they didn' t get to Mr. Boyt or Mr. Johnson voted against the motion, but
we lost. I was disappointed in the Council . We met with them a little
over a year ago and it was specifically on this item so we could get our
heads together on this and what we' re doing and we were acting on their
request on this. They told us what they were thinking. We told them what
we were thinking . We had a pretty good idea . We went into numerous
meetings that we suffered through, and we came out with a unified
recommendation and we got. . .by the Council . It' s like they couldn' t
figure out what the world we were doing. I was very disappointed in the
Council last night because we got together with them a year ago on this
particular item so they knew what we were talking about. They basically
told us that they couldn' t tell what the world we were doing here.
Boyt: Bill sent the message tonight saying , he thanked the Park and Rec
Commission for all the work they did on this and all the support. As long
as he' s on the City Council , this will be brought up again.
Robinson: We put a lot of work and effort into that and then just to have
them go off on their own like they didn' t hear from us, that kind of ticks
me off . . . .a guy that was replaced on this commission said he quit
because their recommendations, he said the Council just ignored them. He
said , I don' t have to put up with that crap.
Lynch: He' s not the first.
Robinson: I think we should keep bringing this up every year .
Schroers: . . .a policy that we could follow some guidelines in developing
neighborhood parks in the future. Something specific so we don' t have to
look like neither one of us knows what' s going on and so we' re not
together on anything .
Mady: That' s why we had the joint meeting a year and a half ago so we
knew where we were heading on this.
Schroers : Well , it didn' t work out .
Mady: It sounds like the Park Commission members have had that problem
over the year.
Lynch : I think the joint meeting was the proper direction. I don' t think
it was formal enough. For instance, I would have loved to have a
directive schedule which we could have handed the Greenwood Shores
residents and said, okay folks , we' re not talking right and wrong. We' re
talking what we'd like in there. We' re not talking is it going to be fair
or is it not going to be fair or what you like or don' t like. What do you
think the park should be? What construction. If you don' t have anything
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 31
constructive to say, sit down or go talk to the Council . I think we could
have, if we had had a directive such as that, even though we kept telling
them and put it in their hand and circle it in red and say, okay. I 'm
sure Jim' s strong enough or I would be if he was there, if they got
negative to stop them. We wasted at least half our time on unconcerned
issues.
Schroers : We did waste an awful lot of time and we drew a lot of
attention to ourselves from the community over this thing and I think that
nobody was shown in a good light at the end results . Not us . Definitely
not us and not the Council either because we weren' t together on our act.
That just gives people fuel for criticism and ridicule and things that we
don ' t need.
Mady: The only thing that I can see good coming out of this is the fact
that since four months from now we' ll be having an election and two of the
members on that body will not be there and one other one may or may not be
there so we will have an opportunity to see fit next year to bring this
back up again.
Boyt: We could send a message to the Council saying , you directed us to
do these three things. Close the parking in there. Watch the Public
Safety comments on it and then evaluate it. We did that and you threw it
out the window. You wasted our time. Don' t direct us to do those things .
Watson : The problem is , the Mayor perceives this as something that we
did. Not that the Council directed it done but something that the Park
and Recreation Commission created out of our heads and decided to push
this thing through. They don' t think the Council has any. . . their wheels
are all on just fine and we look like a bunch of horses petoots because
they think we did it.
Mady: Remember Dale Geving telling us how he had to , if he wanted to go
down to the park and couldn' t figure out where to park so he drove up to
Carol ' s house and parked in front of Carol ' s house .
Watson: He sat in front of my house and said, it is too far down there
and I said , Dale, if it is too far from my house to the park, then you
shouldn' t even be considering going down there because you are frail .
Boyt : Clark said we' re not going to spend any money on this park until
we've studied these issues and opened it up to the public.
Mady: So we' re not spending any money on the park.
Watson: I 've got to give those residents credit for wanting it that
badly.
Mady: They got credit last night for their park would be nice . How well
kept it was. It' s in nice condition and I just about thought, what' s
going on here . We've got park maintenance staff who ' s cutting the grass .
Trimming the trees. Picking up the trash and emptying the trash cans .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
July 12, 1988 - Page 32
Sietsema: And Public Safety removing three boats .
Schroers: Almost anything that comes up, at least at first, the general
public and residents, we don' t want it there. We don' t like this . This
sort of thing sets a precedent for things. All we have to do is don' t
enforce it and go up there and raise hell and we' ll get what we want.
Mady: Be prepared fellas .
Boyt : Are any of the rest of you interested in having that letter sent?
Mady: Yes. We will be meeting with some of those same residents at our
next meeting on the Lake Lucy boat access and they' re going to come up, my
feeling is they' re going to come up strongly against the thing right from
the start and what we' re going to have to do is right from the start tell
them, Council has directed that we look at this. We are telling you that
you have to look at it and this is what you have to do .
Watson: I think what we get is we know that Lake Lucy boat access is
something that Tom wants very badly. I want a letter to read , at the
meeting to those people, or he should come and say it because otherwise
they' re going to think, well here we go again, making it up as they go
along.
Sietsema : We have a resolution by the Council that says we' re directed to
do this.
Mady: Last night after the meeting asking Mr . Gevi.ng and Mr . Hamilton to
attend the meeting tonight and explain to us why they said what they said.
Schroers : . . . the thing with the boat access , we were just dealing with
four little parking spots before. Now we ' re talking about on-going
traffic in and out of the neighborhood for this boat access .
Robinson 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
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 23 , 1988
The meeting was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Chairman Richard
Wing .
Members present: Jim vonLorenz , Wayne Wenzlaff , Bill Bernhjelm,
Richard Wing , Jim Chaffee, Captain Pagelkopf,
Candy Takkunen
Members absent: Craig Blechta, Mayor Hamilton , Fire Department
Visitors present : Mary Durben
The May minutes were approved as presented, Takkunen/Bernhjelm.
CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CAPTAIN PAGELKOPF - Captain
Pagelkopf discussed several issues which included the sprinkling
ban , communication problems between the City and the deputies
relating to assigned duties , Lotus Lake access and park openings
and closings.
Takkunen inquired as to the City' s policy on alcohol in City
parks and the policies of other cities. Takkunen stated she
would prefer a policy of no alcohol in City parks. Pagelkoph and
Bernhjelm discussed various options and City policies. Wing
requested the discussion be tabled until the joint meeting in
July with the Park and Recreation Commission.
Chaffe discussed the access and parking problem on Lotus Lake
along with numerous complaints on unsafe boating practices. Wing
suggested the Water Patrol dedicate their Chanhassen hours to Lotus.
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT - No representative was present. The
drought and water problems were discussed. Wenzlaff inquired as
to the City' s needs up to and including fire related emergencies.
It was decided to invite the City Engineer to the August meeting
to discuss water needs.
CHANHASSEN PUBLIC SAFETY - Mr . Chaffee discussed the recent CSO
"firing" and the future of the program.
The Seminary and a recent meeting with the owners was discussed
by Chaffee and Harr. The security measures being taken and
future plans were reviewed for the Commission. Mary Durben ' s
historical coverage of the building (Villager) received praise
from Harr and the Commission.
OLD BUSINESS - Further discussion on a Community Survey was
tabled until 1989 .
1989 Police Contract : Chaffee discussed the 24-hour contract .
He would like to have input into which deputy will man the power
shift car. Jim discussed the reality which he feels allows for
limited control of the system. Jim noted that the 24-hour
contract pays for an additional deputy or could be used to fund
our own City employed officer .
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 23 , 1988
PAGE 2
OLD BUSINESS (Continued)
A general discussion of options , costs and philosophies was held.
Bernhjelm noted that Edina' s response times averaged 10 minutes
for non-emergencies and 4 minutes for emergencies . Takkunen
noted the need for a review of service levels , times and related
numbers prior to setting any goals for 1989. A feeling prevailed
that the County Board was allowing and budgeting for minimal
levels of service. To continue a successful contract , the
Sheriff 's department , i.e. the County Board, will have to grow
with the City of Chanhassen. Bernhjelm noted that more will
cost . Wenzlaff noted that service levels are set by the City
Council.
Staff Priorities (retreat) was explained by Jim Chaffee. Jim
felt the position allotted Public Safety in no way indicated this
area to be of less of a priority to the City staff and Council.
Waring Siren, Minnewashta Park: Chaffee noted that Metropolitan
Council money would not be available to install such siren at the
park as part of the existing building plans.
NEW BUSINESS - Chaffee reviewed the 1989 budget plans which may
include a request for a boat to supplement County Water Patrol
activities on the City lakes . Also being considered were addi-
tional vehicles.
Chaffee stated he was generally pleased with the deputies and the
service being received from the County.
Takkunen inquired into the status of the Annual Report and the
1988 budget . Chaffee stated these were priority items on his
agenda , however , he felt he was very busy and spent a lot of time
answering citizen complaints and concerns. Takkunen suggested
that the Annual Report and budget issues were, to her , a higher
priority than letters to citizens such as were noted in the
Commission packet . Jim disagreed and considered his responses a
priority.
Meeting adjourned at 10 : 15 p.m.
Next meeting: July 21 , 1988 at 7 :00 p.m. at City Hall
Agenda to include: 1. Joint meeting with Park and Recreation
Commission.
2. Lotus Lake Patrol and update.
submitted: R. Wing