3h. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 1993
' Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Wing,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch,
Jo Ann Olsen, Sharmin Al -Jaff, and Todd Hoffman
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve the agenda amended by Mayor Chmiel changing the Closed Session to read,
DataSery vs. City of Chanhassen litigation, and pulling item 1(b) from the
Consent for staff clarification. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
' approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 1993 Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation Program, Project 93 -7.
d. Resolution $93 -29: Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Urban
' Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program.
e. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code to Define Dock Setback Zones,
' Final Reading.
f. Approve Carver County Prosecution Contract.
h. Approval of Accounts.
i. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 7, 1993
' Public Safety Commission Minutes dated April 15, 1993
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
B. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 8 AND 9 FOR UPPER BLUFF CREEK
UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 91 -17A.
' Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The highlighted area that's
attached to your packet on this item for this easement agreement basically adds
some language guaranteeing crop replacement should the City need to access the
' easement to repair the facility. These guarantees are exclusive to the property
owner and will not carry forward upon sale of the property or if the land is
leased for crop. The change that's noted on Easement No. 9 is that Gayle and
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
Lois Degler, who Gayle being the son of Dean and Lois, wish to have rights to be
II able to plant their crop on their parents property and still have the guarantee
effective. So I've discussed this this morning with the attorney and we've made
the adjustment accordingly.
II Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. I will move item 1(b).
Councilman Mason: Second.
I Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Amendment to Easement
Agreements Nos. 8 and 9 for Upper Bluff Creek Utility Improvement Project 91 -17A
II as amended by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
C. CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 4TH ADDITION, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF THE EMISSION
' CONTROL STATION.
Councilman Senn: (c) I just wanted to remove because, I'd say just go ahead and
hold the vote. I just want the option to vote no on that, that's all.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would someone care to move?
I Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Final Plat,
Development Contract, and Constructions Plans and Specifications for Chan Haven
Plaza 4th Addition, South of Highway 5 and East of the Emission Control Station.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried
t with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: And would you like to provide your comments on that as to your?
I Councilman Senn: Oh I think I have enough. I just am opposed to the continued
addition of more automobile related uses.
II Mayor Chmiel: Alright, good. Thank you. That was four ayes and one no.
G. APPROVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR LOT 9, CRANE'S VINEYARD PARK.
II Councilman Senn: (g) I just wanted to ask if we could stick a condition in the
approval for that that the County has already capped and filled the well, or
I will do so at their expense. That was unclear at least in the documentation I
had and I've talked to staff and since it's unclear, everybody kind of decided
it'd be best just to stick the condition in to make sure. So I would move it
with that condition.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I just, I was going to pull it. I was going to pull this one
too. Charles, I'd like to see proper certification by an engineer on the plans
when they're submitted. This one did not have it.
Charles Folch: That was 1(c)?
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Wing: 1(g).
' 2
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Excuse me, 1(g). Yes. 1(g). Okay, I'll call the question. We
moved around that one too quickly. 1
Councilman Senn: I moved approval I think is where we were at
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And we had a second? 1
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Purchase
Agreement for Lot 9, Crane's Vineyard Park amended to include a condition that
the County has already capped and filled the well, or will do so at their
expense. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
I. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATED APRIL 12. 1993.
Councilman Mason: Council Minutes, page 28. Third line from the bottom of my
quote. I'm quoted as saying, "I'm not here to do what I think is best for the
City of Chanhassen." I don't think I said that. I think what I said is, "I'm
here to do what I think is best for the City of Chanhassen."
Councilman Wing: No, it's on tape.
Councilman Senn: That's what the tape said Mike.
Councilman Mason: So I guess I'd like that changed. With that I'll move the 1
Minutes.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there a second? '
Councilman Wing: I'll second it.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Minutes of the '
City Council meeting dated April 12, 1993 as amended on page 28 by Councilman
Mason. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Public Present: ,
Name Address
Chris Polster 8020 Hidden Court
Scott & Kirsten Molencamp 8137 Dakota Lane
Jeff Lynne 8615 Chanhassen Hills Dr.
Barry Abblett 8644 Chanhassen Hills Dr.
Jane & Larry Stafford 8593 Chanhassen Hills Dr.
James Murphy 8020 Hidden Court
Darrell W. Swamson 6985 Chaparral Lane
Carla Hoffer 8698 Mary Jane Circle
Terry Waagmeester 7461 Canyon Curve
James A. Russ 7521 Canyon Curve
Jadzva Stokke 7221 Sierra Court
3
1
II City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
Name Address
Rhonda Faidley 8117 Erie Circle
Bruce Engel 8699 Chanhassen Hills Dr. No.
1 Jack Jensen 8480 Pelican Court
Jay Johnson 7496 Saratoga
Jack Jensen: I'm Jack Jensen, President of the CAA. Here in Chanhassen. At
our April 21st Board of Directors meeting, the Chanhassen Athletic Association
identified indoor and outdoor facility needs for the coming year. In concluding
the two Little League fields and one 12 -13 year old AAU field would satisfy
I
summer baseball and softball needs and two full sized gyms would satisfy indoor
youth recreation needs for 1994. The CAA has therefore resolved to gain support
of the elected officials for construction or conversion of a ballfields to be
I operational by the spring of 1994 and the construction of indoor facilities to
the operation of the fall of 1994. The CAA is a non - profit parent run
volunteer organization and plans and executes youth sports programming in
' Chanhassen. City involvement is limited to field provisions and maintenance and
some administrative support. Some other expenses absorbed by CAA members who
pay registration fees and the annual family dues. CAA volunteers save the
taxpayers of Chanhassen more than $50,000.00 a year in average inverted
II salaries, benefits and represents nearly 600 Chanhassen families. The CAA
accepted 730 registrations for the spring sports of 1993 requiring 60 outdoor
field times. The City of Chanhassen is able to supply 56 field times.
I Consequently 10 and under girls softball was required to compress their time
schedule to accommodate the need. In 1994 the CAA expects to register 850 to
900 registrations because of the population increases and exclusion of the
I Chanhassen residents from other area opportunities. Nearly 80 field times will
be required. If the field requirements are not met, the CAA will have to
eliminate programs. The CAA accepted more than 300 registrations for winter
basketball last year in the grades 1 thru 4 and eliminated programming for 5th
1 graders in '92 -'93 because of the facility problem. Demand for the 5th grade
and up program is becoming more excessive because other communities can no
longer provide facilities for Chanhassen due to their own growth. The estimated
I need for the fall of 1994 will be 83 hours of gym time. Current available time
in Chanhassen is 43 hours. The CAA has no choice but to spend or considerably
alter programming for the coming '93 -'94 season. The support of our elected
officials is necessary if the Chanhassen children are to be given a youth sports
II opportunity. It is no longer acceptable that the City of Chanhassen rely on
other communities to support our needs. The CAA will actively pursue the
construction or conversion of 3 youth ballfields and 2 full sized gyms within
I the city boundaries to be operational by the '94 season. Really we know that
there's been a plan in front of you and it's gone back and forth for that
recreation facility. We're trying to show you that we desparately need more
I facilities. As the kids get older, the space requirements get smaller because
of what's available to us. The smaller children, you know the T- ballers and Pee
Weers and the Ragballers, there's a lot of neighborhood parks that also aren't
available to us yet because they're just not totally completed yet and so right
II now we don't see a major, I guess a major issue on those kids. But because the
population has grown such, the kids are at an age level of the Little League age
and that's where the big number of children are expanding and we just need to be
II able to accommodate space for them as they get older. Right now we have one
Little League field and this year we have 8 baseball teams. Next year we plan
' 4
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
II
on, I mean with the population we look at around 12 baseball teams and were not
going to be able to accommodate all those kids and as we get older too, the 13
and 14 and 15 and 16 year old children too, for ballfields aren't going to be,
with what we have in place right now isn't going to be, we're not going to be
able to accommodate all the children. As for the basketball and the facilities, 11 the indoor recreation, right now the use that we have that other communities,
the other part of the District 112, we get to utilize the Chanhassen Elementary
School. A year ago basketball we had Tuesdays and Thursdays and we were able to
play our games on Friday. Last year we played Monday, Wednesday, Thursday,
Friday and Saturday to accommodate all those kids and we cut out the older kids
program. The 5th grades and we moved those down to Chaska to play. Tuesday
wasn't used because the school also has things that they need the school for and
they have first priority over what they did. They try to do it all on one date
so it wouldn't really conflict with anything that we had going. So I'd just
like to see what your opinions are on that recreation center and outdoor fields
too that we're going to need. I'd like you all to express where you sit with
that recreation indoor facility that we understand would not, at the present
time would not cost taxpayers anything to build. And we might as well start
with you Don. To get it on the record here what. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I like your direction but I normally give it to Council first.
Even though given my.
Jack Jensen: I think your voice can go down and work the other way.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me clarify that. I think as you have seen in my letter
that I sent out in the newsletter, in that I was supporting it but we don't have
all the statistics as yet. I was saying that we do need one. Now whether it
goes there or goes somewhere else, that's something that we have to look at.
But presently that is going to serve two functions that we're looking at. One,
cleaning up what's existing behind Filly's and once removing Filly's from that
particular location and then going through some of the considerations that we're
looking at as to the different options of the way it can be set up. But and
that almost sounded like a political kind of statement but it isn't. I do
support one and I said this, I think the first year that I took office, which is
5 years ago and I said that I saw and envisioned something for the city of
Chanhassen anywhere from 5 to 7 years down the line. Because the population, we
have to really look at that. We just can't put something in right now to
service the needs for us presently. We have to look to the future and what
growth can happen with the city and how we may have to expand on what we would
put in as well. So there's a lot of thought that has to be given to it.
Jack Jensen: Well I know it's been before you for a long time and the first
time it went through it was a 4 to 1 for this particular site. We're not
opposed to any other site, it's just that we're just telling you that we need
the facility. We don't care where it goes. I mean we have an opportunity to
put it in a spot where it's going to be the less burden on the majority of the
people for tax purposes you know where it wouldn't increase because of the way
that the thing has been set up and we'd just like to get your approval with it.
Or if you have, if you want to table it or things like that, we're going to
I guess see to that as a, at this time as a no type of vote for it. And then
we'll just, I mean we.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think you can assume that's a no vote. 1
5
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
Jack Jensen: No, I mean I think you're behind it Don but I also think that,
II I mean for the most part and I think some of the Council is too, and I know that
some are dead against having the thing built. But I mean it's to a point where
we're already busting at our seams over at the school and it's not really the
I best of floors to have the kids running up and down on for, I mean it's not a
wood floor. It's a tile floor with concrete underneath it. I mean it's an
inadequate facility but it's something that we have to utilize because it's the
' only facility that we've got available to us. As where the place is, we know
that some people consider it an eyesore. Some from Highway 5 and some of this
would develop that into a nice looking facility over there but we also have the
children as they get older, it's more pertinent that we look for constructive
I things for them to do versus destructive things for them to do. And if we don't
find something for them to utilize their time in a positive manner, they're
going to find other ways if they're not being supervised to go up.
1 Councilman Wing: Let's get to the rest of the Council because I'm dying for
this one. Can I go next?
II Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: Or would you like to start with Mark? Jack, I've made it
I clear to a friend of yours that I don't know why you're here because there's two
elements in the city. One is called the Council and they deal with tax dollars.
Tax revenue and politics. So if we want to build a community center, we could
I vote on it tonight. It's going to have to go to a referendum because there's a
lot of money involved, etc, etc, etc. Another night on Thursday nights a group
called the Housing and Redevelopment Authority sits and the reason they're
talking about a community center in this city is because the HRA, not the
II
Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, is talking about building it with
tax increment money, which isn't tax money.
II Jack Jensen: I'm aware of that.
Councilman Wing: So to be here is sort of humorous because I control, what's
I the budget I control. It's this much and here's HRA with this enormous
checkbook and they're the ones that put it together. So my suggestion to
everybody interested in a community center, don't waste your time here.
II Jack Jensen: Well we're looking for your support. We're not telling you right
now.
I Councilman Wing: IL 11, start out with storming the HRA which is on Thursday
nights.
' Jack Jensen: Well the HRA, from my understanding has already approved some of
the things to go through and it's been before you and it was a 4 to 1 vote and
it was tabled because it wasn't a unanimous decision because Don wanted a
unanimous decision with all of you.
1 Councilman Wing: Okay, here's what I'm telling you. HRA has to feel supported.
Feel that the community is behind them. The money's there. That they're
' building what's right and doing what's right downtown. It's what you want and
that's indecisive right now and they need to hear the very comments you're
1 6
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
making tonight because then when they make these decisions, and this package is
together, then maybe it will get back to Council and we can stamp it yes or no.
But get to the HRA.
Jack Jensen: But you also have the ability to let the HRA know where you stand
on the issue.
Councilman Wing: I've been there and made it clear where I stand. Let's get
going is my position.
Jack Jensen: Okay. Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I hate to disagree with the elder statesman Wing
but it's not up to the HRA. It's up to the City Council as well and we've
wrestled with the idea of what to do with that eyesore in the middle of town and
I hate to call it a community center now. I hate to call it a recreation center
because we just haven't decided what's best for that area. In talking with
Todd, it's going to be too small for our future needs. So there's the benefit
of yes, let's build it and we can get some facilities in there off the tax rolls
but there's the other side of the coin where it's probably not enough to serve
our needs in the future and right now it's so much in the planning stage. I
mean the preliminary stage. For instance this Wednesday we're going over to
Shoreview to take a look at their community center and see what they've done.
So it's not like we've pooh poohed the idea completely. We just don't know yet
what we want there and I guess my question is, you're aware of the facilities
that we'll probably be building at CR 117 and TH 5, which will alleviate some of
that need you know to begin with because that's probably going to be done before
anything happens downtown here. So to give you the support for a recreation
center there, I just can't do that right now because I don't know...
Jack Jensen: Well not that in that specific spot. It could be anywhere within
the city limits. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Anywhere, absolutely. We need more facilities
definitely. ,
Jack Jensen: So you'd support a facility being built, if not there, someplace
else?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it's going to happen. It's going to need to
happen.
Jack Jensen: Soon. Timeframe. I mean I don't know what I can do here but. '
Mayor Chmiel: I think what you're trying to do is tie us down to an exact
timeframe. We can't give you that because we have not gone fully through that.
And I'm speaking on behalf of HRA because I serve on HRA as well. So with what
we've gotten, the information we have, the movement is where are we going to
locate that facility. If that location is going to suffice our needs, fine. If
not, then we have to look somewhere else.
Jack Jensen: And what I'm saying is, but we're in dire need of it now and
within the coming next year, year and a half so I mean the longer than you table
7 '
II City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
II it or put it up for discussion and things like that, it's just going to put it
longer on out.
Mayor Chmiel: It could take a while.
Jack Jensen: I mean the high school's going to be built before you end up
making a decision so.
I Mayor Chmiel: I doubt that.
' Jack Jensen: But I mean we don't want that to be. Well, hopefully not too but
we don't want that because we also see the needs when the elementary school,
we're going to need that facility too because of our growth and we're going to
I need the middle school when it gets hopefully built here in the future, 10 -15
years, whatever it will be. We'll need that facility too and we're going to
need the high school. So I mean it's not that we're not looking at being able
to use everything that's available to us. We have and we're at the seams here
II already.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Mike.
II Councilman Mason: I get to go next? You know I think it's probably going to be
a combination of what both Colleen and Richard said because with the way I see
it happening right now, there's not enough money in the HRA funds to build a
II
facility that is going to be needed in Chanhassen in the year 25. Aren't we
talking 35,000 people by 2030, or something like that?
II Mayor Chmiel: 32 to 35.
Councilman Mason: So it's not, you know it isn't just a matter of HRA going
I let's build it and it's not just a matter of City Council saying let's do it. I
mean there has to be, there were two referendums, two bond issues and they were
voted down. Now my personal feeling is if the third one was voted next month,
it would pass but I don't know that. I mean I haven't done any studies. That's
II just my gut level. Yeah, we need more. There's no question of that Jack and
we're going to get it. Unfortunately the wheels of government move far too
slowly for everybody, including the people involved in the government sometimes.
I But we've got to get on it and we've got to start pushing for it and I think
Richard's comment about, you know letting people on HRA know. That's where the
priority needs to be right now. Letting Council know, like you're letting
Council know right now that's a priority. It is a priority. We don't have the
facilities in this city and we got to get them.
Jack Jensen: Mark.
I Councilman Senn: Really what you're asking I think deals with two separate
issues, or I guess at least the way you've brought it up to us. If you're
I asking about a community center, I'm going to agree with you 100!. I mean I'd
like to see a community center. I'd like to see a community center built that
meets all the needs of the community at this point in time, or at least some
' projected needs. I think that would also accommodate some of the things you're
mentioning as well as a lot of other things, or other groups let's say. I can't
say that I even are close to agreeing that the location for that is behind
8
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
Filly's and the Dinner Theatre. In fact I have a lot of real reservations about
that as a site for a community center. I have a lot of reservations about the
need for acquisition of Filly's and a whole bunch of things but those are all
separate issues that as far as I'm concerned have nothing to do with a community
center. As far as, I mean I hate to disagree with my learned colleagues here
but use of tax increment money is not free. And tax increment money is tax
money. And if you don't.
Jack Jensen: Well tax money that we've put in there over the years. '
Councilman Senn: No, it's money.
Jack Jensen: And it's money that.
Councilman Senn: No, let me finish okay. It's not money you put in over the
years. Tax increment money is money that businesses have put in over the years
rather than pay it into the normal tax rolls. Okay? If that money were going
into the normal tax rolls, all of our taxes would be less. That money is not
going into the normal tax rolls. It's going into a fund called tax increment.
Now that's a good deal in a lot of ways, but I get real irritated when everybody
stands up and says, this is free and there's no tax dollars in here. That's not
true. And again, that's a separate issue from the community center so I mean if
you're asking if there should be a community center, I'm going to give you the
100% yes there should. And it should be a broad base one that meets all the
needs of the community. How it's financed and where the location is are issues
that this body as well as other bodies need to deal with and get to a point that
there's agreement on or whatever. I mean I don't know. I mean that's up to
them. You don't have to have 100% agreement on anything around here.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael. '
Councilman Mason: I'd just like to make a comment on where the tax increment
money goes and whether it would lower our taxes or not. I have yet to see any
statistics that say that the rest of the city's tax base would be lowered
appreciatibly if there was or wasn't tax increment financing. I'd just a little
counter point to Councilman Senn there I guess.
Councilman Senn: I'll bring them in and show them to you hike.
Councilman Mason: Well I think we'd all like to see it. I think our City
Manager and some other people disagree with you Mark so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything else? I appreciate bringing in our '
future leaguers here. It's sort of neat to see these kids here this evening.
My suggestion is though, bring this up before HRA. That meeting is going to
take place next month at, Todd what day is it? May 20th, yeah. 7:30. And
there's a presentation portion within there that you can also do.
Jack Jensen: I'll be there. '
Mayor Chmiel: But there are three other people that sit on the HRA that need to
hear what you're saying as well.
9
1
11 City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
Terry Waagmeester: Can I ask a question?
II Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. If you want to come to the microphone.
Councilman Senn: Don, while he's coming up, just a question. I have all these
' other letters that somebody handed us out tonight. Where's the original letter
that all these talk about? I mean I haven't even seen the original letter yet
' I've got all these follow -up letters to the original letter.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I've not seen that either.
II Councilman Wing: Well Todd also, just could you real briefly address, you seem
to have some disagreement between CAA members and what's been said tonight. Are
we in dire straits or are we just strapped? Is the community dying because
I we're not providing services? There seems to be a disagreement.
Councilman Mason: Why don't we let this gentleman deal with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, let's.
Terry Waagmeester: My name's Terry Waagmeester. I live at 7461 Canyon Curve.
II My question is, if there is an advantage or if there's an opportunity to take
advantage of TIF money now and invest it in something that I think is real
positive for the community in a lot of different aspects, do we have to look at
I it as it has to be a one site facility? And could it be a multiple site
facility and since we're looking down the road and saying gee, all these
projections but projections sometimes have a mysterious way of maybe not coming
true. So maybe you do it in a couple incremental steps. In other words, take
I advantage now. Build a facility here. Chanhassen is pretty spread out and
maybe we need one out on the western end for the future. So I'd just like to
offer that up for consideration and maybe you seize the opportunity that you
' have now and wait to see the actual projections become reality.
Mayor Chmiel: From an economic aspect, it probably is not the way to go. But I
think what you're saying is that we should find a location that we can build in
II phases. As the community grows, so does the center. I think that's what we're
really looking at.
I Councilman Mayor: Yeah, I think it's important to note, if tax increment
financing money is used for it, it has to be built within the area that was
created for the tax increment district.
II Terry Waagmeester: Right, so you focus in on that for this time. But what I'm
saying is, as you grow you may put another facility. I know it may be somewhat
more costly but it may actually service the community better by having multiple
II
facilities instead of trying to cram it all into one area. You may run into a
problem even finding the spacing for that as it grows and getting approval on
all of them so.
II Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. So with that, thank you for coming.
Councilman Wing: Could I just ask Todd.
' 10
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you want to address that?
Councilman Wing: Just for the crisis comments. I haven't heard this from you '
before.
Todd Hoffman: Heard it from me? '
Councilman Wing: I haven't heard that we had a crisis here until.
Todd Hoffman: Councilman Wing and Council this, the letters you have were
presented to you this evening. It came about as a letter which Mr. Jensen as
President of the Athletic Association attached a note onto some of their
registration and scheduling information. I was under the assumption that Mr.
Jensen was going to address that with the City Council this evening. Thus I
passed out this information. I think it would be appropriate to ask Jack if he
wishes to carry forward with that presentation or if he's satisfied with the
arrangement which Chanhassen, the Park and Recreation Department has approached
him with.
Councilman Senn: Mike, just all my point was is I'd like to see it because I
mean.
Todd Hoffman: The other letter? '
•
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: I mear these seem to be responses to it. It's kind of hard to
gauge it without.
Todd Hoffman: Sure. Jack, do you have anything to say? '
Jack Jensen: I have a letter here that I gave out to our Little League aged
program children and it pertains to the South Tonka Baseball League and the use
of Chanhassen fields. In the past our kids have gone to South Tonka to play
Little League or they've gone to Chaska to play Little League. It came about in
the beginning of February that Little League was going to change their
boundaries to accommodate, to stay within their guidelines of the franchise.
The franchise states that they need to be within 20,000 that they're drawing
from for population wise. So when they found that out, it ended up being the
World Series last year. They took the crown away from the Phillipines and that
type of thing because they had illegible players. Well, so they went through I
think country wide and was trying to keep everybody within their guidelines. So
the guidelines says 20,000 so they were going to cut out Chanhassen kids from
playing up there that were south of District 276. So the kids south of 276
would have to find another place to go. So that opt, our group here, the CAA to
start a baseball program and we ended up having enough sign -ups for 8 teams to
play on one field. That's the Little League field over at Lake Ann No. 2.
South Tonka also made a request to utilize that field 2 nights out of the 5
nights so they could accommodate the Chanhassen kids that still played up within
their city.
Mayor Chmiel: How many kids would that be about Jack?
11 ,
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
' Jack Jensen: The kids that are going to utilize the field, it ends up being 12
kids. The kids that we have is 99 kids in our group. And so I mean the
percentage, and we did offer, I mean through the CAA we offered the program to
go citywide so those children that were up in the 276 district also had the
' opportunity to play within our group here and make this an even stronger league
than it started out to be here. So I mean it came down to where the city staff
here agreed to letting South Tonka have 2 nights a week and that we would get 3
I nights a week. They got to pick the nights that they wanted. They wanted
Tuesdays and Thursdays. They were still going to get Tuesdays and Thursdays
which meant that we'd have to play on some subpar fields that could accommodate
' baseball within Chanhassen. Those ended up being Meadow Green, because those
are the only ones large enough to accommodate baseball. We also have to move
the soccer fields, redraw those a little bit to accommodate soccer and baseball
to happen at the same time. There's no fences out there so the ball isn't going
' to be stopped. It's a hardball so you try to do it so where nobody gets hurt by
this whole operation so, I brought it before Jerry and Jerry I believe felt
handcuffed. I don't know, he gave me a letter and after Todd got more
' information and went back to Jerry and Jerry reconsidered on his structure so it
was a 4 to 1. They would get it 1 night, we would get it 4 nights and we would
play on Meadow Green 4 nights and they would play there 1 night. Being that of
the Chanhassen kids that, there were only 5 teams up there with 11 kids on a
team. One team has 7 games scheduled down here on that field. Two teams have 3
games scheduled on it. One team has 1 game scheduled on it and the other team
has no game scheduled on it. So I mean it was trying to be a fair assessment to
' let equal access to all the kids up there to play on the nice field down here.
But where we stood and how I felt and the CAA, it was that they had the best of
their field up there. Up at Freeman and the other fields that they had use of
' and it forced us to play, you know not play on our best field. It made us go to
a subpar field. One without the fences and the Little League size status to it.
So that's when, I mean I wrote a letter to all the members within this 100 kid
group to let them know that the City hadn't made a decision yet on what they
' were going to do so I had to make a decision to send this letter out so they
could get the information so we could pursue the means of rectifying the
difference. And from our standpoint we don't have any objection to let the kids
' from South Tonka play on the fields as long as we get first right to the fields
and if there's anything left over, then they're more than welcome to use the
fields. The percentages, I mean they have approximately 80% of their chidlren
' that are on those teams playing down here are from the Minnetonka School
District which our tax money are paying to upkeep the Lake Ann field and we felt
that we should be able to have first chance of being a Chanhassen organization
and their's being an outside organization, to have first chance at the fields.
' And I was going to bring it up at the Park and Rec Commission. I was just going
to do the general thing here for the need for the facilities and I wasn't going
to get into this program until, I mean this problem until tomorrow with the Park
' and Rec Commission to address that. But seeing how it was brought up, that's
where we stand. As the taxpayers here, our program is for all of Chanhassen.
Again, we opened the programming up to them and they chose to go to an outside
' organization to participate so I guess our feeling is that they should then fall
within the ranking of just waiting in line to see if we have anything left over
for them to utilize. And so I mean we would like to have full use of Lake Ann
but the recommendation from the city staff is to go 4 and 1 right now. 4 nights
' for us and 1 night for them, although they still got to pick what nights that
they decided to play on. And you know left us with some, a little bit
' 12
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
infavorable nights. Friday night. If we didn't have to play Friday night, most
people wouldn't want to play Friday night. But having Tuesdays and Thursdays
going to South Tonka, it forces us to have to play those times.
Mayor Chmiel: Todd, I'm reading some of these other letters that had concerns
7,r so on, and I think this is sort of an in -house kind of thing that probably
should get cleaned up within the CAA rather than Council making decisions on it.
I think the Board, and I'm not sure as to some of these statements in here.
That this was not before the Board and I think probably some of those concerns
probably should be addressed with them directly.
Jack Jensen: Well it really wasn't a, to those two specific people that that
involves, I mean of the replies that you have there, their both on the Board but
they also have conflicting interest in because they're children are in that
program. So of course they want to play on these fields here but again, they
had the opportunity to play within this organization and make this a stronger
organization.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I read something somewhere, correct me if I'm wrong. But
my understanding is that this was the last year Chanhassen was going to have
this. Minnetonka was going to have that next year all by themselves. Or
something to that effect. '
Jack Jensen: Well this, it ended up being the last year that they weren't going
to allow our children up there. But it's still, the way they drew the 11 guidelines and the guidelines that they drew for their boundaries were the 276
School District. So we're still going to have children that are going to
participate up in their programs, unless their boundary actually just went by
city and then cut that, you know more or less forced our children to play within
this organization. Or if they chose to go outside, then they're just on their
own.
Mayor Chmiel: How many kids from Chanhassen play in the Tonka portion? I ,
thought it was more like 70 kids or 60 -70.
Todd Hoffman: The numbers I came up with is that the South Tonka Little League ,
program, ages 11 and 12 have approximately 110 kids. Mr. Jensen states that
probably 80% of those are non- residents. The information I received is about
more equal of half. About 50 %. Somewhere in that nature. Mayor Chmiel again,
I agree with your position that this is a situation that should have been
resolved at the Athletic Association and Park Department level. I attempted to
do that. It was my understanding through conversations with Mr. Jensen that he
would be bringing this issue to the City Council this evening and the Park and
Recreation Commission tomorrow night so I just wanted to alert you of that
situation. That was my reasoning for handing out those letters.
Councilman Mason: Can I just, I'm going to stir the pot a little bit here.
Ironically with all this difficult, well seemingly difficulty that's going on
here, I got a call yesterday from the President of Tonka - United Soccer
Association of which many children in Chanhassen are a part of saying he was
told by someone in CAA that they couldn't use the fields at MIS because CAA
needed them. Now I just in talking with Todd Hoffman, that stuff is all
arranged beforehand and if people in CAA are starting to change the rules, I
13 ,
i
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
think there's a problem and I think it needs to be dealt with. Now maybe this
' all a misunderstanding. I hope it is but dog gone it, this thing about 276
versus 112 is popping up again and I won't have it. I mean this really peeves
me. So I'm just.
Jay Johnson: Wrong organization. It's not the CAA. It's the Chan - Chaska
Soccer Club that Tonka United was fighting with. We asked for 10 nights on the
field that we've used for the last 15 years. We asked for 10 nights out of the
year and Tonka United came around today and said, fine. We offered them 7
nights on another field that one of the fields we used. That's all cool.
That's no problem. That was the opposite situation you see here. Okay. Where
' people were saying 112 is Chanhassen and 276 isn't, which is wrong. A lot of
276 kids in South Tonka play. Tonka United was saying Chanhassen, you're not
276 and I was arguing the other way with them.
' Councilman Mason: You know I bet if we had more athletic facilities none of
this would be a problem.
' Mayor Chmiel: You're right. You're right. What I'd like to see done with this
Jack is take it back to the Board and let them come up with, maybe come up with
the same conclusion that you have. But I would appreciate that you do that and
' I'll make a point of trying to hit tomorrow evening's meeting as well with the
Park and Rec. But some of the things that I see here, I think the City tries to
run facilities and however this comes out or shakes out we'll go from there. So
I appreciate your explanation this evening and I guess what we should do is get
it addressed back to the Board and hopefully get this resolved. Okay?
Jack Jensen: Alright, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for coming down. It's always nice to see a full
Council room again rather than an empty one. You can stay longer if you'd like.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED VACATION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED
ALONG THE EAST LOT LINE OF OUTLOT A, SUN RIDGE ADDITION, CHAN DEVELOPMENT.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to open this meeting at this time. As I mentioned, this
is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time right
now?
' Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
' closed.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move approval of this item.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
' Resolution *93 -30: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve the resolution vacating the easement as shown on the plans dated March
' 29, 1993 for a drainage and utility easement located in the Bluff Creek Estates
Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' 14
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
Councilman Wing: That is clearly a record for this Council. Just on the
record. ,
CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN
APPROVAL TO CREATE 27 TOWNHOME LOTS, LOCATED DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD
AND ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD, PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES, JASPER
DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present: 1
Name Address
James Domholt 8251 West Lake Court '
Andrew K. Olson 8290 West Lake Court
Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Kirby Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive
Jo Ann Olsen: I'll just give you a brief summary on this one. It's actually
down to 24 units now. This was reviewed two times by the Planning Commission.
The main issues that the Planning Commission had with this was the density. That
the PUD contract stated that it could only be 31% impervious coverage and what
they are proposing was closer to 45%. There's also discussions on whether or
not we should be applying the new PUD regulations. If that would be changing or
giving the city more than what they were getting currently with the proposal.
And then also there was some issues with the architecture of the buildings that
some of the residents had some concerns with. They wanted it to be added to a
little bit to, the rear of the buildings they thought were kind of plain. So
the Planning Commission did review it a second time. The applicants had removed
3 of the units. They've even added more to the landscaping plan. The
impervious coverage is now down to 40%, which is what staff had recommended
approval of originally. As far as the impervious coverage, the reason that it's
higher is the type of units that they're proposing. It's not the stacked units.
It's more kind of a single family type of unit and that's what they're going for
is the. for the people who want those type of units. The impervious coverage is
not that much in excess that we feel it's that much of a problem. They're
really adding a lot of landscaping. It's going to actually be a very nice
looking project. One of the reasons that there is more impervious coverage is
because of the looped street that we are requiring for safety. Also staff has
recommended that there be visitor parking on this, so that added to some of the
impervious coverage. So as just a real short synopsis, the Planning Commission
did recommend approval of the revised plan. The applicant is here if you have
any question. I see that some of the residents are also here too. We are still
recommending approval with a couple of changes made to the conditions that the
Planning Commission added. Other than that, I'll answer any questions that you
have.
Mayor Chmiei: Thank you. Is the applicant here at this time? Wish to make a
proposal?
Larry Harris: Thank you Mr. Mayor. My name is Larry Harris. I'm the attorney ,
representing the applicant, Jasper Development. The applicant is pleased with
the action taken by the Planning Commission and would like to see the Council
act and follow the recommendations of it's Planning Commission with one 1
15 ,
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
exception. The staff memorandum prepared by Ms. Olsen dated March 30th of 1993
11 also asked the Planning Commission to consider increasing the impervious lot
density to the 40% figure on Outlot D. The PUD agreement for Outlot D sets the
impervious surface density at 27% for that particular outlot. For Outlot C,
' which is the subject of the preliminary plat in front of you, it's 31%. That's
important for a very significant reason to my client. Jasper Development holds
an option on Outlot D and anticipates coming back to the City in a relatively
near future, perhaps within the next 12 to 18 months with a preliminary plat for
that site for townhouses that will be configured in the same manner as the
townhouses which you have before you now. The reason that issue is important is
the PUD agreement sets an even lower impervious density, that is 274 as opposed
' to the 31% which is in the agreement for Outlot C. Jasper Development needs to
know what the position of the Council is going to be in relation to Outlot D
because it has a significant impact, to be very blunt, in terms of whether or
' not to exercise their option on the other outlot. If the impervious density is
not set at the same 40% figure that the Planning Commission recommends on Outlot
C. this type of a townhouse project, that is detached, high quality units, 1,400
plus square feet cannot be built. The only thing that you can build and meet
' the 27% density that is set forth in your planned unit development agreement is
essentially stacked, very high density units. I realize that's somewhat of an
anomaly but the only way to keep the impervious surface requirement and meet it
at 27% is to put in high density stacked units which Jasper Development, and I
don't believe the City's planning staff feel is the best use for this property.
City staff had recommended to the Planning Commission that they also go with the
' 40% on Outlot D. Planning Commission was relunctant to do so and I think their
rationale was that they wanted to look at it again at a later date. The problem
is that leaves the developer in quite a quandry. The developer is very certain
that it wants to come back with a proposal that is, I don't want to say it's
' going to be identical to the proposal they're making on Outlot C but it will
certainly be units that are essentially the same. If the City Council is not
willing to do it, it's going to have some impact on whether the developer's
' going to be willing to proceed. Not with the portion of the project that's in
front of you but with the additional portion. And accordingly we would ask that
the Council act in accordance with staff's recommendation to the Planning
Commission on the Outlot D issue. Other than that, representatives of Jasper
Development are present. I'm present. We could answer any questions that the
Council might have about the proposal.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Jo Ann.
Jo Ann Olsen: Staff's original condition was realizing that the impervious
' coverages were low and that to take away any feelings that they might be setting
„ _cedent was just to establish for all the medium and high density outlots left
within the PUO just to make it a uniform 40%. Planning Commission was not
comfortable with that. They want to see the plan first and that, I agree you
' know with what they're doing. And that's not to say that they won't get the 40%
but I don't know that that's something you just want to flat out give them right
now.
Mayor Chmiel: I think at this particular time it gets a little difficult for us
to give a decision on what's going to be coming in at a later time.
1 16
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993 II
Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission was very strong on that and I think that
they would.
Councilman Senn: Could you do one thing for us because at least nothing I had
in the packet gives me the reference points that he was just talking about.
Outlot D and.
Jo Ann Olsen: Oh, Outlot D is way in the back. 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's on the other side of Lake Susan Hills Drive.
Councilman Senn: No, but I meant I was just looking for where the outlets were.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's on the end of your PUD contract.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the last two or three sheets.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and that's C and 0 then. '
Mayor Chmiel: Well, before we go any further. I'd like to see if there's
anyone who would like to address this as well at this particular time. Okay. If
not, then I'd like to go to Council. Mark, do you have anything more in
addition to what you indicated?
Councilman Senn: I guess I would have a difficult time I guess at this point ,
acting on something that's not before us. As far as the outlots go. I guess I
don't really see the need to do that at this point in time. But as far as what
is before us in staff's recommendations, I see no problem with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Reading through the both sets of Minutes on the Planning '
Commission, there's some pretty interesting discussions going on about 35% to
40: and I do agree with the thought that just because something was passed 5
years ago, it doesn't mean it works now. I'm uncomfortable with the 40%
impervious coverage but given this circumstance, and that's what I like about
the PUD, clearly if we had a smaller percentage, we'd have a higher units and I
know for a fact nobody that lives in the residential area wants that and I
certainly wouldn't if I want to. I'm under the impression that by and large the
residents in the area are okay with what's going on here? I mean obviously you
don't want anything there. I mean I don't fault you for that but you know, but
things seem like, yeah. It looks like a pretty good development. I agree with
Councilman Senn. I don't think we're in a position to be saying what will be
happening on Outlot 0 right now. I'd certainly not to say that it won't happen
but until we see a plan. No, I'm going to get my kick in here for affordable
housing also. This is alternative housing. It's not affordable, as you stated
Jo Ann. And that is something that I want to keep hammering away at but this is
an alternative that apparently people are looking for. And it does, you know
the landscaping looks good. I'll pass my landscaping comments onto the tree man
here, and I'm sure he'll be getting his crack at it pretty soon. But it looks
like things are pretty well thought out.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, Colleen.
17 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, Mike touched on pretty much everything I wanted
' to say. There was lots of good discussion generated in most of the Minutes and
I think everything was pretty much covered there. There wasn't what I could see
any resolution to the drainage issue. Is that an issue or was it just?
Jo Ann Olsen: That was never really an issue. There was the discussion a lot
about the ponding. The temporary ponding. Some of the residents were concerned
where exactly it was going to be. What's the depth. What's the size and
1 they're still, when the plans and specs come through then we'll have those
details. We don't have them yet but.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it's not really?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, it shouldn't be a concern. We won't be taking down trees
for it.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: And as far as the impervious coverage, as stated in
the Minutes, if it's 10,000 square feet, which isn't a lot, but it makes we
' wonder why we're requiring visitor parking.
Jo Ann Olsen: Well we still feel that's a concern. There's no really areas for
street parking along there so if people go beyond their driveway area, there is
a need.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright, so there is a need there. And my other
' question, and I don't know if we're at it yet but we're going to be putting a
trail there. There's currently a sidewalk at least right there.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's going to be replaced. It's actually going through their lot
right now so it has to be adjusted and fixed. It's not very good now.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And as far as the other outlots in the area, I'd
' certainly like to leave that option open because I am looking, I think that's,
whether it be on the east or west side of Powers, I think there's good
opportunity there for affordable housing. I don't want to scare everyone in the
' neighborhood about that but I'd like to leave that option open. Otherwise I'm
fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Planning Commission said it all. I support where they're at.
That's all I have to say.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I don't have anything more to add to it either. I would
request an approval for the proposal.
1 Councilman Senn: I move approval.
' Councilman Mason: With conditions as stated?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, as per staff's recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
1 18
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993 II
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Prairie Creek
Townhomes as shown on the revised plans dated March 25, 1993, with the following
conditions:
1. Change Lot 25, Block 1 to Outlot A and Homeowners Association By -laws shall 1
be submitted to staff for approval and filing against the subject site.
2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of this '
site cannot exceed 40%.
3. The city shall petition Carver County to vacate any necessary right -of -way
along Powers Boulevard (CR 17).
4. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed
by the applicant in their attached narrative dated March 24, 1993.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public
improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval.
6. The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed within the
development in accordance to the City's typical 8 foot wide bituminous
trail standards, unless it is to be relocated within the County right -of-
way by Carver County and City.
7. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year
storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant
shall construct an interim sedimentation basin at the storm sewer discharge
point (Outlot C). The basin shall be sized based on contributing area and
land use, approximately 0.30 to 0.50 acre /feet in size. In addition, the
applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water
management program in lieu of constructing a retention pond on site for
water quality purposes. The City's surface water management consultant,
Bonestroo & Associates will determine the cash contribution amount.
8. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for sanitary sewer,
watermain, street access points and storm sewer improvements for the City
to review and approve. All utility improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all
necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District,
PCA and Carver County Highway Department.
10. Parking shall be prohibited along Lake Susan Hills Drive adjacent to this '
development. The City will proceed in preparing a resolution restricting
parking along Lake Susan Hills Drive.
19 ,
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
11. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice
1 Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures
during the construction process.
' 12. A cross - access easement should be conveyed to all the lots for use of the
private street.
13. Fire Marshal conditions:
' a. The marking of fire lane on private and public property shall be
designated and approved by the Fire Chief [pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec.
' 10.207(w)]. See site plan submitted by Fire Marshal for exact
location.
b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed as per indicated on
submitted site plan [pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #06 -1991 (copy
enclosed)].
' c. A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e.
NSP transformers, telephone, cable boxes, all landscape trees and
shrubs. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance.
d. Submit a Fire Marshal approved "Pre -Fire Plan ", pursuant to Chanhassen
City Policy #07 -1991 (copy enclosed).
e. Add and /or relocate fire hydrants as indicated on submitted site,
pursuant to 1988 UFC Division 3.
f. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed, built and maintained
before and during construction of the townhouse units. The driving
surface must meet Chanhassen Engineering specifications, pursuant to
' 1988 UFC 10.207(f).
g. Premise identification Policy #29 -1992 (copy enclosed).
14. Building Official conditions:
a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each
' house pad on the grading plan prior to final plat approval.
b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of
' the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A
general soils report for the development should also be submitted to
the Inspections Division. This must be done prior to issuance of
building permits.
c. Adjust property lines, building sizes, wall openings or a combination
of all three to comply with the building code prior to final plat
approval.
d. Provide easements for driveways and private roads to a public way prior
to final plat approval.
20
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
e. Submit proposed street name(s) for review prior to final plat approval.
15. The applicant shall submit sight line details for the northern portion of
the development and work with staff to agree on species of trees along
Powers Boulevard and internally to the project. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER POLICY PLAN. '
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. These draft documents
represent nearly a year's worth of effort by both staff and our consultants on
this study. These plan will involve some policy issues on how we plan to
provide for future utility infrastructure to serve the community. The intent
for tonight's meeting is to provide sort of an executive summary of these draft
documents and to basically get them into your hands for your review. More in
depth discussion will likely need to occur between the Council, staff and the
project consultant prior to finalizing and approving these documents. Staff has
recommended and established this as an agenda item for further discussion at an
upcoming work session scheduled for Wednesday, May 5th. Our projection
consultant engineers, Mr. Bob Schunicht and Mr. Phil Gravel of Bonestroo are
here tonight to provide you with a brief presentation of these draft documents. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Just one question Charles. For the amount of
paper that we have here, are we being compensated accordingly for what we're
paying them in salary?
Bob Schunicht: You want Charles to answer that or do you want me to answer
that? We have that discussion a lot when we're preparing our reports and we say
the thinner the report, the more time we have to put into it to give you the
information that you need. Not everything that we know. So we could come with
something like that, it'd be cheaper to do it than the short ones. At any rate,
we're here tonight just to give you a brief overview of the comprehensive plans
that we did and as Charles said, these plans are your roadmaps or plans for the
ultimate finishing or completion of the city of Chanhassen in accordance with
your comprehensive plan, your land use plan. And really the goals of these
plans is to do two things. First of all, when the city of Chanhassen is
finished in whatever ultimate state it becomes, the systems work. Your sanitary
sewer system works. Your water system works. You can deliver the product to
provide the service that you intended to do when you started this. And the
second, and more critical thing is that the system is paid for. That the systems
are paid for as development occurs and when you get done you have a little bit
of money in the bank to deal with minor changes and additions that require as
you get out 30 or 40 years. So tonight Phil's just going to hit some of the
highlights of the plan and then we'll be back here in a couple weeks and talk
about them in some detail. Thank you.
Phil Gravel: Thank you Bob. What you got in your packet were two reports. You
have to look close to realize that they're two separate reports. There's a
comprehensive sewer policy plan with the sanitary sewer and there's a water
supply distribution plan which looks at the water distribution. The two reports
look a lot alike because in fact the methodology for preparing them is a lot
alike. The first thing we did was look at the land use plan for the city and
21
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
projected future development, future population growth, future development
' trends based on the land use plans and with those we were able to establish our
predicted flows for the different areas. Like Bob mentioned, the goals for the
reports were to develop trunk sewer and water systems and secondly, to establish
funding methods for those two systems. With the sanitary sewer, our first
problem was the existing area of Chanhassen is serviced through the Lake Ann
Interceptor, which is that orange dash line on there and from the Lake Ann
Interceptor the sewage flows into another MWCC sewer which is the Red Rock
' Interceptor and from there it goes down to Blue Lake Sewage Treatment Plant on
the other side of the river. What we did was we requested additional capacity
in the Red Rock Interceptor from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and
' sometime last year that additional capacity was granted. With that additional
capacity, we are able now to service the remaining area of the city that is
presently unserviced via some more trunk sewer and lift stations. There's some
' question as to whether or not the lower bluff area down here will eventually be
served to the north to this MWCC Interceptor that I discussed, or whether it
will go west into the Chaska MWCC...The MWCC is doing a facility plan...right
now and this area might need to be re- examined in the future as it gets into
the MUSA line. The major service area of the sanitary sewer will be in the
Bluff Creek area and that will be facilitated by a large lift station that you
can see being constructed right now near Lyman and Audubon, at that
intersection. You probably all noticed a big crater out there. So that will
service.
' Councilman Senn: What's it been there 2 years now?
Phil Gravel: That will service the majority of the remaining area in the city
that doesn't have sanitary sewer at this time. Again, with the sanitary sewer
and with the water cost mechanism was also established. With the water system,
as with the sanitary, we looked at the future development and established future
projected flows. The key thing that we came up with here are two distinct well
' field locations that I've shown with the orange circles. The two wellfields
allow us a little bit of reliability as two separate sources in cases of
contamination or a wellfield breakdown. In addition, in each wellfield we're
proposing to have two separate depth wells. One going deeper down to what's
' called the Jordan Aquafir and the other one being shallower wells which you have
some out near South Lotus Lake now which are drift aquafir wells. They're not
as deep as the Jordan ones. With the water system we looked at phasing of
' installation of the new utilities. A result of that will be 3 new water towers
which you car barely see by these green x's on here. One water tower in what's
called a high pressure zone on Highway 41. Another water tower which will be
t near the Gateway West Business Park, in the high area along Highway 41 there.
And in the future, the water tower will be necessary dow on Lyman to service the
southern area of the city once it gets into the MUSA system. As I mentioned,
and Bob mentioned also, it was one of the goals of the report to come up with a
' funding mechanism. To do that we took both plans and we estimated the total
cost to install all the future piping, wells, lift stations, towers, and divided
those costs up among the remaining areas to be developed on an acreage basis
based on a land use study and with that we've established an area charge for
both sewer and water that the report's recommending be charged to all future
development. In fact we've used that funding mechanism or that area charge
II mechanism on Bluff Creek Phase I project that's under construction and
constructing that...lift station. We'll have a number of people at the workshop
22
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
session on May 5th. The report was prepared by quite a few, helped with quite a
few people. We'll bring a few people and be able to go into these in a lot of
detail and... Any questions now?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That charge for, that you determined, that will be
assessed I assume on residences that do take use of city water and sewer?
Phil Gravel: It's mainly established for new development as they come in. So
it's assessment at the time of the we11...Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? In talking, I'd just like to throw something out
here. I was checking with Don. For the workshop on Wednesday, 5:00 or 5:30?
What's your preference?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 5 :30.
Mayor Chmiel: 5:30?
Councilman Senn: I had Monday down as 5:00 and Wednesday as 5:30. '
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I had down was 5:30.
Don Ashworth: 5:00 Monday and 5 :30.
Councilman Mason: I would prefer 5:30.
Mayor Chmiel: May 3rd. May 3rd I'm not going to be here.
Don Ashworth: That was 5:00 on May 3rd and 5:30. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think Richard had a question.
Councilman Wing: No, that's. I wanted to clarify something here. As far as
the workshop went.
Councilman Senn: So 5:30 on Wednesday? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, 5 :30 on Wednesday. Any other questions?
Councilman Wing: Yes. I went through the water one and I'm wondering what
happened to the presentation that we had here 2 -2 1/2 years ago where somebody
from the State came in and painted a pretty glum picture and everytime we move
this MUSA line we trade off open land for impervious surface. We trade off our
ability to collect water and reduce it. I mean Target 100% impervious and this
new development came in. Everytime we move the MUSA we get high density
housing, subdivision or PUD, they want to maximize the use of the land. That's
fine and there's no large lots anymore. Business comes in. Paves everything
over. And the fella that was here, and I don't remember when this was done or
said and maybe it was your group that did it but somebody came in here and said,
you people have got trouble coming up because the water table's not going up.
It's going down and if it continues to go down at the percentage it has over the
last decade, you're going to be mining water one of these days. So we keep
putting in all these subdivisions and bringing all these people in and paving
23 '
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
over this town but I don't see anything here that says there's even water to
provide the system you're talking about and I guess are we going to be looking
at, have we reached the point where we simply can't provide water anymore and
maybe we don't develop anymore? I see all this excitement to open up land for
II development but I don't see anybody looking to the future to see if we can
provide services to that land and again, I heard that the water quality is going
down. The water table is dropping. That our well placement wasn't proper.
I That we're clustering wells. We ought to be spreading them out. Drawing down
evenly which you're addressing here obviously.
Bob Schunicht: We're also proposing an additional study...kind of a ground
II water resources audit be conducted.
Councilman Wing: That's what I'm asking for. Rather than a recommendation, I
I guess I'd hate to go any further on this unless we get this first and assured
that there is water and water that's of a quality to drink and that in fact
we're going to be able to supply what we're even talking about here and then
' let's look at this plan.
Phil Gravel: We're very confident that the water's there Dick. Even today we
were looking at some of the bedrock geologic maps and...looking where the drift
II aquafir sources are. The water from the Prairie DuChene aquafir is there.
Councilman Wing: Even with 32,000 people. Population of 32,000 and...
II Phil Gravel: Yeah, but what we'd like to do with the ground water inventory is
to establish more the location of future wells and reserve those spots and look
I at things... We'd like to find more areas of the drift aquafir wells because
those are less expensive to put in. We'd like to have a combination. We fully
agree with what Councilman Wing says. The town is growing so fast that at this
time it's really necessary to establish where the future water sources are going
I to be and acquire that land or reserve those areas and get that all in place.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to make sure that gets priority because I don't want
I to be approving poking wells down into nothing or in so deep they become
unfeasible and maybe we ought to relook at our development plan. If you're
saying there's water there, I'd like to know that.
I Phil Gravel: Chanhassen's in kind of a unique area because of that Jordan
aquafir that we mentioned with the deeper wells actually cuts off kind of at the
intersection of where TH 41 and TH 5 is. It slices across at an angle there so
I Chaska's not in, it doesn't have the luxury that you do of being able to tap
into that and you don't even... It is something that we'd like to study further.
I Mayor Chmiel: In conjunction with what Mr. Wing is saying, I attended a seminar
with the DNR who's had some real concerns as to the numbers of wells that will
be going into the ground. And at that time I think there was some problems as
far as any build -up of additional aquafirs. More specifically the Jordan
I because once you get past the Jordan then you have to hit into the next one
which is a considerable distance.
Bob Schunicht: That's the Hinkley.
' 24
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: Right. The Hinkley would be the next. And they had some real
concerns with that. Whether or not there would be enough to be provided for the
growth as it continues as such. And they didn't want to go into the Hinkley at
all.
Bob Schunicht: That's correct. They're most concerned about the Hinkley
because that's the deepest aquafir available to the metropolitan area so they do
have special permitting required to go down to the Hinkley. It doesn't mean you
can't go down there, but you have to have looked for other sources. Now for
example as Phil said, Chaska only has the Hinkley available to it so that's
where their water supply has to come from. Chanhassen has the drift aquafir
which is very good over by Lotus Lake. The Jordan which underlies most the city
and the Hinkley also, as a method of last resort so the problem is not the
amount of water that's available to Chanhassen. The problem is to get it in the
best, most efficient and most economical way and at the same time provide a
protected water source for the city of Chanhassen. Another thing that we'll
talk about next, or in a couple weeks is that we're talking about a connection,
an inner connection with Chanhassen and Chaska so the two communities in
emergency conditions would have three aquafirs available to them. Three
separate sources of water. The drift. The Jordan from Chanhassen. The Hinkley
from the city of Chaska too. So there are concerns about the aquafir but it's
more, in our mind it's more protection, not necessarily that there will be
enough water available,
Councilman Wing: Can either you Mike or Don help me remember where this came
from. I remember there was a chart out and this fella had said that.
Bob Schunicht: It was probably Ron Nargang.
Councilman Wing: And he said x feet in the year.
Bob Schunicht: Yeah, Ron Nargang. His presentation is factual but kind of
slanted toward the side of panic. But not, it's not. It's a good presentation
to get people's attention but I've sat where Kent Lochesmo, who is the Division
of Water's Chief in the metropolitan area and he are at odds about what they say
is happening in the aquafirs. So it's something to pay attention to and listen
to but it's not something that, and something that we're aware of and know where
his data comes from and it's good data but it really isn't something I would
worry about for the city of Chanhassen. And we could get you some information
on that too and tell you where it comes from but.
Mayor Chmiel: Gene...I think has some of that information. The hydrologist for
the DNR.
Bob Schunicht: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions: If not, good. We'll look, I don't know if
we'll look forward to seeing you but we'll see in the workshop meeting. Yes
sir.
Audience: How old is the data that you people are using? I remember 5 years
ago listening...the data was so old the guy that came in had the gall to come in
and say there were 3 wells in Chanhassen...
25 L
1
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
Bob Schunicht: The data is getting much better as time goes on. The Minnesota
Geological Survey has a lot of information available. So it's reported that
anybody that drills a well anywhere gcts that data to them and it's all
computerized so you can say right now I want the wells in this section of land
and you'll probably get it within the last year or so. So it's like everything
else. As you get more information, as you can record it and retrieve it better,
you just have to go over there and get paper files and dig through them and try
and find stuff and I spent days doing that. Now you can go over and press a
button and it spits it out for you too so things are changing. Data's better
available and there's a lot more realization of the importance of data as we see
things like wells becoming contaminated and abandoning wells is very important.
There's lots of things that are changing in the field. The data's pretty good
actually. We're got a lot of water here and a lot of data on that water.
Councilman Mason: Just a real quick comment. I share some of Dick's concern
and Phil I was glad to hear you talking about a ground wate audit. Although
that sounds kind of silly. But yeah, I think that's a real good idea and it's
nice to see people that the city works with looking ahead. I appreciate that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.
Councilman Mason: I suppose we should keep these huh?
Mayor Chmiel: I think we'd better. They look very expensive.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: AMM ANNUAL MEETING, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: The Council, oh approximately half of our Council in the past has
attended this. It's a social event as well as talking about activities of the
AMM. Their basic program and I guess I was just wondering how many of the
Council members may wish to attend this year.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm going to.
Councilman Mason: I believe we have a task force meeting that night. May 26th
for our Highway 5. I believe there is. If that's changed, I would kind of like
to go to this. But I'll check with Paul.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd be interested in going as well.
Councilman Senn: Don I think I will too but I'll have to let you know.
Councilman Mason: One for sure and 3 maybe's.
Don Ashworth: But I understood your's, that if the task force meeting is that
night you would not attend?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right.
Don Ashworth: No action is required on that item.
26
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: No, right. Just as an informational item. Okay. I'd like to
move adjournment and then after that we will go to our closed session.
Discussion of the City of Chanhassen vs. DataSery on litigation from our City
Attorney.
Roger Knutson: Just so the record's clear. It's actually the other way around.
It's DataSery vs.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, are they suing us? Thank you. How did we become so
vulnerable?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the regular
portion of the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
27 1
1
3J
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION- ---,,,
I REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 21, 1993
' Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott,
I Brian Batzli, and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino
I STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; and
Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney
II PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 93 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ON 76.47 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD
I
AND SOUTHWEST OF LAKE SUSAN, LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION, ARGUS
DEVELOPMENT.
II Public Present:
Name Address
II Jerry Lindholm 8421 West Lake Drive
Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive
Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive
I Robert F. Kopp Argus Development, Inc.
Wayne Tauer Pioneer Engineering
Phil Jungbluth Argus Development, Inc.
I John & Karen Engelhardt
Don Wisdorf 8645 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
8639 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
Jon & Mary Jo Hansen 8631 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
I Jane Judd 8635 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
Peder Olson 8635 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
Robert Long 8629 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
Robert Smithburg 8657 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
I Thomas Burns
Tom Nilsson 1551 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Andrew K. Olson 8290 West Lake Court
II Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: Jo Ann would you address one, and maybe you said something on
I this and I apologize if you did. On condition 15(b), the woodland
management plan. Have we ever done that before? What is a woodland
mangement plan?
II Olsen: No. Woodland management plan, and that was something, an idea we
came up with when we were out on the site with Alan Olson, the DNR
I Forester. Because one of the things that we've seen is that we do take a
lot of steps to preserve trees during the development process but once the
homeowner comes in, a lot of times they don't understand what is there or
whether or not it was really protected. Also we're finding that there's
I like a second forest growing on the site. It's either large, the large
trees and then it's the undergrowth that's growing and that's like the
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 2
1
second forest that's coming that will replace this one. And we want to be
' able to educate the people that that's an important aspect and not just to
clear all that out also. So what it is is really just a plan to describe
what's on the site. Why it's been preserved. What type of tree it is. Is
it sensitive to, is it a red oak and that you shouldn't be doing any kind
' of alteration around it and it's just really a plan that they can hold in
their hand and it's to educate them with what's there and to hopefully
help preserve the trees better. It's done, if you called up Alan Olson
' and you wanted him to come out to your lot, he would do that and work on
your site if you were wanting to plant trees or find out what's on your
site. So it's something that's commonly done and that can be done by a
' licensed forester pretty easily. So it's just more for education and
hopefully preserve beyond the development.
Batzli: Why for example don't we look at placing a conservation easement
' around parts of these that we've done on other sites?
Olsen: I am still proposing that. Where it's simple to do. But if you
' see on a lot of these we've got individual trees and you have to have a
legal description to do a conservation easement and that's almost
impossible to do for all the little individual trees that we're saving.
' Batzli: Okay so what you've done is just on lots, on those particular
lots is where you're doing this woodland management plan then?
' Olsen: Right. Those lots that were listed as the custom graded lots
would have that. The other lots that still do have forested areas that
are being preserved, like along Lake Susan would have a conservation
1 easement but there you can have a simple lot. You can have a simple
description. We would take an elevation along here.
Batzli: Right. But that's the only one you've listed as having a
' conservation easement is that Lots 1 -6, Block 2. Is that right? Is that
the only place that you've done that?
' Olsen: Right. The other ones will have, the other ones are under pretty
much the custom grading.
' Farmakes: How serious was the discrepancy between what was listed and
what you found on this?
Olsen: Well one of the problems we had was that there was round tags and
' square tags. So at first we were thinking they were totally off because,
and then we found that we were looking at the round tags when it was
actually square tags. There was, it wasn't all completely wrong. I mean
' a lot of them were correct but there was enough where it was a large tree
and a good tree and it was shown as a smaller ash or something like that.
Farmakes: For the future, just for my own education, do we have a
criteria of when we bring the DNR to look at that and review that? Do we
have, to insure that there isn't a discrepancy? Because I assume when
this stuff comes in that it's accurate.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 3
1
Olsen: Yeah, so did we. Well I think what we're going to do is from now
on require them to be performed by a licensed forester. Require them likil
we do with a registered surveyor or something so that we know that they
are done by somebody who really knows what they're doing. Also the DNR
has a list of foresters that have been licensed and so we can use that
list. So I think that's one way to do it.
Batzli: Dave, I was wondering if you could address something. The
ejector pumps, the condition that's going to be placed in the development'
contract. Who, is this going to be placed on the developer or on the
ultimate homeowners or what are we talking about there?
Hempel: That specific condition Mr. Chairman will be contained in the
development contract which is recorded against the property of the overal
subdivision on each property. It will go with each property owner. It
stays with the land. '
Batzli: Have we ever done that before?
Hempel: The development contracts are always recorded with these certain'
conditions of approval of a plat. There hasn't been...one containing
ejector pumps however at this time.
Batzli: What kind of condition is placed on that? That they have to hav
it inspected annually?
Hempel: Mainly our reason for putting it in there, a lot of times the
homeowners will call the city if they have a problem with the sewer lines
or water lines or whatever and our maintenance and ownership
responsibilities end at the property line. 9 out of 10 times the problem
are on the private property. So we just want to make it clear up front o
the ownership's responsibility.
Batzli: Okay, so this isn't going to be an annual type, it's just going
to clarify to the homeowner, it's going to be part of their lot
description or something that it's their responsibility out to the curb
and then the city takes over from there, or something like that. Okay.
Would the applicant like to address the Commission now and respond to any
of the conditions that are in the staff report?
Wayne Tauer: My name is Wayne Tauer from Pioneer Engineering representin
Joe Miller Homes. I guess all that we have to say tonight is the fact
that we have worked with the city staff, Jo Ann and Dave and the forester'
and have tried to work the best we could to work out the problems. I
think we did a pretty good job doing so. As far as the conditions of
approval, as outlined in the staff report, we have no major problems with'
any of those conditions. We're willing to accept them all and go from
here. We have put together an exhibit just simply showing trees lost,
trees saved and the two that you see here is obviously the brown are dead II trees and the green are hopefully live trees. I don't know if everybody
can see that or not but as you can see, especially...up here that there's
a massive amount of trees which are being saved and a lot of the trees
that probably didn't show up on Jo Ann's drawing that shows up on mine aril
the trees that are actually in the right -of -way. There's not much we can
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 4
II
do between the 60 feet of right -of -way that we have to obviously put
I pavement on and maintain. But beyond that, in the lots themselves, I
think we've done a very good job in avoiding trees. Moving lot lines
around. Limiting the building pads. Moving them back. Lowering them
below the street and requiring the ejector pumps. And they asked for a
I graphic and we're presenting this tonight. Like I say, other than that
I think we've done a good job in working with the staff and except for
questions I guess that's all we have to say.
1 Batzli: Does anyone have a question right now? Go ahead.
Harberts: Jo Ann, how do we insure that there won't be additional trees
1
taken or maybe impacted due to stress?
Olsen: The major thing that we're doing as far as the conditions that
I will be part of the development contract is listing the trees that can be
removed. So when the building permit comes in, that's what we'll be cross
referencing to make sure that they're doing that. Essentially what we've
I done is we've decided exactly where the house is going. What the size of
the house and style is right at this time. Again that's also what that
management plan is going to do to also try to save what's there. We
should have a pretty good feel.
I Harberts: So when the actual contractor or contractors come in to build a
house, there's going to be some oversight by the city to insure?
1 Olsen: Right. As far as when the building permit comes through, we
confirm on the building site what's done. Then also during the
I inspections we make sure that the snow fencing is up and all that.
Scott: Jo Ann, what happens if a tree is accidentally damaged?
1 Olsen: That was not supposed to be?
Scott: What's the financial implications to the builder?
1 Olsen: There's no financial. We've been asked that too. If we can hit
them in the wallet and you can't. We have the replacement of 1 inch per
caliper whatever's lost. We can require that and then we can also,
I
there's the 90 days in jail and if you want to pursue that, which we never
have.
I Harberts: Per tree.
Batzli: Per tree?
1 Olsen: Yeah, per tree. Yeah, I've already told Wayne that he'll be the
first one in jail.
1 Wayne Tauer: I need a vacation.
Olsen: So that's really all we have. I mean if it happens, we'll try our
I best not to have it happen but if it does, we don't get that tree back. I
mean we'll get the smaller trees replaced or the fine and that but we
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 5
can't say it's $1,000.00 per caliper inch or anything like that.
Scott: Sure. But is that, that's an ordinance? Is it something that '
it's at the discretion of the city staff to?
Olsen: To require the.
Scott: Replacement.
Olsen: Yeah. 1
Scott: Is that something that is normally put into a development
agreement?
Olsen: I don't know if that's typically in there. It's in the ordinance
I don't know that we ever really had to have it in the development
contract.
Scott: So it's in the ordinance and whether it's enforced or not is
really the issue.
Olsen: Right.
Batzli: I thought from time to time we made it one of our conditions.
Olsen: That?
Batzli: That damaged or lost trees would be required to be replaced on a
caliper basis.
1
Olsen: We can do that. There's no reason not to.
Krauss: It doesn't hurt anything.
1
Olsen: And you want to do per caliper inch?
Batzli: Well I don't want to put them in jail. I'd rather have a tree. I
Olsen: We could do both.
Wayne Tauer: Thanks Jo Ann. Our friend over here.
Harberts: I have another question just to staff.
1
Batzli: Go ahead.
Harberts: Jo Ann, could you just address the street naming issues. As
dealt with just Lake Susan Hills Drive. And maybe, I don't know the
comments from, highlighting again the comments from Public Safety.
Olsen: They wanted, it's getting confusing because it's on both sides so
originally they wanted to change Lake Susan Hills on this side because
there's only like 6 or 7 homes already on it. But they notified the
affected parties and there was so, no way. You know we don't want to do II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
g
April 21, 1993 - Page 6
this so they dropped that. I don't know what the, I think they're still
working on it. I think they're going to do, well what I heard last was
that they're going to have large signs on Powers saying East Lake Drive
Hills 1 thru 30 or something so that's how they were going to resolve it
' so emergency vehicles could see it that way.
Harberts: So the City was comfortable with, Public Safety was comfortable
with that?
' Olsen: Yeah. You know they didn't want to take on the battle of changing
the streets since people were objecting to that. They felt that this
would work also. It's one of those that we should have caught earlier.
Batzli: Does anyone have a question for the applicant? Otherwise I'd
' like to open it up for public comment.
Phil Jungbluth: I'd like to say just prior to that. You know we've
talked before about custom grading lots and so forth and I just want to
make sure that people understand what we really mean by that. And that
means exactly what it says. We will work with the site to build the house
to fit that site and around those trees. I mean that's exactly the
1 intention. There isn't any grading on the site, so.
Batzli: Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Would anyone
' like to address the Commission at this time?
Robert Smithburg: Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Smithburg. I live at
8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North and I'd like to pass this out before I
' start. I took an interest in this project in January. I'm concerned
about the loss of old growth trees, a valuable resource to Chanhassen.
Chanhassen has adopted a tree preservation code. It states, it is the
' policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city
and with respect to specific site development, to retain as far as
practical substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the
overall landscape plan. This is the current policy and can be applied to
' this site development. It is good reason that this code was adopted and
if you'd look at this overall aerial view of Chanhassen I've given you.
This is a 1968 map and what I've done, I've deleted. In orange are the
areas that were forested. Woodland areas that are gone or proposed to be
eliminated. Number 1 is Timberwood Stone Creek. Number 2, Chanhassen
public works. Number 4, this is proposed Highway 212 roadway, which is
' coming. And. Number 5, Highway 212/101 interchange. Number 3 is
Chanhassen Hills development which is adjacent to Lake Susan Hills 9th
Addition proposal. In Chanhassen Hills development, in this wooded area
they punched a cul -de -sac in. What remains is there's a rim of trees on
' the back side of the homes down to a wetland. You have 7 homes in. One
new pad going in now. And in the process they took out 3 full semi
truckfulls of red oak. If you zero in then on the area that is
' highlighted, this is what's left of the forested wooded areas in
Chanhassen. Basically we have Lake Ann Park and the proposed development
which we are talking about now. I spent many hours reviewing the Lake
Susan Hills 9th Addition development design maps and have made an attempt
to estimate how many trees would be lost. I would imagine we're going to
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 7
1
differ on this but what I have done is I used the latest map and only did
roadway and, housepads and roadways.
Batzli: Those actually appear to be pretty close I think.
Robert Smithburg: As I said, street and housepad loss is only shown.
Damage due to construction, digging, grading, etc cannot be shown. These
trees are from 12 to 48 inches in diameter, 80 to 150 years old.
Allowable loss is approximately 20% or 195 trees. Loss percentages can II
significantly increase. We have to ask, what is acceptable tree loss in
regards to old growth wooded areas. Chanhassen does not have any more
significant old growth tree stands left to be eliminated. As has been
shown, city staff, you, the Planning Commission and public input can have'
an effect making positive changes. The redesign and site changes by the
developer are commendable and are headed in the right direction but is
this minimal change. Chanhassen has to make sure we go beyond minimum
standards. I believe there are still design modifications and changes
that can be done to save old growth trees such as increased lot size in
heavily wooded areas insuring more flexibility for housepads, more custom'
grading and better compliance with the City's official amendments or
controls or requirements. The City does have discretionary leeway. Refer
to Attorney's letter dated April 1st to the City concerning the PUD, last
page of your agenda. I ask the Planning Commission to take the tree
preservation section of the city code to heart and not approve this
development until a greater number of these precious old growth trees can
be saved. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission?
Don Wisdorf: My name's Don Wisdorf. I live on 8639 Chanhassen Mills. I'
just have one concern about, or major concern about what has been
proposed. I understand as part of the development contract we can specify
which trees are allowed to be removed and have that part of the
development contract. My concern is that we possibly have within the
contract what trees can't be removed. My concern there is that we're
leaving it up to the developer to be able to mark with snow fences around
it the trees that cannot be removed. That's up to his discretion and it'
�
also up to his discretion in regards to which ones he can cut down. I
would urge us to kind of put that in a little bit stronger contract so we
can control and not only be assured by willful or by unintentional means
that the developer doesn't cut down trees that have been deemed to be
important to save. Also the other point is, it doesn't take long to cut
down trees and then we find out, it's too late. It takes many more years
to grow these back. If there's some way for an audit to be done, the cit
staff to be able to check and inspect upon the property periodically
rather than before all the damage to be done, I think that'd be a good
consideration to make. So that the plans as have been put together here II
can be carried out to the fullest. Thank you.
Batzli: Jo Ann, do you want to respond to that? '
Olsen: Well the whole list itself will be, the whole list of trees will
be part of the development contract and I guess we can make it clear that"
the numbers that weren't specified out that could be removed will be
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 8
1
saved. I think we're still doing the same thing. I'm not exactly sure if
I'll follow what the difference was. And then.
Batzli: Okay but, the survey has been done.
' Olsen: The survey has been done.
Batzli: In our current conditions we list those trees which are permitted
' to be removed. And the inspection process out on the site, as far as
putting snow fence around the trees that are to be saved, that is not at
the developer's discretion, correct?
1 Olsen: Correct.
Batzli: Okay. That is part of the development contract where he has to
' go out and put up those trees and so the inspectors basically will be out
there and they will see those things already as a part of the process.
' Olsen: Right. They'll see the snow fencing up and then they'll also have
this list that they can confirm that the numbers, the trees that aren't
fenced are the correct ones and not be fenced.
Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Yes
sir.
Don Wisdorf: Are those snow fences put up before tree removal can begin
then?
Olsen: Right. Before any activity on the site.
Don Wisdorf: Okay, thank you.
' Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? There appears
to be a large number of people in the crowd. Are most people here for
this issue? Can I see hands. And is trees your number one priority
here? Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to address the
Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
' Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Diane, do you want to start at your end here?
Harberts: Sure. From my perspective with the activity that has gone on
by both staff, bringing in the DNR and the extensive survey. I think it's
' very commendable. One of the dilemmas we certainly have here, we have a
developer who wants to develop a plan. We have residents. We have
environmental issues and I think when it gets to the Commission level
here, as well as to the City, I see that it's our task to bring the
balance between all of these issues. I certainly have to agree that we
need to try and be careful in terms of losing some of our natural
resources such as trees, but at the same time the developer certainly has
' his right. His or her right to develop the piece of property. I think
with what has happened since the last time we've seen this, I find it as a
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 9
1
very good compromise taking into consideration the environmental issue,
issues by the residents as well as the interest and rights of the
developer. And if I, there isn't any other significant comments, I'm
planning on supporting this compromise. The only thing I would raise
issue to is the street name. In my previous residence I went through an
address change because the Post Office told us. Not because they asked. I
And when you look at a public safety issue, if there's any delays simply
because of a potential misreading of an address, I think it's in the best
interest to suffer a little bit upfront in terms of having to go through II
an address change. So I would really certainly recommend that. I know i
the past the city has requested different names and I would support that
the city continues with that practice of different names because the
bottom line here, it really is in the best interest of all residents.
That the names are clearly identifiable, especially in the area of public
safety.
Batzli: Anything else?
Harberts: No. '
Batzli: Ladd.
Conrad: I thought the only solution was to create bigger lots and I'm
impressed that staff and the developer have done some things to save what
I perceive to be a significant amount of trees on the property. It's hard
for me to get a handle on the trees that are going down but on the other II
hand, as I challange what I see here, it's probably as good a plan in
terms of if you're going to develop it. I couldn't change it. If I
challenged each lot up there and said well, if I made the lots 50% bigger
I don't know that I'd save many more trees. That's what I tried to do. I
think as I look at what I see, it's very reasonable. That's all I have to
say.
Batzli: Let me play devil's advocate then. Let's assume you cluster the 1
houses so that you didn't have to run the road through there, which is
where you lose most of the trees. '
Conrad: You could do that.
Batzli: But then you're talking about a completely different style and 1
type of development.
Conrad: Yeah, you cluster all your houses out where there aren't any
trees and I don't think that's reasonable. If we clustered them in where
the trees are, that's not reasonable. From anybody's standpoint. I think
if somebody had some wisdom a while back when this was originally
proposed, we might have thought of this as some park property or somethini
along that line but it's not right now and the developer is way down the
road on this one and we really haven't said that this is a park parcel. I
Yeah Brian, I think you could, if somebody could tell me a better use, I
would listen to it but in terms of the map that we're looking at on the
top that's, if somebody's going to put houses in, that's a fairly minimal
amount of tree loss. ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 10
1
Batzli: Okay. Given that it's fairly minimal, would you then require.
' Conrad: Let me say, before you say that, take a look at Lundgren
Brothers, who we typically hold up as a fairly sophisticated developer and
putting in some higher priced home. They took down far more trees than
what we're looking at here.
Batzli: For the Ersbo one?
' Conrad: Up on.
' Batzli: Summit?
Conrad: Yeah. If you take a look at what they took down and we say
they're doing a good job. They took down a whole lot more trees.
Batzli: Would you, in view of the fact that we're doing such a nice job
of saving them during the development process, are we going to be unhappy
several years later when people move in and cut them down out of their
yards? Would it be better to apply more conservation easements rather
than giving them a management plan and leaving it up to their whim?
1 Conrad: Tim Erhart should be here for that... I don't think we should be,
I'm not on that line of thinking, no.
Batzli: I don't think he would be either.
Conrad: We know he would not be. There's a fair number of trees on the
' bottom plat that we're looking at. Fair number that are going down. But
I have a real tough time saying change this and do it a different way and
Brian, if you want to cluster them, it just is a whole different concept.
' Single family, this was always thought of as a single family area and
I just don't know how I'd do it differently.
Batzli: Fair enough. Anything else Ladd? Matt?
1 Ledvina: Well I think the developer has done a good job. And getting
back to what was originally was proposed and the alignments of the streets
' that were approved in the conceptual stage and the things they've done to
change the alignment and the design have really enhanced the tree
preservation. I'm fairly comfortable with what they've got here. I had
other questions on some of the staff recommendations here. On the first
' condition, you talked about the front yard setback being reduced to 25
feet where it will preserve natural features. I know we used this reduced
setback for Lundgren and did we not identify the lots that were actually
' involved?
Olsen: I had identified the lots and you recommended that it be just
general. That it generally applied. This condition really, we've already
set the housepad up if it needed to be and so it's really not even
necessary because those lots that it would have been used to preserved the
natural features already, we have established where the housepad is.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 11
1
Ledvina: So for the areas for example in the northern part of the
development where there's no concerns.
Olsen: There shouldn't.
Ledvina: Okay. So we're not worried about those, the builder coming in
with the 25 foot setback and us being required to approve that?
Olsen: Right. I think it's pretty, we could say that it's not preservinll
natural features. Or we could take it out. Complete...the condition
probably. Unless we need to specify which lots we've done it.
Batzli: Last time I think actually what it read was the frontyard setbac!'
can be reduced to 25 feet period.
Olsen: And then we added where it will preserve. 1
Batzli: Right. But I think, we would be more comfortable if this wasn't
at the discretion of the developer. If the city staff. 1
Olsen: Pointed out which ones. -
Batzli: Right. I think we were comfortable as long as it's being
submitted to you for approval if they're moving them around.
Olsen: So add, if approved by city staff?
Batzli: Yeah.
Ledvina: I know the City Council was concerned about that specific 1
provision on the Lundgren subdivision so I'm a little bit sensitive to
that.
Olsen: Yeah. That's the one I was saying that we had specified the lots'
and it was asked to change to be general so. But I'll just add, if
approved by city staff.
Ledvina: Okay. And I just had a general question regarding the flag
lots. Is that a common driveway on those two flags? So there's two
driveways side by side?
Olsen: Yeah. We hadn't provided for a common driveway. I don't know if
it shows that well on that map but the lot, the trees that you can that II
are going to be removed would most likely have been removed with 2
driveways versus 1 so we just went ahead and blocked those out with the
driveways. The trees that we're losing in those parts.
Ledvina: Right. Well, if you've got one driveway for those two flags, •
they can split and you've got whatever, a 15 foot. I mean it's much less,.
pavement.
Olsen: Oh yeah, no question about that.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
A:Prii 21, 1993 - Page 36
the property if he s old it to someone else would still remain as a
Y g.
correct?
' A.;.-- -Ja`f: Correct.
Farmakes: That would not be transferred. That use would not be
transferred with that sale.
' Jeff Carson: Well yes. A conditional use permit, if it's still on the
property would transfer.
Farmakes: If it was found to be valid.
' Jeff Carson: Sure.
' Farmakes: So what he's hanging on here is that this particular piece of
property is more valuable because he has a conditional use permit?
' Jeff Carson: Absolutely. And it's significantly more valuable because.
Farmakes: Well is this the only improvement that he has that, or would
/•ou, the other things that you listed as his investment in the property,
' oo you agree that there's been minimal improvement in the property? Or d
vou dlsaqree with that?
' Jeft Larson: I would say, you mean in improvements to the property?
Farmakes: Correct.
Jeff Carson: I guess I would agree they're minimal. The footings are in.
He has Improved an access road down to the place of construction and has
crossed the creek and put culverts under the creek to get to the property.
there's been some road improvement. The footings. He's purchased
other things that are not on site for the project. Including $8,000.00.
larmakes: Are these properties that cannot be used elsewhere?
Jeff Larson: No.
- armakes: Or are these just for that site? nay, so then it was site
specific to this particular piece of property?
Jeff Carson: Correct.
arrnakes: You know it seems to be the month for old commitments going
' oack several years and I guess my position on that is, it seems to me that
:,:hat were arguing here is the value of that conditional use permit if he
had to resale the property. Correct me if I'm wrong.
1 3atzil: Well, I don't even see that as an issue in my mind.
C I was talking about a hardship issue. If something is.
II
�i.anninq Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 37
f2satzli: If we would decide that he had not fulfilled any of the
conditions and so it was appropriate to revoke, I don't even know if it's
appropriate for us to consider his financial hardship as some sort of N�
variance to our decision.
Farmakes: He didn't purchase the property with that conditional use in N�
mind. In other words, he didn't pay a premium for that property because. ~~
Harry Lindbery: Yes I did.
Farmakes: You did?
Jeff Carson: He would not have purchased it had he not thought he could II
have. had he not had the right to apply for an receive a contractors yard
by conditional use permit.
Farmakes: Okay, but the person that he purchased the property from, did m�
that person charge you additional dollars than they would otherwise for
that property use? For that conditional use?
Jeff Carson: Well, it was worth more because you could obtain a
contractors vard by conditional use permit on it.
Farmakes: At that time, couldn't you obtain a conditional use on any
piece of an property?
Jeff Carson: Sure. Well I don't know. I can't say sure. I think so. NI
Dut it had a significantly higher value because of that. In other words.
we don't have an appraisal. The person with the best opinion about. I
think. about the value, if you are willing to consider the loss of the N�
economic situation, is the owner. And he believes that it's worth about
25% ot the original purchase price without the ability to use it as a
:ontractors yard. Pure farmland in other words. N�
Krause: There's a lot of focus on the value'''mf this thing and frankly
at didn't occur to us to provide you any information on it because we saw
it didn't matter.
Farmakes: I can understand that argument.
srauss: The only place any kind of a hardship is spoken to in the ~~
ordinance has to do with variances and not whether or not a CUP is still
valid' In that case it says financial hardship is not to be considered. ��
N�
So it really wasn't something that we threw into the mix. It's just "�
whether or not it complied. What's there today. How's the property been
managed. And we made our recommendation based on that.
Farmakes: Okay' No more questions.
3atzli: Okay. There's an inspection report, which is attached. Is one I
of the items by Mr. Lindbery's attorney I believe. And the corrections
indicated that a floorplan, plumbing plan, HVAC plans, sprinkler plan, had
to be complied with and to set up a meeting with Planning and Building
�epartments back in 1990' Was it at this time that it's your reoollertio
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 38
1
that the Building Inspector told you that you couldn't put up the building
' because of this infloor heating system?
Harry Lindbery: Well I told him that I wanted put radiant heat in the
floor and then put drainlines for floor drains and he and that way where
the pilasters where the beams carry, we would rerod it into the concrete
rloor. That's the reason the engineer on the building recommended that
way and your staff, they just said put unit heaters in it. You don't need
i floor heating. radiant heating. And then they said definitely they
wouldn't give me a permit for radiant heat. And then on the floor drains.
the state requires to have a flammable waste in the building in case
there's an accident and you spill something. It goes into this large tank
' before it goes out into a drainfield. Well, we put it in. Then I had
Prairie Plumbing going to connect the pipes. We asked them for that and
he says, oh no. You can't have that in the building. You have to Put it
outside. So I took and sent a backhoe out there. We removed it from
inside the building. We put it on the outside. We got a concrete saw to
saw through the solid concrete wall and then after we installed it on the
' outside we says well, can we connect the pipes now? He says, no. Now
you've got to go to the State and get the okay from them. We went down to
the State. The State man he looked at it and he said, whoever that
3uzidinn Inspector, he isn't familiar with our winters. He says you have
to put that inside the building. So I put it inside the building, back
again where I had it to start with. And then they wouldn't let me hook
the Pipes up, put my rerod in to pour the concrete.
Jeff Carson: What period of time was this Harry?
' Harry Lindbery: I think this was, I think it was in '91.
Jeff Carson: I think that was the original...
' Batzli: Yeah. So did you ever submit a written plan for your HVAC or
piurnbing or sprinkler or?
' Harry Lindbery: Oh yes. Sure. You people have it. You have the
sprinkling system. The whole thing.
Datzli: And we had, as far as this stuff that goes in the floor, the
radiant heat from the floor that was, as part of your plan and was that
ever officially denied or is there some?
' : Lindbery: Well, your man was out there to look at our flammable
waste. Are you familiar with the flammable waste?
' atzli No.
Harry Lindbery: Well any garage or anything where you'd have either
gasoline or deisel fuel. We don't have any gasoline vehicles. It's .lust
' ceisels. But say if one had bumped the other and he had ruptured a tank
and It spill on the floor, it would go into this flammable waste and
there's a vent out in the air. That way in this tank will hold 500
gallons and any vehicle wouldn't hold much over about 100 -150 so it's
-ianning Commission Meeting II
April 21, 1993 - Page 39
surflciently large enough. And the State requires you to have it inside
the building.
.3atzli: Okay. But other than that, I mean this is all, maybe I didn't
read that part. I didn't even see that in your attorney's stuff, or I
maybe I glossed over it. The radiant heat issue, when you put it on the
pian, normally you get something back from the city that's stamped. It
says, you know it's approved or approved except you've got to do this
this, this and this. And the City never gave something like that back t•c
YOU?
Harry Lindbery: No. The man was just on the job and he says, radiant II neat is no good. Put unit heaters in the end of the buildings. And if
you were working a on cold concrete floor, if you had nice warm water
running through there, it's much more comfortable than if you've got a
unit heater. '
Ba.tzl:i: But again I guess, you don't have any of this in writing. It's
all your recollection that this is kind of how.
Harry Lindbery: We gave him a copy of the diagram. How it would go back
anc: forth and everything and the spacing. And Roberts - Hamilton is the
fl II stributor for a Weirsbo Company. That's the one that made the tubing
and their engineer laid it all out.
Batzii: Between when you were working with the, going back and forth
oetween the city and our staff allegedly, I'll throw it in there for
whatever it's worth. Did anything happen to the building during that
timeirame? ,
- parry Lindbery: I have it in Hopkins waiting so I can put the heat in the
floor. pour the concrete and erect it.
�atzlr: But what did you do for the next 2 years after apparently our, o.
uppose_dly our Building Inspector said either you want radiant heat or you
.ant put it in. '
- tarry Lindbery: 1 rented a building in Hopkins.
atzii: Okay, but you didn't do anything to this site? '
: Lindbery: Well we put the access road in. We put the culvert so w
can, that's how we can cross the creek to get the cement trucks into put
the foundation in and we done a little bit of grading down there.
Batzli: But didn't you do that before the Inspector was out telling
YOU...
: Lindbery: Oh yeah, yeah. That was done before but that was it.
.atzi: Sc • between October of 1990 when this inspection report is dated
and the criminal complaint was filed last summer, did anything go on on
tnis site? 1 mean that was nearly 2 years time. Did you do anything on
the site during that time period?
Pianning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 40
Harry Lindbery: Well, we cleaned up behind. When we had a little spare
time we cleaned up behind because that farmer left it in a terrible mess
and we hauled out several truckloads of trash.
:'atzii: Did you work with the City at all during that time period?
' Harry Lindbery: The man just said we couldn't put it up and well, I
wasn't too much of a fighter. I just kind of let time ride some. And he
' tells me I should have come down and pounded on the desk and say, why and
go to somebody else that didn't mind radiant heat. I know when we were
here before your Mayor said that he had it in his house and he liked it.
' jerf Carson: There was a year's period when he was actually physically
unable to do anything. One of those years is accounted for in that way...
He crushed his leg.
1 Harry Lindbery: Yeah, I did have an accident and I was laid up for about
12 -13 months.
3atzli: So you personally couldn't do anything.
:arry
Lindbery: No. But if they would have gave us the okay I would have
' has a crew out there putting it up.
Batzli: But you had a crew that could have been working while you were
.:aid up potentially I guess.
::arry Lindbery: Oh yeah. No, we've got boom trucks and so forth.
�4tzli Okay. Paul.
g.rausa: This is all quite interesting but it doesn't jive with any of the
I _ninga that we've been hearing from the Inspection Department. They did
- :_ve a meeting with them in 1990. The Inspections Department as a matter
Qr routine issues an inspection report anytime they go out on a site and
' veils people what they have to change. I mean it's .just routine for these
uys. They're all licensed inspectors. We only have one of those reports
arouna here and it's dated October 22, 1990 and it says you've got to
submit plans.
icatzii: Well he's just told us that he submitted plans and we have them;.
_ telling me we have nothing in his file?
Ai No. I went through the file.
tarry Lindbery: Prairie Plumbing is the one that.
:\rauss: We're not going to argue the point. We haven't seen them and
we've asked the Building Inspectors about them and they don't have them.
' -na there is nothing currently, there is nothing current that's happened.
This was in 1990.
' 3atzli: Okay. As far as revocation. If we were to go with revocation,
what is our standard that we're looking at and what should we base it on?
.
II
. Lanninq Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 41
II
[liiott Knetsch: It would be based on whether or not he's in violation of
tne terms of the permit. And you have those 20 items in the permit.
Ledvina: I look at the ordinance and it says, any condition of the --
permit'
t3aczli: Shall be, shall constitute sufficient cause for revocation of thII
conditional use permit by the City Council following a public hearing.
And I assume we're acting as the public hearing?
II
Lliiott Knetech; The City Council will also hold a public hearing.
1:satzli: Okay. Well, I guess it's very difficult to envision how this hall
l�
oraoned on and I appreciate the fact that he didn't want to fight it.
Obviously he's fighting it now. Without some evidence, you know and what
this could be is obviously if he can go to the heating and plumbing peopl
tnat r,repared the plans for him and demonstrate that they sent them to th
to show that the city's file is in error, then I guess I'd be, I'd
co ix at some of this stuff. But what I hear is a lot of remembrances and
we have absolutely no documentation to substantiate a lot of this and so N�
i reel uncomfortable doing anything personally other than saying he has
not complied with the conditions and I don't believe that the financial
��
nardshiP is appropriate to look at to determine compliance with the N�
conditional use permit because for heavens sake, everytime we looked at
revoking one. it would always be a financial hardship and in many
instances it would be a much bigger hardship because they may have
invested - uildings, pavements. They would have done all, complied with 1
these things. And I don't see compliance with, if you squint, more
tnan a couple' So I would like to, if the applicant, if he has some
e*idence, if he can go to the plumbing and heating people. If he can net
zne perspn at the State to say yeah, he called me. I said, Kirchman
cion`c know what he was talking about. You know, but we don't have any of
cnooe things and I guess what I would do is I'd put the burden back on th��
l�
applicant and his attorney to come up with some evidence that shows that ~�
the City's files are in error.
Jerr Carson: Mr. Chairman? 1
3aczli: Yes.
Jeff Carson: I do appreciate what you're saying and I would appreciate sn II
opportunity to do just that. As 1 stand here right now I don't have what
you're seeking and if you would hold this open perhaps, I don't mean toda
or tomorrow, but to another hearing or continue it to another, continue N�
tns public hearing to another date, I think it's only fair that if we can
produce that information, that you would receive it and frankly it's qui
reasonable of you to demand it. Mr. Lindbery tells me that he ought to b ��
� ie to recreate this and I think that's a reasonable request.
—
,aczli; That would at least be helpful to me to see that some of these II cninqs occurred and that pmrhaps it waa more than just his diligence, nsn
ollinenoe' That the city somehow was giving him some either misinformation
or tnat some of these things occurred. That would be helpful to MY
cecision' I don't know if it would be helpful to the other' II
Panning Commission Meeting
. ,pr i 1 21. 1993 - Page 42
Harry Lindbery: We did have two copies of that. The plumber had one and
we gave your staff one of how the lines would run and how the drains and
the neat went.
3atzli: Having gone through the permit process here at the city
personally, I know what you get back.
:-tarry Lindbery: We gave them to the plumber.
' . tz1i: I understand that but then you should be able to go to the
•iurnber and you should be able to have some of this documentation. Rinht
now I. you tell me this and I hear someone else telling me something
' itferent and they go and they look in the file and there's nothinn there
aria so I weigh this. I'd like to entertain a motion now and if other
commissioners feel that this would be helpful in making a decision, I
I tnink we should table it. Allow him to gather up some additional
evlcence. If it wouldn't be helpful, then maybe you should move with the
staff recommendation. Allow him to gather the information before the City
'..ouncil meeting where apparently there will be a further public hearing.
:=armakes: I have just a question in regards to that. Would that negate,
.;et's say he came forward with heating plans for the floor. Would that
' nen negate the other non - compliances with the conditional use permit?
atzli: I don't know. I don't know. I hope he comes with more than just
' v letter from the plumbing people saying, you know a letter addressed to
the city saying here's a plan. But I'm saying that if there is additional
evidence that he wants to submit, he should do it. You know because right
now we don't have a lot. It's just kind of yes he did, no he didn't and
1 there's nothing in our file which would show that he did and I'm
s:; gesting, if he really did it and you had these other people involved in
the process. for crying out loud you should have some letters or
'
correspondence or plans or copies or something and I don't see any of
=nat. So I guess I'm just saying, I'm trying to give them one more shot
because my feeling right now is that, if this isn't going to make a
' difference, or if you just want to let him gather it up and present it to
the Council. then we should probably move it along. But if presenting
some of that evidence may have an impact on the way you vote tonight,
tnen I think we should table it, so.
__ott: I'm looking at a letter dated October 2., 1992 from Campbeli-
,n-utson with a carbon copy to Jeffrey A. Carson and it basically spells
' bat that there is a problem with the permit and I mean that's a heck of a
lot time and in order to answer the claims made by the City of
Chanhassen. I mean that's, in my mind I think that was ample time to come
UP with the plumbing plans and any other documentation that the City of
uhanhassen either had never received or got it and lost. I personally
nave enough information on this particular item to go along with the
staff's report. recommendation of revocation and then have this item
rasented to the City Council. Now inbetween those two dates if any
ocumentation can be brought forward on behalf of your client, I would
suggest that it be brought forward.
1
.lanninq Commission Meeting w�
�nril 21, 1993 - Page 43
Jeff Carson: I appreciate that Mr. Scott. My druthers would be, if we
can produce the documentation that is being referenced, to bring it back
here simply because of the function of the public hearing process followe
O/ a recommendation followed by action at the City Council level. Ali too�
often I'm afraid if the recommendation is, from this body up to the City
Lounoil for revocation, the argument could be made we lose the opPortunit
to present new information. Or they won't be interested in it and N�
sometimes. it they are interested in it, they'll shoot it back to Planning
and Zoning if they're not sure. So it would be my suggestion, and I
apoiogize for my voice' It's not normal whatever it is I've got. N�
2atzli: You mean tonight or always?
Jeff Carson: Good point. I opened that door. My druthers would be to
bring whatever information we can bring back to this body. If YOU would
permit it. And I suggest that there's a slight inconvenience but glven
the length of time that we've dealt with, or have not dealt with the N�
issue. a 30 day delay or approximately, whenever you'd have your next
public hearing, I think we're procedurally and logistically, on behalf of
tne aPPlicant we're better off coming back to this body. If it doesn't N�
7ersuade this body, we're in more trouble at the Council to be sure. But
�
guess I'd like my first opportunity here.
Eazzli ; Paul, is there a disadvantage from the standpoint of, is there m�
something being done on the site that needs immediate attention?
3asicallv they've said nothing has happened out there since last summer s
from our perspective. does 30 days hurt us? N�
?,rauss: From that perspective, 30 days does not hurt us. There's nnthin
emminent or pressing that we're aware of that needs to be stopped. On th
other hand- this is the third public hearing this thing has had. There
are nuances among nuances among nuances here. It's going to be your
cnoioe' I guess I fail to see what bearing something that may or may not
nave nappened 3 years ago has on what's been happening out there in the N�
_Last few vears' I don't know if there's an implication that these
documents were delivered to the Building Inspectors and they ditched them
Intentionally? Or by accident. In any case, you can always pick up the N�
phone and see where they are. If there was a true need to more forward. I
assume the issue would have been pressed. There's no knowledge of it
t pressed. It would be a month delay in all likelihood. If vou went
to nold it over, Sharmin will be out of town at the next Planning
- ommission meeting. Possibly Elliott and we could have Steve Kirchmsn
�ere and if that's satisfactory, maybe they can handle it. I leave it up
to YOU but it's not uncommon for the Planning Commission to recommend
something to the City Council along with some assumptions that additional
materials oe presented if they in fact exist.
2atzlz : Okay. Ladd, did you have? --
Ionrad: Yeah. and I'm going to ask the applicant. I think if there's on"
��
item. I'd be real tempted to play this one out but I play this scenario
��
through things that weren't done yet the site being used. That bothers
me' It's not that sprinklers weren't put in to a building that wasn't
constructed. That doesn't bother me at all. But what bothers me is whe���
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 12
1
Ledvina: Can we require that that be, that there be one lot servicing
' those adjacent flag lots? Or one driveway servicing those adjacent flag
lots.
Olsen: I don't see why we couldn't. We'd have to, does it have to be a
20 foot? Is it a shared driveway then? And then you get into a 20 foot
width. Has to be 7 ton design where you have 2 lots on a driveway. I
mean we can make any condition we want. That's a general. The general
' condition for the city is if you have a shared driveway, two homes on a
private drive, it has to be 20 foot wide, 7 ton design.
Batzli: Didn't we just do, I thought we did an amendment to our flag lot
driveway ordinance and we didn't require that.
Olsen: For shared driveways?
Krauss: No, that's the way it was written 2 or 3 years ago. That hasn't
changed.
Batzli: Boy, time flies. Really? Oh, okay.
Olsen: But we can look at that. We can look again but I think when Dave
and I worked on this, I don't think we saw that shared driveways was going
to be saving any trees. We either placed the driveways where there were
no trees going to be removed or else where the trees were going to be
removed with 1 or 2.
Ledvina: Is that your understanding Dave? That a shared driveway won't
1 really help the situation?
Hempel: That and the combination of the sewer and water service
' extensions to each home.
Ledvina: Okay. I just thought there might be an opportunity there but.
' Batzli: So we'll require rain barrels and an outdoor...
Olsen: Right. Well actually we want a cart path and when we were walking
through the site we were going, can't they just be accessed by a golf cart
and a cart path.
Ledvina: Let's see. He talked about a variance being required for the
' street grade and I may have missed it in here but I didn't find it in the
conditions.
' Olsen: I took it out because it's a PUD so technically it doesn't have to
get a variance.
' Ledvina: Okay. We don't have to worry about that? Alright. Dave, is
that going to present any problems at all? It's near the outlet, south
outlet by Powers Boulevard. Is that 10% grade a concern for the city?
' Hempel: We're still going to require that there's a landing at the top so
there is a gentle gradient onto Powers Boulevard providing for adequate
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 13
stopping and acceleration onto Powers Boulevard. I would imagine there'd
be approximately 100 to 150 foot landing on top required.
1
Ledvina: But other than that, a 3% increase is not real significant?
Hempel: Not in this stretch we didn't feel it would be. '
Ledvina: Okay. It's a pretty short stretch. What is it, 100 feet or so?
Hempel: It's actually a little longer than that...250.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I think if you don't go above 10 %, you're generally'
okay for any type of vehicle. And then Jo Ann, on the agenda it
identified a wetland alteration permit. That's not part of this?
Olsen: No, that shouldn't be on there. I never even looked at that.
Ledvina: I didn't think so but I just.
Olsen: ...no, that's correct. They're not touching a wetland. '
Ledvina: Okay, that's all I have for my comments.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. You know I really thought you were going to as
about the stockpiled material in condition 19. I don't know why.
Ledvina: I thought I'd forego it this time.
Batzli: Okay. Joe.
Scott: Jo Ann, on the corrected tree survey, how many trees are
identified?
Olsen: How many, you mean out of the whole list?
Scott: No. I mean out of the, on the list. When you went through it. I
Olsen: How many do we identify?
Scott: Yeah, how many did you identify?
1
Olsen: We went through the whole, pretty much all the list.
Scott: Like 1,500 or?
Olsen: Oh no, no. There's, well the number's about 900 or so and we
didn't do all 900 but we went in the area.
Scott: I was thinking as far as the count, because I'm trying to get in I
my mind is some sort of a numeric difference between, so out of the 900
the initial proposal as we saw about a month ago had a tree loss of.
Olsen: Oh, I don't have those numbers.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 14
1
Scott: I mean this helps a lot from a visual standpoint.
1 Olsen: I'd say at least they're saving 50% of what was being lost the
first time.
' Scott: And where the creativity come from to, because obviously there's
some ideas that came out of this process to reduce tree loss. Where did
those ideas come from? Did they come primarily from city staff?
' Primarily from the developer?
Olsen: Well, the staff is where we're, we saw that it was sanitary sewer
' that was causing a lot of the tree removal and that's where I said to
Dave, are there other options. Then so yes and then the developer also
agreed that yes, there are other things that they could do. I mean they,
what this is is additional cost to them in changes and they agreed yes, we
' could do it. It was either a lift station or this ejector pump so that's
where that one came from. But their Crane Circle, Crane, I forget what
that was. That was just saying we want to preserve that stand and so do
whatever you can to preserve that. And actually we had proposed flag lots
in there and they're the ones who came back with the whole, taking it out
completely.
1 Scott: Is there a bituminous trail that's still proposed to go from Lake
Susan Hills Drive out to Lake Susan? Is that what that?
Olsen: Yeah. Up on the northern one, on that area from Mallard?
Scott: It's looking on, at least what I have here. I don't know if it's,
' yeah. It would be from Mallard.
Olsen: Yeah, there's still going to be a trail.
Scott: Okay. What's the tree loss associated with putting that?
Olsen: Well we, I think we're also putting sewer down there or something.
' Isn't it going where the line is going? The trail going down to Lake
Susan Dave?
' Hempel: Below the lake?
Scott: No. It connects Lake Susan Hills Drive to the bituminous trail
that goes around Lake Susan. Is that going to be laid over storm sewer or
something like that?
Hempel: That's where the sanitary sewer is being extended up from along
the lake.
Olsen: Yeah, originally it was going to be removing trees and that's
' where we said let's move that.
Scott: Okay. And then I'd like to see too, condition 21. That damage
for lost trees would follow the ordinance and that's Section 20-1178 and
' especially C(3) and C(7). It talks specifically about caliper inch per
caliper inch replacement and then also the trees that are designated for
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 15
preservation that are lost will be replaced by compatible trees approved
by the city and the city will require the developer to replace these tree
with the largest comparable trees that are commercial available for
transportation so, but I'd like to see that tree preservation ordinance as
part of the development agreement. No further comments.
Batzli: Joe, are you suggesting that the, and maybe I missed something.
That the applicant is going to replace all the trees that are being taken
out?
Scott: Oh no. No. Trees that are designated for preservation that are
lost due to construction. Not everything.
Batzli: But C(3) of that section discusses replacing trees approved for
removal.
Scott: I'm mostly concerned with the trees that are designated for
preservation. If some of those are damaged.
Olsen: So C(7). 1
Scott: So that would be C(7) instead of (3). Thanks.
Batzli: Okay, thank you.
Farmakes: I had several things I already talked about so I'm not going til
cover those. I too agree that this is a good compromise to this problem.
Fortunately we're working with the long term solution here and I know
that...but certainly for the aesthetic value that they provide us, we do I
have such little tree cover left in Chanhassen, I think it's worth it to
try and save these resources to let them live out their natural lives and
pass on. They also provide us with wildlife, food for wildlife,
particularly the nut trees and so on. So I'd like to see us continue to I
be aggressive in trying to save these trees. On the other hand, we have
people with millions of dollars of property who have invested, who are
selling these parcels of property who are moving out here. These people,'
and of course in time move in, they plant trees and over the years an
urban forest begins to develop. I think the DNR said approximately 95% of
Chanhassen denuded of forest cover. That this has been a farm area for
over 100 years. Trees and farming don't mix particularly well. So
consequently the areas that are left are for wood, for game purposes or
simply weren't farmable land. Minimal farmable land. And I think that
this is a reasonable compromise to this. Maybe Dick Wing will disagree
and ask for 3 more but I don't know how else this problem can be solved
short of, as Ladd said, that 20 years ago they made a forest out of this
thing and turned it into a park. That wasn't done and time has marched oll
now and as I said before, I think there's a pragmatic solution. I would
like to back up just a little bit and touch before I forget on the PUD
part that is not covered by the trees. I still feel that 1, 2 and 8 are
pretty cramped. Particularly 8 and 1 in comparison to the surrounding
properties and although I'm not going to not vote on this because of
that, I would like to pass on that comment to the City Council and have
them review that.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 16
Batzli: Those are all in Block 1?
Farmakes: Correct.
Batzli: The ones up in the northern most part of the development?
' Farmakes: Correct. I think 8 in particular because of the angle of the
house is at a different angle than the property. Its sort of a pie.
' They seem to be areas within the PUD that are sort of left over land
trying to work in a housepad. I'm concerned about the properties next to
them. The discrepancy difference between their size of lots and so on and
the available area there. I also agree with you and the idea of having a
' conservation easement following the property. It will be a mistake, all
this work could be undone with a happy chainsaw so I'd like to see that
put in
1 Olsen: Okay. With the individual trees and all of them saved?
' Farmakes: Yeah. That's possible per lot.
Olsen: Yeah, we have to have a legal description around each one of those
trees, is that correct Elliott?
1 Knetsch: Yes.
' Olsen: Do you see another way of preserving these after they're, the
ownership of the lot owner other than by having a legal description?
' Knetsch: Well, whether you have the conservation easement or the
management plan, its just a piece of paper filed at the courthouse. If
someone gets their chainsaw out, the trees are going to go whether it's a
conservation easement or a management plan.
' Farmakes: Well we have the setback from the lake edge and the same type
of reasoning applies. If you have an area of property that's overviewing
' the lake people often, when they build their house want to see the lake so
they go down and start cutting trees out. If that's allowed to happen, it
seems to me it's a moot issue what we're doing here. But if there's a way
to solve that problem, I'd like to see that follow. Whether or not
' somebody's going to break the law, I suppose we don't have any guarantee
of that but we can always enforce it at a later date. I don't know else
to deal with that. That's the end of my comments other than, with this
type of tree cover, I'd like to see us come up with or establish a
criteria of what we need, when we need to see this type of thing. And
with this type of overview. What bothered me the last time is that we
didn't see this up front and it really was the basis of what we're making
a decision here. And certainly if there's that stand of trees or whatever
criteria you were going to use, that there's a significant stand that we
should know specifically what we're losing or we're gaining.
' Olsen: Agreed, yeah.
' Batzli: Okay, thank you. In the past from time to time Jo Ann we've
narrowed the roadway in a PUD in order to, at least in one instance I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 17
1
think we have, narrowed the roadway. Did we take a look at doing that at
all in here?
Olsen: We've done that.
Batzli: Well, by how much did we do that though? '
Olsen: Well down to 50. I mean we've never gone below 50 right -of -way.
Batzli: But that's the right -of -way. I mean have we ever gone lower in I
the actual curb to curb?
Olsen: We've talked about doing that but that should be, Dave can addresl
that but there's other implications.
Hempel: Right. Mr. Chairman. The major disruption out there again is J1
not the street pavement. It's the initial utility installation. Sanitar
sewer. The watermain. The storm sewer. Each one of those are placed
approximately 10 feet apart. The State health codes for the watermain an
sanitary sewer to be 10 feet apart in separation so that has the most
impact on the site. Not the final street pavement out there. It's the
initial utility installation. I
Batzli: Okay. I guess like Matt I'd like to see condition 1 changed so
that if there is going to be a pulling back, it will be approved by city
staff. I would like to see us look into a few more of these lots having 11
conservation easement on them. I don't want to do it for the onesies,
twoies trees I guess but it seems to me Block, I think it's 3 where a lot
of the homes have trees in the back. Significant numbers and I don't knoll
that from your condition I don't know that, it looks like those, on that
block, those lots will not have a conservation easement on them.
Olsen: That's where we were just going with the management plan and
listing what was there. Yeah, we will definitely go back and where
there's a stand of trees we'll come up with a legal description and work
out some way where we have the little one and two, how to. I mean ideall
we would love to have them all in conservation easements with just is not
feasible when you have individual ones. So yeah, we will do that. We'll
add to that.
Batzli: I'd like to see a new condition 21 and as Joe stated, for
replacement of, for those trees which are damaged in construction. I
really appreciate the presentation by Mr. Smithburg. That was nice.
Thank you. I won't reiterate too many of the comments by my fellow
commissioners but I think we're doing a pretty decent job here given this
type of development and trying to accommodate a lot of different needs
here. From the looks of it I think we're doing one of the best jobs we'v
done on preserving trees and looking at it, it appears to me that Dave is,
he's right. We're losing them on the roadway and probably installation o
the utilities and I don't see a way around that other than completely
saying, so. If someone has a motion, I'd be happy to listen to it.
Conrad: I don't have a motion but I'd make a comment and then, I
appreciate the residents being here and following the issue. It's an
i
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 18
1
issue that we care about. It doesn't look like it sometimes but we really
do care about it. We probably had something to do with the tree
preservation ordinance that's in here. But if you see, were kind of
globally looking at things and maybe not always challenging a lot line
here or there so I think later on, in fact as it goes to City Council, if
' you see some specifics that we've missed on here, it's probably not a bad
idea to challenge the specifics. If there's a stand of trees that a lot
line could have saved or a bigger parcel could have preserved, but again I
' thank everybody for showing up. It's best that you're following this
issue.
' Batzli: Nicely said. I think we all appreciate it. Would someone like
to take a crack at a motion?
Harberts: Well I guess I'll take a crack at it. I'll make a motion to
' approve Case No. 87 -3, Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and approve the
recommendations presented by staff with the following changes, and I would
welcome assistance from the group. Number 1, that the staff will outline
' which lots can be reduced to 25 feet. Number 12 I would like to see added
that Lake Susan Hills Drive be renamed as supported by the Public Safety
Deparment. That we add 21. Basically what you'd lose in the developer's
agreement in the ordinance as specified by Commissioner Scott. I guess
that does it.
Batzli: Is there a second?
1 Conrad: Second.
' Batzli: Is there discussion?
Farmakes: Did that include your amendment?
Scott: Yeah. It included my amendment and also you wanted to make
greater use of conservation easements?
' Batzli: Did you want to include language for staff to look at
incorporating additional conservation easements in your motion?
Harberts: Yes.
Batzli: Do you accept that as a friendly amendment?
Conrad: Certainly.
Batzli: Regarding your condition 12, was that eleminating the current
' language or was that adding?
Harberts: Adding.
' Batzli: Okay. And your motion was for the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
as shown on the plans dated April 12, 1993?
Harberts: Yes, thank you.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 19
Harberts moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Preliminary Plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition as I
shown on the plans dated April 12, 1993, with the following conditions:
1. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25' where it will preserve
natural features if approved by city staff.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the
public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 '
year storm event and ponding calculations for the rentention ponds
(NURP standards) for the City Engineer to review and approve.
4. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for utility an"
street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. All
utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance
with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail I
Plates.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with I
all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed
District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department.
7. All retention ponds shall include an outlet control structure to
control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards.
8. The applicant shall provide maintenance access routes to the retentio il
pond areas and dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat.
In addition, all utility lines outside the street right -of -way shall
be dedicated with a minimum of a 20 foot wide drainage and utility
easement.
9. Erosion control and turf restoration shall be in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook. '
10. If feasible, the applicant shall work with the City and County in
oversizing the storm drainage improvements to include the future I
runoff from the upgrade of Powers Boulevard. The applicant would be
compensated for the associated oversizing costs.
11. The location of all fire hydrants shall be approved by the City's
1
Fire Marshal.
12. Mallard Court should be renamed to either Drake Court or some other
acceptable street name. Lake Susan Hills Drive shall also be renamed
as supported by the Public Safety Department.
13. Five foot concrete sidewalks should also be extended from Lake 1
Susan Hills Drive west to Dove Court.
14. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will'
be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 20
shall ermit dead diseased vegetation p pruning, removal of ead or g n and
underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not
be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the
location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide
the legal description. Generally the conservation easement shall be
on the following lots: Lots 1 -6, Block 2.
15. Lots 6 -16, Block 3, Lots 1 -10, Block 4, and Lots 20 -28, Block 5 shall
be custom graded lots and the following conditions shall apply:
a. Each of these lots shall conform to the approved custom graded
plans. Deviation from these plans which will result in more
' removal of vegetation, will not be permitted.
b. Each of these lots shall have a woodland management plan developed •
by the developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
The woodland management plan shall be developed by a licensed
forester approved by the city. A copy of the woodland management
plan shall be kept in the building permit file and a copy will
also be given to the homeowner.
c. Each of these lots shall only be permitted to have the following
trees remove (these numbers correspond to the tree survey numbers
as shown on Sheets 8 and 9 of Plans dated April 12, 1993):
Block 3:
Lot 6 - 64
' Lot 7 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91
Lot 8 - 100, 502, 503, 504, 507, 510, 511, 512 -
Lot 9 567, 575
Lot 10 - 582, 602
' Lot 11 - 592, 593, 594, 559
Lot 12 - 598, 626, 633, 634, 635, 647, 648, 649
Lot 13 - 605, 624, 625, 652, 715
' Lot 14 - 615
Lot 15 - 606 *Lot line must be adjusted to save stand of trees.
Lot 16 - 573
' Block 4:
Lot 1 - 870, 871, 872, 875 *House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50, must
save 863
Lot 2 - 817, 857, 861
Lot 3 - 828, 829, 840, 841, 519
' Lot 4 - 985
Lot 5 - 532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 550, 990, 991, 994
Lot 6 - 587
Lot 7 - 563
Lot 8 - 528, 568, 569
Lot 9 - 616, 626, 627, 630, 637
Lot 10 - 619, 620, 621
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 21
1
Block 5:
Lot 20 - none 1
Lot 21 - none
Lot 22 - none
Lot 23 - 911, 914, 917
Lot 24 - 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 878, 879
Lot 25 - 996, 997
Lot 26 - 570, 571, 573, 578, 579, 580, 581
Lot 27 - 604 *House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50
Lot 28 - 612
16. The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide the following: '
a. Increased landscaping along Powers Boulevard (CR 17) and internal
boulevard and entrance landscaping. 1
b. Improved landscaping materials, with at least 50% of the hardwoods
from the primary species list. 1
c. A plan providing $750.00 worth of landscaping /single family unit.
17. Park and Recreation Commission conditions: '
a. Dedication of Outlot E to the city;
b. Construction of the following trails: 1
1. an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake
Susan as indicated on Attachment B, Segments D and E;
2. an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers
Boulevard (CR 17) as indicated on Attachment B, Segment B;
3. Trail segments A, C and F;
4. Park fees are assessed at one -half the rate in force upon
building permit application. All trail fees have been waived
as a part of the development of Lake Susan Hills West.
5. The two trail easements identified allowing access to the
shoreland trail be consolidated into one 40 foot easement at
the location of the northerly easement.
18. Building Official conditions:
a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for II
each house pad on the grading plan.
b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, 1
limits the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections
Division. A general soils report for the development should also
be submitted to the Inspections Division.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 22
c. Oversized street placed signs shall be laced at each of the four outlets
g
of Lake Susan Hills Drive on Powers Boulevard. The signs shall
indicate the range of addresses on the street.
19. The applicant's engineer shall provide a final grading plan with
detailed house types, elevation and grading limits on all lots. The
final grading plan shall also take into consideration existing
stockpiled material along County Road 17.
20. A condition shall be placed in the development contract regarding
maintenance responsibilities for homes with ejector pumps.
' 21. Any trees damaged during construction shall be replaced on a caliper
inch basis per the ordinance, Section 20- 1178(c)(7).
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 68.53 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF
2.25 ACRES AND 64.98 ACRES LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE AND LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL, JUST WEST OF PIONEER HILLS
' SUBDIVISION, LAURENT ADDITION, PAUL LAURENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Paul Laurent 16085 Delarma Drive
Gil Laurent 1370 Pioneer Trail, Chaska
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
' called the public hearing to order.
Batzli: Would the applicant like to address the Commission at this time?
'
No? You're happy with all of the conditions that are in the staff report?
There's no problems?
Paul Laurent: Yeah, I guess other than the driveway...
Olsen: It's usually a condition that Carver County will have to give you
an access permit and it's usually not a major issue.
' Batzli: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would
like to address the Commission on this matter?
r Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
' Batzli: Jeff, do you want to lead off?
Farmakes: I have no comments on this issue.
Batzli: Okay, Joe?
1
Plannin g Commission Meeting
II
April 21, 1993 - Page 23
Scott. No comment.
Batzli: Matt. 1
Ledvina: No comment.
Conrad: Ditto.
Harberts: Just clarification. As I understand, this is being subdivided"
or whatever for a family?
Olsen: Right. His father owns the property and this is the son. i
Harberts: That's it. No problems.
Batzli: I only have one question. That is, we're taking an easement, 1
drainage and utility easements. Whoops, wrong one. Where is it, Bluff
Creek. Yeah, drainage and utility easements over all ponding and wetland
areas including Bluff Creek. Now I don't think that's shown on the map II
where we're doing this, is it?
Olsen: Yeah, I believe it is.
Batzli: Is that just that little drainage and utility easement on the
back of Lot 1?
Olsen: I don't think they were showing. I thought I brought it down.
The easements that we were talking about aren't shown on here yet.
Batzli: Right. 1
Olsen: Okay, what were you saying?
Batzli: I was saying, where are we doing it? I mean are we going to sho
it someday?
Olsen: Yeah. 111
Batzii: Who is going to determine this and when is it going to happen?
Krauss: The plat will be modified to reflect this.
Batzli: Okay. Do we need that as part of our conditions that the map hall
to be modified to show those?
Olsen: We're saying on the final plat it will show up, but yeah. And
then Paul has pointed out that if the creek is going through there, that II
we should also double check to see if a trail easement should be taken
along that too.
Batzli: Well that was my biggest concern was that if we eventually are
going to do something along Bluff Creek, it needs to be more than just a is
drainage and utility easement.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
Aprii 21, 1993 - Page 24
Olsen: Right. Although it's, yeah I don't know how you're going to get.
Batzli: I don't know either but we'll kick ourselves later.
Olsen: We have been working on trail crossings.
Krauss: And Highway 212 is being designed with a bridge over Bluff Creek.
It was one of the things we insisted on with the EIS 2 years ago.
Scott: Is that going to be like what we'll be doing on Highway 5?
Krauss: I think the Highway 212 is really a bridge. It doesn't just look
like a bridge.
Batzli: Okay. So how can we, we can modify that condition 5 to, the
' easement will be reflected on the final plat and that trail, I don't know.
Olsen: Or maybe, could just to number 4 we could add Bluff Creek to the
trail easement along Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek. I'll confirm. I'm
assuming it will be like a 20 foot trail easement.
Batzli: Okay. I don't have anything else. If no one else does, I'd
' entertain a motion.
Scott: I move that the Planning Commission approve the Laurent Addition
Preliminary Plat #93 - to create two single family lots as shown on the
plans dated March 22, 1993 and subject to the conditions as stated by
staff with item number 4 modified to include an easement of some size to
be determined later along Bluff Creek as well as Pioneer Trail.
' Batzli: Is there a second?
' Farmakes: Second.
Batzli: Did you want to include submission of a final plat showing these
' easements on condition 5 for example?
Scott: Certainly.
Batzli: And typically Jo Ann, do we not typically talk about the plans
that we've received rather than whatever the heck the applicant dates
them? So that really we're talking about shown on the plans dated
' Received March 25th?
Olsen: Right. It should be 25th, that's correct. And then I don't know.
' on condition 5 it already says that it shall dedicate on final plat. Are
You saying the preliminary plat. You want it to be shown on the?
Batzli: I don't know. It just seemed silly that we were, I thought that
' what we would require is a final plat showing all these things from the
applicant. Is what I thought.
Olsen: Yeah. Okay.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 25
Batzli: Are those changes acceptable to you?
Farmakes: That's fine. 1
Batzli: Any other discussion?
Scott moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Laurent Addition Preliminary Plat #93 -7 to create two single I
family lots as shown on the plans stamped, Received March 25, 1993, and
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a 50 foot wide corridol
for County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail).
2. Proposed locations for the on -site sewage treatment sites should be
submitted to the Inspections Division for review and approval prior t
final plat approval.
3. The applicant shall receive access approval from Carver County for a I
driveway to Lot 1, Block 1.
4. Park and trail fees will be required at the time the building permit
is issued. An 8 foot wide trail easement along Pioneer Trail shall b
dedicated and a trail easement, the size to be determined at a later
point, along Bluff Creek.
E. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat drainage and utility
easements over all ponding and wetland areas, including Bluff Creek. I
The proposed MnDot highway taking should be dedicated or, at a
minimum, platted into an outlot. The appropriate side, front and rear
drainage and utility easements should also be dedicated with the fina�
Plat.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: And when does this go?
Olsen: May 10th. 1
Batzli: May 10th it goes to City Council. Thank you for coming in.
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21. 1993 - Page 26
1
PUBLIC HEARING;
CONSIDER REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD
' FOR MR. HARRY LINDBERY LOCATED AT 1700 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Harry Lindbery
Jeff Carson 1700 Flying Cloud Drive
Attorney for Mr. Lindbery
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzl.i
called the public hearing to order.
Jeff Carson: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Jeff Carson.
' I represent Harry Lindbery, the landowner. At the previous hearing just
referenced, where there was an attempt to void or reach a determination
that the conditional use permit was voided, apparently enough issue was
' raised about the use of the property by us over the years to redirect the
thinking and bring it back to this body. It's pretty clear, if you all
have a copy of the staff report which includes the Minutes from that
meeting and the discussion that took place, I think I used at that meeting
' the phrase pretext hearing. Meaning this hearing. It's pretty clear that
it wasn't designed to be a hearing to determine whether or not there was
something that could be worked out based on the staff's position but
' merely a hearing to make a determination that the permit should be
revoked. That's their position. We explained at the last hearing that
the applicant had run into a roadblock in the process of constructing his
' building. Questions were asked and answered about the timing of it all.
There appears to have been a long period of time transpired between the
issuance of the original permit and today and I guess I can agree that a
long period of time has elapsed. I think that a lot of it is accounted
' for however and I would ask this body to remember or consider that the
city was dealing with this property for a period of time long after, for
over a year after the original year that the conditional use permit
' preports to require complete action. And I also explained that Mr.
Lindbery was physically unable to do anything for a year's period. So
there's big blocks of time that have elapsed and we don't deny that. Then
you also have to consider that there's only a relatively short period of
time after 3/4 of each year that you can actually construct. All that by
way of explanation, Mr. Lindbery wants very much to proceed with this
project. We raise issues about the rezoning and the grandfathering nature
of it and the fact that he has actually operated a contractor's yard in
one form or another since the inception of this permit. He has not
however built his building and if you look at the long list of items
' required of that permit, we claim that some of them were waived de facto
py the city staff during this process. And the reality is that most of
the requirements will come due after the building is placed on the
property. He's willing to conform to whatever requirements you make but.
he can't do those things prior to putting the building on. Mr. Lindbery,
total up the purchase of the property and the items that he's purchased in
anticipation of operating his yard there, including a $34,000.00 building
' that is presently stored elsewhere. $8,000.00 worth of heating coils,
which was a tremendously big issue unfortunately with the Building
1
Planning Commission Meeting I
April 21, 1993 - Page 27
1
Department here. He has in excess of $250,000.00 into this property. This
project. If you accept the rezoning and the fact that the conditional usi
permit is revoked or if you do that process, it's his estimate that the
value of the property is approximately 25% that figure. He simply can't
afford to have that happen. Not many people could. And so he asks you t
consider all these things recognizing that his story isn't perfect and I
can't fill in every gap to satisfy every concern that's been raised by
staff. But he is willing to work with the city in any way that he can. If
YOU want to put a timeframe on the process, he's willing to do that. He'll
willing to put conditions on. He understands now that when somebody says
time is of the essence, that's what they mean. We can't change the
History of this but we would ask you to consider going forward with a
working relationship. Contrary to the indication I guess of the
recommendation of staff. That's really about all I intend to say or all
have planned to say. It's a pretty serious problem economically to him if
this permit gets revoked and he's left with an agricultural piece of I
property in that location. It essentially becomes useless. I'd attempt
to answer any questions if I can, or if I can't I'm sure Mr. Lindbery
himself can. That you might have.
Batzli: What 1 think we will probably do is close the public hearing,
assuming there's no other public comment and we will probably have
questions for you once we start trying to look through this, if that's
acceptable.
Jeff Carson: Do you want me to sit down? t
Batzii: Yeah. This is a public hearing. Is there any other public
comment? I'd like the record to show there's no one else in the crowd
except the applicant, his attorney, city staff, City Attorney, and the
Planning Commission. Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted ill
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
BWtzli: Diane. ,
Harberts: I'll pass right now.
3atzli: You'll pass?
Harberts: I will.
Batzli: Okay. Ladd. Any thoughts? Any comments? '
Conrad: You didn't ask staff for their position. Are you doing this
differently?
Batzli: Well, we got the staff report up front.
Conrad: I guess we did. I guess I'd ask the applicant one question. Yo
know contractors yards are not one of our favorite things in Chanhassen.
its our attempt to control a function on some property that probably has,
some history in terms of doing a business on that yard, but a while back
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 -- Page 28
1
there was something being done on your parcel that was not permitted which
1 gives an indication to me of character and intent. How you would operate
it had you operated a real contractors yard. And I guess I'm real
curious. So that tells me I'm not sure you could operate a contractors
yard per our permit. So maybe you can tell me why that was not, why you
1 did something that wasn't permitted and why you decided to continue doing
that.
' Jeff Carson: One of us will try to answer either one of your questions.
Harry Lindbery: We have ship containers. They're 8 foot wide, 8 foot
1 high and 20 feet long that we rent out to plumbers and electricians and
aitferent contractors for storing their supplies and their tools on jobs.
Well we did store some right by some trees. It was in the fall of the
year and there was leaves on the trees and they weren't visible. Then the
1 leaves come off and we got a letter from the city and I asked the city,
should 1 move them down behind the creek? There was no possible way. The
only thing they told me is get them off the property. There's no if's or
1 and's or anything. And well, I disagreed with that and then I contacted
Mr. Carson and he talked with them and then later 1 sold I think 7 of them
or something for about half their value just to try to satisfy whichever
man was complaining and there's just one there now that we have. It's
1 similar to like a yard shed you have in your backyard and they've got a
garden tractor and a lawnmower and it isn't really unsightly.
1 Conrad: But again, the contractors yard we kind of try to understand
what's going to take place there and we put it on a piece of paper so we
:snow, so you know and we know what's going to occur and we don't want it
1 escalated. Period. Period. The end of sentence. End of it. We don't
want it escalated. Now did you not anticipate that use? Were those to be
stored behind an opaque fence? I don't understand why you're doing
something that you said you weren't going to do. Whether it was screened
or whether it was, why did you do that? I guess that's still an open
question with me.
1 Jeff Carson: I may be able to respond in part. I can't tell you what he
was thinking but I think the use of those units is, in his mind, part of
the contractors yard. I'd point to the first requirement in the permit
1 itself. That something must be completely screened by berming or
landscaping and that's why he, we looked on his property and if you look
at the lay of the land, when he put these, and he did do this. Put these
nits dowry behind the trees, they were effectively screened.
1 Conrad: Until the leaves fell off.
1 Jetf Carson: No, no. No. This was after that and after it was called to
his attention. He took them down and around by the creek and literally
they were out of sight. I suggested that that part of the requirement in
1 the permit or of the permit was indeed satisfied. By that time
unfortunately criminal charges had already been issued and they're still
pending as a matter of fact. But 1 believe that he actually met the term.
He was in a place up higher, closer to the road when they were drawn to
1 the city's attention. When he says to you that he asked them about moving
them down and around and they said get them off, I think that was in error
1
Planning Commission Meeting
Apr a 1 21, 1993 - Page 29
actually on the city's part. That isn't required. It is part of a
contractors operation. He was willing to move them and so that's what
happened.
Wonrad: I don't know that we've ever let another contractors yard do
that. Typically we have them screened with a fence. Typically we don't
teal somebody to take it down the gully so it's a little bit different.
Jeff Carson: Have you seen the lay of this land? You'd have to drive it.
to really, because it sounds kind of crazy but if you go down and around,
it literally is, there's a woods there and kind of indentation and it is
out of sight. Be glad to have you see it there.
Conrad: So it was always his intent to bring these containers onto the
site?
Jeff Carson: I don't know. I don't know that that ultimately. I don't I
know in 1988 if that was even contemplated.
Harry Lindbery: There will be a need as long as we have needs because 1
every contractor will tell you that he has a problem with supplies and
tools on a job that he needs to lock up. ^ '
Batzli: Paul do we have, we were not provided with the original Minutes
of the Planning Commission during the application process for the
conditional use. Is it of record as to what the applicant said was going'
to take place on the site?
rauss: That was the approved plan.
Batzli: That's the plan but was there a discussion over what actual type
of activities would take place on the contractors yard?
P1 - Jaff: The applicant was supposed to submit a survey showing how many
trucks will be on the site. As well as a screening plan, landscaping
plan. Actually the contractors yard, conditional use permit is really noll
valid unless all of those conditions have been met. I mean they never
actually started operating the place. The City never issued a permit for
a contractors yard. We have issued a footings permit for the building bu
that's about it. And I don't know if that answers your question.
Batzli: Okay. Well I may be asking it fairly innocually here. Let me
try one more time. When Mr. Lindbery came in for the conditional use
permit originally to the Planning Commission and probably the Council,
=here was a discussion over what type of activity would take place on, in
the contractors yard. It's been stated in the staff report in several
places that putting these containers and the cement pipes was illegal. I'
wondering, I don't remember what this contractors yard was supposed to be
Tor .
Al -Jaffa There wasn't supposed to be any outdoor storage. They were
supposed to have a building.
Batzli: So you don't remember or you didn't look at.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21. 1993 - Page 30
A1-Jaff: I didn't see anything that allows storage outdoors.
Batzli: The first condition says that all outdoor storage will be
screened which seems to me to say there's going to be some outdoor storage
isn't it?
' Elliott Knetsch: Mr. Chair?
1 Batzli: Yeah.
Elliott Knetsch: Maybe I can take a shot at that. I haven't seen those
' Minutes of the original approval either. What I'd like to say is that
this permit does permit any contractor yard activities as they were
defined in the Code at that time. And the Code allowed several things.
it specifically set those forth. So I believe the permit, I don't know if
' Mr. Lindbery stated what exact activities he was going to use but the City
cid approve all uses under the definition of contractors yard. The reason
that a land /sea containers and the pipe is deemed to be a violation is not
' that those don't constitute contractor yard activities. The reason
they're deemed to be a violation is that he was not supposed to start any
contractor activity until he went through this 20 item checklist and
:ompieted all those things. It was only with these conditions in place
that the City felt that it would be okay for him to initiate operation of
the contractor yard.
' L3atzli: SD the illegal nature of the storage of the containers and the
pipe was the fact that he had not completed the 20 conditions and so he
had not yet really received his validated conditional use permit from the
' City?
Eiliott Knetsch: That's correct. And also that they weren't screened
;properly. You know assuming somehow it did have permission to start, they
would have violated condition number 1 for not being properly screened. I
think the applicant's point on that issue is, it does permit landscaping
as screening so that area back on the property down by the creek where all
'
the trees are and not visible from public roads, that may, we may have
approved that alone with all these other conditions as a landscape
screening plan but he never came in and submitted that as his plan.
Harberts: And as I understand that the Zoning Code has now been changed?
Elliott Knetsch: Yes it has.
' Harberts: And it doesn't allow for this?
' A1--Jaff : No.
Harberts: What was the consideration given to when the zoning code was
' changed as to that particular parcel? I mean did we change it without.
Farrnakes: Was the zoning changed or is it just a conditional use permit
tor that application?
Planning Commission Meeting
II
April 21, 1993 - Page 31
Al -Jaff: Our ordinance does not allow contractors yards in the city
anymore. In any of the zones. '
Farmakes: No I mean even currently. It's still agricultural with a
conditional use permit, is it not?
Al -Jaffa Correct. Well, if this permit is valud, it's a non-conforming
use.
Batzli: Is that your question? Whether this would be a non - conforming II
use?
Jeff Carson: I think I can answer that. 1
8atzli: I need to clarify this.
Farmakes: How is the property currently zoned?
Al-Jaff: It's an agricultural estate district.
1
Farmakes: Alright. And what we're arguing about here is a conditional
use for that zone right?
=,1 -Jaffa Correct.
Farmakes: Okay. That's just how I want to qualify. I thought that was 111
tne question you were asking.
Haroerts: Yeah.
Farmakes: Okay.
3atzli: I'm sorry, did you want to?
Jeft Carson: Well I think there might be a misunderstanding. At the time
of tne rezoning, now you cannot seek a contractors yard in this zone. So
1 sensed that was what you were asking. We can no longer ask for a
contractors yard in that zone following rezoning.
Farmakes: As I understand it, the zoning remains the same but the
1
conditional use no longer allows.
Jeff Carson: That's it. That's the change. And at the time that they I
did that, and we included in our papers some of the comments from
the Planning and Zoning, the concern was what about people who are already
in and the assurances were, they're grandfathered. '
Harberts: Do you have some documentation?
Jeff Carson: Of that? '
Harberts: Yeah.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 32
1
Jeff Carson: Well, the Planning Commission Minutes which are excerpts
' from that which are part of our original submission, should be hart of
Your. If all of that was included in your packet, they should be there.
Batzli: It's Exhibit 11 or something. About halfway through.
' Jeff Carson: It was clear that the Planning Commissioners at the time
were concerned about that because nobody showed up at the rezoning hearine
' or the hearing to, yeah the rezoning hearing. And the idea of notice, the
concept that if we publish it, it's enough but no contractors were
specifically notified. I beleive the understanding was that because
they're non - conforming and therefore legal non-- conforming uses, we're not
affecting them.
%atzll: I don't know whether revocation or us coming to the conclusion
'
that we should work with your client is going to hinge on whether they're
currently allowed or not so much as whether the applicant has gone forward
in a timely manner and worked towards complying with the conditional use
' permit that was granted 4 years ago, or 5 years ago. You know I don't
know. I guess personally, and I don't mean to speak for the other
commissioners. I guess my decision on whether to move to revoke or to
work with them will matter a hill of beans on whether it's changed in the
meantime.
Jeff Carson: I see.
' Batzli: I don't see that as my particular issue in this matter, and you
know the other commissioners can disagree with me but in any event. Did
you have other comments Ladd?
Conrad: No.
1 Batzli: Okay. Matt.
.eovina: Well this thing has really taken on a life of it's own. There's
' been a lot of different discussion as to why the permit isn't valid. If
the permit is valid, we should revoke the permit. There's a lot of
different twists to know. If I understand our City Attorney, he says the
' permit didn't exist because the conditions weren't met. Is that right?
Elliott Knetsch: Well, I guess no. There is a permit.
edvi.na Okay, we know that.
Llliott Knetsch: I mean staff's original position was there is no permit.
You don't have to revoke it because it doesn't exist. The Board of
Adjustments and Appeals agreed with that but the Council didn't. The
Council said, well let's not talk about this lapse in 1 year, no
construction and all that. He's got the permit. Let's look at whether it
ar'touid be revoked for non - compliance with it's terms. So there is a valid
permit.
_.edvina: Okay, so that's where we're at?
Planning Commission Meeting
II
April 21, 1993 -- Page 33
Elliott Knetsch: Right. I think my statement that you were referring to
is simply that he didn't have permission to start operating until you I
completed these things and he did in fact start operating by storing the
containers out there.
Ledvina: Okay. Just to get staff's response to a couple of things that II
were said. The applicants or the CP's holders representative indicated
that certain requirements were waived by staff. Is that true? Was there
any aspects?
Al --Jaff : Were not aware of any.
Ledvina: Okay. Nothing was documented? Do you have anything that was II
documented as far as waiving conditions of the conditional use permit?
Jeff Carson: You mean in writing? '
Ledvina: Right.
Jeff Carson: No. Verbal conversations between Mr. Lindbery and staff. 1
Ledvina: And as to the value of the property being reduced to 25% of it'll
current use. Is there any comment on that or are you able to make any
response? I don't know that it's necessarily germane but.
Krauss: We haven't tried to come up with a value. '
Leavina: Okay. I read through the City Council Minutes and one of the
zirections that they were I think trying to take this thing was to allow 41
:r. Lindbery to gain compliance with the conditions of the Conditional Us
Permit. And it doesn't appear that we've done that. First of all I'd
like to ask the applicant, has any progress been made in gaining
compliance with the conditions of the permit?
Harry Lindbery: Your Building Inspector told me that he wouldn't give me
a permit to put the heating in the floor and pour the concrete to erect II
the building.
Ledvina: Weil, okay aside from the building. The other conditions that
are in here.
Jeff Carson: Everything has, well there's been, we did in some ways
respond to those conditions in the original submission but since the
criminal charges were brought last summer, essentially everything has
awaited that outcome. Nothing has gone forward. Shortly after that we
got into the issue of void permit versus active permit and so we've been
literally, almost for a year now, been under that inquiry. So no.
Ledvina: Okay, so nothing has happened at the site.
Jeff Carson: No.
_edvina: Since the City Council date_or anything like that? '
Planning Commission Meeting
A p r i l 21. 1993 -- Page 34
1
Jett Carson: No. No.
' _edvina: Okay. Has the staff inspected the site recently?
Al - Jaff: As of a week ago a Building Official was out there and there was
one container on the site.
Leovina: Okay. So essentially from that inspection you would conclude
that the conditions of the permit are not being met? Okay. This is
really a sticky wicket. It's taken a number of different directions here.
No further questions.
' 3 tzli Okay, thank you. Joe.
Scott: After going through this, it started getting involved in, it looks
'
iike dialogues between two attorneys so if you wouldn't mind simplifying
because it seems like we have a chicken and egg. It seems like a permit,
and stop me at any time.
' Elliott Knetsch: Sure.
I , cott: I mean have two words out of my mouth and may get stopped here.
>.asically, it initially was determined that there was no permit because
substantial activities were not begun within a certain window of time.
ine yard was operated as such without "a permit" but the City Council
' eterrnined that there was a permit?
Ciiiott Knetsch: Yes. That's the short answer. 1 mean there's, he says
' - ,e was operating the yard by having those containers on there. That was
really the only, you know and I'm sure Mr. Carson will correct me if I'm
:arc•ng. I think that's the only activity out there that would even
' remotely constitute use as a contractors yard.
'�cott: Well is the, and this might be a basic civics question but ±oes
the City Council have the legal ability to make that determination? To
' say that in fact is a permit?
iliott Knetsch: Yes.
Scott: Okay. So it doesn't matter what has happened up to that point in
time, there is a permit legally?
' Elliott Knetsch: Yes.
Scott: Okay. And now the question is, is based upon the operation.
' Okay. And that seems to be pretty clear. 1 don't think that there's a
dispute as to what's been going on on the property.
I f ;::_iliott Knetsch: I agree with that.
Scott: Alright. No further comments.
: -ar berts: Sounded like questions to me.
'fanning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 35
II
tarmakes: On the history of the property, a couple questions for staff.
-•rior to this in 1988, this was ag property and the zone was ag?
I
Ai - Jaff: Yes.
Farmakes: That hadn't changed. Was the access road existing or was that'll
an improvement?
Al -Jaff: Existing.
I
Farmakes: Do you agree with the assessment of the applicant to the
valuation of the improvements on the property?
II
r\rauss: We really don't have a position on that Commissioner Farmakes.
The building's not up. We hear that it's stored elsewhere. We don't know
if the building was purchased and what the value of that was? And we
naven't tried to do any kind of an appraisal as to ghat the value was or
is or will be.
Farmakes: Okay. I'm looking at the layout of, this is from 1988. Layout
ot the schematic here with the building pad and so on. What, if any of
these improvements have taken place? Any?
II
Al - Jaff: No, none.
=armakes: None. So this was purchased as ag land at that time? There II
.; ain't an existing contractors yard here?
Krauss: Well, there is a footing was put in. If you go out there you call
see the concrete and it's been covered up. Our Building Official...has
told me that that thing is now valueless because it's basically sat in the
:7round and heaved over the last 4 or 5 years. 111 armakes: Okay. If we're talking about the loss of this permit,
conditional use permit and how that would effect the applicant's
investment in that property, I guess I would like to know on the issue of
hardship whether or not those numbers are correct. From what I'm hearing
on one side, there really hasn't been much of an investment versus what
the property was originally purchased for. As ag property. If the
applicant had to sell it again, it would seem to me he'd be selling it at"
the same use that he bought prior to any improvements. This building
apparently is stored elsewhere. It's somewhere else?
Jett Carson: Correct. II
armakes: Is there anything about that building that makes it only
II
useable for this property?
,:sett Carson: No. No, not at all but you would not be selling the
,roperty for the same price because the only reason it was purchased was
so that, for a contractors yard.
:armaKes: Okay, but that's his conditional use permit. But the zoning oII
II
'canning Commission Meeting
.. - i 1 21. 1993 - Page 44
1
asked for screening and the site was used and there was no screening.
'
it bothers me that we asked for a bituminous driveway. We didn't get one
but the site was used. It bothers me that we asked for erosion control
:=Tian and we didn't get one. It bothers me that we asked for a vehicle
last and we didn't get one. They're all things that we should have before
1 the site is used. So I'm not sure that what we're saying, if you brought
it back and said here are the plans, I'm not sure that in itself is going
to outweigh all these other things that go hand in hand with use of the
' property. Its pretty, in my mind it's pretty solid evidence that it
wasn't used according to how it was designed to be used. And therefore,
again we. the contractors yard, we put specific parameters on that because
' _.'s an exemption. And in this case I don't think many things were
Toliowed properly and my druthers would be to revoke it immediately and if
it was still permitted. You know I would really want to take a look at
what's used. What the plans were for this property. I would never, based
I tre information that I have right now, I don't know what's going on
e. And that kind of bothers me. I would never allow a use to occur
y:itnout understanding more than we do right now. So I could never allow
1 his permit to go through, period. Because I don't know enough. Whether
it be documentation that we've been given. For whatever reason, I'd be
real uncomfortable. So again Mr. Chairman, right now I think we could
1 - �ilow a process and let the applicant go back and present some more
information to us. Yet the list that I just read, those things were not
done so what you'd be bringing back would only be a small part of what I
-_nink is a bigger picture and it's a bigger picture of not following what
1 vas stated was going to happen. And that's what's really important in
contractors yards. It really is. You've got to do what we say in those
things because that's what we're trying to put those things under control..
Ana its out of control.
' ert Larson: I understand your concerns. I don't have a great
w•isagreement with much of what you said. I think that the applicant did
' not understand it. correctly. I think he was using the yard. Nobody told
:i..m tnat he couldn't. Possibly nobody knew what he was doing and nobody
corrected him. There's a lot of misinformation on the part of the
'
applicant. Misunderstanding on the part of the applicant. I submit that
:t:cst of the items that are not checked off yet on the permit can and will
w_ done. He has said, we have said that the installation of the building
1 comes irst or before most of these things. And we discussed with the
L_ ouncif at the last meeting timing and performance and all of those
`.;sings_ Its very clear that Mr. Lindbery understands the concerns of the
..ity at this moment. I submit that he didn't fully understand it and
1 _riere's no sense in trying to prove or disprove that. I think it's .lust
-.hat happened. I also think that the City lazed a little bit until they
started looking directly at these storage containers. Otherwise we might
' nDt xnow. there might not be any activity yet one way or the other there's and so
a little bit of blame on both sides I suspect. If you're
permit him to conduct the yard, strict and specific...there's no
!ettion how that is to work now. But I don't disagree with much of what
1 , cu're saying.
...aovina I'd like to make a motion.
Okay.
1
Planning Commission Meeting I .
April 21, 1993 - Page 45
L_ecvina' I move that the Planning Commission recommend revocation of
Conditional Use Permit #88-11 based on non-compliance of the conditions.
and I don't know if I should go through these but I'll just briefly N�
~
mention a condition 1, 6, 7, 15, 18, and 18.
Jett Carson: Would you list those again please. N�
-eovina' 1. 6, 7, 15, 16 and 18.
Jett [arson: Thank you. N�
f;;:atzii: Is there a second?
�cot±: Second'
:3szzli` Is there any discussion?
j& Carson: Can I have a question?
Lrcotct Can 1 ask a queotlnn? N�
3aczli: Yes YOU may.
When will Sharmin or when this will come up at the City Council? I
A1 lt would be 2 weeks, it would be the end of this month. End of
r:ex� �onth. I "m �orry' N�
JerT [arson: March 10th.
L,cotz: Ma/? --
Rrsuss 'March 10th. Ah May. N�
.:,coct' May 10th. Okay.
3atzli: Mr. Carson, did you have a question? N�
Jeff Carson: Well Z understand the motion. I'm wondering if there is
still an opportunity to present information? N�
Ecatz1i: There will be, I understand a public hearing for this at Cit/
- cuncil at which time you would be allowed to present additional
inrormation '
Jett Carson: Alright, thank you.
, _onrad: They're very open about any information that they haven't
, eceived'
5cott: And 1 think that's the reason why I support the revocation in tha.�
it's something finite and then the City Council will be making the final
decision hut that gives you a couple of weeks to come up with any
necessary documentation that perhaps you should have been working on in N�
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21. 1993 - Page 46
111 ctotoer of '92. But be that as it may, a couple more weeks.
' Derr Carson: Understood. All I would ask is that whatever gets forwarded
to the City Council, that there be some acknowledgement of that fact.
' Scott: A!1 they're going to get from us is that we voted perhaps on
._vocation and it's up to them to make a decision. It can be a complete?y
new t n:. np but.
' � <atzli: 1 would like to, I don't know whether we would need to formalize
it but I think what our understanding is that at least we're forwarding
this recommendation of revocation to the City Council with the
'
understanding that the applicant will be allowed to present any additional
evidence.
Leavin. Right.
rcc•tt: And that's true with any recommendation we make.
'
..err Carson: That's what I'm asking. I just want, I don't want the City
"•ouncii to look at me like I'm talking Greek when I say, we have some
additional information that was discussed at the Planning and Zoning.
' cctt The current Council has already, all the current Council members
nave already seen this action once before so they're familiar with it.
Jet ..arson: Yeah, but it was in a difference context then though.
watzii: Well 1 think the record clearly shows that all of our
' understanding is that you would be allowed to present and they would get a
ernatim transcript.
' we *r Carson: 1 appreciate that.
Ai- -Jaft: Would we be able to review this before the meeting?
' .,rauss: Weil we need to have these materials submitted to us by April
_nth if we're going to review them and get them into that packet.
' Batzli April 28th?
._:ott That's a week.
_+eft Carson: That's why I suggested that we come back to this body.
mean that's maybe possible, maybe it isn't. I don't know.
3;tzii: Can this be put on the Council meeting after the 10th?
:.rauss: Sure. Second meeting in May. That would be possible.
2atzii: rn:at would at least give the applicant a little bit more time.
i.- :Jaff. 24th of May.
I �iannisg Commission Meeting
mpril 21. 1993 - Page 47
1
. Jett Carson: Is that a Wednesday?
mi-Jaff: Monday.
I
Jett: Carson: Fourth Monday?
ml-Jatf: The fourth Monday of the month. 1
1:rauss` For that we need the material submitted to us by no later than
Mav 14th' N�
Jeff Carson: Alright.
3atz1i: I guess I personally would like to see it come back here but it I
sounds Like other people want to see it moved along. So is there any
other discussion?
1
- iarberte: I'll just throw a comment in while you're thinking about it
Ladd.
Lonrad: Please. Fill in the gap. I
Harberts: My earlier reasons for passing basically it's, I find it of
interest that there's no middle ground. In reading the Minutes from the I
- ouncil it seems that's what their desire is. I don't know all of the
anrormation' I don't feel I know all the information. I don't know if I
want to know all the information. I guess I just find it surprising that
N�
there's not a middle ground here and there's probably reasons why you ��
can't find a middle ground. I don't know. So I guess if there's any
opportunity for working things out.
II
Datzll: A middle ground might be something on the order of comply with
conditions 1, 5, 6, 14, 15, 18 by May 28th. And you know get a set of
plans in here that shows exactly where the heating, whatever so our peopl��
can look at it because they say they've never seen one. And do these
tnings by a given date and if you don't do that, then we'll revoke it.
And it YOU do it and you move forward on it and you do what you said YOU N�
were going to do 5 years ago within a very quick timeframe, I mean that's
tns miodle nround it seems to me.
'arberts: But are we creating some expectations on the part of the I
applicant though that may not be right?
Conrad: BOY. Mr. Chairman I would be real uncomfortable if the City 1
Council passed, approved of this permit without us finding out more what's
taking place and what's expected to take place. I still don't know what
the applicant has in mind on this parcel. So before when I was humminm, N�
��
that's kinc of the idea I would feel, whatever they do. If they revoke
it. then I guess it puts an end temporarily unless it goes to Court hut if
tnev have a notion to find a middle ground, we're not there. We don't
�ave a contractors yard permit in front of me that I would feel real I
cnmtortable with know other, we've got a design but I tell you, in recent
vears in recent years we find out what's taking place, why it's taking
::: Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 48
Jett , ...arson: And when.
N� :_onrad: We don't have any idea what's, I don't have any idea'
Jett Carson That's why I would prefer it to come back to you' If Yzu
ere to say to this applicant, you bring all your bells and all your
..:niscies and all your plans and everything back to this body in 30 days.
and I mean everything, then you'd have something to look at
N� Conrad: And I'm going to say, I'd rather have City Council tell me to do
that. IT they say, let's take a look at it, we will. And I'll just he
real frank, and I think I was in the very beginning. When somebody
N�
doesn't live up to something, I have a real tough time going along with a
.)ermittinn process and in my mind right now, the applicant has maybe some
reason for not performing but in general when you use something and you do
something outside of what was really originally intended, I take that as a
N� 7 affront to the city of the Chanhassen residents and 1 have a
tough ti.me being liberal and forgiving because the permit was the permit.
�inht now the applicant would really have to persuade me that he would he
a nood ne1,7Jhbor and he hasn't at this point in time. And that's what we
were looking for from contractors yards. We're looking for, they're an
exception and we want that exception to fit in so that it doesn"� bct��r
N� the neighbors' Where it's an industrial use in a different area and we
~~ *aoc that to fit in and so far nothing has persuaded me that the applicant
nas tried to make it fit in. End of speech. But my point was, I would,
�r tne Lity Council has any thoughts of maintaining this permit, we really
need a better understanding of what's going on in this parcel.
�edvina: Well they can send it back to us with what they want'
-- - onrad: That's why I made the point 3 times...
N� - ,.armakes: Nobody's disagreed with you so far.
=
3arzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
N� Ledwina moved. Scott seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
revocation of Conditional Use Permit #88-11 based on non-compliance of the
condz±ions, and specifically conditions 1, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 18. All
-2oced in favor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a
voce or 5 to I.
negative vote is not necessarily that I disagree with the
N�
recommendation to revoke but rather that I would rather give the applicant
an opPortunitv to bring it bark here and present additional evidence
oerore taking it to City Council. The motion carries 5 to 1 there and it
N�
will De on the City Council meeting for the 24th. Thank you very much for
coming in.
Jett Carson; Thank you.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 49 '
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated April 7, 1993 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE /REPORT FROM DIRECTOR:
Krauss: The big news, and I think you've all heard and some of you
experienced it, is that the Council approved the purchase of the
elementary school site which we've always viewed as a real key parcel fro
a land use standpoint for the Highway 5 corridor and how the rest of the
city ultimately develops. We're going to be working with the School now
on developing that. I think it bodes well for the future in the corridor
That was the really big news. There are a couple of things I put in your"
packet for you to review that I wanted to touch on. First thing. I have
a letter to Randy Anthorn. It says here, Rental Anthorn but his name is
Randy. Boy, even his letter says Rental. He's not going to like me.
Scott: He can't be bought.
Krauss: That's what happens when you make planners use word processers I '
guess. It is a word so spellcheck didn't find it. I should make you
aware that I've got some very significant reservations with work coming
out of the Riley- Purgatory Watershed District. We don't have any direct II
representation on the District. It's not a joint powers district. We
haven't been getting much cooperation from them on projects. I feel very
strongly that we've got a much better wetland protection, water quality
program than they have. They have ongoing problems with the Metro Counci�
and with the Board of Soil and Water Resources in terms of rejecting their
plans. Matt's probably real familiar with a lot of these kinds of things"
Philosophically we've got some real different approaches. I mean their
attorney is arguing vacipherously that the State has no right to protect
wetlands under the new State wetlands law. That it is a taking of land.
We disagree and we've always done it. There's just an on and on list of II
things. They have permanent authority for development in this city, but
they don't do anything. I mean nobody ever goes out to check permits. We
do all that and we've got a much more sophisticated program. Recently
there was an article in the Villager that basically said everything is
just hunky dorey with all the lakes in Chanhassen. I was flabbergasted by
it. First of all I was offended they never did us the courtesy of tellin
us that they were doing this assessment on our lakes. Secondly, they jus
publicized it. And thirdly, it's blatantly wrong. I mean everybody who
lives on lakes in Chanhassen knows that they are not what they once were.
I've been contacted by Metro Council staff that said look at this stuff II
because it really looks funny and I've had our engineering firm look at
the materials. They've raised very significant concerns. I mean some of
the data that's presented in there said Lotus Lake should look like a lak1
in the Boundary Waters if you believe in the phospherous loadings that
they're saying that are in there. Which are obviously ridiculous. It
says that, in fact Ismael Martinez was telling me that if you believe the
phospherous loading that they're telling you, you should be able to see 111
feet down in Lotus Lake. I don't know how long it's been since somebody'
seen 12 feet down.
Conrad: Never. ,
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 21, 1993 - Page 50
' Krauss: Anyway, I've got some very significant reservations with it. I'm
going to be bringing those back to the Watershed District. I think it
really gets to some of the issues we're trying to bring across in our
' planning efforts. Hopefully we'll work those out with the district but
I'll keep you posted.
Conrad: Watershed District is who? Who's the person?
Krauss: Well Conrad Fiskness from Chanhassen is the Chairman. And Conrad
has attended some of our meetings. We've always invited them to our SWMP
' meetings. We were hoping that they would regularly have their district
engineer come, Bob Obermeyer. Their Board voted not to. Conrad comes on
occasion. We've been told that they have access to funds and we can
jointly do projects. We spent about $3,000.00 putting together a contract
' proposal. We sent it in in accordance with Conrad's wishes. Never heard
back. I called him up about 3-4 months ago and they said, well we talked
about it but it didn't fit with our 5 year plan so in a couple years when
we rewrite the 5 year plan we'll think about it. It just goes on and on.
I mean they had a citizens advisory group that they established and
Charles Folch, the City Engineer wrote to them saying we'd like some
' representation on this. It would be nice if we were involved. Never
heard back. We heard later that they appointed Mike Klingelhutz, and
Mike's a fairly good choice. I mean he serves on our SWMP committee but
he just resigned from their citizens committee over some disagreements
' with where they're going and I don't know the details.
Conrad: Resigned what?
' Krauss: From the Watershed District's. And when I raise that point to
Bob Obermeyer, they're saying that we don't have any representation. He
' said, well that's not true. Charles is on the professional advice
committee we have. And I said, well that's nice but Charlie's never heard
that and Bob said well that's because they've never met. So I mean things
just aren't, things don't feel real good right now. You know watershed
' districts are established by state law. Personally I think in a lot of
respects they're redundant these days in some areas but again, for those
of you who have been involved in the water resources things we've been
doing, we do have some concerns. We think their information that was
published in the paper is dead wrong and we're going to try and work that
out.
1 Conrad: Are you going to bring that to the SWMP committee meeting Paul?
Krauss: Yeah. Well we're not going to have another one until probably
' the end of May or June which is the wrap up type thing, but yes. In fact
I should put together stuff, I was going to send a letter to them. I'll
mail it to all the members of the SWMP committee.
1 Farmakes: I think Watershed votes, they're always on the ballot or always
the mystery vote. You never know who these people are or what they're
doing.
' Krauss: There's no direct representation at all. I think Carver County
gets to appoint 1 person. I'm not sure how large their Board is. We
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 51
1
never get to do anything. I mean they were an entity of government that
was set up by the State. They have taxing power. And they've done some
large projects but I know, frankly I've had disagreements with their
attorney in public meetings when he says that, you know under the new
State wetlands law Bloomington never could have happened and my retort '
was, maybe it never should have you know.
Farmakes: Didn't it become a player when the Pollution Control thing was'
coming around for the Riley lakes?
Krauss: Well that's kind of interesting. They proposed a chain of lakes
project which never, that was before my time but I mean there was a lot o�
reasons why it never went forward. It was very expensive.
Farmakes: 1 followed that.
Krauss: Sure. That was the public access over by you. That issue was
involving, the State wanted that for funding. Well but that report which'
was issued by Barr Engineering not more than 4 years ago said the lakes
were in terrible shape and need to be treated with chemicals. How come
they got real good all of a sudden? I
Farmakes: Plus that report had major holes in it which they admitted to.
Upon questioning.
Krauss: Well, there's things that just aren't jiving and we don't '
understand them. Again, we're going to try and find out. The more
positive stuff I wanted to tell you about is that a project that we've II been working to put together. I think you're aware that Southwest Metro
Transit was originally looking at a park and ride facility out of
DataServe and may still be looking there at some point in the future, but
the original arrangements fell through. I guess this all started when I II
had breakfast with Jim Lasher, who on a consulting basis works for
Southwest Metro.
Batzli: I feel kind of bad. I've never had breakfast with Paul. Has
anyone here had breakfast with Paul?
Krauss: I've invited you many times. '
Batzli: I'm sorry. Just trying to bring a little bit of levity to the
meeting there. Go ahead. '
Krauss: Jim was looking for alternative sites and one of the potential
sites was this parcel that's owned by Mortenson over here which is betweell
the Legion and the gas station on Highway 5. And I had known at that
point that some hotels /motels had expressed interest in the corner. I
knew that the Legion was looking to relocate or rebuild. I knew that we
had a very difficult site there to build anyone on because it's
neighborhood business and it's a neighborhood that would be very difficul
to deal with and had some legitimate concerns. Well, we kind of took out
the napkins and started sketching and we're throwing all these things int
the pot. Jim sketched up a couple of ideas and out of that kernel of an IN
idea I've met several times with the Legion and they did express that they
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 21, 1993 - Page 52
do want to have an improved facility. They probably want to get rid of
the restaurant and have a rental hall with a service bar type thing.
We're trying to button up the interest in the hotel. But also at the same
time we have the Highway 5 Task Force moving forward. And what we had
done is we segmented out the area between Dakota and Great Plains and
asked Bill Morrish and his staff. You know we're generating all these
land use scenarios and most of them are coming out of Barton - Aschmann and
' my staff. We wanted to use Bill and his staff to take a chunk of the city
that was kind of quirky, because nobody's ever been real sure about what
to do with Apple Valley Red -E -Mix and the new TH 101 area and what do we
' do with that. So we asked them to take a look at that. Throwing another
thing into the mix was the fact that for the last 10 years on and off
people have thought about putting a pedestrian overpass from AVR over to
' the Mortenson site, and next time you drive through, you'll see it's quite
high. And you're actually able to put in a pedestrian overpass without
ramps or stairs or anything. Plus it provides really wonderful linkage.
We've got two neighborhoods down there, quite large neighborhoods that are
' separated from the rest of the city and all the great stuff that's being
built on this side of the road, you know the libraries, the public spaces,
the gazeboes for the music and one of the scary things for me is driving
into work. I come in at 7 :30 in the morning and I see young kids in
St. Hubert's uniforms running across the intersection to go to school
because it's the only way to get there. Alright, so you put all this in a
pot and you stir and what comes out? Well, what starts to come out is a
project that the University did a model of that really went over quite
big. It was received very well at the Highway 5 Task Force...Highway 5
here. St. Hubert's over here. This little wiggly thing is the old St.
' Hubert's Church. Pauly /Pony /Pryzmus block. Amoco. The Legion sits right
over here. McDonald's.
' Batzli: That's the new Legion there? That big honking thing.
Krauss: No...This is real schematic at this point. I don't know if you,
were any of you on the bus tour with Morrish way back? Okay, one of the
' things that he said when we sat over here, it was a site that lends itself
to a large significant building. It was a wide open corner and you wanted
to bring something out and give it some presence that architecturally has
' to be done very well. But this is a project that the City may participate
in as a TIF program but the days of the City being able to just go in and
spend lots of money to make something happen and forget about a return are
' kind of past.
Scott: That's part of a TIF district?
Krauss: Yeah, it is. So we needed, not only have we had some interest in
it and made it fit the design bill, but we need an entity that's going to
pay real...but was willing to make it fly from a financial standpoint.
' Another nice part of the mix here is that if the Legion were to relocate
on this site, if Southwest Metro were to find that this was an appropriate
place for them to go, and if the hotel went, you've basically got one
parking lot serving three uses at different times. ...talked about doing
things, and this again is idea generation where Southwest Metro does very
nice bus waiting areas and this is going to be, if it happens ideas would
circulate...picking up the art deco theme and doing some metal shed
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 53 '
roofing for example over some of the...stalls so we can hold those farmer"
markets on the weekend.
Batzli: Cool. I like that. Is there a sidewalk along Lake Drive East?
Krauss: Ah yeah.
Batzli: Which side is it on? '
Krauss: Well I know we're showing it on this side but I think that's
where it is.
Scott: Yeah, I think it's concrete and I think it goes all the way along
here to the daycare.
Krauss: Which is down here. Now let me say this. I mean this is not a
project that anybody has bought into. Nobody's signed on here.
Everybody's going to have a list of things that they're going to need to I
make this real and we've got to see if it fits their organization.
Batzli: So when's Wal -Mart moving in?
Krauss: Well you know, that's the thing that kind of galvanized this.
I mean it galvanized the need when Target wanted to go there and we would
have had a 40 foot blank wall right through here and the truck loading '
docks would have been right here. Well, clearly you want to avoid
something like that happening. We've done two things to move this thing
forward. We've put together a grant application, the ISTEA funding grant'
for the pedestrian overpass only. We only did that.
Batzli: ISTEA funding?
Krauss: Intermotal Service Transportation Efficiency...
Batzli: It's not like Ice Tea the rapper kind of guy. '
Scott: Same deal. The applicant has to rhyme.
Krauss: The grant program is real narrow and not terribly well done.
Since we didn't have the full project...the city hasn't bought into a
Southwest Metro, the residents here are key. I felt very uncomfortable
coming with the whole proposal. And I don't want to spend a whole lot of'
time and money putting the thing together due to the fact that ISTEA is
new. So we came up with the proposal for that bridge. There's a sketch
in your packet that Barry Warner did that I think shows the kind of neat I
stuff we can do it's roof. You know I think we can introduce another
element on top of that to get, if we wanted to go for like a dormer type
of effect. I think we can introduce something that tells you that you're '
in Chanhassen, whether it be a leaf or something graphic. I mean all
those things can be worked out. I thought it was important to also figure
that we're going to glass in the west side to cut the wind through here
because that's a real windy spot and the roof will make... So we've
submitted our ISTEA grant application. The next thing we're doing is,
I've got a proposal going to the HRA tomorrow night that we hire Fred
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 54
' Hoisington to sort of serve as a, you know project manager almost puts too
much weight on the project but project co- lessor. You know somebody who
can go around with all the actors, including MnDot and throw that in the
mix. Get a list of what it needs. What they need to make it fit. Try
to juggle this thing to make it work. Start holding meetings with
everybody. Start meeting with the neighborhood. And then we can see in 6
months, 8 months, however long it takes, if you really have a project.
' I'm hopeful that the HRA will agree with that. We'll know tomorrow.
Anyway, that's about the size of that.
' Batzli: HRA is meeting tomorrow?
Krauss: Yeah.
Batzli: And there's going to be an update on the community center /hotel/
conference center /whatever?
' Krauss: Yeah there is. I don't think, I mean I haven't been involved in
it much lately. I don't think there's too much to update you on.
Batzli: Well, didn't the Council have another work session where it was
1 discussed?
Scott: Yeah.
' Krauss: The Council had a work session where it discussed.
' Batzli: What happened there?
Krauss: Thankfully I was on a beach in Florida. As I heard it, I mean
there's still not clear direction. It's becoming real problematic...
' Scott: When is that kind of thing come through this place? I mean the
first time I think most of us heard of it was when we were supposed to be
' talking about parks with the Park and Rec and then all of a sudden M.A.
Mortenson...they probably showed up in the wrong room or something.
Krauss: No, that was correct. I mean we had every intention of bringing
it before you.
Scott: Well I think we'd like to know about these things.
1 Batzli: My response to that issue, I kind of like doing something like
this and I'd support moving ahead to see if we can do something like that.
' And I like the pedestrian bridge. I think we need more of them. I don't
care if it just costs a little bit of money in order to get over these
roads, we need them. We need more than one. I really don't like the fact
' they're not going to build a bridge over Bluff Creek on the north access
road. They're going to just level the land down to the creek and raise it
back up and put the creek through a culvert.
Krauss: No, we haven't.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 55 1
Batzli: They're going to do it. You can see it coming. You can see it 1
coming now.
Krauss: The alternatives that are being looked at are what's called a...
culvert. It's a massive culvert that's kind of oval shaped with a flat II
bottom and it's about 20 feet high in the middle.
Batzli: And you're talking about underneath Highway 5? 1
Krauss: It's under Highway 5 and we figured we'd be using the same thing
on the boulevard. 1
Batzli: Anyway.
Krauss: But I am trying to avoid crossing the creek. There's
alternatives that swing around the north end of Bluff Creek and I find
them preferable.
Farmakes: Me too. It makes a lot more sense than putting a hook up to 1
that trail...
Batzli: ...going to have a meeting with the park people. Kind of more o
a, you know our whole meeting was dominated by this community center deal
bob and we really weren't able to discuss open space versus planned
activity areas versus park kind of, and it seems to me that we get these 1
recommendations from these guys and I'd like to kind of have a dialogue
with them on what the heck are you looking at and why do you do these
things because we're looking at these 150 year old stands of trees and I
you're taking some level cornfield land. I mean I'd like to know, maybe
we're that deficient that we've got to do that but occasionally I think
they've got to, pardon the pun, see the forest and not the trees here.
Krauss: Yeah, we can get the Park Board in here. Of course they're righ1
in the middle of their Comp Plan update... Some interesting things are
happening. The Park Board... 1
Batzli: And you know, there's always been intention since I've been on
the Commission that what the Park Board says goes but yet from a land use 1
and all these other things that we're looking at, sometimes what they do
to me, I just cringe and I say, what did you do that for.
Scott: Well when we get staff reports, it's always in the past tense.
I
This has been deeded and 50% of this fee has been taken and it's like
it's.
Krauss: Well that's true but...we frankly, we as staff differed, I mean 1
you don't want to make a big deal out of it publically but we differed at
staff level about this park...and the Park Board said no. We want an acr
and half of flat ground...Jim Andrews had an interesting comment to me
that he kind of values being on the Highway 5 Task Force because it
broadens his horizons necessarily but it's opened his eyes to a lot of
other issues that... 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 56
Farmakes: I think typically recreation...park acquisition is first.
' Those are the people who get involved...
Batzli: It seems to me that something that could be driving that
development in town though, that community center, is not necessarily not
a community center but a recreational facility which does not have to be
owned and operated by the city. For example, Northwest Racquet and Swim
Club kind of thing. If you can give them the land in essence and give
them money for their building, I can't imagine that there's not at least
one health club somewhere that would locate in this area given our
expanding population. And to be focused so much on it, it's got to be a
1 community thing right there, I don't see it. Especially in view of the
fact that we're going ahead with the purchase and we'll probably end up
putting a community center out at the elementary school. So I think the
' focus has been on, you know too narrow minded on that piece in downtown as
well.
' Farmakes: I like your idea though of...
Batzli: Yeah, that's good. Farmers market.
Farmakes: Being where our location is. Being that we're sort of on the
tier of urban life coming to the east here.
' Batzli: It will be a passing of an era though when the Legion gives up
it's restaurant...hey you go in there though and it's where the slice of
Chanhassen is at. Anyway. Anything else? No? Good to have you back.
' We haven't seen you for about 8 weeks there.
Krauss: Well, you're probably not going to see me a lot over the summer.
1 Batzli: Is that a promise or a threat?
Krauss: Well both. My wife and I are adopting a little girl from Peru
' and we're going to fly down there...
Batzli: Is there a motion to adjourn here?
' Conrad moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
11
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 23, 1993
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Larry Schroers, Jim Andrews, Ron Roeser, Jim
Manders, and Fred Berg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave Koubsky
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer,
Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lash moved, Berg seconded to approve the Minutes of
' the Park and Recreation Commission dated February 23, 1993 as amended on
page 8, changing comments attributed to Manders to Roeser; on page 9 and
10, changing comments attributed to Roeser to Berg; and on page 12,
changing comments attributed to Manders to Berg. All voted in favor of
the Minutes as amended and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRAIRIE CREEK
TOWNHOMES.
(Todd Hoffman made a presentation that wasn't picked up on the tape.
There are also various times during the meeting when a microphone was not
close enough for his comments to be picked up.)
' Schroers: At this point the Commission would be interested in hearing
anything that residents may have to say regarding this development. If
you care to speak, please come to the podium and state your name and
address for us.
Andrew Olson: My name is Andrew Olson. I live on West Lake Court
' immediately behind the parkland. The southern most part of the parkland,
by that townhome development. The townhome development has been tabled
for now because of density questions and also questions were raised
' regarding the settlement ponds for the runoff of the townhome project and
other waters that come through there. We also have the creek that comes
through there and my question is, how big a settlement pond we put on
' parkland and what will happen to that water when they widened CR 17. They
want a regional pond in there they said but nobody has any definite plans
as to what they want to do to get the water from here to there to
someplace else because the creek is back there and they can't cross the
creek, unless they put their huge pond directly behind there on the
parkland. So my question would be, who's got the definite plan of what's
going to happen there? Otherwise if it's open ended, it's well we'll take
' care of it once we get things built. It will be here and then we'll take
care of it later and then you've got something existing and you have to
add to it or subtract from it and modify it, do whatever down the road,
and it's going to be a lot more problems. But it's the preservation of
' the creek that is my primary concern. Leaving it as is and without
damaging it and I do realize we need settlement and something has to be
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 2
1
done with runoff water. We can't let that dump in the creek and into Lake
1 Susan. But I'd like to see something concrete written down first so I
know it's going to work. Thank you.
11 Schroers: Thank you. In response to that I think that for real specific
information regarding what you're asking would be the Planning Department
or City Engineer could probably provide you with more accurate information
on that than we could.
Hoffman: I can respond to that...
Schroers: Okay, thank you. Are there any more comments from residents
concerns about this development? For the benefit of some of the newer
members on our Commission. Some time ago we had developers routinely
' coming in and trying to give us ponding as part of park property and we
found that in most instances not to accommodate our needs so that is not a
practice of ours to acquire ponding in lieu of park fees so that's
' something that the developer needs to work out with the Planning and
Engineering and all that sort of thing. It's very, it's not that common
where we're going to take the ponding and include that in part of our
dedication process. Basically we end up with the pond that serves very
' little in the way of our park recreational needs. Occasionally, if it
happens to fit in to a, what we would call a passive use park, we could be
a workable situation but generally it's not. Okay. And this proposal,
agenda item 3 requires no formal action on our part this evening.
Hoffman: Correct. This simply notifies you that staff is carrying out
1 the directives of the PUD agreement as they were formulated. However, as
you know in the 9th Addition of this proposed development, which is being
submitted under separate applicants, there is many questions being raised
about the validity of that PUD so he did in fact want to change anything
' that had related to parks and recreation and trails. You certainly have
that opportunity. I don't see the desire to do so.
Schroers: Okay. Well I'd like to thank staff for the information on this
and also for the residents bringing their concerns to our attention and
we'll keep an eye on it. As it develops, it will keep coming back to us
' to get figured out, or a new proposal I should say.
APPROVE PURCHASE OF PLAY EQUIPMENT, SUNSET RIDGE PARK. PHASE II.
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers and Commission members. The 1993
Park Acquisition and Development CIP included $14,000.00 for the
acquisition of play equipment at Sunset Ridge Park. Specifically, that is
' going to be Phase II of that piece of equipment. The first phase was
purchased from Landscape Structures through Earl F. Anderson. I requested
that Dave Owen, our representative from EFA prepare a proposal for the
purchase of that equipment. Phase II was originally drawn in the original
concept so it was very easy to make a proposal to the City. One thing
that I did need to make clear to Mr. Owen. That it is the City's desire
to comply with all the American with Disabilities, ADA and U.S. Consumer
' Safety Product Commission playground guidelines, safety guidelines as we
go through this process. As you know we are federally mandated so in
1
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 3
II
regard to ADA, in regard to CPSC guidelines, those are standards which are
recognized throughout the nation. The proposal submitted dated March 6th'
contains an addition to the play booster play structure. The items
necessary to insure compliance with those Acts and guidelines. You noted
the error there. Minor correction. Unfortunately this added equipment II
and then we add on almost $1,000.00 in sales tax and $315.00 in freight,
that left us just $2,200.00 over budget. To correct this overage I asked
Mr. Owen to amend the proposal. We discussed a number of alternatives.
What seems to work best, similar to what we did at Lake Susan Community 1
Park, is to omit the track ride, the deck and poles associated with that
and the sales tax and freight due on that item. That would cut $2,484.55.
Thus the associated costs and the cost associated with the remaining I
equipment would be under the $14,000.00 or $13,769.13. Approval of the
purchase of the equipment and supplies as presented minus the track ride
is recommended. I'll quickly run through the proposal for you so you cant
create a visual in your mind.
Lash: Which page are we supposed to be looking at here?
Hoffman: Which page? II
Lash: Yeah. There's so many different drawings here, I'm not sure which!'
one is the actual thing. Or are they all the same?
Hoffman: They're somewhat similar...they're pretty much all the same. II First or second ones...
(Todd Hoffman stepped away from the microphone to give his presentation.)
Schroers: It appears to me, and everybody can get an equal crack at this II
but I feel that, whoever did this work, staff along with E.F. Anderson,
did the best thing. The track ride would be a nice amenity to have but bli
having that omitted it's going to be less of an impact on Phase II than
any other part of the component I think. I mean that sticks out to the
side. It doesn't break up the scheme of things and the complex is still
pretty much intact. '
Hoffman: It's very easy to...
Lash: Can you walk us through what these things are? Sometimes it's hart
to tell. It's the monkey bars right? That's the curly things. They
don't call them monkey bars anymore, but whatever.
I
Hoffman: The horizontal ladder?
Lash: Yeah, that's it. Okay, and then what? What are those little
II
square things?
Hoffman...
II
Lash: That's the rings?
Hoffman...
II
II
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 4
Lash: So these little square things, are those like the little different
level things that they step onto?
Hoffman: Yeah, the decks?
' Lash: Yeah. Those are decks, okay.
Hoffman: They come across...
Roeser: What happens to the equipment that you remove? Where does it
go? Does EFA take that back?
Hoffman: Off of this...
Lash: Well I like this plan too but I'm disappointed that we're not
' getting the track ride I guess. And did you say we did not at Lake Susan •
too? So we don't have it at Lake Susan? I thought we did. I guess I'd
like to try and figure out a way sometime in the future of getting one in
' one or the other of the places. Maybe Lake Susan would be better. It
probably would get more use. But that's really a fun thing and it's more
for a little bit bigger kids, and a lot of times some of this play stuff
is not that challenging for kids who are 7, 8, 9, 10 years old. But the
' track ride is still fun. I'm always a strong proponent for upper body
strength for kids because a lot of them are really lacking in that
department and the track ride provides that. So I know it is an expensive
' component but I'd like to see it sometime in one or the other so I know if
we can budget it some year.
Berg: There's nothing that precludes our putting it in later is there?
' Lash: At Lake Susan too?
Hoffman...
Andrews: ...these rules changing about separations and.
Hoffman: The CPSC guidelines...
Roeser: Is that why they changed this, because of litigation? I mean if
it was safe 10 years ago, why isn't it safe today?
Hoffman: Well it has a lot to do with...
1 Lash: That was, I was going to say I'm feeling a little frustrated when I
think of what we used to get for $14,000.00 and it's not the difference in
the price of the equipment but having to have all this extra timbers and
' pea rock really screws up our budget. When you look at this for
$14,000.00, we're getting some monkey bars, or whatever they call them
now, and two slides and some decks and two climbers.
1 Schroers: It's really unfortunate but it's consistent with what's
happening all over the marketplace. I mean $10,000.00 doesn't buy the car
' that it did 10 years ago either. So it's kind of the wave of the future.
I think that these component structures are nice that you can add onto but
I think realistically we need to keep in mind that very seldom do we find
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 5
ourselves in a position where we've got an extra $5,000.00 or $10,000.00
and say hey, let's throw on a track slide. So it's a possibility but.
Roeser: I have two questions. One is really to retrofitting. We've got
existing structures out there. Do they all meet guidelines and
regulations?
Hoffman: No.
Roeser: Is there money needed to refit those too?
Hoffman: They do not and...
Roeser: And the other question relates to the three swing and the tire
swing. Are you moving those or are you? ,
Hoffman: They're in place right now...
Roeser: So this is the intention to separate it like you've got it?
Hoffman: Correct...
Schroers: So basically what we've got here is the plan is intact as it's,
proposed there with the elimination of the, what do you call it?
Lash: Track ride. '
Schroers: Track ride.
Hoffman...
Andrews: I'd like to move that we accept this recommendation, staff
recommendation for Sunset Ridge Park, Phase II as proposed.
Schroers: Is there a second?
Manders: Second.
Schroers: Any further discussion of that?
1
Andrews moved, Manders seconded to approve the purchase of the playground
equipment and supplies minus the track ride for Sunset Ridge Park, Phase I
II. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Lash: Can you try and remind us next time when we work on the budget, to
try and budget one of those in?
Andrews: Lake Susan would make sense.
ESTABLISH AGREEMENT FOR VENDING PRIVILEGES IN CITY PARKS, NON - PROFIT 1
ORGANIZATIONS.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. As you are aware,
many times throughout the year we have non - profit organizations, the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 6
Rotary, Lions, those types of groups, trying to help out with many events,
special events. Specifically the big ones are the 4th of July and the
Septemberfest. We have another...this year in that the Athletic
Association made a request to the Department to operate concessions at the
' little concession building at the ballfields at Lake Ann for a revenue
source. The City does not have a policy. It doesn't have to be much of a
policy but it certainly has to be something to start from which explains
' what the city needs to report come back to these groups for costs which
are associated with the operation of these park shelter buildings or these
events...come up with at least a standard to start from. As stated, some
of the organizations do take it upon themselves to make a contribution
' back to the city so in essence they're supporting...activities through
their organizations but then they also choose to support the community
events through...back into the funds which are used to put on those
celebrations. However that's not consistent...Staff is recommending that
a minimum contribution level of 15% of gross proceeds from all sales be
established. That is open to a debate and discussion this evening. I
' think if I can, you have the dollar amounts we're talking about typically.
When the Rotary comes in for a 4th of July celebration, they may gross
somewhere in the area of $5,000.00 and above for those 3 days. Obviously
their biggest seller is the beverage, specifically the beer garden...
' picnic up here at City Center Park. Septemberfest is somewhat smaller
than that but in something in the nature of $3,000.00 is not unheard of.
I cannot forecast what the Athletic Association will generate in revenues
' but they'll be operating 5 nights a week for 2 1/2 to 2 months at Lake
Ann. And the reason for recouping costs would be we maintain the
concession building at Lake Ann. We pay for the phone. We pay for the
electricity. Those type of things. They'll be using the building. Those
' costs. Simiarily with the special events, the City leases the tents,
administers the program, does all the advertising of the celebration and
those types of activities. However it does come down to a philosophy
' issue. I mean if the Commission feels so strongly in non - profit,
charitable organizations that you feel it's worthy that the City support
their activities and "subsidize" them if you will, for these activities,
' then I'd be interested to hear your remarks on that area as well. So
Chairman, it is up for discussion and upon reaching a concensus we will
mail informational letter to the organizations who we work with informing
them of your decision and action this evening.
' Schroers: Okay, thank you Todd. Why don't, let's start with Fred and
come right down the line here and everyone will have a turn to voice their
opinion.
Berg: I guess at this point I'm open to go either way. I thought that
' 15% sounded like a good idea, then I started thinking. These are going to
be open anyway right? I mean if CAA doesn't run the concession stand, who
would?
' Hoffman: Well the City, we had talked about it at the staff level. Once
we start operating the large concession building, we thought for economics
to scale, it would be very easy for us to go up and operate the other one.
' But if the Athletic Association would like to do that, we'll allow them
to. This would be the first year that the one at the ballfields would be
operated.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 7 1
Berg: Yeah, like I said. I'm open to listening to all sides. I guess
right now I'm leaning towards no charge with the idea that they're open.
They're going to be open anyway. And true, we pay the money for the tent
for the celebrations and whatever, but somebody's got to be running them.
They're going to be selling the beer at the 4th of July and Septemberfest ll
It's not like they're taking the money and turning it into a profit
someplace. I've first hand seen what some of these service organizations
do with their money and we all know that it goes for good causes. So I
don't know that it's not a bad idea to let them have it. Not charge them I
at all.
Roeser: I guess I would follow that same line of thinking. A lot of
these organizations contribute back to the City so it's like taking it ou
of one pocket and putting it back in the other. If these organizations
are spending it completely outside of the city, I guess that's a differenil
story but I think most of them contribute back. I guess I'm still open
either way.
Andrews: Well I have a number of concerns. I guess I look at the
I
question before us is really being divided and that would be between
special events, which are basically one weekend or one day for instance
versus an ongoing operation, which the CAA might have. Some of my
II
concerns would be who really is responsible in sponsoring these
organizations if somebody were to claim injury from what they were served
or what...they bought, who is responsible for it. I don't know how the
city handles that now. If they require insurance or if the City would be I
held responsible for a hot dog that had something inside of it that the
CAA might serve or something like that. I guess I think the special
events probably don't need to have a fee charged. I look at those as
something that are easily controlled and I think they really are very muc
dedicated and easy to manage but I think an ongoing operation, I think it
should either be some sort of a license or a fee or a percentage because II
we have more exposure and I think it's something we just need to keep morn
of a handle on what they're doing. 5o we know who's responsible and we
can monitor the operation. Have some control over it from year to year. I
Manders: At first I thought the 15% idea was good too because of the same
thing. The City is covering the insurance and in the event that things I
could happen. We should probably get...they still cost the city money.
For someone to supervise it. For someone to be responsible for it. I
don't know. It's hard to say. I really don't know what's the best way to
go.
I
Schroers: Who's operating budget does it come out of? Does that come
directly out of Park and Rec?
I
Hoffman: For special events? Park and Recreation 145. On sole
supporting recreation programs comes out of 146... Special events are
obviously they're gaining size in the city. The 4th of July costs over I
$15,000.00 annually to put on. The Department has implemented a
sponsorship program which we're seeking corporate sponsors. Business
sponsors and individual sponsors. Those being business people at three '
levels as the bronze, silver and gold level. Those letters went out to
some of our largest corporations. We received the first response back
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
11 March 23, 1993 - Page 8
from Instant Webb Companies. Instant Webb, United Mailing...and they
pledged at the $1,000.00 level for a year which then makes them a sponsor
for the 4th of July, Septemberfest, Easter and the Halloween program. In
an attempt to recoup some costs to put these special events on...
' Lash: I don't know. It sounds like we all can go either way. I guess I
don't have strong feelings either. I'm glad I was last. But I think if
' it is, if there are some out of pocket expenses involved from the city, I
guess I don't have a problem with trying to at least recoup those costs.
But I guess I would be interested in finding out a little bit more about
' how much that costs us and if we're in this to make extra money or just to
break even. And I liked Jim's comments about the ongoing, the CAA. I
look at the CAA as a wonderful thing for our community but the money that
they would make from this ongoing thing would just be for CAA, I would
assume whereas the Rotary and the Lions and the Jaycees would fund a lot
of different community things. So if we were to charge them a fee I guess
I'd be interested in earmarking that maybe to a fund or maybe even all of
' them to a fund. Maybe for Bandimere or something. CAA would definitely
benefit and if we said to them, you can do the concessions all summer.
We're going to take 15% or 20% and we're going to put that into a fund for
' a youth facility and help us to get going on that. I don't think that
they would have too much of an objection to that. And we are providing
the maintenance for the building. We're providing the clean -up of the
garbage afterwards and emptying all the garbage cans that are full of all
' the cups and all of that and so I can see recouping some of our costs. Do
you thirk 15% is covering our costs or do you think that's actually making
a profit?
1 Hoffman: It's nowhere near covering our costs.
Roeser: Have you discussed it with any of those people? Have you talked
to...CAA?
Hoffman: We discussed, over the past years I've attempted to instill in
' these groups that it would be nice to see some money back. It started out
that they would send back some fairly healthy contributions. $300.00,
$400.00, $500.00. Then things began to reduce down. It got to be a
' chivinp match where I'd kid them that you know, I haven't seen your
contribution for this year. That type of thing. I spoke with Mayor
Chmiel this afternoon. He is a member of the Rotary and they have a
problem with, we talked over the agenda briefly. He didn't seem to have a
' problem with this but he thought maybe 20% might be... Again, we're not,
if the Rotary would have a banner year and let's say they grossed
$8.000.00 on a 4th of July celebration. If you took 15 %, you'd be taking
1 $1,600.00 of that. The celebration costs...so you're not making money.
Lash: No, I mean just for what they are, the costs that they're
venerating for us. Like the tent rental and the electricity and those
types of things.
Hoffman: You, at $1,800.00...
' Roeser: That would be the total of what you get from everybody? Not just
from the Rotary.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 9 1
Hoffman: Well that would be, the Rotary sponsors the 4th of July
celebration. The other organizations are involved in a minor way but thall
would be by far the biggest event which any organization makes money at.
But to be known what the CAA does, they're very limited in their scope of
products. They can sell packaged food, candy bars, pop and those type of '
things.
Berg: Do we designate what we want to do with that 15% or 20 %? Do we I
turn it to, for example to play equipment so that Lake Susan and some of
these other places we're talking about don't have to take a hit on some of
this equipment?
Hoffman: It comes down to a matter of accounting at that level. I believ
if I went and...the City Manager and the Planning Department, they would
say for us to go through the accounting procedures to set up a special
fund to dedicate let's say a total of $4,000.00 a year to this budget as
part of your CIP. I'm confident you would receive that type of reaction.
It's not to say that I could coerce them into doing that.
Andrews: You could certainly know what our revenues were and then on our
own budget a similar amount to a project that'd be of interest to those i
the community. I also am cautious about designating money to any program
because aren't these constantly changed and I don't want to be in a
situation where we don't have the flexibility we might want later because
we use the money as we saw fit at the time. Plus you also create sort of
expectation that if they quit using the facility, that they have some say
so in control over that money which they really don't. Then they expect
it to be used for a ballfield when in fact we decide that putting up a
backstop at some other field... The more we talk about this, and I tend
to be more strong on the revenue side. I kind of think we ought to look
at this as a way to defer some of the cost. And also it would allow us or
give us the ability to enhance the program you're already offering by
helping us defer cost and to then further expand programs.
Lash: Or at least maintain it each year. I mean just the free food aloe'
is a drawing card for people and how long are we going to be able to
continue doing that?
Hoffman: The HRA has funded that free community picnic. I haven't
1
approached them as of yet for this year but if it ever begins to wane,
then we'd need to turn to a Festival Foods.
Andrews: Certainly something we could revisit too if we find that goes..'
Hoffman: It's on that. Put some thought into how to base these. Should'
we do it per event? Per organization? Per membership? Different rates
for food and beverage. It comes down to a flat fee...how much they
grossed...
Berg: I guess a point could be made too for the fact that if we would I
take 20 %, the CAA is still getting 80% more than they got last year.
They're still making more money doing this than they had last year by not
doing it.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 10
' Schroers: Well I think everyone has pretty much covered it. Jim shared
some of the concerns that I had in that who would be held accountable for
these vendors in the parks. I guess I don't know that that would, we've
got a real definitive answer on that.
Andrews: I think the answer is everybody. That's what happens. I do
think it's something we do need a little bit of control over. What's
' going on just to help us a little bit to have some information about what
they're doing and how they're doing it.
' Schroers: And a question that I have regarding the concession at the
ballfields. Were CAA to run that, is that going to be something that is
open as the park is open to accommodate the active use schedule out at the
park or when the ballfields are being used? For just the evening games
like from 5:30 until 9:00.
Hoffman: Just evening games. Something like that. 5:30 to 8:30 or 9:00.
1 Schroers: So like 5 nights a week?
Hoffman: Correct.
Schroers: So it's something that they're going to have to take seriously
and they're going to have to be dependable and I like the idea of being
able to charge a fee and imprinting on these vendors that we are the
controlling group and that they are going to need to be responsible and
that they're going to have to report to staff so we can insure that the
service they're delivering is up to standards. The bottom line is, it
appears again that staff has taken this item to task and done a good job
on it. I think the 15% is at least fair and reasonable and I'd be willing
to entertain a motion to that end. I do agree that we should have a
1
charge.
Andrews: I'll move that we accept staff's recommendation that a 15% fee
be charged for vending privileges at city parks, is that all I need to
say.
' Schroers: 15% of gross proceeds from vendor sales.
Andrews: Correct.
1 Schroers: Okay, is there a second to that motion?
Andrews: I want to make a point that I did not specify profit or
' non - profit. If there's a profit making entity that comes up there, they
should be charged too.
Hoffman: Oh, but I think we'd charge them 35%. If we were approached by
a private vendor who wanted to sell ice cream or a speciality product at
one of our festivals, we certainly wouldn't let them off the hook for the
same percentage. It's been out policy not to incorporate that to date.
' We're bombarded by private vendors who want to drive through Lake Ann Park
or ask you to buy their ice cream out of their vending truck. We simply
deny all those requests.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 11
Schroers: Okay then, is there a second to the motion?
Menders: I'll second it.
Andrews moved, Manders seconded to establish an agreement for vending
1
privileges in city parks, that a minimum contribution level of 15% of
gross proceeds from all sales. All voted in favor, except Berg who
opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. '
Schroers: I think we'd like to ask staff, if the other commissioners are
in agreement, to monitor the CAA or whoever to make sure that they are
doing a service out there, because as we all know, evening softball group"
can be pretty vocal and demanding and they're going to, basically the
building that sat there without being used now for 3 years and then when
we finally do open it up, we want to be able to put our best foot forward'
and not open the doors to a bunch of criticism. So I think CAA, or
whoever runs that concession has to know that we're going to expect an
upbeat situation.
Hoffma): I clarified that in the letter that went out. I ran this by the
Legion. The Commander, Ozzie Chaterdon. That they were the organization
who financed the construction of that building. At the time it was under'
the premise that they would be operating concessions out there and that
type of thing. Their interest has waned. Fallen by the wayside but I
needed to run this by them anyway. I wanted to get their opinion as to
what they, if they thought the City should operate it. If they preferred
the Athletic Association operate them. I stated clearly that it doesn't
matter either way just as long as a quality, dependable product is
delivered...If they begin to have problems with scheduling, because
obviously they're going to be scheduling volunteers, 5 nights a week is
going to be difficult for them to do that. If they begin to find that th
effort is more than the payback, they may drop out of the program...
Schroers: And at that point, if that were the situation, staff could take
up and staff it, beyond existing programming. You'd have to probably hill
a couple more part -time attendants and then increase supplies to
facilitate the extra...
Lash: On Jim Andrews' comments earlier about liability. Ultimately is I
the City responsible for that if someone gets food poisoning?
Hoffman: Again, I would need to ask the City Attorney to respond in full
The Athletic Association as the other organization will be required to
carry some form of insurance for this event. If a situation to such a
degree happened out there where the damages would be huge, they would be II
the Athletic Association, the City...so again, it really doesn't matter.
The City Attorney has often said that we don't program your parks or your
recreational facilities in fear of liability. No matter what you do, no
matter who does it, as long as you're responsible in how you administer
it. there are unforeseen things which are going to happen.
Lash: I just wondered if by getting a percentage of this, this would the ll
pull us more into it if a problem did.
a
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 12
' Hoffman: I don't think it would.
Lash: So it wouldn't be worth the 15%.
Andrews: My job is in this area. I would say it makes absolutely no
difference...
Schroers: I think this whole situation is scares. Staff does such a good
job that we're almost unneeded. We're going to lose our jobs.
' Hoffman: Not true Larry. Not true.
Schroers: Okay, we'll move on then to item 6.
' ESTABLISH SENIOR CENTER RENTAL POLICY AND FEES.
Lemme: Chairman and Commissioners, this is another fee establishing
' policy. It seems like we're kind of covering a lot of these lately.
Recently the Senior Center has become more used and as such more people
have seen the center and see what a nice facility it is and I've had,
recently I've had a request probably monthly to rent the facility. People
' don't even call to ask if they can borrow it. They just want to rent it.
Individuals for bridal showers or someone has called, they want to use it
for a family reunion or after for a confirmation party. Things like that.
' Currently if any community groups want to use the center, they're able to
use it for free. The Rotary Club recently had a meeting in there. Anyone
else who is interested, the Knights of Columbus meet in the center once a
' month. And because the center basically, everything that's run out of
there for the seniors is done for free or it's a self supporting program..
I thought I would bring it to your attention and to Todd's to see if we
could establish some sort of a rental policy for the room. Other city
' spaces such as the Council chambers or the Old Village Hall, there is no
fee to use them. But it's mostly community groups that ask anyway for
city type functions. As I said, because this is really the only facility
' that we have or room that you have a kitchen and that kind of thing. I
think I'm going to be getting more requests as time goes by. I did call
the City of Chaska to find out what they rented their, they have a wet and
' a dry craft room that they use for parties. A little bit smaller in size.
Definitely not as nice. They charge $10.00 an hour straight across the
board. It doesn't matter if you're a resident or non - resident. I
established a fee of $10.00 for a resident, $15.00 for non - residents per
' hour, and basically running the same as how we do our picnic reservation
or rentals. We charge groups that have less than 50% of the people
attending as Chanhassen residents, we charge them more than we do of
people that have 50% or more.
Lash: How do you find that out?
Lemme: Excuse me?
Lash: How do you find that out?
' Lemme: It's really a good faith statement.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23. 1993 - Page 13 '
Ruegemer: Honesty policy.
Lemme: When people call you usually just ask them. Are 50% Chanhassen
residents and usually they'll be honest with you.
Hoffman: The CSO's will do a spot check. '
Lemme: Checking ID's.
Schroers: I have considerable experience with rental facilities of this
nature and the first question that I have for you is that if a private
group for a bridal shower or whatever obtains the use of the facility,
who's responsible for the clean -up and maintenance afterwards? Is
additional maintenance and clean -up required above what, there certainly
would be additional maintenance and clean -up required above and beyond
what's normally done. Who does that?
Lemme: We do have, most of these requests...the weekday evenings. I did
have someone who used the center last weekend and they're just going to b,
making a donation back to the center because we didn't have any fees
established. It was one of the seniors who lives in the community and she
had a small group in there and she does a lot of volunteer work at the
•=enter, and basically we gave the key out to them. We provided the bags
and they returned the place back to exactly what it was like prior to me
leaving on Friday. You know in the rules we just say that they're
responsible for clean -up and return the center to original order. I guess
we would provide the sponges and some of the materials for cleaning up.
They would have to bring in their own coffee pot and that. We could
possibly establish some fees if they want to rent our coffee pot for $5.0'
for the time. That's something I would think though that the custodial
staff would probably have a little bit extra work. It's just a matter.
Schroers: Okay, but they would assume that as a normal part of their '
duties. Some additional clean -up as a result. Also, when you have groups
coming in for that sort of thing, are there tables and chairs and that
things that they can set up in different arrangements to accommodate thei'
needs?
Lemme: All the tables and chairs are in there and there's really no plac'
to put them or to move them. So if someone wants an open space, they're
basically restricted to just pushing the tables back to the side. And if
they do that, they just would have to return them back to their original 1
order but there's not a lot of space for bringing anything additional in
at this time.
Schroers: Okay. Well everyone will have their chance on this but I thin'
that a damage deposit is definitely something that should be involved and
the rates could be however you want. If you want to charge by the hour or
that sort of thing. That's one way but it's a little more complicated. II
. fou could also just set up the rates for the rental fee for a resident as
T50.00 for 4 hours. And then non - resident, it could be $75.00 for 4 hours
and that's very reasonable. I think that there's an awful lot of interes'
in renting space. People do not seem to have a problem to pay for rentin
space and that's consistent in the industry so I don't have a problem at
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 14
all with renting it but I think it's real important to have a fairly
' sizeable damage deposit, like $150.00 or something like that. Returnable
when, after staff or whoever has seen that the place is left in a somewhat
reasonable condition. If a lot of extraordinary clean -up has to take
' place, you may only return part of the damage deposit.
Hoffman: Cleaning of the center is under a contract so if the carpet is
' twice as dirty as it is today, they're not going to raise their contract
amount. We'll get the same service for the same buck.
Andrews: I like your idea Larry with the $50.00 for 4 hours, $75.00 for 4
' hours for resident versus non - resident. I think it's a lot more, it's
easier to administer plus it'd be pretty hard for us to justify renting it
to somebody for an hour for $10.00. By the time you get involved with all
' the Mickey Mousing around with the reservations and the deposits and
everything else, how could you possibly book something on either side of
that anyway. So I think it makes it easier to administer. When somebody
needs it for all day, they can pay $100.00. If somebody needs a room of
that size all day, I think $100.00 will not be a problem.
Schroers: Hourly is not nearly as workable for rental space as by the
half day or by the day because otherwise you have groups overlapping. One
trying to come in as another one's going out.
'
Lash: When you said you want to continue to allow community groups, like
are you talking about Scouts and those kinds of things? You're just
talking about if somebody wants to have a private?
Lemme: Right.
Lash: Okay. What if it was like a neighborhood or an association or
' something and they wanted to have a meeting.
Andrews: There's a difference between meetings and parties which is kind
.f confusing to me.
Lemme: I'd ask for directions on that. We don't charge them now if they
ask.
' Lash: How about a birthday party? I know I had a birthday party at the
ccmmunity center for my son and used the room for an hour. Now I'm
' willing to go and pay $10.00 for a birthday party. I'm not willing to go
and spend $50.00 for a birthday party.
' Lemme: There would definitely be a charge for something like that.
That's I guess why I had proposed the hourly fee. But we could go 2 hours
or less, we could say a fee. 3 to 4 hours or something like that too. I
had proposed $100.00 damage deposit and provided no damage is done to the
' site, they would get that back in full. Do you think that is too low?
Andrews: I think that a group that really made a big mess and decided to
walk away from that $100.00...
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 15
Schroers: My custodian would like to see a $500.00 fee for birthday
parties. I mean they are the worst. These little kids with all this
sticky crap all over the place. It ends up on the floor...
Lash: Why do you think people go and rent rooms for it. '
Schroers: Well exactly.
Lemme: That's why we have a Birthday Bonanza. '
Schroers: We're talking about the same thing, so it depends on which end '
you're on.
Hoffman: And maybe the 4 hour timeframe will eliminate some of those
undesireable hour type uses which make that mess.
Andrews: If you had an hour rental or you could rent it out again. What
were saying is staff would have to come and inspect it and make sure it'
clean before you could rent it to the next party anyway. I just don't se
that that would be very workable. I think at least a 3 or 4 hour time
limit so it's worth staff's time and money, cost of labor to come and
check it out inbetween uses. 1
Beret: How often are the seniors using this facility?
Lemme: They're generally there during the weekdays. We've just started II
now once every, once a month on a Saturday evening having some type of
activity. And then I use the facility on Saturdays or Birthday Bonanza
parties which are birthday parties that I have staff at that actually run'
For April almost every single Saturday is booked for some mornings and
afternoons. So there aren't going to be as many spots. I had a request
for 4th of July weekend. You know they wanted it for a family reunion.
But the seniors generally just use it during the week. I did bring this
to the attention of our Senior Advisory Board and they felt real
comfortable with it, which is a change from the past because before they
didn't want anyone touching that building unless it was the senior
citizens.
Schroers: Any other discussion? If not I'd be willing to make a motion
that we charge a $50.00 per 4 hour resident rate and $75.00 per 4 hour
non-resident rate for renting the Senior Center for private gatherings.
Andrews: Damage deposit? '
Schroers: Damage deposit of $150.00 to be returned upon staff's approval'
that the facilities were respected.
Lemme: Was there a different fee for over 4 hours did you say?
5=hroers: If they wanted it for 8 hours, just double it. $50.00 for 4 II
hours. $100.00 for 8 hours.
Hoffman: I think it might be worthwhile to talk about the variety of use1
which may arise and if you want to omit any of those. If you want to have
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 16
' a 8 hour Dean Whitter seminar in this building on a Saturday. Do you mind
if it's a community service that's generating money? Neighborhood
organizations with their neighborhood meetings. They use the atrium room.
They use this room free of charge. Is that something we want to welcome
' into the senior center? The issue is that it's a much nicer space than
some of these others so people are going to be drawn to it. So if we
start having Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and 4H and neighborhood meetings,
' you may be getting many, many more requests to use the senior center for
those public type of meetings than other areas throughout the city.
Andrews: You're concerned about them being charged a fee when they maybe
ought not to be?
Hoffman: No. I don't think.
' _a =_h: Concerned with too many free ones going in that could use other
spaces.
Hoffman: We may end up to that. Maybe if we just try to direct them to
other spaces which are currently used. It's much easier to use this
portion of the building because it's open until the wee hours of the
evening, or the other senior center...maybe if nothing else was available
we could offer them the senior center. What to do if we start getting
requests from non - profit groups.
Lash: Maybe we just need to go with it and review it in a few months to
see what's happening.
1 Andrews: You know in Hennepin County I've had a chance to work with Larry
on a few things...and it's at the discretion of the building manager I
guess who pays fees and who comes under non- profit, no fee. They ask a
' jot of questions and had us justify our request for no charge and I think
that's the best way to handle it. Use your best judgment and if it
becomes a problem, we can set some guidelines later as to who should
' qualify or who prioritizes and go from there.
Berg: Do it in 6 months.
' A ndrews: I would like to second the motion.
Schroers: Oh okay. Just a little further discussion on that. What we're
' talking about here is renting it to private groups. I mean not groups
affiliated with the city. We're not talking about the groups who would
use it for free. This motion is just for the rental of the space and when
' you have a space that you are renting, generating funds from, you would
give that priority over a non - profit organization using it. If you have
the space rented out for $100.00 and a non-profit comes and would want it
for the same timeframe, I think priorities would be given to bringing in
' revenue, especially if there were other spaces that they could use.
=:ndrews: I agree.
' _ash: I'm lost. Okay, now I'm going to throw a thing out. Okay, so what
if it's a group of residents or some community function that wants to use
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 17
it and then you have a group of non - residents who are willing to pay
$50.00 or $100.00. I feel like if you're a resident you should have firs"
crack at it.
Hoffman: First come, first serve. Whoever calls first. '
Schroers: Its on first serve. If they have it, take the money and bring
your residents in here.
Lash: Well yeah, if that's a workable thing. But say it's Scout night o,
some kind of a thing like that and they need to have the sink facility and
they're going to serve their dads donuts or something like that and they
want to have a table setting. This wouldn't work for it. I guess if
nothing else would work.
Andrews: It has to be first come. '
_ash: Yeah. Well it's going to be anyway.
Schroers: I think that what we're into there is a staff scheduling
concern.
Lash: Yeah, I think we just need to go with it for a few months and see.'
If you come back and it looks like it's turning into a nightmare, we'll
have to go back.
Le:mme: it's definitely not something we're going to advertise. You know
senior center available. And as I said, I will keep this, the seniors do
have first priority over any useage and that's why I put on there that
reservations can be made no more than 60 days in advance because, and I
don't know how that will be viewed as well. That's just 2 months but that
way. if they have some plans that come up, they've got 2 months and
normally everything's planned at least 3 months in advance. But that way,
they can still continue to have first priority over the activities that go
in there. And I'd be more than willing to just bring in a request to the
attention of my Senior Advisory Board, which I meet with them once a mont,
and to talk with them about it as well.
Schroers: It's very difficult for anyone to argue with first come, first
serve. I mean if we're opening it to residents or non - residents you know
whoever gets there first and that's fair. That's equitable and a good way
to operate. So okay. Back to the motion. I made it. Jim seconded it.
Schroers moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
establish Senior Center Rental Policy and Fees at 50.00 per 4 hours for a
resident rate and $75.00 per 4 hours for a non - resident rate for private I
gatherings. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE LAKE ANN PARK DAY CAMP.
_emme: This is another item and really I'm just looking for some
suggestions on this. This program. I wanted to bring it to your
attention and Todd's attention of what we're intending to offer this
summer. I've had parents last summer and I'm sure Jerry had requests in
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23. 1993 - Page 18
the past that playground, 1 hour a week is just not enough. I don't know
, ,:hat the fees are out at Camp Tanadoona or some other other residential
camps. We'd like to keep this as low key as possible but utilize the nice
facility that we have this summer. We'll have canoes out there. Some
other items that will be really fun for the kids. We'd like to do an
overnight once a session. And I've got some staff from last year already
kind of geared up for this. But again I'm open to suggestions on if you
think this is something that we should potentially not take upon us this
summer.
Berg: Well I have a couple things. First of all I wish you could have
seen my 8 year old's face when I asked her if she thought this was a good
idea. You'd be real pleased. The eyes got real big and this is just a
fantastic idea according to Kara. Would you be breaking up the camps
within the camps by age group?
_emme: Yes. I believe we said enterting grades 2 -6 so probably 2nd and
3rd would be together and 4th thru 6th, enterting 4th thru 6th might be
together. Or we may even break them up into 3 divisions. We'd keep
really close on staff to camper ratios. Probably 1 to 9. Something like
that.
Andrews: As far as the camping...where would that equipment come from?
Lemme: We would run it, actually this isn't solely my idea. When I used
to work at Minnetonka we used to do a campout once a week through
Minnetonka Park and Rec. And we had parents, we just asked parents to
come and set up. The kids would actually go home, they'd come back for
' supper. The parents help to set up the tents. They bring their own from
their houses and then they spend the night. They do activities and games.
YOU know do the campfire and sing -along thing and go home the next
morninn.
:ndrews: My kids also had that same reaction. They couldn't wait for
_his, for the sign ups. I think if this goes through, you're going to
have an incredible response.
Eerg: Now's the right timing. We just got a thing from Tanadoona today
from school so they're starting to think about it.
Lemme: We'd like to do some publicity through the, go directly to the
school. In May they have family nights and some of those things and
promote it through that. Playground as well.
Berg: I wouldn't wait until May.
Lash: I wouldn't either.
'Berg: They're going to, kids are starting to sign up for Tanadoona now. I
would get into the brown envelope as fast as you can.
...ash: Is Camp Tanadoona an all day thing or is that?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
March 23, 1993 - Page 19
II
Berg: Yeah. They have different options. It is an all day with an
option to camp the last night. I
Lash: Okay. I guess I think this is a great idea too and, I'll be
interested to see the interest level here. One thing that could be a
drawback is the timing because it's not an all day thing. If you have I
both parents working, they're looking for something for the kids to do
other than daycare in the summer and what is it, 9:30 to 2:00 or
something? That's going to be a problem for people to get their kids
there and pick them up. And I'm not suggesting you go to all day because'
there are other places they can go to do that.
Lemme: That's something we tossed around and again this is just in the
earliest planning stages. We kept thinking, should we do this. Offer it
in 1 week sections so people aren't committed to 2 weeks. Should we do
this all day? Should we offer this for kindergarten thru 6th grade?
Where is the best place to start and we decided to start small. But kind'
of like the same concept as the Kids Club. If we had, maybe offered a
morning program, we might have had a bigger response because of the
I
parents working schedule. So that's something we still can look at
changing.
Berg: I hate to bring them up but Tanadoona does do a nice job and one oll
the things they do is, I think they start earlier than 9:30 but they'll
have somebody there as early as 7:00 or 7:30. To drop their kids off and
they do real informal kinds of things in a group and whatever. And
they'll do the same thing after the camp too. They're open until 5:00 or '
whatever is an appropriate time so that it does take care of that problem.
They're still supervised but they're not doing all the organized things. I
They're in a much smaller group because most kids do go home, do arrive
later and go home earlier.
Lemme: We have the luxury of the beach so we can do open swim.
1
Lash: So what are you going to do about the weather?
Lemme: Well we've got the pavillion. We can do quite a bit in there we I
hope. Just like our playgrounds are. We kind of just, we have activities
planned for under cover if we need them and it could be a long day you
know if you were doing that but that could be worked with. If I have a I
real creative staff.
Lash: And then I guess when you said about doing it 1 week or doing it 2
weeks. I remember a couple of years ago a friend of mine saying with the '
Dynamites and Totlots, because that was, at that time it was 3 weeks or
something stretches, and she didn't like signing up for the 3 weeks I
because one of the weeks was always their week of vacation. And they're
paying for 3 weeks and they knew they weren't going to use 1 week. Not
that it's a lot of money but this is a little bit bigger program so maybe
a 1 week stretch would be a better thing because that way with vacation
schedules they know, they're only committing to the 1 week and if they're
going to be gone the next week then...
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 20
Andrews: Perhaps...maybe 1 week section and two 2 week sections or
something to give people a little flexibility.
' Lemme: Okay. Good idea. We also talked about incorporating a tennis
lesson, because I do hire a tennis specialist for the summer to run our
' tennis lessons for youth and they do our junior tennis team and possibly
incorporating that within that time they would either go to a swim lesson
or tennis lesson. And I talked to Minnetonka Community Services who runs
our lessons over at Lake Ann and he felt that we could try to work in some
' type of water safety lessons. Not where they would actually get a
certificate but where they could get some instruction. So there'd be a
time to break off for that as well. I do kind of think that it would be
helpful if we could do it all day. I hate to say it but it would be used
as more of a daycare in that type of instance. But I'd prefer to have the
kids with us than being home alone.
' Berg: And if it just meant keeping 1 or 2 people a little bit longer at
each end of the day.
Hoffman: With our demographics that just triples to quadruples your
participants.
Lash: Well and it depends on if that's what you want the first year. You
know if you want massive participation the first year, go all day. If you
want to have, if you want to start out and see how it flies and then
expand it, you know you have that option. It depends on.
' Lemme: We had kind of based some fees as a minimum of 15 children per
session so we're really starting out small.
' Lash: 15 per grade level or 15 total?
' Lemme: 15 per session. Just having maybe 2 staff. We wanted to set it
really low so that we could hopefully have it run but as you said, I can
potentially see if we open it up for all day, seeing that not be a problem
at all.
' Berg: Will it be run loosely enough that if a child doesn't want to do
the water safety and doesn't want to, isn't old enough to take tennis
' lessons for example, will there be, can it be sort of a round robbin kind
of schedule where there will be something for this child to do if they
don't want to go in the water for example? So they won't be just sitting
there watching everybody else play for the hour while everybody's doing
something in the water.
Lemme: Yeah, we'd work that out. That would be, hopefully the tennis
' lesson or the swimming lesson would be determined prior to them signing
up. When they are additionally signed up for their choices. I could see
having some other choice for them if they didn't want tennis or swimming.
Lash: But then if we think we were to expand it to a full day, that
starts eliminating some kids who are interested in doing something for
part of the day but don't really want to be there for the whole day.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
March 23, 1993 - Page 21
I
Berg: But they're on vacation for 9 weeks. I mean are they going to min
making a commitment for that amount of time? I mean when they've got the
rest of their vacation.
II
Lash: Mine would. They wouldn't be interested, I mean they're going to
go anyway. They're too big. But when they were this age, they wouldn't I
be interested in getting up at 7:00 to be over there by 7:30 to get
started and then have to spend the whole day there until 5:00. That gets
to be a long day if you know you could be at home doing other kinds of II things. If it's an option to daycare, it probably would be fun for most
of them.
Berg: A lot of it depends on demographics too. I mean our situation it'
not daycare that's a problem. The problem is there aren't any kids in ou
neighborhood my daughters age so this is a wonderful opportunity for her
to go out and meet new friends.
Lash: But do you think sh'e'd want to get up and get going and spend the
whole day there?
I
Berg: She did at Tanadoona. That's all I can base it on. She wants to
go there again.
Hoffman: I think if we went back to Commissioner Berg's first
explanation. Potentially advertise the program from 9:00 to 3:00 but you
have the option from 7:00 to 9:00 and 3:00 to 5:00. Promote the program '
9:00 to 3:00 but then you have these other two options.
Roeser: I think the best idea is to keep it focused and then if you want
to expand it, it's easier than to try and have it expanded and then narroil
it down. You can always go out.
Hoffman: Then you have one group of participants who show up from 7:00 t
9:00 and another group that is dropped off at quarter to 9:00 and you hav
a group that's picked up at 10 after 3:00 and then the others are picked
up from 3:00 to 5:00.
I
Lash: Maybe that's when some of those other options could be offered.
Like tennis'in the morning or swimming in the afternoon for some of those
kind of kids.
1
Lemme: Actually the tennis would have to be early. Because they do offer
the lessons in the morning over at Lake Ann. That's a good idea.
1
Hoffman: And I think the age group would be a consideration there. How
young are we proposing?
II
Lemme: Entering grades 2 thru 6.
Hoffman: So grades 2 and 3, a 7:00 to 5:00 day at Lake Ann Park...
I
Lash: Especially if it's raining.
II
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 22
Berg: A strong recommendation is if the camp runs from 9 :30 to 3 :00 but
that there will be someone there from whatever hours.
I Manders: The question I have is, aside from like parent volunteers, what
other kind of supervision or how many do you envision?
1 Lemme: Well we wouldn't have parent volunteers. We would hire staff.
Qualified staff to run. I've got a stack of applications of people
I applying to run playground on their elementary education majors from
colleges and some teachers who are looking for summer work. So I would
hire qualified staff and just incorporate that, the staff cost into the
fee of the program.
1 Berg: They certainly worked well last year. They seemed to anyway. They
seemed to be very qualified.
1 Lemme: They are very qualified.
Berg: Better than a high school senior who...
I Schroers: This type of programming generally speaking, what it evolves to
is considerably more than what is anticipated initially. We've had
I several programs like the maple syruping program that just start out, we
thought there might be a few local people interested. People are driving
from miles and miles...and it's ongoing, not only for participants but
U staff as well. An ongoing, learning evolving program and you just kind of
adjust along with the program as it goes but I think you've got the right
idea. You've got a foundation here and take off with it and build on it.
I Lemme: I would do similar to playgrounds where I have a coordinator. He
does most of the lesson planning but those kind of things are submitted to
me on a weekly basis so I'm in real close contact with it but not directly
I running the camp. The same with playground. I have a coordinator and
then they have leaders that assist them in running the playground site.
I Schroers: Okay, you're not asking for any formal action from us?
Lemme: No.
II Schroers: Just in terms of suggestions, comments.
Lemme: I got a lot of good ones. Thank you.
1 Schroers: We send more power to you. Go for it.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, just one more comment on Commissioners
I Manders comments about parent volunteers. We certainly aren't going to
deny parent volunteers. In fact we might encourage them, particularly
during a specific day where there's some activity going on that it would
II be, volunteers would be nice for them to come out so we would publish that
as part of the program literature.
II Lemme: Especially for the campout.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 23
Berg: I was thinking that. For sure, the little kids especially.
Hoffman: In fact make it a family. '
Schroers: Okay great, thanks a lot Dawn.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: '
A. RESULTS OF ADULT SOFTBALL ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING.
Ruegemer: ...organizational softball meeting March 10th. Actually we're
sitting in really good shape right now. I remember last year at this time
I was pulling my hair out trying to find facility space for all the teams'
nd that but actually we're really right on line with where we need to be
as far as numbers go. I did establish numbers before the season even
started for what we could accommodate. You know taking into consideratio'
the baseball program and some other softball needs. Youth softball to
facilitate that program and actually we're sitting really where we need to
be right now. Even after I wrote this memo, if you look in the industria
league, there were 17 teams as of last Friday. Now there's 16 so that's
really where we want to be for that, so we're just waiting on fees with
that. The women's league dropped by a couple teams so we're hopefully, I
talked to somebody at Festival Foods yesterday so hopefully we're going t�
get getting somebody else to come in. Another Redmond team so that'd mak
an even 8 so there's hope for that league yet and another team, I think by
far the Over 35 league has seen the most change so far this year. With
the, even after with the 15 teams, now there's another team that withdrew I
yesterday so there's 14 teams. Where we were last year. So that's not a
bad scenario to be in as well. But coming out of that Over 35 league this
year, they decided that the league may split up into two divisions which I
thought was a wise decision just because of the competition level of the
teams. And also coming out of that league now, there's also going to be a
sancitioned Over 50 team playing within that league so they'll go on to I
probably a State tournament season as well. If they choose to do that.
Mens Open C and D leagues, we're sitting at where we need to be. Like a
lot of the other leagues, there was 21 teams. As of last Friday somebody
else pulled out now so we're sitting at 20 so it's really working out verll
nicely with that situation. So we're just waiting on fees and rosters
right now. The Co -Rec league, on a national level now. Co -Rec 11 and 12
did change kind of their set -up of that league. There's going to be 3
different divisions now with that. An A, A/B division and C division and •
I understand a D division. The reasoning behind this different
classifications now is to classify certain caliber players on these teams'
to their respective classes. So if you have an A player playing
somewhere, they'd play A/B in our Co -Rec leagues so we're just trying to
create a better, well rounded league. We will be having some A, B, A /B,
and D classes within one league this year which will be a little confusin
but we will get all that resolved. We're having a special meeting
tomorrow night to resolve some of the questions that and comments that
came up at the league meeting at the end of March. So we'll work through'
some of those issues tomorrow night and get these things ironed out
tomorrow night for that particular league. League fees are coming in.
League fees were due last Friday. Today we've taken close to $14,000.00 1
in just for the league fees so far. And rosters are due on Friday. The
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 24
' season will be starting, the industrial leagues April 29th. Does anybody
have any questions? I kind of went through that real quick.
' Berg: Why are they pulling away, some of them?
Ruegemer: Some of the teams? Some of the teams were sponsored by
industries, this is my theory on it all. And just a lot of the industrial
teams have had to cut back. The CEO's are...sponsor only one softball
team this year. You guys decide who that, I've heard that from a number
t of people. ...a lot of teams, with shift changes and all that, they just
can't form teams.
Berg: So they're not upset with our policy in any way? It's economics.
' Roeser: The location of these games, are they like at Lake Ann and Lake
Susan?
Ruegemer: Right. Lake Ann Park. Thank you very much.
' Schroers: Good Jerry, thanks.
B. PROPOSED CONFERENCE /COMMUNITY CENTER.
' Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. A quick verbal report. The
activity level on this item is fairly low at this point in time. Last
action which was taken, coming out of the meetings with the Planning
' Commissions, Park Commission and City Council, there were some questions
raised as to, will this facility meet the present needs of the community?
Will it meet the needs out to the year 2000... City Manager Ashworth
requested that a formulated report in that regard. That was completed the
' early part of last week. Just finaled on Thursday prior to your packet
coming out. I will include a copy of it in the next packet, which will
likely be in 2 weeks. In that memo I discussed, or that letter report
' I discussed the level of service which other communities see from public
facilities, be it public gyms, racquetball courts, those type of
facilities, in public schools as well. The trend which we will see is
' that in the smaller communities, population of 10,000 to 15,000 to 20,000,
you have a higher predominance of public facilities. It's mainly due to
the, you find when you go to communities, Eden Prairie, Burnsville, those
little farther in suburbs, the private facilities find it very comfortable
' setting. They have the population to generate revenues so you have zero
public racquetball courts in the city of Eden Prairie but you have over 18
private racquetball courts in that city. So service levels by which
' organizations switch. The farther you get out, you have to rely on a
public facility because you're not going to find a Flagship or Crosstown
or somebody that is interested in coming out to Chanhassen.
' Schroers: We're getting to closer in every day. We may as well just wait
for the private sector to come in and build us some clubs.
Hoffman: Those type of statements have been made and it's, the Park
Commission obviously you hold a strong card in this entire debate, which
it is for the moment. It has turned into somewhat of a debate at the
Council level so until all of these discussion level items are ironed out,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
March 23, 1993 - Page 25
we are by no means in a straight ahead path to constructing this facility
in downtown Chanhassen. At any time I will be coming back to the Park
Commission upon direction of the City Council or the City Manager to ask II
additional input. But if you feel, at your discretion that you want
to have conversations with either the City Manager or Council members in
this regard to express your feelings, do so. That's the level of II discussion which we're at right now. People are kind of bouncing this
thing off of each other. As you saw in the City Newsletter the Mayor
asked for comments on the inside cover. The Plan, the 2002 Plan and the
issue of a community center. I've not heard from Mayor Chmiel what the
response level has been on that...his findings are published or brought
out to the public.
Andrews: Todd, as a related item to this potential community center. Is '
there any update on the Chaska school property at all at this point?
Hoffman: Chaska school property for the elementary school site was 1
purchased.
Andrews: I think that's going to have a big impact on what happens on thll
financial conference /community center development.
Schroers: I think that we need to be kept on line with what's new and
happening and developing and be in a position to seize the golden
opportunity should one present itself. That could happen through, I don'
know what's proposed. If it's the one that...proposal with the area down
by Filly's and all that. That has some potential and if we get a chance
to capitalize on that, that would be great. But I think we're really dea
in the water as far as actively pursuing a community center as such. In
this economy we are. 1
Hoffman: I wouldn't classify it as dead in the water. The funding
mechanism is, and funding climate is much different. The City Council
will not be going to the citizens of Chanhassen asking them to pay for
this center through general bonding. The proposal is exactly what the
city of Chaska did is to construct it through tax increment. Through the
downtown TIF district so I would think perceptions would change I
dramatically. Some people aren't totally comfortable with tax increment
financing but it's been used universally across the metropolitan area to
construct these types of facilities. '
Lash: I would look at that as being able to fill the needs for a while.
I don't know long term that it's going to fill the needs. It's obviously
not going to be large enough to do that from the plans that I saw but it
would solve some of the needs and then if we end up with a new elementary
school, and we're talking about doubling our gym space for basketball and
volleyball and gymnastics and all that, so I see with the combination of
the two and then with potentially more property in that area too, that th
city could use, they would add indoor ice or something like that out
there. I see that between the two it could fill the need and I think it'
be kind of nice to have them in two different locations. Actually. So
that you don't have the traffic and the parking. If you just want to go
to use ice, you could go out there and if you wanted to go in the pool,
you can go here and you don't have everybody at the same spot. '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 26
Hoffman: Those comments were exactly and some we brought forth ly e of my
concluding comments. This structure is not going to serve the needs for
' the community for 15 or 20 or 30 years but the community's going to change
as well. We're going to get this elementary school site. The next middle
school will most likely be within the city of Chanhassen so the city will
expand to meet those increasing needs.
Lash: If that can be done without a referendum and increase.
Schroers: Yeah, that's what I was referring to as dead in the water was a
referendum.
' Lash: Who's going to have an objection to it. I mean I can't imagine
anybody would have too much of an objection.
' Hoffman: In fact it's something where tax increment is used for a variety
of things. It's used for downtown rennovation. That includes buying
property and rennovating roads and those type of things. And I would
' think what could be better than to build a facility which the entire
community could use such as a community center with some of that money.
This is an opportunity to do this. It runs out in the year 2000 -2002 so
this is a window of opportunity we have between now and then. Obviously
' as the money begins to, the money will probably be allocated within the
next couple of years so the opportunity to use that tax increment
financing is very small. So if it's the intent of the Park Commission to
' get behind this proposal and back it, you may want to take some steps in
that direction. But again, the Commission may wish to address this at
some point...discussion level. If you want to get an update from the City
' Council in this regard, I would be happy to take that information.
Handers: A comment I've got I guess, concern or statement. Is that area,
is this the best use of that area? I haven't really heard an answer to
' that. What are some other options. I really question if this is the best
use.
' Hoffman: That issue has been mulled around for the entire time that the
downtown is being redeveloped. Obviously if it was a prime area, a user
such as the new mall or the medical building or the hotel or one of the
new banks would have picked it. But they have not simply because it is
not a prime retail /commercial type of location. It's tucked in behind the
Dinner Theatre. It has poor access so it has been the conclusion that you
have to have a destination type use in that a public facility may in fact
be the best use. You're not going to entice a Kinny's Shoes or another
supermarket or a restaurant to go back into that location. You could
entice a Builders Square or somebody like that but that's what has been
' back there in the past, is a lumber yard, scene shop. Those type of
things. That is why the HRA has the interest to clean up the use and turn
it into something attractive for the community. We saw that new Chan Lawn
and Sports has gone down now. There will be an addition to the medical
' building. So the City is getting a new and refreshed look but that
remains to be the one sore spot. As you drive along the boulevard and you
look into that backyard from Highway 5.
' Andrews: That annex onto the Animal Fair building is really a nice sight.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 27
1 1
,l Schroers: We could build a dome and be like... Okay. So right now
basically, are you looking for support from the Commission to take to the
Council specifically or at some point in the future when this begins to
gain momentum a little bit would then be a better time to organize our
support?
Hoffman: Well again, I'm not going to be the person who says you should II
or should not be supporting this issue. If you feel it is, will benefit
the community to support it, then you should be voicing that to the City
Council.
Lash: So do you think that if we had support here, now would be the time
to voice that to start the momentum going? '
Hoffman: Oh sure.
Lash: Maybe they need it. If it's starting to fizzle, maybe they need. II
Hoffman: At any time. Where it currently is, they were trying to buy
some time so this memorandum about ability into the future. That was
the... Curt Green, the gentleman who made the presentation to this group
and to Planning Commission is now going to be taking that information.
Essentially what the report says is, the program they proposed is lacking'
one component. It is staff's opinion that it's indoor playground. If
you've ever utilized an indoor playground in Minnesota, you know that they
are widely popular and if there's one thing which would put this center,
or give this center an edge over the Chaska Community Center, which is no
receiving state renown but it's renown nationally as well, would be an
indoor playground site. The community where we spend a ton of money on
outdoor playgrounds, as we witnessed this evening, and they're used 3
months out of the year. I think an investment in an indoor playground
which can be used 12 months out of the year, just would be a huge success.
We've recommended that we add that component. The recommendation also
included that we build in the first phase, if we can, one oversized
gymnasium but then we have the ability to expand that. Also the
expansion, we should have the ability to expand in fitness recreation
areas. Fitness and exercise is only going to expand in the future...we'rl
obviously not going to go in and add onto the pool. That type of thing.
But we'd like to see a leisure type of pool. Not the traditional YMCA or
high school pool where it's simply a lap thing. It's a rectangular pool.'
To meet the market which we have, which is the family market that's very
leisure oriented. A leisure pool should be... The other items that need
to be built...into the future would be the changing and dressing room in II
all other support areas so your lobbies and your office areas and those
type of things.
Lash: Is there room back there for all of this? 1
Hoffman: Sure.
Schroers: The one big thing you didn't mention, indoor ice.
Hoffman: Indoor ice. I think it is the community's feeling at this time'
that Chaska's indoor ice is there. It's not been as successful as they
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 28
1
anticipated. It's certainly meeting the needs. The City of Eden Prairie
' has one ice. Two ice components there. They recently added on an Olympic
sized ice arena at the Eden Prairie Community Center. We just don't think
the need is there to support an ice arena in the city of Chanhassen.
' Berg: It's sounding more encouraging I think than when we met with HRA.
One of the things that I remember with that meeting was that there was a
lot of discussion between communities and corporate use. The hotel and
' the Dinner Theatre and also the business of, I didn't hear you talk about
a large meeting room anymore.
Hoffman: The direction that came out of those meetings when the dog and
pony show was kind of taken on the road is that all this talk about
convention, meeting rooms and working in the private /public venture is
probably not working out and if there's a maximum of $5 million that
' should be spent, invest it in the community center rather than investing
it in a convention center you know for the betterment of the convention
business in the city.
1 Berg: The way you're describing it, I would have no trouble with
enthusiastically telling that to the City Council. That sounds much more
encouraging and much more exciting for the community than what I heard at
that meeting.
Roeser: Yeah, that meeting turned me off completely. Now listening to
' you, it sounds like an entirely different story.
Hoffman: Some of the direction which came out of that meeting and then
the subsequent City Council goals session which was the following
' Saturday, was that what the City Manager, what Hammel- Green, what the
Councilmembers heard was that the backing of retrofitting the bowling
alley or the convention center or the expansion of the hotel and the joint
' use between those wasn't there. The one thing that strongly came out was
the construction of a community center and that's where we're going to
focus our attention for the meantime.
1 Andrews: It seemed like the HRA meeting was, the focus was what
recreational facilities can we get that would enhance the hotel convention
business? I think the emphasis seems to have reversed now which is to
' focus on the facility of recreation for the community. So there is some
benefit...I think that's much more appropriate. I felt like we were just
kind of .. .
' Hoffman: The timeframe on this is fairly wide open so I think what I
would propose is that upon Hammel - Green -- Abrahamson getting back into this
' project and upon some additional direction from the City Council, or
following the memorandum which went out, bring it forward for the
Commission at your April meeting and you can respond then to the City
Council accordingly.
' Lash: Now does the City Council seem to be split in this or what's their
feeling?
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 29
Hoffman: There certainly s a debate on it and part of the debate is as
Y P
Commisssioner Manders brought up, is the use, is this the use There has
been discussion of you taking money out of the tax roll... It is my '
belief that sure. If you take too much that can be a detriment to the
community, to the citizens and the taxpayers but you're attempting to
build this community center for their benefit. So there's a balance
there.
Andrews: It's going to enhance the overall value and development. I
don't see that...
Hoffman: Correct. Those debates are ongoing and need to be carried out
and discussed.
1
Schroers: It might be appropriate at this time to just direct staff to at
the next Council meeting, if this issue comes up, just to verbally expresli
the Park and Rec's support for continuation and development of this
program.
Hoffman: Okay.
Schroers: It sounds to me, if I can be presumptuous that everyone would
like to see this, okay continue.
Lash: That was my question. We'd better make sure it's unanimous
agreement here.
Schroers: In general are we supportive. Is there someone who is not in
support of seeing the Council and the whole process continue to develop
and evolve? I mean it wouldn't make any sense because at this point
there's really not, it isn't far enough along to be making any major
decisions so we'd just encourage the progression until we get to a point
where there is something to act on. '
Hoffman: It is an interesting process in that if this was a typical drive
for a community center you would be the agency carrying that out but sine
the bankroll is held by the HRA, and members of the City Council sit on
the HRA, the HRA is overseeing the revitalization in the downtown. That'.
where the process begins but again, at any time they turn this thing into
high gear, you can bet that they will be looking to you for a variety of
involvement and a variety of different levels as well. As far as design •
and...
Roeser: One thing I like about the idea of a location right downtown is t
it serves that notion of community whereas you get into some of these
other suburbs and their center is not a focal point in the area. It's
kind of out by itself.
Schroers: Yeah their community center is on the edge of town.
Roeser: Yeah. It's not in the community. '
Schroers: Okay, real good. Let's move on then to item C.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 30
1
• C. ESTABLISHMENT OF NEXT WORK SESSION, RECREATION SECTION OF THE
' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Hoffman: I apologize for my absence at the last meeting. I was excited
about being there for that initial kickoff of this process.
' Understandably there's some confusion between Mr. Koegler as to what
exactly our direction is but I think we got some valuable input that
evening. The labor turned out to be only 5 or 6 times, 10 minutes apart.
We went in at 5:30 in the morning so.
Lash: I thought it sounded like it wasn't born until 7:00 or something
' the next morning, I thought it was an all night.
Hoffman: It quit and started over. So I would propose that we set the
next meeting for the second Tuesday of April. We'll again have 2 meetings
1 in April.
Andrews: Sounds good. 7:30 again?
Schroers: Anyone have a particular problem with that?
Lash: I know I won't be here but...my Tuesdays are going to be taken up
for the next 10 weeks.
Schroers: So the 13th of April.
' Hoffman: One issue to discuss...
' (This presentation was not picked up on the tape.)
Hoffman: ...essentially we have this portion of the city which is
developed. The maps, the aerial maps, did you take a look at some of
' those? Those have been run through this area which is developed. So if
we move west, we have Prince is a large landowner who's probably not going
to be... We have the Gorra piece, we have the Klingelhutz on the east
' north...so that piece is gone. The next quadrant which is between Galpin
Boulevard and staying north of Highway 5, and Hazeltine Boulevard, you
have the Song, Carlson piece down here to the south and east which is in
' for development and the Johnson /Dolejsi which you already have reviewed as
part of Lundgren's...large landowners up here are still holding on to
property. Then you move south. Across the highway you've got obviously
Opus quadrant which contains this piece. The O'Shaughnessy, which just
' came in. The Carlson piece to the south. So 6 or 8 months ago... This
quadrant of the city has recently all pretty much been locked up in
development. Timberwood was first. Then we had Stone Creek come in.
That's a done deal. Bluff Creek Estates came in. That's a done deal.
This is a commercial property, industrial that came in. That's all done.
Then the piece you have left is this negotiation for the school up here so
this quadrant is gone. 5o you've taken this entire piece and it's pretty
' much in for development so this process of coming up with the
comprehensive park plan... So this is, they've shown less of an interest
down, as well the MUSA line cut off the availability of this property so
' anything which was available was picked up. Then we move west of Lake
Minnewashta. You've already reviewed the piece south of Lake St. Joe.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 31
There are 4 parcels which we're looking at acquisition of park property.
The one to the south... Developers are walking into the Planners office I
on a daily basis. They give me a buzz saying, Todd if you have time to
discuss this...park and recreation. We're still working under the old
system where we're working off of park deficient areas and it doesn't wor
very well because of the negotiations that we have to get in with those
folks. The strongarming and that kind of thing. We simply have a plan...
That will require that we meet...
Lash: How about if you take those, the Opus, the O'Shaughnessy and the I
Carlson, are those all the names? And try and put that together in some
kind of a thing that we can look at and see all of them together and if
you look at that and can tell where it would work out the best and if it
means getting a small parcel which each one of them, if it's where they
all come together or wherever it is. Where the trees are. Just where yo
think it would work out that we could maximize maybe the tree preservatio
plus getting some flat ground that we could turn into active use if we
wanted to too. Maybe if need to take that route and forget this old Opus
plan and quit monkeying around with that guy and just take the money and I
use it if we need it to acquire some of the acreage that we might need
from some of the other ones. We're going to get a lot more money from him
than we would from the residential ones. '
tichroers: I feel that the ball has already bounced in centerfield and
we're standing on homeplate saying, should we run. Not that we have been '
negligent. It's just that things have happened so fast that, you know
with our new proposed comprehensive plan to have the areas that we want
for park specified and then the Tree Board is opting for the same type of
mechanism. Identifying trees. Specimen trees that meet certain criteria
that are to be saved at all costs but their policies, ordinances, all thi
thing are just in the development stage and we're a little bit behind the
ball in this. It's just too bad that we didn't start this sooner and tha
we could overlay the park and recreation plan with the Tree Board plan an
see where the overlapping areas. You know this area up here and the
corner of the Opus plan with the nice trees and stuff, is very desireable
to the Tree Board. On the other hand, from a park and rec point of view,'
for the active use site that we're looking for, out in that area of the
city, it's not desireable and I think it's unreasonable to think that Park
and Rec is going to get everything that we want and the Tree Board is
going to get everything that they want because in reality then, about the'
only thing that developers would get would be a tilled fill that was
hilly. I mean other than that, we want everything and we want to save al
the trees and we've got a little bit difficult road to hoe here but we do
need to identify these areas as quickly as possible and get the plan in
the works ASAP or it's going to be too late.
Hoffman: I think your comments are right on target. In fact, if we
implement this comprehensive park plan and have it adopted and then we try
to impose what that document says onto somebody who is already into the
Process, they can dispute that so anybody who's already got their hat int
the ring, they may choose to follow the recommendation. They may choose
not. We'll still go through the negotiation process of acquiring parklan
but we have implemented in the ordinance, the development ordinance that
once we have this comprehensive plan, if you come in and develop a parcel
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23. 1993 - Page 32
1
YOU need to up front that park property. So we're putting all the pieces
' into place. We just need to get through the process. I'm confident with
enough staff preparation outside of these meetings bringing to you a full,
complete packet with the assistance of Hoisington - Koegler and the
expertise that they bring to the table, we can get this thing done.
' Schroers: That will be great if we can. With that let's move on to D.
D. WORKSHOP FOR BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.
Hoffman: To date I would have to say I've been somewhat unsuccessful in
' getting our Park Commissioners to join in these Board outings or
Commission workshops. I think, I mean this one is on a Saturday. It's
very difficult for volunteer commission members to give up a Saturday.
However. if there is ever one to promote, with this program highlighting
' the Shorewood Community Center, or the Shoreview Community Center, and the
parallel that that would bring to the proposal for a community center in
Chanhassen is very good. As well the festival and special events as part
' of playing a part in building community spirit, that is something that the
city has always prided itself on. Marketing recreation services just
fills out the programs. So if there is anybody that is interested.
1 Andrews: I think I'd like to try to make this one.
Hoffman: I'll take names this evening. Send in the applications. We can
get through the office so you don't have to.
Schroers: Anyone besides Jim that's interested in attending?
1 Hoffman: Okay, Jim.
Schroers: Ron?
' Hoffman: I'll be joining.
Roeser: I work on Saturdays.
Hoffman: I'll be joining whoever attends as well as Jerry and Dawn. We
' also may be promoting this out to some other folks who would be interested
in the community center process so we may be joined by City Council
members as well.
1 Schroers: Okay.
Hoffman: Oh excuse me. One addition to the Admin Presentations. The
issue of mosquito control is obviously resurfacing. They're out there
doing their control. They're contacting us if they, well they're talking
to us anyway. They're not doing any larval control in city parks as of
yet. Then we have the, that's the mosquito control side. Then we have the
citizen, Eric Rivkin's side who is accomplished the task of introducing
legislation through I believe Ted Mondale to abolish the Mosquito Control
District so that that front is going on as well. But what Mr. Rivkin has
requested is to ask out of courtesy if the Commission would have any
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 33
1
objection to using quotations out of your Minutes in those hearings down
at the State Capitol in this regard.
Schroers: We can't refuse it. If it's public record, he has a right to
it.
Hoffman: I just informed him that I would ask, out of courtesy and then II
again I requested that if it went through, that he certainly not take
anybody out of context. Take a half a sentence or something of that
nature.
Lash: And he wouldn't do that.
Schroers: But at this point we are bound to the recommendation that we
made with Mosquito Control for last year is still in effect.
Hoffman: Oh sure. '
Lash: That is up for review again this year, isn't it?
Hoffman: This year and it's somewhat conservative really now that many
communities are joining the bandwagon. They're taking their show all over
the metropolitan area. They were down in Lakeville. They've been in
Maplewood.
Lash: They who?
Hoffman: The MMCD. They've been all over at the request of communities
to become informed. City of Minneapolis, as you know, opted out of the
entire program. They've stated that they've received zero complaints so
that lends a lot of credibility to opting out of the program and what the
program does for your city. But again, that debate is still ongoing.
Lash: On that topic, in the administrative packet there was the flyer
about the Mens Club and they made the bluebird houses I believe. And when
we were doing through those discussions last summer, what was it that we
were supposed to be trying to get built? Wasn't it bat houses and some
other kind of bird though. Was it wren houses?
Hoffman: Bluebirds will eat mosquitoes. Couple hundred a day I think is '
what the naturalist said.
Lash: I remember it was bat houses and some other kind of bird.
Schroers: And swallows.
Lash: Was it? I couldn't remember but I thought maybe we needed to try II
and get some group to make some of those to get put out too in different
areas.
Schroers: Mosquito control kind of indicated that they were, they didn't!'
feel that that was an effective program. We asked, if you recall, I think
that we asked if they would be interested in pursuing some of those thing"
and they said, well they wouldn't. I believe they wouldn't discourage us
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 34
or other interested groups to pursue that but they didn't feel that that
was an effective means of control.
Hoffman: The naturalist we had in the other day from Lowery, obviously
from their point of view had a different opinion. You know bluebirds will
eat a couple hundred a day.
Lash: Let's get thousands of those put out.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
Andrews: I've got a whole bunch.
Berg: I've got something too when you're done.
Andrews: Just making some notes about, some of these things I've brought
up in the past but I'd like to keep reminding that the board as well as
staff. I think we still need to address the needs of the Minnetonka
' School District about programming and communication. I've seen so many
things that were targeted around the Chaska School District and it .just
seems like Minnetonka is a forgotten school district when -it comes to the
kids programming. This is coming from somebody that I'm married to but
also from other neighbors that, so whatever can be done to improve
communications about programs that we have also to the Minnetonka School
District part of Chanhassen I think would be appreciated. The other
' thing. I also had talked about this before is loose dogs and also pets in
the park. i think it'd be real appropriate if we were to put something in
the local paper our pet rule now that the snow is melting and people are
' getting outside. Like they're coming out of their caves from the winter.
I came home from work today and the paths along the road are just full of
bikes and people out walking so it might be a good time to remind people
about what our rules are about pets in parks. Then the last thing has to
do with the letter I saw regarding the meeting regarding the Highway 101
trail. I've contacted, just because I couldn't locate my packet, I just
found that today, I contacted a number of people in our neighborhood that
' own properties within 100 yards of that and none of them can recall ever
receiving anything in the mail. If that meeting is officially on, I
guess I want that to be confirmed that the people received their mailings.
Maybe on a spot check basis. But that issue is obviously very important
to me and I want to make sure that the people have had adequate notice.
And I guess I'm curious to know who are the people that are receiving the
mailings. Is it the people, property directly on TH 101 or people within
' a certain radius of TH 101 or all neighborhoods that are basically
isolated which would be basically everybody from Kurvers Point all the way
Up to the Lundgren properties would be interested parties.
' Hoffman: I'll comment once you're through.
' Andrews: That's it for me.
Hoffman: Mr. Berg.
' Berg: I have a concern as to where we left off last time concerning
junior rec, or Junior Olympic volleyball. I had the distinct impression
?ark and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 35
when we got done with our discussions with the Murphy's
� en 's that we were in g s P Y
favor of sponsoring Junior Olympic volleyball and I hope that I'm wrong.
I don't think it's appropriate. A couple things in going through the •
Minutes that I'd like to comment on. One of the rational for our
sponsoring the volleyball, that particular volleyball program is that
Chaska sponsors traveling teams in basketball and others too but we're noll
comparing apples to apples here. Junior Olympic volleyball is not open t
everybody. It's an exclusive group and if you have a child that wants to
play in the Junior Olympic program, they can't just walk into it like you '
can into a traveling basketball team. I'm still real uncomfortable with
our sponsoring, getting involved in sponsorship of programs and I had the
distinct impression when we left last time that we were leaving the door
open for that.
Lash: I didn't feel that. That was not my feeling. I thought that we
pave her the direction to approach CAA and see if they could fall under
CAA. And I had a discussion, just to follow up with you Fred. I had a
discussion with someone at the District level, because my biggest concern
there was the fact that the person doing the scheduling through Community
Ed is making up the rules about who can use the facilities and that was
going to be addressed. That was my understanding from my discussion with
that person. And the person from Junior Olympic volleyball should be able
to call up and schedule the gym regardless of having a sponsorship or not
Now they may be down in the pecking order a little bit but nobody's going
to be able to change that, unless they're affiliated with the school and
then they'd have first dibs, or the city, they'd have second dibs. And
I'm not in favor of sponsoring and I don't think that anybody here was.
think we were trying to give her some direction of where to go.
_zero: Jerry, what was your involvement with that? Wasn't there somethinil
said about the fact that they were going to start working through you in
terms of?
Ruegemer: Yeah, in fact that's interesting that you bring that up. Gayl1
Murphy was in my office this afternoon. Dropped off an application.
Filled out an application for the space. I sent it down in the Community '
Pd .. .
Lash: But you didn't sign us up or anything as being the sponsor of the
team? '
Ruegemer: That was the direction that I was given last time.
Lash: It was? Okay, that wasn't... ` '
Andrews: I think it was kind of vague to be honest. II Lash: I think it was vague too and I agree with Fred. It was confusing
in the Minutes but that was not my intention.
_•chroers: Yeah, I thought that originally, we started going that '
direction and then I think it was Jim brought it up that he felt that we
should maybe be looking at some other avenues of pursuit first such as th
CAA and then that was pretty much our general contention and
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 36
recommendation at that point. That they check into CAA and see if they
were willing. or if CAA was willing to work with them and give them the
' sponsorship or whatever that they were looking for and working I guess in
the cooperation with CAA and Jerry to see what could be done in order to
help them find the gym time and space that they needed. So I think it was
' a combination of things that we were actually.
Berg: I had a real sense that they walked out of here feeling that we
' were sponsoring them.
Lash: Well I'm going to go back to the Minutes here and it was that Jim
Manders said it was his comments, but they weren't his comments, they were
' yours probably Fred. And where you said I'd feel much more comfortable if
you go through CAA first and Gayle said okay. So I contact CAA people?
And that was how I felt the direction went was that she was going to go
' through CAA and see what happened there first. And then Jerry said you
can contact me and then we kind of got off the track and I think she was
asked, have you approached Chaska Park and Rec and she said, we have. And
it's kind of the same thing. It sounded like they weren't willing to do
too much either and then that was about the end of it.
Berg: Some other problems with CAA was that they were going to have to,
' that they pay their coaches. Obviously CAA is strictly volunteer. I had
a feeling that they didn't want to try to go through CAA because of that.
And also because I think CAA would then have some control over their
organization and I don't think they want that either.
_ash: Did Chris, would that be a problem do you know through CAA?
' Chris: Not that I know of. I don't believe we have any policies
regarding, in fact personally I'd love to see the CAA...but I think.
Berg: You're two different things here.
Chris: Well that's what I was going to say. The perception of that
' organization is a little bit different. It is exclusive, although it
isn't different really than traveling basketball who also cuts people when
necessary so that in a sense, that happens to be run by an independent
club. I don't know why. An independent basketball club for instance can
reserve gym but a volleyball can't. I don't understand that.
Lash: See and I came away with it with the whole thing. That the whole
' deal was .just a moot point because she shouldn't have to be sponsored to
reserve the gym.
Chris: I think basketball is sponsored down by the Chaska Park and Rec...
' Andrews: In looking at the Minutes here and there's a paragraph where I
talk about, I think they should communicate with CAA and then Fred
' basically concurs, but it says Manders but it's Fred. Saying that he
thought it would be more comfortable. Then Mrs. Murphy says okay, so
1 contact the CAA people? And Jerry says you contact me. I think we were
all were sort of the impression that that meant that somehow that, that
you were the contact for CAA.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 37
Ruegemer: ...out of scale. CAA is sponsored by our department. That's
the way. the pecking order that we have to go through to reserve that
district facility space. The way the policy and procedures read, it's
sponsored so CAA is technically under us.
Lash: But you guys said last time that isn't what the policy says.
That's the interpretation of the policy.
Hoffman: Correct. The interpretation.
Lash: So that's where I have a problem with people making interpretations.
The School Board did not make that their policy. It's how people are
interpretting that. And so by saying that's what the School Board is I
telling us, they're not telling them that. That's what makes their life
easier and that's not our problem and that's not Mrs. Murphy's problem.
. Hoffman: The adminstrators of the reservation system are told that. It
was my specific recollection that you sent the Murphys away. That we were
going to work with them to whatever extent necessary to facilitate their I
needs. I think the discussion on that Athletic Association was there but
it was concluded that any time the Athletic Association reserves a
facility, it's reserved through our department. Jerry carries out, he's
the liason to the Athletic Association. He represents the Athletic II ;Association so if the Murphys were going to reserve through the Athletic
Association, it was going to go through Jerry anyway. The last comment I
recall was in that, okay then I'll work with Jerry. Yes, and the
conversation ended. But there was that specific comments about the
Athletic Association. That didn't go anywhere because they expressed
their displeasure with going through that process. But I would recommend
that at a staff level we pursue the issue at the school district level anil
it in fact this organization should be, and can be reserving space
directly the district, I would prefer that and I think the Commission:
would prefer that as well. '
9chroers: I think what wasn't as obvious at that meeting was the fact
that it was a program that was not open to everybody. If I'm I
interpretting you correctly Fred, this is a team that you have to make.
ou have to be able to play to a certain ability in order to be on this
team?
Berg: That's my understanding. '
Schroers: And I don't think that that fact was brought out to that degre
in the last meeting. I think if it was, that we may have looked at it in
a little different view. To say that we wouldn't be interested probably
in sponsoring something that wasn't open recreational opportunity that
anyone with a desire can participate in.
Berg: I guess I'm concerned that Mrs. Murphy doesn't have that feeling
.cues she? '
Ruegemer: That she can go down and reserve the space on her own or that
we're going to sponsor...?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 38
Berg: Right. That she seems to have the feeling now that we're sponsoring
that volleyball.
Chris: If I can just add. It isn't against policy even for CAA to have
kind of an "elite" type team. In fact we are doing that for baseball and
softball. But we are also having in -house programs. What we're trying to
do in the CAA is give everybody a chance to play, one but also give some
of the kids that are more advance an opportunity to play at more advance
' levels. And I don't see why that couldn't be for volleyball too. I mean
I would love for us to have a volleyball program. If we had people
interested in helping organize that, I'd love to do that.
' Lash: Well maybe that would be of working out the problem.
Chris: I'll contact Mrs. Murphy.
Berg: I guess I'd like that message conveyed to her that were not, that
we aren't sponsoring J.0. volleyball.
' Lash: And we're happy to coordinate her through you to CAA. That was my
understanding when it ended, and I agree from looking at this, I guess it
' wasn't real clear.
Schroers: Yeah, I think we were maybe all a little bit weak on that. We
thought we had it nailed down but we didn't.
Lash: So if she can be coordinated to CAA I guess.
Berg: That will be fine. I have no problem with that at all.
Lash: Is it too late to do that Jerry?
Ruegemer: To go through CAA?
Lash: I mean to somehow work that out so that she realizes it's not the
city sponsoring her but through CAA.
Ruegemer: Ultimately it still comes back.
Lash: Right.
Ruegemer: Actually I sent the application in today...
' Lash: The application for what? For her to use space?
' Ruegemer: Right.
Lash: Otherwise, but you'd send it in anyway even if she was under CAA?
Berg: But you're sending it in now with our endorsement in terms of
sponsoring them?
' Ruegemer: Right.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
March 23, 1993 - Page 39
Hoffman: Correct. And I sincerely believe that that was the direction II
which, at least.
Andrews: I didn't feel that. I felt that when we ended that discussion"!
I personally felt like I wasn't sure what was decided but I felt like you
were sure what was decided. So it was like well, I must have missed
something. I just kind of like let it drop. I felt like we had kind of
made a discussion and it just kind of dropped off the edge of the cliff
and then Jerry said, okay. Have them contact me. So alright, if that II makes sense to him, I can live with that.
Roeser: What I don't understand about it, we sponsor the Chanhassen
Athletic Association, is that right? Or what does sponsoring consist of? 1
Ruegemer: Basically filling out an application.
Roeser: Right. So if Mrs. Murphy had gone through the CAA and said, we'll
like to have you guys...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
II
Schroers: I agree with Todd that we gave the opinion that we were
supportive of having the volleyball program become a reality and we were I
hoping that it would work through the CAA but we were not clearly
definitive enough. Okay. So let's take it up at this point then. If it
is only a matter of filling out an application and that's the extent of '
the sponsorship, why then would we not want to sponsor it if it was open
to all on a competitive basis and everyone had a fair chance to
participate in the program. Why would we then not want to sponsor it?
Berg: To turn it back the other way and answer your question with a II
question. Why would we not want it to go through CAA like every other
athletic organization?
II
Chris: One thing, soccer is not part of CAA. Summer soccer...how that
works but a precedent is established in that. ,
Lash: But that's not scheduling gym space. She's trying to schedule gym
space.
Berg: Same thing though. 1
Lash: No it's not because she has to go through the school to schedule
the gym space where all you have to do is go through Jerry to schedule th,
field space.
Schroers: First of all, before we even waste more time on this, or spend
more time on this I should say. We need to find out if it's inappropriat
from staff to be into this at this point without the representatives, the
Murphys of the volleyball organization to represent themselves. 1
Hoffman: I would say so. If you change your recommendation tonight, yes.
Lash: We didn't really make a recommendation last time. 1
II
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 23, 1993 - Page 40
I
1
Hoffman: If we go, when you go back just a little bit farther and we say,
Schroers: Okay I guess, I think it would behoove the Park and Rec
Commission to encourage any organized, well meaning recreational activity
that we can as long as provided with a safe and organized manner. I guess
that if Jerry is willing to work with the Murphys to help you meet these
1 requirements that you're asking for, then we should give you our blessing.
Gayle Murphy: Well thank you. At that point we essentially, but then we
came back.
I Schroers: We kind of left it up to staff basically as well is what we
did.
I Hoffman: We came back with the questioning back to the Athletic
Association but then we came to the conclusion that staff represents the
Athletic Association, thus we're representing this power volleyball league
I so that's, I came out of that meeting. If you recall the memo, I mean I'm
not saying that I came out of it with a disappointment but I attempted,
because of the I information which I had, and I felt that members of the
I commission had on the debate which went on about Junior Olympic volleyball
that that may have came out somewhat stronger and that the tables would
have been turned the other way. That did not occur. We continued down a
road where things seemed to be amenable and we came out of this with the
I conclusion that we would assist them in scheduling gym time. I think we
can gracefully dodge the bullet here if we go back to the district and
straighten out the policy. If they are excluding them from, arbitrarily
I from scheduling time, then we'll get to the bottom of it and we'll simply
say, there is no such policy. You have every right to go down there and
schedule time. Go down and reserve your time.
I Schroers: Great. Why don't you pursue that and if for whatever reason
that doesn't work, then we'll have to bring the volleyball organization
back in and re- address the issue.
I Berg: Should the application be pulled in the meantime?
I Lash: I guess I think it should. If it's in writing and it's not a thing
that we want to get into, we'd better get it out before it's too late and
then it's something that they're going to want to be an ongoing
sponsorship and if it's something that we're interested in doing, we need
I to nip it in the bud right now before it goes.
Schroers: Is that a problem Jerry?
I Ruegemer...
I Hoffman: As a part of that, I would then.
Berg: You'd better let Mrs. Murphy know.
I Hoffman: Yeah, we'd let Mrs. Murphy know but then as well I'd simply
bring Jerry into the office and we'd make a conference call down and
straighten out the issue all and for one right at that point. If we don't
I receive satisfaction through Linda, the scheduler, then we'll climb the
ladder from there.
1