Loading...
2l. Minutes IICHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING lki NOVEMBER 18, 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 40 p.m. . IIMEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth, Robert Siegel and Howard Noziska IMEMBERS ABSENT: Steven Emmings and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City IPlanner CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A RURAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, MERLE VOLK, IAPPLICANT. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on creating a rural industrial Idistrict. Conrad: Under the B column, would that mean that any contractor's yard would have to receive a zoning? If we followed that alternative, would Ithey have to receive a rezoning of their property? Dacy: A rezoning, no. What Alternative B is saying is that you create Ia district and you call it something, rural industrial or whatever, but you permit contractor's yards only as a conditional use and they have to come through the conditional use process . Conrad: What would we do with the current contractor's yards? So we create one district which had multi-contractor yards, what would we do with the others that we have in town right now? IDacy: We would have two options. You could leave the A-2 ordinance as is and continue to allow contractor's yards as a conditional use in the IA-2 district or if you wanted you could go back and amend the A-2 district to eliminate contractor yards. Erhart : How many contractor yards are there? IDacy: There could be about 3 or 4. IConrad: You closed in your comments Barbara by saying there's a significant economic impact in what we're deciding tonight or looking at. What does that mean? 1 Dacy: What I was saying is that at the last meeting there was a lot of discussion about the economic issue involved for some of these uses. Some of these uses, because of the price of land, they may not be able Ito locate in an industrial park. Some of these uses are located in structures that have low rates for leasing and it's only natural that anybody would want to find a location that's cheaper rent than anyplace else. All I'm saying is that in the future there may be more economic impacts in the future for those people than there may appear to be now. II 11 f Planning Commission Meeting I November 18 , 1987 - Page 2 41/4_ Conrad: We're discussing this issue because the next item on the I agenda is a conditional use permit and for those that were not here at our last meeting, we wanted to decide whether there should be a zoning amendment and I think tonight we're going to make some decisions on whether we think the staff should follow that up or not and make our recommendations to the City Council in terms of whether there's a zone that is appropriate. After we talk about that, than that may shed some light on the subsequent item on the agenda. This is not a public hearing but I'm interested in any comments that people may have that are in the audience tonight. We're sort of searching around in terms of the need, the necessity and I think if there is anybody that has some comments to shed on what you've heard the staff talk about, we'd appreciate it if you had anything to tell us. ' Roger Schmidt: I have two questions. First of all, it's a general question. Why does it, I have to agree with with Barbara has to say about the number of contractor's yards in the communities around the area, why does Chanhassen feel that they have to be an exception to say Victoria, number one. Number two, if you were going to rezone to permit these kind of uses , does that qualify as spot zoning? ' Conrad: Your first question we'll just have to decide tonight whether we have to be an exception. Whether it's important. Whether we feel it's significant. In terms of spot zoning, it's kind of true. What we'd want to make sure, if we had a zone, if we felt it was important , { I think it would be significant that we worked it into a plan. That we ask staff whether there were other locations that would meet any kind of requirements for a zone like that and I think you heard their comments. There is another location. Does it make sense to be where it is for economic reasons, for buffering reasons? I think you heard the staff's comments too and we all took that in. To a degree, putting in a downtown business district is spot zoning. You have one and maybe that's all you need. I think we have to decide whether one fringe business district is all we need and again that could be important in how we design our community. It could be termed spot zoning but if it makes sense, then maybe it's not but I think what we would want to make sure of is that we had alternative sites for a zone and that there was some rationale for why we put it where we did. Anything else? Shirley Bowers, Chaska Community Service: ...a park that is very comparable to your Chanhassen Lakes Park. We are concerned with seeing contractor yards adjacent to what...CR 18 which is one of the major east/west roads... We would not like to see higher quality industrial structures happen along that road... We are not unmindful of contractor yards. There is a definite need in an area like Chanhassen and Chaska for them so.—and we are looking at the future expanding almost all of their activities to that site. At least 20 million dollars being built on that site and to know what's happening next door... I think all the cities have to be aware that the biggest tax burden we have is from the school districts and the county... I I I IIPlanning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1987 - Page 3 Conrad: I think what we'll do is get Planning Commission's perspectives and any questions we may have and react to this particular IIopportunity or direction. I think the applicant has asked, Merle Volk has asked for us to consider a zoning change and we have some alternatives to look at and give staff some direction. IIErhart: Maybe the easiest solution is to have Chaska annex the whole thing then you'd have sewer and water available. IIWildermuth: In exchange for what? Erhart: Assuming that can't be done, I would definitely oppose looking Iat the area across Audubon Road. It's to be considered a district that doesn't spread an industrial district in the rural area. It's not the same kind of property. It's very open where this is partially wooded I and has an area across the street that is open and that you can get to from all directions. I'm adamantly opposed to doing that. Although if you were going to make a second district, to make it more meaningful , I think that that number 18 space below is more appropriate. Thinking Ithis thought over the last week, given that it already is a large contractor ' s yard and we're probably not going to change that, as I go back and during the new ordinance, at that time we discussed the Ialternative of allowing contractor yards throughout the city of Chanhassen in the rural area as opposed to making one district filled with contractor yards. At that time the position was taken that we're I going to allow contractor yards at various locations in the A-2 area II- and this could be one of them. Reflecting on that, I think perhaps we should go back and review that and I would like to see us take the position that we do have one large area that's already a contractor's Iyard. We've accepted it. Do the best with that that we can and eliminate contractor yards completely from all other areas in Chanhassen. In other words, keep it as a conditional use for the A-2 Iarea, if that' s allowed. Is that correct Barbara? Dacy: Yes , those are the two options . IErhart: So I'd like to see that. As far as your comments as to what to do with this area , I believe that with proper landscaping you can effectively shield the equipment. Even if the equipment does sit Ioutside, I think it can be shielded effectively but I think we ought to be real specific about how that's done. This is unique. I don't think we can apply our regular berming and landscaping rules and ordinances Iwould apply to the industrial but I think we ought to be specific in the height of the berm and the thickness of the trees and types of trees. Evergreen, I think they ought to be 6 feet minimum height in two rows and such that this is properly screened so it doesn't and I Idon't think it will adversely affect Chaska's industrial park. I think it will be an asset if it's properly screened. Also, I think as you start moving equipment back into the rear area, if they can do that ILwithout additional permits, I think that ought to be stated upfront that that addition has to be screened from the industrial park. Then I I II Planning Commission Meeting , November 18 , 1987 - Page 4 ( think it's fine. Considering the existing use of the area, I think it makes sense to expand that use in that area as long as the surrounding areas aren't affected. Now that we've got it, let's eliminate contractor yards from the A-2 area in the rest of Chanhassen. I don't think, quite frankly, the A-2 area of Chanhassen is not agricultural. It is a residential area and contractor yards are not consistent with the density of the residential building and residential homes that we' re getting throughout the rural of Chanhassen. Conrad: Tim, to summarize, you would create a zone? ' Erhart: Yes. Conrad: Would you keep uses as conditional uses? In other words, you ' create a zone but you'd keep them as conditional uses but you would also want to eliminate contractor yards from the rest of Chanhassen in the A-2 district? ' Erhart : Yes. I wouldn' t vote for anything. Conrad: So in other words, if you didn't eliminate contractor yards from the A-2 district and other areas , you would not vote for a zone? Erhart: You got it. ' Wildermuth : Can we legally do that? Conrad: I think we could. If we felt comfortable that we could, that we solved the need and allowed a use in the city of Chanhassen, I think we could eliminate that. We couldn't go retroactive. I think the current contractor yards would be grandfathered in. Dacy: I went through the file and found a transparency that shows the number of contractor yards. Stockdale's is up here on CR 117. He has not executed his operation or he has not begun his operation yet nor has he executed the permit that was issued. He hasn't filed a letter officially withdrawing the application yet so as far as I know the application still stands. In any case, if we were to assume that one was there, we talked about it a couple of years ago. Then to the south of them Mr. Benson has his contractor's yard and then the wholesale nursery and landscaping contractor's yard along TH 101. Mr. Langdon's operation on West 96th Street. Mr. and Mrs. Clark's operation on Pioneer Trail and then we're expecting on the site adjacent to TH 101, we amended the BF district to allow contractor's yards about 6 months ago and I expect to hear an application here quickly. So the circles around this reflect the 1 mile radius . Erhart: Around that comment, I guess I wouldn't be opposed to ' contractor yards in the BF area but I might also comment that Northwest Nursery is not a contractor ' s yard , it ' s a wholesale nursery. IIPlanning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1987 - Page 5 Dacy: Yes, it's primary is a wholesale nursery but they do act as a contractor's yard in that equipment and services are being stored on I site. Erhart : Meaning what the tree removers . IDacy: At one time, as I recall, when we went through the process, he did have a cement mixer on the site. His operation obviously is just himself. ISiegel : Do we have any contractor yards outside of the A-2 district? IDacy: The only one would be the application that we expect to receive along TH 212 BF' s district. ISiegel : In other words, we don ' t have any in any residential area? Dacy: There may be some illegal uses that we' re not aware of. ISiegel: In considering your study of other cities in the metro area, did you look at just cities that had agricultural zoning? IDacy: Yes. I wanted to call those cities that were similar to Chanhassen in that they were half urban and half rural. Those included were Apple Valley, Eden Prairie, Plymouth, Lakeville, Rosemount, Shakopee, Inver Grove Heights , Prior Lake, Victoria, Anoka, and Ramsey. ItSiegel: So a substantial number of them still have agricultural zoning? IDacy: Yes . ISiegel : That business fringe district down along TH 212, the Gedney Plant, is that in the business fringe district or is that another zoning? IDacy: The Gedney Pickle Plant is zoned industrial office. Siegel : And that area is just restricted to the Gedney property right? IDacy: Under the terms of the zoning ordinance, if Gedney's operation were to cease at that location, any use permitted in the IOP district could be located at that location. ISiegel : And they have a pre-existing grandfathered in sewage contract with the city of Chaska? IDacy: That ' s correct. Siegel: When we were discussing about having a fringe industrial district, I was thinking that that area would surely be an ideal area I I Planning Commission Meeting I November 18 , 1987 - Page 6 ( because there already was an existing grandfathered in and fairly II successful industry going there and I think we should consider that as a possible expansion area even though we don't have sewer but for I things like contractor yards and uses we're looking at, that should be in my opinion a good location for that type of growth if we needed it in the City of Chanhassen. I Dacy: I should comment that the property adjacent to that is Mr. Gary Brown's property which is zoned BF which came through last spring for a storage facilities. The area adjacent to Gedney' s is now zoned BF. I Siegel: What is the progress of this talk about annexation of this property to Chaska? Is there any talk or is it sort of at a Il standstill? Dacy: When the request was discussed by Council , they presented their I individual viewpoints on the proposed deannexation and the direction back to Mr. Volk was to come back with some type of proposal and work with staff members from Chaska and Chanhassen and Mr. Volk to get some type of proposal that would make a compromise as to Chanhassen deannexing 40 acres of land that would be created as an industrial. Council was seeking some type of items in return so that Chanhassen and Chaska could look at the overall impact of deannexing the 40 acres into I Chaska. Some of the council members were concerned about loss of tax base, creation of land that would be in competition with Chanhassen's Iindustrial zone and the business park. Those were some of the concerns . Siegel: There was no discussion about the possibility of Chaska II seeding property down around the Gedney property to the City of Chanhassen in exchange for the Volk property? To me that would be a I natural switch if there is property available in that area . Dacy: There was nothing concrete as far as swaps. Again, the direction was to come back at some point with some type of specific II proposal . Siegel : But right now it ' s really in who ' s court? I Dacy: It' s back in Mr . Volk ' s court. Tom Hamilton: I talked with Merle and Merle talked with Chaska and I I talked with Bob Roepke, the Mayor of Chaska and the ball is in their court to come up with some land... Also I'd like to comment on I swapping land down by Gedney's, I think you're looking at some lowlands without very much potential . . . Siegel : It seems to me there is vacant land that is buildable because the industrial land down there next to Gedney's could be swapped. I'm II not talking about the river bottom. Tom Hamilton: It' s the same thing. . . 1 I II IPlanning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1987 - Page 7 Ik7Siegel : But it' s sewered. ITom Hamilton: Not to us . Siegel : It would be if it were annexed right. ITom Hamilton: Merle's would be if Chaska, if we would have the opportunity to sewer at the time. . . ISiegel : Even though we have existing sewage available to Gedney' s? Tom Hamilton: Our sewage does not handle Gedney' s. ISiegel: No, but couldn't it be worked out where it could be an exchange basis since the sewer line actually would have to go through Ithe properties concerned to Gedney' s. Dacy: Maybe Shirley can help me but I think the Gedney plant has an on-site treatment or are they on Chaska ' s? IShirley Bruers: No, they have municipal water and sewer. They do have settling ponds... I'd just like to make a comment about the Iproperty surrounding the Gedney plant we consider prime industrial because it has major highway TH 212 access, you have rail access. There is talk about abandoning the railroad...but we are asking to keep # the track open from about the Gedney Plant... It is my understanding Iunless for some reason the letter didn't go out of my office, there was a proposal sent. ISiegel : For a land exchange? Did it concern that area? Shirley "Bruers : That was one mentioned . . . ISiegel: Maybe Barb would know about since the sewer would be going through the property already. Even though it goes through Chask's sewer service, would that be sewered industrially if we had an exchange Iof property just like the Gedney' s? Dacy: So you're saying that Chashassen would receive sewer service Ifrom Chaska? Siegel: Right. What we're talking about is Chanhassen land already receives sewer service from Chaska. The Gedney property is the Iexample. We're not really doing anything other than expanding that area in an exchange program to annex unsewered land in Chanhassen for sewered land in Chaska? I don ' t know what the politics would be. IDacy: As far as use of utilities is concerned, Chanhassen or Chaska could execute a Joint Powers Agreement or Joint Agreement utility use ilhowever since the sewer is coming from Chaska and Chaska is going to have to satisfy the Metro Waste Control Commission and Met Council that I II Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 18 , 1987 - Page 8 the additional capacity is not being added to their system. It was my understanding that the deannexation of the 40 acres of the Volk site, as fas the land swap with the City of Chaska was to swap out an equal amount of acreage so there would be no additional sewage capacity. If the swap idea would meet approval of the regional agencies and if both councils agreed to whatever is being proposed, it's possible. It seems to me, since the Council meeting I have not spoken to the City Manager about this. I am not aware of the letter. Siegel : In respect to the 1 mile limit on adjoining contractor yards, say we were to keep everything as it is and allow contractor yards by conditional use permit only, we would still have to change the zoning ordinance in order to accomplish what the petitioner is asking right because we're talking about a contractor's yard next to a contractor's yard and right now we' re restricting them to a mile separation. Dacy: As you recall from last year, when the Gardeneer made their ' application to operate their contractor's yard on the Volk site, we also processed a variance along with that request to the variance for the one mile requirement. That was granted based on the fact that Merle Volk's operation and the Gardeneer's operation was occurring on the same property. That was the basis for the variance. Siegel: I guess my next question is, what's preventing the adjoining ' contractor's yard operator to come in with the same kinds of proposal that would appear for expansion for a ballooning effect of his contractor's yard designation to include this type of a designation that we discussed as a zone? Dacy: If your question is what's to prevent him, the only answer is nothing. Siegel : So really that whole area , we could be faced with other petitions from other owners of properties along that road to come in and do the same thing that Mr . Volk wants to do with his property? Dacy: If it' s within the one mile requirement. . . , Siegel : I guess I tend to see this as a real can of worms type of situation. Any action we take may have a worse effect than no action. I see a lot of things that could come up. Haven't come up yet but certainly sets one to thinking that there is a lot of possibilities that we could open by doing something like changing this to allow a contractor ' s yard zone that we haven't even contemplated yet. I think the ideal situation would be the exchange of properties. As long as both communities are happy with it in allowing that property to develop as a A-1 industrial area, taking any chances with the spot zoning situation. Shirley Bruers made a statement that was not audible through the tape. I IIPlanning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1987 - Page 9 IV�. Siegel : But if you were looking at apples and apples, you could have buyers to that property sewer tomorrowed because pt's zoned for Chaska IIndustrial use right and it is allowed right today to be sewered . Wildermuth: Barbara, what are the disadvantages for creating a rural Iindustrial district of this property? It could include or exclude contractor 's yards. Dacy: The Commission has to decide the extent of the use that you want Ito allow in that district. If you want contractor's yards plus any other types of uses or if you just wanted to limit it to contractor's yards. The disadvantages as I eluded to earlier in my presentation was Ithat when you create a zoning district there's always the potential that there will be a rezoning application for that type of district someplace else in the city. Wildermuth: But are you bound to grant that? This is a pretty unique situation. It's adjacent to another industrial park. Ultimately, 20 years from now, probably fate will tell , Carver Park is in Chaska and Ithis will be a full blown industrial park. Dacy: That's correct. With any zoning district or any zoning Iordinance amendment, the city is not bound to approve it. My concern is that it creates a statement from the community that there are areas in the rural area that would be considered for this type of use such as r the business fringe district has a number of things that allow you to Itlook at placing that district someplace else. The pros that I identified were that you can by establishing a district go beyond the current standards that are in the ordinance and establish as many Istandards as you want for exterior buildings, for storage, landscaping, screening objectives. You can create a district that really tailors the type of development that you want to occur . IWildermuth: I guess that's what I would favor. Creating a rural industrial district that would go as far as Tim is proposing to limit or preclude any other contractor's yards in Chanhassen. I guess I Iwouldn't favor creating a rural industrial district with limited use recognizing that it' s not served by city sewer . INoziska: I'm still wrestling through my mind with what positive impact this is going to have for Chanhassen and I have trouble with that. One of the reasons we scattered those contractor's yards out as Imuch as we did was to limit the impact on the environment. Now all of a sudden we're going to stick them together. To intensify this type of use, some people have already figured is a questionable use of the land, somehow to me doesn't seem to hold water. When we start putting 1 together 9,000 square foot barns and put in a variety of people or businesses in there that require obviously water and sewer to some extent, I really think to do that in a rural district without city Isewer and water, is not a set goal. I just keep thinking that. Then I keep thinking about attorney man hours this might create. I think that I r Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 18 , 1987 - Page 10 a precedent is something we have to consider. If we go ahead and go for this spot zoning, so to speak, which in my mind is not planning, simply a reaction to one man's request. I'm wondering if we're not opening ourselves up to one hell of a big can of worms that by the time we work our way out, we'll be very sad we jumped into it. So, I somehow think that we're still lacking some informatin. I don't understand why if Chaska has written us a letter nobody knows about it as far as the land exchange. If that land is going to be used for that particular purpose, I vote it should be city sewer and water. Having a common land exchange with Chaska, that doesn't bother me. Whether it will intensify use in the rural district without some organized sewer and water, I just can't go along with. I think that Barbara brought up a good plan when she said that there is a potential for a significant economic impact to the occupants of this 8,000 square foot homeowner. In the future, should it be deemed that city sewer and water needs to be put in. Then the very people that we are trying to keep in the city will be forced out anyway. I don't think it's planning. I think it's reaction. I kind of have an objection in my own mind to sort of what appears to be a lack of communication or understanding with Chaska's position and ours. After all, we've got a lot of lineal feet and we have to coexist with them and I guess I wouldn' t want them to do something on our borders that would be detrimental to their program. I know what they havewhat they have in place right now and I would surely think that would be a very nice industrial park there if this, and I don't think regardless of screening of fences and this and that, I'm not sure how we could turn the so called styles next to... So those are the things that are bouncing through my mind and I think perhaps we need to hear more about this land exchange. If we're going to do something like this , I would just as soon not walk to the edge of the cliff and jump off of it only to find that the water is only 2 feet deep. I'd first like to put a pole down the water to find out what we' re getting into before we jump into this. Jay Johnson: The land use change is not for this property. It's a different 40 acres. Conrad: Is everybody clear on that? The land exchange is for property west of where the pole barn has been requested to go up. The land exchange that Chaska would take or we would swap is not part of where we would zone this district. It is to the west. It's attached to it right now but it is not part of it . Siegel : Who' s property is it? Conrad : The same. Siegel : I guess that' s the confusing part about it. Jay Johnson: If an exchange did occur, this property, that other 40 acres would be applicable for the zoning because it's adjacent with the rest of the property also. I I IIPlanning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1987 - Page 11 ItConrad: My comments are kind of brief. I'm real comfortable that Chanhassen has a liberal contractor's yard requirement right now. IWe're one of the few that allow them and I think we've heard a lot of negatives on allowing them. We do allow them and I think we're taking care of particular uses in town that can meet some of our conditions. II really don't see a need to liberalize it any further and I don't see a significant impact. We're not going to eliminate other contractor's yards. They are grandfathered in no matter what we do and with the current ordinance I think we're fairly restrictive in adding new Icontractor's yards out there so I guess I'm not sure what, I feel real comfortable that Chanhassen is dealing with contractor's yards adequately right now. I'm not comfortable putting another zone, a more Iintensified zone like what we're talking about in an agricultural area. I'm concerned with the intensified impact that that would have on the land and again, I'm a proponent of, if there are contractor needs, I'm Ia proponent of separating them by the current ordinance. I do like how that ordinance deals with it. I don't believe that this contractor's zone would be a buffer by any means. It would be a distortion of the word buffer. And I think there are better controls in other zones in Ithe city that allow some of these similar uses. I think there are better controls in those zones and I wouldn't feel comfortable if we could come up with the proper zone and the proper controls in this Iparticular zone to make it really work. I think I'm very in tune to what Howie and Bob said. I think we don't know what we don't know right now and I think that makes me a little bit uncomfortable at this r point in time. So my bottom line is I don't feel we need a new zone to Itaccomodate an intensified use of contractor's yards. I'm comfortable with how we're currently handling it. Let me just take a poll because we have to get some kind of, we don't have a motion in front of us. We Ihave to give staff direction and I guess I want to see what direction we want to give staff. Tim, you're direction would be to come back with a draft of a zoning district and hold a public hearing if I were Ito try to echo what you feel appropriate at this time. Erhart: My comment, I agree with Howie's comment. What's the benefit to the City? I think the benefits are two fold. One, if we do this we Ican eliminate contractor yards in the other areas. To me that's a benefit. I don't like contractor yards mixed in with essentially rural residential, agricultural. The second thing is I guess I'm a Ibeliever, and the second benefit is, this is an existing contractor's yard. It's unsightly and because of their desire to increase the intensity, we can go back at this time an force him to shield that Iwhole area with the proper landscaping. You're not going to get that opportunity unless the developer wants it. If they want something, we get something in return so to answer directly, I'm only in favor of doing anything as long as we can get both of those benefits out of it. IConrad : Bob, where are you at? In terms of directing staff, how would you do it? �i II Planning Commission Meeting ' November 18 , 1987 - Page 12 Siegel : I guess I would feel that although there are some better things and I can see that to possibly creating a zone, I see more question marks and potential for expansion of the request for this type of zoning, that we wouldn't really have much of a leg to stand on to refuse if we go ahead and do this for one property owner. The concept that we're going to eliminate contractor's yards throughout Chanhassen except in one location I think is not realizing the full potential of the property owners coming in and asking for similar uses. I think the way we have it right now is the way it should sit. Conrad: Jim, in a word I think you said let's have a zone for it. Let's put it all together. You may go along with Tim. Wildermuth: I think we've got an obligation to accomodate these ' interim businesses and in this particular case we're looking for an interim land use. Something that will ultimately be industrial land use when city sewer reaches it. Conrad : And Howie, which direction? Would you keep it as is? Noziska: I think the ordinances are fine. I like that one mile separation. I think that unintensifies use in the rural district. I think intensification and globbing these sorts of activities together is fine as long as you put the sewer there. I just don't think it does anything for rural Chanhassen and adds a great potential of liability or questions that will come up from other people and I don't think we're going to consolidate the contractor's yards. I don't think we want 2 or 3... As far as stringing them up, right now we've got the greatest however you ever want it and we can simply take the conditional use permit if they don' t comply with our standards. , Conrad: Based on my nose count here, I think there are more people in favor of keeping the ordinance as is. Therefore, from the Planning Commission's standpoint, we're not going to direct city staff to do any drafting of the ordinance at this time or to hold a public hearing but I would imagine the applicant has the right to take it to City Council and get their input and they can give staff direction to either create an ordinance and have us review it with their guidance but at this time nothing from the Planning Commission in terms of more work. Why don't we go to the next item. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO EXPAND A CONTRACTOR'S YARD AND TO CONSTRUCTION A 9,000 SQUARE FOOT POLE BARN WITH A PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE FROM CO. RD. 18 LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 117 AND COUNTY ROAD 18 , MERLE VOLK, APPLICANT. Public Present: ' Tom Hamilton Applicant ' s Representative Roger Schmidt I IIPlanning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1987 - Page 13 I,E, Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on the conditional use permit request. IIChairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comments . ITom Hamilton: Representing Merle Volk he wants to build a 9,000 square foot pole barn building so he can store a lot of his equipment inside that's currently being stored outside to try and clean up his area so that's the use that Barbara said she wasn't sure of and he wants to use Iit for his own purposes rather than screening from the highway. If the Commission was in favor of it, he would certainly do whatever is required as far as screening and other aspects of the ordinance. We Iwanted to get the concept idea here first because he does have some trucks and he has a motorhome that he has to store outside and a boat sits outside that should be inside. IRoger Schmidt: Tom, do you know exactly where on that property it's going to be located? ITom Hamilton: Yes I do . Mr. Hamilton then showed Roger Schmidt the location of the proposed Ipole barn on the property. Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted 1 in favor and motion carried . INoziska: We're being asked to approve the construction of a 9,000 square foot pole barn for the storage of personal items and/or business Iitems or whatever . Tom Hamilton: That's right. It's not too complicated. It's just Iequipment that he has . Noziska: And then what assurance do we have that that's the end of the use of this pole barn? IDacy: If there were to be any other uses beyond what was represented in this application, then that would have to be processed . INoziska: And if we were to approve that storage building, then what else would be approved? The map I've got has a whole bunch of paved areas here and there. Are we also approving that? IDacy: Yes. What the site plan is showing is that there would be a paved access. Right now there's a gravel driveway from CR 18. What Ithe site plan is proposing is to pave that and provide a paved storage and parking area for the proposed pole barn building. Also indicated on the plan is proposed berms and proposed evergreen trees. However, staff's concern was that some of the details of these items should be prepared also. Specific landscaping plans . I Planning Commission Meeting I November 18, 1987 - Page 14 Noziska : Elevation views? Dacy: Yes . ' Noziska: I guess I still understand what we've been told but I don't understand if that's going to be the use, why we need quite so much in the way of asphalt and parking and I think we are quite a ways from being complete on the application. Is that what you said Barbara? Dacy: Some of staff's comments were, yes as far as what was going on the site. Wildermuth: I think the application has got to be tabled for the time being. The applicant should be asked to address the six items the staff has detailed here so we know what the conditional use is. Siegel : I agree. , Erhart : Obviously at some point along the line here we need a detailed landscaping plan. There are a number of questions that need to be addressed... I guess that was my biggest concern. Making sure that we had appropriate landscaping. Conrad: I agree. I think the best thing to do is table it until we ' get some of the information we need on the particular use and some 1 responses to staff's questions so we can more adequately review this as a conditional use. Bill Boyt : I think it would be fair to the applicant if you would give some indication that if they met staff's conditions, would you approve this building before they get a lot of time and money invested in meeting staff's hurdles. I think they ought to know, in your opinion, does this look like something that' s going to work or not. Conrad: In my mind the staff report is not in snyc with what Mr. Hamilton said tonight. Personal use and existing equipment is different than what the staff report says. In my mind if it stays in terms of what Tom said tonight, I think I'd be very open to reviewing this making sure that it fit in with the conditional use requirements that we laid out before and that is appropriate use. That it works as a contractor's yard so in my mind it's not a no go. I think that my decision is going to be based on what information staff brings back and what Merle Volk expresses in terms of the uses. I think a conditional use is based on the uses and right now we don't know, in terms of the staff report, we don't know what they are so I think Tom and Mr. Volk will have to work with staff and then we can review it. It's inconsistent with the staff report and I guess what I'd like to do Tom is... As I said, that's in snyc with something I would look at favorably Tom and therefore not wasting staff time, Mr. Volk's money, your energy but if it came back significantly different, then I guess it would be up to the Planning Commission whether it was appropriate IIPlanning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 15 1E- use out there. ISiegel: Barb, could you reiterate the reason why it's necessary for a request for a conditional use permit for the pole building? Because it was written into the original conditional use permit? IDacy: Right. One of the conditions of the current permit for Mr. Volk is that any expansion of the contractor's yard had to be processed by the city. ISiegel: By expansion you mean any kind of expansion? The property is already a contractor ' s yard. Dacy: The conditional use permit that was approved in 1984 was based on a specific site plan that was submitted in conjunction with that Iapplication and shows locations of specific buildings and provided a list of the hours of operation and number of employees so everything that was based in that application was approved. The intent of the permit approval was if that were to go beyond what was originally Irepresented in the application, the conditional use permit would be processed . ISiegel : So really we need a site plan for this expansion? Conrad: A site plan and also a pretty accurate accounting of what's s going to take place there. ItNoziska: Barbara, could you reiterate for me, you went out and had a site visit yesterday or today? IDacy: Yes . INoziska : Okay, and what again did you say was your critique on what you found? Dacy: There is vehicles, grading vehicles and I think there's a red Ivehicle which is an old water pumper truck that's parked next to the driveway off of CR 18. Storage of concrete pipes outside of the berm areas. There were 3 or 4 vehicles that were on the west side of the Iberm area near the back of the property. However, the original conditional use permit was to contain all that equipment within the bermed area or inside storage buildings that were on the site . INoziska: Did you have an opportunity to ask Mr. Volk why he isn't complying with our conditions? IDacy: No, to be honest I went down to check things before tonight's meeting and I didn't have an opportunity to meet with his representative or Mr . Volk. !! Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 18 , 1987 - Page 16 Noziska : I think that would be a good idea to find out what the story is from them. I remember another building that had some strange uses or was about to and I think that we really need to pay attention to these sort of things because it's very easily abused. I'd like to add that request to staff's duties. To contact Volk and find out what the story is and how long have those pipes and vehicles been sitting around . Wildermuth moved, Siegel seconded to table Conditional Use Permit Request #87-1 for Merle Volk until the applicant can update and upgrade the application to include specific uses and to address the six specific items in the staff report. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion carried. Shirley Bruers : I think the Planning Commission should be commended on the professional way you've showed this matter. These issues tend to be time consuming. It's also difficult for the staff to deal with the intricacies involved... I would like to ask staff to keep us apprised of what' s happening . , Noziska : Wouldn' t it make sense to have Chaska ' s reaction. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 5-11-2 TO f ALLOW AUTO SERVICE CENTERS AS A PERMITTED USE INT HE BH, HIGHWAY AND X. BUSINESS SERVICE DISTRICT AND TO AMEND SECTION 5-16-2 TO ALLOW SELF SERVICE STORAGE FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT. Public Present: , Frank Reese Applicant' s Representative Mark Keebert Operation 's Manager Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Chairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comment . Frank Reese with Israelson, Reese and Ellingson: We're an architectural engineering firm. The use that we're looking at here is something that's come about in the last dozen or so years. We've seen about 100 of these centers being built in the larger metropolitan centers of the United States and now we see a dozen or so under construction here in the Twin Cities. The idea of putting these uses together in a common center like this is something that's really taken hold. I guess it was about a dozen years ago we saw the gas station and grocery store merge and that's been successful but this is the same kind of thing. The uses will fit together very well and have been successful. It isn't IIPlanning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1987 - Page 17 something we're going to see abandoned here in a few years. The planner here mentioned briefly that the stores like this or the centers Iinclude the muffler and brake shops and lube shops, and that kind of thing that are for the handiman or the small repairs. That kind of thing. Minnesota Auto Service Centers is presently constructing and Iwill be owning two centers in the Twin Cities now in Burnsville and in Apple Valley as you've seen in your pack there. They have plans to do this in other communities around the Twin Cities area and as you notice from what you see in the newspaper , there are a number of them Ibeing built elsewhere in the Twin Cities. There are three of them that are open. The closest being Hopkins right now. But they have built a number of them in other parts of the United States and they do a real Igood job. I've had an opportunity to use some of their's in Arizona. What they're typically building is a masonry building, it's fire proof throughout and they end up with a building that I think looks real Inice. We'll probably get into that at a later meeting. I'm here to answer any questions you might have about this kind of a use or the mini-warehousing use. What we're looking at, basically the reason we're looking for these uses on the site is because the lot is a very Ideep lot and we're saying the auto use can use maybe the front half and then if we have signage out there on the road where people will know where the mini-warehousing is, then that works real well. It's handy Ito people and yet it isn' t visible from the highway. Noziska: On the mini-warehouse storage, how do you anticipate that being used and what' s the size of it? IFFrank Reese: What we've seen typically in the Twin Cities is the use of small spaces , maybe 50 square feet up to 300 square feet per bay or per Irental area. Typically what we're doing is building a masonry wall around the perimeter and backing up the larger units around the edge and then putting the smaller spaces in the middle. In fact, the thing Iwe may get into here later is the fact that we usually try to have a residence, a permanent person living right there that controls anybody coming in and out and of course it's good during the night. If there are any sounds or that kind of security system which we'll have in that Irespect. Noziska: So you're intending to have an on-site residence? I've seen Ia number of these built and it seems to be well managed. I think on a location like that , a residence mini-storage makes sense. Erhart moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted in 1 favor and motion carried . Erhart: What about the other mini-storage? How did that one get Iapproved? That ' s in the industrial . Olsen: It was approved under the definition of the ordinance. IDacy: That was prior to the adoption of the new ordinance. I Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 18 , 1987 - Page 18 Erhart: Essentially we're looking at the same thing...On the other ' hand, this proposal looks, I think it makes a lot of sense in that it isn't in view of the highway and it uses an area that would otherwise be used for parking cars. The question would be, how do you allow it in these kind of areas and yet try to discourage people from picking prime industrial space and using it for storage would be the challenge. The other issue we have to deal with here is we have to reconfigure this somewhat. Change the lines. Olsen: That will be coming in next time. ' Erhart: Currently we're just looking at allowing service centers in the IOP. Number one, it's simple to change the terminology around. ' Siegel : I don' t have any quarrel with it. I think it' s a good change. Wildermuth: I like the idea of the automotive service center. I think that's a good use for that particular area. I'm not so sure about that warehouse. It seems to me that land could be put to better use for tax revenue generated. Better possibility of employment. That's pretty choice property along there. Noziska: I don' t have any quarrel with this . Conrad: I don't either. I guess the issue becomes what Jim brought up. Using land for mini-storage but it fits . Noziska: I think some things that are important too is accessibility to their entrance. It's just unreal how these things are hidden and if they're in a good accessible location such as this. If you pay some attention to the aesthetics of the thing and the looks of the things, they are coming out with some rather innovative designs. Conrad: The only thing that bothers me is we've seen so many you just ' sort of wonder if they' re going to be used . Noziska: You don ' t see many in this area though. ' Conrad : Chaska has one out there that ' s in use. Erhart: There' s one in Eden Prairie. ' Conrad: We've got one of your favorite ones down on TH 212. How many units are out in the industrial park? Do you recall? 1 Dacy: I believe it was approximately 60,000 square feet. How big was Gary' s? ' Conrad : Gary' s was huge. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1987 - Page 19 kr- Wildermuth: How much of the warehousing space is visible from the front? The store front covers most of what ' s visible from TH 5? IINoziska : We' ll get into that on the site plan. I Frank Reese : The actual buildings in front, they get to be about 20 some feet tall where you're up to your areas where the mini-storage is going to be, it may be only 9 or 10. It is visible from the highway but again, you have a sign on the highway telling where to get to them. IIWildermuth: How do they access off of this service road? How do you anticipate going into the storage, back behind the store front? 1 Frank Reese: Our preliminary plans indicate two entrances off the service road there and they would work back in. There would be just a I single entrance however getting into the mini-storage area. We'll be working with that city for emergency ingress for the fire department or things like that but just a single entrance into the storage area. IConrad: Have you looked at the market, and we're getting ahead of ourselves here you can tell, but have you looked at the demand and the degree of your competition and you feel pretty comfortble that they are Istill in demand for the use? Frank Reese : Shorewood has now approved it's second one just north of IIus here. The first one was built there on TH 7 near the Vine Hill interchange. It was all signed up before they ever finished the building and now they're looking at another one further west up in the Tonka Plaza area so there' s a real demand in this area here for it. IIMark Heebert: I'm the operations partner for the service center. We're looking at this combination because it's worked in the past in Isimilar projects. We may go to a use already zoned for it but we're looking at a use that we have dealt with before. All our homework isn't in place as of yet in terms of the market. We may during our site plan process look a little bit closer and pull off of it. We may Ibut at this point it looks positive but if we do pull off, we will conform to either uses of the IOP or BH, whichever you choose. IIConrad: Just make sure you do it but it's your job to do it. I don't have to tell you your job but we have approved a whole bunch of mini- storage facilities. Like a whole bunch and they're surrounding us and Ion borders in other communities and it has to be an incredible thing . Frank Reese: We own all the apartments in the back. 1 Noziska moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend Section 5-11-2 be amended to include automotive service centers as a permitted use in the BH District and to include the following in the iiZoning Ordinance definition as follows : I r Planning Commission Meeting I November 18, 1987 - Page 20 An integrated group of commercial establishments planned, developed, and managed as a unit with off street parking provided on site and providing uses engaged primarily in the supplying of goods and services generally required in the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles. These may include sale and servicing of tires, batteries, automotive accessories, replacement items, washing and lubricating services and the performance of minor automotive maintenance and repair. This does not include major body repair where it is necessary to provide long term storage of cars and body parts . 1 and recommend amending Section 5-16-2 to include mini-warehouse as a permitted use in the IOP District. All voted in favor and motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ' Siegel moved, Noziska seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 4, 1987 as amended on page 15 by Steve Emmings and page 1 by Ladd Conrad. All voted in favor of the Minutes as amended and motion carried. Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning I Commission meeting dated October 28, 1987 as presented. All voted in favor except Noziska who abstained and motion carried . 1 Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy i City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim ' i I I 1 r CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ITDECEMBER 9 , 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 p.m. . ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska , David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Siegel and James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, MARK KOEGLER. ' Mark Koegler: What we want to do this evening is take a few minutes to kind of update and get some clarification, policy kind of comments from the Planning Commission. As you recall, we talked to you, it's ' probably been a month or two ago, about the possibility of doing some corridor studies for some of the major transportation arteries throughout the city. This group was kind of mixed on that. Somewhat split if I recall. That did go onto the Council and the determination of the Council was they would like that kind of separation shown on the Plan. What we want to do tonight is to update that and kind of set the tone for what the types of uses that you'll be looking at this time around. The exhibit that's on the board right now is the plan that you've seen many, many months ago. This is the 2000 land use plan. Essentially it remains largely unchanged from what it was in 1980 with the exception of some updates. These updates really coming about more as a result of the zoning process. What we've done then is taken a look, previously we talked about two different corridors. As a part of the garden ' center discussion we went through, I think it was an issue not directly as a part of the plan but it kind of became interwined to a certain degree. We looked at land uses along TH 5. Previously also the plan is showing simply low density residential predominantly down here. ' That was refined somewhat as a result of discussions that this group went through on a couple of occasions. Once pertaining to TH 212 and then later on as an example of what these corridor studies might be. ' That's the land use configuration we had talked about at that time and we had talked about there being one spot of the neighborhood and highway oriented commerial down there which you still show there. If we have any comments on that, any changes in thought, those would be appropriate this evening. The other thing it does show is essentially the land uses we talked about for the TH 5 corridor. Again, that was relating to the garden center in which we were looking at higher density adjacent to Lake Ann and then scattered uses along the TH 5 frontage consisting of high, medium density, some commercial at two locations, and then office/industrial which would tie in with some of ' the development that is currently going on in the city of Chaska right now. Bear in mind again that there's no sewer here and this is a conceptual statement. It's a number of years down the road before that ever will occur. So those are the two areas that we have looked at kind of previously. The direction from the Council was to look at essentially TH 5, TH 101, TH 212 and what we'll call old TH 169 as I I Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1987 - Page 2 1 corridors and they should be looked at as a part of the plan. Taking that a step further, we looked at some scenarios of land use down in 11 the southern part of the city along TH 212 and along TH 169. What happens I think becomes pretty obvious and we didn't really do that until we put some of this information together and Barb, Jo Ann and I sat down and looked at it. What we're almost beginning to do as a part of these corridor analysis is to do a land use plan for the entire city. We're beginning to have very few areas really that are not carrying some kind of designation. And that, we think, is perhaps getting a little bit beyond the scope of what we thought we were getting into. Land use down in this part of the city, in terms of being of any intensity that would have sewer, is quite a ways off. Admittedly even more so than some of the more northern portions and that gives us a little less degree of comfort in talking about what these things should or should not be. As a result, the suggestion that we got that we're bringing back to you this evening is to look at II specific corridor studies for the areas within the MUSA like the TH 101 corridor study we ran through before. If appropriate, portions of TH 5 and then as we get out into the more rural areas , to utilize this kind of information as a base for discussion by this group is a base for kind of setting some policy goal kind of statements for what these corridors should be. I think maybe the best way to illustrate that is by some examples. You'll notice the land uses that we've shown I think II along any of these corridors are consistent in philosophy with what was shown along TH 5 in that we're looking at adversity uses. We're not looking at creating a strip commercial corridor nor are we looking at creating a solid industrial corridor. That kind of thing could be a part of the corridor study for TH 212 for instance. If you would have some statements in there, let me back up a step. What we're advocating is not showing a detailed land use map within the corridor study for TH 212 and for TH 169. In lieu of that, -we talk about the corridor, talk about some of the potential qualities, talk about the improvements that are supposed to go in, the timeframe for those improvements and then mention some things like diversified land use, we'd like some input from the commission on 17, if there ever is an interchange here, which presumably there would be eventually if the road gets built eventually, II is that an area where we should consider possible addition of commercial growth? Do you want to do that even though maybe some of the other areas are not completely built up or should that be held in reserve? We think there's got to be, in a corridor study for some of these areas, there needs to be mentioned the relationship between land use and the transportation improvement which is really spawning this whole effort. This is probably an excellent case in point right here. If TH 212 never happens, if we never have an interchange there, presumably you have the potential to create a significantly different land use pattern there. This one is really geared to where we're going end up with some smaller parcels and some odd pieces that may work well for commercial tract or high density residential tract. If that's gone, maybe we get back to the scenario before where we've got a larger area of low density that we feel is more reasonable. That's again why we get a little nervous with going too far with some of these corridors 1 r Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1987 - Page 3 F in terms of what they should be with the road. Now the TH 169 area , ' just in kind of brief review, what we've shown right now is the existing commercial area remaining there. That one is kind of anamoly. to be quite honest with you, it gives us a little problem in terms of how Metropolitan Council looks at it. As a commercial area, it's not ' sewered and we've got to be a little bit cautious with the wording of the Plan as the intent is not necessarily to expand that but to basically tolerate that as either a conforming or non-conforming use, ' depending on what kind of facility is there. Then from there we looked at possibly a pocket of high and mid-density residential. Maybe we've got a land area here that seems, as far as the physical qualities go to ' support that pretty well. A piece over here, there's a little valley area with extreme topography and as you get over further east it's quite hilly also. We've shown that perceptually right now as perhaps high density residential because there was a need to do quite a bit of intense clustering and balancing the property. Reflecting some of the existing commercial and industrial down here, we're reflecting the plan will eventually for all of this to be included in the Natural Wildlife ' Refuge so what we're, I guess asking the commission to provide comments on tonight. First of all perhaps is the approach that we think maybe is the one to take. Which is again, look specifically at the TH 101 area within the MUSA, TH 5 within MUSA and any other corridor within ' the sewered area. Once we get outside of that then, rather than treat that by showing proposed land use maps, which may build false expectations in some people and may be unrealistic expectations for all we know, to treat that more in a goal policy philosophy kind of statement. This is what we think the corridor should be. We want a diversity of land use. We want commercial at major artery corners. We ' want a buffer between certain kinds of uses. Those kinds of statements and not get anymore specific than that. So with that, that's kind of the direction we're proceeding and would appreciate any comments you would want to provide on either how we approached that or any of the ' specifics that are shown here. Conrad: I think maybe Jay and Bill may have some comments or may offer some help in terms of their perspective in terms what should be woven into the Comprehensive Plan. I think I was the one that didn't want to get into doing this and I think Mark summarized it fairly well by making the statements that it forecasts some things that we can't ' deliver. It's so far in advance that, planning is great but unless you know, if you've got enough information, you need some and I guess I worry that we haven't hit the mark in many of our plans and when you get way out in advance of something you may send some signals to people. The reality is you can't deliver on those plans so I guess my only comment is, I'm really pretty conservative. I do like to plan and that's probably why I 'm here but unless I know that we have some real good data to base that plan on , it's sort of like, I find it very difficult to provide valid information in the plan. Therefore, I liked what Mark said when his direction was not to put it into the IL Comprehensive Plan, such as land use, but put it into goals and objectives and maybe philosophy statements. So I agree with what Planning Commission Meeting December 9 , 1987 - Page 4 Mark's saying but why don't we go around. Not getting into specifics here as much as we are in concept. ' Erhart: My reaction to this discussion last time was that we do present some kind of a long term map of sort of what we see. I guess the basic assumption here or the basically thing that this depends on is whether that freeway goes in or not in that whole half section. If it doesn't go in, this whole thing is meaningless really so you could put I guess a note on there that this is the long term 2020 or whatever I plan you want to talk about. I think it would be helpful because I think you're dealing with , just like the guy who came in with the plan to put the store on TH 5. It's hard to deal with that if you don't have an agreement on what your long term plan is. I guess I'm in favor of doing this as long as it's clear this is not a specific 2000 year plan but there is a 2000 year plan that maybe is more dependable but there's another one saying this is a concept only and it should be viewed upon as. State it so anybody seeing the plan can understand that this is concept and philosophy. Conrad: You take the concept and philosophy but you provide some , graphics and a little bit more detail . That kind of detail with it. Emmings: I. guess I probably agree with Tim, and maybe it's just my own I bias. When I read goals and objective sections I almost never know f what people are talking about and I think it's really helpful to have, and maybe if you just say one an example of our goals and objectives might look like this. It could look like anything but it might look like this. Just to make it a little more concrete. Otherwise, I just get drifty when I read goals and objectives. I have no idea and I think anybody who read that , to make it meaningful to them, is going to ' wind up coming in and saying what are you actually talking about here and it would be nice to show them something. Conrad: And you think we can pin that down like Mark has tried to do? Emmings: I think it's conjectural. I'm talking about wild conjectures. I think it's pure speculation that's on this board here but I don't know that it's necessarily irresponsible to do that as an example of your goals and objective statement. Just say these are our goals and objectives. We don't know how it's going to play out but just to give you some idea of what we're talking about, this is one possible scenario. Erhart: I think the example Ladd, if I could interrupt, is if you look at that land around TH 169 between the railroad track and TH 169, there's some opportunities there that if you don't explore it today, you'll never achieve. You're asking some good questions here. He's long term. He's saying high density. I'm saying hmm, that's across a national park. It's very steep terrain. Is it buildable at all and maybe the 50 year plan ought to be wildlife for the whole area and if you don't look 20 years down the road, you'll never do things today to Planning Commission Meeting December 9 , 1987 - Page 5 17 ever get you there . ' Emmings: I think it would be dangerous to call it a 2020 plan. I wouldn't do that. I would say call it, don't put a year on it but just say it's a long way out or else call it something that's so far out but ' if you're going to put down goals and objectives, I think having an example of it. Mark was able to come up with this and I'm sure Mark could go back and do 10 more and come up with 10 different ones and I ' would really have any way to evaluate them but I think giving an example isn't bad. Maybe you even want to give more than one. As long as those examples show an application of those goals and objectives, it ' might not be bad to show more than one. Noziska: I don't think it gives anybody false expectations of the plan. I think that's it good to have a long range plan. Yes, you're ' right, it's absolutely to try and predicate it upon the location and whether or not we're going to have TH 212 going through there. Ten years ago we were probably as close to that as we are right now. From ' Mark's comments, he knows more about it than I do, is that still in that great nebulous ball in the sky yet? Do you know anything more about TH 212 Mark? ' Mark Koegler: Hopefully it's a little closer since a consultant is about to be selected but again, that' s been done before. I Noziska: I know back in 1967, I think I did a study on three different ways to cross the river on TH 41. It's still old and that's 20 years ago and the studies have been long thrown away and they are no longer valid so things like this do tend to drag on from time to time but I think there's enough pressure right now that it will probably go through and I think that it-makes some- sense for the Planning Commission and the City of Chanhassen to outline what will be taking ' place when that corridor goes in. I think it's good to address the land down through the valley. That may not be the solution that the Planning Commission thinks is right but I think it makes some sense. ' If you're going to change it, then change it but project it out. If there's a thought that Chanhassen never wants that area developed, then they should let the people know or if water and sewer comes through that would allow some high density stuff in there, then they should ' also let people know that. It's good to have these long range plans and objectives. People along TH 5, it may not be exactly the way I'd lay it out but it's a solution. TH 5 probably looks better to me than ' some of that stuff on the TH 212 corridor. I'm a little bit apprehensi.ous about too much residential along a freeway. I'm in favor of seeing something. Whether or not this is what the final statement is, I don' t know, but I think something should be said . Conrad : And you want to get specific though? Noziska: As specific as a 20 or 30 year plan can ever be. Always you're talking glitter and generalities and as we know around here, we I i Planning Commission Meeting December 9 , 1987 - Page 6 spot zone and every other thing depending upon somebody with a do-re-me who comes through with a big idea someday. So that will always change. Exact use of the land, most likely will change from the time that this is put out but the general philosophy of developing higher density along the freeways. The general philosophy of the open spaces and the parks and this and that, that's really what. ' Conrad: I totally agree with your statements. I don't disagree. I guess the point is that the detail to which we provide the specifics and I think Tim and Steve are pretty comfortable with putting down something. Putting down some zones and circles that may indicate something that' s in concurrence with a philosophy. Noziska: That's right Ladd and sure, the specifics are always going to change. In the last few years we've had so many specifics change, flipping flop back and forth depending on who walked in with a better plan so as long as the specifics that are given on the map reflect the general philosophy, how can you go wrong? Headla: I had a question, maybe two for Mark. If we go back 15 to 20 years, with this type of planning that was done at that time, how close are we to being to what was planned? Mark Koegler: I can't give you a factual answer to that. I remember the plan for the City was done I think in about 1968 , if I remember correctly, I saw probably a third or fourth generation xeroxed copies of that when I was with the City in about 1977. If I remember right they painted quite a large picture of simply low density residential at the time and obviously the City has carried along on those tracks. It did show a lot of planning concepts that were really in vogue at that time which was defining neighborhoods .by schools. If I remember right it showed a number of schools around the city and each of those became the neighborhood unit and there was commercial around those so in that regard it's not consistent. It's tough to say. At that time a plan was widely done, the late 60's and early 70's where you would take an entire city, border to border and you take out your colors and just II cover it. Planning after 1976 did require a more focused effort by the city to tie into the sanitary sewer. I'm not saying we're going back to that by employing these type meetings. I don't think that would be an accurate statement. ...so we are getting out there a ways. It's much more questionable. If we do that , we definitely need a lot more disclaimer language in the plan making it very clear that these kinds of thoughts which are reflected in these graphics our predicators are II set on transportation, availability of sewer and those kinds of things. Those become the overriding policies. You can do that and certainly make that distinction. Headla : Is planning much more of a science now than just guess work or is it still in the early part of the cycle? Dacy: It' s called the dartboard approach . I ' Planning Commission Meeting December 9 , 1987 - Page 7 Headla: I just wondered dered zf you're a little more comfortable now with ' your planning process and forecasting procese. Mark Koegler: Particularly within both the Metro Council's MUSA line and the city's MUSA line, I would say confidently that we're ' comfortable with that. It's working as a target population and some target employment and so forth. Once you get outside of that, given the fact that the City is not free to do whatever it wants to, it does become a little more suspect and I think as Barb says, you are throwing more darts. We're pretty comfortable with that level as long as it stays within pretty well defined perameters. Once you take the entire city and add to it the areas , 2020 is a nice date but I don't know if some of those areas will sewer in 2020. Noziska: I think you're totally dependent upon what the Metropolitan ' Sewer Commission has to say. Headla: Yes, I think you've got different triggers and that's what ' we've got to look at but I like this concept. If you accept the philosophy, no decision is forever and I certainly believe it. You look at 10 years and the Planning Commission that's going to come in here, it's going to be totally different but it's not going to be a 1 radical 180 degrees type of thing. It's going to be an evolution. I would suspect it's going to be updated gradually. The same way business plans do. They continually evolve. By the time you have it in print, it's changed but it is a plan and it points somewhere in the type of direction. Conrad: What is the longest Control Data plans out Dave? Headla: I saw the 2002 plan two years ago. ' Noziska : They do plan ahead? Headla: Definitely. ' Noziska: But they don't think about their long range plan as next week? ' Headla: No, it's way out but by the time you get a document, it's changing. Noziska : But it' s still a general philosophy in a general direction . Headla: That's the point. It's a general philosophy and it's the best information you have at the time. As you get smarter and planning ' becomes more of a science, you ' re going to be more accurate . Conrad: Jay, what do you think? IL Planning Commission Meeting December 9 , 1987 - Page 8 ( ' Jay Johnson: I like the approach of it being a general concept. Graphics are much more understandable. I just spent the day in a class that every time the guy turned around he talked about communicating with graphics. People understand you a lot better when you communicate with graphics. I agree with Steve and Tim. There's going to have to be a lot of disclaimers on the graphics but I think it's a good concept. I'm one of the people who will push for this far, long range planning. That's towards TH 212 and TH 169. On TH 5, I'm concerned also on interim use between now and when we get the MUSA. We're getting more and more pressure to allow some types of interim uses. I'd like to see some guidelines established saying there's not going to be any interim use besides farming or putting a house in or here are the lawn centers or putt putt golf, we've got putt putt golf in there now. The real plan for that. Just a specific little corridor because we're going to be, in the next few years getting some very strong pressure to do some kind of development in there. I think if we start thinking that out now, we can get some guidelines. I'm concerned more for the TH 5 corridor because it's much closer in our future. We're already getting pressure there now. It's going to worse. The more strict guidance we have at this time, the better off we ' ll be. Bill Boyt: Typical business plans, 5 years I think that's long range planning. One year is getting to be fairly long range planning for some businesses and we're looking at 35 years. I think it's a joke. I II will back up a little bit and say everything you've said about concepts, I buy that. Sure, to tell people what we want. All these different colors, business and high density here, I don't see that's it' s worth the time and money. What are the chances of that happening? , Erhart: I'd comment on that since I do 5 year business plans. The premise for a business plan is totally different than the premise for this. A business, I can't predict by business, what it's going to be like 3 years from now. I agree but you're dealing with a different thing. Technology changes. Customers change. Personnel change. They're all different. You can't plan out. I'll guarantee you that 30 years from now TH 5 will be there, TH 212 will be there, the houses I that are there today are still going to be there and you're still going to have the same problems and it's still going to be growth. I think you're dealing with an entirely different premise. In a zoning plan, or I shouldn't say zoning, in a long term plan for a community, it's just not related to a business whatsoever . Conrad: I do want to start moving on to some other things. Interviewing chandidates. Jay, go ahead if you have something relevant to what we' re. . . Jay Johnson: Graphics, we don't necessarily need to show TH 212. We can show any highway, not necessarily this particular land, a stretch of highway with an interchange on it and say this is an illustration of our concept. Not have it specific to southern Chanhassen. So you show it but it's not geographically specific so it does illustrate and ' Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1987 - Page 9 can still people 1 see it. So the farmer who owns that land right now or ' a developer who owns that land right now is not going to say, gee, I don't want to put high density, residential there. There is no relationship but the concept can still be graphically illustrated because you've got a stretch of 4-lane highway with an interchange ' showing how on a typical interchange to do that. Conrad: The Comprehensive Plan that we're updating is really valid ' until the year 2000 right? And we know what we're talking about. It's not going to go into effect in the year 2000. We know these corridors will not be open for development, for commercial, for residential by the year 2000 or like we're 99% sure that a MUSA line is not going to ' be extended to incorporate some of these areas that we're looking at. Is that a pretty good guesstimate? ' Mark Koegler: I would bet with you on that one, yes . Conrad: And the Comprehensive Plan called what we're going to be ' looking like in the year 2000, we're going to put what we're going to look like in the year 2020. The major corporations of this country can't put together a 10 year plan that's close. We're talking about putting together something that's 25 years, 30 years in the future. I ' do disagree with you Tim. Even though there are highways, we don't know where TH 169 is totally going to be yet. I think there are some things that are really tough to settle on. You don't know if a Valley Fair wants to move in. I think there are some things that we just don't have the foggiest idea now and I'm real nervous about putting something that we think is in the year 2020 in a year 2000 plan. That's my nervousness. Philosophically however, I like doing some of ' the concept. I think that's really kind of neat and I guess we've got some various opinions. Bill's on one .side and that's why Jay's over on the other side. I think what I'd like to do and take us away from ' this, the detail to which we get to I'm not sure, but I think Mark I'd like to invite Mark back and where we do some concepting on these two particular, I think we sould relook Howie at TH 5. I'm real comfortable with TH 5 and how you've got it laid out there. I think there are some really nice things. I think we should look at interim uses there and I think that makes a lot of sense. I don't have the foggiest idea how we want TH 212, TH 169 to look. I just don't know ' and I think if we're talking concept, which everybody is saying right now, I don't know what the concept is. I haven't discussed the concept with anybody and I don't know what anybody's thoughts are for that so I ' guess it sounds to me like we need a working session with Mark to start talking about what our philosophies and concepts are. Noziska: I think that's a wonderful idea but I don't agree with Bill ' and I do agree with him. On one aspect I think that sort of graphic illustration of a general direction is important if for no other reason than to give the aura of progression in the city of Chanhassen if nothing else. But beyond that, I don't think it's worthwhile spending �_ an awful lot of time, this is where I agree with him, I don't think Planning Commission Meeting December 9 , 1987 - Page 10 it's very worthwhile at all to spend a lot of time on it. To just give a general, philosophical direction and say hey, if a lot of things happen this is what we feel should take place but to spend a heck of a lot of time dinking around with it, I don't think so. I think there's just some little philosophical statement that the Planning Commission can arrive with Mark in a very short period of time. Whether or not that flatland between the railroad track and TH 212, TH 169 needs to have anything done with it other than low density residential and also if in fact TH 212 is going to go where we promise it's going to go, are you going to want to keep that residential or are you going for some high density stuff here and there. That's just about as far as you can go. I think that's the only question in philosophy that I would see at all in this . Conrad: So, I guess most votes are for more detail than maybe what I'd like to see but I think that we can deal with that if we invite Mark back and let's start with the philosophy stage. Mark, I don't think that's going to be a big deal. I think, like Howie said, I think we need you for half an hour so we can start talking conceptually. I'd like to feed that back up to the City Council before, real quickly, so we get their thoughts on whether that's the right philosophy in terms of their eyes and thoughts and proceed from there. If the consensus is that we need the examples and the detail, we'll do that. Then we'll work up the administrative way, Mark, of working this out to make it very clear what we're talking about trying to do. Is everyone in agreement with that? Emmings: I don't know if Mark can do it, he certainl y can't it't do i in half hour, but when he comes back and talks to us about these concepts, it would be an awfully good opportunity to educate us on how to think about these things. I don't know how he came up with this particular, how he colored this in but he went through some kind of a process there and I'd like to know what it is. What do you think about laying things II side by side because I certainly don' t know. Erhart: Why do we need a 2000 year plan? Conrad : To help us plan . Erhart: Well , I know that. If we're going to eliminate one, it would seem to me that ' s the one to eliminate. Conrad: But we've got more definition on 2000 because we know where the MUSA line is. That's the key. We don't know where the MUSA's line going to be ever. We don't know if it's ever going to change. Erhart: That you do know. ' Noziska: I think at some point in time you can build a house in Eagan, you can build a house in Chanhassen and just in a few lots left in Eden I Prairie. It's either that or you can drive to St. Cloud. It's obvious 1 �a '_ T II R:`r �:. CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION �: A'' 4`` : REGULAR MEETING q `:1~=3 .. � . '_% J L:3;:Yi' IIDECEMBER 8 , 1987 Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order . IMEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Lynch, Curt Robinson, Jim Mady, Ed Hasek, Sue Boyt, and Larry Schroers IMEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator; Todd Hoffman, IPark and Rec Assistant; and Dale Gregory II APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved, Mady seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 24, 1987 as amended on page 1. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW REQUEST TO PURCHASE ZAMBONI , BRAD JOHNSON. I * Due to a problem in taping, a portion of Brad Johnson's presentation regarding the zamboni was deleted. The following is a summary of what was presented . IHaving an ice rink proves that people will be drawn into the downtown area. With better ice conditions the ice rink can get top dollar for it's use. The Hockey Association just wants to be a tenant and will put $500.00 to I $1,000.00 into the ice rink but they can't afford to put any more than that. I Brad Johnson : ...the $2, 500.00 was intended to be a gift. The Association, you could probable create some type of fund raiser outside of the Association but the Association itself just sees that it should be a I tenant. We spent a lot of money on ice time and we raise the money to do that and we prefer to have that distributed evenly over all the programs and not just the program in Chanhassen. That' s how we got to where we are. Going down your list, the zamboni fellows have been out here a couple II times. We just have never had any cold weather to make the thing work. I think he told you the same thing. He'd be more than happy to come out here. All this guy does is just like you, he runs around all night fixing things. If the zamboni's broke down, he's got a service and he does it all I himself. If one dies, the rinks are down so he's got to run around and fix those things so he said, why don't you just get some ice and we'll come over and make it work. That has made us comfortable so far. His wanting I to make the operation work. I'm sure he wants future business from Chanhassen and he knows we're thinking about building a rink and stuff like that so I don't think if we checked them out, they've got a track record of I ripping off people as far as zamboni people. He is a zamboni rep. He also sells zamboni machines here. As far as a guarantee, I think it's tough to guarantee it. I don't know if you guys ever guarantee a used car, but a 25 year old vehicle I think has been suspect and try to figure out what's I wrong. It's obviously got a brake problem or something in the right hand side...I think we can work through that so I think that's the concept. I 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 2 They are willing to come out and work with us to make it work. They've been out, like I said I think 3 times but we just have never had the opportunity to see what kind of problems we would have. We do want to get a manual and they assure us they're trying to find a manual or a copy of a manual will be made up. As I said, the financial commitment that the Hockey Association has had, remembering that they put about $12,000.00 into ' that so far in man hours, they feel that they're just kind of tapped out plus, as I said, the income goes to the city, not anybody else. For the best answer, that's what Rick and I decided is to just increase the overall I rents... As far as operational schedules and so forth, I think that only makes sense. As a coach and a member of the Hockey Association, the last thing we like to do is have league meetings. Once we get going in the I season, just like you guys, we have to know and those of you in soccer, if you had to play soccer. It's disruptive so I think that just only makes sense. One of the reasons we also have this relationship with the City is that we said if we rent it or Bloomberg or anybody else rented it, the insurance costs, all those kinds just come out of the woodwork so it's worked out very well. We've kept the expenses down, I'd say fairly low. The think doesn't make money yet for the city. If we ever have a cold year it would probably break even. Then as far as security interest, we could probably draft something that basically said they have an interest in it up to $2,500.00 if you ever owed money on it. I don't know if that's a good idea or bad idea. I guess that's how we did it. There was a lot of discussion about the problems in the rink and as Dale said, I just can't believe the size, we don't have huge bumps and if they're in there more often than we are, I think that the blade on the machine will keep the ice in good shape. I think the bottom line is that you'll find better usage of the rink once we figure out how to get it done. A couple of weeks of hard knocks trying to figure out how to get it over there and get it flooded and that type of thing but that's basically our answer to it. Creative financing but there might be another way- of doing it. You've got the use of $2 ,500. 00 from Bloomberg and try and find some other means . Dale Gregory: Where ' s that thing going to be stored? Brad Johnson: Where it is. I Dale Gregory: Right now? That means you're going to have to drive it back and forth each time you use it? Brad Johnson: Yes. The ones in Boston, what they were going to do, is they had outdoor rinks and they actually were going to use it for surfacing their outdoor rinks and they would drive it one block. There are a number of rinks in northern Minnesota, they are outdoors in smaller towns like Red Lake and places that have outdoor rinks and they use those machines for surfacing. I Schroers: Do you feel that if the improvements are made on the building that you want with the insulation and the consistency and all that combined with having the zamboni that the revenue generated would be satisfactory? Do you have any figures as to how much revenue you think you would generate? 1 I/ 11 Park and Rec Commission December 8 , 1987 - Page 3 1 Brad Johnson: We've been over to Hopkins and Hopkins rented 600 hours a ' year and we haven't hit that number at all. Part of it's programming and getting good and organized. This year we've got a couple of industrial leagues coming in. We're getting more calls. People are starting to find out that we've got it here. Last year we had the whole Minnetonka Association here. The weather plus the ice. I had days when they called me at home, the Hockey Association and said get over here. We've got 1,000 guys trying to play and it's all wet. We did pretty good. We did pretty ' good. Our kids improved over the year. In fact our kids got better than their kids over there because they had more use of the ice and they didn't have anything at all but I think we just have to have a good, reasonable ' operation. It's a sales kind of problem. They're buying a service, it's their money and they match us against something else. Todd Hoffman: Approximatey one-third of the time is for opening skating so that's not going to generate any revenue and approximately one-third is for the Hockey program and then about one-third is left over for adult programs. People can call up and reserve an hour of ice time if they want ' to have it. Schroers : What are you charging , like $45 . 00 an hour now? ' Todd Hoffman: Yes. Brad Johnson: Just raise it $5 . 00. Lynch : What happened in the Hopkins barn last year? Were they able to get any ice at all? Brad Johnson: I would guess they had the same problem we did but I did not check with them. We had a month and a half of ice but it was touch and go. Dale Gregory: Do they have concrete floor over there or is that dirt? Lynch: You can get into specific soil conditions where the soil is particularly non-conductive and you might have that problem. I'd be interested to see if Hopkins froze more than a month and a half. ' Brad Johnson: The first year what happened, one end of the rink was heated while we were building the boards and the other end wasn't so when we flooded the rink, remember that? One end would freeze and the other end wouldn't so that was that year. It was just a disaster. Then last year we ' just couldn't keep up with it. He says he normally tries to get out about 15 inches of ice on it. Dale, you've never had the benefit of any kind of cold weather on it to build anywhere near that . Dale Gregory: When we've had cold weather for short periods, it's a good ice surface. It ' s surprising the surface . IBrad Johnson: It doesn ' t crack or doesn' t do anything . 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8, 1987 - Page 4 Dale Gregory: Real stable. Holds up well . Boyt: Do you know what the projected life expectancy of the zamboni is? Brad Johnson : I don' t know. - Boyt : Is the zamboni company interested in taking that and trading it? Brad Johnson: Normally that's what they do. As a matter of fact, that's where he got this. He just got another one in on a trade that he got. Boyt: That' s the 30 year old. It doesn't matter to him. Brad Johnson: They're selling them. There's a market for a zamboni. I 'm not an expert on it but as long as they run and work. Boyt : And will Dale be doing the maintenance on the zamboni? Sietsema: Yes. ' Boyt : Do you have time for that in the winter? Dale Gregory: If it gets to anything major enginewise or anything like that, then we' ll have to go to the mechanic at the shop. Boyt: Yes, but I mean changing the blade once a week. ' Dale Gregory: That general maintenance is no big deal . Boyt: You have the time? ' Dale Gregory: Yes . Schroers: According to what we have here, we've agreed to purchase the zamboni based on the conditions that are mentioned here. I guess is there anyone willing to give a written guarantee according to the condition of the machine right now? Will they want to do that? Dale Gregory: I think you were saying, and I've got to tend to agree with you, that to get a guarantee on something 25 years old. I Schroers: No, I'm not asking for someone to put like a warranty or a guarantee on it, just someone that will state that it is in good operating I condition at the present time. Brad Johnson: He was suppose to send me a letter on Sunday stating that. I As a prerequisite of all this, he's agreed to come out and work through the system and see how it works. We've checked it out and to say what can you do when you can 't make any ice, that ' s what we' re waiting for. 1 IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 5 1 Lynch: There's a number of specific wear items I think that Larry is II probably referring to. Does the engine have good compression? Has the gear case oil been sent in for one of these $25.00 analysis to see how much metal it has in it? What are the conditions of the brake pads and tires and the bearings? We're not talking about a left handed widgit that gets Iloose and falls off on one side. We're talking major items that could be gauged. A good mechanic can look at it and tell you. Yes it is or no it isn' t. IRich Larsen : Mike, I called the fellow and talked to him and basically what he told me, he says there's a new blade with it. They've put new pads I on it and basically they put new brakes in it. Now there is something wrong with one of the brakes. As far as the motor and hydraulics or anything else, they haven' t gotten into any of that . I Lynch: Alright, I'd want to have eventually the engine and the hydraulics looked at because everybody in the hydraulics business has portable test kits so you can slam it on there and see what the condition of the I hydraulic system is in just a number of minutes. Compression checks are not that tough. Several other things, I'm sure the city mechanic could do to look that engine over . I Dale Gregory: The engine, that would be no problem. I could even do the compression check on that. ILynch : Just because it starts doesn ' t mean . . . Dale Gregory: If he takes them in trade, does he rebuild them or refurbish I them? Is that something you want him to look at and check the hydraulics and all that sort of stuff out so you can get a letter from him stating that? I Lynch: I'd like to have that before anybody paid cent number one because obviously the thing that bothers us Brad is let's say we recommend to the Council that this goes ahead and that all these other conditions are met I and it goes ahead and it's used for 2 weeks or a month and it goes down. They come out and look at it and they say, gee it's pretty major stuff here. We're looking at $1,800.00 to fix this. $1,800.00 nowadays is a drop in the bucket . I Hasek: Lori , what's the timing between this meeting and when it would get Council? Ito Sietsema: If you approve the purchase, it will be put in the administrative package that we purchased it. It will not go to Council for Iapproval . Brad Johnson : I think what the guy was telling me on the guarantee is that he can check things and do things. We can check things to make sure they I work out before we pay for it. He just can't warranty the future of the machine. I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8, 1987 - Page 6 Schroers : We understand that. We just want to make sure that. . . Lynch: By a guarantee we didn't need a warranty. What we want those guys ' to tell us , in writing basically, a molded statement that the machine is in good condition. I want to know that they have new brakes in it. That the engine and compression check and the timing has been looked at, that it has ' a- decent battery in it, the battery checks out fine and the hydraulic system is okay, that the tires are 50% worn, 75% good or whatever it is. I'd like to see an analysis on it. The same thing I would ask of someone that I was purchasing a piece of equipment from. Brad Johnson: Who do we have to do that? Dale Gregory: I don't know who we would get off hand but I guess what I'm wondering is, is that something you would want from him so you could go back on and say. ' Lynch: You bet. Dale Gregory: I guess I'm looking at it, he's the one who should be doing II this. Lynch: He wants to sell us the machine and I want him telling me exactly ' what that machine is like because I don't have the expertise to do and neither do probably the rest of us to go down and look at the thing , number one. 1 Rich Larsen: Engine wise, I don't think there's anyway around it. I think we would have to have R & R come in. I don't even know that he would actually have to personally do anything. The guy is familiar with the machine. I think if we can get that, that letter that indicates . Lynch: Again, not general. Go through the major systems and tell us that II they're alright. Rich Larsen: There really are only three major systems on the machine. The engine itself, hydraulics, the mechanical and the pickup system. Lynch: We're not worried about the normal wear and tear. We're worried about catatrosphic failure. Mady: I'm wondering if that's probably something we can rely on staff on. We can trust the staff to do , if we ask them to, they can see to it that it's done prior to sending the check. Make sure that they prove to them that the hydraulic system is good. That the engine has good compression. I 'm not sure what else we can do . Lynch: The tires and brakes . Rich Larsen: The tires we saw on there are in good shape. It's generally 1 what you can see is in decent shape. It's the things that you can ' t see. IPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 8, 1987 - Page 7 II Schroers: I had a question on bearings. On a machine that's 25 years old, IIhow good are the bearings? Lynch : Do they have service records on the machine? I Brad Johnson: I'm not sure they do. It was originally owned by the Ice Capades and sort of sitting up north for 5 or 6 years. 1 Rich Larsen: It came out of Wisconsin. Brad Johnson: Yes, it wasn't being used. It was just part of somebody. IRich Larsen: It was being used by some fellow in Wisconsin had some small rinks that were used for figure skating. Now whether he's got records or not, I don't know. IRobinson: Can we go back to 2 weeks ago and work for word the motion that Jim made? To recommend to make the commitment to purchase the zamboni upon II the following conditions being met and until that time the item is tabled. The zamboni will be checked out by a zamboni rep who will indicate that it's in good shape and worth $5,000.00. Maybe that has, I'm not sure. The Hockey Association will donate $2,500.00 for solving the dripping of the Icondensation . Has that one been met? Brad Johnson: We just spoke with the Hockey Association. They're no II interested in investing. We'll tell them how the Hockey Association perceives it. IRich Larsen: It's a City-Bloomberg thing, not a Hockey Association thing. Robinson: Right, but we said we would table it until these are met and that one hasn ' t been met . Reject security interest of Bloomberg Companies? IMady: I've thought a lot about this since two weeks have occurred and I don't think it's right for us to tell the Hockey Association to spend money I in a facility that they don't own, they have no responsibility in. That's a City facility. Boyt: No it ' s not. IIMady: Well , it ' s not their facility. I Boyt: It's Bloomberg's facility. It's Mr. Bloomberg's facility and we use it. Mady: We lease it. I Sietsema: It' s a City operation. IMady: It's a City operation so I don't think we can tell them they have to do something so we can do something. I don't think that's right. I think I Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 8 i it's the City's responsibility for the building. If the City and the Park and Rec Commission feels we need a ice arena, it's the City's responsibility to have an ice arena. It's great that we have a Hockey Association that's willing to put money into it , do some work and all the things that they're doing over there but I don't believe it's their responsibility to keep the thing going. They did a good job binding it and II getting it started. I think it's really a city's responsibility to keep that running. Robinson : This was your motion 2 weeks ago Jim. ' Mady: Yes, but I 'm saying I 'm going to reconsider it. Lynch: I don't have a problem with that as long as it's working. As far as I'm concerned it can drip as long as the dripping doesn't cause extra work for Dale or make extra wear and tear on whatever piece of equipment they're using to service it. Whether you're running around with a truck with blades on it or whatever it happens to be. You're doing it with the tractors now. ' Dale Gregory: We would scrap it with the tractor . Lynch: It was unable to handle it in most cases? Dale Gregory: Yes, but now it's a little different situation. It's a homemade scraper that we've got with weights on the back. I'm sure a zamboni would do it a lot better . Mady: The blade probably isn' t as sharp. Dale Gregory: It's the same blade. It's a paper cutting blade. We use the same thing but like I say, the condensation problem, I guess the thing that's going to curious with the zamboni is how fast it freezes. If it ' freezes up fast, we can go in there like at, they open up at 3:00, we can go in there at 2:00 and actually do the rink so it would be all shaved off and ready for that thing. Then like I say, we can eliminate the II condensation problem that way but the way we were working it, we flooded it in the morning and it would freeze up and by afternoon—That's what I'm saying. With the zamboni it would probably go in there at 2:00 and shave it off and it would freeze and it would be ready at 3:00. It depends on how fast it freezes up there if you use the zamboni on that. Lynch: What bothers me is one of these hidden catch deals. If we do get the zamboni and the condensation problem is still a problem, the zamboni's not able to handle it or it occurs so fast after you go out and level the ice with the zamboni that by the time people can get on it , it's got lumps II on it. People say we're not going on there to pay $25.00 an hour to skate on lumpy ice. Then I can see real quickly where the City, it's going to be a problem. ...said today it's your guys program. If you need some building modifications in there, take care of it. Bloomberg properties doesn' t need to insulate that end of it. IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 9 II Sietsema : They might. IIBrad Johnson: We had a chat about this and they said they would if they needed to. The solution I perceive because I've spent a lot of time over at the rink, he was over there when they were flooding and I said it I appeared to be that most of the problem with the condensation could be just covered by shaving it periodically at the proper time. I Robinson: Strict operational policy and operational schedules will be made by City Staff and implemented by staff. Lynch: No problems there? I Brad Johnson : None. I Schroers: How do you feel about training an operator and seeing to it that only properly trained people operate it? I Brad Johnson: That's the way it has to be. Normally it's the rink attendant who runs it. Rich Larsen: How many different rink attendants do you typically have over I there? Sietsema : Last year we had two people. IRich Larsen: What were their ages? ISietsema : 21 and 19 were the two ages . Schroers: So we could insure that they would be responsible people. I Sietsema: He have not yet hired anyone for this year but we do have this in mind so that we're looking for people who would be responsible, old enough to take the responsibility. ISchroers: And who would supervise and check on them? Sietsema : Todd . ISchroers : You don ' t feel that that would be any kind of major Y a ma� problem? You have a real good handle on who was operating it and when? IHoffman: One of the persons that has an application in is a third year college student, has worked in an ice arena before and has run zambonis and I that person is able to work all weekends and most of the weekdays. Then there's a couple other people that are older, second and third year college students that are available to work. ISietsema: Dale would also be supervising them and training them. I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 10 Schroers: It's apparent to me that there is certainly enough interest and enough people that would like to use the facility if we could provide them with a good facility. I think that's what I'd like to do is try to work together to provide as good a facility as we can. It doesn't seem as though we're talking about that large of amount of money. We should be able to work something out. Mady: Do you have any remaining real difficult problems? Robinson: Yes, number 4 said reject the security interest of Bloomberg Companies which is related to number 2. Now, I think so out of the four, I think the first one probably has. The zamboni rep has been talked to but the financing has not. It has not been addressed and that was one of the things we had to have. Lynch: Here, we tried to offer an alternative. We said, we didn't want to be in parternship with a private party on a piece of city owned , city maintained, city insured equipment. We said well, maybe Bloomberg can lend the money to the Hockey Association and the Hockey Association can donate that. I'd also go this far with a secured interest if it was a truly uncommon secured interest where Bloomberg pays half, we pay half, we both own half. We cover the routine maintenance which would be specified under a certain dollar value of $200.00 per item but any major expenses over a certain level would have to be shared as well. If the long term shared value of the machine at sale or trade in is going to be shared , major maintenance normally is too. The other side of the picture I see is even though I know this is not a large profit center for Bloomberg Properties, the legal aspect of it is that they are taking half of the rental monies and if they do maintain a secured interest of a half of the machine, I'd like to see them up the liability for catastrophic failure, maintain that side too. Hasek: Let me understand this. When we talked about this before we had two options. What we were looking for was a $2,500.00 commitment by them to do something. Either to correct the ceiling problem or to pay for half of the zamboni. We talked about total outright purchase of this last time. II We talked about buying the whole thing . Lynch: I don' t see them . . .the ceiling. Hasek: What you're suggesting is that perhaps the zamboni can fix the problem. If the problem can't be fixed, they are willing to make a commitment to do that which is really what we've asked them to do except ' here it says the Association make a financial commitment to either purchase the zamboni or to correct the condensation problem on the rink. What they are saying if the zamboni can't handle the condensation problems on the ice surface, they're willing to make a commitment to the ceiling in order to guarantee a nice surface. So really that's what you're talking about right? I IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 11 II Brad Johnson: Yes, we talked about, just prior to this letter anyway, I doing something with the ceiling. If you guys can figure out how to get the deal done, I think we're flexible. We just don't want to get hung up in the Association. IBoyt: I think that makes a lot of sense. We don't ask our soccer teams or our baseball teams or our basketball teams to help with the facilities at all. I don't think it's fair to ask the Hockey Association to go in to II provide a facility that the whole community uses. Last year the ice was a problem. The quality of the ice, when it was there, was too bumpy. It's not as enjoyable and not as many people are going to use it. I think to I provide a quality surface we need the zamboni and I think the Park and Rec Commission should ask the City to pay for the whole thing. Hasek: I absolutely agree. I guess what I'm thinking is there still in my I mind is no reason why, if problems with the structure of the building, that that still can ' t be handled by. I Boyt : I think the zamboni will still give us a much nicer surface than we ever had even if there was no condensation problems . Brad Johnson: We would like to get that ceiling insulated so it keeps it, IIit doesn't heat up so fast. We lose a little time in late February and March when the sun comes out. It would be nice just to more importantly insulate. ISietsema: It's nice to have the extra $2,500.00 in our budget that we didn't have before. There are requests that come up throughout the year I such as the bleachers which we will be talking about later that we can do because it's not budgeted where we couldn't otherwise. Our budget is so tight if we want to do everything that's in our capital improvement program I this year that we do not have room to do anything else. There is nothing built in there for anything else . Boyt: What about the Lion ' s money? ISietsema: This is the Lion's money. So if we use all of the Lion's money for the zamboni , we won' t be able to do the bleachers . IIBrad Johnson: Why don't you just use our $2,500.00 until you get the next Lion ' s money? Just hold it and if we have problems with it. I Sietsema: We can't really count on it because they might not make anything in the next three months. We got the last donation last April and we got the second one just last month so we can't count on the Lion's money and I they don't want us to count on it but it is something to consider with Bloomberg giving us this interest free, security interest loan, whatever you want to call it, it does allow us to still have a little bit of money on the reserve to take care of some things that come up throughout the year Ithat we didn't count on like the bleachers which happens to be on the agenda tonight so I just wanted to bring that to your attention. There I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 12 isn't any money to do anything extra without that. The first donation that we got went in as our community support for our LAWCON grant applications so that's in the matching fund. The second one we just got last month, that' s what we' re deciding on what we' re going to spend that on right now. That was $5,900.00 so I just wanted to bring that to your attention because there is that to consider. We don't have a lot of fund money to play with. We are over budget on last year ' s capital improvement program. Hasek: What you're saying is let's take advantage of Bloomberg's offer and II that would just extend our ability to finance the whole thing? Sietsema: Yes. Lynch: If we did have a major breakdown of the machine, say $1,000.00 or more, is that money available? Where would it come from? Sietsema: That would come out of the maintenance fund . Lynch: City maintenance fund? ' Sietsema: The machine will be owned by the City. We'll just be using Bloomberg ' s money. Brad Johnson: What I hear you saying is, if there was a security interest, it sounds like what could happen is that you could ship back to the Bloomberg Companies maybe a year from now the $2,500.00? If you want to own the whole machine. Simultaneously if there is some diastrous thing, say over a couple hundred dollars during the year, if it's a major thing, we just share that and just reduce our interest in the security. Just write the deal that way. That way you've got the money. Rich Larsen: From the Hockey Association's point of view, just thinking through here what you're saying, if you're willing to put up the $2,500.00, I Bloomberg has already put up the other $2,500.00. If, and or when next year funds are available that he can get his $2,500.00 back, the City owns it, either this year or next year, at that time I think to help insure your I minds, the Hockey Association would be willing to accept risk up to $1,000.00 for catastrophic failure because obviously we are receiving a benefit of having the rink and I'll go with that because I think that would , pretty well cover Dale's got the everyday wear and tear stuff, I'll pick up the $1, 000. 00 or if it ' s something more than that . . . Mady: I guess I'm having some problems with this thing here. We don't ask CAA to pay for the lawn tractor to cut the grass up here so they can play baseball, softball, soccer and I don't know why we're asking someone other than the City to put up money for a security interest or anything else, in 1 a city asset. Sietsema: I'm talking about Bloomberg Companies and not the Hockey Association because Bloomberg does have an interest. He gets more rent money out of that building if we can sell more ice time and we can sell IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 13 more ice time if we have quality ice and we can have quality ice if we have I the zamboni. So it makes sense to me that we're using this money of Bloomberg's but it doesn't make sense to me to make the Hockey Association give it because you're right, we don't ask any other association to maintain their fields. We do that and I think that we should continue to 1 do that. Lynch: Correct me if I'm wrong Dale but I don't think we buy any other I equipment that is this specific in nature for any other particular program that some piece of equipment is not general city use for other things. ISietsema: Soccer goals, backstops, tennis courts. Lynch: That's not equipment. I realize there is maintenance on it but it's not subject to catastrophic failure and we're not buying 25 year old tennis courts . We' re buying a brand new one . Robinson: In my opinion, we hashed this around 2 weeks ago for an hour or I hour and a half and now we've been at it tonight for almost an hour and nothing has changed from 2 weeks ago except some views have changed but nothing has changed. I Sietsema: You've gotten more information than you had last week and that was the big holdup 2 weeks ago was lack of information. I didn't have the right answers . IRobinson: The way the motion read , and I was opposed to the motion that we had, I don't see what's changed other than when we ask for some specific I things to happen and those haven't happened, I guess I'm disappointed in the Commission. Mady: I'd like to have my motion reconsidered. I'm not sure how we do IIthat with Carol not being here since she was the second on it. Sietsema: As I recall, what happened last night at the Council level , when Ithere should be a reconsideration it takes a two-thirds vote to have the motion reconsidered and being your the one that made the motion, I think that we can do it. IBoyt : Does reconsider mean just a revote or that we can revise? Sietsema: Restructure the motion. Boyt: Curt, apparently the way the security interest was voted last week isn't the way it is so that information was incorrect. We still don't have Ithe information from number 1. I think they're still asking for some information before any final decision is made. Robinson: But the receipt on the check says security interest. Brad says Ithat we can work all that out. I Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 14 Lynch : If we get something in writing . Brad Johnson: The security interest has to be signed by both parties and we II can work that out with staff and review it next time. My concern is that we've got a rink that we're trying to play on, we're trying to sell some ice time so we can get it used and either we don't have a zamboni or we do have a zamboni. The guy who owns the zamboni could have sold it three times that we've been waiting for some kind of decision. We're trying to do what we can and we perceive, I've got a Bloomberg hat on, that we're partners and if the problem is you don't have the cash at this particular point to do the transaction, we could supply it. Just that we didn't want to write it off. If we could figure out some soft way of solving that problem, that's what we would do. It's your machine and what Mike said, if we have a catastrophy, we'll take a reduction in it. Maybe there's something we can figure out. I just can't in the next month or two find the $2,500.00 of the Association. We have a fundraiser specific to pay back the City for that item I don' t know. Robinson : But you' ve had the machine since last January? 11 months? Brad Johnson: Yes . Robinson: And we got it brought before us 2 weeks ago that we had to make II a decision in 3 days . That was another one of my objections. Brad Johnson : If we could finally figure out a vehicle with which to do it. If funds became available. Mady moved, Schroers seconded to reconsider the motion of November 24, 1987 ' regarding purchase of the zamboni. All voted in favor except Curt Robinson who opposed and motion carried . Mady moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends to purchase the zamboni machine based upon the following conditions : 1. Staff work with the present owner of the machine and have the zamboni certified that the major components, i.e. hydraulic system, engine system, are checked over. Checking compression and other various tests to insure that the zamboni is in good operating condition. 2. The zamboni be operated by trained , qualified staff of the City. 3. The City accept the security interest from Bloomberg Companies in the amount of $2,500.00 and Bloomberg Companies will allow their security interest to be reduced by a 50% share for any major repairs that may become necessary during the time period which the security interest is outstanding. I 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 15 1 4. The City retains the right to buy out the security interest at any Ipoint in time. 5. The Bloomberg Companies will agree to install insulation to solve I the condensation problem if the zamboni does not alleviate that problem. All voted in favor except Robinson who opposed and motion carried. I Schroers: Do we add about the insulation in the event that the zamboni isn't able to totally solve the problem with the dripping, that either the I Bloomberg Companies or the Association take the responsibility for doing the needed insulation repairs to stop the condensation and the dripping? I Lynch: If we did that and proceed on the purchase, we would have to have a letter from either Bloomberg or the Association that said exactly that. IRich Larsen: That 's not a problem for the Association. Schroers : Can we just have a good faith commitment from you? ILynch: Like the man said, my word is my bond but I'd rather have it in writing. I think we have to have that. ISchroers: What I'm getting at is if we make the decision to make this investment to hopefully provide a quality facility, that that's what we want to end up with. It may take something more than just the zamboni to Ihave a real nice surface. We may need to have the condensation problem corrected. Mady: Okay, then the proviso would be that the Bloomberg Companies would Iagree to work with the City and if the condensation problem is not alleviated through the use of the zamboni , that they would be made to work to repair the condensation problem with the building. 1 Sietsema: I just wanted to let you y u know that Lake Ann Park is closed right now. Apparently there was some vandalism done. People did some little Icircles , donuts in the grass and tore up the grass . Dale Gregory: The police a week ago caught somebody out there just driving I all over the place and down towards the lake where the new area is put in, they just literally cut off and ripped the heck out of it. ILynch : Four wheeling? Dale Gregory: I don' t know if it was a 4 wheet drive or what it was but they just spun all over out there and they've got ruts all over the place. ILynch : They caught the people? I Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 16 I Dale Gregory: They caught the kids. They were actually out there. They caught them while they were doing it. The thing of it is right now there's not enough frost or anything in the ground so anybody driving around is going to do damage so we felt it was better to lock it up until we either get snow or frost . Lynch : There are no possible uses of the park right now, legitimate uses . II Dale Gregory: No. ' Schroers : Driving through there, they can still do that? Dale Gregory: They can still do that but like I say, if anybody says 1 anything it's going to stay locked until the it gets cold or we get enough snow that we can plow it and open it up for cross countrying. Boyt : They are prosecuting? Dale Gregory: I'm sure they are because they talked to me to see if they had over $500.00 worth of damage and if it was they could put a felony charge against it. Robinson: Is it over $500.00? ' Dale Gregory: It's just going to be a matter of us going out there and redoing everything. You're going to see it for a while this summer but like I say, down towards the lake area in that new area where we call the little hidden park, that they really got back in there and really tore that one up. Schroers : They were out on the ballfields were they? Dale Gregory: They drove across them but they didn't do any real damage out there. Most of the damage was closer to the roads where they got off the road and just spun around all over . REQUEST TO PURCHASE BLEACHERS FOR MEADOW GREEN AND CHANHASSEN , N ESTATES, GARY MEISTER. Sietsema: Gary Meister is here. He's in charge of the Chanhassen Girls Softball for the CAA and he has made a request to purchase bleachers to be placed at Meadow Green Park and Chanhassen Estates Park to encourage parents to come out and watch and to have a place for them to sit when they do come out. Now we do have that set of bleachers that you saw in the ice arena and they weren't taken out last year because those fans that were put in the door made it impossible to open those doors but they can be taken out so we can get the bleachers out. ...you can ask Dale. I don't think moving those bleachers are because they're not that heavy. If you're going to move the big heavy bleachers that are up at the fields, the ones that were donated by the Legion, those are a bear to move and he wouldn't be in Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 17 IIfavor of moving those se aro and at all but the ones that are in the rink aren' t a big deal . IILynch: Dale, the bleachers that are in the rink right now, do ou see any Y problem with moving those out in the summer and back in in the winter? aDale Gregory: No. Not as long as we can get the door open. Like I said, they put the fans right in the door and we can't open them up. Brad says II 'm going to take care of that. Well , they never did . Lynch: Are those knock down panels or do you just go in there with a tractor and pick them up? IDale Gregory: The aluminum bleachers , what we do is we just take our big trailer and we load them right on the trailer and take them down here so Ino , that ' s not a problem. Mady: How many tiers are there on those things? ISietsema : 5, 15 feet long . Boyt: That's plenty. ISietsema: Gary may want to make a presentation. IGary Meister: I really don't have a presentation but to try and answer any questions you might have. Lynch: Lori had talked about the fact that she mentioned earlier about Iwanting to buy these things so her memorandum here she said that we could buy one new unit for approximately $1,200.00 and then use the bleachers that were located in the indoor ice arena to give us two sets and budget a Ithird set for 1989 . Have you seen that yet Gary, her letter? Gary Meister : Yes. ILynch : Okay, how do you feel about that? Gary Meister: I'm totally in support of the recommendation. We haven't Ihad bleachers in the past on those three fields and anything would be an improvement. Especially on Meadow Green Park, Field 1 and Chanhassen Estates. I think those would be the two most important ones. Those are Ithe ones that are used the most. I endorse the proposal . Lynch: Dale, you don't feel that the type of bleachers that we would put out there would create any kind of a hazard or maintenance problem? Dale Gregory: In fact the ones that you've got, they're the same as you've got up here is what you' re talking about? ISietsema : Yes . I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8, 1987 - Page 18 1 Dale Gregory: They're actually nicer because one person when we're cutting grass, you can actually just stick the things up and we can do all the grass cutting underneath and put them back down. Lynch: You don't have trouble with the neighborhood kids taking them and putting them down the block? Dale Gregory: I don't think so. They do it with the hockey goals once in a while. Like the ones up here, we've never had any trouble up here as far as moving them around . Boyt: CAA used Chan Estates Park this last year for rag ball and T-ball and there is a need. Robinson: Lori , although I realize we can't count on the pulltab money all the time but this sounds like an ideal place for something like that. They wanted something specific. I'd almost recommend that the third set that you said may be included in the 1989 budget, let's say the next time we get, which would be next April, at least it's been every 6 months the last two, and if it's $1,200.00, buy it out of pulltab money because it does sound like an ideal thing for them. Sietsema: And we could even maybe invest in a plaque that says something I about it. Robinson moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission buy one set of bleachers and the use the bleachers from the indoor ice arena and earmark the next pulltab money from the Chaska Lion's for the third set of bleachers. Also, that the bleachers have plaques recognizing II the fact that they were given by the Chaska Lion's. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW VENDING POSSIBILITIES FOR WARMING HOUSE AT CITY CENTER PARK. Lynch: Haven' t we said it ' s alright to put a machine out there? Sietsema: Yes , I thought that you might want to make the decision as to what kind of machines go in there. I've heard parents talk about pop machines or fruit machines or snack machines . Schroers: I have a question. It's kind of unclear. It says a full service pop or juice. Now, are we talking about two different machines or one machine. Hoffman: Two different machines. Very Fine Juice machine or a Coke or Pepsi or RC machine. If you want to go with one or the other or if you want to put both in there . We can do that also . Hasek: How about if we let the staff decide what goes in there if we just make the decision as to what' s to go in there. I r IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 19 II Sietsema: Being that we're not conscientious parents, I thought perhaps you Iwanted to make that decision. Hoffman : Juice is 60 cents , pop is 50 cents so there is a consideration. IRobinson: Wasn't the question also whether you wanted full service or be bothered by it? IHoffman : I would think it would be full service. Lynch: I'd rather not have an attendant be responsible to keep up with Isupplies and selling it over the counter . Jay Johnson: For the CAA, as one of their board members and one of the coaches, your sugar soft drinks are counter to the kids. You should not be Igiving the kids sugar during sports events. It is bad for the metabolism. It's bad for their performance. I think we would support the juice machines over the pop machines. Consideration of, there's a lot of talk Iabout trying to raise more money. The CAA is broke. The Hockey folks are broke. Everybody's broke right now. There has been some minor talk at this time about the CAA getting into the concession business and some of us have been discussing operating a concession stand during our events and having juice and whatever for the players and parents . Sietsema: Perhaps we want to go with a self service. Let the CAA do it and they can have the money out of it then . Lynch: Let's do this for now. We want something in there for the skating Iseason. We can always take the machines out. I don't think this is going to take Council approval. If you guys want to set up a concession stand, fine. We'll lock up the machines, turn them around backwards or something or if the guy doesn't like that he can take them out until the end of Isummer and he could put them back in or something. We'll work something out. IBoyt: Or providing things that aren't provided by the machines. Provide popcorn and that kind of thing. Knowing CAA it's going to take a heck of a time getting parents to volunteer to help out . ISietsema: That's why I thought if they did the service on it and they keep the money on it . 1 Jay Johnson: That's the whole realization thing in the CAA right now is I how to get more volunteers to do this thing. How do we get a vending crew that will go out . ILynch: Both Minnetonka operations, both Bennett Park and Minnetonka Mills have parental scheduling at the parks. IIJay Johnson : In the sign up we do have a lot of people volunteer for things. I 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 20 Lynch: They maintain their own facilities there... Jay Johnson: Mostly I wanted to say that the fruit juice appeals better to II me as a coach of young athletes than Coke or Pepsi . Boyt: I think looking at the machines, the players they don't have a chance to go over and get things until after the game. We're selling to the parents and the little kids that are there. Hasek: And I think the parents and the coaches can kind of control . 1 Mady: That should be a parental decision. ' Hasek: Todd, have you got any feeling about what kind of revenues just a couple machines? Did you talk to them about that? In a similar location, what kind of revenue you might be able to generate? ' Hoffman: It's got it figured on there, if we have a full service, you'll receive back $2.55 a case. As far as the useage pattern out there, I haven't been around the past year so I don't know how much traffic goes in and out of that warming house . Hasek: Or a hot chocolate machine I ' ll bet you would make a fortune . ' Boyt: Coffee and hot chocolate machines . Hasek: I'd like to make a motion. I guess we've already decided that it's 11 alright and I 'd like to make a motion. Hasek moved , Mady seconded to leave it up to City Staff to decide what kind 1 of vending machines are used at the warming house. All voted in favor and motion carried . UPDATE: CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON TRAIL RECONSIDERATION, T BAR K ESTATES. Lynch: Jay came to our meeting tonight to discuss it. Jim was at the ' Council meeting when it was discussed and there was evidentally a proposal made so Jay, first of all, brought us a letter. If you would enter this 11 into the Minutes packet. You don't have to record this but just go through it. A corridor was suggested of the west side of the property much the same as we had discussed at one point during our meetings. We talked about that corridor too. I told Jay, we were discussing this before the meeting, II that Park and Rec's position on it was that we did need the trail on Lyman Blvd. for that trail. .. We would still like the trail through the low ground at the bottom of the bluffs because we think we can get the property I west of it and east of it and that is a nice nature trail area. Also, our contention was that would not adversely affect the value of the property. Like anything else, if you have the right buyer. Jay, why don't you explain to us a little about how the Council felt about it or what tact they were taking. I 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 21 1 Jay Johnson: There were two items. We were just simply saying we will Ireconsider this in the future. We did not at that time reconsider it. We didn't make any motion to vacate that trail at this time. The applicant came in and as I remember , the trail did get added, as they were contending right at the last minute, at the 11th hour. The applicant was out of town Iat the time. The representative, they didn't have a lot of consideration to the trail. I didn't go over all the Minutes on this but I'm just giving the reasons that I voted to reconsider it. The other reason is that Inobody, in discussing this western route, I tried to get to find out if you all had seen the western route and if you all had considered the western route and that information wasn't brought forward that you had already Iconsidered this route so I was not able to know. I was trying to get it back to you reconsider it and provide us information. Unfortunately, I should have asked whether that was going to be feasible before I voted for the reconsideration. I voted for the reconsideration and then I said, Ilet's send this back to Park and Rec and let them look at the western corridor. To me, the benefit we now will have a corridor for Lyman Blvd. getting into the interior which is an important part of the corridor. IWhich of the two is more important, the east-west or the north-south, to me looking at the overall trail plan, the north-south seemed more important that that be established first. That was really where I was coming from. IThe Council did not want to bring it back to Park and Rec. Bill and I did. In my letter I said still want Park and Rec's opinion. If I have to get it one on one and individually, please do. That will help. ISietsema : We don ' t have this easement . Lynch: We didn't ask for that easement on this piece of property. We I ' decided we would ask for that easement on this piece of property. We didn't want to go up that and as you see here, there's a swale there. I was out there maybe a year ago and we didn't want to try to go up the hill. Besides that, we felt that was enough without ripping another chunk off. IJay Johnson: When you're negotiating with this guy, we can take just a minor part down the side of the hill . ILynch: All we'd need over here would be a standard right-of-way lot right there and this continues to go. It's so much easier once you're attaching Ito something. The builder comes in and says, hey I don't want to give you that. We say, wait a minute, we already have this . Jay Johnson: To tell you the truth, Dale is the probably the pivotal vote on this. If everybody would send in their little opinion on it and you remained unanimous, even though the Council didn't ask you to vote on this but we get your opinion back anyway, I think we can keep the trail. I want Ito make sure that this had been considered and the applicant does get due consideration. I think this one was proposed at first and then later this one got proposed somewhere between preliminary plat and the final plan and the applicant was out of town at final plat. When this came through, lo 1 and behold it was a surprise to them. That ' s not too fair . I I Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8, 1987 - Page 22 Lynch: A lot of these dotted lines in here Jay are fairly recent input from Mark Koegler and Tim Erhart. I Jay Johnson: One thing the Council was saying last night is simply, if you had this part as it is. Come to this point and then you walk the roads down. Sietsema : No , this is an off-street trail . Jay Johnson: And this is an off-street trail so the difference between coming in and going up the side property line and an off-street trail around here, we' re coming through here, we can get this quicker . Lynch: You're missing the philosophy here I think. Maybe we haven't been clear enough about it. The dark trails here, you're actually looking at a system where if somebody wants to get on a bike and go someplace, that's I where they go. These dotted lines are someplace where you can just go wander around . These are not really designed to get you anywhere. Jay Johnson: There was talk of making this that people would walk this ' loop. What Dale and Clark were saying was if you came up this side line, you still have a loop. Lynch : A friend of mine said there are some people that walk for pleasure or they just go. Sietsema: I think another point that needs to be just said is that, look at this trail plan. We have 4 lines here that are nature trails and the rest is all off-street trails. We have very limited nature places where we can go out in the woods and walk and no, this isn't a great distance but still there are some natural amenities there that I think the reason why it was put in there is so everybody would share in enjoying that. It's not the same kind of trail. There are two different kinds of trails. They have two different types of purposes and to start giving up these little pieces , we' re going to lose it . Lynch: So a trail on the north side of the T Bar K, there is really only ' one reason to have that in. It's necessary to maintain planned, off-street trail system which would carry a majority of pedestrian traffic. That's I what we've established the off-street trail system for. To carry the heavy burden of that traffic . Hasek: As per that plan. ' Lynch: As per the trail plan. Now, the trail on the south side. Hasek: Should we do everything around it first? Let's do everything around it and come to that one last. Can we do that? Isn't there one that' s over on the west side? Lynch : The Kline property is right here. IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 8, 1987 - Page 23 II Hasek : Isn ' t there a north-south trail just to the east of this? IILynch: No. The road, which has another off-street trail, is over on another complete piece of property over here. IHasek: Still, it's a part of this trail system even though it's not directly attached to it as a part of the motion , we talked about it. ILynch: Let's make an item that says we need to go east on this to connect. In other words, Tom Hamilton doesn't like trails that start somewhere and go nowhere and I think we should show that this starts somewhere and ii connects up with this . ill Hasek: I guess what I'm saying is, we've already defined an on-road trail system. Let ' s talk about the other on-road trail system. ILynch : But there' s nothing else contiguous to the property. IHasek: But that doesn't matter because it's a part of the bigger plan. That's what I'm saying. Actually this north-south, that's where we're coming from. If this went over to TH 101, if it goes to TH 101 and connects over to Powers Blvd . , so it starts on Lyman . ILynch: The trail on the south side runs southwest and east from the T Bar K property connecting perspectively with Powers Blvd. and TH 101. As long Ias we're talking about connections, the north-south connection shown on the Master Trail Plan just adjacent to the west side of the T Bar K property was located based on topographical grades. Grades on T Bar K made north- , south travel impractical. Number 3, the trail location was recommended by consultant and staff as a worthwhile nature trail augmenting that southwest of it. 4 would be, it was Park and Rec's feeling that this wetland area was not able to be developed. A 32 foot nearly vertical grade separates Ithe trail site from home sites and a heavily wooded area on that slope acts as a adequate screen. You want to add a note about this business that the trail in the property makes it less valuable? IHasek: I think that's a real judgmental call and we ought to stay away from it. IBoyt: You could point out that it has shown in Minneapolis that property on the park system is worth more money. ISchroers: I would agree with that. I personally know of a situation where a trail has increased the value of someone ' s property. IHasek: The situation here might be a little bit different and the only reason is because this trail goes across and separates this to the piece of ground that ' s adjacent to it . I Sietsema: It only separates them from a wetland . I Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 24 Schroers: Also the fact that it's probably going to be such a low use trail in terms of volumes of people that are going to use it, I just can't really see that it' s going to be a detriment there. Lynch: I'd like to put in a fifth one saying, even though the trail would separate the main lot from a small portion on the south edge, that south portion is wetland and unuseable in any forseeable form. Mady: A suggestion I would make here, if the big problem is that it's not II on the property line, maybe the property owners would be better off deeding that wetland to the City so they are not paying taxes on a wetland. Give us the property right to the 886 contour line so they don't have to pay taxes on a wetland. Just make it a full easement to the 886 line and take our trail easement next to the conservation easement. That's a possibility. Sietsema: I don't know that the City Council would want to take all the wetlands out of the tax base because we've got probably more wetlands than anybody. Mady: One other item we need to consider, I believe it was Councilman Geving made about the difficulty about obtaining future easements along both sides of this property. The comment was made at the Council meeting that they thought it was going to be nearly impossible to obtain an easement along the Kline property anyways so why should we look at this. If that's going to be the tact that the Council wishes to take on this, then we are serving no purpose at all in putting a trail in any way, shape or form in front of the City because we have a number of areas where easements are going to be nearly impossible to obtain in the near future II but in the long run, we probably will obtain them. Remind them of the fact that the Lake Ann , the complete Lake Ann trail , although we know it will not happen in the short run, is a long run goal just as this will be. We can not base a trail plan on short term , will we get it in the next 2 years. We just can ' t base on that because that' s just not reasonable. Sietsema: How do you want to handle this? Do you want me to send the Minutes to you on this item as soon as I get the Minute back so each of you can respond to the Council individually or do you want to make. . . Lynch: I would say taking those items and writing them up in that form and II just sending them to the Council as an open letter . Mady: Basically send them a memo saying, although we understand this item ' is not being sent back to us for review. Sietsema: You want me to write this letter? ' Mady: You write it under from us. Not from the staff but from the Commission. The Commissioners in attendance felt strong enough about this nature trail , they felt the Council should be advised of the position and try to clarify points of concern the Council had. 1 I IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 8, 1987 - Page 25 II Sietsema: Do you want to mention anything in here that you feel committed to upholding the integrity of the trail plan that you've worked so hard on? Lynch: Yes. Basically that we can't allow it to be cut to pieces with • short term considerations. That we have to look at the long term. Sietsema : I'll write up a memo. It will be from me to Don and it will be regarding the Commission's concern regarding the reconsideration of the Itrails along T Bar K. Is that what you want? Hasek: I think if there is any 11th hour problem with coersion here, that's IPlanning Commission and Council's problem, not ours. That was a problem where this trail down here appeared on the final plat and wasn't on the preliminary plat . IRobinson: Lori , when this was on the Council agenda last night, did they have our Minutes, a copy of our Minutes? Does that say that we probably didn ' t do a very good job when Klingelhutz came to us when we rejected it? ISietsema: No. What we have to keep foremost in our mind when things like this, when they do things that we don't recommend , is that we are just recommending and they have the power to override us. It doesn't mean we've I done a bad job, it just means that they disagree or they have taken other things into consideration that maybe we didn ' t. IHasek: Or we don' t even know about . Sietsema: Perhaps a planning issue that we don't know about or something Ielse. It's not anything directed to the Commission personally and we should not feel bad or insulted that they didn't take our recommendation. It just means that they didn't agree with our recommendation and they have the ultimate power to do that. IRobinson : But I was thinking maybe we should have said , we have to reject your request and here are the reasons . ILynch: What I talked about this a little last year and I asked the Council about it when we had that little meeting, were we being explicit enough and Iat that time I was told yes. Your motions are fine. Then the Council came along and said in order for us to know better what's going on we would like verbatim minutes so we can read those but those are awfully hard to pick the jist out of. I think that we have messed up. When we have a sensitive Imatter or maybe know that it may be sensitive to the Council , I think we better structure a motion. This is what we recommend to do and this is why and put down absolutely every consideration we have why we do it Ibecause I'm sure, well Jay said, when he and I talked about some of these things earlier , they didn't know about this. They didn't look at the topography of the west side thing. They didn't know about this. They didn't know about that. They did not have the copy of the Master Trail IPlan to look at. They didn't have any of that stuff. I 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 26 Mady: Last night I got the real distinct impression that a majority of the Council may have read what we had done on T Bar K but they were not basing their consideration of it on anything we had done. They were looking at it based on what the applicant was coming in front of them and I didn't feel they were taking any of. . . Sietsema: If you want to make your motions lengthier, I will include all that length within the update and it will just re-emphasize what's in the Minutes . That can ' t hurt but help. ' Hasek: My general observation of body's that run cities, because they are comprised of basically non-professionals and that's the way it should be in city government, is that oftentimes you find people making recommendations and motions based on things that absolutely have nothing to do with facts. Something like I would never agree to that because I don't like it or my mother voted against it and I'm against it too. You'd hear those types of things . Boyt : Or I ' ve lived here 20 years and we've always done it this way. ' Hasek: I think we have tools before us and we've tried to work with those tools. We have a Comprehensive Plan. We know what the zoning is. We have a good feel for what it is the people out there want. As long as we continue to rely on those things and use those things, I think we're going to continue to give the Planning Commission and Council good direction. If they want to look at them the way that we are presenting them , fine. If they don't, we're still doing the best job. I think as far as Park and Recreations go, this is one of the best that I've ever seen. I think we're doing an excellent job here and I certainly am not going to apologize to anyone for what we' ve done . I don ' t think we have to change. Sietsema: With that I would need a motion to direct staff to write a memo to the City Council with the above noted concerns and comments . Mady moved, Lynch seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to write a memo to the City Council with the above noted concerns and comments. All voted in favor and motion carried. UPDATES CONTINUED ' Sietsema: Other updates, Herman Field was approved with the Forest Avenue extension with the driveway section so that will be built. What now will occur is that I will go to Mark and ask him to revise the Plan and the new plan will have to be approved before we can do anything so that Plan will come back to you and then go to City Council. Hopefully, we will be able to move along quickly enough so we can actually do something next spring. That ' s my goal . Hasek: Isn't there a way to shorten up some of these processes? It seems ' like we' re making a minor revision to the Plan right? r r 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 27 I Sietsema: We're flip-flopping things around but there are some people that Ilive up in that area that feel they were not contacted the first time it was designed and this will appease a lot of their concerns. I just want to make sure that we give them a chance to say I love that ballfield and everything or they hate it or whatever. So in this instance, I would not Iwant to shorten it up. The next item was City Council action on the referendum. The City Council approved putting the Community Center on the referendum as a community center and ice arena. They approved putting the II fire station on the referendum and they approved putting on trail development, park development at Lake Ann and money towards purchasing a piece of property in the southern portion of the City as three separate Iitems. Mady: One of the things in the park issues, were the only ones that got separated although they were concerned about separating other pieces out. IThe trail plan got accepted at $868,000.00. The Lake Ann redevelopment grading got accepted at the $237,000.00 I believe it is which is to do the full three new ballfields, the soccer fields and parking. Putting all that Iin. The southern park development got included in there at $300,000.00. There was some concern however that since we do not have a specific site in mind, we haven't set anything, that we probably will run into some problems Iwith that. Due to that question, I asked Al Klingelhutz later after the meeting outside and asked him about specific parcels and he knows in the general area that would probably fit well and he believes we can obtain land there for about $3,000.00 to $3,500.00 per square acre which would Igive us roughly the 7 plus acres of land we would be looking for in a community field. We should probably have that in mind. I mentioned to him my gut feeling was that where I would like to see one that was somehow connected to Bluff Creek, south along the boulevard so it is definitely in the City. I believe if it's adjacent to the TH 212 corridor, then it will act as buffer between TH 212 and any development, any housing developments that go in and solve some planning problems also. I think we should also Ibe aware of that because one of the jobs we're going to need to do is be available to answer questions concerning the referendum because the referendum needs to be marketed and sold as an actual product. It's not Ijust let this thing show up on a ballot . Sietsema: That was something I wanted to bring up to the Commission is Ithat the Task Force is meeting next week so I'm going to have a list for them, all of the dates that all of the community organizations, homeowners associations, any group of people I can think of that meets in one spot. The dates that they're going to be meeting in January and February. The ITask Force is going to go out to those meetings and inform the people of what they've done. What they've found in their studies of the community center and what their recommendation was and what it is that's on the Ireferendum. I would suggest that when all those dates come through, that one or two of this commission also attend those meetings to go over why we need parks. The survey that was done, why we need the trails. Why we need parkland in the south. The shortages that we have. The amount of Iprogramming that we would be able to do if things were available. Just on the park and trail issues. I'm not planning on having another meeting in I r Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 28 December but I can have all those dates to you for a meeting in January. We will be meeting on the first and third Tuesdays starting in January because the City Council is moving to the second and fourth Mondays and we want to be off from them. It really is ultimately up to you but that would be really optimal for getting reports back to City Council. It just doesn't work to have them on the same weeks. Lynch : Don ' t change just on my account but. . . Sietsema: Perhaps we could meet on another day of the week. Robinson : How many items are on the referendum? Sietsema: The community center, the fire station and two park issues and, five. Robinson: What ' s the total dollar amount? Sietsema: It' s roughly 5. 5 million. , Robinson : Can we handle that? Sietsema : We could do 5 million and give us 5 years to do it and we wouldn't raise taxes. Roughly 5 to 5 1/2. I think what Don's feeling is, if the voters give us 5 years to do all these projects, we can fund all of them without raising taxes. Legally we can only go up to 3 million right now but depending on how they prioritize things , if they give us 2 years to do something, we can go in and purchase the property in the southern part if that's the least priority or whatever in two years and be able to sell bonds to finance that in two years. Because of the growth that we are experiencing now, we will feel the monetary benefits in a two year timeframe. Hasek: This is sort of related but not really. Have we talked at all about the or has there been any more discussion or any looking into the rest of the property adjacent to the Lake Susan development? ' Sietsema: To tell you the truth, with everything that's come to a head with the referendum issue, I haven't done anything further on that. But that is on my list of things to follow up on. Mady: In respect to the meetings that Lori is referring to in January and February, I will be attending a number of those as a member of the ' Community Center Task Force and I have no problem with putting on a Park and Rec hat and talking about the trails, Lake Ann and park issues at the same time. I do plan on hitting a number of those . ' Sietsema: Can I get a feel from the board if we can move to the first and third Tuesday or if we move to another day of the week? We could possibly move to Thursdays because if we aren' t on the same schedules as the HRA. I r lPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 29 I Boyt : We could schedule them for Mondays too . ISietsema: Yes we could and that would be fine. If we moved to a Thursday you would have more time to read your packet because it goes out on the Friday the week before if it's on a Monday or if it's on a Thursday so IIyou'd have more time if that means anything to you. If you wanted to move it to a Monday, that would work out fine too. Hasek: That would be good for me because not very many planning commissions or councils have meetings then. It's usually Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays . 1 Lynch: That used to be my scout night. I have all Mondays open. I have two Thursdays open. No Wednesdays open and no Tuesdays . ISietsema: The reason the Council is changing to the second and fourth is because they had a problem running into the legal holidays on those Mondays so you ' ll have more days off by moving to the first and third Mondays . ILynch moved, Mady seconded to change the Park and Recreation atzon Commission meetings to the first and third Monday of each month. All voted in favor ' and motion carried. ISietsema: We will not meet again in December so the first Monday in January will be January 4th. I do have one more item. I put in front of you a sheet that shows who's on the Commission and the last number is their 'lterms and the very last number is when they expire. So as you can see, Jim and Larry's terms will expire at the end of this month. I just wanted to go over with you the procedure. In the past it was done different than the last time. The last time we discovered in the Ordinance that it said that Ithe Park and Recreation Commissioners shall be nominated by the Mayor and voted in by the Council. The Council will concur. In the codification process we have changed that ordinance so all of the commissions are the Isame. That is, the Council will choose the commissioners and vote them in so what we will do is advertise for vacancies even if both people want to reapply. Then we will schedule interviews at the Commission level and we will invite the Council people in to sit in on those interviews and invite Itheir questions if they choose to ask any questions o`r whatever but you will make the recommendation to the City Council. City Council can read your minutes. If they want a certain person to be there, one of the Iapplicant's to be there to answer additional questions, they can invite them into their meeting. Then the City Council will choose who will be reappointed. Anybody who is on the commission has to reapply. "Lynch: That sounds like a terrible beareaucratic waste of time. It's certainly a waste of my time. ,Sietsema: Would you rather have the mayor do it? I I Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 30 Lynch : I don't care who does it as long as they don't tie up the Commission and the Mayor and the Council for two separate sessions . Sietsema: Ideally what should happen is that the Council will just go along with your recommendation on the consent agenda and it won't take any time at all . That's the way we used to do it. The way we used to do it is we held the interviews here and we sent our recommendation to the City Council . Lynch : We held interviews here if there was a true opening . ' Sietsema: That ' s what I just said. We had the interviews here. Lynch : But now, whether there ' s a true opening or not . Sietsema: We have to open it up because the reason that is because the Council may feel that for some reason someone is not living up to their agreement on being on the Commission or for some reason they don't like their approach or don't agree with them. They're not acting appropriately. That may happen or they may only be attending 25% of the meetings . Lynch: But you and I both know that in a majority of cases, not only our Commission but the rest of the commissions that the current commissioners are going to get reappointed. That's wasting the time of juggling the applicants to come in to apply and it's juggling our time around. I guess that's what I don't like. I don't like to advertise an opening that really in fact doesn't in fact exist a majority of the time. Sietsema: But you have to give other people the opportunity to come on to the Commission or you guys may never , ever want to leave and you' ll always be here regardless of your performance so we have to do it that way. Lynch: Wouldn't you agree that in a strong majority of the cases that the encumbant commissioner is going to get reappointed . Sietsema: It has happened in the past that it hasn' t happened that way. Lynch : A majority of the time? Sietsema: A majority of the time yes, that' s correct . Lynch : So if I was a citizen and saw an opening and came in and applied for it and then found out that the rule was the normally the commissioner ' was reappointed , I would feel like I just got jacked around . Sietsema: I can see your point but I don't think it's fair the other way either. We can inform the people that are applying that there is a person that' s reapplying and there' s a good chance that they may be reappointed . Lynch: You're going to have to do that. We can't change it but I still don't like it. If there's a problem with somebody on this commission or IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 31 I some other commission. ISietsema: I believe in the past though on this commission, the way we used to do it before we changed it the last time, that we did advertise for vacancies even if the person was going to be reappointed or reapply but we " didn' t get any other applicants. Lynch : Was that when Tom was interviewing or prior to that even? IISietsema: No, that was this last time. Lynch: That I don't really remember. I do feel that to unseat somebody from the Commission, it should not be a single individual's right to do that. I think it should be a council thing but I think the Council should certainly be aware if there's a problem at the Commission level. They get all the Minutes and can address it if there's a problem. That's like the ranger at scout camp went out to every campfire and personally putting it out . That ' s ridiculous . IlHasek: I think what they should do and what I've seen done in the past, is there's always been a recommendation. The Commission, whatever one it is, to reinstate or reject the people that are there. If anybody knows we've Igot a problem it's us or at least it should be. Sietsema: Your recommendation will be going. You will be interviewing the Ipeople and send a recommendation to the City Council who should fill that spot . Whether it be the person reapplying or a new person. " Mady: Point of information, last night I was talking to Al Klingelhutz, he's a Commissioner for the County. There's an opening on the County Park Commission. The opening is presently filled by a Chanhassen resident. He was unsure if that resident was going to reapply or not. It's important tthat we do have a commissioner . Boyt : That person is supposed to come to our meetings . IlMady: That guy, I don 't know. Boyt: Yes, the Park and Rec Commissioner for the County is supposed to be Ipresent at our meetings once in a while. Mady: In any event, Al indicated that that position is opening up so if Ilthere is any interest . Lynch: If somebody doesn't come forward from Chanhassen, they'll fill it Ifrom someplace else. Mady: That ' s why Al was asking me. IlLynch: It's for our benefit to get on that. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 8 , 1987 - Page 32 Mady: Can I ask you to follow up with Al to see if there is an opening and if it's something that needs to be filled, that we hear about it. ' Schroers : I wanted to add one thing. I was wondering if we could add to the agenda next time that the Commission consider recommending to the I Council the hiring of an additional full time park maintenance person. Also, two seasonal park maintenance people that can drive a vehicle for the summer season . I Lynch: I think that ' s a good idea because. Boyt: They couldn' t get everything done this summer . I Mady moved , Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and I motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 01 p.m. . Submitted by Lori Sietsema I Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim I I I I I I I I I I • �� `ice CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING I DECEMBER 7, 1987 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the ' Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don,Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Barbara Dac Olsen, Lori Szetsema, Todd Gerhardt, and Larry Brown y, Jo Ann APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman ' Johnson wanted to discuss Conditional Use Permits and Councilman Boyt wanted to move item 7(a) presentations under Visitor Presentation. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried. ' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's ' recommendations: d. Accounts Payable dated December 7, 1987. e. Approval of Change in City Council Meeting Schedule, Establishment of one meeting in December. ' g. Final Plat Approval, Riley Lake Meadows, Dick Vogel. i. City Council Minutes dated November 2, 1987. City Council Minutes dated November 16, 1987. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 18, 1987. Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 24, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATION: Curt Oster, 6480 Murray Hill Road: I was talking to the City Engineer today and they are proposing to put a new service road back to the water tower off ' of Murray Hill Road there and it's in violation of a few things on our development agreement for the property so I can present it now or if you want to listen to it on an agenda? Mayor Hamilton: As I understand it, it's the City's intent to put a driveway through where we could service the water tower and the well in that area. There is some need to act on that as quickly as possible since the road that we do have that goes in there doesn't belong to the City and it does drift in rather heavily with snow in the winter so we do need to have access to that facility. Perhaps if you would like to tell us briefly what it is? 1 I 4 I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Curt Oster: As the pictures show there, it's a narrow road with 50 foot pine trees that we were directed by Council when we did the development to maintain, which we have done. The whole project there, we've done minimum damage to vegetation and the trees and we'd like to see that carried out. The zoning ordinance for the residential, as far as I understand it, is only for residential dwellings and parks, recreational areas, non-profit schools and administrative offices and so forth. It does not allow for service roads to pedestrials ways which you're going to eventually do there. Our pedestrian way in our development contract says that we have to donate 10 feet but they were only going to use 6 feet of it. That does cross property that we had to donate for that purpose. My comments and my objections are listed in the last paragraph there. - Dick Vandeberg, 6474 Murray Hill Road: I object to this access to the water tower and well for a number of reasons. Primarily I don't think we ought to spend the money to cut the road in if we already have access to it by another means. This is a residential area and I don't think that the heavy equipment going through there would be beneficial at all. I have small children who play on the cul-de-sac on the street and I don't want to see them injured or threatened in anyway. Bill Kreiberg, 6444 Murray Hill Road: I live at the property that abuts the proposed project. I concur with the other people here for some of the same reasons. I'm more recent to the area. I'm a little surprised that being that this tower has been served for what I understand is well in excess of 10 years by the current facility and the drifting issue of the snow would be just as big a problem coming in from the side that you're proposing now as it is on the current side. I think it's an academic adjustment. I'm surprised that the Council would consider spending taxpayers funds in this particular manner. I think the proposal would also create, as Dick mentioned, risk to the large number of children that play in that general area. The liability of the City should something happen would well exceed the benefits of accessing the tower from Murray Hill Road. I appreciate your consideration of my thoughts. Mayor Hamilton: Gary, would you like to tell us about this? Gary Warren: This is the area. In green is our present water tower which we access through the neighborhood off Melody Hill Road and off of the existing, basically we're coming in over an easement that was there from the watermain that was constructed to the site. It's not actually a formal roadway easement. This is a sheet off of the actual construction plans again showing the water tower. We come in from this side here with the watermain easement but this tract of land was actually acquired by the City. It's 110 feet which abuts down on Murray Hill Road. This was the original access plan for the water tower in 1972 or 1973 when it was built. The 50 foot right-of-way here was donated as a part of the subdivision here which went on top of one of our existing easements so what I guess I'm relaying is that it was always the ' intent that we would have a formal access to the tower from the east. We had been getting by by going over school property basically and driving in there. Our crews visits the site Wednesdays and Saturdays in normal season so we're there maybe twice a week to check on the tower. When we have dry spells or 012 very cold weather, where conditions might warrant there might be some problems 2 1 I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 II there, at the most maybe once a day with a pick-up truck to look at it and see that it's alright. We do have a lot of problems with snow obstruction there ' from the west. It blows in. We have a lot of snow removal challenges on the west side here on the school property to get in and the east side is a little bit more sheltered. Our plan is really, I call it a driveway. That's all the City is looking to do is to install a driveway to access the site. None of the pines would be taken down. We're not looking to do anything disriptive. We're looking to bring in maybe a load or two of gravel to improve the driveway but we're not looking for major construction or any heavy equipment ' to be running around in there. This does also coincide with the request to put in a trail in this area to access the school. This is the plat from Murray Hill and in the developer's contract, the original plan was to provide ' a trail easement along the east side of the left line and the south side of Lots 3 and 4 to get over to the schools. Subsequently, Lori has been dealing with this more than I, to get the trail through here which would then allow access through the City property over here to the school district so actually ' our 110 feet was also looked at to make the trail connection over to the school because it's kind of deadended here in the subdivision. ' Councilman Boyt: Where does your road enter? Gary Warren: On here we would accessing right here. The water tower is right about here. Councilman Boyt: How does that impact on the trail? Gary Warren: The trail hasn't been formalized but I guess my only point is ' that there's 110 feet in here that a trail could be put through. That would be the same as our access road really. A gravel road. It could easily be ' used as a trail. Curt Oster: That's in violation of the development proposal that says you'll only use 6 feet of that. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have a copy of that with you? Curt Oster: No I don't. Gary Warren: The development contract said that the developer would provide a ' 10 foot easement and that the City would build a maximum 6 foot wide bituminous trail. Curt Oster: It did not say bituminous. ' Mayor Hamilton: That's for a trail. Was your agreement drawn up in 1973 when City purchased the property? p en ' Curt Oster: It was later than 1973. Gary Warren: That specifically addressed the easements that would be dedicated by the developer. Here we would be putting this in on the City's y' 110 foot parcel so that wouldn't apply to our parcel. However we put a trail 3 i . 1 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 in there, we could put theoretically a 110 foot wide trail through our parcel. :1- Curt Oster: You have to cross our property. Mayor Hamilton: I think there's some misunderstanding here obviously based on some of the comments I see from the residents they haven't any idea what needs to be done here so I think we should have this item put on a regular scheduled agenda. I realize that we need to have access to our utilities and I'm surprised that the residents are so opposed to the City getting access to their utilities on their own property but we'll come back and discuss this issue at length and we'll hear from all of you again. Dick Vandeberg: Would it be possible to get a cost benefit analysis on this? How much would it cost to cut the road? Mayor Hamilton: It's not going to be a full-blown cost benefit analysis. We will find out what the costs are to put the road in. It's not something that's going to be assessed back to the homeowners anyway. It would come out of the sewer and water fund which everybody in the city pays for out of their sewer and water bills and that's how the road would be put i.n. There would not be an increase in the sewer and water bills as they currently stand to accomplish this. 1: CONSIDER POTENTIAL 1988 REFERENDUM ITEMS: COMMUNITY CENTER, FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE, PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Hamilton: We asked to move item 7(a) to the Visitors Presentation so those who need to leave earlier could make their comments at this time. We will then take those comments into consideration when we vote on the item later on. Is there someone here who needs to leave early that wanted to make comments on this? Do you have any comments that you wanted to make Bob about it. Bob Robinett: I'm not here to make comments, I'm just here to answer questions. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF RINGO DRIVE, 770 CREE DRIVE, BETH SCHNABEL. Barbara Dacy: The site is located on the northeast corner of Cree Drive and Yuma Drive and is triangular in shape. Proposed to be vacated is this area and the vacated area would become part of the abutting properties. The property owner on this north parcel here wanted some verification as to how much exactly would be conveyed to his property so I just want the Council to be aware that a more detailed drawing will be prepared by Schoell and Madsen to detail the specifications. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation. There's no public purpose needed to retain this right-of-way. We are recommending, however that a 10 foot drainage and utility easement be reserved along the western and southern portions of the property to accomodate the existing utilities. 4 1 i City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 I Mayor Hamilton opened up the meeting for public comments. ' Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Resolution #87-120: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the vacation request #87-9 to vacate a portion of Ringo Drive as indicated in the Attachment #2 subject to retaining a 10 foot public utility easement along Yuma Drive and Cree Drive. All voted in favor and motion ' carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY BILL, ROBERT SOMMER. Mayor Hamilton opened up the meeting for public comments. ' Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' Resolution #87-121: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to certify the delinquent utility account of Robert Sommers for 6320 Murray Hill Road. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' Mayor Hamilton: Just for the record I think we should note that this is a utility bill that was overlooked in our last certification and that's why there is only one here this evening and why we're doing it. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO ALLOW AUTO SERVICE CENTERS AS PERMITTED ' USES IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT; AND TO ALLOW MINI-WAREHOUSES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT, DORN BUILDERS. ' Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting to amend the ordinance to allow automotive service centers in the BH district. Staff is recommending approval of that amendment. We feel that an auto service center meets the intent of the district and it also is compatible with the existing permitted uses in the BH district. The applicant is also requesting that the ordinance be amended to allow mini-warehouse facilities as a permitted use in the IOP district. This ' was removed as a permitted use when the ordinance was amended. Again, Staff is recommending approval to include mini-warehouse facilities in the IOP district. We feel that it is an appropriate use of the intent of the district ' and permitted uses in the IOP district. The Planning Commission also recommended approval to amend the ordinance to allow mini-warehouse facilities in the IOP district and to allow automotive service centers in the BH district. Mayor Hamilton: Are Dorn Builders here and if so, do they have any comments? Mark Moore: I represent the developer on this, Dorn Builders. Mr. Heber is _ not here at this time. The sellers of the property are here. Perhaps I'll do my very best to answer some questions for you. 5 I o.r City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything that you wish to add to Jo Ann's ::[ comments or did that cover it pretty well? Mark Moore: That covers it pretty well. Councilman Johnson: My comments are that I favor both in this case. That ' it's a logical location for an auto service center and business highway seems to be a good place for automobile servicing. It seems to be within the intent of the district. We seem to have a lot of mini-warehouses coming up and the developers believe they can make a go of it, this too to me seems to be a fairly reasonable place for a mini-warehouse as far as access. It's shielded by the auto center and a few other things and I have no objections to it. Councilman Boyt: As far as changing the BH district to accept auto service centers, that makes sense to me. It fits with gas stations and car washes and fast food restaurants and the other sorts of things that we put into the BH district. I have some problems however with the second consideration for a change in our zoning ordinance. Putting mini-warehouses into our Industrial Office Park seems to me to be a misuse of good industrial land. Wherever we put mini-warehouses, I think that Jo Ann and Barb did an excellent job of including some background information on mini-warehouses. I think that we need to go through that. I have gone through it. I think that there are many conditions that they put on what they call single self storage facilities in ' regards to their size, appearance, parking and I think that before we approve what we now call a mini-warehouse area, that we should set up some conditions in to control those. With the proper conditions they might fit in an IOP but as I see them now, the prospects of having what is a mini-warehouse sitting next to what somebody may have spent a million dollars to build doesn't appeal to me at all. The previous Council said that the industrial office park was designed to generate employment. A mini-warehouse is not going to generate any employment so I would be opposed to including it as it stands now in our industrial office park area. Councilman Horn: My feeling is that the application is appropriate to the area that it's being put in. However, I don't think that it may be appropriate in all applications so if I were to go along with this proposal and there was some way that we could differeniate this proposal from general proposals. Councilman Boyt: We could make it all BH. ' Councilman Geving: I have no problem with the service center proposal. I think that fits into what we planned in the BH. Business Highway is just that. It's just one of those things. You're going to have service stations, auto centers. That makes sense to me. We didn't include it I suspect, we just didn't think about that as a possibility when be built in the BH zoning areas so I think that one fits. I do think about what we did in the industrial park as far as the warehousing facility that's going to be placed there. I had great reservations after the vote was taken about adding a major facility like that in our industrial park and employing only a couple people. Today I wouldn't vote for that and I think I feel pretty much the same way here. For not to have the mini-warehouses in our IOP districts. There are 6 I .emu) City Council czl Meeting - December 7, 1987 i j places where we can place those. We did a very good job of setting the one warehousing facility down in the southern part of our community in the ' business fringe area. I think that was appropriate so I guess I'd have to say that on the first part of this, I'm in favor of the service centers. On the second part of it, I'm not in favor of amending it to include it in the IOP districts. However, I think that it can fit into, as recommended here by the Planning Commission, to the BH district. Just put it all in the BH. Accomplish it there but let's not change both of them. That's my opinion. ' Mayor Hamilton: My comments are that I feel that the auto service center may best be under a conditional use. My feeling is, since those centers having a way of getting out of control and becoming rather messy and things ' ' accumulating around them, I would want to have the option to have some way to help them control the debris and everything else that they seem to generate. I think we can best do that by having a conditional use in that district. I'm ' not opposed to having them in the district but I think a conditional use gives us more control over them each year as we review their conditional use permit. On the second issue, I was the only one who voted against allowing the mini- warehouse in our current industrial park. I stand corrected. Councilman Horn also voted that way but I also feel that for the same reasons that Bill has stated, that our industrial office parks are designated to be employers of people and to attract industry here. I don't look at a mini-warehouse as an II industry. It's a service for people who need to store their things. I know that we need that but there are places to put those things and we do need to designate some areas in this community where we can have those kinds of things so our citizens here can use those facilities. Also, I think in this Iparticular one it would be at the entrance to the city and I'm not sure that's what we want to have at the entrance of the city when we have some beautiful printing facilities and other facilities, multi-million dollar buildings that would be very close by. So I would agree with Dale. Well, I wouldn't put it in the BH either. I guess I'd want to look at each one independently. I gues it's not clear to me Jo Ann, was this proposed mini-warehouse going to be ' right near the auto center? Jo Ann Olsen: Right behind it. ' Councilman Boyt: So it would probably be blocked from view from the road. It sounds to me like we're in agreement then that the BH district can be modified to include auto service centers and I know that I would certainly be in ' agreement with making them a conditional use permit for the reasons we suggested and I'd like to see us handle these one at a time. I think that even forgetting about their location in the city, does it just make sense to have this in that zoning area and it does. Councilman Johnson: I think both of them could be condi to where we have that control. In this situation with the frontsto�backe BH location of this, I think we would have zoned the entire area BH and allow a conditional use, both auto service and mini-warehouse under a conditional use permit in the BH district. 11-- Mayor Hamilton: This district, where it's being proposed to be built, is that all BH or is it IOP or where do we stand? 7 r City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Jo Ann Olsen: They will be going through a rezoning process. Right now the property is split in half with the north/south line. BH is on the west side :l- and IOP is recommended on the east side. What they are looking to propose to rezone it to would be north/south. BH on the south and IOP on the north. It could also be rezoned all IOP or all BH. Councilman Johnson: With a conditional use permit we could get trees and ' shurberies besides Redman Products for shielding on that side, etc.. Councilman Geving: Are there just two lots here? , • Jo Ann Olsen: There's two lots under single ownership and they're split by the County line. Councilman Geving: So they should both be the same? Really technically, if we make one BH tonight, it seems to me that the other should also be BH. Councilman Boyt: We wouldn't be making it anything. Councilman Geving: If something came in, we'd recommend-.that it be BH. ' Mayor Hamilton: It just seems to me if we're looking at storage facilities, whether it's BH or IOP, it's a little more restrictive in a BH but we're still talking about the entrance to the City and I'd be very concerned about the visual impact plus I think the impact is still the same on employment. That's a nice piece of ground and it would seem to me there could be other uses for :l that that would bring in more employment than having a storage facility. One employee on however many acres that is, isn't very intensive use of the land I don't think. Councilman Boyt: Tonight aren't we just considering the issue of whether or ' not we want to change our zoning ordinance and the discussion about whether we're going to change it in this particular location is really something that's not in front of us right now. , Mayor Hamilton: Right. It's just whether we want to have those uses in those particular zones. ' Councilman Horn: I think our issue is, it seems like we all agree that we would alllow auto service centers in the BH. That's really all we have to act on. Councilman Johnson: The other one is mini-warehouses in the IOP they are requesting. ' Mayor Hamilton: Right, there are two separate issues. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Zoning ' Ordinance Amendment Request to allow auto service centers as a conditional use in the BH, Business Highway Service District. All voted in favor and motion carried. 8 r -,' J City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 1 Councilman Johnson: As far as discussion, using it to generate employment, this is a facility that supports business. Business's utilize these types of I facilities and having this facility here will support other businesses coming into town so indirectly this type of use is appropriate to a point. ' Mayor Hamilton: I guess that's not the issue. The issue is whether you want to allow these mini-warehouses in the IOP district. That's the only issue we have to deal with right now. ' Councilman Johnson: Right and what I'm hearing is the reason a lot of people don't want to is because they don't generate jobs. What I'm saying is, they don't generate jobs, they are an asset to industry for providing a temporary, expandable warehousing capabilities. To help this applicant, while he has not asked for us to consider the use of mini-warehouses in the BH district, I'm sure that will be the fallback position. He'll have to go to the Planning ' Commission and come back so it's going to delay the project several months. Mayor Hamilton: But that's not the request before us. We can only deal with ' the request that the applicant has made. We can't have any conjecture about what his fallback position is. That's up to him. Councilman Johnson: Was it our staff's recommendation that we go IOP, split ' it half and half this way? Did the Planning Commission consider whether they would rather see mini-warehouse in BH or IOP? IIJo Ann Olsen: That was staff's recommendation that that would be a second - option to do mini-warehouse in the BH district and the Planning Commission did not wish to have it as a permitted use in the IOP district. The Planning Commission didn't really address it. They felt it was a suitable use for the IOP so that option wasn't really pursued. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I saw in the staff report that you presented that ' option and they did not act upon that. Mayor Hamilton: There's another thing to consider I suspose Jay, since you're raising a lot of points to consider and that is that there is a mini-storage facility being built in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. There is also a mini-storage in operation down on Stoughton Blvd. in the southern part of Chanhassen. I don't think we need one of these on every corner. I guess I ' don't see any reason why we need to have them all over the place. The ones that are there aren't full. I think what we really need to deal with is whether or not they are going to be allowed in the IOP as a permitted use. My ' motion is to deny it. Councilman Horn: Since we did deviate somewhat from the request on the last ' motion, the request was as a permitted use. It would appear to me that we would be within our bounds, after we deal with this issue, to propose an alternate would be to allow mini-warehouses as a conditional use in the BH district which would be appropriate for his back lot but I think the issue before us now is as a permitted use. ' 9 r City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Councilman Geving: I think at this point we could go ahead and take the vote :I- on this issue and if the applicant would prefer to have us look at it as an alternative, then we might consider it yet this night and turn it on as a conditional use in the BH to allow the mini-warehouse on a conditional use only but we're not going to discuss that at this time. Mayor Hamilton: Is that something you would be amenable to? ' Frank Reese: I'm representing the Minnesota Auto Service Company and saying that it would be our intent to also request the conditional use for the mini- warehouse in the Business Highway district. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to deny the request for the Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow mini-warehouses in the IOP, Industrial Office Park district. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move, I think we've already discussed it actually, I'd like to move that we permit mini-warehouse within the Business Highway district as a conditional use. , Councilman Horn: I'll second that. Councilman Boyt: I guess I'd feel more comfortable, I don't know that it ' would make a dramatic difference in the outcome but I think any time we propose a change in the zoning ordinance, we need to take this very seriously and we need to publish what we're doing ahead of time and I don't think we've done that tonight. I don't feel comfortable that we've given Mr. Redman and his people sufficient notice that we're going to discuss this. I think it's going to impact on his property. I think we should take the time to do that and the office center on the other side of the piece of property, I think we should take time to notify all the people in Chanhassen that we're considering putting mini-warehouses in a district that they're not now allowed in. I don't think we as a Council should,toni.ght, take that out of their hands and just do it. Roger Knutson: I think it's a close question. Under State Statutes you're required to publish notices for amendment to your Zoning Ordinance and you can be more restrictive. For example in the one you've just handled, it was advertised as a permitted and you changed it to conditional. I'm very comfortable with that because you're more restrictive. Now you're changing from one district to another. Folks who own property in or adjacent to the BH district might not have paid any attention to this because they're not concerned about it because you've advertised it for IOP. It is a significant change. It could eventually a significant change for someone so I would think that the prudent thing would be to advertise if you want to consider that. But you could give people your indication of how you feel about it tonight so the applicant, staff and whoever, isn't spinning their wheels and going through the form for nothing. Councilman Horn: I guess I would disagree with Roger that we were more restrictive on the first proposal. What we had before we made the motion was 10 , I 1 City Council unczl Meeting - December 7, 1987 that the auto service centers were not allowed gave it as a conditional use. They requested� at all in the BH district. Now a conditional use but it wasn't a use at lbeforepermi.tted use. We made it Roger Knutson: That's right but it was advertised to allow it as a permitted ' use in the BH district. That's how it was advertised. Your action passed something that's more restrictive than was advertised so the idea is, if I was against the auto service centers as permitted, I'd be here tonight. I'd make my voice known. It's difficult to understand how anyone who was against ' this proposal would be for them as a permitted use but against them as a conditional use. That's why I say it's more restrictive. Councilman Horn: It seems that the current use that we would be suggesting here is a conditional use, is also more restrictive than the permitted use that was published tonight. ' Mayor Hamilton: We're changing the district completely. Councilman Horn: ;We're realigning two districts. We have two districts the ' same as they were but we're realigning them. Mayor Hamilton: But we're going from an lOP to a BH and from permitted to conditional. Different district. I think that's all Roger is saying. It ' should be advertised not as an IOP but as a BH. Councilman Horn: Which is typically a more restrictive district. ' Roger Knutson: I may own BH property and I don't care what you're aoi the IOP because I own BH property. Right next to me, this amendment Passed, it might be possible that a mini-warehouse and I might just be totally bent out of shape about having a mini-warehouse next to me in the BH district and I didn't appear tonight because it was advertised for IOP. ' Councilman Horn: You're saying someone other than someone adjacent to this proposal? ' Roger Knutson: Anywhere. It has citywide implications for BH and IOP property. Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure of Robert's Rule of Order on this but can I withdraw my motion or modify it? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. ' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Caving seconded to withdraw the motion for permitting mini-warehouses as a conditional use in the BH district based ' on advice from counsel and change this to a straw vote on the item to indicate preference at this point and remand this to the public hearing process through the Planning Commission as required by our Ordinance. All voted in favor and motion carried. :Mayor Hamilton: Do you withdraw our original Y second to this motion Clark? 11 >LG� City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 "- Councilman Horn: Yes. Ir ZS Mayor Hamilton: Bill would you care to start and give us your opinion on whether or not you're in favor of this? Councilman Boyt: I think given proper conditions, a mini-warehouse or single storage facility would be appropriate in our BH district. Councilman Horn: I think this is really a unique application here where it would fit in. I don't see a lot of other applications in the City where it , would fit in. I think it needs to be controlled as a conditional use. Councilman Geving: I agree with that. ' Councilman Johnson: This is the only business highway district within the City. Mayor Hamilton: Barbara, where's that business highway? Isn't there another business highway other than this? Is this the only one? I thought there was some on TH 212? I Barbara Dacy: This is the one. It runs down along the railroad tracks. Mayor Hamilton: My only comment is, I guess I don't mind it as long as it's ' conditional use in the BH so we can review each one on it's own merits and location I don't have as big a problem with. REVIEW HERMAN FIELD ACCESS PLAN, MARK KOEGLER. Lori Sietsema: Basically I just wanted to go over what was in the memo and ' that we have two feasibility studies and they all come up with that. The Park and Recreation Commission felt that the best option was to go with the Forest Avenue. It would be an extension of Forest Avenue and then building a driveway off of Forest Avenue to where the parking lot would be located. The question was whether or not that extension should be constructed as a driveway section or urban street section. The Park and Recreation Commission felt that it should be left up to the people that would be adjacent to that extension would be assessed for it, whether they wanted it to be set and how it could be constructed. They indicated that they would rather have it built to a driveway section rather than an urban section so that was their recommendation. If you'd like, Bob Sellers is here to go over the cost and what is involved and the location. Mayor Hamilton: I think unless councilmembers have any specific questions about that, I think the costs are very clear and we probably don't need to get into detail on that. Councilman Johnson: The only thing, I know there was a large turnout at the Park and Rec Commission on this one. Councilman Hoyt: I don't think we're going to need to go through that again. 12 1 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Ir Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so either. ' Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest, having not long ago been in your position, it's my sense that the City Council is going to approve the recommendation as made by the Park and Rec Commission and unless you would have serious difficulty accepting that. If you do have difficulty accpeting Option #1, which is the least expensive of the options then I could see maybe it's worth your time and our time to listen to you but if you're in agreement with the cheaper option. Mayor Hamilton: I perceive the same thing that Bill does. That the Council is going to select Option #1. Mary Scheferli: Is this all been cut and dry and gone through? It's all settled? ' Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we've voted on anything yet so could you state your question I guess. I'm not sure what your concern is. Mary Scheferli: Well, has this been approved by the Council to put the road all the way through to the park? IIMayor Hamilton: That's why we're here. Mary Scheferli: We did ask about a year ago to have the road abandoned on the south and also back east again and we were informed by the village that you II ' should wait because the Park and Recreation was considering putting a road through there. Apparently now they plan to go ahead. What do they plan to do where their road turns east to bring the road south into the park? There is ' no paper road there now. Mayor Hamilton: Have you seen the plan of how the road would enter the park? Were you notified of how the road looked? ' Mary Scheferli: They showed it entering the park way to the east side. Lori. Sietsema: That has been revised so it would go between the two property owner's property. It would not go between, right through the middle of the lot. Mary Scheferli: That shows Forest Avenue stops right there where the dark lines are. The rest is all a paper road by the south and entering east. Is that intend to go from south at the point of the curve and what do they plan ' to do the rest of the way? Condemn the property? Mayor Hamilton: We haven't done anything with that piece as far as I know. Gary Warren: Under this alternative that piece would wait until further development or interest from a developer. The easement would remain dedicated for use but they would be built on at this time under this alternative. 1 13 yd)1�Y I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 "- Mary Scheferli: The reason I ask about the bend in the road is because we own 4 the section E. It's divided by the road but it's not feasible to build on the lower half. The only way you could build would be abandoning that section of road and taking one piece of property to build a single house on. Going back to your park that's buried in the back down there, have you considered police protection for that park? You're hiding back there where there's no visible access to it. It will be hard to police. We've already had problems in the summertime with kids coming down where the road ends and walking down through there and having beer parties and wild parties and everything else. What's going to happen if you put a road down there to this tiny little park? Mayor Hamilton: I think the issue is not whether or not there will be beer parties. The issue here this evening is how we're going to put the road through so the residents can access the park. We've had the property there for a long time. We do not have access to it and that's what we're trying to determine. If there is a problem, it will be enforced by our law enforcement people the same as every other park in the community. Mary Scheferli: I felt that you consider making an access where it's much more visible and easier for the police to patrol rather than burying it down in the woods back there. Mayor Hamilton: We've done a lot of studying of an access to this park and this is the most feasible way to do it. That's why we hired a consultant to try to tell us what they feel is the best way to do it and it seems as though this is the plan that they've come up with that they feel is the most logical and most feasible way to do it. It's not an easy piece of ground to access. Mary Scheferli: I understand your problem. Who would we see about having that path going to the east end or could that be left as a paper road now too? Mayor Hamilton: For right now I think what the City Engineer, Gary Warren is saying is that it would remain as it is until a developer or somebody comes along. You could come in and request that it be abandoned and we would have to consider that. Mary Scheferli: Taxes have gone so high. We're paying $1,100.00 for a little I piece of property and you've got houses all around there valued at $100,000.00 to $125,000.00, is that what you tax? Mayor Hamilton: I think as you just stated a few minutes ago, you requested that that be abandoned a year or so ago and we said that we weren't ready to do it at that time since we wanted to figure out how we were going to access the park first. Now what I'm saying is, if you wish to resubmit a request to abandon that piece of property, then you should do so since we know how we're going to access the park now. Mary Scheferli: Fine, thank you. Betty Gang: We're the other property owner along that part and I guess I just wanted to back track for a minute and ask, at what time was this approved to be a park or was that just assumed because it was donated property? 14 11 I IICity Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Ir Mayor Hamilton: In about 1973 Mr. Herman donated this land to the City to be i a city park. Along with the land he also gave the City, $35,000.00 in cash to I be used for the development of the park. Ever since that time the land has sat as it is today, unuseable because there has not been a good access to get into it. 1 Betty Lang: But at no point then, the Council did not have to vote on it? Mayor Hamilton: No, it has always been intended to a city park. The only II question was, how were we going to get there and how would we park cars and what would we do with the land, how would we develop it once we had access to it. 1 Betty Lang: Our property is on one side of the proposed road. Is our property going to be condemnned in that spot? Are we going to be reimbursed for any amount going through the property? IMayor Hamilton: I don't know, are we taking some of their property Gary? I Gary Warren: No, it's an existing easement that we would be constructing the road on. II f Bob Sellers: From here to here, there is no easement or city park. Mayor Hamilton: So we would need to acquire some of your property if that' the property that y that's y you own. Whoever owns it we would need to acquire it or get II an easement across it. Councilman Bo t: y Aren't we saying then, when we put in that gravel road, II we're going to have to have the easement before then or we don't have access so at some point then this winter, if this is approved, we would have to go through the process of acquiring that property. 1 Mayor Hamilton: Does that answer your question adequately? Betty Lang: Yes. ICouncilman Horn: It looks to me like this is all, it shows part of Lot 31 on both sides of the access. II Gary Warren: The ownership on the west side if Lang if you can see the connection line there. 1 Bob Sellers: Lang owns Lot 30 and this part of Lot 31. Councilman Horn: So Lot 31 has multiple ownership? IIBob Sellers: That's correct. f ii Mary Scheferli: We own Lot 31, this 300 feet. That's where the property line is. I 15 II r City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept staff's # recommendation to construct Herman Field access off of Forest Avenue and constructed as a private driveway option as represented in Option #1. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I think it would be appropriate to admit that Mr. Scheferli is quite probably right in that this park will be difficult to police. Unfortunately it's not the only one in Chanhassen that's difficult to police and we do have an obligation to the City to try to open up parkland so people can use it but we also went through this past summer a rather intensive enforcement effort in our parks. So when this opens up, keep the lines hot if you feel it's not being used properly. ' Betty Lang: I just have one more question. Have the plans for the park been finalized? , Mark Koegler: The plans for this park date back to late 1984 when they were approved by the Park and Recreation Commission and the Council and they were run past the neighbors at that time. In fact, one of the representatives up there on the Park and Recreation Commission at that time lived in that area so it was extensively reviewed and that plan has remained in effect. It's been tried to be implemented for the last 3 1/2 years. , Councilman Geving: Mark, maybe you could kind of give us a, two minute thumb nail sketch of the type of park that it will be so the homeowners know what kind of development is going to go in there. Mark Koegler: The Herman Field was designed to be a unique facility within Chanhassen's system. The topography and the soil conditions are fairly limiting in that area and as a result, the park that was drawn up that the Commission could finally agree upon had a ball diamond for neighborhood play purposes. Just casual play purposes only. Then the park contained picnic areas and what we called an extensive interactive kind of play area where there would be natural areas for kids to run around and play at with play structures and things interspersed among the trail system. Essentially that was the tone of the park. It's a very low intensive park which is a unique facility as far as Chanhassen parks go. On the eastern end would be the picnic area. That may shift a little bit now as a result of the relocation of the park but essentially the most intensive activity on the site is picnicing and neighborhood ball baseball diamond. Mary Scheferli: As the two homeowners in regards to the road that's going through, the Lang's and us, the first we heard about it was last year when we came in and asked about abandoning that road. We never knew about this being a park. So who they invited in I don't know. If it was the people who live in Minnewashta Heights or something like that or the woods but we as property owners, we didn't even know about the meeting. We were never notified. Mayor Hamilton: They are all public meetings and they're in the paper and we try to notify everybody as much as we can but this park has been under development and attempted development for years and I guess as property 16 ' City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 II owners, I guess I assumed that everybody that lived in that area knew that this was going to be a park and would have some interest in it being park and be somewhat involved. I know that Mr. Schoenecker who was the man that was the Park and Rec Commission member at that time. ' Betty Lang: Mr. Schoenecker happens to be in Minnewashta Shores. That whole area was notified. Not the property of Minnewashta Woods where the people live. Minnewashta Woods was the area that should have been contacted, not Shores. They were contacted because they had an organized homeowners group and we did not. Mayor Hamilton: Well, that certainly is a problem although we normally would ' contact individual homeowners but there's certainly nothing cast in concrete so if you feel you would like to make comments on how the park is going to be developed, I would suggest that you contact Lori Sietsema and you can get a ' copy of the plan as it's been proposed. If you would wish to make comments on it, you can come to a Council meeting sometime and do it as a visitor's presentation and we could put it on an agenda item for future discussion. Councilman Boyt: Or go to the Park and Rec. Mayor Hamilton: It might be best to start here then we can send it back to I Park and Rec if that's needed. Maybe you'll like the way it's going to be. We're going to have a nice park I think. There's a lot of passive area and just trails going through there. ' Betty Lang: I guess it's just that I saw what Greenwood Shores had to go through with the vandalism and all the things and you didn't approve a parking area for them but you gave it to us. Mayor Hamilton: This is a little bit bigger park than Greenwood Shores. It's a totally different situation really. ' Councilman Johnson: Maybe we have approved a parking area for Greenwood Shores. ' Mayor Hamilton: No, not any longer. Councilman Boyt: What we said with Greenwood Shores was that we would give them a summer in which we would try to control the problems they pointed out. I think we did. I think that the people in Greenwood Shores should be prepared for a parking area. I'm pretty determined to open up. Mayor Hamilton: I think we're getting way off the subject here. Those issues can be discussed at the Park and Rec Commission and dealt with at that time. '• REQUEST TO RECONSIDER TRAIL EASEMENT ALONG THE REAR LOTS IN T BAR K ESTATES, KAREN SLATHER. _ Lori Sietsema: This item was brought to the Park and Recreation Commission's attention just a couple of weeks ago. Mrs. Slather has requested that this 17 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 trail easement along the 886 contour line, which is designed to be a natural trail outlined on that trail plan as a natural trail, she would like that to be reconsidered. Apparently she is having trouble selling her lots with that !- trail along there. The Park and Recreation felt that the City's commitment to trails throughout the city is important. They did not want to rearrange the trail plan at this point and did not feel that this would have a severe impact on the homes on those lots. They recommended that the trail alignment stay as it is. Karen Slather: We have a trail easement on one side of the property and another easement on the other side. Two easements. We're not complaining about the one on Lyman Blvd. but this is cutting right through there and I wouldn't want people walking right through the middle of my yard either on a trail. You talk about conservation, that's why people are wanting to buy this property because being close to nature and having access to the swamp. Of course they would be interested in caring for the swamp. I just don't see that, we've lost four buyers already because of that. Lori Sietsema: To show you how it fits into the trail plan, this would be located at the dots right there going along the bottom of her lots. There's a hill and a wooded area and it would be along the lower side of those. Mayor Hamilton: That trail is proposed to be completed when, around the year 3000 or so? J Lori Sietsema: It would be in the later phase of the trail plan and it would never be a bituminous trail. It's proposed to be a nature trail that would connect into the Bluff Creek Trail system which is also a nature trail. Karen Slather: When buyers get ahold of that news, they drop. I just don't think it's fair to cut that land right in two. Al Klingelhutz: Mrs. Slather asked me to comment on this. We are handling the real estate for her. She's sure not fibbing anybody when we get offers ' for a piece of property, at first we thought it was a conservation easement which I wouldn't have any problem with a conservation easement to protect the swamp but it doesn't allow the public to use it as a trail system. That's the way we presented it when we sold these lots to the people. When we found out that it's a public trail, all of these people, we had all three lots sold, all three lots cancelled out because of this. May be a little bit of my blame because of the fact I thought it was a conservation easement instead of a public trail easement but because it was not mentioned as a public trail easement, I felt that these people had a right to get their earnest money back. Now when we tell them that it's a regular trail easement, about 9 of the 10 people immediately tell you forget it. We don't want people walking through our backyard. It looks to be me, when you've got a double trail system on a small piece of property like this, a 20 foot easement along the road plus the 12 foot easement, not on the back side of the lot line but actually through the property, it creates a big devaluation of the property. Lori, put that trail system thing back up there that showed the section of Bluff Creek. When you look on the east side of this so called swamp there, there is no trail easement on the east side. It follows TH 101 around the 18 ' City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 r swamp and then it goes up to Lyman Blvd., goes down to the swamp and then to goes back into the Slather ro rt back to Lawrence Kline property line. It p � Y, ' just seems to me that a trail that goes nowhere like that on one end and possibly the year 2020 before it would even be extended around that property, is a little bit much to expect for a property owner to give up a valuable price for their piece of property. ' Mayor Hamilton: It appears as though it doesn't go anywhere on either end. ' Lori Sietsema: We are making efforts to connect that right in there. Tim Erhart owns this property right in here and he has already put in much of the trail going to the north on that so there are plans to make that connection so it would be looped. ' Mayor Hamilton: Why can't you connect up with Lyman Blvd. then? You don't need to have two of them. Councilman Johnson: Do we have easements to the east or west properties? ' Al Klingelhutz: Not at this time. Councilman Johnson: How far do we have to go east and west to get to existing trails? I'm really trying to see if this is a logical place to have a trail that connects to someplace where we have a need for people to move back and forth or if it's just like an abandoned railroad spur off of the main track in that we do have Bluff Creek covered. If this was part of the Bluff ' Creek trail system where we're trying to follow Bluff Creek, I have a whole lot of support for it. Could you point on this map where this trail is? Al Klingelhutz: This would be the property right here. This property line ' extends down to somewhere in here. This is TH 101 here and this is the 10 acres that you subdivided into three lots. This property lines extends to down here. This is the trail system going through the lots, three lots on the ' T Bar K property. This little piece here has not got an easement at the present time. That would be on the Lawrence Kline property. This has not got anything at the present time. That little map that shows another trailway ' easement to make a connection on Lyman Blvd. coming down to this system here. Councilman Johnson: Is that on a property line or anything? ' Al Klingelhutz: Actually it would be on the 60 acres there. The 20 feet on this property would be right up along here. Councilman Johnson: This is a request for us to reconsider. ' Al Klingelhutz: This p ortion of the trail system, nothing has been done. That's a different piece of property. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see more information before I teconsider n zder this on the entire trail system that this is a connection with. Whether the trail system will make more sense going up and connecting to Lyman than making '— that 90 degree turn just near Lyman and going to the east. ' 19 I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Al Klingelhutz: Actually this is the proposed 20 foot easement along here. :- This is the Bluff Creek trail system here. Councilman Johnson: I can see a need to have the Bluff Creek nature trail connecting into the Bluff Creek trail system from Lyman personally. Whether it's from TH 101... Al Klingelhutz: We have it here or from TH 101 too. Councilman Johnson: See, we can already get it connected from the Erhart , property it looks like around there. I don't think I have enough information to vote on this tonight. Lori Sietsema: I think Mark can clear up some of those questions that you have and tell you the logic of why it's aligned the way it is. Mark Koegler: The philosophy that went into some of this, first of all , basically the entire southern area south of Lyman Blvd., a lot of the input of where those trail alignments are actually sitting came from Tim Erhart from the Planning Commission. He's spent several weekends down there walking that territory and mapping out what he thought were the best corridors for use. That's the Bluff Creek system I think everybody is familiar with. These are meant to be connections to that extending on up and radiating out. The reason this middle segment was put in here was simply because of the low wet area that's here and an attempt to get around that. To do a combined trail if necessary to get back down to Tim's property and be able to come back in again so that's the philosophy behind that. That connection could me made to Lyman and then around also. That is an alternative. The intent was to keep it as a natural trail as much as possible. Mayor Hamilton: Go back to the map there once if you would Mark. You said there is a trail that goes around Tim Erhart's property, where is his house in relation to that and maybe he wants people walking around his place, stopping in and saying hello. Mark Koegler: I don't know if he wants to invite them in for coffee but he certainly does want them to have access to that property in accordance with the comments that he made. I believe the home, I'm not 100% sure, I think it sits somewhere up in here. He's bee in the process of acquiring land over in this area. It's my understanding that he's been developing on his own, for both his use and the general public's use, a private trail will be opened for that purpose. Councilman Boyt: First, I think that the Council needs to keep in mind that , we have a loop here and as soon as we remove that piece of it, we'll lose the loop. We can have 95% of the rest of it and it won't work. So to make that loop available, and Tim Erhart has already agreed to give a good bit of that loop, to let 10% of it keep us from being able to use the other 90% of it doesn't strike me as very logical. On this piece of property, you mentioned that we're running it through the property rather than on the boundary but we're running it on the boundary of the marsh. They're not going to walk out in that marsh and grow grass or do anything else out in that marsh. There's a 20 ' I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 32 foot drop down to that trail. There's a heavy stand of trees between the building site and that trail. So on the one hand we have a very basic principle in trails, that you've got to have all the parts to make it work. This one is probably as good as place for trails as we're ever going to find because it's significantly below the building pad and is well sheltered with heavy trees. I can understand that not everybody is going to be willing to ' have a trail run through their property and that's one of the reasons why we have to put it in now rather than try to go back later after people have already purchased that property and put it in. They need to know when they ' buy the property that that's where the City intends to have it's trail. I think it might help your buyers if they realized that that trail was a non- mechanized type of trail. I read your comments in Park and Rec, or Al's comments, about the concerns that mini-bikes and such would go down that ' trail. That's not the intended use for that trail and those people would be illegally on that property just as they would be if it wasn't a trail and they chose to run their mini-bikes down there. It would be a bit of an enforcement ' problem either way but it certainly isn't the intended use for that trail and for my part, I guess I have two summary comments. One of them is, as you can probably tell, I very definitely support having this trail easement in place ' where it is now. My second comment is, I think we're going to have a tough time reconsidering it unless I missed the Minutes from our last council meeting that indicated who voted positively on this issue because the only way we can reconsider is if somebody who voted positively on the issue brings it ' up to reconsider. Councilman Horn: I must have missed something in all this because it appears to me that if you take that part out of it, you don't open the loop at all. I All you do is extend the loop. The further trail easement, which looks like it adds about another 150 feet to get up to the Lyman Blvd. trail. You don't have the loop closed anyway because of TH 101. All we're doing is including ' another additional 150 feet of TH 101 in a complete loop. I guess I missed Bill's comments saying we're going to miss the loop and cut out 100 of it to lose access to 90%. It appears to me if you're trying to keep an all passive ' trail, we don't have a loop because we have to go down to TH 101. All this will do, if we take that out of there, it will mean you will have to go a little farther down TH 101 which is a relatively short distance. I'm afraid I ' missed the point of what we're getting at. Councilman Geving: I was looking at that original slide, it seems to me, and I've walked the back part of this. I was looking for mushrooms one day and I found some down in this area on the lower side there, there's quite a drop on the back end of these three lots. Why that trail was looped to the east to try to connect to TH 101 along the path, of what I call a swamp basically, ' didn't make any sense to me because I think they could do the same thing by coming directly north and hitting Lyman Blvd. and getting to the easement on Lyman and accomplishing the same purpose. All we really wanted to do, if ' that's the intent as Mark stated, is to make a loop. To reach the Bluff Creek trail you can accomplish that and I'm sure that we can go back. Now I don't know if your client would give us that easement Mr. Klingelhutz, on the west { end of Lot 1 but I think that if we eliminiated that 886 contour and went directly north and then east on Lyman, we would have the trail looped the way �— we want it and I'd be much in favor of doing that. There's no uarantee 9 that ' 21 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 "- Larry Kline would ever give us an easement across his property to make that loop. I have no reason to believe that he would because it would be splitting his property too so I guess I'd be in favor of, and I don't know how the vote's going to go on this or if we can vote even, to eliminate this particular 886 contour line and bring the line straight, directly north and connect it with Lyman and forget about trying to make a loop. It's not going to happen. That's how I feel. Mayor Hamilton: My comments are, I'm a little miffed when we make some plans some years back and always seem to think they're cast in concrete and we can't adjust them. After all it's just a mechansim to do some planning for potential future things and when you start drawing lines across, putting trails in across people's property that, in my opinion, start nowhere and end nowhere and have no way for anyone to get to them, other than the three people who might live there or someone across the stree who might be able to walk across the street, it seems as though we're creating a trail for no one to use and perhaps the concern is not a major one because I don't think anyone will use it anyway. But I don't see any reason to put a trail in, especially leaving it in a configuration that does interfere with the sale of the property. Especially when there are other alternatives -that could accomplish the same thing just as well as this would. So people can still walk the area and look at it and get the same effect as if it was to be used like this. Also, I think Dale's comment is very germain that there is no reason why the Kline's would ever want to give an easement across their property or future owners. Why would they split their property and have people walking across. We don't have that easement now and I suspect we won't get it. So I think that this trail easement should not be in existence. Now I'd like to ask Roger about the reconsideration issue. If you would refresh my memory on reconsidering items such as this. Roger Knutson: First off, I'd like to ask a question about the status of the ' easement. Has the easement been recorded? Barbara Dacy: It's been executed and it's in the process. ' Roger Knutson: Has it been recorded at the County? Al Klingelhutz: I'm not sure. Mrs. Slather has signed the easement I believe and it was sent back to the City. Barbara Dacy: It was submitted for signature and it would be a matter of me ' going upstairs and checking the files to see if we received notice back. Roger Knutson: If it's been recorded, you have to go through a public hearing ' process to vacate the easement. if it's not been, then you can do it by reconsideration. If you're handling it as a reconsideration, it's a two- thirds vote. ' Mayor Hamilton: Alright, then we need to find out if it's been recorded. Will it take you a while Barb? Barbara Dacy: It will take me a minute. I'll be right back. 22 ' ' f City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 IKaren Slather: It's wonderful gardening land right there. That's where we had our garden. ' Councilman Boyt: Rather than get into another one, maybe we can talk a little bit more about this one, if that would be alright. Dale, the area that you were walking in, people aren't going to be able to walk in. That's what you were saying. Councilman Geving: I was there for a particular purpose. I wouldn't walk ' that area if it was a nature trail. I'd have no reason to be down there. Councilman Boyt: As far as someone else giving us land for trails, we have ' to work on the good faith premise that when that land comes up for sale, because it's on our trail map, the City will have the option to ask for that land in easement or purchase it. My understanding is that is how the trail and park planning system works so we can say where does it make sense to have these. Mayor Hamilton: But as you do that, you don't say this is where it's going to be forever. There is no reason you can't change a line or change a trail to accomodate property owners. Councilman Boyt: I agree with you. We're talking about running a trail along ' probably one of the least intrusive areas that you could ever choose. Next to a marsh and underneath a hill. Councilman Geving: That was the question I asked and I didn't get a response from your client Al, Mrs. Slather. Whether or not, if we as a Council, and I don't know how this vote is going to go but if we were to eliminate this ' contour as a trail and ask for an easement along your west property line of Lot 1 in lieu of that so we could still make our loop, would you be agreeable to that? Al Klingelhutz: ...she has a letter stating that if she wanted to get final plat approval and be able to sell the property, she would have to sign the trail easement. ' Councilman Geving: Answer my question though Al. Would your client, our applicant, approve of giving us a trail easement on Lot 1 on the west end in lieu of this trail easement that's already here and it's been approved and ' passed and if the Council were to so choose to eliminate that, we still need to make the loop. That is to bring that line directly north to Lyman. ' Karen Slather: Then would you go on the other side of this line? Councilman Geving: We'd go just on the other side of that little metal shed ' there, wherever that is. We need to make that loop. Mayor Hamilton: I think we started out, I was asking Roger a question about how this can be resolved. It has not been recorded as I heard Barb say. Now what is the position? ' 23 sA I Cit11 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Roger Knutson: First would be a vote to reconsider. That would take a two- thirds vote. Four positive votes to reconsider. "- Mayor Hamilton: It takes four votes to reconsider. If it's not reconsidered, what are the applicant's alternatives? Roger Knutson: She can wait until it's recorded and petition to have it ' vacated. A petition to have it vacated is only a simple majority by State Statute. Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to act on that first of all on whether or not it's even going to be reconsidered because there seems to be many questions about things that need to be resolved that I don't think we can resolve here tonight with the information that we have. However, if we should determine that we wish to reconsider this item and put that back on a future agenda, that would seen to me to be the best way to handle it. Councilman Johnson: If we were to reconsider this, we're reconsidering the entire final plat? Is that the way I see it? This means final plat is gone, we're starting over again? ' Roger Knutson: That's not the request. Mayor Hamilton: We're being asked to reconsider the trail easement. ' Councilman Johnson: One part of it. Barbara Dacy: Part of condition 3 at the Council action in May. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so they'd still have a preliminary plat and then on a future meeting we would get all the information and decide upon this issue? Al Klingelhutz: I have one last comment. You're saying it would only be a preliminary plat? Mayor Hamilton: No, that's not true. Barbara Dacy: The final has been signed and executed. Mayor Hamilton: What we said Al is this would be a reconsideration of the trail easement period. It has nothing to do with the rest of the plat. Councilman Johnson: What we would do then at this time is continue on this meeting and decide whether we want this easement here or not? Mayor Hamilton: What I would like to do, what I would suggest to the Council is if we vote to reconsider it, it should be on a future agenda item so we can have more of the facts available to us, so alternatives can be prepared so we have more information to deal with at that time so we can take a closer look at it. If we vote to reconsider it, it does not mean that it's going to be changed. All I'm saying is we're reconsidering it. 24 ' City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 I Councilman Johnson: Then on a future agenda we will reconsider it? At that time, how many votes does it take to pass the change? It takes a simple ' majority? Mayor Hamilton: Right. ' Councilman Johnson: I hate to lose this easement here without having more information. Mayor Hamilton: That's exactly what you'd have if it's reconsidered. We would have additional information to review when it comes back on our Council agenda. ' Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to reconsider the trail easement along the rear lots in T Bar K Estates dated November 17, 1987. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to request that Park and Rec look at the alternative that Dale was proposing. As to now we, as a Council, are proposing a change to the trail plan which has not been reviewed by Park and Rec, I'm not going to be voting to abandon this one without getting the one of the west side, I'd like the Park and Rec Commission to consider that option and look that property over to see which of these options they would like before we put it on an agenda. I don't know if we can put that on their agenda and have done by January 7th. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask our counsel then, Roger, since the Council l has voted to reconsider an item, it would seem improper to me to send it back to the Park and Rec Commission at that time. We have voted to reconsider it at the Council level, is that not the case or what is the normal procedure there? I guess I'm not sure what that is. ' Roger Knutson: I guess I don't know what normal is, I haven't seen it done here before. I think it's within your discretion to keep i.t here. If you think something will be gained by sending it there, it's up to you. There's no law on this. Councilman Johnson: They're our professional trail planners, that's why I ' believe that they should be the people to look at it. Mayor Hamilton: They are volunteer trail planners. ' Councilman Johnson: Alright, they're volunteer trail planners and I value their opinion highly. They have not looked at the option that Dale has brought forward and that's the only reason I wanted to reconsider this, is 1 that was a valuable suggestion and what Dale suggested makes some sense. Mayor Hamilton: Except I think the applicant is being held up on selling her property now because of this problem. We're trying to deal with the problem. I think to put them off another period of time while we go back to the Park and Rec Commission and then come back to the Council, it's going to be the end ' 25 1 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 of January by the time that happens. I'm not sure that that's fair. Councilman Johnson: When is the next Park and Rec meeting? I Councilman Boyt: Tomorrow night. Mayor Hamilton: It won't be on that agenda. 1 Councilman Boyt: There's another point Jay and that is that the Council has already voted to overturn the vote of the Park and Rec Commission. The Park and Rec Commission was unanimous in not wanting this to go through for reconsideration so why send it back to the Park and Rec Commission when we've already told them we're not going to listen to them. ' Councilman Johnson: Did the Park and Rec Commission have the alternative that Dale is proposing? Mayor Hamilton: They probably had all alternatives available to them if the y would have seen them. All you have to do is look at it. It's as simple as that. They're the ones that should be coming up with ideas to propose to us. They didn't. I think we need to move on to the next item. Councilman Horn: I think we should have Mark prepare to come back to speak to us about this atlernative. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to amend the agenda to move the Consent agenda items (h), (a) and (f) to this point in the agenda. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: H. APPROVAL OF SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT. Councilman Geving: I took this off because this is the most major thing that we're going to be doing for capital improvements in the automobile area for public works this year. It includes an awful lot of items. Dump trucks, 4- wheet drive service trucks, engineering 4 x 4's, Bobcat's and so forth and I'm looking at item 4 particularly. Knowing how our community's developing, and I understand the need. My only comment is, do we really need the 4 x 4 and Gary, that's why I'm bringing this to you for comment. ' Gary Warren: The off road issue is a primary issue plus part of the duties that I serve as deputy public safety volunteer in our civil defense plan, there are times where I envision that I will be out in inclement weather and winter as well, where a 4 x 4 would be necessary. Also, the higher frame, the axle is what I'm looking for for what we do encounter with new developments. Councilman Geving: The other thought that I had, over the last several years it's been kind of my observation that we have one or two council members who have a fair degree of expertise in vehicle. Have owned a number of vehicles. I think of Mr. Horn, and I would like to suggest that maybe Clark Horn be a part of this bid specification process when we get into, specifically the 26 I 1 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 ;— engineering 4 x 4 or any of the others. I know that's one that Clark could offer some advice on. That's the only reason I pulled this off. ' Mayor Hamilton: I know that Clark has asked for that in the past and that's why the specifications were included in the packet so it could be reviewed. These are all items that have been budgeted. Are needed. Are included in the budget and if they weren't budgeted for, they would be separate items. I think we should move ahead with them. They are certainly needed. ' Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the specifications and authorize to advertise for bids for Public Works Equipment pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: For Clark's benefit I would like to direct your attention to page 3 of the specifications. I think it indicates that we probably don't need to put all the specifications in. Item 10, bids must include license plates labeled manager's vehicle, such being attached to a new Porsche. New plates and attachment are to be buried in the bid. This was done half serious and half in jest because I think it points out that -when we have a budget we follow our budget. We need equipment and we don't all read through the specifications. We have a professional staff to do that and I think we need to trust them. I APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR COLONY POINT. ' Councilman Boyt: I want to see us add some language to this development contract that we have been putting in other development contracts lately and was somehow overlooked here. I think we should have a statement in there saying there will be daily clean-up of blowables. Any materials that would tend to litter the area. And that the hours of operation would be what we have used in other developments, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I believe it is, ' Monday through Saturday excluding all Sundays and holidays. Councilman Boyt moved, Council.nan Johnson seconded to approve the development ' contract for Colony Point as amended by Councilman Boyt with the addition of the two points he mentioned. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, HAWKS HILL, MIKE KLINGELHUTZ. Councilman Johnson: Actually I pulled (E) because we weren't given the plat ' until right before the thing and I hadn't had a chance to look at the plat. I wasn't going to vote for it. I've now had a chance to look at the plat and my comments are over with. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to know if Mr. Davidson is in attendance tonight. The property owner to the north. — Barbara Dacy: We doubled checked and we haven't heard from him since the Planning Commission meeting. ' 27 I i City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Councilman Boyt: I think he made a good comment and it's all too true of what can happen when people buy property without checking with City Hall to see }� what can happen to the property surrounding them. Mr. Davidson stated in the Planning Commission that when he purchased the property using Al Klingelhutz as his agent, he was told that the City was moving to a 10 acre ordinance limit and that there certainly wasn't any indication that the property just to the south of him would be subdivided into any lots smaller than that. Within months we see this development brought in by Mike Klingelhutz proposing that the property be developed into 2 1/2 acre plots. That's awfully unfortunate. Though I see no particular reason to not allow this, since it came in under our other ordinance, it seems to me it's just another example that homeowners have to use every precaution and in that they should include visiting the city offices before they sign the contract. Al Klingelhutz: I wonder if anybody asked of Mr. Davidson about this 2 1/2 acre. Your statement really makes me pretty damn angry because I as a realtor usually tell people what's going on in the municipality and I'd like to have Mr. Davidson here tonight and ask him the question. If I actually told him that there would be no further subdivision of that land south of his property. If you want to get him before me, I would personally like_ to ask him that question. Councilman Boyt: I appreciate your response. I can take by the tone that you certainly didn't intend to imply nor did you tell Mr. Davidson that and it helps me make my decision. Al Klingelhutz: I absolutely did not tell him that. I Councilman Boyt: But that's what he claimed in the Planning Commission. Al Klingelhutz: Mr. Davidson bought a piece of land there for the same reason 1 I think that Mike Klingelhutz bought his piece of land. To have a place to build his house. Mayor Hamilton: I would just like to comment that Bill's comments in no way reflect the rest of the Council's feelings about Al Klingelhutz' feelings on this piece of property. ' Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Hawks Hill pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSIDER POTENTIAL 1988 REFERENDUM ITEMS: ' A. COMMUNITY CENTER, FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE. ' Mayor Hamilton: We have three items that we're considering for referendum potentially in 1988. The Community Center, we have the final report and recommendation from the Community Center Task Force this evening. We have the Trail Plan and Lake Ann improvements by the Park and Recreation Commission and 28 , i City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 II lI� U remodeling of the Fire Station which will be presented by Nick Reuhl of EOS Corporation. First of all the Community Center, a final report and IIrecoefldation from the Community Center Task Force. Don Ashworth: Jim Mady will be presenting the overview and then he will be IIintroducing Bob Davis who will go through the plan itself. Jim Mady: The Task Force met for the past eight months to review feasibility of building a community center in the city of Chanhassen. We II initially set out our goals and our objectives and set out our plan what our purpose was going to be. We first off decided, or looked at what the needs of the community were for a recreational facility to be in the community meeting facilities for the whole community. We also wanted to review the opportunity Ito present to the city in obtaining the HRA building, the Frontier Lumber and the lease of that facility. We wanted to find out what the impact to the II taxpayers were to building a center. What it was going to cost the taxpayer of the city and we wanted to look at the possibility of a community center being a magnet, a draw, pulling the entire community together. What we found was that a community center built in the old Instant Webb location was an I unprecedented opportunity. We could build a 4 million dollar facility for 2.6 million dollars. We found that the community currently is split. Many of our citizens are traveling to the communities of Chaska, Eden Prarie, Excelsior, Minnetonka to participate in various recreational facilities as well as to use IImeeting areas in being able to get together. We looked at the tax impact and F found that a community center built in the downtown area could provide up to 1 $250,0041.00 in additional taxes to the city from other developments in and Iliaround the community center. We saw that there was a shortage of recreational and community meeting spaces in the city. We presently can not handle meeting activities we would like to plan in the city. We found also that the II community center could be self-sufficient. It could, in itself, raise enough funds to operate itself without being a drain on the taxpayers. For these reasons, the Task Force voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council II that the referendum placed on the ballot to the voters of Chanhassen to build a community center as shown in the materials provided to the Council. Now I'll have Bob Davis go over the community center plan that we came up with and he will be able to answer any questions you have on it. IBob Davis: This is a larger scale map of what I think you all have received. Let me just fill in a little bit of information for you. My name is Robert Davis. I'm an architect. I've worked for the city's Community Center Task IForce for about 2 1/2 months. You all have a copy of this on a smaller scale. Let me give you some orientation and point out a few features that are not II specifically labeled. The building referred to on the south line is the line across that is labeled community road. The west side goes all the way up, was labeled .. That's the structure that's existing. The south 80 feet of that is a concrete structure, concrete walls, concrete roof, substantial building. II Our direction is to within that structure construct racquet ball courts and community rooms. To the north of that what we're labeling as the swimming pool area, the idea is to remove the roof, remove the columns that support the roof and build the pool within that under a new roof structure over it which is highlighted in the section here. The area would have some sky lighting with several levels with pedestrian walkway on the one side. That would II 29 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 continue around. A good share of that would be enclosed with..., hopefully from the point of view of safety and monitoring and using a narrower corridor than the typical feeling of seeing through to the pool, it would be a !- comfortable feeling I think to walk down some of these long corridors. Going on from there, you have an area labeled gymnasium and there is shown two basketball court layouts going north and south and one going east and west over the top of the other two. The north 66 feet of that gymnasium is what I refer to as the Frontier Building or the old lumberyard building. The balance is new structure as is the structure here to the southeast. The ice arena is a new structure. The retail just to the south which is labeled the Animal Fair is about 6,000 square feet under city ownership which would be used for retail. Perhaps in a trade for some of this property or under some facility to bring a tenant in there. Either sold or leased or contacted in someway in developing the plan here. Hoisington and Associates has recommended 492 parking spaces needed to accomodate the civic center facilities, swimming pool and gymnasium, racquet ball, community rooms and the ice arena. We're showing approximately 95% of that, 474. That includes 180 which are new to the south ' of the bowling area and this is worked out with Hoisington in what is existing and what is proposed now, we have a count of plus 180 here. To the east we're adding 37 directly south of the ice arena. North we're -adding 40, north of the ice arena and 162 to the east of the arena. There are 55 labeled across very close to the railroad tracks. Those 55 are on the railroad tracks right- of-way. There is a strong feeling that that is a viable direction to ask for an easement from the railroad to be used for parking. It's a narrow easement compared to some of the other areas along the railroad-track. It's not an area that could ever be developed. Parking would be a reasonable use of that space. 0 to the east we're showing a couple areas in the pink or red 1 color. Just north of the ice arena we're showing future development from Bloomberg Companies of the theater. That would take out some parking spaces if that theater was built. At that time there would be a need in our planning for a parking ramp. This area here would accomodate 330 to 340 cars. At time point I think we would also have to reroute this road and perhaps lose this building. It is Fred Hoisington's feelings that the ramp in here at that location could accomodate several levels, three in fact. One accessing from the higher elevation from the east and the lowest from the south. It's a very tight situation with this building and that building would eventually go. The other building here, the existing mill shop, would have to be taken out to accomodate this 162 parking lot. Up in the other corner here is the second level of the pool showing the circulation around the small seating area. On top of the racquetball sectopm here which indicates our character which we're trying to achieve in the center of this area. We feel that was a good way to accomodate somebody coming in from the various corridors that we would have in this center. The swimming pool with a skylighted area and a sparkle of acticity and light and we felt a good atmosphere to the community center. Are there any questions? Councilman Johnson: I like what's going on here mostly. The elevated corridor on the west side of the pool, I'm not 100% sure what all the need for that is. It's probably a minor cost item. The corridor on the west side of the swimming pool that goes from the community rooms up to the retail [!! center. 30 ' a City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 irMayor Hamilton: Circulation area? ' Councilman Johnson: Yes, just a circulation corridor. Bob Davis: In the section that's showing the seating area to the south of the ' pool, overlooking the pool on the second level, would be adequate for that seating. That seating perhaps could be located in another place. That's an ideal place for in terms of a swimming meet, to watch a swimming meet. There certainly are other possibilities of arrangements for seating. ' Councilman Johnson: So that's the point where it narrows down here behind racquetball courts? the Bob Davis: One of our thoughts, we have some expansion space above the locker rooms for visual expansion in the future. We have expansion space over the community rooms. They're only one story high and that existing structure is 20 feet high. That corridor could in the future lead down to a second level here. Locker rooms are down farther to a second level or some future development over the existing community rooms proposed here beyond the racquet ball. Councilman Johnson: What I'm talking about is the corridor. IBob Davis: The corridor, right, on the west side. Councilman Johnson: Right. It comes from the north going south. You think ' that's a necessary connection north to south? Bob Davis: It certainly is with the proposed seating. Seating from the ' second level. Councilman Johnson: Right, but you can get to that seating from the south with a partial corridor but you're just saying it would be better to come either way? Bob Davis: No. This is the only access right to it right now unless we ' provided a stairway or some other connection from the the west. That corridor does not go all the way around. It only goes south to the seating area. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not sure why you have a problem with the corridor. I don't understand what the problem is. Councilman Johnson: I'm looking at the lower drawing. Bob Davis: Okay, the north/south corridor here? ' Councilman Johnson: Right. Bob Davis: It's providing circulation as a second route around the community rooms or access into the bowling center from the side and there is an exitway and a corner that's retained by the City there. 31 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Are we looking that we will have an access to the bowling center at that point? Bob Davis: Yes. Don Ashworth: They accomodated a cut out in their building plans so the actual cut out as it would go into this corridor currently exists. On that west side there are two levels of corridors. The bottom level which would go to the Bowling Center, outside north and then up. Then the upper corridor which goes to the seating area that Bob has proposed. ' Councilman Johnson: In other words, we could park in the future parking ramp next to the future hotel and come in that way and make it to the community rooms a lot simplier? Bob Davis: There are really four directions to come into this. Councilman Johnson: Co we have some elevators in this area? Bob Davis: No. We will have to have a ramp from the south entrance into the I community rooms. We're changing elevation of approximately 4 feet from the entry level here to this circulation level so for handicap access we will have the ramp with an elevation of plus 4 feet. ' Councilman Johnson: Can handicap get to view the swimming pool? Bob Davis: Yes. j Councilman Johnson: In the seating area? Bob Davis: Our pool deck area is 956 which is the same as the south and east entrances. Councilman Johnson: So handicap would only be able to get to the deck area ' unless the came from a different direction? Don Ashworth: Again, if you parked over on that west side, going through that corridor, all of that is at 960 elevation so you would have to know that that would be an access for handicap. That you could get through there. Councilman Geving: I guess I was quite surprised by the Task Force report. I I had talked briefly with the Task Force on one evening and I was convinced that we still hadn't found the best sight in the community for a community center. I asked them to search out throughout the community areas that might be considered and not concentrate just on the downtown area. Specifically do not concentrate in the Bloomberg complex and my thoughts were that we should take a look at all of the freestanding opportunities. So when this Task Force report came to me on Friday, I had a chance to review it and I'm still skeptical about the plan that centers the whole operation in the Bloomberg complex. For one reason, I'm afraid that if this facility is built as I see it here on your sketch, there is virtually no expansion capability ever. There's no place to ever build anything onto the structure once it's 32 ' I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 t r� I constructed. There's no lace to p go. I'm not totally convinced, as the report indicated here, that it would be cheaper to build this site someplace ' else. I don't see the dollar figures showing that difference in our report and I think that we asked for that. The savings of a million and a half dollars, I'm not convinced of that. I am very much concerned about parking for this facility. I see the need here for approximately, what we'd say, 490 ' parking spaces. There's a potential for the expansion of the Dinner Theater to add another theater and if that takes place, we're going to lose all of the 40 on the north side of the ice arena, a great deal of those that are on the ' east side and be replaced with a ramp. My question to you and anybody else who like to respond, once that ramp is constructed, would our citizens be paying for that parking in the ramp? I need to know that? I need to know if ' that was considered by the group. When Bloomberg expands his Dinner Theater and he removes those parking spaces from this facility, where do our citizens park? Co we park in his ramp and do we pay for our parking? ' Mayor Hamilton: Do you have any other questions? Councilman Geving: Yes I do. ' Mayor Hamilton: Okay, keep them coming. II Councilman Geving: I see that the group here is proposing one complex at 2.5 million dollars. We have four issues ahead of us as far as I'm concerned on } the referendum. I've always in my mind split the ice arena away from the community center. It made a lot of sense to me to split the 1 million dollar I ice arena away from the community center so we'd have two issues. One for 1.5 million dollars and one for a million dollars along with the Fire Department's request for a million dollars and the request for a million dollars for the trail plan. I originally thought that we were going to present all four of those issues to the citizens on a referendum. Now tonight I'm a little bit surprised. It looks like you're going for the whole bundle in one shot at 2 1/2 million dollars. Maybe you can explain that to me Jim. Mayor Hamilton: Before you do that, do you have any other questions? ' Councilman Geving: Yes I do. Mayor Hamilton: Please finish your questions. Councilman Geving: I have a number of questions? I want to see a breakdown of the cost for an off-site location outside of the downtown area. I'd like to know what's going to happen if and when the expansion takes place by Mr. Bloomberg on his facility and what happens to those parking spaces that will be lost. Will our citizens be paying for his parking ramp? I need to know that. No one, as far as I know, ever contacted the Senior Citizens to ask them whether or not they'd be interested in space in this facility and yet you have 800 square feet for senior rooms. I've talked with the seniors as late as last Saturday and I talked to several people who said they were never i interested in moving into a community facility. They are very happy in the elementary school. I don't know where that item came from. Then I'd like to have some facts and figures on the heat generated by the proposed ice arena. 33 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 It says here that a cost factor of $50,000.00 could be saved if the ice arena "- were to be built and you'd save that heat from the ice generating machine. Is that a fact or is it just a selling point? That's the first time I've seen that. I have seen no figures that would support that or no indication from someone who is an engineer who would support that. Then finally I have just one more question for Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, who do you work for? Were you hired by the HRA to do this architectural scheme or is this part of the Bloomberg project? I need to know that answer and that's a fair question? Mayor Hamilton: Let me just go back through these questions. You asked a number of them. First of all, I'd like to ask Jim Mady on behalf of the committee to respond to the site question that Dale asked about considering other sites in the community and I think he also was curious about the cost of other sites. He apparently feels that the committee did not consider any other sites and I wish you would address that. Jim Mady: We looked Dale at possibly putting a community center out at Lake , Ann on the land that we currently own there. We looked at possibly the Charlie James property along West 78th. We discussed possibly a number of other areas throughout the community. Not specific to land parcels but just areas. It was felt that number one, the cost of building a facility free standing in other areas at 4 million dollars was more than the committee, the Task Force itself wanted to spend. We looked at the difficulty of building another facility outside the MUSA line where a number of the locations would have been and just didn't feel that was feasible. The inability to have sewer available to us, right on the main lines and without water, it just didn't make sense to us to do that. We felt all and all that the downtown location was the best bang for the buck. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, then Jim or Don, would you care to comment on Dale's comment that he feels there is absolutely no room for expansion, ever with the configuration that's been shown here. Bob, whoever should handle that. Bob Davis: It's a good question and one that the committee discussed at quite length and I think down at the bottom you'll see about five revisions to date on this plan. We moved, turned, slid. There's a distance of 33 feet between the gymnasium and the ice arena. We studied the combination of volleyball and gymnasiums and how many could fit in there with the best combination and how much space we should use. At one point we were consider a larger gymnasium. Our direction was to move the ice arena down at this point to allow for possible future expansion of those gymnasiums. Whether there's volleyball, gymnastics, aerobics, some other activity that needs more space. 33 feet times 120 feet wide, there's a significant potential there to expand. There's expansion space on the second level above the proposed men and women's locker room to double their size. There's expansion space above the labeled community rooms on the second level to double that size. The ice arena is 120 feet by 240 feet. It's about as large as any ice arena ever built. Typically they may be down to 110 wide, 200 long, 210 long. We felt as a committee, we wanted to build what we could now in a shell structure and artificial ice that would accomodate future locker rooms, seating, washrooms but build the shell for the size now to accomodate any future need. I think we've taken that direction. The budget on the ice arena is for a shell building, artificial 34 ' I 3 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 ' f ice, hockey boards and a zamboni but it allows for future space. We have some sketches in the development plan showing where the washrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, skating area would be. The seating. ' Mayor Hamilton: Then Bob erha you could also p Ps Y address the parking costs that Dale asked about. Should there be expansion of the Dinner Theater and a ramp is built, Don do you want to handle that? How those costs may be handled. Don Ashworth: Actually there are several committee members here tonight. I feel confident that any one of the -committee members could respond to any of these questions but we definitely have a chicken and egg situation. The Dinner Theater wants to preserve their ability to construct a theater at this ' location. A 1,000 seat theater and they wanted to insure that they would have sufficient area, planned area to accomodate that. Similarly, they wanted to be assured that as a part of any type of approvals that everyone recognizes ' that they would have the ability to construct a hotel and have surface parking for that hotel without necessitating a ramp. So in all scenarios as far as Bloomberg Company is concerned, they wanted to insure that everyone recognized that there is sufficient land area here to accomodate their future desires for the construction of an additional Dinner Theater and the construction of a hotel without necessitating a ramp. If you look at the total parking and the total needs when we complete the retail, the hotel, the additional theater, bowling center, you will see that there is a necessity for two ramps. One in this location and one in this location. Those two ramps will in fact meet the total parking needs of this entire area. In the interim, the area that would be put as the future site for a new theater can accomodate, that we have I - sufficient area between this area and this area and this area to accomodate surface parking for this complex. The need arises for the ramp once the theater is constructed. The dollars generated by the construction of a new I theater or the construction of a hotel would be sufficient to pay for the cost of a ramp. ' Mayor Hamilton: The tax increment dollars? Don Ashworth: That's correct. ' Councilman Geving: The question I- asked was, will any citizen ever be charged to park in Mr. Bloomberg's ramp when he goes to attend one of our civic functions in the civic center? That's what I needed to know. ' Mayor Hamilton: We need to get a clarification on who's ramp it is. I'm not sure why Dale has a hangup on Bloomberg. ' Councilman Geving: I have a hangup because I'm getting questions from our citizens Mr. Mayor and the question is, whether or not the referendum, if it's ' passed by our citizens, think that they're getting one thing and 5 years from now know that they're going to have to start paying to the HRA or to the City or whoever owns that facility. Let's put it out in front right now and get it out on the table. I- ' 35 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Don Ashworth: If it is tax increment dollars, lir ramp, it would be a city facility. which are constructing this Councilman Geving: As free parking? Don Ashworth: If the facility itself has been paid for through tax increment ' dollars, then the only cost you're talking about is operating that facility. I guess no where in that process had anyone on the committee or on the HRA has not reviewed this in great detail but I do not see a necessity for any type of maintenance associated with this facility that would require some type of an attendant. I guess I'm trying to think, there are a number of ramps associated with hospitals and other facilities in which no charge is required. Councilman Geving: That's what I need to know. I think that needs to be stated quickly as part of this overall proposal. Is that this is a community facility. It belongs to the City or it belongs to the n9 people and will be used by the City and it's people at no charge in the future when it's paid for and there is no other maintenance. Mayor Hamilton: One that comes to mind to me is the ramp on 50th and France ' in Edina which I'm sure was built out of tax increment dollars to develop that whole area and there is no charge for that. It's to be used by all the people who are shopping in the area. Okay then Don, perhaps you could address the question about combining the ice center and the remainder of the community center on the referendum and not splitting them off. Don Ashworth: I think I can speak for the entire committee, and maybe when the committee was initially created there were some definite beliefs as to the desire for a community center, potentially not ice. And some were for ice and not necessarily a community center. There were those questioning the necessity for a pool versus the necessity for ice. The unanimous vote that was received on this item recognizes that the entire committee came back to the position that this facility should be built as a one facility. There were those people who came into reviewing this project on the basis of one or the other and came back to the final position that this should be one facility. It should not be separated and the best way to provide the best for the community would be to leave it as one facility. Again, we saw some real diverse beliefs in attitudes when that committee was first formed and in the early formation periods. Again, they went back to that position. Councilman Geving: I guess the problem that I have with that Don is that I always looked at these four issues separately and there may be people who will vote for the community center and wish to place their other million dollars on the fire station. If we use up the 2 1/2 million dollars that we've got planned in the first stage of this whole process, that may be what the people really want to do but if we combine this into one package at 2.5 million dollars, we'll lose that capability. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to have Don go through that scenario with us again because we've reviewed that previously. The dollars that we have available but we can' t.. . 36 1 �- ra City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 I Councilman Geving: I'd like to have that. 1 Mayor Hamilton: And then how they may be spent as we go through this process of bonding. I guess I'd like to have Don address that in a few minutes but there are a couple other questions that you asked that haven't been answered ' yet. One of them is, and I think Don you should answer this one, perhaps Jim can too, and that's the senior citizen concern. I think just a couple weeks ago we saw a letter from some seniors wondering why they hadn't had space allowed in here. Councilman Geving: I'm not aware of that. Where's the letter? Mayor Hamilton: It was in our packet. Don Ashworth: It did go back to the Task Force. I believe it was in the Council's Administrative Packet that they get. Councilman Geving: I may have missed it. I saw the packet. I went through it. ' Don Ashworth: I met with Leon Hendrickson and we talked about the availability of this type of space in this type of a facility and I must admit there are some differences as to how big or how small this facility should be. Additionally, the committee had some input from one of it's own members, Dave Headla. The concern that this should address the needs of seniors and that we should be continuing to look at that as we get into actual designs of areas such as pool, gym areas and maybe even a seniors room. Final response, and I think it deals with one of your questions, that was the operational cost issue. That wasn't just used as a selling point. The committee did spend ' significant time looking at budgets associated with this type of a facility and they very much wanted to create a facility that truly is operationally balanced so that revenues will in fact exceed expenditures associated with the facility. In every case that they looked at and the most dynamic of those was ' the Eden Prarie facility, they found that the one money generater was in the area of ice. That in fact ice could in fact support other operations in that facility. It was the quote from Mr. Eastman as a part of his presentation, ' that he estimated about $50,000.00 in savings associated with heating that facility. Through making ice, reclaiming the heat associated with that ice making process and being able to... ' Councilman Geving: Over what period of time Don? Don Ashworth: One year. Councilman Geving: It's an annual savings of $50,000.00. ' Don Ashworth: That's correct. So again, one of the issues that did tie these two facilities together was the operational budget side of the question and I think that was an influencing factor for a number of committee members. Mayor Hamilton: I had one other question that needs to be answered and that's Mr. Davis needs to tell us about his employment. 37 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Bob Davis: I think it probably relates to Bloomberg Companies. I was !I-- employed by the Bloomberg Companies from 1977 until 1982. I have not received one dollar in any funds or any reimbursement either trading or bartering or even a theater ticket from Mr. Bloomberg since I left in 1982. He in no way has asked me to work with him. He is working with another architect at this point developing his retail plans as shown on there. Mayor Hamilton: If I remember correctly you were hired by the committee and Y nd by the City to conduct this plan. I'd like to do something and I should have done it a few minutes ago. I'd like to introduce the Community Center Commission members that are here because they've done an excellent job of going through all this information and spent a lot of time on it. Maybe if you could raise yours hands. Dave Headla, Bob Robinett, Bill Kirkvold, Jim Mady, Bill Boyt, Joe Kasper and Pat Swenson is back there. Did I miss anybody? There were a few other members. It's nice to have all these members here. I would just also say I have the utmost confidence in the decisions they have come up with. I think they have done an excellent job. ' Jim Mady: One thing I wanted to comment on, Dale asked about splitting the arena separate from the community center. One of the things, the ice arena, although it's being considered an ice arena is not just going to be a sheet of ice. That building will allow us to play indoor tennis in the off-season. In the fall and the spring prior to putting ice down. We will also be able to play indoor soccer inside that facility. It will be a large enough facility where we can have flea markets, different types of things. Tom Eastman, the manager from the Eden Prairie center says he has 200 different type of events he can hold within his ice facility so that building, although it's main function probably is to have ice available for the community, it will be used for a number of things throughout the year and we will be generating revenue from that building from those other events. ' Councilman Horn: The first question I have is, expanding on your tennis issue, you're talking about having indoor tennis in the spring and in the fall but nothing in the winter when you really want indoor tennis. The next question I have is, what time in the cycle of your study did you look at the issues that were generated by the poll that was put out by the Park and Rec Commission? ' Jim Mady: We issued that early on when we decided what types of programs we wanted to put into the facility. The Task Force members received a copy of the Park and Recreation survey which listed the types of facilities. Councilman Horn: In going through this, it appeared to me that in your polls and your committee, when it came to hockey uses, it got much higher priorities than what I see in the poll that was taken by the Park and Rec. As a matter of fact, in that poll 96% of the households had not participated in youth hockey in the past 12 months. I Jim Mady: You also see on the survey that I believe it was 42% of the households participated in indoor skating. 38 I 1 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 II1 Councilman Horn: But as I read through this poll, it was not clear to me what it meant by indoor skating. If I were to take this poll and fill it out, I ' could interpret that to be roller skating as much as ice skating. There's nothing in here to differeniate that to me as a poll taker. Jim Mady: My recollection when I helped to give the survey back in March, ' when we phrased the question, it was phrased as ice skating. Councilman Horn: So what percentage of the skating rinks used would be used in open skating and that versus hockey use? Jim Mady: We did not split out the times and the day. That was not our function. ' Councilman Horn: I'm just looking for a rough percentage. pe ge. ' Jim Mady: Right now the small Bloomberg arena is available to the general public from 3:00 to 6:00 every day for free open skating and from 6:00 on during the five business days it is used for ice hockey scheduling, broomball, scheudling events. It is also available during the weekends, this is by sheer memory, I believe it's from 4:00 to 6:00 on Saturdays and Sundays also for open skating. I think on Friday evenings also. You have to flexible when we do it when we'll have the most skaters. 1 ; Councilman Horn: What is the utilization of open skating? What e or how many people are using percentage How g ng many people are using it now in the open skating sessions? Lori Sietsema: In the little arena? There's anywhere from 10 kids on that rinks during open skating to 30 or 40. During free skating time we have half ' the rink is free skating and half of it is for lessons so we use it a lot for a lot of things. Councilman Horn: I guess my concern here is in looking at the facilities and the requirements, it appears that indoor tennis courts received a much higher requirement than some of these skating things were and it seems to me that 11 merely being able to use them in the spring and the fall is not giving them justice. Jim Mady: One of the things we also looked at Clark, indoor tennis, the ' number of participates you can have on a tennis court, four total and we just didn't feel that we had enough people using that space without charging a lot. Councilman Horn: It appeared to me that one of the primary justifications for the ice time was.-but in looking through what Eden Prairie has done, they said that they're biggest money maker was racquetball so doesn't it really ' depend on the mix of the amount of available space you have for each one for whether it's self sufficient? In other words, you can come up with a lot of different self sufficient configurations. You don't necessary have to have hockey to make it self sufficient. --- ' 39 11 R�d� City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Jim Mady: You have to remember that the ice making equipment is going to generate a great amount of heat which is going to be stored in the coils underneath the ground. That heat is reclaimed and used to heat the pool. What we're saying is, if we had to buy the energy to heat the pool, Mr. Eastman wasn't positive that it was going to be... He initially felt it may be higher. Councilman Horn: Why did he make the statement that their system is only used 75% of the time? Jim Mady: My understanding was that it's used 100% of it's ability but it only provides 75% of the heat necessary. Lori Sietsema: They don't need as much heat in the summertime. , Councilman Horn: So they only use it 75% of the time because of the seasonal aspect? So they keep their hockey rink open in the summer? 1 Lori Sietsema: Yes, there's will be year round. Councilman Horn: But ours would operate? ' Jim Mady: We would have a community center manager who would determine what would be the greatest use of the facility. In Eden Prairie they have a hockey /I school in the summer. Mr. Eastman felt that probably right there are enough hockey schools in the metropolitan area that there wasn't a great need for another hockey school in the area. That was his gut feeling. Because of that, we looked at other uses for the facility also. Councilman Horn: The other thing that wasn't quite clear to me was it appears that they did not really generate their operating expenses in the last two years and it was a little vague as to why not. I didn't quite understand it. Jim Mady: With the development of the Flagship Club, they had seem some of the community pressure to those other facilities. They fully expect that within the next two years to bring those people back. Also in the past two years, they put their entire recreational staff over into the community center so they've increased their budgets over there to handle this increased staff. All of their programming is done out of that building. Although that is costing additional funds, they feel it is a very large benefit to the community in that their citizens now have access to programs they can sign up for. The basketball leagues, the volleyball leagues, the hockey camps, any time the facility is open. I believe they're hours are from 6:00 until 10:00 or 11:00 at night. ' Councilman Horn: So they're in effect planning their Park and Rec group out of the facility? I think those were all the questions I had. I do want to make one comment. I would like to see the two things separated as Dale has suggested. 40 I I 1 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 1 Council man Boyt: Having worked on this committee for more hours than I care to count, I've been through all these issues. I think the questions that Dale 1 and Clark asked are the right questions to ask. I think there are going to be a lot of those tough questions asked by the community. I think the Task Force asked those tough questions. Several of us went into it convinced that we 1 were going to have to fight it out. I would like to get a couple committee members to make some comments because I saw them make some swings that were rather dramatic during the course and I think that will help the Council see 1 what we went through. One of those people is David Headla who I think came to the committee with some pretty strong feelings about where he wanted to see it located and yet voted with the rest of us to put it downtown. David I think it would help us all if you'd just give us a minute about that process. 1 David Headla: That's true. I recognized the point and even though don't realize, g people you go west of town in Minnewashta and it's still Chanhassen. 1 I wanted to get some recognition out there. The rationale, by the time we looked at where the MUSA line ran, you run into tremendous... Lake Ann isn't feasible. We couldn't really find anything feasible out in the areas where I 1 thought it would be more accessible to the rest of the community. Then we started looking around here and I think it was Don that brought up the Instant Webb building being taken out of there and when we compared the dollars and cents, that's the only way. If we're going to do it, that seems the logical 1 f way. Councilman Boyt: Thanks David. Both of you brought up the question about 1 ' ice. I started out feeling that the ice arena could get along without my vote and my support. I was convinced over the course of time that the community center, if it was going to sell, it was going to sell with a piece of ice attached to it and so I would support having the community look at the whole 1 thing. I really don't feel that the ice arena will stand alone nor do I feel the community center will stand without it. I think somebody who opened my eyes to something about the ice arena outside of hockey was Bob Robinett who 1 made a pretty dramatic point about what had happened to ice arenas in other communities in the type of skating. Bob, could you give us 30 seconds on what you found about the skating use? Bob Robinett: I've been involved in the ice arena a little bit through hockey but since being asked to serve on the Task Force I've taken some surveys and talked to a number of people and I know that Minnetonka for example has a 1 very, very active ice skating program outside of hockey. About a month ago I was in Hutchinson and got to talking to some people that are involved in the hockey association and also asked them about the overall useage of the 1 facility. In a community the size of Hutchinson, he said that they've had over 400 people in skating in different programs. A far greater number than they have in their hockey programs. 1 Councilman Boyt: Thanks Bob. That was the point I wanted to make. I think when we look at tennis, and we certainly did, we had a letter from a member of ( the community asking us to consider tennis. We spent a good bit of time as a committe discussing that topic. It's my understanding that skating will bring in something in the neighborhood of $60.00 an hour in prime time. I don't believe there are many people that are going to pay a half of that to get out i 41 11 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 on the tennis court and play tennis for an hour. It really comes down to a dollar and cents matter in terms of we need revenue generaters in this situation. Skating seems to be a very good one. Eden Prairie was convinced they could sell out another ice arena if they had it and they came within a :1- few votes of getting it but they didn't get it. I think we already have people, just on rumor that we're going to build an ice arena, that are stacking up to get in line so they can get some potential ice time when we finally have it built. I just don't feel that we can get a swimming pool, which we desparately need, that we can get gyms, which we are equally short of, without putting an ice arena on it to generate that money to generate I those energy savings. The question that I had with the committee was on gym space which we are very short of in our community and the desire to make the gyms bigger. Wrestling that out, it was a I believe a 5 to 4 vote on the committee with the 5 saying that they felt the gym space was all we could economically justify and they didn't want to spend another $100,000.00 to expand it. I'll support that position but I would also support expanding it if it came from somebody else on the Council. Something that is a tremendous ' selling point to the community, for this community center, it doesn't have anything to do with what we'll be doing in the community center but that it will draw potentially $250,000.00 worth of tax generating retail business downtown. They're projecting with 30,000 or 40,000 additional feet of retail space, we'll have another quarter million dollars tax money coming into this city. I don't see how we can turn down the opportunity to generate that sort of business right in the heart of the city's commercial development, which is where we'd like to have that. So, I'm clearly in support of this. I think 4 the whole thing comes together as a package because it offers something for everyone. I also talked to seniors this Saturday and I think Jay addressed that point when he wrote a letter to the committee that they responded to and David brought up the point about the seniors. I'm not sure that the seniors have really figured out how they would use that space but we felt that it was our responsibility as a committee to provide to them, that they were certainly a valuable part. We basically have given everybody in the community something in this building. I've been tremendously impressed with the committee and their desire to go out and visit other facilities. Their desire to bring in experts to talk to them and their desire to sort of wade through the tremendous battles that they had in coming up with this plan. Thanks. I Mayor Hamilton: I have several comments and one question that I'll get to in a minute. My comments are, the ice arena, I hear a lot of people say and I'm glad to see it finally says ice arena on here. I was on the committee for a period of time and it was always called a hockey arena. I am not a proponent of hockey. I don't have anybody that plays hockey in my family and I don't play hockey but I do have children who are figure skaters. I think this points out what Bob Robinett was just saying. There are a great number of people who skate and don't necessarily play hockey. I haul my children all over the Twin Cities. They skate at Ausburg, St. Louis Park, Bloomington, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie. We go everyplace that we can possibly find ice time for those kids to skate and when you go there at 6:00 in the morning and the place is full of other kids doing their figure skating and if you're preparing for competi ti.on you know that there's a need for ice time and not just for hockey players. So I think it's something that is needed. Not just to play 42 ' City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 hockey for all the other acitivi.ties that take place in that arena. About 3 weeks ago Don Ashworth and myself met with the School Board, the Chaska School ' Board, School District #112. This is something that does not appear packet and hasn't been brought out but in our conversations with � y them we conversations told the School Board that we were planning this community center and as a part of the community center we were considering a sheet of ice. I mean to tell you, as soon as we said that, because they were not aware of this, everyone of them to a person just went, oh great. They just about came out of their chairs because there is no place, there is not a home for the Chaska Hawks to play ' hockey and that's where our kids go to school. All of us who live in Chanhassen. Not all of us, some go to Minnetonka but those who go to School District #112, they don't have a home rink. So they were very, very enthused about having an ice arena in Chanhassen and would like to, if it's built, that would be the home rink for the Chaska hockey team. Another comment the School Board made was that they are very short of any type of gymnasium space. They just don't have enough facilities to house all of the events that take place ' in the school. They're using the lunchroom for multi-purpose activities. They're just chopping up, they're using just regular classrooms for activities, athletic activities. They would like us to put in some gymnasiums ' and they would use those also. Now when I heard that I thought is something I hadn't even thought about. Something we hadn't planned hon and here the school i.s already saying we'll use all of your facilities as much as you'll let us use them because we don't have the space here and we need it. Chaska was represented at that meeting, the City of Chaska, and they said that they had considered or are considering building a community center and the School Board's reaction was, that's great, we'll use that space too because we are so terribly short and they don't plan on adding on to their schools right ' now So that's certainly another very positive thing to consider when looking at building this community center. As far as tennis is concerned, I personally don't play tennis and I would like to see us at some point think about either having the City or a private group come in here and put a bubble over the tennis courts that we have up by the Elementary School. It would be ideal. You have four beautiful courts there. If a bubble were to be put over those, they could be used year around rather than just the few months in the summer now when it's not raining on a weekend day. I think that's a potential solution to our tennis problems during the colder months. As far as the ' seniors, I visited with the seniors also. These are the South Shore Senior Center, all of us were there for breakfast on Saturday and there was a few seniors there from Chanhassen. The seniors in Chanhassen who would like to use this facility are those that meet at the Elementary School. Everytime I ' go over there and meet with them, they meet on Thursdays, they have lunch and then they play cards and do their craft things together. Everytime I go there they ask, when are we going to have something in Chanhassen where we can have our own place where we can keep our own things so we don't have to share with the school. Those people dearly enjoy seeing the children walking around and they talk to them and they like the interaction with them but they would still like to have their own facility where they know they can go and make ' their own meals and have their crafts there and do their own projects and have a little more space of their own and not continually be interrupted by school functions. So I think the seniors would be able to use this facility and I think they'd be very happy with it and could utilize it in a very good way. I'm sold on the plan. I think it's an excellent plan. I agree with the way ' 43 11 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 11 the configuration has come out finally. I didn't agree with it initially. As things have turned and moved and slid around now, as Bob has said, they seem to fit together better. The one question I do have is, that Bill mentioned, and that is the space between where the gymnasiums are and the ice arena. It seems as though that space ought to become a part of the community center. I think that's what Bill was talking about. The expansion space there. Apparently there was some discussion on the committee about the cost of that and that it may be too expensive to add that space at this time. It seems like if we're going to do it, I don't know what the dollars are involved in adding that space, but I think we ought to take a very close look at that, in joining that space in. Still having an entrance coming from the east side but including that space as part of the gymnasium. I think it makes the gym just big enough so they're more useable for more types of activities and you can also get from one gymnasium to the other without interrupting the activities that are taking place in the gym that's on the further west side. I don't know what the objectives were about adding that space other than the dollars so perhaps Jim you can tell me. It was strictly dollars or what? ' Jim Mady: We looked at both the dollar impact of adding that space. The number that was being bounced around I believe was about_ $150,000.00. It did add roughly 35 feet onto the gym. It would allow us another large volleyball court. It gave us a lot more space around the basketball facilities as well as to turn the courts 90 degrees. It opened up a lot more space in there. We wrestled with it on two different meetings and felt that we could get by right now by putting in the configuration as it is for 2.6 million dollars today Imrather than increase it another $150,000.00. Although we'd be gaining some space, my feeling was we weren't gaining enough space to really use it at that point in time. It was basically dollars but it came to me, my vote was down to dollars and cents when we voted. Mike Klingelhutz: I was wondering if the public will have input on the I recreational center. If you're going to open it up to get people's reactions before you vote on whether you approve it or not? Mayor Hamilton: What we're doing is acting on the final report from the committee. We can accept that and I believe it's going to be back on an agenda item for public comment. ' Don Ashworth: The entire idea is, as part of the City Council authorizing this as a referendum item, what they're doing is committee, take this item out to the public and get their comments before this thing is finalized as a part of the final referendum. So we're not going to talk about a referendum until the earliest mid-February so if there is December, January, early February will be used for that interaction process. This plan is not finalized. This is not a final document. Councilman Geving: This is the first time we've seen this Mike. That's why the Council has so many questions. Mayor Hamilton: We've been kind of informed as we went along but it's the first time we've seen the final report from the committee. 44 1 I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Councilman Johnson: A couple of follow-ups. One, is the structure currently known as the Bloomberg arena, the little barn out there with natural ice on ' it. There was some talk at one time of utilizing the same ice equipment as the new arena to put artificial ice in there. Is that still under consideration? It seems like an incremental cost increase to your refrigeration system. Bob Davis: You'd have plenty of capacity in the cooling equipment if you wanted to add that one at a later time. ' Councilman Johnson: Is the Bloomberg arena big enough for some indoor tennis or something like that or will we require both ice or indoor soccer in the winter? Indoor soccer doesn't take much. Councilman Boyt: They anticipate all the ice being sold there too. ' Councilman Johnson: I kind of suspected that. As a matter of fact, I suspect we'll see ice pretty much year round. Can we make ice on a portion of this and utilize a portion of it during the summer where we may not have as much ' time but I know we play youth hockey straight through the summer. There are summer leagues. Figure skating is not a winter activity. That's year round. I really don't see any time when we're not going to be making ice to tell you the truth. I think we'll fill this thing up and be able to take it year round on ice, personally from what I've seen. Bob Robinett: Indoor tennis, indoor soccer and some of these other sports that are being considered as alternative uses for the facility, we'll be ' skating and then if we can make it pay for itself utilizing skating, that's the way to go because the building is designed for skating. Truthfully, and I think it's been pointed out to everybody, a tennis facility is marginal. The ceiling is only 20 some feet high so it's not inclined for a tennis facility. It does have some alternative uses. .. ' Councilman Johnson: ...all this stuff in here, it's quite likely it may be pretty much an ice arena. We don't know yet. Like you say, if we did this we'd hire a manager to manage it. I know there is some sentiment in this town ' to find someplace to do indoor soccer in the winter. Mayor Hamilton: Could I just comment on what you were saying Jay? As I mentioned earlier, my kids are figure skaters and do compete in figure skating and in the summertime it's really difficult to find ice. We're going all over the place looking for ice because a lot of arenas do shut down so there just isn't any. Like Eden Prairie shuts down one month during the year and I think ' most of them, like Richfield has two sheets of ice and they shut one down completely so there's only one available so there just isn't a lot of ice around in the summertime so I think you're right. There probably would be ' considerable demand for summer ice. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I was talking to somebody who knows some retired North Stars. He believes that they can bring in a North Star clinic in the I summer with some of these retired friends of his. I know that the increase in size on the gymnasium, I'm with the Athletic Association and have been working ' 45 0i City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 with them in coaching and stuff. We were always trying, we reserved the gymnasium at the grade school the day after our basketball ends in the winter, we put in our reservation for next year because that's how soon you have to have it in in order to get that and one year we almost didn't get it. We could probably fill this. There's a lot of sports in this town. We're always trying to look for this. I think we're really going to have to look at whether it will be cost effective. A 5 to 4 vote on the committee really shows that this is a narrow issue. Right now my feeling is, while I think I would like to have more room for a gymnasium, I would hate to see that be the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm going to leave it up to the committee as to what they think after more public input on this. I have support for a senior center, a senior lounge, a senior drop-in center. I've heard several seniors have come to me and asked if we can work on getting something- closer than the South Shore which doesn't really have a drop-in center. The South Shore has only specific hours. There's a group of people who would like to have a center where they can just stop in most any old time. Not from 1:00 to 3:00 on Thursdays or whatever, where they can drop in and chat with folks of their own generation. I do believe that this heat recovery from making the ice will be very cost effective and is something that's_pretty standard industry practice nowadays. Anytime you have a major refrigeration system you try to recover the heat off of that and utilize it someplace else. This will be a very major refrigeration system. Councilman Horn: Is it a conventional method of heating a pool? Do you think the savings is justified over a heat pump versus this for $50,000.00? Councilman Johnson: This would be the heat pump. What you're doing is pumping the heat out of the ice and putting it in the swimming pool. If you heated your swimming pool with a heat pump, you'd buy a heat pump for the swimming pool. A heat pump is, if nobody knows what a heat pump is, it's a refrigeration unit run backwards so you're taking heat out of the air and putting it someplace else. If you've already got a refrigeration unit, you don't need, the ice arena needs cooling and the swimmi.ng pool needs heating so you just interconnect the two and you save both ways. That makes complete sense to me. Councilman Horn: One final comment. I totally support the idea of a , community center as a referendum item. I still need to know, as Dale asked, for the information about the $50,000.00 savings. I suspect that could be made up in other ways. I agree that just about any facility we put in out ' here we could more than sell any type of use we had. I don't think it necessarily has to be an ice arena to do that. I think we have other options that will give us that and as such I believe this should be a referendum item and I would support it as a two piece item and let the community decide what their options are. If indeed there is as much emphasize for an ice facility as we're led to believe, it will stand on it's own in a referendum. Mayor Hamilton: One of the things that hasn't been mentioned, as we continue to build and develop the downtown area, you want to do everything possible to encourage people to come to the City of Chanhassen and shop and spend their dollars using our retail facilities. When you have a community center such as this and you have an ice center attached to it, it generates approximately 600 46 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Itrips a week. That's a lot of trips. If p you know of something else that would generate that many trips, I guess I'm curious to know what it is. It's just another instance of where this type of facility, with the ice and with the other facilities available there, make the rest of the community work. It all kind of fits together. It just makes a lot of sense to do it that way. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to add a point. The committee wrestled with this from the very first time it met right up until we made the decision and the decision was unanimous to present these together. If you're going to split ' the ice arena off, and I know the ice arena is very visible. People either love it or they hate it. Some people have told me they're going to vote against the whole community center if it has an ice arena on it. Inspite of that we don't want to offer this as a piece here and a piece there. We want ' to offer the whole thing as a unified community center. That's the way to do it. Otherwise, let's take the pool and split that off. Let's take the basketball courts and split those off. It doesn't make any sense unless you pull it all together. Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. I agree with you 100%. ' Councilman Johnson: We're talking about trips per day and helping generate for our tax increment district, is there any possibility of bringing any of those funds to bear on this community center if this is going to be an asset I to the district? If it would help pull businesses into town and help generate business for those businesses? ' Mayor Hamilton: Don? I'm not sure the question's clear. Don Ashworth: To date the position taken by the City Council and the HRA has been a very conservative one. We will not count any additional dollars until a structure is actually constructed. We're using the $250,000.00 figure. I think it is a correct one. There are dollars being put towards the community center in terms of the corridor system and quite frankly there is a high value ' associated with the land and the building that are literally being contributed by the HRA over to the city. They do have an option to sell that building. In fact we've actually entered into a sales agreement for that development to ' go in private use. They're withholding that offer. In other words, consummating that sale until after the city makes a determination. Do we want that structure to be used for a community center, in which case they will void out that sale. Mayor Hamilton: I think we can deal with this one so we can move onto the next. ' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the Community Center Final Report and recommendation by the Community Center Task Force be accepted and that the entire community center as one be presented as a referendum issue ' at a date to be determined. Also, to include additional information into the report dealing with site reviewed and costs and any other additional information that has not been included that will help to sell it to the I general public. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried. 47 1 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Councilman Johnson: I'd like to suggest one improvement to the final report and that is that information be placed in the report detailing the other sites that were looked at. Make this report as complete as possible. A good !- document to stand on. Talk about why we didn't place it outside the MUSA line. Why the group decided against the other free standing options and what the costs where. Place that in the report rather than merely referring to it. Make this report a complete report on all the actions taken by the Task Force. Councilman Horn: My concern in referendums is that we should give the voters as many options as we can. I'm going to push for that in all the referendum items. That we separate them as much to give the people as much input into this thing as possible. I think by lumping things together we're giving away those options and I don't feel that's right. , CONSIDER POTENTIAL 1988 REFERENDUM ITEM: REMODELING OF FIRE STATION, NICK RUEHL, EOS CORPORATION. Jack Anderson: I'll let Jim speak first and introduce the project then I'll come up and focus on the planning then we'll deal with the questions. Jim McMahon: 4 years ago there was a recognized need for an addition on the fire station. However, at that time there were not funds available to consider that project. Then about a year and a half ago we were informed that the time was such that we were to review our problems and needs, and propose an addition onto the fire station. In doing that, reviewing our problems and needs, we came up with the facts that we needed added room for equipment, offices, meeting rooms and some type of a fitness facility or room. In addition to that, we reviewed our situation as far as membership is concerned. New members as well as keeping those existing members. We've also reviewed the growth of the city, where the city is going. There has been a lot of discussion tonight in regards to the new downtown, the community center, industrial park is growing and our residential population is growing in leaps and bounds. For example, to date we are up 21% in calls over last year. We also reviewed what our needs were as far as added equipment at this time and with all the industrial growth, downtown and so on, we also came to the conclusion that we now are in need of a aerial platform. This is in conjunction with industrial growth and residential construction changes, designs, setbacks in buildings throughout the community. Basically what we've come up with as far as solutions to some our problems. Obviously we will cover the room situation with the presentation of the plan that we have for the building. However, as far as our membership is concerned, which also is tied into this plan, after visiting with other communities and other chiefs in the area who have similar problems to us in regards to new members and keeping members, they recommended that we attend a school seminar that was put on by an individual out of Cleveland who specializes in volunteer fire departments. After attending this we also designed into our building and found areas where we felt we could help fill the requirements as far as membership and keeping our members. One of the aspects that they pointed was that the overall picture as far as planning your department you should consider what your population is, what your membership is, where it's coming from and after doing that, we've determined that Chanhassen is pretty much now, and moving more so 48 ' I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 III towards a white collar community and therefore, the use of two or three things that we feel will attract people of that particular standing. We also propose ' a Plan A and Plan B to the membership. What you're going to see tonight is the choice of the total department. Obviously not 100% voted but definitely a unanimous vote in favor of the plan that's going to be presented to you ' tonight. There was some question at one of the meetings in regards to a portion of the station which will be addressed tonight and that's our multi- use fitness facility. In regards to what we would like to recommend to the council, we would like on the referendum that both the aerial aparatus and the ' fire station be a single issue. At this point Jack can go over the planning aspects. ' Mayor Hamilton: Could you repeat what you just said? You want to have the aerial with the station? You want them to go together? I just want to clear on that. Jack Anderson: I'll start out with the lower level. Basically, the existing building there is about 7,000 square feet and the new would be about 15,000 square feet. The lower level, the green area is where you come in, pile ' storage, training officers, womens and men's locker area, courtyard, exercise area that could be used as a racquetball court or multipurpose uses. The intent was to design it so a second floor could be put in. With this four across here, there could be some expansion in offices i.n the administrative area here and down here, expansion of the exercise area and additional storage. This exercise area down here... On the first floor, I'll start out with the apparatus area. That essentially has grown twice as large and as you I, can see, this is basically, putting the aerial here... We maintain a back access. There's an emergency generator, I think the plan previously said to not have it. This would be an emergency generator here and this would tie into the City Hall for emergency power. This is the existing building presently goes from here and goes like this. The office, the more administrative part, one of the key planning aspects was this manned ' conference dispatch located centrally between the chief and other offices, entry with dispatch lookout into the apparatus room. It also gets the dispatch out of the traffic which it presently is in right now. It's a much better planning for that room. Then, the chief's office here, assistant and ' an additional office located there, a lounge area in the upper area of the courtyard. Parking is up front, predominantly in back and then along the side over here. I guess that pretty much takes you through. You had expressed some concerns about cost. We have indicated a skylight area here and some additional orientation of the local post tower, those came to about $42,000.00 and we could look at those as an alternate. ' Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything else you wanted to present Jim? Jim McMahon: No, I think that's pretty much it other than the fact that I ' forgot to mention one of the things involved in the multiuse fitness room..., one of the things at the entrance was the fact that we attended three meetings in the last year that were attended by OSHA and OSHA has on all three occasions stressed an emphasize on the need and the fact that they will be enforcing fitness programs as far as fire fighters are concerned and they expressed an interest in seeing to it that many new stations building 49 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 additions will include some type of a fitness facility for their fire fighters :l- as it's been determined on a national numbers, the number one cause of fire fighters fatality is heart attack from physical exertion. Our multiuse fitness room includes a program for strenuous cardiac exercise program. I might also add, this facility will be open for police officers that are also under the same requirements as we are. Other public servants that would fall under that ,requirement. ' Councilman Johnson: I don't have many questions on here. I have looked at this. I work with OSHA regulations and are familiar with the requirements here. I see the entire need for this. This is probably one of the most vital services that this city provides to our citizens. It's an excellent fire protection system, our fire fighting. We're working more with our fire 11 marshalls and everything to get fire prevention going and the entire facility I believe is totally necessary if we want to continue providing our citizens with this current level of service. With the changing demographic nature of this city, we are going to have to have something that will attract more fire ' fighters into the area. We're going to need more fire fighters as we are growing. The need for the aerial truck I believe is there. It's past due. You have to fight fires, it doesn't necessarily mean a tall building to fight a fire in. It would mean a wide building. If you want to hit a fire that's in the center of a building like United Mailing or Instant Webb, the Press, you can't reach those from the ground. If you have to get into the attic of a building that has a high pitch on the roof, it becomes very dangerous for the fire fighters to try and negotiate those pitches. With the, I call it a cherry picker type ladder truck here where you have a platform that people can stand in, they can go right up onto those high pitch roofs and fight their fire. You look at Near Mountain. A lot of those houses have a high pitch roof in it. I have a neighbor near me that probably has at least a 1 to 1 pitch on his roof. It's almost an A-frame. I think it's due and I'd like to see this go to referendum. I'd like to see our citizens pass this and get this project built because I think this is an essential service that we must have. Councilman Boyt: I can save us some time. I'm for them both. I got no questions and no comments. Councilman Horn: The only question I have is just one minor one. I believe in our packet you talked about the space being available to city employees. Are you referring only to public safety employees or all city employees? Jim McMahon: It would be available to all city employees. It's important for the City. When we have looked at facilities that have been built in this town, Instant Webb, they have an exercise facility for their employees. The Press and what they've found is one, they keep people on the job. Two, they get less people missing work because they are physically fit and their performance is better. So whether or not everybody will use that facility, it will be available to them and those who do use it, will be better workers as far as the city's concerned. Councilman Horn: I just have one more comment. It should be obvious to everybody here that if we buy an aerial truck we're going to need someplace to 50 ' d City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 put it so if we get an aerial truck with no facility, we can't get an aerial truck. Again, in this case, I think there is an option of expanding the ' facility without an aerial truck. I don't think that that's a good idea to put them together. ' Councilman Geving: I've been here for many years and I can tell you that I've always appreciated what the fire department has done for our community. For the most part we've tried to take care of their needs with good equipment and supported them wherever it was needed. The proposal that I see before me ' tonight is one that's highly important to our community. We have not had any expansion to our fire hall since it was built. Our community has probably doubled in that time. We know that the need is there for a command center. ' We need to have additional office spaces as we mentioned when you were here last time. We need to have the additional two bays for the placement of our vehicles that are pretty well crowded in there now. I don't think we need to be embarrassed about asking for a recreation room or an exercise facility. That goes with the department and if it's a need that's going to be placed on us by OSHA and we recognize that it's for the good of our firemen, let's call if a fitness facility and let's use it for that. I highly endorse this whole ' proposal. I'm more concerned about where we're going-to get our additional firemen and I think the two go hand in hand. If you have good facilities, you have good equipment, you're going to attract additional firemen. At least you're going to attract and keep the people that we have signed up. I II 3 understnad we've lost some people. Maybe these are the kinds of things that will hold them if we do have a good facility but it's highly needed. It's i absolutely essential to the community. As far as reciprocal agreements I i_ between our communities, whenever we have a major fire or catastrophe, we have an agreement to have an aerial truck come in from Excelsior or Eden Prairie and we don't have anything to reciprocate with other than our good will so I think down the line we're going to have to have an aerial facility. As we build our community it's absolutely essential. The thing that I think about however is how best to package this in a referendum. I believe if I were to give my priority of the three or four items that we're going to talk about tonight, I'd place the fire department's needs first. That's my number one priority over the community center, over an ice arena, over trails. To me this is where it's at because this is something I can feel, I can touch, I can ' see. The need is here now. I believe we can get along with some of the other proposals later but this is a need that should go to the referendum and people I think will support it. I think that you've done us a favor in identifying ' some of the things that we probably would have asked you to delete from the plan. Originally there was some skylights in here that I know we all asked questions about and Clark asked that the items be enumerated and you have done that. I believe that the skylights could go. Whether or not we finish off ' that exercise facility, I guess I have to ask the question from you, if we put in the exercise facility in the lower level, would we build an upper level over it with office space? Is that the plan? ' Jack Anderson: Not right now. Councilman Geving: You wouldn't complete that? Jack Anderson: It would be an open space right now. 51 I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Councilman Geving: Okay, I didn't understand that. I guess I have a difficult time trying to put all these packages together. Where I'm coming from is whether or not to package the aerial ladder truck with the facility itself, with construction of the expanded fire station. I happen to realize that two years from now when we really need the aerial truck and somebody says let's go buy it, we won't have the half million dollars that's needed to come ' out of the general fund. We just won't have it. We may not even have the levy authority to buy it so the strategy and I'm going to have to look to Don for an answer on this but it seems to me that the only smart way to package this is to put it all in one. Then if the need is absolutely essential and two years from now, or a year from now, whatever it happens to be, the Council decides to go ahead with the truck, we will have had the referendum approval from the people to go out and do it. Whereas, if we don't package it that way, we won't have the money so that's the real strategy. I guess I've given you most of my comments except to say, I think you guys have done a nice job. The fire department is unanimously behind this proposal and I hope we can get it for you. That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I can take the easy way out and not make any comments either but I'm going to continue to be honest with you as I have been right along to say that I do have a lot of concerns about what you're asking for. I think there are a lot of questions that we don't have the answers to so we can deal with this issue effectively yet. For instance, we talked about the need for equipment, additional equipment, a $500,000.00 piece of equipment but when we look at developments and the building of new buildings we continue to put ir more and more restrictions on the building. Putting in sprinkler systems, new sprinkler systems, up in the roof, up in the rafters, then lower, then everything has to be with all the bells and whistles on it so the alarms blow in the central location someplace so it can respond to it in an instant. I think we've been told when you start adding those things to buildings, that you don't need the equipment or as much equipment or personnel that you would need if you didn't have those things. Then we immediately turn around and we have a request for a $500,000.00 piece of equipment. Maybe it's needed. I'm not saying it's not needed. What I am saying is exactly what I've said to you before is, I think it's time that we find out what is needed. I think there are ways to do that and that's by having a consultant coming into the City. Look at what the needs are of the fire department and the police department and then to evaluate what is said in that study and then to make some adjustments from there. Just because our town is growing and we have additional population doesn't indicate to me, nor does it to the experts that I've talked to, doesn't indicate that you need to add additional people to your fire department, to your police department nor do you need to add additional equipment. One of the things you need to look at is response time to calls and you have to come up with a response time that you feel the community can live with. If you can meet that response time on a consistent basis and if the people in the community are happy with that and with the job once you do get there, you don't need to keep buying equipment. You don't ' need to keep adding people. OSHA, I'm sure it's true that they're looking at physical fitness for fire fighters but do they say that it's the city's responsibility to give them facilities to use to keep themselves in physically good shape? When there's a community center proposed for about 3 blocks away that can be used by all members of the fire department at no cost, I find it 52 11 )y1 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 IIF difficult in going along with the proposal to put a racquetball court or what's now being called a multipurpose court in the facility for the use of 30 people. One of the things I'm mostly concerned about is I know there is great need for the expansion of the space. You need more room. Whether it's office space. You certainly need more bays for your equipment. I'm concerned if you package this whole thing into one lump, that you may end up not getting ' anything. At least not for a period of time so I guess I was surprised that you wanted to put the aerial truck on with everything else that you wanted to do. I think that might be an invitation to not have it pass. I think you ' need to think about that. I really think you need to have the expansion of the facility and I suspose you can split those things off but I think it's just absolutely essential that you get the expansion space for the station but not necessarily all the equipment and some of the other goodies that you've ' added on there. I guess those are my comments. It's the same thing I've told you before and I'm going to continue to say it and I think until I have more information to deal with the issue, I'm not sure I can change my position. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to support the placing of the remodeling of the fire station and acquiring of an aerial truck on the referendum ballot as one item. Councilman Boyt, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Horn and Mayor Hamilton voted in opposition to the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. ' - Councilman Boyt: Clearly they're going to go out to the community. If the community tells them we think you ought to split it, then we've got time between now and the referendum to come back and split them but to me, it makes sense to go at it initially as one package. It's all related to the same kind of thing so my motion would be to present the aerial truck and the fire station remodeling as one it on the referendum. Councilman Horn: I'd like to comment. I'm not opposed osed to these as referendum item. I don't like bundling referendum items. People can make ' that choice. Mayor Hamilton: I think you need to come back to us with some information ' because I really am afraid that by putting them together, it's an invitation to lose the whole works. Jim McMahon: We appreciate your comments and we will review the whole package and as Bill stated, we do have some time to come back after a little study and possibly asking some of the residents their opinion. CONSIDER 1988 REFERENDUM ITEM: TRAIL PLAN AND LAKE ANN IMPROVEMENTS, PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION. ' Mark Koegler: I think you're familiar with the basics on this one so I'll run through it very quickly. It was referenced earlier tonight about the survey that was done. I think you're well aware that of the top 10 responses, five of those, particularly 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10 were trail oriented. Being either skiing, bicycling, walking, whatever so there was a strong public sentiment ' 53 4 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 that trail related activities were something they wanted in Chanhassen. As a result the Park Commission and the Recreation Plan Amendment that they've been working on has come up with a trail plan that was presented to you, I think probably first and formally on the 7th of October at the joint session at which time there was some general discussion. Since that time the alignments that are shown that are on the board right now really have not changed. They've remained substantially the same. There are some policy things that the Park Commission is doing with the text to reflect some of the comments that the Council provided on things like snow removal, useage and making trails somewhat independent of the alignments themselves. The ultimate system total cost is about 2.1 million dollars. The Park Commission did review and approve what they recommended to you as a first phase of the trail plan is shown on this exhibit. Total construction cost of those segments that are on that map are 1.341 million dollars. Of that total, all of it is funded from either proceeds such as referendum proceeds, tax increment financing, park dedication monies, and in some cases Chapter 429 assessments. But the bottom line is, the outstanding balance needs to be funded potentially be a referendum is $868,000.00 if that system is to be implemented. I believe that's the recommendation that's been offered to you from that group. So with that, I'd be glad to answer questions you have or move onto Lake Ann or whatever you instruct me to do. Mayor Hamilton: Why don't you hit Lake Ann. , Mark Koegler: The Lake Ann Park, you all know the history of the Lake Ann Park, I don't need to review that. I recall specifically 8 or 9 years ago first working with Bill and Ed Dunn on trying to get some land to expand that facility. His development didn't happen. In fact no developed really has happened to the east but the city has been successful in acquiring that land which now has been slated for the past few years as an expansion for the park's active facility. There was a site plan in your packet which is something I'm sure you've seen time and time before which shows additional ball diamonds, soccer, parking facilities to be located on that part of the park. There were some cost estimates that were done early on which were relatively crude in the neighborhood of about $300,000.00 to put in the facilities. Since then we've had some better grading information which allowed us to take a more definitive look at the grading aspect. The total cost for the expansion is shown as $237,000.00. Again, that is roughly the level that has been recommended by the Park and Recreation Committee for a possible referendum item. I Councilman Johnson: I see on the October 13th memo, a number of $500,000.00 for the Lake Ann expansion. What's the additional $260,000.00? Mark Koegler: The numbers that were bannered about at that meeting were not accurate. I think that comes from the fact that there had been such a long period of time. $300,000.00 was roughly the figure we were looking at. The first phase during applications that we had submitted for LAWCON were in the neighborhood of $100,000.00 to $500,000.00. Since that time, as I stated, we've had better information for grading and it reasonably can be accomplished for under $240,000.00. 54 , City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 II- Councilman Johnson: For Phase 1 and Phase 2? ' Mark Koegler: For both Phase 1 and 2, correct. That's all three of the development facilities. Councilman Johnson: For the Council's information on the letter I put out for work on this same project, I haven't gotten any repsonse back. I wasn't able to contact them today. I'm in favor of this. I don't have a lot of questions on it other than I'd like to see, we may be able to get the Reserves or ' somebody to do some of this grading and site work for us. I'm not sure how far they're developing. Hopefully before Christmas I'll have some kind of information from them. ' Councilman Boyt: My concern, and Jim Mady dealt with it very nicely on about the next to the last page of the whole report in his October 13th memo. It's my understanding that the Park and Rec Commission was looking at acquiring ' land in the south part of Chanhassen as a major park in that area. We need to be thinking about that. I think the referendum is a very good opportunity to find out if the community supports that. Either as a separate item, as I ' suspect Clark would want to see it, if he supported it at all, or together as an entire package. We're really saying to the community by this referendum, give us direction for the next several years. Clearly we need to be thinking about a major park acquisition. The land will never be less expensive 1 4 is now and what a great opportunity so I would really like to see s include pt another $300,000.00 to do that. Councilman Horn: My as many options as we position an so I have no problem with including give the people that. One question I do have, Mark you said that it's not necessary to update ' plan per se before we go through with this? Is that what you ? the trail Mark Koegler: No, I said that in terms of what the Commission has done since the joint meeting you had, the alignment that's shown on there is essentially ' unchanged. I think it's important to again emphasize that those are, as was talked about in this meeting earlier, planning alignments. When we get into detailed feasibility and focus specifically on where they go relative to ' placement along the street, off the street, which side of the street and so forth. ' Councilman Horn: And specific use? Mark Koegler: Yes, and multi-use versus single use. ' Councilman Horn: That won't be necessary to be completed before the referendum? ' Mark Koegler: It will be. Councilman Horn: That's really the only other question I had. t Councilman Geving: I think this is the first time I've seen the Lake An park expansion packaged with this proposal with the trails. I like it. We bought 55 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 this property some time ago, the additional 20 acres and we haven't been able 'I- to do anything with it and I'm afraid that it's going to take a big chunk of Ma money like this so it's got to be a referendum issue. So for the first time I see something that really makes sense here in terms of putting the trails together with this Lake Ann expansion. I certainly do agree with adding additional funding for expansion to the south for future parks. That's kind of a nebulous thing though. The voters kind of like to see something concrete and very positive and unless you have a site, a specific area that you're looking at, I don't know if that's such good strategy to just add $300,000.00 to your proposal just for something that you might want to do. I think the Lake Ann expansion and the trails are something that the voters will vote for. Again, I don't know how to package this. Whether it's good strategy to put it together as a 1 million dollar package or two packages of 8 and 2. ' Councilman Horn: Three packages if we include the park acquisition. Councilman Geving: Yes, or a third one so I guess it's a matter of strategy ' but I'm in favor of all three of those components. That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: I'm certainly in favor of the Lake Ann-expansion. Lake Ann continues to get more and more use we just never seem to have enough space down there. The ballfields are always used. There's not adequate parking. The beach seems to be shrinking each year. We just don't have enough facilities there for everyone to use. I think anything we can do to expand the Lake Ann Park I'm all in favor of. The other parts of the trail part are just following up I guess. Councilman Geving: How do you see that vote Tom in terms of putting it to a referendum issue? Is this three pieces or as one package? Mayor Hamilton: I guess I do. Councilman Geving: Leave it together? Mayor Hamilton: I guess if I was consistent I'd say put them all together but I guess that's what I was saying to the firemen, I didn't agree with leaving that all together. I think it should be separated because I'm afraid they're going to lose it and I think you run the same risk here. If we run them all together, we certainly run the risk of losing all of it and could get parts of it. Councilman Horn: If you do, that tells y you that you had something that you shouldn't have had. That's why I'm totally in favor of separating them. Then we'll find out what we shouldn't be putting in there but we won't lose the whole thing. Mayor Hamilton: Right, I wouldn't want to do that. That's certainly a concern so I guess I'd be in favor of separating them. Councilman Boyt: If it becomes difficult and I don't have much experience in this area, I would guess though that as a voter going in and seeing nine choices in front of me is going to make it fairly difficult. Maybe not so 56 1 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 III difficult to make the choice. It's difficult to keep straight what choice I'm making. Seeing three items, much simplier and yet I agree with you, it would ' certainly seem as though the more we lump together, the more likely we are to find someone who will vote against the whole package because they don't like one part which is I think what Clark has been saying all evening. So ' surprisedly enough I guess I would support separating these items out. Mayor Hamilton: So far we only have two. If it remains as it is on the first two issues, they're going to be lumped and it's going to be two, one of each. ' So here we're looking, if we lump, we've only go three issues for people to vote on or if we separate parts of this to see where the land issue, we end up with four or five. Councilman Johnson: On the separate issue, I believe this one lends itself to separation better than the other two. The intermix of people making a choice on what a professional fire station needs are versus what their personal desires are for a park and trail system, something they use and depend upon, I believe that the people can speak for themselves on that. They have the technical qualifications to know whether they want parks, trails and more park ' expansion. Where we as the city fathers, as it may be, should be reviewing the issues and making recommendations for the other, more complex issues of putting together a fire department, etc.. I would like to see this one go in ' three pieces. Lake Ann, trails and future southern park expansion which doesn't really seem to be on the table. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to split Lake Ann, trails and the southern park expansion into three items on the referendum. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' Mayor Hamilton: Now I'd like to have Don go back over and explain again so it's clear to all of us, or maybe I'm not the only it's not clear to, if everything remained as it is right now, how would the dollars filter out? ' Maybe you can paint some scenarios with different ways the vote might go and what would happen and how far out are we looking to accomplish all of this? ' Don Ashworth: I haven't pull the report up for quite a period of time so the exact numbers may not fall right into place but the financial report that we had before basically showed the city is levying approximately 8 mils for a ' debt return. During the course of this next year, through literally restructuring a portion of that debt and certain debts that will fall off the side. In other words, we put additional levies on in support of bonds of 72, 73 and those will be dropping off. So the total we can look to, approximately ' $250,000.00 dropping off of existing debt schedules. What that amounts to, you as a taxpayer in this community, is approximately 3% to 4% of your tax bill. If you vote against all of the items in this referendum, you will be in ' a position to reduce your taxes associated with your home by 4% of the bottom line of your taxes. On the other side of the coin, the city has a debt limitation. That debt limitation approximates the current 8 mils so as long as that we can not really exceed the amount that's going to be dropping off. That will support, in other words, just being able to continue the existing debt level will support a referendum item of about 2 1/2 to 3 million dollars. 57 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Just the new growth that we know is already in place but we will not see for a 1 to 2 year period of time, we will be able to support, in other words, the :— way the formula works, you apply the 8 mils against the total face valuation so right now the most we could take to incur in debt is roughly the 2 1/2 to 3 million dollars. We would have to wait for an additional year at which time it's projected that an additional debt, amount of about 1 million will go on. The following year an additional mil. When I put those numbers, I think you should realize that they could go into two year spans so you could be talking about 2 1/2 million, as far as a legal limit in 1988 and somewhere between 1989 and 1990, an additional million. Between 1991 and 1992, an additional one million. So if you add all of those up, you've got about 4 1/2 to 5 million dollars. That would be paid for because again, you're not putting this additional valuation on until it in fact occurs and you would be taxing that in a similar level to what you are taxing currently. Therefore, as you would add those additional million-million and a half in the timeframe of 1989-1990, 1990-1991, you would create no additional taxes from where you are right now. You will not achieve a goal Dale, that you have continuously stated you would like to see, and that is a reduction in overall taxes. The only thing I can offer you in that area is we need to continue to look to our operational budget. Continue to examine that and say is the approximate mils levied required for general operations generated by this city enough. Councilman Geving: Maybe tonight is not the night for it Tom, but I think in terms of the referendum though, if we propose, I don't know, we haven't added all of these up but they appear in excess of 5 million dollars, we have lumped all of these into approximately a 5 year or 4 year timeframe Don. In 5 years it's possible that all of the items we talked about tonight, would all of them go into a referendum even though they didn't get voted very highly by the citizentry but were ranked? Could they still come on line in 1992? Don Ashworth: As long as they maintain 50.001% of the vote, more than half of the vote, they could come on line in 1991 and not have to go back to the voters. ' Councilman Geving: That's exactly the question I wanted to see. So we wouldn't have to go back for another referendum? Don Ashworth: That's correct. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ISSUES, DISCUSSION: B. CONSIDER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask if maybe we could amend the agenda so we would handle 8(a). I know that's of some significance to some specific people. Defer 8(b) to a future meeting which I think is not impacting on any particular group of people tonight. Mayor Hamilton: Does it make any difference to you? Were there things you wanted 8(b) considered for any particular reason? 58 11 ..r ins C y) City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 ir Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table considering miscellaneous items for amendment to the zoning ordinance until a future ' meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton stepped down from chairing the meeting and Councilman Geving ' became chairman for the next item. A. CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A RURAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Councilman Geving: Does anyone need any input from staff? Clark? Jay? Then let's go right to the issue. Jay, would you like to start off please. Councilman Johnson: I would go with the Planning Commission on this one. I believe the current ordinance handles contractor's yards quite well and I don't think we need to put more intensive use out into the rural area. That's ' about the whole side. I don't like to see putting 4 or 5 or multiple contractor's yards in here. It does everything opposite of what the intent of our contractor's yard ordinance is, as far as I'm concerned. Is to disperse them to where they have minimum impact. When you start trying to group them, ' then we've created an industrial area. If they want to do that, then they can move to the industrial area. We design the highway systems and everything to support the traffic that will be involved. rCouncilman Geving: I know that several of you attended the Planning Commission meeting and I know all of you read the notes from the meeting. I'm IIfamiliar with them myself. I've read several things. I think we can move on. '_ Bill, what are you comments on this issue? Councilman Boyt: I think that looking at the options on page 5 there, the staff update, that I feel that a contractor's yard, as I read our ordinance and I wasn't here when you developed contractor's yards as a part of our R-2 area. As I see contractor's yards, they are intended to help people who had a ' business running basically out of their home. In a rural, agricultural area they were storing vehicles on-site and using them someplace else. I would like to see contractor's yards continue to be defined that way. On the other hand, I think that item 2 of the options available to Council on page 5 which ' says a rural industrial zoning district can be created allowing some sort of use as proposed here, and I think we need to find a different name than contractor's yard, as a conditional use, would be appropriate. Councilman Geving: As a permitted use. Councilman Boyt: I crossed permitted use out and put conditional use. I ' think that this is something that we would want to review for all the reasons we talked about earlier tonight on the business highway district. These things need some policing. But what I heard in the Planning Commission was r that there seemed to be a need for this. I think we need then to provide that opportunity but we need to provide it in a controlled fashion. Something where we can react to the individual requests. Set up the standards that are appropriate. I personally find, I don't think one person cabinet shops can survive in any new building. I just think they, by their nature, have to find the lowest overhead ssibl po e to provide a profit margin but I think what the r 59 r City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 developer is after here is an opportunity to pursue certain types of businesses that we just don't have a place for right now in Chanhassen and I would support working to that end. Councilman Horn: I agree with that too. I think we need some type of facility for these. However, I don't want to leave it up to a particular individual to allow this type of thing, to use his judgment. We've heard the testimony that Mr. Volk rejected several businesses for good reason apparently but I don't want to leave that up to an individual. I think that should be our option under conditional use. I totally agree with you to allow a place for these people. Councilman Geving: I kind of agree with that. I read thoroughly Tom's comments and his introduction of the item and I understand where the group is coming from. There are people who are in business that are no longer going to be able to remain in business if we don't provide someplace for them. I thought the Planning Commission attacked the problem. They spent a lot of time on it. Came back twice on it in fact. I think they came up with the answer I was looking for. So I'm kind of unanimous with what I'm hearing from the Council here tonight. I think we have to act on this one way or the other. A motion is in order. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to have an opportunity to speak on it. Councilman Geving: What level are you speaking from now? i Mayor Hamilton: I'm not speaking on the Council. Obviously you're chairing it. I'm speaking as a representative of Merle Volk. Councilman Boyt: Excuse me for interrupting but I think it would be appropriate if you stood out there. Councilman Geving: Well, I think you can speak from here Tom but I think there is a point here that Bill is making that we are seeing a different proposal being made here tonight by the Mayor who happens to be in the realty business and sometimes it's difficult to determine which side that you're on at one point or the other. ' Mayor Hamilton: Well, I'm not voting on the issue so I think it's clear what I'm doing. Councilman Geving: It's difficult for me, and now I'm speaking as a council person, to see the proposal for something that you as the Mayor voted on as a part of the downtown project and then on the other hand, turned around as the realty agent for Lotus Realty and are presenting back to the Council and to the Planning Commission as the sole representative for a developer. I'm beginning to see a little more of a conflict here Tom than I had seen previously. I'm not going to call it a conflict but I see that there's a hint that you're being put in a position where you're the sole representing, the sole representative in fact as a realty person, for moving a person in the downtown area who is being displaced, to someplace in what we'll call the proposed industrial zoning district in our rural. That's why I'm having 60 1 r J 3 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 personally a little bit of trouble fielding your comments even as a private person or as a representative for the Mr. Volk but we will hear your comments. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think you're way off-base in your comments about the conflict. I don't have anything to do with the downtown redevelopment. ' Because I happen to know some of the businesses that are down there and know that they're being displaced, I think has absolutely no conflict whatsoever. I think anybody here could do the same thing. I'm in an unusual position because I see both sides of the street at the same time. I'm on the street ' everyday and I know the people who are in this community and I know the people who certainly would be an asset to keep in this community so I think I can weigh quite well coming back to the Council and proposing something such as ' this to keep businesses in the community. I'm certainly not going to propose something be done in the community or people stay in here that would be detrimental to the city. I've worked too hard to do that type of thing and ' I'm not about to do it. You may not believe that and I guess that's your problem that you'll have to deal with somehow but I have and I do represent Merle Volk on his property. This issue came up with expanding some of the use on his property simply because not only the people downtown but many people had called Merle and wanted to use some of his property, rent it, buy it, lease it, whatever they could do, to put their particular use on a piece of land where they could continue to operate in the city of Chanhassen and do it in a reasonable price. Merle actually called me and said he wasn't sure what ' to do and how could he proceed so we thought perhaps this would be a logical way to proceed. In looking at both sides of it again, I think it is a logical II way to proceed. There's no reason why you can't take a parcel of land and make it and again I think sometimes we get hung up on semantics. Calling it a 40 acre contractor's yard may not be the correct term. As Bill said, ' sure exactly what you call it but what difference does it make. The uses that ' would be there are those that you have read about in the Minutes from the Planning Commission. It was always proposed and I always said from the outset that it was fine with us if you made each use a conditional use so anytime any ' additional business was going to go onto that property, it would come back to the Council, to the staff, to anybody who wants to look at it, as a conditional use. Look at it one side or the other, tear it up and apart, it doesn't make any difference. Merle does not want to have any uses on his ' property that are going to be detrimental to his property. It's a pretty simple, straight forward request. There's nothing hidden. There's no attempt to do anything that would be detrimental to the City, to the land, to the surrounding area. It is an attempt to use, for him, to use his land to get more use out of it and of course, to generate more income off of his property. It was an attempt by myself, in working with Merle, to keep some of those businesses in this community and attract others that either aren't here now or are here and I feel should stay. It really isn't any more difficult than that. I think a lot of people are making a whole lot more of it than what is really there. It's very straight forward. It's a short term thing. It's not like it's going to last forever. Someday all that land is going to be commercial and industrial and the uses that will be put there now will be gone. You'll see big buildings being built and this area will be sewered hopefully and we'd have a nice addition to the industrial park. That's really all I have to say. I think it's been blown out of proportion and I think it's more straight forward than some people realize. 61 r City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Councilman Geving: Thank you Tom. The issue then before us tonight is, a potential zoning ordinance amendment is being proposed and whether or not we would create a rural industrial district. Barbara Dacy: I'd like to clarify something and provide a point of information. There was discussion that you had referred to how the Council was heading on this item was consistent with the Planning Commission action. The Planning Commission recommended not to create the district. Councilman Geving: That's right. Why do you make that statement, that our 1 comments were not consistent with the Planning Commission? Barbara Dacy: I think maybe you're trying to, when you were talking you had , said that that was consistent with the Planning Commission. I just wanted to make sure for the record that that was right. As your planner and zoner, sometimes I make recommendations that are not as popular and I appreciate the Council's concern for keeping businesses within the community so please understand that I'm speaking to you as a planner and zoner. Both the Planning Commission and the staff did have concerns about permitting what I guess for lack of a better term, non-contractor's yard uses at that location. The current zoning and land use on the property now is A-2, agricultural. Our concern was non-contractor's yard uses would be permitted on the property. In essence we would be encouraging a commercial establishment to occur on site that would not be agricultural in character. That activity would be occurring, not necessarily retail but manufacturing, assembly, uses of sign painting, caterer's, boat repair and so on and from a land use standpoint, it brings up an issue that piece is no longer agricultural but really is a commercial and industrial. Our current Comp Plan says that we shouldn't be having commercial and industrial uses in the rural area unless there's water and sewer service available. That was the basis for the recommendation from staff and the Planning Commission. I would recommend if a district is going to be created, that it be limited to contractor's yard uses only and that non- contractor's yard uses would be prohibited. ' Councilman Geving: But again, I think your comments are very appropriate and we've heard them but the proposal before us is whether or not we're going to consider an amendment creating this rural industrial district. That is the issue so at this time I'd like to.. . Councilman Johnson: Could I make one quick comment? When I run through this list, fiberglass repair, auto racing garage, sign painting, antique repair, welding, blacksmith, caterers and coffee distributers. The last three of those won't require a hazardous waste license from Carver County. The first four would from my knowledge of these types of operations. I do not believe that hazardous waste generators should be in the A-2 area. Anybody requiring a license, I'm really against that. I'd rather keep them within the industrial complex. They're easier to maintain and keep an eye on. 1 Councilman Boyt: I think Jay what we're looking at here, I agree with you. The A-2 is not appropriate for what we're talking about. I think what we're talking about is changing the zone. It's not going to be A-2 if we go through with this and I guess the steps, as I would understand them and I'd like Dale 62 1 r City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 IIor Clark or someone to correct me on this, is that the first thing we do here is we decide that we can have a different zoning district anywhere. That we ' just say we're now going to create a new category. The second thing we would do is say where are the logical places to put it. Then if we end up with a logical place, being where the applicant would like it to be, the third step ' is we decide with conditional uses. Does that sort of flow? Councilman Geving: Yes. Councilman Johnson: When I say A-2, I should say outside the MUSA. I believe these uses are industrial uses. Barbara Dacy: The process that you outlined is correct as far as step by step. My comment was that we have a land use plan and that our land use plan should be consistent with the zoning district that is placed on the property. ' If it's limited to a contractor's yard under the current definition, it's just a place for storage of equipment and vehicles and so on. There's no activity conducted on the site. The activity is conducted elsewhere, wherever it is. I'm saying to get uses that do not fit that classification, then you're crossing that line to commercial with quasi-industrial uses that are on the site. That raises a potential land use plan application and Met Council review and so on. Councilman Geving: I personally don't have a whole lot of problem with Merle expanding on what is already there. We've got a couple of uses out there now that are contractor's yard. That's a big area. It can stand a lot more density as long as the uses would remain pretty much with what he's got there now. A contractor's yard. Just like the intent and the definition stated, people store their vehicles, their equipment, their supplies there. They show up in the morning, pick up their equipment and they go off to the work site and return in the evening, store their equipment and go home. That is working. It's working on that site. Absolutely. To expand at Merle's facility, I see nothing wrong with that as long as the uses are conditioned as what he's attempting to put out there and we would have an opportunity to look at those before they were in place. I have no problem at all with that proposal. The proposal in front of us is to create a whole new district with yet to be defined uses for that district. Now I have problems with that and I'm sure we'd have a lot of debate over what goes in and what goes out but as far as Merle's property is concerned, he's got a lot of property there that ' can be utilized for contractor's yards. I'd rather have them there, concentrated in one spot than spread throughout the community with a little bunch of backhoe diggers and construction equipment in various locations throughout the community. Outside and under various kinds of equipment stored wherever. I'd rather have them out in Merle's place. I think he's got the right idea and I think Merle personally has the right idea as to the kind of people and the kinds of activities he'd like to see there. He doesn't want 1 the painters. He doesn't want the polluters. I give him credit for that so in terms of my own personal biases, I would say what Merle's got going out there is good. Basically good because he's brought some businesses into town which we wouldn't normally have and put them under a roof. And if he's proposing a 900 square foot building, so be it. That's an asset to the community. From a tax standpoint i.t's also good so I don't have anything ' 63 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 wrong to say about what Merle is proposing. I'm only looking at this ro osal I/- tonight and what's being p p 9 ng proposed for us is the rural industrial district being created. To amend our zoning ordinance and that's the problem I have. I Mayor Hamilton: I'd just like to respond to what Jay said because it's totally wrong. What you're saying Dale is correct. Merle does not want any uses out there that have any type of significant or even minor water use. He doesn't want to use water. He doesn't want to have people using water. He wants nothing that would be hazardous material being used out there. He wants uses that are consistent with what he's got out there now. It's very straight forward as I tried to tell you. He wants to have similar type uses that he has, primarily equipment storage. I tried to make up a list of contractor's yard uses and I submitted that to the Planning Commission and it turns out to be a mistake since all of a sudden I guess that's cast in stone or it's the gospel but there are some things in there that obviously don't belong in there but there are a number of contractor's yard uses listed that are legitimate contractor's yard uses. Some of those things should be crossed off. Councilman Geving: I think whatever list you created, there would have been items on there that someone would have questioned. Councilman Horn: I'm questioning Barb. You said you were concerned about having uses that could be looked at as commercial in the non-sewered area. Would you consider car restoration one of those? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Horn: That's going on out there. I think all we're doing, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. People can do that in their garage but I think what we're asking for here is to allow things like that that you might consider commercial to go on this site. Whatever we have to do to allow that to happen while still keeping it under control for the pollution kind of things, I would support. Councilman Geving: Let's go ahead with this item. We're getting late. I think I've heard enough from each of you in terms of testimony. I'm ready for a motion on this. Bill, do you want to make a motion on this? ' Councilman Boyt: Well, I haven't figured out what will pass yet Dale. Mayor Hamilton: It was for discussion only so there really doesn't need to be ' a motion. Councilman Geving: Is this just a discussion item? There's no vote? ' Barbara Dacy: There were three options presented. The Counci.l does have the opportunity to direct staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to create a district or you can direct staff to leave the current regulations as is. Councilman Geving: I think we have to take a vote. I'd like to be definitive about things like this so the Merle Volk's know exactly where they stand on their proposal. So that Tom can go back and tell Merle that it either flew or 64 ' ` City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 IIJ didn't fly or just what. ' Councilman Horn: What I would like to propose is Option 2 which says the rural industrial zoning district be created allowing, and I'd like to change the word contractor's yard there, as a conditional use. I don't know what ' term I want to put in there but we want to have some type of industrial uses for businesses displaced but I don't like that term contractor's yard. I guess I'd look for some help in what we'd call it and then call them a conditional use. That would be my recommendation. Councilman Boyt: So basically two with some slight modifications. zfxcatxons. ' Councilman Geving: So you're willing to create a rural industrial zoning district and this district can be any number of locations throughout the city? Merle Volk just happens to be one that's being proposed. ' Councilman Horn: Could be. Councilman Geving: Could be. Might not even qualify. Councilman Horn: We'll have to study that when we get into it as to what w would set up. we Roger Knutson: Since this motion is just to direct the staff to proceed with this through the process, it only requires a simple majority vote but to amend I the zoning ordinance, when it comes back to you if that's what happens, that will require a four-fifths vote. ' Councilman Boyt: So that means 100% of the voters? Councilman Geving: Yes, because Tom will not vote. Let's get the discussion in now because we're trying to give staff some direction. Now if you don't believe, you truly don't believe that we can achieve a four-fourths of the vote, 100%, even after all this work by staff when it comes back to us, then forget it. Why waste our time? That's where we're at. Councilman Boyt: I seconded it because I think it will work. It's not plan to throw a rock in it. my Councilman Johnson: I'm going to take a lot of convincing to see that industrial uses should be down in the non-sewered area. In a non-watered area, what are we going to fight our fire down there? Guys down there use a couple of hundred gallons of namable materials operating a paint shop. Mayor Hamilton: There is not going to be a paint shop. Jay, how do I have to explain it to you. That's not what the use is going to be. Apparently you can't see that. Councilman Johnson: If we're talking about what's being displaced, yes. ' 65 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Councilman Horn: Look what you do in the agricultural area. You store gas, you have equipment, you have machinery, you have potential for all kinds of things. The point is that you don't have a large percentage of people down there. These are small numbered employee types of things. It might be a farmer and a hired man type of situation. Equate it to that. Not to a 3M or a Honeywell or something like that, or even our larger businesses here. We're talking about small things that are really variation of the farming operation to a large degree because there's a lot more to farming than goes on in the farm operation. You repair and all those other kinds of things. They paint their tractors. They do all of these things on the farm. , Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Boyt seconded that a rural industrial zoning district be created allowing businesses being displaced as a conditional use. Councilman Horn and Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Mayor Hamilton returned as chairman of the meeting. CHANHASSEN PIONEER CEMETARY, UPDATE REPORT. ' Don Ashworth: Staff members really wanted to see something occur down there and have really been trying to put something together. I didn't like any of the alternatives I brought back to the City Council. For the lack of a good solution, I'm recommending that we not further proceed with looking at expansion at the existing site. If the Council wishes to give direction that it should take a look to another 5 to 10 acre site somewhere else in the community. Mayor Hamilton: It's a little disappointing I think that the landowners haven't been more cooperative. Councilman Johnson: They've got their motives. They have to make their buck where they're making their buck and everything else and I think I'm totally in agreement with Don here. I think it's time to cut and run and let's go look somewhere else. Councilman Geving: I'm really disappointed. We worked awful hard on this and we spent a lot of time. Don, specifically has really worked hard on this. We wanted it badly and it's the only opportunity we're ever going to get to expand that cemetary. It's a historical thing and gosh, I'm just really disappointed. I know where Don's coming from and I believe everything you've written here Don. You've given it the best shot you could and I agree with you wholeheartedly. As much as I hate to give up on it, let's go get another 5 acres someplace else. Maybe get Brian and your dad to get out there and find a nice piece of ground for us somewhere but I hate to give up on it. I guess I'm going to have to. I'm disappointed. ' Councilman Boyt: I agree with Don. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think I wouldn't give an inch on Otto/Hartung. I hope we can restrict whatever building they do out there as much as we can. We 66 , r City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 don't need a motion for you to do something. You know how everybody feels. HERITAGE SQUARE, CONSIDER ESTABLISHING RECOGNITION PLAQUES. Don Ashworth: Tom had come back to me and has over the course of the past ' year I guess I've heard where people have wanted to look to some form of recognition. Dimler's, Klingelhutz', Pauly's, a number of people that have a rich heritage for our community. In looking at this item, there is a ' possibility to include as a part of the heritage square, the ability to put a plaque or some other form of recognition right into each of those exposed aggregate panels. Feedback I'm getting back sounds good but it's just an idea and I guess I would look to Council's reaction. ' Mayor Hamilton: At the risk of having more conflict of interest that doesn't exist, I'll say that when Market Blvd. was named or the contest came up to name it, there was some sentiment from some of the local people that they wanted to have the street named after their family. Then we kicked the idea around a little bit with several people. We thought well, once this square is developed, why not call it Heritage Square or Pioneer. Square, whatever the ' heck you want to call it and if somebody wants to put a plaque in the ground or do the type of thing that they do at the Arboretum. When a family buys a I bench out there or a tree or a shurb or something, they make up a nice plaque out of brass or something and they stick it in the ground that says this tree was given by the so and so family and then it's there forever. The same type { of thing could be done here. If somebody wants to put a picture of Grandpa Henry in the square and they want to pay to have it put in there and put a ' little plaque there and they say, he was one of the founders of this community, let them do it. If it makes them happy, I see nothing wrong with that. It would be kind of nice addition. That was where the whole idea generated from and then Don came along with this idea and I think it makes a lot of sense. As long as it doesn't cost the city anything and those people want to pay to do it, let them do it. 1 Councilman Geving: I'd like to go on record on the Council tonight to name this Heritage Square once and for all officially. We've never really given it a name but I think we might as well do that. Otherwise, if ' , you don't, there's all kinds of hassles about people in the community, the Horns and all the other people who want to name it something else. ' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to officially name Heritage Park at the site of the old City Hall. All voted in favor and motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Johnson: Many times we talk about reviewing conditional use ' permits and I've never seen one review done yet. We have several different conditional use permits. What I'd like to propose is that our code enforcement people start putting out letters to people with conditional use permits. Start with contractor's yards and nurseries and I'd like to f— establish some kind of schedule. In my mind I'd say that by December 15th 67 I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 have letters out to every contractor's yard and wholesale nursery listing what your conditions are and stating that you will be inspected by code enforcement :11[ against these conditions between January 1st and January 15th and then go onto the other conditional use permits we have. Get back to Council and tell us how, we keep saying that we want to control conditional uses but it never gets reviewed. Last February we directed staff to review one of these conditional use permits. It's never been reviewed. We've never gotten the feedback from that. I want this to happen now. In particular Merle Volk, who we've been talking about tonight. I've got the same stuff that I pointed out to his attorney last February, about this same equipment sitting out back there, the same pile of rocks sitting out there. He's moved new stuff in and out. He has not been within the confines of his conditional use permit all year. We should have been taking action. I don't want to pick on one. I want all of then. Councilman Horn: All of the beachlots can be included in that. They've never been reviewed either. Barbara Dacy: They were reviewed last summer. Don Ashworth: I recall the list on the conditional use permits as well. Staff will prepare a report and return that to you. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see us do some enforcement action. Give them a warning. Councilman Boyt: No later than February 1. ir Councilman Johnson: For everybody to be reviewed. Mayor Hamilton: Or the first meeting in February. POSTAL SERVICE CHANGE UPDATE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT. Councilman Geving: Here's what we need to do, we need to develop a letter to all the addressees. We need to set up a meeting with Al Rickter and Todd's got to tell us about that. We need to develop a survey format and return postal card format. We need to schedule meetings with homeowners in the next several weeks and I'd like to have all of you a y part of that. The important thing Tom, for you as the Mayor I think in this whole process, because of your position, it's very important for us to meet with Al Rickter on an informal basis and lay this all out for him. I think the position of a mayor is really key to this and that's where we've developed the strategy for implementing the whole process. Maybe you could tell us, if you could, Todd where we're at. Todd Gerhardt: I talked to Al Rickter last Friday. We have set up a meeting ' for December 22nd at 4:00 here at the City Hall. I will be drafting an agenda and have that out to you before that meeting. Mayor Hamilton: I work at 4:00. 68 I City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 F Councilman Geving: That one ou ve u mayor I think is the whole key. 1We just tneed Tom.kto give it the big push nowotoas ' get this thing rolling. Councilman Johnson: What do we need for the meeting with Mr. Rickter? ' Todd Gerhardt: I'll draft out an agenda and list out our goals and objectives. What we want to see done. How we're going to do that and make up a list of things that we're expecting. ' Councilman Geving: Have you got anything lined up with homeowners in the two weeks? next Todd Gerhardt: I've been trying to contact them. It's hard to get them. They work during the day. I've been trying to get them in the evening. I keep plugging away. I'm waiting for people to call back. Councilman Johnson: What happened to this January 1 deadli ne for having the people surveyed by January? I had heard that at one time, ' Councilman Geving: That was my aggresive date not knowing all the problems of getting Mr. Rickter and the homeowners associations but the dates aren't as ' important as the actions that we have to take. ' Councilman Johnson: So there's nothing magic? We don't lose our chance? Councilman Geving: No, that was just a date I had picked. Todd Gerhardt: The quicker you can move on this, the better. The feedback ' I'm getting from Mr. Rickter and from the post master is that the sooner we can get this set up, the better. Councilman Geving: This is just strictly an informal meeting? Todd Gerhardt: Yes, and then there will be a second meeting Mr. Rickter felt that you should have follow-up meetings and stay aonait 7 At ' 4:00 also. Councilman Johnson: Could this be at the same time as our referendum? A ' question? Councilman Geving: No. Councilman Boyt: I have a question and I guess it gets back to Tom's thing about 4:00. Why can't these people meet outside of normal business hours? Recognizing that it is the federal government and all, but why do they make us ' leave work? Todd Gerhardt: I guess we worked around 4:00 because Dale and I thought about 4:00 but I would talk to him and see if later in the evening would be better for him because he is busy all day long. I left it up to him. 69 t ".1 City Council Meeting - December 7, 1987 Councilman Geving: Let's see what we can schedule but let's keep the date. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 70