1j. Minutes / A
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 1993
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, and
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Councilman Wing arrived to the meeting during
discussin of item 1(a), Stone Creek First Addition.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Elliott Knetsch, Paul Krauss, Kate Aanenson,
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Todd Hoffman, Scott Harr and Steve Kirchman
' v
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve the agenda with the following amendments: Item 1(b) was tabled from the
agenda for 2 weeks; delete item 3(c) from the agenda; and under Council
Presentations Councilman Mason wanted to discuss the Council Work Session on
March 3, 1993. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended, and the motion
carried.
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. Stone Creek First Addition, 8400 Galpin Boulevard, Hans Hagen:
1) Final Plat Approval
' c. Approve 1993 City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for
Construction.
' d. Resolution 1193 -11: Approve Change Order No. 2 for Upper Bluff Creek Project
91 -17.
' e. Approve Agreement to Provide Sanitary Sewer and Water to Lot 1, Block 1,
Minnelowa Addition, City of Shorewood.
h. Approval of Chanhassen Safety Manual.
i. Approval of Bills.
j. City Council Minutes dated February 8, 1993
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 3, 1993
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated February 11, 1993
' m. Authorization to Expend $3,243. of Surface Water Management Program Funds.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
1 1
1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
F. ESTABLISH 1993/94 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES.
II Councilman Senn: On 1(f). I guess I was, with interest, saw the fact that we
had two types of liquor licenses. Restaurants and non - restaurant which appears
I to really be unusual these days because most cities have gone to a basis where
liquor licenses are only allowed with restaurants. In fact, I think where food
constitutes 50% or so of the gross receipts. Is there, I guess this comes back
I to I guess some previous discussions that have occurred over the last few weeks.
I've heard a lot of complaints about Filly's and this, that and the other thing.
Liquor and conduct and all that sort of thing. Is there a reason why we haven't
looked at effectively an ordinance change to accomplish that?
II Mayor Chmiel: I think between the restaurant and non - restaurant basically, is
that dealing with the Legion?
II Todd Gerhardt: I don't think so. .
II Councilman Senn: I assume that would be a club license.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, well yeah. That is basically under club license but they
also have a restaurant. That's one of the questions.
I Todd Gerhardt: I can't think of a non - restaurant.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess maybe we can't give you an answer on that one
right now.
Councilman Senn: Well let me I guess just follow the line of questioning
I through. Under the rates here then, where does it accommodate for example a
wine and beer license?
II Mayor Chmiel: That is established by the State. We have to follow that
accordingly.
II Councilman Senn: So that's a standard $2,000.00 fee, etc? Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Same thing for the off sale intoxicating and all those right on
down through.
II Councilman Senn: Okay. In terms of the rates and the fact that we aren't
asking for any rate changes, in terms of the restaurant for example. I mean do
II we know how many we have in each of these categories or classes?
Mayor Chmiel: Total numbers?
1 Councilman Senn: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: I would say yes. They probably do have that. As to the ones
II that I could think of right off hand, would probably be Ahn -Le's. Pauly's.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess, let me get to the point and I'll quit dilly
I dallying around I guess. I'm uncomfortable I guess with voting on setting these
rates. I've by no means done a study but I guess my limited knowledge is that,
II 2
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II
I'm going to say there's probably half a dozen cities I'm aware of have a flat II rate license of $7,500.00 regardless of the size. And here we are starting at
$5,880.00 and these are just about all the cities by the way that neighbor us
also. So I just, not having any real background history or understanding of
what went into determining these rates and how our rates compare to other rates, II I would say I'm just a little uneasy about saying, you know these fees look like
good rates to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I did have discussions on these today. We do go by the II
square foot area as opposed to many others. If we establish a $7,500.00 fee and
they were to be over 6,000 square feet, that means we would lose a revenue of
$5,600.00 because it runs roughly $12,600.00 for that license.
II
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that Don but how many 6,000 square foot
restaurants do we have versus 3,000? II
Mayor Chmiel: That has been calculated by each one so we know exactly, but we
don't have that information in front of us.
II
Todd Gerhardt: We can pull that out Don.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. There's no real rush on this because as I see, this does
II
not take place until May 1 for '93 and it goes through April 30th of '94 so
yeah, there isn't any real rush. If you'd like to pull that, get that kind of
information, we can do it.
II
Councilman Senn: Thank you. I'd appreciate it.
Elliott Knetsch: Mr. Mayor. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Elliott Knetsch: I would also just comment that if we propose to increase 1
rates, we have to hold a public hearing on that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Thank you. Item 1(1). 1
Councilman Senn: Are we going to table item 1(1)? Do we need to table that or
just. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah we should.
Councilman Senn: So moved. II
Councilman Mason: Second.
II
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table establishing the
1993/94 liquor license fees for further information. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
II
11
3
II
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
L. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, GATEWAY EAST, LOTUS REALTY.
Councilman Senn: Now these are the properties basically involved in that, I
don't know in previous information or actions we got regarding easements and the
road and Brown's property and all that, is it not?
Paul Krauss: Yes, that's correct. This is a long time coming Councilman Senn.
' It came out of actions to acquire the Hanus building. The city now owns the
back part of the Hanus building which was filled with junk, which we've cleaned
up. Clean up the right -of -way issues through there. There was also some land
' that was swapped. It was taken off the Hanus parcel, as I recall and put on the
Rapid Oil parcel. The whole area was really a mess and it was a condition of
these approvals going back 2 years ago I think, that this whole area be
replatted once and for all and clean it up.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and as far as this plat goes now, who owns what property
in the plat?
Paul Krauss: Who owns what? That's a good question. Maybe the Assistant City
Manager can relate that. I don't have that plat in front of me.
Todd Gerhardt: Lot 1 is owned by Gary Brown. Lot 2 is the Rapid oil. Lot 3 is
the HRA. Outlot A is the HRA. And the Outlot A to the north would be the HRA
' and then of course the West 79th Street right -of -way.
Councilman Senn: And who's our applicant then? I mean is the City the
applicant on this or what?
Todd Gerhardt: Lotus Realty. There was monies escrowed as a part of the
purchase of the Hanus building to make sure that the property was platted.
Before this you had a sliver between what was the Rapid Oil site and the car
wash, which was basically a non - conforming lot. Planning had concerns and made
sure that monies were escrowed to make sure that that non - conforming lot did not
exist. So until those monies released, they had to come in with this plat. So
those monies were enough to make sure that the plat was recorded and did away
with those non- conforming.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so the city in effect is doing the platting?
Todd Gerhardt: We're insuring that the platting occurs. So it's not our money.
' It was Lotus Realty's and Gary Kirt's money that was escrowed.
Councilman Senn: From the sale of the building.
Todd Gerhardt: Right.
Councilman Senn: And so this is really kind of an after the fact thing for the
parcels there, where the Rapid Oil and all that's already been built?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Yeah. Just to catch up on that portion of it, you're right.
t Todd Gerhardt: They were all sold on metes and bounds descriptions and this is
a plat that matches those metes and bounds descriptions when the Rapid Oil site
4
11
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
was sold off.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to. ,
Councilman Senn: I move approval. ,
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Plat for
Gateway East, Lotus Realty as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
1(A) STONE CREEK FIRST ADDITION. '
Kate Aanenson: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Mr. Hagen had a, we maybe should have pulled item 1(a). Mr.
Hagen, representing Hans Hagen Homes has a point of clarification on Stone Creek
regarding an administrative split. As you recall we, the Council decided not to
approve the administrative lot split and he's requesting that, he was hoping to
have the development contract in place tonight. He's hoping to pull a permit
for a model home and he'd like to have approval to record it, even though the
development contract isn't here in place tonight. That's what we were meeting
briefly on before the meeting started. So he'd like to have a minute to speak '
on that issue. It's part of issue (a). 1(a).
Mayor Chmiel: Being that we've already voted on it, all we have to do is
rescind that for the time being and have Mr. Hans Hagen come forward with that.
Hans Hagen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. What we are requesting this
evening. The consent agenda did approve the final plat of Stone Creek First
Addition, or would have had it gone through. What we are requesting is that,
coincidental with that, that you approve a metes and bounds description of the
outline of the plat. So basically you have all seen the plat and this survey
actually covers the outline of the plat. We can't record our plat until the
developer's agreement is approved, and that will not go on until the first
meeting in March. We would like to start construction. We can't start
construction until we buy the land. And we can't buy the land until we get a
split. So (a), you have approved a plat, and subject to my signing the
developers agreement you will then have a separate parcel. So what I'm asking
for tonight is a lot split that covers all of the property that is described in
the plat you approved. With that lot split, your attorney can record this at
the County. Then we can close on the property because we know what we're buying
and the seller knows what they're selling. And then we would record a mortgage
on that property. That will establish priority and then we can get a building
permit. And as a matter of practice under these circumstances, the staff will
give us a building permit provided everything has been complied with here. So
the action I'm asking the Council tonight to take is to approve a lot split that
encompasses all of the property that is in the Stone Creek First Addition. Can
I answer any questions or have I confused everybody?
i
5 1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: No. No. I just wanted to ask Elliott. Is that...thing to do?
Elliott Knetsch: I did have a chance to discuss that with Mr. Hagen and I did,
I was the one who suggested that it be brought to you in this fashion as an
addition to item 1(a). So you have approved the plat. Basically as he stated,
what they are requesting will enable them to proceed with construction. I think
it's appropriate for the Council to do that if you think it's right. Since we
do not at this time, you know temporarily do not have an administrative lot
split ordinance, all he's asking for is the City to put a stamp on there that
says, we've seen this and we think it's okay. That's the only requirement for
' the lot split stamp that the County wants. So unless you have a problem with
it, I think it would be appropriate.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And if we record it, that would eliminate that given
problem?
Elliott Knetsch: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: It's nice to see that Northwest Airlines is on time. Okay. Any
discussion from Council.
' Councilman Senn: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded that we approve a lot split for all property
in the Stone Creek Addition and that this also be recorded by the County. In
the County by our Attorney.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a lot split for all
property in the Stone Creek First Addition so that it can be recorded at the
County. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Hans Hagen: Thank you very much.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
AWARD OF BIDS: 1993 G.O. TAX INCREMENT BONDS.
Dave MacGilivray: Good evening. We would like your consideration of a
resolution awarding the sale of $5,675,000.00 taxable general obligation tax
increment bonds, Series 1993A. We received a copy of the resolution late this
afternoon from the bond counsel firm, Holmes and Graven. I don't believe it's
in your packet. I gave Todd my copies so there is a copy for your review if
you'd like to see it. Proceeds of this issue would go to fund the acquisition
of various land parcels in the city's redevelopment Tax Increment District No.
1, which is in the downtown area. We took competitive bids in our office at
12:30 this afternoon. In general the market continues at what we would call
historical low levels and as I go over the actual bids, I'll point this out.
These are taxable municipal bonds and by that, bond holders of these securities,
the interest paid to them is includable in their income for federal and state
tax income purposes. So it's a lot different from your traditional municipal
bonds for building streets and public buildings, etc. where that tax interest is
' 6
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
exempt from such taxation. It is taxable because ultimate the majority of the
bond proceeds will be used for land which be conveyed to private parties and the
federal government created this category basically in 1986. Going to the yellow
sheet, I believe does everybody have one of these?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1
Dave MacGilivray: These are the results of the bids that were taken this
afternoon. The best bid or lowest interest cost is listed first. Park
Investment Corporation. They bid a rate over here on the right hand side, true
interest rate of 6.3242% and then they go in increasing order of interest costs
or a lower desireability. About a month ago when we first structured this issue
at market rates then in existence, we were expecting a rate of 7.12% so this is
8 /10, 80 basis points under the market of about a month ago. The market has
certainly come down but certainly hasn't come down by 80 basis points. But it
is events of the last week and the State of the Union, all of a sudden municipal
bonds are even a hotter commodity than they were before and they were pretty hot
for the last 60 to 90 days. What this means, traditionally if we were to have
sold these 2 -3 years ago, this rate would have been 9% to 10 %. There's usually
a 2 to 2 1/2 percentage point difference between taxables and tax exempts so it
shows you where the tax exempt market is right now. This reduction from the
estimate, the 6.32 means a reduction in interest cost under the estimate of
about $200,000.00 so we're at about a total interest cost of $2,300,000.00. Now
we're about $2,100,000.00 so we brought those interest costs down by about
$200,000.00. One thing you should note that's a little different from some of
your others, this issue was insured at the purchaser's option. The purchaser
being the underwriter. This is a standard clause we put in most all of our bond
transactions and the issuers have the option of buying a bond insurance. In
this particular transaction they took that option. Had it insured by AmBac.
What that means is this bond issue receives a AAA, the highest market grade
rating from the National Credit Rating Agencies. This issue was rated by
Moody's, You know the rating agency you use. Your rating was confirmed at BAA1.
Not a lot of fanfare so your rating has basically stayed as is, despite the fact
that you're going out for $5.6 million dollars of general obligations bonds.
With that we would recommend award to Park Investment and we'd be glad to take
any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Any questions? With that, I would ask for a motion
to approve the 1993 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds. 1
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Sean: Second.
Resolution t93 -12: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to award
the bid for the 1993 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1993A to
Park Investment Corporation with an interest rate of 6.3242%. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. That is a good rate. I do remember those from a few 11 years ago and that category of 9% and 10%. So that's great. Saves the city
7
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
some money even though we have to spend some. Next item.
INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VALIDITY, CUP $88 -11 FOR A CONTRACTOR'S
YARD, 1700 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, JEFF CARSON.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: In 1986 the City Council approved a contractors yard by
approving a conditional use permit application. The contractors yard was
supposed to have a building...parking area, a driveway that would lead into the
building. The existing buildings on the site were proposed to be demolished and
' removed off the site. There were 20 conditions attached to your report that
were the conditions of approval. One day before the permit was to expire, the
applicant applied for a building permit. Staff issued the permit. However...
construction or development taking place on site. The zoning ordinance reads,
' if substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the date on
which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void. Over the past
two years staff has not noticed any construction taking place and we are
interpretting the ordinance to read as the conditional use permit as void. The
applicant is contesting our interpretation and is in front of you today to
get...interpretation. We are recommending that you find the conditional use
' permit as void. If you have any questions regarding the inspections, with us
today is Building Official, Steve Kirchman. He'll be here to answer any
questions you might have. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant, Jeff Carson here?
Jeff Carson: Yes, your Honor. Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Jeff
' Carson. I represent the applicant, Mr. Harry Lindbery who is present tonight.
Mr. Lindbery did indeed, I should also indicate that we were before the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments from 6:30 to 7:30 and I will be repeating myself and I
apologize to Councilmember Senn. In case you don't know, they recommended the
interpretation as Sharmin has indicated. That the permit be voided. Mr.
Lindbery did receive his conditional use permit and I trust that the packet of
information is before the City Council that was submitted by the applicant,
' which includes a brief memo and some exhibits. It is our underlying contention
that the conditional use, that the applicant has indeed used the premises since
1988 as a contractors yard. And I put the definition of a contractors yard in
the first page of my memo to show that the definition of a contractors yard does
not require a building at all. In fact the use of the property, as Mr. Lindbery
has made it since 1988, is exactly that. Storing of materials for construction,
contracting. That's his business. It is true that the original application
contemplated a building and although we debated at the Board whether or not
without a building this application or this applicant could construe or would be
permitted to say that he was operating his property lawfully all these years. A
literal reading of the conditional use permit doesn't state that you have to
have this building. That is this property, which is approximately 40 acres,
could be used without a building. Nevertheless, the applicant, and I outline. I
don't think I'll go through it again in all the detail. He did intend to build
a building, and to that end he obtained a building permit, as staff indicates
approximately a year after the issuance of the conditional use permit. A dispute
arose and we're having a hard time getting a handle on that, or pinning it down.
But in my materials I submitted to you, I gave you a packet of information about
the floor heating. It's a heating system if you will that the applicant wanted
to put in this building. The idea was, and he obtained the building permit and
8
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
he bought the shell of the building in 1989, and he's spent $36,000.00 doing
that. Obviously intending to put that building on the property. He got into a
dispute with the building official, which is at issue about that but he did.
That's his statement. Over the type of heating to use. He wanted to put the
tubular heating in the floor and pour the cement. Probably at the time state-
of-the-art.
The building official told Mr. Lindbery, no. I'm not familiar with
it. You can't do it. That stalled the project and it never frankly got back on
track. There was a period of time during this process where Mr. Lindbery was
literally out of, physically unable to move forward personally himself on the
project. He crushed his leg and was out of active participation for a year on
the building project. So these periods of time came and went and they are
significant periods of time and that was my reading of the Board of Appeals was,
too much time has gone by. You could have and should have come to the City a
long time ago. You didn't. Why didn't you, and my answer to that was
everything in hindsight is always clearer an it's better and certainly I agree.
He could have and should have come to the city the moment that a dispute arose
about anything. I would point out that the staff was actively, at least working
on this project over 2 years after the issuance of the conditional use permit.
The reason I raise that is that the interpretation that the staff is making is
substantial completion of the building after one year was not met. Therefore,
you voided your permit and that's that. In the exhibits that I handed you,
there is activity from the Building Department, and I would refer you to
exhibits 6, 9 and 10 I believe. What it shows is that the Planning Department
is, at that time dealing with the permit. In fact Exhibit 10 I believe is the
cover sheet of the conditional use permit itself. And then the right lower
corner it indicates somebody's doing some research on an issue as of 10/23/90.
Significantly greater than 2 years after the issuance of the conditional use
permit. My point being that I feel, based on what happened in 1992, that that's
simply the convenient, if you will, answer today. That is, well let's see.
What's happened here. Time has elapsed. You're out of business. I would also
point out that in 1989, when the City went through the process of removing
contractors yards from the Zone A2, which is what we are, they had appropriate
hearings and those hearings were predicated by published notice but, and I
believe it's Exhibit 11, is a front page of a Planning Commission Minutes where
one of the Commissioners looked around the room. This was the hearing to decide
on what recommendation the Planning Commission was going to pass to the Council.
There's no contractors in the audience. There's nobody that's a holder of a
conditional use permit if you will, and the question was raised. Why isn't
anybody here? Were they notified? The answer is no. You don't have to notify ,
people if you're changing the zoning. You just have to publish. Technically
that's probably correct. But the other portion went on to say, what about these
people who are operating today? And the answer was, they're non - conforming and
therefore they're not going to be effected adversely by this action. Mr.
Lindbery was not notified of the change in the zoning and he was not notified by
staff frankly that he was running out of time to complete his project at any
point in time. Then in the summer of 1992 what happened was, part of his
contractors yard activities involved the storage of large and rather unsightly
construction box units that he would rent out to other contractors to store
their equipment in on site. And instead of putting them down, around behind the
berm on his property, which he now knows he should have, he put them up closer
to the road and they could be seen. So what happened was, staff saw them.
Wrote to Mr. Lindbery. He wasn't responsive and that has led to the presently
pending criminal charges in District Court, which we are having to address. He
9
1
1 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
1 has since corrected the problem, by his perception at least, and put the boxes
that he uses in his business behind what we consider to be a berm. An adequate
berm. In other words, you can't see them from the road and that's the problem
1 here. The upshot of it of course was, staff was looking at this application and
at the whole property as a whole. In 1992 they determined that this violation
or this voidance of the permit had existed and thus reached that conclusion. Now
I the applicant can't, that takes us up to about mid -1992. That is from that
point forward until today we're in an active dispute if you will, including the
criminal charges. The point was made at the Board of Appeals that a lot of time
1 seems to have elapsed between the issuance of the permit and let's say mid -1992.
And I don't disagree. There's a reason for what happened. It may not be
adequate in the minds of everyone but it's what really happened in the real
world in this case. He didn't get the building done. He got into the dispute
1 with the Building Inspector and he didn't follow through and he didn't come to
the City and ask for an answer as to what he was going to be required to do.
And here we sit. The zoning has changed. We're told he's not in a
II non - conforming status. He wasn't at the meeting where the zoning changed so he
can't be in a position to do anything with this property other than use as
agricultural, if indeed the use as a contractors yard is prohibited. It is our
hope that you will, given all the circumstances, permit Mr. Lindbery to continue
1 his operation by conditional use permit. He would like indeed to construct the
building. As I indicated, he's got more than $36,000.00 in actual monies spent
for the permit and the shell and the MnDot approval process. He's ready,
1 willing and able to complete the project if he can get the appropriate approvals
from city staff, which we believe we can do. And by denying him his opportunity
to go forward, you're simply saying that the land is not going to be used
1 anymore by this individual for the work that he does, which is operate a
contractors yard. A couple of points were argued, debated at the hearing.
Mr. Lindbery has used the property during this period of time continuously as a
contractors yard. Obviously he did not build the building and so those parts of
II the permit that relate to construction haven't been met. That also was a
finding at the hearing of the Board. I would hope that you would consider this.
There's some equities here. There's some technical points. There's some
1 questions about what does the Code mean, and keep in mind that he wasn't given a
public hearing. He wasn't told that his conditional use permit is in violation
or any of that. It was just during this criminal process he was advised that
II it's void. It doesn't exist. And I'd like to think that given the history and
the relative difficulty of interpretting exactly what that permit means, I think
there are differences one might bring to the interpretation of the law as it
relates to this permit and I would hope that you give Mr. Lindbery the advantage
1 at least to make it right. I don't see that the city is any the worse off if he
does. Clearly he is going to be in serious economic difficulties if he's told
he has to vacate the use of that property. I thank you for hearing us, a second
II time. If I can answer any questions, I'd be glad to.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions? Mark, do you have any questions
at this time? Sitting on the Zoning Appeals.
11 Councilman Senn: Basically at zoning appeals, my tact I think was a little
different than staff's and City Attorney's I guess. I have a hard time making
II the connection between the conditional use permit and the argument that no
construction has occurred on a building. The reason I have that trouble is that
in the conditional use permit, the conditional use permit lacks any reference to
1 10
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
a site plan and lacks any reference to a building. Other than some vague ones
such as a building must be sprinklered. That type of thing. Yet I don't have
much sympathy for the applicant because what I see as a conditional use permit,
even though contractors yards activities may be very vague and arguable for many 11 hours, conditional use permit I don't feel is. It says the conditional use
permit based on Exhibit A, the condition on Exhibit A, and any violations of the
terms of the permit means that it's terminated. And basically went through the
conditions, the 20 conditions of which a majority have never been met.
Forgetting whether building is a reference point or not a reference point. And
I don't have a problem at all denying this permit on the basis that no
construction has occurred. Also, that the applicant is in violation of a
majority of the conditions of the conditional use permit. I do have a hard time
basing some form of denial back on whether a building exists or does not exist.
I guess that's why it ended up here before us because I have that problem. Again
I would strongly recommend denial but I thinl'we ought to call it for the
reasons it is, rather than the reasons that don't really exist in any
documentation because quite honestly I think the applicant concurs that
documentation on this is pretty poor.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, in looking through some of this as well. The conditional
use so stipulates or even implies. I'm not sure what part of the law leans
towards that but...conditional use shall be in compliance within one year from
date of issuance, and if you're not, your compliance from that timeframe, that
permit is void. And construction of a building had not taken place. Whether
it's so stipulated within there or not, that was still part I think of the
conditions as it indicates.
Councilman Senn: Don, I guess in.
Mayor Chmiel: I understand you're not. Yeah, right. No, I understand that.
I'm just clarifying that for the record more than anything. Okay. Michael, do
you have anything?
Councilman Mason: Well, Mr. Carson certainly presents some compelling reasons
but I'm confused as to why all the foot dragging on the applicant's part and why
things just haven't happened. I guess I can only speak from my experience but
if something goes wrong, it's just common nature for me to go up one step higher
and find out what the problem is and what can be done about it. It seems to me
if that isn't done, I'm not, it doesn't set with me. I don't understand.
Jeff Carson: Not having been there myself I can't, but let me do this if you
would permit this. Mr. Lindbery is here and he does have, at least a response
to that. It may not satisfy you but it does involve issues relating to his
attempts to deal with plumbing and the things that he was dealing with. If
you'd permit him to just address you for a couple of minutes. Do you want to do
that Harry? Would you permit that Mr. Mayor? Thank you.
Harry Lindbery: Well, where we run into one problem is we wanted to, we put in
the pileasters for the building, the columns where the beams. We're building a
building with no posts. It's 70 foot wide and 100 feet long. And we wanted to
take the building engineer said we should take from these columns, run rerod
into the floor. That way, if you get stress on the top of the building, because
due to it's, on a shape like this, it wouldn't push out and push these columns
11 1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II out and that's why if they're tied into the floor. And we had a problem with
the plumbing man. He wanted us to put in two separate systems as far as
drainage from the building. One from the sanitary where we would have a toilet
I in a lunchroom for the fellows. And then another one for the floor drain. So
we told him we would. We went and bought the flammable waste. We had that
already but we wanted to put it inside the building and then we had it there and
II wanted to hook it up. He said, no. You can't hook it up. You've got to put it
outside the building. So we took and put it outside. Then we got a concrete
sawing company to bore a hole through the footing around the building and we put
it on the outside. Then we says, can we hook up the floor drains to it now? He
II says, no. Now you have to go down to the State plumbing department and get
their okay. So the plumber I had hired, and myself, we went down there. The
State plumbing man, he said geez. He says, how come you want it this way
II outside? He said, when you'd have about 50% of the•time that would be froze up
because he says we've got winters here and he says, I'll never approve that. He
says, put it on the inside. And I says, well that's the way we wanted it. So
I then, he changed the plan. Then we went back to the city man. We asked him and
we wanted to put radiant heat in the floor. He says he isn't familiar with
that. He says put unit heaters up in the ceiling. And we says, they aren't as
efficient and this here, when you heat the floor, it stays heat because if you
II open the door, the floor's warm. Your air rushes out. When you close the door,
your floor is still warm. And I think you have a thing on that radiant heat.
Well, what he didn't, he says he wasn't familiar with it. He wouldn't allow it.
II Then in 1997 I did have an accident. I was on a loader, front end loader and
it's got a vinyl seat. And I slipped and hit a lever and 1 got my leg between
some framework on the loader and it crushed it. My insurance company doctor, he
I wanted to whack it off below the knee. That's where it came, the bone come out
both sides and I took and got a specialist and I went with him. He put a rod,
it was about 15 inches long and about the size of your finger and he cut both
sides open and he put it all back together again and he made me stay off of it.
II So that kind of tied up the building. But we had drivers going in there and
going out of there with different supplies during this time so we didn't abandon
it. I was laid up for a while and our other fellows, they didn't want to go
II ahead and stick the building up but we've had the building all bought. All paid
for and everything and as soon as the frost gets out of the ground, I'd like to
take and put my rerod in the floor. First put the plumbing in. Put the rerod.
Pour it and then so it would hold the columns in and then put the structure up.
II And it's out on 212 highway. We don't use any city streets or anything like
that so I mean, I don't think we've ever bothered anybody.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Colleen, do you have any?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I'd don't want to be completely blunt about
II this but I'm having trouble buying some of the arguments Mr. Carson's put forth
on, particularly when you say we've never informed of the zoning change. I
guess as a business person, you need to keep up on city ordinances, particularly
when you own a piece of land and ignorance doesn't prove innocence. However, I
II do understand the complications in building. But it kind of sounds like you're
complaining because you got caught.
II Jeff Carson: No. If I may respond to that Mr. Mayor. I'm complaining I guess,
if that's what I'm doing, about the timing and the rationale for it. The reason
this really came up was the units that he was storing for other contractors that
II 12
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
he rented. The City continued to deal with him really long after the 2 year
period was up. There wasn't any time clock on him at that point. In October of
'90, they were still dealing with this project. Had he been informed, had the
contractors, the people that had contractors yards been informed that they no
longer would have been able to operate a contractors yard in an A2 zone
following the passage of an ordinance, I think it would have made a difference
is what I'm saying. I'm not saying that, well. I'm saying that there can't be
that many contractors yards in the city and it would seem to me appropriate to
notify those people with contractors yards in those zones that are being zoned
out, that that's under consideration. Now the answer to that was, when one of
the Planning Commissions addressed it, was the people who are operating are
non - conforming. They won't be effected by the change and so there's no need to
bring them in. Had Mr. Lindbery been informed that he's about to lose his right
or he has a certain period of time after which he cannot operate his yard, any 11 of that, I submit that he would have resolved it right away or got the
extension. Whatever the code would have required at the time. What's happened
here is that for reasons unrelated frankly, he's now being told that, by the
way, your CUP is void and I think that, yeah. You can look at it one way and
you can look at it another way but I'm trying to bring a sense of fairness to
it. I know the city rezoned that property for a reason. They don't want
contractors yards in the A2 zone anymore. That's the underlying message and
that's the city's priviledge. But I think as it effects adversely people who
are there and operating, there has to be some kind of a give and take. That's
why, if it seems like complaining, perhaps it is. But I think this could have
happened differently and we wouldn't be here.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Carson, just a beginning question. Are there other ,
employees involved here? Does he have a staff? Is this a company?
Jeff Carson: He has employees, yes. I don't know how many but he does have r
other employees in this business.
Councilman Wing: You're not alone on this? Well this was permitted in 1988 and
I don't know what's changed since then, except the zoning. The agricultural
zoning. In 1992 terms, what does a contractors yard mean or not mean to the
city? And specifically in this area. I guess the first thing I'd like to
address is just a concern for your client Mr. Lindbery in that the city wants to
get away from contractors yards. They're not in the best interest for the city.
They haven't been in the best interest of the city and they've been moved out 11 rather effectively over the last few, well since I've been here. And one of the
real painful ones was the Carlson property out on the west end of the city where
he's had all sorts of problems and just as he gets everything resolved and gets
this building up, residential's coming in and it's costly residential and ,
they're simply not going to tolerate this type of land use. So the pressure's
going to be put on. The complaints are going to come up and my concern for you
is that you're going to get, if this was granted, you'll get all your buildings
up and everything established and spend these dollars and all of a sudden in
will come a plat for a residential area of $400,000.00 homes. They're going to
take one look at you and do everything in their power to start moving you out.
And then you're going to wind up an island down there and my concern is for your
own personal finances in the future. If it's granted and if the dollars are
13 '
1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II spent to put this in, is it in fact in your best interest, even in the short
term, if suddenly residential moves in down there and it becomes a very
unattractive land use that simply won't be tolerated. So I have that concern by
II approving this, and having you invest this money on this contractors yard, you
may be right on the edge of development that just won't tolerate it and the pain
and the hurt that you could be caused, I just wanted to bring that up as an
II issue here because I think it's significant for your own thinking and planning.
But at any rate, the permit back in 1988, there's considerable dollars invested
here. $1,200.00 for a permit and $3,500.00 for a building and MnDot and there's
been a lot happening here and I think there's an awful lot of investment in this
II expired permit if you will. And although it's maybe not the direction we want to
go, I don't know if the use and the conflict down there has changed since '88 to
'92 and this is Mr. Lindbery's business and it apparently meets the use and
II there's a real loss for him if this isn't continued: So I see the permit
continuation as a real minor issue and a real minor variance. I see the
conditions of the permit as the issue here and resolving those. So my
I preference here would be to give an extension, and I'm going to just pick an
arbitrary number of 6 months. Not that's got no validity any more than 2 months
or 1 year but an extension of 6 months which allows staff, number one to review
the conditions for being reasonable and is it still the direction we want to go,
II and either changing those downward or leaving them. And then have 6 months to
comply with those or it expires without any further discussion. I think that
might be fair to resolve the issue and the conditions as a compromise here
II because there's too much money invested and if Mr. Lindbery wants to take the
risk of that investment with what's changing down there, I won't address that.
That's his business but I have no problem with a continuation to allow staff to
II review the conditions, their reasonableness and then allow compliance of fairly
accelerated way...on the other hand it doesn't throw the dollars in this permit
that were expended over the years. And if there is a conflict, the city and
staff and any inspections, we've gone over this time and time again where the
II former inspection: group and the former planning group didn't follow through and
things weren't documented and so there's some gray areas here that I'm not
willing to absorb so I would prefer to give Mr. Lindbery the benefit of the
II doubt. But it would have to comply with the conditions and that would have to
be in are accelerated manner.
II Harry Lindbery: May I ask a question?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you'd like to come up to the microphone.
II Harry Lindbery: Would that be for the building to be totally complete because
we have about 3 -4 feet of frost and that won't be out of there until probably
about May 15th.
' Councilman Wing: I would move that 6 months after start of construction. Paul,
I won't get into this. I don't know. It's just the numbers are arbitrary.
II Harry Lindbery: Then there's no problem. After the frost was out, 6 months.
Councilman Wing: That could be a point.
II Harry Lindbery: Sure, because no problem with that.
II 14
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
Councilman Wing: I'm not allowing to allow continuation of this unless it's
complied with. And it's complied with in an accelerated method but I won't go
beyond that. I'd have to allow staff and Council to address that suggestion.
Harry Lindbery: Well I just wanted to put out the thing. Do you have any 1
objection to our radiant heat?
Councilman Wing: No. That's what I've got in my house. 1
Harry Lindbery: Well, your plumbing man wouldn't let us put it in.
Councilman Wing: Well I don't know anything about that. Maybe there were '
reasons. I can't address that. ...the points are well taken. He asks the
questions that can be handled elsewhere. I', just bringing up the big issues
here.
Jeff Carson: I think he misunderstands the posture of the question at this
point though.
Councilman Wing: I'm trying to compromise on his...
Jeff Carson: Yeah, and I think he's obviously willing to do that and that's ,
really all we can ask of the city.
Councilman Wing: I have one concern is that I saw Paul start to, he was leaning 1
forward in his chair. If he was going to confront me here, I wanted it done
now.
Paul Krauss: Well, don't take it as a confrontation. But we're here tonight
because of an interpretation issue. We've interpretted this to have never
occurred, therefore it's void. And the Board of Adjustments was looking to act
on that and that's the question before you tonight. In taking the action that
you've outlined, by granting an extension of something that we think is void,
you've therefore said it's still valid. And that's an important point. Now you
can do that, although I think the ordinance provides that that has to come
through the Planning Commission. And then for action by you. But I guess we're
real concerned though with some of the fundamental issues here. You know we're
often accused of having large amounts of malice and forethought to any number of '
individuals around town when you know we usually respond to an issue that crops
up and the issue in this case was that there was a bunch of trailers all over
the front of the lot, and we couldn't figure out why. And we had letters that
we sent out to the owner, which were refused and we sent them certified. They
sent back to us. We knew that a building had been started years ago and was
never finished. We knew that the conditions were never satisfied and
apparently, according to the testimony by the attorney tonight, the applicant 11
and his attorney are under the impression that they can go ahead and do anything
that they classify as a contractors yard without satisfying the conditions. We
take some exception to some of those assertions. You know when you pass
something, a package of conditions, whether or not it was before our watch here,
as in this case, or whether or not we wrote the staff report, we have an
obligation to make sure those things are fulfilled. And when we went out there,
we found out that just about nothing was fulfilled. You know yes, there are a
whole different set of issues that I don't think are necessarily appropriate
15 1
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
tonight, as to what the Planning Commission and you might ultimately want to do
with that area. And yes, the thinking has changed an awful lot since the mid
80's when contractors yards were put down there. We have results of that policy
with the cold storage, metal warehouse buildings that were gouged into the hill.
I mean there's a lot of odd ball uses down there. I guess I'd defer to the City
Attorney, but if in fact you're looking at granting some sort of an extension,
I think that you have to be aware of the implications, an extension to what.
And I think you have to probably procedurally do it a little differently.
Elliott Knetsch: I don't think at this time you have the power to grant an
extension. I think what you're saying Dick is that you had a valid permit. He
made some use and made some purchases based on that permit, so that constitutes
use under our ordinance and that never really lapsed. So he in effect does have
a permit and now we should look at what are reasonable conditions on the permit.
' That's I guess what I hear you saying and if that's what you're saying, that's
fine. I mean all we're asking for is staff and the City Attorney's offices, if
you don't agree with staff's interpretation, then the permit is still in
existence and at that point you can take action to revoke the permit for non-
compliance with the terms. Or you can work with the applicant, given the fact
that time has changed and their indicated willingness to work with you and
hammer out some new conditions that are satisfactory to both sides.
Councilman Wing: It just amazes me when you're educated how smoothly you can
explain the things. That's where, there's enough expenditure here that I
consider him to have the permit. And I'm comfortable with that. But I'll be
real blunt and say, put up or get out. And there's the rules. You haven't
complied. You either comply or you're out of here. It's black and white. And
1 then it's a big, I consider this to have been a permit. There has been
expenditures made, and it never expired. I guess, is that the proper wording
for my statement? The conditions of the conditional use, they haven't been
complied wit. I guess that would be my issue tonight and I would expect
immediate compliance. Total compliance or, in that case then we get into the
non - compliance issue. Then what happens?
1 Elliott Knetsch: Well, if the permit's there and it's not being complied with,
then you have the option of having a hearing to revoke the permit for non-
compliance or, if the applicant agrees to new conditions, you can put new
conditions on.
Councilman Wing: So then my 6 months would come in. 6 month restriction on
compliance. Is that right?
Elliott Knetsch: I guess I think that could be appropriate if you treat it as,
in effect treat this as a hearing on whether or not to revoke the permit and say
well you haven't done all these things. We could revoke your permit but we're
going to take a less drastic step and say, we're going to let you keep the
permit as long as you do these things within a certain time. I think you could
do that.
Councilman Wing: Well I don't want to belabor this any more. That's my
position and
1
1 16
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I too have been looking at this rather closely
and I see the time to extend the permit has really expired. In lieu of all the
letters that were sent by the city and not received, nor accepted, I judge that
as a portion that does bother me some. It should have been addressed at that
given time.
Jeff Carson: Your Honor, I might add. Those letters related to a violation of
the permit.
Mayor Chmiel: But nothing was answered.
Jeff Carson: No, I just, the purpose of the letters was not to tell him to get
going. It was to tell him that something that he's doing with the property is
in violation.
Y '
Mayor Chmiel: And that there were several things in accordance with the Exhibit
A contained within that as well that had not been complied with. It seems like
there's nothing that has worked through this always straight through. I feel 1
uncomfortable with it. I don't like to do things or business that way, nor do I
expect people to do business that way back to the city. So it'd be my position
at this time to request a motion in regard to this proposal. Can I have a
motion from the floor. Or discussion.
Councilman Mason: Could I discuss for a moment before we make a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Mason: I share some of Councilman Wing's concerns about the
applicant. However, hearing what Councilman Senn said earlier about the fact
that we have a list of 20 items that need to be complied with and my
understanding is that very few of them have in fact been complied with. And I
guess if, I personally would like to hear from Mr. Kirchman for a moment or two
about that. Because my feeling is that has more bearing on this right now. If
none of this stuff has been complied with, my feeling is to hold the public
hearing to revoke the permit and see how that comes out. Which is what we have
to do, right?
Elliott Knetsch: Staff's taken a position. This is sort of technical...and I
think Mark and I kind of crossed wires on it at the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals too. We're saying, as staff, that the permit has either, is void per no
construction within one year. Or alternatively, that it expired because there
was no use made of the property pursuant to the permit. So the use was
discontinued. Therefore the permit expired. That's what staff has, that's
staff's position. That's what we've informed the applicant. So under that line
of reasoning, whether or not he complies with the 20 conditions in the permit is 1
not relevant because the permit is, we're not saying he's violated the permit.
We're saying the permit's gone. However, if you would accept the applicant's
position that they did use the property. There were deliveries or whatever use
constituted a contractors yard, and the start of the building and so forth, then
you would say no. We don't agree with staff. We think the permit is still
there. Then the question is, what do we do with the permit. Do we move to
revoke it for not complying with the conditions? Or do we look to give them
additional time to comply?
17
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Senn: Can I ask a question?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Senn: If I'm understanding you right then, the action tonight can
only relate to whether a permit exists or doesn't exist?
Elliott Knetsch: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And the action of whether the thing is void because of
non - compliance cannot be addressed tonight?
Elliott Knetsch: Yes. That's right. We should address that separately. If we
11 get to the point where there is a permit, let's consider revoking it and we
should hold a public hearing on that issue. And that would discuss whether or
not the terms were complied with or not.
Councilman Senn: Well I'd make a motion then that we believe the permit is
still there and that we schedule a public hearing for revocation of the, or to
consider revocation of the CUP for non - compliance.
r Councilman Wing: I'll second that because it's my position. For discussion at
any rate.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Staff is saying nothing's happened within a year. And you're
representing Mr. Lindbery saying things have happened?
Jeff Carson: Yes.
Councilman Mason: That's essentially what's going on right now.
Jeff Carson: Work that would be defined under the contractors yard, definition
in your code, yes.
Steve Kirchman: I might, if I may?
Councilman Mason: Please.
Steve Kirchman: I can maybe shed a little bit of light on that. I made my last
inspection, a building inspection on October 22nd of 1990 and I asked that Mr.
Lindbery come in and apply for a heating permit and a plumbing permit and then
he could go ahead and continue with what he wanted to do on the building. I
asked that he meet with the Planning Department and Building Department to
clarify some issues. He didn't come in so I periodically made trips out to the
site to make sure that there was no construction activity on the building
continuing. That was my primary purpose. But during those visits, at no time
did I see any type of activity that could be construed as being used as a
contractors yard taking place, until I made a note to the effect that the
containers and the round concrete pipe were on the site. And that date was,
well one second. Let me find that inspection. Okay, that date was.
18
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
Sharmin Al -Jaff: June 8th of '92. ,
Steve Kirchman: Okay, June 8th of '92. So at no time before that, between
10/22/91 and that date when I noticed those, was there any construction activity
or any activity taking place that could be construed as a contractors yard. Now,
I only went out to the site maybe 2 times a year. It's way down there. I'd
stop when I had time so I wouldn't have seen if there was any activity at all
but there were no new structures. Nothing gone. No tracks out at the area so,
and that's all I really have to say as far as the conditional use permit.
Councilman Senn: I don't doubt at all what Steve's saying. In fact I think
he's probably 100% right. Again, I think our basic problem is in the original
drafting documentation of the CUP and the lack of any action for 3 years. I
think it's a lot cleaner. A lot simpler to simply get past that issue and say
it still exists. Then go, the real issue is tie fact that I don't care what
excuse in the world you come up with, I can't figure out one that justifies 4 to
5 years of no action on a CUP with 20 very definitive conditions which have not
been even, I mean I can maybe find a couple that have been complied with out of
20. To me, from a city's position, that's a lot more cleaner arguments than
getting into a lot of semantics, especially when you've got a poorly written
CUP in the first place and even poorer documentation over 3 years to back it up.
Councilman Wing: I'll just tack onto Mark that I think it gives the applicant
time to think about the fact that maybe 1988 was a good time to invest dollars
down there. Maybe 1992 is not as good a year to invest dollars down there
considering what may be coming his direction. Or, I don't know what date it is.
1993.
Jeff Carson: If I may Your Honor, one of the problems of course is that the ,
hearing itself would simply be a pretext. I mean the decision about everybody's
feeling as to what has happened or not happened with respect to certain items on
that list is pretty clear. You'll do what you'll do but it seems that
everybody's made up their mind about that issue and I hope that the applicant
has some opportunity. I liked what Councilmember Wing was saying that, maybe
there's something, some common ground here that if the applicant and staff got
together and who knows what those conditions would b;'. They might be more
stringent. It might be less energenic a project. There's a lot of
possibilities but when I say pretext, I mean it's simply, you're going to have a
hearing so that you have a hearing. Simply do what you're feeling now, it
seems.
Councilman Wing: I think the items need to be reviewed. Maybe the building ,
isn't needed. Maybe it's use has changed a little bit from what you decided.
Maybe it's going to be an attractive contractors yard, but you're going to have
to put up or get out. That's my position.
Jeff Carson: Well, that's not unfair.
Councilman Wing: I'm supporting you. 1
Jeff Carson: That's not unfair. I have no problem with that. If the City says
to the applicant, you've got this much time to do this much work to stay in
business but it never, that was never said before. You can say what you will.
19 1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
You can say that Mr. Lindbery is difficult and all of that but I really don't
II think he ever was of the mindset that this was what was going to happen.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call the question.
II Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council finds the
Conditional Use Permit #88 -11 for a contractors yard on property located at 1700
II Flying Cloud Drive is still valid and to schedule a public hearing to consider
revocation of CUP #88 -11 for non - compliance. All voted in favor except
Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4
to 1.
II Jeff Carson: Thank you for your time. What then will happen?
1 Mayor Chmiel: This will get scheduled and staff wi2'1 get in contact with you
and let you know when this comes back before us.
I Jeff Carson: Thank you. Does that come before the Planning Commission?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. You go before Planning, it comes before us. Item
number 3.
II ABRA AUTO SERVICE CENTER, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND
CHANHASSEN ESTATES AND EAST OF THE EMISSION CONTROL TESTING STATION:
II A. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 6,494 SQ. FT. BUILDING.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTO SERVICE FACILITY IN THE BH DISTRICT.
11 Public Present:
Name Address
II Al Beisner 7549 Mariner Point
James Benson 15034 Cherry Lane
I Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Cr
Donald Hagen 4501 Hunters Ridge, Minnetonka
Tom Kotsonas Chan Estates
Gerard & Lindsay Amadeo 8007 Cheyenne Avenue
II Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor?
11 Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: On item number 3, which we're coming to. I guess just so
there's no pre -tense that we are again leading anybody down the path or down the
II road, I'd like to make a motion that this item be tabled until after our Council
work session next month.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. For what specific reasons?
Councilman Senn: In that the Council work session is to specifically further
II discuss and seek understanding as well as potential action on a moratorium
involving Highway 5.
II 20
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 ,
Councilman Wing: The date of the work session?
Councilman Senn: Is scheduled for March 3rd.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor I guess I did not anticipate that. However, given
some of the comments I have tonight and the concerns and the phone calls I've
received, I think that this applicant may be better served if this was handled
in that work session and some issues dealt with that maybe would save us a lot
of trouble tonight. I think he might be in a better position to address this
after that work session.
Councilman Senn: Does that mean you're seconding that? 1
Councilman Wing: I am seconding that.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion's on the floor to table''until after March 3rd and be 1
brought before Council on, that would be the 8th of March. I think that would
probably not throw too much off one way or the other. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I would like to ask the City Attorney what are our 1
options if they are already meeting all the, it's a conditional use permit.
They're meeting everything that we're asking them to meet. How will we be
served by delaying this further?
Elliott Knetsch: Well the conditions are as requested by staff. Council may
agree with those conditions. May have other conditions so I don't know if what
staff is suggesting is acceptable to Council for conditions.
Mayor Chmiel: By discussions I'm hearing here, there may be some other real
concerns.
Councilman Mason: Well I understand that but we have approved, rightly or
wrongly the Goodyear operation and I understand that there are community members
that feel very strongly about this. I kind of feel unfortunately like what's
been done is done on that site and I think quite honestly the City, had we acted
originally when our City Planner suggested getting a task force going, I think
we could have avoided a lot of this. Unfortunately we didn't and I guess I'm
not happy with an Abra Auto Service center going in there. Don't get me wrong.
My contention is that after the work session, we're still not going to have any
options. So if we're just putting these off to grasp at a couple of straws, I
don't think we can do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and just to clarify some things that were in the paper, a
letter to the editor taking that this is the same old Council that they had seen
before, I stand to that person to be advised this isn't, and I objected to that
rather strenuously. I do feel though that those people, if they are in
compliance, just like anybody else would like to build anywhere else, they're in
compliance with the requirements of the City Code, we cannot stop them. That's
to be understood. There's no way that we can do this, nor would I impose the
City under any circumstances to be put to a suit because of that. And I just
want that understood. But discussions on the floor is as such and if there are
any other discussions.
21 1
1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Wing: Well I can go down a list of 1,000 questions and 1,000 items
I that are going to take half the night to answer here and may still approve it.
But I believe this item is so significant and the impact on the city and it's
continuation of the strip development and the movement of the auto industry out
I of downtown, I think it needs to be addressed at a workshop. I think the
Council needs to sit down and go over this with the attorneys and go over this
with planning and set some expectations, and I won't question it's approval. It
I may be our only option but it's certainly going to be with better faith and
people are going to know where this Council stands once and for all and I want
to know about the lot behind it. What's going to happen. I want to know about
buffering for the neighborhood. I've got a lot of questions. This isn't the
II time or place to do it. We have not had the time as Council to sit down and
review this item and issue and this is I think a tremendous impact on the city.
I don't think it would be to the benefit of the applicant to move on this
I tonight. I think it'd be very unfair to him. -
Councilman Senn: Don, I guess you know I feel quite the same way and I can't
I disagree with a lot of the things you're saying but I guess I have a lot of
questions of our attorney as to how and why other cities passed even specific
moratoriums against this type of use and get away with it. I mean like I say,
I'm getting so much conflicting information on this issue, or these issues, that
II I agree with Dick, we really need to get it into a session where we can get all
the issues on the table and look at them.
I Mayor Chmiel: True. I guess one other thing that I look at too is that it's
our responsibilities to provide the kinds of needs for the community, for the
residents of this community for whatever this might be. Whether it be a grocery
store or a gas station to provide those conveniences for these people within our
I community. I'm not saying that the need is not here. I think some of those
needs are basically here and that's why you grow as you do grow within a
community. I think we have to look down the road a long way to determine those
I basic needs for this community and that's the only thing that I'd just like to
impose upon your minds is that there is a need for this within the community.
Thank heavens I never had the opportunity to look for those needs but I've had
II kids driving cars that have had those needs and had to look for something close
to home.
Councilman Senn: Well Don I think one of the issues is we want to look, just to
I go on the tail end of that. Maybe you do need it but I think that's part of the
question we need to look at. If we're going to have it, where does it go. I
mean the east part of Highway 5 at this point is an atrocity. In my mind and a
II lot of other people's minds. It contains so many gas stations. So many, I
shouldn't say so many. That's all it contains.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're all saying the same thing. Let's put it in a
I work session and deal with it.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor to table this particular item to
II our work session and be brought before Council back on March 8th. Paul.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, it sounds like the topic of this work session is
II something that, I mean I'm glad it's going to happen because I think we could
have started a long time ago. The thing I'm concerned with is we're tossing out
II 22
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 ,
a lot of ideas that have been tossed out, this is probably the third or fourth
time. And they're valid ideas but we have somebody who submitted an application
here almost a year ago and we still haven't processed it. We've continued it
several times because they didn't satisfy what we felt we needed. They
continued it once. One time we didn't have a quorum. It's been continued '
because we didn't like the architecture. We continued it because we thought we
might do a moratorium. Then we put it back on the agenda. Now we're continuing
it to have another work session. I'm not sure. I mean it's really hard to
define what the statutory requirements are for processing an application. But
it's pretty clear this one's not working nearly as smoothly as these things are
supposed to. And I honestly don't know at what point, is there a line here
where the thing's going to be approved if we don't act and have we crossed it or
are we on the verge of crossing it? I don't know the answer to that.
Councilman Wing: Paul, if it's a mistake, iF's a permanent mistake. Whether ,
it's legal or not. If it's a mistake, it's a permanent mistake and I want to
make sure that if we pass a permanent mistake, that we gave it our very best.
That's all. Because this is on my shift and it's going to be there with fenders
piled up outside 20 years from now and who knows what else is going on.
Councilman Mason: No, no outside storage.
Councilman Wing: If you want to run this tonight, we can beat it to death but
thiE is the first time the Council's getting a chance to look at it and it's
come up through the ranks and I've got a feeling that if the Council looks at it
tonight without having resolved this in a quiet little work session. I mean
it's a public meeting. Anybody can attend that work session, but at least when
it goes to the Council next time, it will be pretty definitive on where we're
going to go probably. And I think that short delay for that applicant is really
in his benefit at this point. It will save him a lot of embarrassment and
question; and if's and but's and why's and where's and I want 3 more trees and
we argue all night long. By the way, I don't see a landscaping report in there
either so I would have stopped it tonight for the landscaping report. I'm
rot...10 minute period here going to, if the landscaping's my key figure, I'm
not going to decide it tonight in a 10 minute time period. I need time to study
it and I have not seen it so that would have shut it down for me tonight alone.
Sharmin Al - Jaff: You saw it with the Goodyear application. It's the exact same
landscaping plan. And we are requesting additional landscaping.
Councilman Wing: Okay. I did not understand that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call the
question.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Abra Auto Service
Center Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit until after the City Council
work session March 3, 1993. All voted in favor except Councilman Mason who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I believe you gave your clarification.
11
23 ,
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I just wanted, and again. I'm agreeing with what
Paul is saying. I'm not saying I want Abra there or not. I just agree with
what Paul is saying.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 36 ACRES INTO 33 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3
OUTLOTS, BOLEY SUBDIVISION, 7340 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, LUNDGREN BROS.
Kate Aanenson: Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Bros is proposing to
develop 36 acres of property into 33 single family lots. This property is
currently owned by Mr. Boley. It's part of a larger parcel that's also in
Victoria. If I can explain the limits of the property here. This area here is
in the city of Chanhassen. This is outlots. Exemptions...from the property...
so these are actually in the city.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Outlots are not within the city of- Chanhassen?
Kate Aanenson: No. These right here are exemptions. This is all Victoria and
this is also part of Victoria. So there is a...city line that splits the back
of those lots. The property has a gross density of .91 units per acre and a net
density of 1.37 units per acre. There's two wetlands on site and the rolling
topography has some significant views from the property and some treed areas
also. The three tree areas located along Minnewashta Parkway on Lots 1 and the
backs of Lots 13, 12, 11, 10 and there's also significant tree areas in Outlot
C. At this time the area, Outlot C is being left out. It seems to make sense
that the property to the south, which is in Victoria is lotted out, that the
access be gained from Victoria's side and we think this makes good planning
sense too in the fact that you can save those significant amount of trees. As I
mentioned, the Victoria city line, the City Attorney, Don Ashworth and myself
' did meet with Victoria. They had concerns about the lot line splitting the
subdivision and their preference would be to have it pulled in and not plat that
into two different jurisdictions. It's our contention that we have other
circumstances in the city where we provided service where properties aren't in
the city. We have this across the street actually with Victoria. The church
and those homes part of the Trolls Glen area. We feel like, as far as the lot
remnants it makes less sense to leave that and to be platted into the
subdivision_
Councilman Senn: Just so I understand what you're talking about. This is the
line right here?
Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah, you can see the lines up to the back of these.
The homes would actually fall into the city so it's the back portion of the lot
that would actually fall into the city of Victoria.
Councilman Senn: But the houses would be in Chanhassen and the back of the lot
$ wouldn't be?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: And that line goes right there?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. So we feel it doesn't make sense to leave that as a
lot remnant Although in working we've asked Victoria and obviously their
1 24
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
approportion is a part of the puzzle on this. They would have to give because
the backs of those lots do fall in their jurisdiction. They do have to give
approval for the subdivision. Again, we feel that this area here itself may
also make sense to be in part of Chanhassen and we're looking at that issue
itself as far as annexation. We do have services in Minnewashta Parkway to
provide services. We've asked Victoria to look at how they plan on servicing
this area and providing access. There is a significant amount of wetlands to
the west, including Tamarack Lake and a wetland surrounding that. What we're
looking at is how access would be provided to this area... The Shoreland
regulations, Lake St. Joe is classified as a natural environment lake. All the
lots abutting the lake, the riparian lots do meet the 40,000 square foot
requirement with the lot width. There are 12 lots that do not meet the 125 foot
lot requirement and we did recommend variances from that. The Planning
Commission did have concern with giving a blanket variance. What does that do
to further projects that would come forward. ,o staff did address an intent
statement reflected in condition number 14 as to why we felt that those lots
that are not abutting the lake, why they should be under the 125 foot lot width.
We feel it doesn't effect the density in any way and it's really...to the
subdivision. It's not going to give less lots. The wetland regulations, as I
mentioned there's two wetlands. One adjacent to the lake and the other one is
right here. This one was left off the wetland inventory, although we have gone
out and looked at a wetland special...went out and inventoried it. All the lots
abutting the wetland do meet the setback requirements which is 40 feet under the
natural classification. This is one of the few natural wetlands we have in the
city as part of the new wetland regulations. As you recall, we require
re- vegetation and have a 20 foot average so it can meander 10 to 30 feet, which
all these lots can meet that. As a part of that we haven't come up with a
vegetation requirement but we will be looking at it before it comes back to
final plat. One of the concerns that we did have, in looking at the grading
issue, and the trees. The amount of grading going towards the wetland. When
you first look at it, at first blush it seems like a lot of grading back towards
the edge of the wetland but upon further investigation it was determined that
actually this area was farmed right up to the wetland already and going back and
requiring the re- vegetation actually is going to improve the situation. And the
other issue is that you get a positive flow, to have the run -off run back
towards the street. The fill is, this is the edge of the wetland. You bring
the fill in and they wanted to get a positive, this is a 1 flow back in the
street to actually get into the storm water system into the pre - treatment ponds
so we can pre -treat it before it goes into the wetlands. So at first blush
again as I mentioned, it appeared to be a significant amount of grading but then
upon further investigation it makes good planning sense and drainage sense. As
I mentioned earlier, this can be serviced from utilities from Minnewashta
Parkway. There's also a trail as a part of that project that's being put in by
the city. I mentioned earlier that we're looking at maybe stubbing, depending
on what Victoria does, there's two accesses going to the property. Off of
Minnewashta Parkway, this property is developed in that format. Otherwise,
depending on how this lays out...provide access to Victoria to the west.
Parkland, the Parks and Recreation Commission has met on this. They're
recommending that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication.
As far as trails, they're also recommending that they accept trail fees.
Landscaping. I mentioned that there is some trees that will be moved as far as
the grading. Mostly in this area right in here. Councilman Wing had brought up
an issue too that the views looking across the wetland...pretty much is my
25 1
1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
11 understanding is looking across the wetlands to Minnewashta Parkway on the backs
of these lots. In meeting with the applicant, we'd recommend an additional
condition of approval, that being number 17. That we work, before we come back
I for final plat, to come up with an appropriate landscaping plan on the riparian
lots to try and soften that look across the wetland. As I mentioned, the
Planning Commission was concerned about the intent of giving blanket variances
on the lots that did not meet the shoreland width requirements and we did add
II that in the condition of approval of the intent. Items (a) and (b). It doesn't
effect the density and that's only the lots that are not abutting the lake. One
other item of clarification would be condition number 4. There seems to be a
I couple different interpretations as to what the flood elevation is between the
Watershed and the DNR and Bonestroo, our consulting engineers have given us a
different number. So we'll be working with the applicant on that to determine
what that elevation is. So based on that, staff recommends approval and the
II Planning Commission recommended approval also with "the conditions in the staff
report. I've highlighted in bold the changes that the Planning Commission did
make to the report.
II Councilman Mason: And there will be one more condition about the landscaping?
II Kate Aanenson: Yeah, 17 you need to add. Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: 17. Landscaping.
II Kate Aanenson: Landscaping. Additional on those lots, the riparian lots.
Councilman Sean: The issue is what, the people on the other side don't want to
I be able to see across...?
Kate Aanenson: No, I think Councilman Wing brought that up and he can
articulate a little bit better. It's my understanding that the view, this
person...across the lake and that we've taken down some trees in this area so
you're not looking right at the grass going up to the back of the houses. Maybe
putting in some cluster of trees. We do have a requirement in the landscaping
II ordinance that requires that each new home you have to put 1 tree in. But that
may, normally we require it in the front. We want somet!ling in the back so when
you look across the lake up towards the house, that there's something to break
r1 up the line. Kind of soften it.
Councilman Senn: Do those trees exist on the other side then?
I Kate Aanenson: Are there trees on the other side?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Maybe Dick can explain his.
I I Councilman Wing: Well, looking across Lake St. Joe, what you kind of have is
the Sound of Music. Mary could be up on the hill singing because it's pretty
wide open and it's just sort of an open knoll if you will. And if you come into
Chanhassen. Mark where I was really coming from here, as you come into
II Chanhassen from the east, just prior to our city border, there's a large swamp.
Wetland down there and then right straight across is all these little monopoly
II 26
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
houses and that's it. I mean you go from this wetland right to this stark
neighborhood. No trees. No vegetation. Nothing. Well I don't expect Terry to
come in and landscape or buffer or block those homes. They want their views. I
do on the lake where I live. But I thought there's just one specific area,
actually it's lots 7, 8 and 9 are the only ones that are going to be effected.
Because there's trees off to the south and there's trees along the north border
that will probably, some of those will probably stay so my thinking was just to
break up the impact because it's such a touchy environmental area to, I've got
to let Terry decide what he's going to do but my thought was to put in 3, 4, 5
pine trees with a couple hardwoods clustered in one spot and another one may be
here and another there so that the impact across the lake doesn't go straight
into this hill. Straight into the backs of these homes. That there's some
buffering. Environmental buffering between the homes and this area. And if you
were to drive out there, you'd see what I'm talking about immediately. Very
stark and I think we deserve to have it buffered a little bit in the planning
process, but not blocking views. Not buffering the homes from the area. Just
strategically placed trees that are going to give some buffering to the impact
of this development on Lake St. Joe.
Councilman Sean: Okay. So I mean that's not being interpretted then by staff
as some kind of solid landscaping wall so these people can't look at.
Kate Aanenson: No, no, no. No, that's why we're leaving it kind of open just 1
to work with the staff to come up with an appropriate and you'll see it when we
come back for final plat.
Mayor Chmiel: Does the applicant wish to say something? Briefly.
Rick Sathre: Your honor, I'm Rick Sathre with Sathre - Berquist, 150 South
Broadway in Wayzata. I'm the engineer and planner for Lundgren Bros on this
project and Mr. Forbord, Terry Forbord is here from Lundgren as well. He's
asked me to just briefly show you one slide and just to reiterate that Lundgren
Bros are contract purchasers of all of the Howard Boley property, which is a
little strange in it's boundary configuration and does lie in both cities. We
will be pursuing approvals in Victoria as well. I've got an overhead that shows
the homes. Councilmember Senn was interested in seeing how the homes related to
the boundary line between the two cities. Here's that municipal boundary right
here. You can see the houses would be comfortably in Chanhassen and the
Victoria part of those lots would be the backyard space or a portion of the
backyard space. We think it's a good way to deal with that very strange strip
of land. What else could we do? The staff's done a terrific job with the
report. We're in agreement with the condition that's being added to work on
softening the views of those riparian lots. We want the development to look
very nice. These lots are very large and the homes will be very nice in this
subdivision. Lot areas range from 20,000 square feet up to about 121,000 square
feet. It's a little unusual for any city but Chanhassen as well. I'd be happy
to answer any questions that you would have. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Rick, let me ask a question in regard to the proposal and the
ghost portion as to what might go within the city of Victoria. I don't have
any real problems or too many concerns with the part that's within Chanhassen.
But I would take a position that the city of Chanhassen is not in a position to
provide water and sewer for those areas within the city of Victoria.
27 1
11
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Rick Sathre: We understand that you would prefer not to extend utilities into
an adjoining city.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I just want that put on record so everyone is aware of
that. In the event that this becomes annexed into the city of Chanhassen, I
don't have any objections to that. But I think what we have to do as far as the
city's concerned, we have to watch the total amounts of sewer addage that we're
going to need for our own city or we're going to find ourselves in a position
like Chaska running out of area for that, as they have presently. Their sewage
treatment plant no longer can facilitate any additional building. So we made an
agreement between Chaska and Chanhassen. We're going to connect into our
intercept but in the same token the city of Chanhassen is getting something back
from that in areas that we can go closer to their facility, we're able to
11 connect into their sewage system to be provided Ditto their sewage treatment
plant. So I just want that understood. We have to get something for something
and I think we have to be careful on what we do with that. Mark.
' Councilman Senn: I guess two questions on two separate issues. One is, I see
number 16, the existing dock on Lake St. Joe on the Boley property should be
removed. Is there something implied in that?
11 Kate Aanenson: Well there was a discussion with the Planning Commission, since
those are riparian lots, that maybe each homeowner would want to put a dock in.
As I mentioned earlier, this is one of the few natural wetlands that we have in
the city and our concern is that we'd be coming in with a wetland alteration
permit on each one of those lots. And I think the intent is that they have
access on Minnewashta Parkway where there is an access and that would be the
desired intent to use that access. Mr. Boley has a dock right now and that be
taken out and then encourage the residents to use the parkway and go over and
use that public access on the lake.
Councilman Senn: So we are not, are we or are we not negating their right then
to put a dock in on their property?
Kate Aanenson: Well, they'd have to go through a wetland alteration permit and
the only way they could get one is a significant space between the vegetation
and the lake. The only way we could do it is under a boardwalk and I think that
would be a chance to not allow those.
Councilman Wing: If you could go and look at this, this is a low area. A very
intense, steep, muddy swamp area and to put a dock out there, I don't know what
you'd accomplish even when you got out there.
11 Kate Aanenson: Exactly.
Councilman Wing: And there is no fishing in the lake either by the way.
Councilman Senn: There is good fishing in that lake. That's what I'm wondering
about. How do you get to the fish Wing?
Councilman Wing: There is a State access on the lake.
28
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Senn: Because people like you keep saying there isn't any there,
that there's plenty of fish there. '
Paul Krauss: Actually we've heard that that lake is 80 feet deep.
Councilman Wing: I have a 75 foot anchor line and last summer we never hit
bottom. Scared the daylights out of me.
Paul Krauss: And I've heard that there may be some fish in there, although I
don't think it's ever stocked.
Mayor Chmiel: Sorry I brought it up.
Councilman Wing: ...but you see no, there are no ice houses out there because
they're not getting anything during the winter but during the summer and
spring... 1
Councilman Senn: I'll go diving there this summer and find out. Second
question. Is there some, I don't know, this split up lot situation. My concern
is, I mean is there any way that we can put some type of a governance or, I
don't know what the right words are. Stipulations or something as it relates to
covenants or whatever on the property so that the back part of the properties 11 don't all of a sudden not meet Chanhassen rules and become whatever, we can
pursue whatever we want to do and do whatever we want to routine versus meeting
the same rules that the front part of the lot has to meet. MI
Paul Krauss: Which standards are we?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean if you take these lots that are...split between
the cities, as I envision it, okay yes. You've got the front part of the lot
which operates under one set of rules, i.e. Chanhassen. Let's say Victoria has
no rules on the back half and all of a sudden we're in World War III because our 11 residents are fighting with each other over uses, sheds, this, that and the
other thing. Can we put, I guess my question is, to avoid that situation, can
we put some sort of covenants or whatever on those properties through the
development process which says, the residents have to assure or make sure, I
mean again. I mean we can't effect the land because the land's in Victoria.
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Senn: But we could make it a stipulation of the front half, for them
to stay in compliance on the front half, they have to meet our rules on the back
half. ,
Paul Krauss: I'm sure sooner or later somebody's going to come up with
something that we would not favor back there but it's hard to know what it might
be.
Councilman Senn: You know it's going to happen.
Paul Krauss: To the extent that our regulations are more restrictive than
Victoria's, presumably something like that could occur. If Victoria were more
restrictive than us, then it really wouldn't matter what we said because the 1
29 1
1
I City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II land's not annexed. Their ordinance would still prevail. In the form of
covenants though, it presents something of an enforcement problem because then
the only recourse we have is a legal one to...against the property owner. I
I suppose it's possible. I would defer to the City Attorney on that. I haven't
heard about doing it but this situation is odd enough that maybe it's
worthwhile.
II Councilman Senn: Do you understand what I'm saying? See my point?
Rick Sathre: Sure. Sure. At least this isn't as bad as the Sofitel or
II whatever it is. Where the kitchen's in one city and the rest is in another.
Councilman Senn: I understand...situations unfortunately.
II w
Rick Sathre: Lundgren Bros puts restrictive covenants on their projects and
they would apply the same standards to the lots that lie in two cities to the
lots that lie only in Chanhassen. Those covenants haven't been worked out at
II this point but they govern certainly additional restrict use of the property and
we'll be working on that.
II Councilman Senn: I guess in my mind, Lundgren Bros does a good job of that. I
guess I would just like to be assured or make sure that when they do draft that,
and maybe this comes back to staff, that that in effect be considered and be put
I in there so we don't run into that problem in the future.
Rick Sathre: You know their interest is not to have neighbors be bad neighbors
to each other,
I Councilman Senn: Unfortunately we have to live with it longer.
I Rick Sathre: That's true.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions?
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have a question of staff. Just being a novice
at this. There seems to be a lot of open issues. I realize that this is
preliminary approval but I guess it's also a question to my fellow Council
II members.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, being that it's strictly preliminary as yet, and until it
II comes back and finalized, then we can have our full say as to what we really
want. But the only reason I brought up the issues on the sewer and water is I
thought we'd best put that up right now and take our position and say that's
where it's at.
II Paul Krauss: I don't know if it will put your mind at ease, Councilwoman
Dockendorf, but apart from the unusual configuration with the city line here,
II it's actually a pretty simple plat. I mean the kinds of issues that are
outstanding at this point are pretty standard and are generally worked out in
due course.
II Kate Aanenson: Like I said, the utilities are there. There's no pending
getting service to them.
II 30
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was looking at the...of the wetland.
Kate Aanenson: Right. That was just the one, we had that analysis, preliminary
it looks like it's an ag urban and that house, under those circumstances would
meet it. There's no re- vegetation. The other issue is the storm water and they
wait until they get preliminary approval and come back with those calc's and
make sure the pond's the right size. But actually this one is pretty straight
forward. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard, do you have any questions?
Councilman Wing: Well, first off Colleen. Where it says preliminary, it means
the next time you see it is final and then we get into these debates. Now is
the time to, rather than debating it now so that it doesn't even get to us
without this done. Number 14, lot width requirements. I don't favor a variance
on that. That condenses the project down and I don't like the appearance of
that. And I happen to like the other 25 foot lot width and I'd like to stick
with that. That's the...I'd like to see this without that variance.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No other discussions?
Councilman Senn: Now that requirement picks some kind of an average point 1
though right? Because of the cul -de -sacs and all that sort of thing.
Kate Aanenson: Measured at the 30 foot setback line is where we measure that
from. So if you're on a cul -de -sac and you measure where the house sits back.
The width.
Mayor Chmiel: The homes being located within the cul -de -sac and setback 1
requirements.
Kate Aanenson: You can go back another... 1
Mayor Chmiel: You're saying it's only going to be, where does the footprint go
from that point? Once, well we don't know yet but that probably shows some of
them there. It has to be a 30 foot setback from the road in itself.
Kate Aanenson: For the property line, right.
Councilman Wing: For the boundary line?
Councilman Senn: Which I've seen several already come through where we, I mean
that's a fairly standard condition on cul -de -sacs. Is that they don't...
Kate Aanenson: Well curvature. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Make sure I understood that. 1
Councilman Mason: So Councilman Wing, why are you against that? If you'd
repeat that. 1
31 1
1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II Councilman Wing: It's just condensing down these, as 1 drive around and look at
these, I don't like those lots that come in like this and suddenly your frontage
is reduced down to nothing and then densities and the appearance of those lots
II are awkward and I don't like them. I'd like to see the full front footage on
all these as much as we can.
I Councilman Mason: Now according to this, the density is not going to be changed
to the project by this.
Councilman Wing: No, but I'm looking at some of these lots and instead of
II coming in and focusing on the driveways and mailboxes and everything, it spreads
this whole thing out and makes the density look less.
II Kate Aanenson: I was going to say. We just lookee at too, they're still
exceeding the 90 foot which would be our standard. Even the ones they're
requesting variances on I guess.
II Rick Sathre: Your Honor, Councilmember Wing. I'm not sure I heard you. You're
talking about Lot 13 that has the neck on it?
II Councilman Wing: Just item 14. Variance to the lot width requirements.
Rick Sathre: Alright. So it's all of them.
1 Councilman Wing: It's not 14 thru 25...
Kate Aanenson: Right. We'l) probably be showing the setback.
II Rick Sathre: What were really asking for is, we're fully complying with the
area requirements_ In order to meet the width requirements we'd have to add
II more blacktop and that doesn't seem to serve any good purpose.
Councilman Senn: I like the area requirements I see on these lots. Some of
II them we've been seeing lately come all the way down to the minimum or whatever
we said.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Okay. Can I have a motion for the preliminary plat
II review.
Councilman Senn: I move approval.
II Councilman Mason: Second.
I Mayor Chmiel: Other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Preliminary Plat
#93 -1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots
II subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following
conditions:
II 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of
the public improvements.
II 32
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in
accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the
City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City
Council.
3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed
District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department, and MWCC. '
4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm
sewer calculations designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding
calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event,
24 hour duration, and will discharge at the pre - developed runoff rate. In
addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and
data showing the nutrient removal capacity` of all ponds. The applicant
shall not place fill material below the 100 year flood elevation of Lake
St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5.
Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff
is working with the Watershed District to resolve where the 100 year flood
elevation is located. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibilty
of consolidating the two storm water rentention ponds located on Outlots A
and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be
established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the
wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's
storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez, as outlined in his
memo dated January 15, 1993.
5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow
the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment
control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of
the slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed
200 feet in depth from the toe of the slope, an additional row of Type I
silt fence should be installed. All areas distrubed during site grading
shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber
blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where
utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the
construction site to a hard - surface road shall be surfaced with crushed
rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook.
6. All acess points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the
final plat as 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access
points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4 =1 slopes. Drainage
and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water
quality /retention ponds on the final plat. 1
7. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly
street extension indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE ".
I/
Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain -of -title of each lot.
All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other.
B. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the ,
potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of
33 1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II Victoria through one of the phases of development.
II 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project
No. 90 -15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this
phase of the development.
II 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations.
11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent
II monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the
southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland
standards as determined by its classification.
11 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria.
13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
I 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be
given on Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1,
II for the following reasons:
a. All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots
not adjacent to the lake are recommended for a variance.
I b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement
will not affect the density of the project.
II c. The MnfNR's shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied within
the metro area.
II 15. Comrliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along
Minnewa hta Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot.
II 16. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed.
17. Additional landscaping shall be added on riparian lots.
II All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING TRAIL AND LAND DEDICATION, FIRST
READING.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, City Council members. In light of all the talk about
II controls and gaining more control, I'm pleased to bring to you two issues this
evening. Unfortunately on item 5(a), the amendment to the subdivision code, it's
not that we're gaining a whole lot of ground. It's simply that we're
I solidifying what has not been in the ordinance to date but what we have been
asking developers. So the following explanations are given for those proposed
amendments. Being to subparagraph (a), simply a clarification. Adding trail
fund to description. Previously it said park fund. Subparagraph {j), the
I existing subparagraph fails to address those situations when land in lieu of
dedication fees or a combination thereof is desired as a part of a commercial/
industrial development. The standards of 10% of market value or 10% of gross
II
34
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
land is consistent with current practices. An example of this would be the Opus '
development, the Gateway which came in. They were looking at a combination or
strictly a land dedication issue. Subparagraph (1) clarifies the establishing
of trail dedication fees. Previously when the trail fee was specifically named
in the ordinance, in order to change that fee you needed to amend the ordinance.
What this does is pull it out, reference that the fee will be set by resolution
and then subject to annual fees by resolution each year. Adding to subparagraph
(t) is an important addition. The desire to see a functional trail system in
Chanhassen is high. Subparagraph (t) puts into action the city's comprehensive
trail plan by seeing to it that trails represented under this plan become
reality. There has been a time honored argument that trail x does not need to
be constructed because at present when you find when that subdivision is coming
through, the trail segment which is adjacent to this development which is on the
City's comprehensive plan, did not make any sense. I do not believe that that
argument holds water any longer. We're becoming well enough defined and
developed. Our Highway 5 corridor trail spine will be developed from Powers
Blvd to Highway 41 shortly. We should be making those north /south connections
up through that trail spine. What in fact has occurred is a short sighted
looking 2 to 3, 4 years down the line has wielded great harm upon the future's
non - motorized transportation system. Incremental improvements in and of
themEelves do not amount to anything buying those over a 5 or 10 year period of
time and the city will have a nice trail system. As such it is recommended that
the approval of the first reading of the subject ordinance be approved this
evening. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? I'll call for a motion.
Councilman Mason: So moved. 1
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the first reading of
the amendment to Chapter 18, Section 18 -79 of the City Code Concerning Parkland
Dedication Requirements as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
B. APPROVE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 1993 PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES.
Todd Hoffman: Item 5(b), as previously explained is married to the proposed
ordinance amendment which you just passed. As such, the approval of the 1993
park and trail fees has been postponed until this time. For reasons expressed
in my remarks concerning the ordinance amendment, the City's park and trail fees
are in need of revision. The attached park dedication survey completed in
December of la;t year shows that at 8 of the 9 cities surveyed have fees higher
than Chanhassen's. As you look through those cities, it's clear that they're
not the same population. In fact, most of them, if not all, are higher
population than Chanhassen. Please remember that park fees are not set on the
basis of population but on how much land costs in your city. How rapid
development is occurring. We need to recoup those costs through park fees so we
can go out and purchase property which satisfies the intent of this subdivision
section which says, as your city develops you need to acquire enough property to
satisfy their recreational needs of those developments. Land values are the
driving force as I've stated. I went through and demonstrated a case study in
1
35
1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II your packet. The result of which are backed up by the recent survey of other
cities. An increase in the city's park and trail dedication fees is warranted.
Therefore in the absence of any questions which I will have answered by the City
1 Council, it is recommended that the 1993 park and trail dedication fees be
established as followed. Residential single family or duplex units at $600.00
per unit. Multi - family and apartment units at $525.00 per unit. Commercial/
II industrial property at $3,000.00 per acre and the trail dedication fee being
one -third of the cost of dedication fees.
Mayor Chmiel: We've not raised this, as you've indicated, since December of
II '91?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
II Mayor Chmiel: Which is basically a year plus a couple months.
II Todd Hoffman: And additionally pointed out the rate increases are somewhat
conservative when compared to the case study. If you go ahead and look at the
survey, in establishing our commercial /industrial fee we use the land value of
$30,000.00 per acre. That is somewhat low in most instances. If you look to
II Burnsville or Apple Valley scenario, they're upwards of $40,000.00 to $65,000.00
to $70,000.00 per acre. We referenced the purchase by Target of land in our
downtown area for over $200,000.00 per acre. You see that that cost is not...
1 Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
II Councilman Senn: In looking at basically what you put together here, I don't
think there's any question that it's justified to raise the fees. As far as the
case stud; and the basis we're using for doing that, I guess I agree that land
value is one methodology that should apply was in that equation. But I don't
1 think it should be the only one. I look at this and I also say to myself, well
look at the uses and look at the pressures these uses are going to put on the
system and I look at it and say gee, $600.00 per unit for single family but only
I $.525.00 for multi. Then I look at it even further and say geez, $3,000.00 an
acre for commercial /industrial. I mean that's like one house every 8,000 square
feet which we don't allow. I mean it seems to me that we're kind of over
burdening commercial property who is probably is the lightest pressure or use as
II it relates to the trail system. At the same time that we're not treating multi
probably on an equal basis with single family. I mean and again, I'm looking at
it more from, here's what you've got. Here's what's pressuring it versus just a
I pure land value scenario and I guess I've got some problems I guess with that
being pure part, or the only part I should say of the equation.
I Todd Hoffman: Councilman Senn, you're absolutely correct. Philosophy plays a
very bit part in establishing of these fees. If you go through the survey which
you have, you'll see the different philosophies which led to their fee being
higher in this particular category or lower in this particular category. I'd
II welcome input in that regard from the Council so this year we can make any
necessary amendments and make necessary changes in the future. Your neighboring
city Eden Prairie feels very strongly about the equality of single family versus
II multi - family. In fact, I think there are $840.00 per unit for any housing
dwelling unit. Commercial /industrial is usually looked upon as a different use.
They put some very heavy uses onto our ballfields with their commercial leagues.
II 36
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
Mens and women's open type of softball leagues. They also bring a lot of
employees into this city. I don't know what the statistics are but we employ a
large number of folks in the city and hopefully they're out making use of the
trail system and who are in fact out making use of the trail system during their
work time hours. When you think of an employee, whether they're a 1, a 2, a 10 '
or a lifetime employee at a certain company, you try to create an environment, a
work environment such as Chanhassen has, where they can feel comfortable coming
to work. They have some feeling of open space. They have some feeling that if 11 they want to partake in recreation after the workday, they have that available
to them so the city has maintained that commercial /industrial segment of our -
city. It does bear a large part of the responsibility for creating those open
and recreational spaces. That's been some of the philosophy to date. And again
the number of case studies, as I've indicated, are numerous. You can cut this
thing a 1,000 different ways and come up with always somewhat different figures.
But certainly facts and figures and numbers which are... 1
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Wing: I move approval. 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Resolution 193 -13: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve the resolution approving the 1993 Park and Trail Dedication fees as
follows: Residential single family or duplex units at $600.00 per unit.
Multi- family and apartment units at $525.00 per unit. Commercial/ industrial
property at $3,000.00 per acre and the trail dedication fee being one -third of
the cost of dedication fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Mason: Two things about the workshop. The direction I'd like to see
us take, and one of them's already been touched on, is task Highway 5. I think
some people have claimed that Council has not taken leadership on this task
force and I think I would be inclined to agree at this point and I think we need
to take a strong look at that. Along with that, Don Ashworth mentioned at the
last HRA some sort of 2002. Some sort of vision for the city. I think we as
local government, city government have a decision or have to think about whether
we want to be caretakers of Chanhassen or whether we want to be leaders of
Chanhassen. Now I prefer to be a leader and I think if we do, I would like to
see the Council doing some sort of visioning on what do we foresee happening in
the year 2002. What do we want the city of Chanhassen to be like? Not just
next year, but in 5 years and 10 years. So I guess those are the two things I'd
like to have us take a real strong look at.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I was hopeful that the letter that was written back to Jim 1
Andrews would have been in our administrative section with the letter indicating
that but I'm sure, I think I showed that to everybody.
Councilman Senn: I guess, you know one concern I get is I thought this one work
session we set up was really relating to the moratorium issue on Highway 5. I
think we've set this thing up to go before the Planning Commission which has a
finite period which we're running which I believe is 2 hours. I think to take
37
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
those 2 issues on, probably each one of them is deserving many more than 2
hours.
Councilman Mason: And that's fine Mark. I just, I agree with what you're
saying. I think the two issues are hand in hand. And I'm fine with having
Highway 5 be the major thurst but I want us to keep close to the front this idea
of what the future's going to bring. Because that's a real good point.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think that's why we're discussing that. Why we
brought it up in the first place is we all are trying to get that vision in
' place because I think it was you Mark that articulated in the Council race that
unless we define a vision within the next couple years it will just happen and
we won't have...
' Councilman Wing: We've already decided if we don't do it in within the next 6
months, it's going to happen.
' Councilman Sena: Don, we never got back to this last meeting and maybe now's
the appropriate time but I'd still really like to see us set up a regular work
session schedule.
Mayor Chmiel: Something was to be set up by staff.
' Councilman Senn: We were going to set it up I thought at the end of last
meeting and we never came back to it. I'd like to really see, since everybody's
here tonight, if we could pick some kind of a common time to go ahead and start
doing this on a monthly basis.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think Wednesday the 3rd was just an abberation.
We just picked that because it worked well for us but on an ongoing basis,
that's not going to work for me.
Councilman Senn: Well that was a quick pick because we wanted to try to not to
stack staff up. Or we wanted to stack staff up I should say, on a given night.
Mayor Chmiel: We could either make that something either prior to each Council
meeting. Start at 5:30 and have discussions on different things. I'd like to
thumbs down on that one. Or we can establish an additional Monday of each
month.
Councilman Mason: Well that does, the trouble with that is it does bring staff
in another night.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It doesn't necessarily have to bring staff in though.
Councilman Mason: Well, there will be at least 1 or 2 staff people at every one
of those.
Councilman Senn: But let me make a point on that. We could set it for Monday
night and we could move one of the temporary task force or commissions to meet
that same night which does the stacking we're talking about. The temporary
things are going to go away. I hope this doesn't go away. I hope this is a
permanent meeting. We can move things in and out around it because now we've
38
r
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
set that Monday night as a meeting time and stuff, and then we could move
something else around it again. I agree with what staff has brought up at past
meetings. We want to stack it as much as possible so you're not running back
here every night of the week.
Councilman Wing: Well let's back up. I think we've decided, at least a
majority that we want a scheduled Council work session. At least monthly. No
less than monthly. Let's just pick a time. Let's concentrate on that, whenever '
it is.
Mayor Chmiel: You know, Colleen says thumbs down but I think to try to
justifiably do this, if somehow we could do it prior to a Council meeting.
Really because then it eliminates that need of staff being here another night.
God only knows they're here probably about 3 or 4 times during the week. Rather
than making it 5, I thought we could at least'try something in that particular
vein. And maybe starting it at 5 :00. Have a 2 1/2 hour work session prior to
the Council meeting.
Councilman Senn: That's a long attention span for a night.
Mayor Chmiel: It makes a long night, I agree.
Councilman Senn: I'd really rather see a separate Monday.
Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And my concern with that is that we'd end up talking
about that night's agenda as opposed to talking about.
Councilman Senn: Well Dick had suggested I think last time we talked about
this. I thought you were kind of even suggesting it almost as an additional
thing that we maybe meet a half hour early or something and review agendas.
Councilman Wing: I'd like an opportunity because I can't get a hold of staff
during the day. To be here at 7 :00 and go right down the agenda with specific '
concerns, answers, questions, clarifications from the attorney. Things I'm
going to bring up that I may not even have to mention at the meeting then, and
would resolve the problem. So if we met at 7 :00 prior to each one to review,
quick review of the agenda, like Golden Valley does. Their meetings are over
right now because they resolve it. The questions are asked up front.
Councilman Senn: That's the regular Council meeting? '
Councilman Wing: Regular Council meeting.
Councilman Senn: I like that idea too in addition to what we're talking about ,
as a regular work night basically.
Paul Krauss: Minnetonka always, well Minnetonka had regular meetings, work
sessions on an off night. It's a good format to throw things out really. They
also got together a half hour ahead of time in a different room and ate a
sandwich and schmoozed a little bit, which was great because you get to meet and
it's not, the TV cameras aren't on and all that. But I think we run a problem
39
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II when we start thinking that we're going to be talking about what's on the agenda
that night, because as soon as we have more than 2 of you in a room and we talk
about what's on the agenda, we've probably violated the State law.
1 Mayor Chmiel: All we'd have to do is have the newspaper come in and make them
apprised of that.
1 Councilman Senn: Everybody expects it to be a public meeting. It just takes us
out of this and let's us ask some specific agenda questions. I would have loved
to do that on several items tonight.
II Elliott Knetsch: Yeah, if you have it regularly scheduled as a meeting and it's
open to the public, you don't have an open meeting violation.
I r
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I feel real awkward sometimes kind of stating opinions
and getting questions that I'd kind of like to hear for example what the City
Attorney says before time. I don't mind any of that being public but again,
I it'd be nice to have an opportunity to do it without.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, the formalities.
II Councilman Wing: I think we'll run smoother with that so that's one side of it
and I would, as a matter of fact I'll so move that we meet at 7:00 for a quick
preview and a quick question and answer period. And if this fails, it can be
I repealed rapidly.
Councilman Sean: I'll second that.
II Councilman Mason: I didn't think that was under Council Presentations.
I Councilman Senn: Work sessions.
Councilman Wing: Although I might say Mr. Mayor, if you would allow me, because
I was late and I did try desperately hard to get here, if you would allow me to
l add to a Council Presentation. That's what I wanted to bring up tonight so I
would have to ask your permission to present this. In which case then a motion
would stand.
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: While we're on it, how about those late fees? What do
you think?
II Mayor Chmiel: I think it's legitimate to allow that to go. We can try that at
7:00. The only problem is, whoever's going to be sitting on the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals won't be there. If there's something going at that same
II time.
Councilman Senn: Move that up a half hour.
II Councilman Wing: That's right. That ends at 7:00.
Councilman Senn: Of course we could just make it a half hour long and they'd go
II the length they should.
II 40
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other
discussion? ,
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to have the City Council meet at
7:00 prior to each regular City Council meeting to review the agenda and ask
questions. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: That will be at 7:00 on March 8th.
Councilman Wing: And subsequent meetings.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, review of agenda.
Councilman Wing: Before you go, I'm very concerned about staff burnout and
their evenings away from home. They're stretzched now so whatever we're going to
do, it really has to take staff carefully into consideration I think.
Councilman Senn: I agree Dick. I think we should go with the Monday night and
I think again we should take some of the temporary things, the task force types ,
of things and move them to that night so we cluster them. I agree with the
concept totally. It's just that, I think we should set that as a regularly
scheduled thing that we're going to look at with some permantency and we can
plan on our schedules and as task forces go and come, or whatever they can plug
in around the more permanent times. To accommodate staff so they do that.
Councilman Wing: The only reason I'm going to shake in my boots...Monday night, 1
is that for the next year I have a strong commitment over at the Fire
Department.
Councilman Senn: On every Monday night or what?
Councilman Wing: Well, every Monday night but on off Monday nights in 11 particular so I fight to get Mondays off.
Mayor Chmiel: ...save every Monday night that we have, which is our second and
fourth. '
Councilman Senn: So I'm trying to get his scheduling problem.
Councilman Wing: Okay, the last motion was 7:00 on Council meeting nights. ,
Scheduled Council meeting nights.
Councilman Senn: Just regular meeting nights. Not work session nights. ,
Councilman Wing: Now we're looking at an actual work session to deal with heavy
issues such as the Abra and Highway 5 Task Force, etc, etc. 1
Councilman Mason: Well so how about, yeah. How about doing it before a
Planning Commission. Either first or third Wednesday.
Councilman Senn: That's tough for me. See Mondays are easier for me.
Mayor Chmiel: That would be March 3rd. 1
41 1
11 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
1 Councilman Senn: That's bad for you too?
Councilman Mason: Mondays are. Plus the nice thing about doing it before a
II Planning Commission or before an HRA or whatever, is we have to be done by a
certain time. That will I think keep us on task.
Councilman Wing: HRA nights might be a good night. That's a Thursday night
II once a month.
Mayor Chmiel: That'd be the 18th.
I Councilman Wing: How much time do you think we need Mark? Based on what you've
felt so far. I mean these things get pretty light.
o
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I mean, the work sessions, I'd like to really see them
scheduled in a way they don't come up against something because, you know deal
like it's an extra Council night. If there's that many issues coming at us that
I fast, we can put 1 or 2 on the agenda and if one of them takes 2 hours. I don't
mind giving it. I mean I'd much rather be in that situation than being sitting
up at this table with the limited information you have otherwise.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's poll or let's find out what day may be good. Dick
has suggested.
II Councilman Senn: Well Mondays are bad for Dick and I hear Mike saying Mondays
are bad for him.
Mayor Chmiel: How about Wednesdays, which is Planning Commission night or a
Thursday? Which is a Thursday evening on the 11th.
II Councilman Wing: Could HRA be shoved ahead a half hour if we ran into a time
constraint?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I'd suggest that we'd have a hard time getting a forum.
11 Councilman Senn' How about if we do Wednesday but don't necessarily just leave
it as En end with the Planning Commission. I mean if we need room availability,
II we can go t another room or go upstairs or something. I mean I hate to confine
us to that kind of a time period and then have no way out of it.
II Paul Krauss: In fact, do you really want to hold the meeting here or do you
want to hold it upstairs where it's a little more...
Councilman Senn: I'd rather have it outside of the Council chambers.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. No, I'd say keep it upstairs in a courtyard room.
II Councilman Senn: And then if there's somebody needs to run down for the
Planning Commission or whatever.
I Mayor Chmiel: Well I have it written down here for 5 :30.
Councilman Senn: That's the 3rd.
II 42
11
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Now do we want to continue with that each month?
Councilman Senn: Do you want to do 5 :30 or would you rather wait and come later
after you can get home and eat or whatever? I mean again, there's generally not
a reason for us to be at Planning Commission is there?
Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily unless you have an interest with what's going on.
Councilman Wing: Staff has a requirement to be there. ,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 5 :30 I guess I could. It'd be sometimes tough for me
but I'll just deal with that. '
Mayor Chmiel: Now, are you going to be satisfied with once a month or do you
want to have it twice a month? = 1
Councilman Mason: I would like to start with one. If we need more we can add
it but I don't want.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Because everything comes in right after Council so those
would be the discussionary kinds of times when you're going to have it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So what week of the month?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that would be, we would do that one then at 5 :30 on the 3rd
and the one that would follow that would be April 7th.
Councilman Mason: I'll be out of town.
Councilman Wing: Well none of us are going to make them all.
Councilman Mason: Well that's true.
Councilman Wing: I'd also be content if we'd by motion require a monthly work
session to be specified at a specific time. The last meeting of the month for
the next month. We would have to specify when we're going to meet. Then we'd
know the issues.
Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion, before we go to that recommendation. Let's try
these and see what happens and then after that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good idea. 1
Councilman Senn: Yeah. And I think staff understands that what we'd really
like to see at those work sessions is any major items that are coming down at
us.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Paul Krauss: But you don't necessarily want to see, let me clarify that. You
know I've heard a lot of comments that there's concerns that if we've been
working on a subdivision and the Planning Commission's been tossing something
around, if it's Goodyear or whatever, that it's been in the hopper for 6 to 8
43
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
months. You want to have everything that you get be previewed or just major
issues?
Mayor Chmiel: I think possibly major issues more so than just.
Councilman Senn: Projects. I don't think, I mean if there's a major project
coming in that you guys think we ought to know about ahead of time...
Councilman Mason: And I think this gets back to that vision kind of thing too.
I mean my personal feeling is, I mean the nitty gritty day to day stuff isn't,
' that's not our purview for that. My personal feeling is more looking at the big
picture kind of thing.
Mayor Chmiel: When you're establishing a precedee and making sure that's going
' to be the best for what...
Councilman Wing: You know what I'd like Mike, if we in fact can do that over
' the next few months and get these ordinances where we feel we want them and this
task force completed, we may, some of these meetings we might meet every other
month.
' Councilman Macon: I would hope that would be the goal.
Mayor Chmiel.: Okay. We'll go with that for right now.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the agenda for the 3rd is?
11 Mayor Chmiel: The agenda for the 3rd would be the work session.
Councilman Senn: It'd be Highway 5.
Mayor Chmiel: It'd be Highway 5, yep.
Councilman Senn: And then we're going to do this, okay so then in effect it's
going to become the first Wednesday then of the month?
Mayor Chmiel: Planning Commission.
' Councilman Senn: I guess that's my question. Is that always the same as
Planning Commission?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's what we're shooting for right now. Without
establishing a precedent.
Councilman Wing: And on the 3rd it's Highway 5 but also Abra. We tabled Abra
tonight so Abra should be item number 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That should be number 1.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My concern for saying that is I can see us sitting in
a room and you know we just start talking and we don't have any real agenda.
44
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Senn: The work sessions I'm used to going to is yeah, like Abra's an
issue but the real issue is Highway 5 and our vision for that and it gets back
into issues of what do we want to have happen on Highway 5 and do we want a
moratorium and can we have a moratorium and what are the legal issues involved
with that? Then I think last but not least, when you get done with all that,
you come back to an issue of Abra.
Mayor Chmiel: I think if we look at.
Councilman Wing: But it has to be dealt with. '
Mayor Chmiel: With that Abra portion and with Goodyear, I think there's only
one other lot in that particular stretch that would be of any concern so.
Councilman Wing: But I want to know about that
Councilman Senn: I understand Dick. Boy I'll tell you, there's a lot of people
that are concerned about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, no question. ,
Councilman Wing: I think I'll save this comment on the task force. Mike, I
wanted to tag along on your comment. My feelings are that we put aside this
moratorium, which I've never had more hostile phone calls. Minnewashta Parkway
was hostile but these people said, wake up Council. Come on. And the newspaper
editorial I liked. Both Trippler's Trips and that one from that neighbor over
there.
Mayor Chmiel: Don. The one I commented on.
Councilman Wing: Yeah. I didn't take that personally. He's saying.
Mayor Chmiel: I did. '
Councilman Wing: Mr feelings, let me just back up real quickly because I'll
cover this more in detail at the meeting. But when Highway 5 came up and this
corridor study came up, I felt we should spend what was estimated then, between
$25,000.00 to $50,000.00. Bring a professional group in. Engineers. Planners.
The whole thing and sweep this thing through and get it done right now. And we
said, well we can do it in -house and we can do this and one of the, the woman
sitting next to me said, oh we have to be patient and government moves slow and
I said yeah. It moves slow alright unless you make some decisions and want to
be leaders and get moving, and I didn't appreciate our position at all. So we
chose to do it in- house. Now we're saying, we really kind of need some
professional help and we need some technicians and this thing's too big and Paul
I think has said, it will pull us down. I think Paul has got to be funded. I
think he's got to bring in a landscape architect if he needs it. Engineers if
he needs it. He's got to bring in specialists wherever he needs it right now to
get the job done. That's number one. Funding. Number two is I think that we
should instruct staff to pull back and put a moratorium on staff for Lundgren
Bros and whatever else is coming through this city right now, we can assign one
part -time person, Kate or Sharmin to deal with planning but staff goes 90% to
this project until it's completed and they have a moratorium on their projects 1
45
•
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II
and their outside work and their evenings. Whatever happens until this is
II completed. If we're going to do it in- house, then let's turn them loose and get
it done but we can't be running the city and developing and expanding and
growing and expect them to come in and function reasonably on this. And they're
1 getting killed on it and it's not right.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that you're making some good points.
II Councilman Senn: Save it for the work session.
Councilman Wing: 1 will. Okay, but I was just telling you where I'm coming
I from.
Mayor Chmiel: But the problems are trying to allocate those additional dollars
for those kinds of things within and I think where tie initially started it I
II think was the right intent. And it still is moving and it wasn't going slow as
some people may think, but it does take time to pull all those things together.
The only problem being with that is that that...too big. Too many people on it.
II Councilman Wing: Oh, I'm not convinced of that.
11 Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I understand. I've heard, I mean there's been a
bunch of people calling on that too.
Councilman Wing: I just want you to know where I'm coming from and I'll be a
II little more organized...
Councilman Senn: Here's another great one for a work session. Our next item on
II the agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
II SCHOOL /RECREATION ACQUISITION, HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, CITY MANAGER.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll move on to the, hopefully the last item on the
II agenda. Beino that Don is ill, and probably will be there for a few more days
in his bPd, you'll see this next week. I hope you're feeling better Don.
11 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm sure he's watching.
Councilman Senn: He's certainly a sick man if he is.
II Mayor Chmiel: School /recreation property acquisition, Highway 5. But I'm
hopeful that most of you have had an opportunity to look at this, just as a
background. I think we've been looking at this particular site for the last 4
II or 5 year,— We originally had looked at that site for a high school, and
because of all the existing problems that are there, would not accommodate the
total amount of acres that was needed for it. We then came to the conclusion
II that that site would be used either for a junior high or a grade school. Grade
school is the thing that's going to come in. One of the discussions that we've
had, and we've had meetings with the School Board on several occasions. Between
the City of Victoria, Chaska and Chanhassen and East Union, and have had a lot
II of discussions back and forth but the need's basically for within the community
II 46
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
again is going to be for an expansion of the grade school portion, and that's
what we're looking at and it's existing location now is for that. But then in 1
addition to that, somehow I want a commitment back to the School Board that the
next junior high school is going to be located within the city of Chanhassen.
Now we're talking two different kinds of things. We're looking at what Chaska
is doing and is looking for. Their site which was pulled together by Frauenshuh
Companies. The School District are the ones that basically employed them to go
out and start looking. And the area that they're looking at is just in and
adjacent to Chaska's boundaries and Chanhassen boundaries. Proximity of close,
it's right there. They looked at the potential of costs on that per acre and
they're looking at roughly about $15,000.00 per acre plus $2,000.00 additional
costs for utilities. And so they've gone out and looked at that particular part
and the area that they're looking at is County Road 17, and I believe is that 14
or 15 that goes through there.
Todd Gerhardt: Pioneer Trail and Audubon. 11
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. No, no. For the Chaska School Site. High School. Okay,
that's 17 and. 1
Todd Gerhardt: Pioneer Trail.
Mayor Chmiel: Pioneer Trail. Okay. So that proximity is at least moving it a
little closer into Chanhassen. But that's neither here nor there because they
don't know whether or not the referendum will go through. If the referendum
doesn't go through, nothing's going to be moving ahead one way or the other. So
as we look at some of these other things, the Highway 5 Partnership, who are the
owners of that school site for the elementary. And by the way, Dennis Dirlam is
here from the Highway 5 Partnership. Looked at this to be developed almost 5 1
years ago. They were ready to move on it but we weren't because of the MUSA
line and the extension and water and sewer and so forth. And a lot of the
comprehensive plan was also there and some of these things were not fully
incorporated in it. The Partnership right now is finding this type, maybe we'll
buy, maybe we won't isn't acceptable. They've had some offers for that property
as well from what I understand. From developers for residential development
within that particular area and I sort of feel sometimes like that's sort of a
push or a =hove to us as well. Saying I have them but I think it's legally
binding. lust like going to buy a used car. It was only driven by this lady to
church on Sundays. But what I'm trying to get at basically is that we're
looking at this option of establishing this referendum which may fail in '93 and
the School District would need the option of having additional time to represent
the referendum to the public potentially in '94 and '95. And even though that
guide plan shows the property to be school, the underlying zoning is
residential. Once one of the two purchase agreements are signed, as I mentioned
previously, that could go one way or the other. But in light of this, Don and I
have been looking at this with our City Attorney's office and they're seeing the
acquisition process. More than half that site is anticipated basically for
recreational use. And the City and the parcel is approximately 42 acres with
the elementary school requiring 20 acres, if I remember exactly. I think that '
was so indicated. The site of course would be the home for that future expanded
recreational uses including the gyms, that the city can also use within to free
up some more of that space that Todd is saying is needed within the community.
So they're looking at the different costs for this and I think that some of the
47
11
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 ...
II things that I'd like to just quote Don on saying in his overall proposal, as he
says, I think the proposed settlement reached by Campbell, Knutson, Scott
and Fuchs is a very reasonable one. If you've looked at the proposed purchase
II price. I look at the price and I think it's a little bit high yet but they're
doing the negotiating and I'm not and I'd love to do the negotiating but I don't
think they'd let me. If the City is taking the bull by the horns, we will
assure that we'll have this site under control and available for a school
II whenever the referendum is passed and he's suggesting that the approval be
contingent upon staff reaching an agreement with the School District wherein
they would enter into a purchase agreement similar to the one that was proposed
II by the Frauenshuh Companies that would guarantee the purchase of the School
District once the School District does pass a school referendum. The site was
identified in our last update of Tax Increment District No. 2's development
II plans and he's indicating that the approval of the purchase agreement
is basically recommended. And I'm hopeful that you did have an opportunity to
look and read what they're looking at with those two different options for those
prices on that property.
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we have the money?
II Mayor Chmiel: Yes. We have the money. I just had to make sure.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Technicality.
II Councilman Senn: I guess I really sympathize with Highway 5 Partnership and I
don't think, you know you should be able to kind of sit out there and keep
saying, forever that they should have to, what would I say, do nothing with it
II or wait on us one way or another. At the same time though, it is set that there
is going to be a referendum now in '93, is it not?
II Mayor Chmie] End of March.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I'd much rather, giving the proximity of that at this
point, await the referendum to see the action. Now if the same, the rest of
I what I'm going to say, if that referendum fails, then I think we need to very
definitel/ consider an action where either we go or we don't go or call it off
but secondary to all of that I guess is, to me in this thing there's a real big
II leap of faith here. I mean that leap of faith is, we're not just talking about
20 acres for a school. We're talking about another 22 acres for recreation
that's being defined in a way I'm not sure I'd at all agree with, let alone we
should be considering purchasing 22 acres of land for. I'd really like to see a
II lot more discussion on that and thought on that before we would proceed with
anything at least described in those context for recreation, like additional
gymnasiums and all that sort of thing. Again, I guess part of that is I have a
II real problem with the City owning and developing a lot of gymnasiums next to
Chaska Schools. I would say there's a fair number of people in the city that
would have a problem with that, like over half that are in the other school
II district.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it doesn't effect them because the referendum does not
effect those people per se.
II
l 48
II
City Council Meeting February 22,
Councilman Senn: We're not talkie referendum though. We're talkie about 22
9 9 g
acres for recreation that you're talking about the city developing and the city
developing with city dollars, which is a whole separate issue from the School
District coming in and building an elementary school or whatever. So I'd really
like to see us wait again on the issue of acquisition until that referendum
comes. But then I think we should also really define this issue before.
Mayor Chmiel: We're still in a bind where they can of course proceed and sell
that property as well. And that would also put us back in a bind not being able
to get another school within that particular area. That has been defined for a
school site. So that would present a given problem in itself but that's.
Councilman Senn: Well you know, I've talked to Dennis about it and stuff and I
mean is March that big a deal at this point? I mean if there's going to be a
referendum in March, and you feel there's a commitment, that at that point
something's going to happen one way or the other, does that make you nervous at 11 this point given the fact that it's February?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the mic and just answer his
question. '
Dennis Dirlam: We've been holding off with our PUD submission for quite some
time waiting for something to happen on the school site issue. And we've gone
back quite a few years with the ownership of the property and when it was put in
the guide plan, it was then it was a lot of thought went into it at that time.
That this was going to be the school site and so we've basically been waiting
for that as owners for something to happen and you have some of the history in
there about what's been going on the last 2 years with, there being purchase
agreements drawn up. The city was obviously serious at that time and thought it
was the appropriate thing to do. And now we're being pushed by residential
developers who want to come in and develop it and the market conditions aren't
now always rosey and we feel that we have to seize the opportunity. If it
wasn't the city, we wouldn't be waiting for this particular body to do something
on it. We would have sold it one of those other two and negotiated our deal and
gone on our merry way. But because it is the city, we feel an obligation to
come to you and I guess we're not trying to pressure you. We're not trying to 11 hold your feet to the fire but I guess that's what it ends up coming down to.
Its economics for the partnership and we need to seize the opportunity one way
or the other. And this isn't really anything new. In December we sat down
with Will Hoeg and said, we know the city or the school district or whoever is
serious about this piece of property. We need to know, do you want to do
something and let's get on with it. And there went quite some time where we
didn't hear anything for them and we told the realtor, apparently they're not
interested. Let's go ahead and let's get on with it. And so that's what we've
done and I guess we don't want to wait another 30 days and we don't want our
buyers to go away in the next 30 days. Our purchase agreements now are probably
3 weeks old and that's getting to be pretty old to respond to them.
Councilman Senn: Well Dennis, I understand that but I'm just saying, if you had
a finite end at this point, I mean would you mind waiting until the end of March
if you're told that at that point you're either going to be taken out of this
halfway, never knowing yes or never knowing no routine?
1
49
1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II Mayor Chmiel: But the point being is that maybe we still want that property.
Councilman Senn: Maybe we do, maybe we don't Don. I'm not prepared to make
that decision tonight in any way, shape or form. This is the first time I've
seen a major issue like buying 42 acres out on the.
II Mayor Chmiel: Right. This isn't the first time this is brought up, nor is it
the first time we've discussed this. This has been discussed for the last 2
years plus in looking at this particular location.
II Councilman Senn: As a school?
II Mayor Chmiel: As a school.
Councilman Senn: I understand that, but we're now talking about a lot more than
a school here from what I'm reading.
II Councilman Wing: Well hopefully.
I/ Councilman Senn: But I mean again, I mean there's a lot of definition in this
that ha: nothing to do with the school.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but I think we have to look at the overall picture. Not
1 just facing one specific segment of the community against the balance of the
community. I think we have to look at it, what's going to be good for
everybody.
11 Councilman Senn: Don, I understand that but I'd like a chance to talk about
that and discuss it rather than just decide it.
II Mayor Chmiel: Well, we can keep going with this as we continue. Michael, do
you have any other questions or concerns?
II Councilman Macon: Well yeah. I don't like the idea of saying that one half of
the community is going to like it and one half isn't.
1 Mayor Chmiel: No, that was the intent. I said we have to focus it.
Councilman Mason: No, no. No, and I agree with that 100% Don. I'm a little
concerned about why, the elementary school needs 20 acres. We're saying we need
II to buy 42 of it.
Todd Gerhardt: You know the site itself really, there's a creek that runs
11 through there. You can't just cut off. It's not a pure 20 that you can.
Paul Krauss: And there's also, the east /west collector road or the access
I boulevard runs through it so when you eliminate the wetlands and the creek
corridor and the roadway, you've just lopped off about 10 %. I'm sorry, about 10
of the 40 acres.
1 Councilman Senn: The price is definitely too high.
Mayor Chnicl: That was one of the points I brought up.
50
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Mason: I see the need for the city to act on this. Whether I am for
additional gyms or not, I have a little trouble, because basically I am but I
have a little trouble with us essentially being directed as to what we would use
that remaining land for. Does that make sense? I mean there are other options
out there and I'm not saying we wouldn't end up wanting it for more recreation.
But to some extent I share Mark's concerns about kind of feeling like I'm
getting backed into a corner here. Ultimately I think Highway 5 Partnership has
been very patient and although I again kind of agree with Mark. Does it make
any difference until the middle, end of March? On the other hand, I think like
Don, like you said, we need to balance that issue with whether we want the City
in control of that hunk of land or not and of course that certainly does get
into another bigger larger discussion. And I personally, and again maybe this
conies back to the leadership or the caretaker routine. Are we market driven?
Are we not? Is that the issue? Isn't it the issue? I don't know. We could
probably talk about this for a couple hours. `But I see the need for the city to
act on this. I too am concerned about the price. But I do see the need for the
city to act on this.
Councilman Senn: Could I ask one question? I mean you seem to have the history
on this. Okay, Don Ashworth has the history on this and he's not here. It
seems to me that if, out of fairness to Highway 5. Okay, yeah we're talking
about 40 acres and yeah, we're asking them to hold up on it or whatever. Then
why don't we give them an option contract? Why don't we give them some money
and option the thing? I'd rather throw that money away than jump into a
purchase of 42 acres, not even understanding what we're going to do with the 42
acres 01 use it for. And that helps them take care of their carrying costs or
whatever on that land in the meantime while we get this resolved, or wait for
the referendum or whatever. I mean to me that seems like the better avenue to
take than to jump on a purchase that I guess I just feel real awkward jumping on
at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, the only thing I see is, from what the developer's could
come into and say they would definitely give a given price and they will pay so
much. Whether our option would even be accepted.
Councilman Senn: But that's all in the option contract. That means the same
thing as negotiating a purchase agreement at this point but you're negotiating
an option contract. The difference is we give them some money up front for the
option and they get it. We're not giving them nothing and asking them to wait.
To me again that seems more reasonable to, at least if I were in their shoes. 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the idea being, in the interlude time we can
discuss what we want to do with the land? 1
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and the referendum too. I mean again the option price
should be something that works out because I mean in reality, if they want to go
sign a purchase agreement and sell it at this point, just to clear through city
processes, we'll have this all resolved. So I mean if we want to take the
attitude that we can resolve it that way ourselves before they get through, I
mean I'm trying to turn around and see their viewpoint too which is, they
deserve something for the wait.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. 1
51 1
1
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I'm reminded of what I heard on the news tonight
with...and the City of Minneapolis. They've been very patient. We've been
II telling them for years and years, we're going to buy it and we're going to build
a school. Although of course there hasn't been a contract there but personally
I want to see a school go there. I think it's a good use of that land and I
don't see it as two parcels. A 20 acre school and 22 acres of something else.
It really is one piece if you go out and look at the land. The price you know,
I guess I don't have an opinion on. I don't know enough about, if that's fair.
I trust that it is. If we buy it now, we don't have to, from what I understand,
11 I mean we don't have to decide that that extra 22 acres is going to be
gymnasiums. I mean that's not part of the purchase right now so I'm comfortable
with the way it is.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Let me just ask a question. Dennis, in looking at this
with that option in hand, what would be your opinion as to what Mark indicated?
Dennis Dirlam: Well, we certainly aren't going to get anything done development
wise for days. 60 days. Whatever that is. My biggest concern is that we lose
a buyer that we have in hand. I guess I can't give you a definite answer
11 tonight. I would have to talk to the other partners but you know, I don't like
the idea. Again, I think it's been not by all these Council members but it's
been studied alot. It's been studied by staff and it was recommended in the
guide plan and it went to a committee at the school system. A 27 member
committee. They came up with the same site.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you think you'd lose a buyer because a buyer wants
to move now to get something built there?
Dennis Dirlam: I think so, right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And 30 days does make a difference.
Dennis Dirlam: It does make a difference at this time. It's crucial, right. I
think timing wise, Paul to get something done and in the ground yet this year,
which I'm sure they'd want to do, we need to get going.
1 Councilman Senn: How can they do that?
Councilman Wing: But that's the point. If that happened and that occurred and
the mood of this Council right now, I'd support you and we'd slam a moratorium
in so fast, they'd get nowhere. They're going nowhere and they'd better know if
you sell it, I'm going to vote for a moratorium right now because I won't
tolerate any more movement until our task force is done and that's going to be 6
months. So you've got, I mean that's where I'm at.
Councilman Senn: See Dick I was, when we talked moratorium I was all for
exempting the big PUD's and stuff because we could really get the controls there
but what I'm hearing is, you know, that's not a compromise so I agree with you.
At that point I'm in the position of slap the moratorium on now and stop it all.
r Councilman Wing: Yeah, no movement at all. I'm not going to deal with another
one of these. If it was winding down this task force to see what that's going
to do.
52
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Senn: If you're seeking a compromise, I'm not sure it's there.
Councilman Wing: I'm frankly rather startled at Councilman Senn would have the
audacity to tonight late question a document such as this. So we're buying 42
acres and not knowing what's going to go on it. What we're going to do. How
we're going to pay for it. I think it shows short sightedness on his part, and
it certainly emphasises the word work session. I mean this should have been at
a work session before it got to Council so we understood the ramifications, the
history and the background. For instance, Todd. Is there any advantage or
disadvantage to waiting for the referendum?
Todd Gerhardt: The one disadvantage for waiting for the referendum is that if 1
you were to purchase it today, you are going to have to carry the property. So
you will have carrying costs until the School District passes the referendum.
Until it's decided this is the spot. They will not have the monies in hand to
reimburse you the $17,000.00. But again, with Dennis having a purchaser in hand
and them making application for a subdivision for that property, you are in the
position then to try to decide you know, a moratorium. Approve the subdivision
as is and let housing go in there and look for another site. Or three, that you
have to force, your hand's being forced that you'll have to go through
condemnation to acquire the site.
Councilman Wing: Why couldn't you discuss the option contract? Is that an
option?
Todd Gerhardt: Only if the seller is willing to do an option. We have talked ,
about options in the past and that hasn't been in their interest.
Councilman Senn: Dick, at the same time this could become a fairly long term
carrying clause though too, if we buy it. Because if that referendum isn't
passed in '93, the next question is, when's the next referendum? It's generally
not the next year or two.
Mayor Chmiel: ...next 6 months.
Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. Most of them I've seen take a little 1
longer cool down period than that.
Councilman Mason: Eden Prairie has run school referendums year to year. 1
Councilman Senn: For the same request?
Councilman Mason: For the exact same request. Maybe scaled down but I mean 1
it's essentially.
Councilman Wing: Intervisionary process. At least since you and I have been 1
here, I think that the decision of Park and Rec and land use and open space was
to control that land regardless, if I'm not mistaken Mike. And Park and Rec has
discussed youth investment. That's ice could go out there in the future, if we
I/
chose to. Gymnasiums. I mean there's some disagreement what might go or not go
but the point is, the school would be there and we would tie possible city
athletic facilities and needs and encourage the school to put those in. So we
53
1
II City Council. Meeting - February 22, 1993
II may have indoor ice. We may have gymnasiums. Swimming pool. Whatever the case
is out there.
II Todd Hoffman: A majority of them would be outdoor. Ballfields and those type
of things and that marriage has been discussed since day one in that way.
Councilman Senn: Well what is it? I mean along with the School District?
II Councilman Wing: The Park and Rec.
II Councilman Senn: I mean is the school, let's say the referendum passes in
March. Is the School District going to come in and buy all 42 acres as a result
of that referendum?
I Todd Hoffman: 20 acres. .
Councilman Senn: They're going to buy 20. So even if they come in and buy 20,
11 we're still talking about buying 22 acres out there.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
1 Councilman Senn: Work session material.
Councilman Wing: Do we have the time to, I mean this is another issue for that
II night that's significant. Could you and Don detail, or you and Don and Don,
detail the history and the ramifications of this thing. And Park and Rec should
be there that night. You. You. Not Park and Rec. Be there that night to
II discuss where this, how this has culminated into this funnel at this point.
Then maybe we ran make a rational decision.
II Councilman Senn: I want to see visions but I just, to me you know, this doesn't
seem like a vision. This seems real single pointed. But again, I don't have
the history but if it's going to be recreational use, I don't think I have a big
problem with it being recreational use as long as somebody can give me the
II history as to how we arrived at that decision. But when you start saying put
gymnasiums on it right now, I have a real problem with that. That's a lot more
specific than the vision. You're right down to facilities planning.
II Todd Gerhardt: We're not saying that it's going to be gymnasiums. Those are
things that have been talked about. You, as the economic development body would
II make the decision of how the remaining piece of that land would be purchased and
developed. Tonight we are solely in front of you with the purchase of the 42
acres. Again, the site lends itself to a 42 acre site. There's certain pieces
that, what I'll go back to the Highway 5 corridor. Preserving some of those
II windows and rooms along there. If you were to leave some of those, it would be
a real question on how some of these sites would develop. The second thing is,
as you wait, the price is going to go up too. It's just land is trading
II unbelieveable out there. It's going from hand to hand.
Councilman Senn: Todd, I understand it but I mean, I'm not blind. It says here
the site would be the home of future expanded recreational uses, including
II additional gyms above and beyond what might ordinarily be built by the
elementary school. I mean somebody points back to this 6 months from now, when
1 54
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
this comes in all pre- decided and said, oh you approved it back then you know
for these gymnasiums. Geez, that's what it says there.
Todd Gerhardt: Make a motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I guess what I would like, I have some trouble
purchasing the property but quite honestly I agree with what's being said here.
I want a school at that site and if it takes a couple years, I guess I'm willing
to say, so be it. The motion that I would like made tonight does, just for the
sake of the community and moving on this, I think the remaining acreage has to
be left open for discussion. Be it wide open spaces. Be it recreation uses.
Whatever. Just because I think that allows everyone a whole lot more freedom on 11 the issue. I like the idea of it going towarors recreational use. I'd like to
leave it at that.
Paul Krauss: I don't want to hang you up at all and I don't want to give you
the whole extensive history here, but if there was ever a vision of what should
happen on Highway 5, that's it. I mean we've been talking about that for 4
years. It was a real, it's considered kind of a lynch pin piece in the
comprehensive plan. Where there was a desire not to isolate Timberwood and
residential land to the south. To bridge Highway 5 with residential land uses
so that you didn't have wall to wall industrial parks. I mean I remember
putting the dot on the map and then it stood the test of time and a lot of
public hearings and it was kind of complimented when we went through the process
with Morrish who's saying, well the Bluff Creek corridor is kind of key and
that's where you want to bridge it. Well it just so happen to connect the north
side of the town with our school site. The idea of the recreation component on
the school was something that's been, no there was never an official vote on it
or agreement but I think the Mayor can attest to 3 1/2 years ago we went down to
the School District as a group and we started talking about that. It's a vision
that, it is 27 people in the School District meeting for a year and a half
bought into. What you ultimately do with the rest of the land is really I think
your's to decide. I mean you might even sell it back off for development for
that matter. But you'd have the option to do so. I just want to emphasize that
whatever you do, it's a real important piece for what happens on the corridor
and that that's been the subject of extensive and proactive study for years.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I want control over that.
Councilman Senn: Well I appreciate that but again, maybe the other four people L
have seen it. I haven't. I mean I would love to see that background and I
would love to understand the basis on which we're forming that kind of a
decision. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just very uneasy looking at what
I see in the staff report and connecting A to B. You bring up issues over price
and talk about geez, we're buying really 30 useable acres, not 40. You bring up
other issues on price like, I see nothing in here like if we sell if to the
School District, what are we going to sell it to the School District for? The
same thing we bought it plus our carrying costs?
Paul Krauss: I believe that's in there. 1
55 1
1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
II Todd Gerhardt: $17,000.00.
Councilman Senn: But we're buying it for $23,000.00.
II Todd Gerhardt: We would...anything up and above the $17,000.00 so there are
incentives on the city to get that school located on that site.
11 Councilman Senn: So we're subsidizing it right up front and we may be
subsidizing it a lot more?
II Todd Gerhardt: If you want to see expanded recreational uses on that site, you
would have to provide additional assistance.
II Councilman Senn: Again, I guess enough said. I'd.just like to see all that
before I start voting on buying 42 acres.
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: The bad news is, even a work session, I went into Don's
office. The other Don. You don't have an office. And I had him walk me
II through this from A to Z plus I was at the Park and Rec. I've been to all these
meetings over this whole decision process, including the Comprehensive Plan
discussions and he related the school's position and our position and the
II owner's position and our options and why this is important to do this. So
when I walked out I said, hum. Good deal. So when I saw this, although very
incomplete and sort of, I sort of had enough background to say, Don's sort of in
the driver's seat here and I was comfortable with Todd and Don making this
11 decision and Don having been involved here. It's true. You haven't been here
the last 3 or 4 or 5 years involved in the process to see how we got to this
point. So then do the older members of the Council simply vote this on with you
II kind of going, I'm not sure what's fair to Mark and Colleen at this point.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I've been following it just because it effects me
II personally.
Councilman Wing: It's your backyard.
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it's my backyard. Thank you. But I don't want
to go to a simple majority vote without, I mean I'd rather have consensus and if
it's going to take some more background for Mark to look at it.
II Councilman Senn: I think it would be neat if Don would come in and give that
thing he gave to you. That's maybe all I'm really asking for but I guess I'd
II like to understand it a lot more than I do now.
Councilman Wing: I guess this is, from the City Manager's standpoint, maybe at
this point the history on the Council really does involve a formal presentation
11 rather than just.
Mayor Chmiel: Well he probably would have given that formal presentation this
II evening and give you all the specific reasons as to why it should be located
where it is. But due to circumstances beyond his control, he's flat on his back
in bed.
11 56
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
Councilman Wing: I'd like to see Mark maybe keep trying, if there's a
possibility to get into the office and hash out some of his concerns on a one to
one basis so it doesn't get embroiled in an open discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and this is some of the things that the work sessions would 1
completely eliminate. We could have been sitting at home for the last hour.
But it is true.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, make a motion that I can second would you? I/
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We have one on the floor.
Councilman Wing: Do we have one?
Mayor Chmiel: No. No, Michael didn't make a motion on that. 1
Councilman Senn: When do we table it then?
Councilman Wing: I'll second the tabling, pending it being on the work session 11
on the 3rd. I mean it's going to be a busy night. It might be a long night.
I'm sorry, but I think this has got to be back on the.
Councilman Senn: Maybe this should be part of the Highway, I mean we're looking
at Highway 5. This is part of the corridor. Let's look at it. I haven't got a
problem with it. I have no problems with it being a school. I just really want
to understand the past and my biggest problem is that one sentence in there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And if you can discuss it with Don prior to the our 11
work session, maybe it will be a slam dunk.
Councilman Mason: Well it seems to me the motion can be made deleting that one
sentence. And I don't.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good point.
Councilman Mason: And I was involved in some of those comprehensive plan
meetings with all those people from all over the city and it was agreed upon
that that was an ideal place for the school site. And whereas I think I hear
where some people are coming from about being in the background, I mean
absolutely. This has been in the hopper for a long time and my feeling is, we
either, I mean well. I think we should.
Councilman Senn: I beg your indulgence for a couple more weeks so I can just
simply understand it is what I'm asking I guess.
Councilman Mason: And I'm not sure we have that indulgence right now. You
know, but yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second for tabling. 1
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the purchase
agreement for the school /recreation acquisition until the next Council meeting.
Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in favor. Councilman Mason,
57 1
1
1 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Wing and Mayor Chmiel voted in opposition. The motion failed with a
vote of 2 to 3.
11 Councilman Wing: Mike, have you got another solution or suggestion here?
Councilman Mason: Well no I don't and.
Mayor Chmiel: What about leaving those additional gyms? You know when they say
additional gyms, it's pluralized and with the normal grade school they do have,
you've got two gyms in the existing elementary school presenting.
Councilman Senn: Not built by the City of Chanhassen?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The gym is what I'm saying.;, I'm trying to see if this is
what it was intended as. And it may not have been.
Councilman Wing: We know it's going to be a school and I think staff has said
we need to buy it right now. Maybe that's the issue and what goes in there. How
it's developed. I think the recreational aspects are irrelevant at this point
and not even worthy of discussion.
' Councilman Senn: But I hear everybody saying that they're very comfortable with
the Schoo) and they understand the reasons why we want it for a school. I
haven't heard that same consensus on the other 22 acres.
Councilman Wing: As Paul's just said, it's one parcel. You don't divy it up.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that.
Councilman Wing: It is one parcel.
Councilman Senn: I understand that. One parcel's great but I mean that's not
necessarily justification to.
Councilman Mason: What I heard Paul saying was based on the Comp Plan and
BilJ Mcrrish and this, that and the other thing, that segment of land, that
portion of land, is a gem. A lynch pin. Whatever you want to call it to the
' whole corridor. And for us to be in control of that excess 12 acres, 20 acres,
whatever so we carp leave it to be one of these windows so we can leave it wide
open and have nothing but trees growing on it, seems to me to be a worthwhile
position for the city of Chanhassen to be in and I do not necessarily go along
with building gymnasiums there but I do go along with it being some sort of
recreational open space area. And if by the good graces of this Council it
decides to put a gym there, so be it. But by no means is that a done deal, as
' far as I'm concerned. That's where I'm at.
Councilman Wing: So you would take the purchase agreement, excluding the future
expanded recreation. You're excluding the sentence there.
Councilman Mason: Now what sentence am I excluding here?
Councilman Wing: It would be at the top of the page. The site would be the
home of future expanded recreational uses including gyms above and beyond what
1 58
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
might... You would delete that entire sentence. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Where is it showing the elementary school, on the back page? On
page 3 of that.
Councilman Mason: I would strike, uses including additional gyms above and
beyond what might oridnarily be built with an elementary school.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you want recreation.
Councilman Mason: The site would be the home of future expanded recreational
uses.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Wouldn't that preclude if we do decide that we should
sell that to a developer? For whatever reason.
Councilman Mason: Well I can live with that being open space.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hey, so can I.
Councilman Wing: I'm going to second that for discussion. '
Councilman Mason: There, I made the motion.
Councilman Wing: I think that Mark has the option to get in and talk to Don and
hash this out and if he really is deeply concerned, I would have a close ear to
his comments and he can, he has the right to call a special meeting, which I
would support. If it came to that. 1
Ma>or Chmiel: If he's in the positive. If it's in the negative, you would have
that right.
Councilman Wing: Oka if he asked me, I would probably call a special meeting
a 9 y� � P Y P 9
if I felt the need. If him and Don absolutely could not come to terms on where
we were going here and if he could tell me that his point was sound. So I will
offer that to Mark just because I think he has some valid points.
Mayor Chmiel: You're offering that as a friendly?
Councilman Wing: I'm just offering that.
Mayor Chmiel: Amendment to Mike's motion. 1
Councilman Wing: I don't think it's necessary. I'm just telling Mark that I
intend to do that. '
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So everybody here is comfortable with the decision
tonight that we're going to purchase the land. We're going to subsidize it at
$5,000.00 an acre right off the top, plus potentially pay the balance of the
purchase price on 20 acres. Plus pay all the clearing costs, for whatever
59 1
1
11 City Council Meeting -- February 22, 1993
II period of time it takes to carry it. I mean basically it's this blank check
everybody's comfortable with that tonight?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I don't consider that as a blank check Mark. When you look
11 at all the things that we have discussed and pointed out thus far this evening,
I think it's a reality that that site is needed where it's at. If we don't act
on it, it might be something other than where the school would be located. And
II if the property owners decide and choose, after leaving here tonight to take the
proposal from the other developer, we would lose.
II Councilman Senn: We would? I mean do we have a copy of that purchase
agreement?
Mayor Chmiel: In all the things that we're saying.that are needed for the
II corridor with the Morrish study and the other things that are combined, then we
would lose.
I Councilman Senn: Have we seen the purchase agreement for $23,000.00 an acre?
Todd Gerhardt - It's for 25.
II Elliott Vnet:.ch: 1 wasn't there...
Mayor Chmiel: It was at 25 is where it started.
11 Councilman Senn: Not for us. I'm talking about the private developers that
made the offer. Have we seen that offer? Do we know that it's there at
II $23,000.00 a �q._rare foot? I mean do we know we really have a competition here
or?
Mayor Chmiel: My understanding is yes.
Councilman Senn: I'm hearing understandings but I haven't heard anyone say
they've seen the purchase agreement.
II Dennis Dirlam: The Council was given both of the purcha agreements...
II Mayor Chmiel: You're right. I do remember that.
Elliott Knetsch: And the letter from Gary indicates that he saw a signed
purchase agreement.
11 Councilman Senn: But it doesn't say at a price though.
I Elliott Knetsch: I think it does.
Todd Gerhardt: Second paragraph on page 2. First paragraph on page 2. Both
II offering to pay $25,000.00 per acre. You're getting it at a discount.
Councilman Senn: On page 2?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. First paragraph. About the fourth, fifth line. Sixth
line down.
11 60
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
Councilman Wing: My points are clear though. No matter when we buy it, no
matter what we do, we're going to carry those costs. We're going to have those
problems. It is going to cost the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is. No question. 1
Councilman Mason: Well it is and I guess that gets back to that, part of that
gets back to that caretaking, leadership thing. If it's important to the city.
Mayor Chmiel: And if those needs are shown where the population within the
school presently is as it is, there's no question it's got to. I mean they're
overcrowded right now.
Councilman Senn: I understand that Don. I'm k not debating that. But I mean do
we have a contract with the School that says we're stuck with only getting
$17,000.00? I mean again, I have tons of questions on this that I haven't seen
the answers to.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ,
Todd Gerhardt: I think it was a part of Don's motion in here also that if you
were to move ahead and make the motion to acquire the property tonight, that
that motion be contingent upon getting approval from the School District on
having a re- purchase of that property for $17,000.00 an acre for 20 acres and
that it also, once a referendum is passed. Is how that would be spelled out to
the School District.
Councilman Senn: Once the referendum is passed. So we may never have it.
Todd Gerhardt: This community will have to pass a referendum somewhere down the
line to provide school housing for it's kids. You approved another subdivision
tonight. There are going to be families here. There's only so many temporary
trailers and the School District only has so much money. They're going to have 1
to pass a referendum somewhere down the line.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but why would we sell it to them 5 years
from now for $17,000.00 an acre? Is what I'm coming back to. I mean if they're
going to pay $17,000.00 an acre whenever they pass a referendum, that to me
seems to be one hell of a poor market driven deal. I mean why would we offer to
pay $17,000.00 this year and keep the same offer for 5 years, 10 years, or
whatever it takes them to pass the referendum. That makes no sense to me.
Todd Gerhardt: We could put a condition if you wanted to look at some interest
on there.
Councilman Senn: I would be a lot happier with the then market price. I mean
you know.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that that interest should be within...
61 1
II City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
1 Todd Gerhardt: We were trying to match up to what Chaska was offering. And I
would suggest that we try to continue in matching what Chaska is offering for
the High School. And that we don't have apples and oranges out there, trying to
I keep everything fair and equal.
Councilman, Senn: It seems like you're going to go out and pass it through so
II I'm just trying to ask a ton of questions right here tonight. I'm sorry if I'm
keeping you all but.
Todd Gerhardt: I hope I'm answering them.
II Councilman Senn: You know the 10 acres that's unbuildable is that, the 20 acres
we're buying, is all 10 of it on that I suppose? I mean I don't know questions
I answered like that. I mean are we really buying 2z, acres of which 10 is non-
buildable for recreational purposes? I mean another basic question. I mean I
just heard over here there's over 10 acres of non - buildable land.
II Paul Krauss: When we say, if I could clarify that. When we say non - buildable.
Councilman Sean: You said wetlands or protected land. I mean that's
II non - buildable.
Paul Kraus: Well there is a, one of the important things that's always been on
II the comp plan is protecting the Bluff Creek corridor. Getting a recreational
corridor coming down through there which includes not only land in the flood
plain but high land above it. This site does include all of that. Down to
where that wetland is on the corner of Timberwood. It does include all of the
NI 80 foot wide right -of --way for the east /west collector. Running across the
length of the site. Those are not areas that you can build on but they're areas
that we need to get control over one way or the other.
II Councilman Senn: Are they all on our 20 acres?
II Councilman Wing: All on the east side.
Councilman Senn: Okay, interesting point. Like I say, I just think there's a
lot of questions and answers, but you guys can go ahead...
II Mayor Chmiel: Well we have a motion on the floor.
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: Would you like to restate that motion?
Councilman Wing: Do we have Todd's comments on the record?
II Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Todd Gerhardt: I guess I'd like to ask Don. I mean I'd really like to have an
II opportunity with Don and myself to sit down with Mark and maybe bring Clough in
and bring him up to speed on this and really table this issue for 2 weeks so we
can bring him up to speed. I know this is going to add another 2 weeks to your
II 3 week purchase agreement with the Partners but you know, hearing these
discussions, I feel uncomfortable in having Mark not go along with the other 4
and not being up to speed. And not to make any excuses for Mark, but I mean he
II 62
II
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
is new on the Council and I feel that he should have that additional 2 weeks to
come up to speed on that.
Dennis Dirlam: I too, I think Mark will be convinced and feel the same way that
a lot of the rest of us do that it's the appropriate thing to do once he takes a
look at it. We'll do what we can to put those other people off. Today was
supposedly our day and we'll just have to see what we can do for another 2
weeks.
Todd Gerhardt: I'd appreciate that.
Dennis Dirlam: It sounds like it's.
Mayor Chmiel: If you feel comfortable with it.
Councilman Wing: I'll withdraw my second.
Mayor Chmiel: I think you see the direction that Council has gone and I do
believe that once Mark is brought up to speed on this, he'll know and feel more
comfortable with the way it is. And I too would rather have a full decision,
full Council voting in favor. Rather than having a dissenting vote within.
Councilman Mason: Well with Todd's comments and with the good graces of the
Highway 5 Partnership, I will withdraw my motion,
Councilman Senn: Really unnecessary. I mean seriously, if you four are that
comfortable with it, I wish you'd go ahead with it. I'm not trying to stop you.
I'm just telling you my concerns. 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We want consensus.
Mayor Chmiel: I think this Council has always worked together Mark rather well.
I want to see this continue because what's best for the city, my old saying is
best for the city. And I think this basically is still the best thing for the
city. But just to make you feel more comfortable with that position, I would
then request that we table this for the 2 weeks and ask that you visit with Don
prior to that particular time and maybe this could be addressed at our, even our
March 3rd meeting. If it's going to be a public meeting, we can then move on it
at that time as well.
Councilman Wing: I'm requesting that it be on there specific because they're
good questions and I think these questions should be answered publically...
Takes me off the hook if it's a bad move.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the purchase
agreement for the school /recreation acquisition until the next Council meeting
to provide time for Councilman Senn to get further information. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. 1
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth, City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim
63 1
/I
11 HANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
44
REGULAR MEETING
' FEBRUARY 17, 1993 .
Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino,
and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I;
and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
THE ROTTLUND COMPANY (MIKE KLINGELHUTZ) PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WINDMILL
RUN:
A. REZONE 17.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; AND
B. SUBDIVIDE 17.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
' Public Present:
IF Name Address
David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd.
Tom & Dar Turcotte 7240 Galpin Blvd.
Mark (Red) White Representing Prince Nelson
Wayne Tauer Pioneer Engineering
Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Acting Chairman Scott called the public hearing to order.
' Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Dave, does the developer have
the option of constructing ponds and maintaining the pre - development
runoff rate, I mean as opposed to going ahead and making the payments to
the City for oversizing the storm sewer? Is that his option that we'll
give him or is that...
Hempel: In this particular development, we're looking at actually
probably both scenarios where the pond that's being proposed in the
southwest corner of the site is achieving the City's requirements for
water quality and quantity but yet, that will only cover western one -third
of the development. The remaining two - thirds of the development is left
untreated or unretained.
Ledvina: Would it be possible for him to construct a equalization pond
for that other two - thirds of the property?
Hempel: It would be but when we look down the road here at our overall
comprehensive storm water plan, this could be an island if you will, that
still is the old where we have maintenance ponds on site instead of being
a part of the overall network. Storm sewer network which drains to the
regional holding pond south. From our perspective, I guess we'd like to
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 2
see it be a part of this overall storm sewer network that we want to
incorporate with the comprehensive plan.
Ledvina: What do you think is most cost effective at this point in
time? For the developer. Obviously if you build ponds he's going to lose
lots and things like that. You haven't set the rates for this surcharge
or whatever. I'm just, getting a feel for that at all?
Hempel: That's a very good question. I don't think I have a real good
' answer for you We felt, just looking at it at this stage that by leaving
the lots as temporary holding ponds until they're dealt with in the
future, it gives the applicant some opportunity to come back and still
build and utilize those lots. Maybe the applicant tonight maybe will want
to respond to that a little bit further. What his desires would be.
Scott: Is there anymore comments from staff?
Hempel: Not from engineering.
Scott: Would the applicant or applicant's representative wish to make
some comments? And please state your name and your address, and spelling
of your name if it's not intuitive.
' Wayne Tauer: Thank you. My name is Wayne Tauer. That's T- a- u -e -r. Not
T- o -w -e -r naturally. I'm from Pioneer Engineering and I represent the
Rottlund Company tonight. Couple of things just to expand a little bit on
' what Dave has talked about. The pond that we're presenting building in
that southwest corner was basically dictated to us by Mr. Ismael Martinez,
and as I understand it, this part of the master plan has been completed.
' Therefore that's why that pond is where it is and that's why it's the size
it is. It's part of the master plan, obviously and unfortunately most of
the water that goes into that particular pond is only approximately a
third our's and two - thirds somebody else's. Therefore, we're building a
holding ponds and NURP treatment for other people. I guess our only
concern is the fact that if and when the master plan does get implemented
and all the pipes and drainageways are in place, that it be noted and
credited to our account so to speak. That we have been already assessed
so to speak. We built enough ponding and NURP treatment to handle
approximately I would say nearly 20 acres. Our site is 17.2 so just so we
are on record that we won't be assessed again. And I guess also to
address some of the concerns of the Commission here tonight is, we will be
willing to temporarily take one, two or whatever it requires lots out of
the subdivision. Well, wrong term. Out of building the homes on those
11 particular lots. We'd like to have the lots approved with the condition
that when everything is settled and all the drainage is worked out, that
we can go back and then of course build on those particular lots. And
11 with an easement over them I think we'll have to vacate that easement
ultimately when building plans and permits are issued. I guess that's
really most, oh. There's a couple other minor things. Should I run
through what our concerns are or do you want to just throw some things at
me?
Scott: Sure.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 3
II
Wayne Tauer: There were just a couple things. There was, I guess item II number 1 where they asked us to lower the street on the south end of
Windmill Drive. Certainly willing to do that. That's not a problem. I
guess what we really need to do is get a little more topography and
project a vertical curve. We've often run in our development's experience
into roads that are poked out into space so to speak. And after that, you
don't know where they're going. I guess just a little more topography
would really make more sense than just to say, raise it a foot and a half II
or 2 feet or whatever it is. Okay? Leave it at that. Okay, good. Some
of the other things that we're a little bit worried about. I know a new
condition showed up here tonight is about berming along the county road. II
One of the things we're worried about there is whether the county road
will remain as a rural section and will it have a ditch. If that's so,
then the berming is not a problem for us. If it does not remain a rural I
section kind of design, berming in there may clog up or what we call are
positive overflow. As you see there is water coming from the property
from the north. If we don't have a positive, we are extending some storm
sewer up there to pick up normal rainfalls you know. 2 to 5 year storms. II
Anything beyond that, those storm pipes will not handle that volume.
Therefore it has to be able to flow overland without flooding somebody,
specifically those two northwesterly lots. If berming is going to cause a
problem and block up our positive overflow, I guess we have a problem with
that. If it doesn't and the rural section then we can maintain a natural
swale that will reach that pond ultimately, then we'll definitely go along
with that and we can work that out I think between the engineering 1
department and ourselves.
Ledvina: Just a point on the berming. What would the, so the purpose of II
the berming is to screen, to provide screening for the residents
from the traffic on CR 117?
Wayne Tauer: Agreed, right.
II
Ledvina: What would the height of the berm that would be required? I
guess I don't have a feeling for what we're talking about. 1
Olsen: We were talking like around 4 foot because of the width that even
would require is 24 feet. We were figuring at a 3:1 slope. So I don't il
know that we could go with, with what's there, I don't think we could go
much higher than that.
Wayne Tauer: Well the real problem is also they want a 20 foot easement II
for a bike trail. Now are we taking 20 feet off our land and then another
24? And are we now losing 44 feet or whatever it's going to be off of
those lots? I don't know if we can really afford all of that and still 11
build it.
Mancino: You are going to lose a little bit of that 40. In the ordinance,
in our city code landscape ordinance, in Section 18 -61, number 5 it says
landscape buffer around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required
by the City when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets
as defined by the comprehensive plan? Required buffering shall consist of,
berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs. So
that's where the berming came from.
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 February 17, 1993 - Page 4
' Wayne Tauer: Okay, thank you.
Olsen: And we'll have to be working with that because we have to massage
everything. There's the 20 foot trail easement but within that trail
easement is the 8 foot bituminous trail. So we have room for berming.
Room for landscaping within that 20 foot easement, to a certain extent.
Plus there's also the possibility that trail can actually be located in
' County right -of -way, if they permit it so it can go in and out where
there's room or lack of room. So it's one of those things we're really
going to have to work on and we can't be specific right now.
1 Wayne Tauer: Most people assume that berms have to be 3:1 period. You
know, if it's 4 foot, it's 12 feet horizontally, 4 foot vertical. So on
and so forth. That isn't necessarily so. Depending on how you treat the
berm and how you plant it. There are a number of ways to make berms
higher without sticking with that 3:1. If you totally plant them with
ground covers and fairly densely populated plant materials, you can
' certainly maintain a steeper slope, assuming that no one has to mow them
everyday. And I also assume that those berms will be on private property.
Therefore, it'd be the responsibility of the maintenance of them to the
property owner who owns them. Therefore I assume they're going to take
care of them and not try to mow them obviously if they're mowable. So it
just depends on how we design that berm and how we plant it will also
determine the width of that particular berm, so. And there were lots of
' ways. There's even fencing I suppose. Opaque fencing of some sort. I
don't know if that's allowable in your city or not.
Olsen: We don't prefer it.
Wayne Tauer: Not preferred, okay. But like you say, there's options and
' again, maybe we can work it out with the staff to make it fly.
Scott: But as far as the issues relative to berming and right -of -way and
storm sewer and so forth along CR 117, staff does not see any issues that
' cannot be resolved? I just want to make sure that this issue is not
something that's going to cause them to, or this project to be non - viable
for some reason. But I get the reason that you don't see that as an
issue. Okay.
Hempel: I don't think it will be an issue. The berming or landscaping
can be used also in the trail easement corridor. It also I'm sure will
1 extend out into the properties though somewhat to a point.
Wayne Tauer: Oh yeah, agreed. Yeah, no problem there.
Hempel: We're told because the landscaping will effect large trees, the
root systems and so forth on any kind of trail base that we put in there,
11 plus hazards of limbs and tree trimming and so forth. So we're going to
be careful of what plantings and where they're located in relation to the
trail.
Wayne Tauer: We just don't want to restrict those two abutting lots to
the point where they're no longer viable lots. Although we do have fairly
large setbacks there already. So I mean we made those lots obviously
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 5
larger than the standard lots. It's just a matter of making sure that we
have at least a 50 or 60 foot building pad to put a nice house on. '
Farmakes: What's the City's experience with maintaining private berm
areas? Or does the private individual maintaining the berm area? Has it 1
been good?
Olsen: The ones I'm thinking of are the ones on Kerber. I don't know
that it's, I think on their side, on the interior side they do maintain II
it. On the exterior side, I don't know that. I think that we do. We en
up maintaining that.
Scott: It looks like they're mowed up about as far as someone can safely"
go so there's usually a section of about 10 to 12 feet that doesn't work.
And then I think, weren't there a tremendous amount of pine trees at one •
time? That ended up dying an untimely death.
Farmakes: I think they're still there.
Olsen: Some of them, yeah.
•
Farmakes: Where does the City define it's responsibility on that berm 11 then? Property line?
Olsen: Typically yeah. The end of the right -of -way or beyond. Anything
beyond the trail easement we would not maintain. '
Mancino: So if the landscaping and the trail easement...
Olsen: Well I think we would make an accommodation that we wouldn't be 1
responsible for that.
Farmakes: But if we defined what the landscaping is, we should be '
cognizant of maybe that part of it may not be taken care of so much.
Olsen: Right, and the landowner wouldn't understand that that's their's. '
Farmakes: Well not only that but physically it might be difficult for
them to maintain it. Particularly if you want to increase the grade of 11
it.
Wayne Tauer: Well if we increase the grade, there won't be much
maintenance involved is the whole idea behind it. Is to put plant
materials in there that will not require a lot of maintenance. Especiall
mowing, which is a weekly.
Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. 1
Wayne Tauer: Right, which is a weekly problem.
have any other comments that
Scott: Wayne, do you Y you'd like to make as Y
part of the public hearing?
Wayne Tauer: No, I guess that's pretty much it. I'll take your questions"
r
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 6
' Scott: Okay. Any questions from anyone that you'd like to address to
Wayne?
Ledvina: Does Rottlund, is it acceptable for them to pay the cost for the
' oversized pipes that will be placed at a later date? As I understand the,
is that something that we're willing to do?
Wayne Tauer: I think so, as long as it's a common denominator for
everybody. As I understand it, it's an ordinance not in place presently.
It's wishful thinking kinds of things and I know that Dave is looking for
that process and many other cities have that and why should Chanhassen be
different right? You know, really. I mean it does make some sense. If
you can have regional ponding as opposed to these little potholes all over
creation, I mean that really is a pain to most developers and if the city
' can go in and actually develop regional ponding areas where they make
sense, I think most developers will be in agreeable with that. Assuming
the assessment is reasonable and the City isn't making necessarily a major
profit on the project. That it covers the cost and makes the system work,
no. I think Rottlund would be absolutely agreeable with that.
Farmakes: Do you have an idea of the square footage that they're looking
at building per lot? Square footage of the building.
Wayne Tauer: The square footage of the building?
' Farmakes: Are you looking at a range for the development? Just curious.
Wayne Tauer: You're talking to the wrong man unfortunately. I don't know
I what they have in mind here. I'm sure it's $120's to $175's. You know
I'm just thinking. I shouldn't even probably say that. I don't know.
' Farmakes: You're talking price range. I'm talking square footage.
Wayne Tauer: Square footage. Well, I mean they're kind of related I
' guess. No I don't. I really don't. We could certainly get that number
to you. What they think will be coming in here but I don't know.
Scott: Any other questions? Okay. Is there anyone else as a part of the
' public hearing that would like to comment on this project? Okay, seeing
none, then can I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Now we'll, Diane if you'd like to start with your comments. We
started down here last week. Two weeks ago. Do you have any comments or
questions?
' Harberts: Thank you Mr. Chair. I told you it was a long day. Maybe this
is somewhere between a question and a comment with regard to the temporary
turn around easement. This is going to be an actual asphalt that's laid
down. Are those two lots, Lot 1 of Block 3 and Lot 5 of Block 1, are they
going to be available to be built on right away with that turn around
there?
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 7
Olsen: They could still be accommodated. Well Lot l's going to have the
pond on it We've had that before where the lots, buildings can still be 1
located there and then, as Dave can explain, it's just no curb. It's just
asphalt that's easily removed.
Hempel: The original permanent street is actually put in and what they doll
is pave what I'll call a tab outside to complete the radius for vehicles
to turn around so they're not turning around in somebody's driveway all
the time. It will be a little less grass for the homeowner to mow until II
the street gets extended. When the street does get extended, the
homeowner will receive a sodded yard back where that pavement is. It will
be torn out by the next developer and resodded. Building setbacks would II
be still from the property line, not the easement line so the setbacks
would remain the same.
Harberts: I feel a little bit that this is one of those situations where II
this is plopped down and I guess his meridian that he used, what's going
to happen around the other, you know surrounding it? Are we going to see
some plans for that? I mean we have this road. We have this group of
homes and we're talking about sewer.
Hempel: I can expand on further west of this subdivision. As you may or
may not be aware, Lundgren Bros have been before us with a preliminary
plat for quite a large subdivision but it's further to the west, closer to
Trunk Highway 41. There's also some talk of another property owner, the
Song's and also possibly Carlson's getting together with Lundgren Bros
also and do a development on the west side of Galpin, slightly north of II
this development. The applicant may want to expand on the potential, the
parcel north of this immediate development. There was some talk trying to
combine.
Harberts: Yeah, there's a single family home just.
Wayne Tauer: Yes, there is one. The property owner himself lives up in
that northwest corner of that particular property but we have also looked
at that property and have actually had a sketch plan type design on it and
Rottlund is negotiating with the Davidson's at this time to try to
purchase it. So it'd be very nice if we could, I mean nothing guaranteed
at this point in time but.
Harberts: How many acres is it?
Wayne Tauer: It's approximately the same size as this one. About 17
acres. Minus whatever that little corner is. That's probably an acre out
of there. Maybe it's around 15- 16.acres. There is a wetland in the
northeast corner which you will have to obviously avoid but yeah, we're II
trying to expand this particular plat if we can.
Harberts: I think that's it. Thank you.
Ledvina: Let's see here. A couple of things. In the staff report on
page 3, talking about grading and drainage. You say, I think this is
probably your piece Dave in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Grades throughout the plat should not exceed 3:1 slopes for maintenance II
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 8
' purposes. And when you say maintenance, do you mean the homeowner's
maintenance?
Hempel: That's correct. I referred to this for like backyard areas and
so forth. There was one particular area that appeared the slopes may have
been a little bit steeper than a 3:1. It was on the east side of the
development, Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 where it appears the backyards were
' fairly steep grades and it's difficult to maintain vegetation also in some
of those slopes when you increase the grades beyond 3:1.
Ledvina: Okay, so for the homeowners benefit you're suggesting that?
Hempel: That's correct.
' Ledvina: And then the pond. You suggest that the volume be increased by
1.2 acre feet. Is that easily done with the area that they have to work
with?
' Hempel: That number came.
Ledvina: It just means deepening the pond correct?
Hempel: Essentially, yes.
' Ledvina: Okay. And then there was a suggestion that related to the
placement of draintile behind the curbs to prevent or to provide some
drainage for sump pump water and things like that. Would these draintiles
be connected to the catch basins and such? Is that how that would work?
Hempel: That's correct. We'd like to network it with the storm sewer
system. Soil borings that were taken throughout the development here,
there was one particular area that showed kind of a high ground water, or
water table elevation where similar areas of the city have experienced,
the homeowners have experienced sump pumps that run pretty continuous
' throughout the day and during the winter months they also continue to run.
And to discharge outside creates a big ice build -up and with the
homeowners, well in the summertime it creates a very wet and spongy yard
and homeowners usually extend the draintile then out to the city street.
' And during the wintertime and ice build -ups and it becomes a real hazard
for both traffic and pedestrians. Lately the city crews have been
actually going out and repairing a number of these isolated areas around
' the city and we're trying to implement now with the construction of these
new developments where we know up front where we can anticipate water
problems to try to correct them in advance. We have a similar development
' where they actually stubbed out individual services to run to the house
for the draintile. Some basket to connect into because of the high water
table. It's worked fairly well. Most of the time homeowners, if they
can't discharge it outside, or if it gets the yard wet and so forth, a lot
of times they'll just discharge it down into the sewer system within the
house which is illegal and it's bad for the city from an infiltration
standpoint. The City pays an annual fee based on how much sewage goes to
I the MWCC and by having all these sump pumps hooked up to it, it just makes
our utility rates increase annually which is in turn passed onto the
homeowners through rate increases.
5
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 9
Ledvina: Okay, so the City is actually, in certain problem areas, the II City is actually constructing these drains behind the curb as a remedial
technique to avoid these problems?
Hempel: In some of the areas we have, we've worked with the homeowners II
and /or the builders /developers to go back and pay us to do that work. So
it's much easier to do it now as a part of the initial road construction
than having to go back and tear up the boulevards and restore yards and '
driveways. So it's a better situation this way.
Ledvina: Is there a maintenance concern to keep these drains free flowin�
over the long term? Are there clean -outs and that type of thing?
Hempel: There are clean -outs. Spaced approximately at about hundred
feet, hundred foot intervals.
Ledvina: So that's flush with the surface?
Hempel: That's correct, yeah. So far we've had draintile systems put in il
for a little over 2 years now and we've had no problems with freezing or
clogging or crushing of the pipe. ,
Ledvina: Okay. Let's see. Okay, I think that's all I have for my
comments at this time. 11 Scott: Great. Jeff.
Farmakes: I think I'll make a couple of statements. One, I think that II
the applicant can come forward with the solution if that's agreeable to
the engineering firm to solve the temporary problems along the highway.
I'm not I guess going to hand out any awards here for the lot development"
It meets all the requirements of the city and I think that it serves a
need to have a range of prices. Square footage of homes and so on. It
worries me a little bit that when we place developments out in the middle
of nowhere, we're not quite sure what's going to go in there later on. W
have a general idea I guess if we turn to our master plan but that part i
really handled by private enterprise and development. That particular
part is handled by the property owners with some guidance from the city
but we're not defining how big the houses are. We're just defining what
the minimums are. We're not defining how big the yards are going to be.
Just how little they're going to be. It seems to me kind of an odd mix II from some of the surrounding properties that I hear are being developed
out there, but maybe that's good. Maybe that's good that we have a range
of development. To each his own.
Olsen: This is also little pieces that there is, you can't really do too'
many fun things with it.
Farmakes: Right. It's a small, and I think once we start developing '
more, our flat farmland, we're going to find more and more of that. I
think in the last year or so we've been seeing odd topography type
developments where they're been doing a lot of contouring and around tree
and trying to save certain areas and I hope we continue some of that
creative development. And I know that we don't have ordinances requiring
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 10
that but this is a small development and I think it meets the requirements
that we have on the books. I'll leave it at that.
Mancino: I agree with that. Thanks Jeff for bringing that up. ...rolling
terrain right there and I live on Galpin and this is the first development
that's going to be let's say... Just one little question. Jo Ann, we
have a problem. Now I know that it's still nebulous about how the trail
and how the berming and everything is going to work. If the berming is on
1 private property, can we still guide the plantings for landscaping?
Olsen: Well, sure because that's still, they're still responsible for
providing that along Galpin. It always is on the private property with
the landscaping.
Mancino: So...wanting more massive plantings than just the rows...and
guided that way?
Olsen: Right, and that's something that in your condition, if you want to
' add 20, that instead of just row you can...
Mancino: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
1 Scott: Okay. The questions that I had have been addressed by the other
members of the Planning Commission. So do I have a motion?
1 Ledvina: I have one more question. Jo Ann, you suggested adding, or did
you suggest adding an additional condition as it related to the utilities
being available to this site?
Olsen: Well that's in there. But the one I did suggest was that, there's
nothing in there about being provided easements for the temporary ponding
1 on Lots 1 and Lots 3 and 4. That does need to be added.
Ledvina: Okay.
1 Olsen: I don't know if you have a good way of wording that, or can it be
added to one of the other conditions perhaps.
' Scott: Or is that something that we'd be more comfortable putting
together a motion after some of these issues have been developed in
writing with staff doing that and then revisit it? Or is this something
' that we're comfortable with acting on right now?
Ledvina: I think if it's an easement issue and the developer is willing
to grant those easements, I think that can be worked out with staff.
Scott: Okay, so that's something we could act on today.
Ledvina: Yeah, I think so.
Harberts: Mr. Chair. Also, with the point that was brought up with
landscaping with berming. Is that something then that staff will address
and bring back your recommendation if that should be included or not? As
part of the landscping.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 11 1
Olsen: Well the way I, what we were suggesting is that you would just ad
that they shall provide a landscaping plan which provides landscaping
species and berming recommended by staff.
Scott: Okay, so we just an amendment to item 20?
Olsen: Right. And so that it would not come back to you.
Wayne Tauer: Would we be locked into that city list of plant materials? 11
Olsen: That's what this recommendation is. What we're saying is that
half of them be from there.
Wayne Tauer: Half of them? Oh, okay. We have some options.
Mancino: Then I'll go ahead and move that we approve the Rezoning #93 -1 II
to rezone 17.2 acres from A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential
Single Family with the following conditions, 1 and 2 as stated in the
report.
Ledvina: Second.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Rezoning #93 -1 to rezone 17.2 acres from A2, Agricultural
Estates to RSF, Residential Single Family with the following conditions: '
1. The rezoning will not be final until the final plat has been approved
and recorded and utilities service the site.
2. All conditions of preliminary and final plat must be met.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
Ledvina: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve Subdivision #93 -4 for the Windmill Run subdivision
subject to the staff conditions with the following amendments and
additions. The first condition shall read as per the staff report with
the additional statement to read, additional contour data shall be
obtained to optimize the vertical alignment of Windmill Drive. And
amendment of condition 20. An addition to read, a landscaped soil berm
shall also be included subject to the staff review. And adding a 22nd
condition to read, drainage easements must be granted for the pond locate"
in the southwest corner and other temporary ponding areas as necessary.
Scott: Is there a second to the clarification of items number 1, 20 and 11
the addition of items 22?
Harberts: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II
approval of Subdivision #93 -4 for the Windmill Run subdivision with the
following conditions:
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 12
1. Elevation of the southerly cul -de -sac should be adjusted to provide
better grade continuity for the future extension of Windmill Drive to
the south, and additional contour data shall be obtained to optimize
the vertical alignment of Windmill Drive.
' 2. The water quality /retention pond proposed in the southwest corner of
the development shall be increased to provide a wet volume of 1.2
acre /feet. In addition, an outlet restricting flows shall be limited
to 4.5 cfs at the high water level.
3. The applicant shall design and construct temporary holding ponds for
storm runoff on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 4 and 5, Block 3 to maintain
the pre - developed runoff conditions. In addition, the applicant
shall pay into the City's Surface Water Management Program for future
downstream water quality improvements. The specific amount will be
determined by the City's storm water consultant.
4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water trunk fee to be
determined by the City's storm water management consultant to
contribute towards the future extension of storm sewer downstream.
5. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with the City's 1993 edition of Standard Specifications
and Detail Plates. Street construction shall also include a drain
11 the system behind the curb to accommodate household sump pump
discharge.
6. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations
' verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be
designed and constructed to handle 10 year storm events. Retention
ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the
surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at predeveloped
runoff conditions for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. Drainage
plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from
the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department,
Watershed District, DNR and Caver County Highway Department.
8. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter
into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee construction of the public
improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. The
development contract will be subject to City Council approval.
' 9. The applicant shall provide at a minimum a right turn lane along
County Road 117 and any other improvements required by the Carver
County Highway Department.
10. Both temporary cul -de -sacs that are proposed for future extension
' shall be provided with a turnaround that meets City standards with a
barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary cul -de -sac and
this road will be extended in the future.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 13
11. The preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council II
ordering the public improvement project No. 92 -5 for the trunk
sanitary sewer and water improvements through the development.
12. The applicant shall dedicate the necessary drainage and utility 1
easement for the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer and possible
storm sewer over Lot 1, Block 1.
13. Lot grades throughout the development shall not exceed 3 :1 slopes.
14. The applicant shall dedicate temporary street easements for those
areas of the temporary cul -de -sacs outside the dedicated
right -of -way.
15. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for eec j
house pad on the grading plan.
16. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits II
of the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division.
A general soils report for the development should also be submitted
to the Inspections Division.
17. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e.
street lamps, trees, shrubs, NSP and Northwestern Bell, cable boxes,
pursuant to city ordinance.
18. No housing construction beyond Lots 12, 13, 16, 17 may start until
fire apparatus access roads are provided. These access roads shall
be designed to the City of Chanhassen Engineering standards, and mee
the approval of the Chanhassen Fire Department pursuant to Uniform
Fire Code 1988 Edition, Section 10.20(f). 1
19. The street named "76th Street West" is unacceptable and must be
renamed. The reason being that the city already has a 76th Street
and 76 does not line up with the city's grid map system.
20. The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which provides
landscape species recommended by staff. A landscaped soil berm shall'
also be included subject to the staff review.
21. Meet conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission.
22. Drainage easements must be granted for the pond located in the
southwest corner and other temporary ponding areas as necessary.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
r
1
1
Meeting
Planning Commission Me g
11 February 17, 1993 - Page 14
PUBLIC HEARING:
11 SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 16.410 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE /WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON
PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PARK PLACE AND PARK ROAD, LOT 3. BLOCK 1,
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION, MARK UNDESTAD /EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION, TECHNICAL INDUSTRIAL SALES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Undestad 8800 Sunset Trail
Richard Andresen Representing PMT Corp
Sharmin A1- -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Acting Chairman
Scott called the public hearing to order.
Richard Andresen: I'm Richard Andresen. My last name is Andresen. I'm a
resident of Savage, Minnesota. I'm Plant Manager for PMT Corporation and
like she pointed out, I would like to see them also add their own
landscaping, and not just utilize our current landscape. He's right next
to it right now the way he shows it and I'd like to see some more of his
own landscaping being put in there. That's what I'd like to state.
Scott: Okay, and then so you basically agree with the condition that are
t here?
Richard Andresen: Yes. Yes, definitely.
Farmakes: Which side are you connected?
t Scott: You're the existing building correct?
Richard Andresen: Yeah. I'm the existing landscape that they're showing
' row. PMT Corporation.
Scott: Good. Any other comments as part of the public hearing? Yes,
Councilman Wing.
Richard Wing: Richard Wing, Chan City Council. I just wanted to again
hit the landscaping because so many times on the last buildings that have
come in on the last issues that we've dealt with at City Council, they've
come through staff, through Planning Commission and they've sort of been
good but then we get them and we wondered why they're not a little better.
11 And then suddenly I say, we want more trees and then everybody says, oh
no. It winds up going back so I'd like the applicant to take this
landscaping issue very seriously so that when it gets to Council, I don't
have to say it's inadequate. I'd like them to come in as a good corporate
citizen. Understand what landscaping means to the city. Recognize the
fact that we are working on a new landscape ordinance that's going to be
extensively higher I hope than we have now. Demand much more trees. Much
11 more landscaping. And we have to start now so being there's TIF money
involved, I think staff supports getting this thing going. I'd like
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 15
Planning Commission to be aware of that and just a personal comment to the'
applicant again, repeating myself, that we want some trees and we want
some overstory. We want this to get into kind of an urban forest setting
and I agree, it's inadequate and I think Sharmin and the staff are pushing'
it. I think we want to push even a little harder and so if this is to run
smoothly when it gets to me at Council, it would behoove the applicant to
really seriously look at the landscape plan and come in with a really good'
one. I'd appreciate if he'd put that effort into it.
Scott: Good, thank you. Is the applicant here or a representative of the'
applicant that would like to address the Planning Commission?
Mark Undestad: My name is Mark Undestad with Eden Trace, the builder.
Reviewing everything here you know that we will indeed do quite a bit more'
landscaping on that site. This was kind of a fast pace plan put together
here. The question that I have is, on the rooftop screening, you say a
parapet wall. Is that around the entire building or parapet something
around the individual rooftop units? II
Al -Jaff: Around the entire building so that if you were from any of the '
adjoining streets, or the streets within the area, you won't be able to
see the rooftop equipment or if you are at one of the neighboring
buildings.
Mark Undestad: So the rooftop screens themselves, I mean there's from an '
economic standpoint there's a big difference to put a parapet wall around
the entire building versus screening in the rooftop units themselves on
there. I think what we're looking at was like a parapet, or like a scree
screening the units themselves in there.
Al -Jaff: We could do that. You haven't shown us any type of rooftop
II
equipment so.
Mark Undestad: Okay. I thought you said that you wanted something to, '
parapet just to phrase exactly that. You put a parapet wall around the
entire unit. Am I missing something?
Al -Jaff: That is our preference. However, we could work with other
II
solutions. Other alternatives.
Mark Undestad: Okay. We'll get this together for you on there? The
parking stalls, the one on the upper right hand corner there. Yeah, that
might be a little tight backing in and out of there. However, the one on
the other corner, that one yeah. On the left side, that area back there
is not set up for tractor trailer traffic. It's strictly a van door, dro�
door so that we wouldn't have any large trucks going back in there and
trying to maneuver around back in that corner. So I don't think that
really we would have to eliminate that rear stall back there. The loadinil
docks are in the, or a loading dock is in the front side for the tractor
trailer traffic.
Hempel: I believe when we did look at it though, we're still going to '
have some conflict. When you pull in, there's not much room for you to be
able to back up to that parking or to that loading dock with a utility
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 16
type van. We had some concerns there. I guess if you can demonstrate
turning radius or whatever, that you can accommodate your turning
vehicles, that might be a solution too. But we're looking at also a
1 future use I guess. Will it always be a utility type function or maybe it
will be expanded to a larger type. Small tractor type trailer operation
that may utilize that stall. Then at that time there would be no parking
there and then you would be deficient of a parking stall, according to the
ordinance.
Mark Undestad: Okay. Well we can run that through engineering and let
them see how that would work out in there. Really everything else that
we've looked at on here is fine. We'll take care of it.
Harberts: I'd like to ask a couple questions of the applicant. How many
1 people do you look to employ at this facility?
Mark Undestad: Right now they employ 10 on site. The majority of their
' space is warehouse, shipping and receiving. What they plan to increase by
increasing their size here, I don't know. Technical Industrial Sales
wasn't available to show up tonight. They're out of town here but like
I say, right now they employ 10 people at their current facility. They
have several sales associates out in the 5 state area but part of this
process is an increase in space and I'm sure they'll be looking to bring
on a couple more bodies anyway.
' Scott: Any other comments from the public regarding this item? I'd like
to have a motion to close the public hearing please.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
1 Mancino: I have just a clarification for Sharmin. Would you put the,
light up the overhead again. On that northwest corner, you show losing
one stall but we're actually going to lose two. Or there are going to be
'
two eliminated on that northwest corner correct? That's what you had
down in your, so there's going to be a total of 3 parking spaces...
1-3aff: Correct.
Mancino: I just wanted to make sure. So they will need to redo a whole
parking lot schematic, or whatever you call it to show you how...
Al -Jaff: Correct.
11 Mancino: That are needed by the City Code. Okay. Oh I know. What I
would like to take a second and just show the other commissioners a
building used of the similar rock faced concrete block that I saw in my
travels this week. I think Sharmin came up with a good idea for having a
little bit of different detail and having some glazing tile. This
particular building uses brick as it's detail running through it. And
actually...little bit of brick detail over the windows also so it
architecturally has a little more going on to it. I just would like any
discussion about some other architectural enhancements we could make to
this building.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 17
Harberts: Sharmin, why did you suggest going? '
Al -Jaff: It was just a suggestion.
Harberts: I just wondered if there was a specific reason.
Al -Jaff: No. Not at all. 1
Farmakes: This structure is meeting the requirements the City's proposed,
correct? As it is currently being proposed. This isn't a TIF. '
Al -Jaff: It's a TIF site.
Farmakes: It is. ,
Al -Jaff: It could benefit from some architectural.
Farmakes: The applicant mentioned that he was rushed to put this ,
together. Is this, I'm assuming that what we're looking at here is the
building that's being proposed. Is that what we have? I guess what I
wanted to clarify is what we're looking at here is a site plan review but
does this mean that the buildings could change later or you're changing
the roof?
Mark Undestad: This kind of shows a little bit more of how the break-ups'
are to using various types of block and little different looks. Technical
Industrial Sales wanted something real simple and clean looking. On the
other hand I know most cities...so we're kind of in the middle here. Wha
I did here was get something with the accent line that would break up
along here using...to get the accent line down here. And then basically
just...variations of block. It gives it a little...what the owner would
like is similar to the Dayco concrete block...These were Federal Expresse
down to him. They were supposed to be there Monday for his approval and
get back to us Tuesday. Federal Express didn't get it there on time.
This is what we have. I did talk to him today and we did make a change.
Above these windows we had this lighter accent color above all the
windows...tone that down a bit...
Harberts: There isn't really a whole lot you can do with warehouses.
Farmakes: Sure there is. I guess my response is, citizens or a partner,
it gives you a little more leeway to put input into it. The problem that
we have with industrial buildings is you almost feel guilty adding on
anything to it. It still ignores the fact that the building's going to bil
here for 20 -30 years. Dick's comments are well taken. I think that not
only will additional landscaping be more pleasant to look at but it will
help hide the building. I think that the applicant has probably come
forward and said that they don't think it's an architectural wonder but
serves it's purpose. I guess if we want to add something more to that, I
know it seems like the neighbors, the industrial neighbors that you have
here are somewhat concerned. I know PMT has a nice facility. Very nice II
building next door. Is there a reason why the City and some of the
commercial structures that I know have bricks up the roofline. We've been
talking about doing that, at least in the entrance areas of the building.'
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 18
1 Is there a reason why we didn't push for that here? Or we didn't feel it
was necessary.
Al -Jaff: They meet the minimum standards of.
Farmakes: And that gets back to a philosophical thing. I mean it's an
unfortunate thing that you don't want to wind up living in a community of
minimums but it still is reality of an ordinance. If you have a minimum
that you meet, and it's up to the applicant to go beyond that.
Mancino: Plus it's not on a main road. I mean it's not like it's on
Highway 5...
Farmakes: That's correct. And it's a different relationship. I guess if
you have a company that comes next door and decides to invest serious
money and build a nice structure. On the same hand I guess they know
building that building that their development next door might meet the
minimum requirement. But I'm wondering what more can be done to that
building. It wouldn't take much more to incorporate some of the stuff
that we talk about.
Ledvina: The one thing that we have to do is provide screening of the
roof equipment and talked about the parapet wall. Perhaps that can be
used to give the thing more of a broken roofline. Perhaps in the front of
the building or Park Road or something, that could be just the height of
the roof and then beyond the entranceway and the back two - thirds you could
have a parapet cut across the roof. You know, I don't know but then
again, if the equipment is back there and that would give it a broken roof
line anyway. I mean you've got to do the screening. Maybe you could take
advantage of that aspect of the modification that's required and give it a
' better look.
Scott: Diane, do you have some comments?
Harberts: I pass.
Scott: Sharmin you were going to.
Al -Jaff: The west elevation of the building is also one large span of
wall. One way this could be addressed is by landscaping. Massing
landscaping where we have walls. Or by adding windows. That would be the
third elevation.
Scott: Basically where we're at is that the building as proposed meets
the minimum standards. I'm assuming there will be equipment. HVAC
equipment and so forth on, so that's a given so there will be some sort of
parapet structure. You have to make the determination, I mean obviously
11 you know what we'd like to see but then you also know what the minimums
are. I think what the Planning Commission is all about is expressing what
we'd like to see as a vision of a particular part of the city. But you're
well aware of the minimums and you also know what you are legally required
' to do. But the bottom line is that you obviously have to put together a
project that is going to meet the requirements of your customer. But I
think you know what we're trying to say. We'd like to have this look as
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 19
nice as we possibly can and we also expect that you're going to be a good
neighbor, because we obviously, the people at PMT have made a significant
investment in the city. And I think that's the end of my editorial
comment. Are there any other, Diane?
Harberts: I have a question. Where are the trash bins or waste
receptacles going to be kept?
Mark Undestad: They'll be inside...
Harberts: So the garbage truck will come in and back up to a loading
dock? That's it.
Farmakes: I have an addition. I think in the past we've shown a little
bit more aggressiveness in asking more than the minimum when there has
been community investment within the structures. I think that does give
us an opportunity to ask for more. This particular structure is actually
quite a bit in shape and appearance like Target, and many of the things II
that we discussed and issues of Target I think are also applicable here.
Just because, as I said, just because it's an industrial area does not
mean that they don't have neighbors and neighbors that are concerned about
what their structures look like. This particular case I think we have an
applicant who, it's a warehouse. You know, that's what it is. It's a
warehouse and it doesn't need to look like anything more than a warehouse.
I think we should take advantage of the fact that it is a partnership
arrangement and that we should try to resolve some of those problems.
Aesthetic problems. I don't think throwing a few tiles on concrete block
resolves that issue. Maybe dealing with accenting the entrance structure
or changing the so the plane of the roof is broken, perhaps you can
incorporate that with your covering. Your screening. Yeah, I guess I
have reservations about putting wood boxes on top of buildings too so
that, to help you with this, that hasn't went very far in the last 3 -4
years. Getting away with that so I think the site plan is fine with the
reservations that you have about the parking. And I agree with Dick. If
failing that, if you're not serious about that, and changing the structurll
of that to try and blend in a little bit better, and certainly an
investment. When you're looking at square footage of the building, we're
on the entrance. You can certainly do something there. A portion too, I ,
think what your expenditures are on the building, it should be a
percentagewise small. The issue of the landscaping, at least you can
hide what else you have there.
Mancino: Jeff, what about the windows? Putting some on that west side o
else making the windows longer. More vertical. It has more of a
proportion. 1
Farmakes: Well most buildings of this structure usually have the larger
windows by the entrance of the office sections of the building. They
don't have large picture windows in the warehouse area. You can sort of
see where that begins and ends. The security concerns there are certainly
valid and the warehousing. It does however add additional cost to add
windows also. So I think that's part of the concern here as well. This
building costs and that's reflected on the plan.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 20
Mancino: It's also the minimum allowed.
Farmakes: Yes. It's just a question of what's reasonable to request from
the client. What do you maximize out? If they firm up the edge there
and fill it up with trees, you may not be seeing those windows. It's a
question of what they come back with I guess.
Scott: Jo Ann, or Sharmin, what's the value of this structure? From the
TIF standpoint. How much TIF money's involved here?
l-Jaff: I don't know.
Scott: Okay. That's.
11 Olsen: Todd Gerhardt.
Scott: A Gerhardt question. Okay. Do we have any other comments?
Al -Jaff: One more thing. Another way of accenting the building is over
the windows, just like Commissioner Mancino mentioned earlier...that
should be a condition of approval.
Mark Undestad: ...was too busy and he wanted us to...
Farmakes: One of the things that contrasting material, we very rarely
ever see materials in here. You can bet your bottom dollar that when this
architect finished, he brought in material to sell this plan. That's the
way architects operate. They come in, they show you materials. They have
material samples and they're explaining it as part of the process
explaining what the building's going to look like. We never see that
11 stuff here and it often, in this case with industrial buildings, you will
have different facia pre -cast or block but when you look at it from 100
feet, you can't tell the difference. You just can't see the difference
and basically if you find out what that block costs per block, there is no
11 difference. They're the same priced block. They're just slightly
different facia on it. So the question is sometimes when you're requiring
different materials, is it a different color? Is it running vertically
and the rest horizontal? Just because it's a different material doesn't
necessarily make it a detail.
Olsen: I think that you were saying that you had proposed this color
11 above the windows...
Mark Undestad: Right, and...already and that did give it a totally
different look. Like I say, the owner's requesting...too busy.
Mancino: It would be helpful in the future to see actual samples every
time somebody presented.
Farmakes: The way to make it least busy would be to paint the entire
building black and have a smooth surface on it. But you know, not to be
facetious but it's obvious that we're not making a Sistine Chapel out of
the warehouse. I don't think we should require it but it should require
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 21 1
an effort to come to a reasonable attractiveness in relationship to your
neighbors.
Scott: Jeff, are you suggesting another condition to the ones already
proposed by staff relative to seeing exterior plans?
Farmakes: Should we be more specific and ask what your feeling there as
to what, how you can incorporate that with the screening? ,
Al -Jaff: We could. But if you would like to add a condition that would
improve the architecture.
Farmakes: Well we could list detailing an area particularly around the
entrance to the building. And the issues of landscaping, I'm not sure
how, you know Dick often gets in there and wrestles with, if you're
proposing 12 trees, he wants 24. I'm not sure how, since we don't have a II
detailed plan here, how do you want to approach that? We have a very
minimal landscape plan here as a part of this proposal.
Scott: Is it our consensus that we need more information before we can
approve this subject to conditions? Is that what we're saying here? Do
we have enough information to say yes or no?
Farmakes: I would like to work out those things prior to it going to City
Council. Or at least that's the idea I got in the recommendation. It may
be to the applicant's benefit for us to work this stuff out rather than
you get hung up on that end.
Scott: Are you working, is there a short fuse here? What's the deal ,
here? When does this have to be done? What's on your back?
Mark Undestad: We're looking to make, what the deal is where they're at. II
The State has bought their facility in Eden Prairie...break ground here,
we're looking for the Council March 8th and then break ground any time
after that. 1
Scott: So when do they have to be out of their building in Eden Prairie?
Mark Undestad: They have June 15th right now. They have to be out of
I/
there.
Scott: Okay. So basically what has to happen is this baby's got to be II
done before June 15th? Now that's significant information.
Harberts: When did the State buy them out? Was it for the 212? 1
Mark Undestad: No, this is part of the school, elementary school.
Harberts: Do you know when they bought them out? 1
Mark Undestad: The whole deal was just finalized maybe a month and a half
ago. Two months. '
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 22
Harberts: Do you know how long they were involved in negotiations? I was
at a meeting this morning and MnDot was there and to me it sounded like it
was an extensive negotiation process and I'm just, I guess I raise the
question, did they wait until the last minute to start this ball rolling?
Mark Undestad: They did in Chanhassen. They had a project that they were
doing in Eden Prairie and...one of the realtors in the area here
approached him and put this deal together out in Chanhassen...
Scott: So you're going to build this thing in 90 days?
Mark Undestad: Yep.
Farmakes: I take that back, it may be 12 years.
Scott: Pardon me?
Farmakes: It may be a life expectancy of 12 years.
Scott: Alright. So your plan is you're going to break ground on March
8th?
Mark Undestad: Or there about's, yeah.
Scott: Okay.
Olsen: There is a possibility of bringing it back on the 3rd. March 3rd
and still having it on the 8th. We've done that with exceptions where you
pay Nann to do the Minutes fast. The next day. So we can still get it
out to the Council.
Mark Undestad: The stuff, the recommendations that you're making here for
this to be approved here.
Al -Jaff: With the addition of what the Planning Commission is requesting
which is breaking the entryway.
Olsen: I think the Planning Commission is saying they want to see it
again rather than just passing it on.
11 Scott: Yeah. I think we're going to get backwards on next meeting versus
the Council meeting aren't we?
' Olsen: It's March 3rd.
Scott: Our next meeting is the 3rd and the Council meeting.
Olsen: Is the 8th.
Scott: Is the 8th, okay. I think we need to see this again. What do you
guys think? Yes?
Ledvina: Unfortunately yes.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 23
Scott: Is that why they call it architorture? Is that how that works? II
Can I have a motion then? I'm sorry, did you have a comment? This is
like an auction.
Farmakes: I'm wondering, do you have an idea on the landscaping what '
you're proposing or are you looking for the number of trees or are you
looking to re- attack this problem?
Mark Undestad: ...enough trees in the landscaping... The landscaping wa
put on there...took in, wherever they get their information from the city
and it is the minimum. I disagree with you that this is the minimums. Anil
building I put up, the landscaping...we'll do that on the plan to show yo
that the landscaping... We'll screen up this west wall a great deal.
We'll do...fence around the front or rock...and I apologize it's not on
this plan...we will show what the landscaping will be.
Farmakes: How flat is the topography on that one side?
Mark Undestad: Real flat.
Farmakes: Pancake flat huh? ,
Olsen: One of the things we could maybe suggest for the landscaping is
similar to what we did with Rottlund where we had those primary species.
That they take the majority of the plantings of the trees, take that
list...and make sure you just don't get Lindens and Ash.
Farmakes: Well and the other thing. Something with some substance that'll
going to be solid throughout the year. Either some, to break up that mas
there and even with the primary species, you're still, you're not going to
get a lot of coverage there.
Olsen: Well we have that recommended...
Mancino: Are there any evergreens on this plan? 1
Scott: Oh yeah. There's all sorts of, I'm not an arborists or anything
but. Fir, spruce and pine.
Mancino: ...way over on, I want to say the east side of the property.
The existing pines and the existing firs I'm sorry are really on PMT's
property.
Ledvina: Well I would move that the Planning Commission continue Site
Plan Review #93 -1 until the March 3, 1993 meeting. '
Farmakes: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we revisit this item at the nevi
meeting.
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to table Site Plan Review #93 -1 on an
office /warehouse facility for Technical Industrial Sales until the next
Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 24
NEW BUSINESS:
Mancino: I have a question from staff or Commissioners. As Richard Wing,
Councilman Wing told you, the Tree Board is just getting going. It's up
' and running. We've had two meetings and we will be starting in March to
look at the landscaping ordinance. Taking it apart and rewriting it. And
also the landscaping and subdivision city code. So that if you could by
our next meeting, give me, write down, call me, anyplace within the
ordinance that you would like to see changed. You can be very general.
You can be very specific. Or if there are areas that are not in the
ordinance that should be that you would like addressed, maybe parking
lots, just write it down. Give me a little note and then we can after the
beginning of re- writing of ordinances...
Farmakes: Are you going to the parking lot conference?
Scott: Any other new business?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Scott: Everybody's read the Minutes of the last meeting so I'll ask for a
motion to approve the Minutes of the last Planning Commission.
Farmakes moved, Harberts seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated February 3, 1993 as presented. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Scott: I don't see any other items. Any items for open discussion?
Ledvina: Just one other thing. Do you have anything from Paul here that
you wanted to talk about? Report from the Director? Okay. And the
moratorium is dead?
Scott: Yes, it is.
11 Ledvina: Okay.
11 Farmakes: I have a question about the folks at Goodyear. I assume in
short succession we should see one from Abra. Very shortly after that,
probably one from Crown Auto.
Scott: You mean Goodyear?
Farmakes: No, I think Crown Auto probably will follow shortly after Abra.
11 I think that's what they're shooting for as far as getting that third
building in there. At least that was the general discussion at one time.
You were involved with that, did you think that that was resolved
admirably or is that?
Al -Jaff: As far as the third site?
Farmakes: No, not the third site. I was talking about that particular
development and that particular area in general. There were three
buildings, one of which the City Council gave approval to.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 25
Al -Jaff: Which was Goodyear.
Farmakes: Correct. Some of the many things that we talked about on that'll
building, do you think that those issues were resolved or they solve it by
just saying, build it in brick?
Al - Jaff: Well, they did resolve most of the issues such as additional
landscaping. Additional dormers. They did require that the building be
brick. So all the issues were resolved. Everything that you pointed out"
at the Planning Commission has been addressed by the City Council and
resolved.
Farmakes: But essentially the last revision that we looked at is
essentially just being in brick, correct?
Al - Jaff: Correct. 1
Farmakes: I mean they're not adding dormers anywhere and they're not
changing? 1
Al -Jaff: Yes they did.
Farmakes: Oh they did add that? 1
Al -Jaff: Yes, they did add.
Farmakes: The site plan review though is coming back. Is that the
signage for that particular building or all three or just the pylon?
Al - Jaff: It would be a package for the three sites...and as it looks,
it's a lot better than what the first initial design was. Definitely a
lot better. It's got a combination of a mansard and a pitched roof. It
a block, concrete block building. It has, the garage doors are recessed
underneath the pitched elements so that is kind of different and
interesting I thought than what we had before. The east elevation is one
big bland wall. There's nothing on it and we are requesting additional II
architectural elements be incorporated to that.
Farmakes: Is there a reason why that's not coming to the Planning
Commission or is that not part?
Al -Jaff: Because of your recommendation of approval, you requested
additional dormers. Improve the design and then send it.
Farmakes: For Goodyear?
Al -Jaff: No, for Abra.
Farmakes: For Abra, okay. 1
Al -Jaff: And send it to the City Council and that's why.
Farmakes: I thought they had pulled that and we're going to start all
over again.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 February 17, 1993 - Page 26
1-3aff: No.
Farmakes: But that's who I understood Paul's communication.
Al -Jaff: Your recommendation was that they improve the design before it
appears in front of City Council. The design went backwards and that's
why we pulled it off the City Council agenda.
Scott: Okay, any other open discussion?
There was some discussion between Nancy Mancino and Jo Ann Olsen regarding
a public hearing for the Highway 5 access boulevards which was not picked
up on the tape.
Farmakes: Is Paul satisfied with the response on, his criticism of how
that was being staged on the Highway 5 Planning Commission. They were
going to sort of back up and start over with dealing with our goals and
our intent?
Olsen: Is he satisfied?
Farmakes: I don't know. I sat through the meeting and listened to words
like Main Street. I was thinking, well what is that. Are we going to put
that in the intent statement? What does Main Street mean?
Olsen: I know that he and Kate are working on all that right now. That's
exactly why they are a step back. That meeting was so disorganized.
1 Farmakes: I think the views obviously, they're going to be disorganized
because we have many people from, we have both property owners. We have
people who are interested in civic affairs. We have planners and we have
11 a lot of different viewpoints there. So it will be interesting to see we
take that and make that into a paragraph.
Harberts: Can you clarify what those access boulevards are? Are these
accesses onto Highway 5?
Farmakes: She's referring to the roads that we were looking at. A, B, C,
D on TH 5. You were at the meeting. She was at, you were at the Highway
5 meeting weren't you?
Harberts: No.
Farmakes: Oh. There's someone there that looks just like you. I've been
saying hi to her.
Mancino: In fact I know who that is. No, there's going to be a road that
runs parallel to Highway 5 and it's going to be north of Highway 5.
Olsen: It will just be an access road to Galpin.
Farmakes: It's what they were referring to originally as frontage roads.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1993 - Page 27
1
Harberts: Oh, they have different names for those now. Access
boulevards. Okay, got you. Frontage roads. Okay, we don't have frontage'
roads in Chanhassen. We have access boulevards. Got you...
Scott: Any other open discussion? Then I close this meeting of the
Planning Commission. Thank you all for coming. 1
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss 1
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/ 1
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
' JANUARY 26, 1993
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Jim Andrews, Ron Roeser, Larry
Schroers, Dave Koubsky, and Jan Lash
' STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer,
Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Koubsky moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting dated December 15, 1992 as presented. All
1 voted in favor and the motion carried.
WELCOME NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS: RON ROESER AND JIM HANDERS.
' Chairman Schroers introduced the new members to the rest of the
Commission.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Hoffman: Commission members, the Visitor Presentation item which you have
' before you tonight is just an informational item. On occasion throughout
each year staff receives question, inquiries, and things that we just at
staff's discretion cannot approve. Thus they should come down to the Park
' Commission for some type of discussion prior to making a motion or taking
action on those items. As such I recommend that we establish a monthly
Visitor Presentation portion of your agenda to allow for me to invite
those types of people making inquiries and invite them down to the
1 Commission meeting so they can discuss that with you.
Schroers: Very good. Seems pretty simple. Does someone want to make a
' recommendation to that end?
Lash: I move that we add to our agenda, monthly agenda, Visitor
Presentations.
Andrews: Second.
' Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission add
Visitor Presentations item to their future agendas. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
A. SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE - CHAIRPERSON.
Hoffman: Commissioners, you can take each of these items as they appear.
Selection of Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson. Nominations can be made
' open on the floor. Discussion can ensure and the election of officers
should be taken care of this evening.
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 2
Andrews: I'd like to nominate Larry for Chairman. He's done a good job.
Lash: I'll second that.
Andrews: Would you be willing to serve again?
Schroers: Yes. Okay, thank you for the nomination.
' Andrews moved, Lash seconded to appoint Larry Schroers as Chairman of the
Park and Recreation Commission for 1993. All voted in favor and the
1 motion carried.
Schroers: Okay, then as Vice -Chair I'll make a recommendation for Jim
Andrews as Vice - Chair.
Koubsky: Second that.
Schroers moved, Koubsky seconded to appoint Jim Andrews as Vice - Chairman
of the Park and Recreation Commission for 1993. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
B. ADOPT RULES OF CONDUCT.
Hoffman: Rules of conduct officially are Roberts Rules of Order as
1 revised. I'm sure you've all read them clearly before this evening's
meeting so you have no concerns.
' Lash: I move we adopt or continue operating under Roberts Rules of Order
Revised.
Schroers: I'll second that.
Lash moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
conduct their meetings according to Roberts Rules of Order Revised. All
1 voted in favor and the motion carried.
C. 1993 MEETING DATES AND TIMES.
1 Schroers: Is there a conflict with the schedule we're on now?
11 Hoffman: Fourth Tuesday?
Schroers: Yeah.
' Hoffman: No. None whatsoever. That calendar which appears there
indicates the fourth Tuesday on all months. There are no conflicts in
1993 except obviously for the December meeting to move it up to the second
' Tuesday.
Lash: I just want to throw this out to people. I guess I'm open to
either way but the month of November, that ends up being the Tuesday
before Thanksgiving and generally the elementary schools have conferences
those 2 days. And I don't know if High School does too but it could be a
conflict for me. It could be for Fred. And it could be for anyone who
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 3 1
has kids. A lot of times people leave early then for the long weekend.
guess if I had my druthers, I'd rather see it moved up a week to the 16th
Or back a week to the 30th, but then it gets really close to the December
14th.
Koubsky: I guess I'd agree with moving it to the 16th. In the workplace,
I think we have both those days off so that will be kind of kids day.
Hoffman: No problem. '
Lash: I move that we adopt the 1993 meeting dates as amended for
November.
Koubsky: Second.
Lash moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission adop
the 1993 meeting dates as amended, moving the November meeting date to
November 16, 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
D. ATTENDANCE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
Andrews: I wanted to ask Todd about this City Council schedule, which wall
also attached to this scheduling. I guess that's the next item, item (d).
Pardon me.
Schroers: So yeah, the next item is attendance at the City Council
meetings. Go ahead with your question Jim.
Andrews: My question was, although I hold those days open, typically I I
don't attend unless I'm told that there's something of park interest on
the agenda. Unless I just decide to attend. Can we continue to operate
under that method? This year it was pretty much as needed.
Hoffman: I simply put on the bottom, the Commission can decide as a group
what policy they would like to use for following this. Whether it be
mandatory attendance, voluntarily or at my call or encouragement to attend
the meeting since only when there are issues of importance to the
Commission on the City Council agenda.
Lash: I'd prefer to do it by notification. And if by chance you notifie
one of us at our scheduled time and we for some reason couldn't make it,
I'd like to know that we could fall back on each other. '
Schroers: I think basically it's a continuation of what we had been
doing. That's the way we had it set up that we were going to be notified
in turn when there was a park and rec related item at the Council meeting ,
and has there been a problem with that?
Hoffman: No problem. '
Schroers: Yeah, I'd prefer just to go like that and have some sort of
formal notification as a reminder. Okay, do you need a motion to that
effect?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
1 January 26, 1993 - Page 4
1 Hoffman: Not necessarily, no.
Schroers: Okay, good. Then that will conclude organizational items.
1 PHEASANT HILL PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT; NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commissioners. This item was reviewed at
your last meeting, December 15th. At that time staff discussed the
proposed changes to the master plan of Pheasant Hill Park. Upon completing
discussion that evening it was the Commission's wish to have staff prepare
' a letter to the residents of the Pheasant Hill neighborhood explaining to
them this proposed plan amendment to the master plan for Pheasant Hill
Park. Asked for their input into that proposed change. Invite them to
their meeting this evening to hear their comments and then move forward
1 with the decision in this regard. Briefly, I'll run down again to refresh
your memory what is being proposed. This is the original park master
concept plan. As you know the park is essentially split into two halves.
1 The southern half being a wetland area with wetland vegetation in this
area. The north half had been slated for improvements for active
recreation facilities. In 1992 was to be the year for initial grading,
initial construction beginning the park. It didn't look like that was
going to occur because of the lack of time available both through our park
maintenance staff and a lack of material or black dirt and fill to begin
this project. However when Target came on line, a source of free fill,
free labor and trucks to haul that...Cat and a front end loader at no
charge from Ryan Construction who is working on the Target site...
upgrading possible this fall and that was completed by October. So what
' we have today on this site is a construction limit from approximately this
point to the west for this entire area being filled... As we were working
the field it became apparent that in order to accommodate this tennis
court area, some mature trees down in this line right through here, some
1 ash trees of about 10 to 14 inches in diameter, approximately 7 of them,
would have to be cut in order to accommodate that tennis court or we would
have to take down trees on this side of the tennis court. Severe
1 retaining wall... It is also recognizeable that this entire top area, it
currently is undisturbed and is very nice and natural portion of that park
to give you a nice...open space...and in order to accommodate this
playfield or this play equipment area as depicted, you would have to go up
there as well... As such, we brought back our consultant, VanDoren,
Hazard, Stallings to look at an amendment to the plan. Essentially as
stated in the staff report in the letter to the residents, the intent of
1 which is to minimize the impact to the vegetation in the area. And then
the other thing...tennis court which could be a concern to some of the
residents in the area. That that reduces a lot of hard court surface...
takes out a lot of fencing for a small neighborhood park. It just takes
away the issue of accessibility to...community recreation structure such
as a tennis court. As you see on this plan, the only thing missing from
the active portion of the park is the tennis court. We brought the play
' structure down off the top of this hill thus allowing this portion of the
park to remain undisturbed. Putting the play area down here so these
trees that are in this line do not have to be disturbed. They can remain
' ...play structure in this area. Then I felt it was important to retain at
least some park board elements within the park...you can bounce a ball on
a hard court surface...so instead of putting a tennis court in this area,
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 5 '
we brought a half court basketball court...playfield involving. Again we I
need to move forward with some type of decision on this proposed plan
amendment so this coming spring we can move forward with the continuation
of the development of Pheasant Hill Park. Plans are currently that in
house the park maintenance crews will move into the park in the spring. Dil
finish grading. Look for complete compaction if we have some areas that
are poorly compacted. Finish grading, seed and install the bituminous
walkway. Then as your 1993 CIP reflects, '93 will be a growing year for II
the grass in Pheasant Hill Park and then we'll come forth in 1994 with thdl
facility development, most likely the play area
Schroers: Okay. In order to simplify this a little bit, do you feel that,
it would be accurate to say that basically what we've done is traded a
tennis court to salvage a number of nice trees? Basically the trade -off
is we're dropping the tennis court in favor of saving the vegetation? in
Hoffman: Correct. And then the other half of the equation is that we've
also struggled with the accessibility issue to that tennis court.
Originally parking was proposed to come in off of Wood Duck Lane. That II
has since been deleted so we don't have a real viable access to a tennis
court other than walk -ins, or parking on street and then walking to the •
tennis court. As Commission members are aware, a tennis court is a
regional facility. They're expensive to both construct and maintain, and II
they service more than a single neighborhood so people will get in their
car, more times than not, and drive to a tennis court and get out to play'
their match,
Schroers: Okay, very good. I think at this point we'd be interested in
hearing what any residents in attendance may have to say. Is there anyon
in the audience here this evening that would like to speak? Please come
up and state your name and address. ,
Carol Droegemueller: My name is Carol Droegemueller. I live in Pheasant
Hill and I'm very happy to be here at this stage of the planning. I
called Todd as soon as the trucks started bringing the dirt in and I said il
hip, hip, hurray. It's been a long time waiting to get this park going
so I'm really happy. However, I do have some concerns with the new
revisions. I had a difficult time determining, even tonight looking at
the two plans because they're the same pictures that I have on our letter,
where the trees are. I walked the park this morning and it looks to me
like neither the original or the new concept have the trees in their spot.
Is that right Todd? Is this new concept where the trees are or is that all
artist's rendition of what it might look like later?
Hoffman: Correct. 1
Resident: So that's not existing vegetation?
Carol Droegemueller: No. No it is not. 1
Hoffman: You'd notice that in your other plans as well. You've heard
comments in the same regard. The master plan include a depiction of what '
vegetation may look like in the future. Not what is existing.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 6
Berg: Where are those 10 trees that you said would be cut?
Hoffman: There are approximately 7 trees and they're right along this
11 side of the...
Berg: Those would have to be cut to accommodate a tennis court?
1 Hoffman: A tennis court, correct.
Carol Droegemueller: If the court was placed there? I mean I looked at
' the original plan and it seemed to use the northern part of the park
nicely. We have about 10 acres in this piece of property and about 5
acres are usable for park. Is that right? About half of it because half
of it is wetland. And now it's even going to be less than that 5 because
it's all being squashed over to the west. I didn't go all the way in when
I looked at it today and I really should have maybe gone when you said you
were going to go over there with the graders that day and walked it with
11 you. It looked to me as though there was a lot of open space and flat
area through in there. I am disappointed that the tennis court would take
precedent over some of, for one thing I guess I looked at the trees and
I'm all for saving trees but this is a park that we're building and not,
and it's a park for neighborhood use. I look at the tennis court as
something very valuable in there. It would be part of a nice park. We
have no tennis courts to get to by bike from our neighborhood at all. We
can get into a car, like Todd described, but the Chaparrel is over a mile
away. And MIS is the other one. They'd be the nearest ones and they're
probably half a mile. But they're crossing TH 41 and CR 117 to get to
either of those two parks. Curry Farms has a park slated which is down
the road from this park and they have no tennis courts slated in there
either. There's two neighborhood parks that will not have that feature.
1 And I think it's valuable. Do you want me to just say everything that,
all my thought right now? Or do you want to respond?
Schroers: We need to know them all before we can make a reasonable
1 decision.
Carol Droegemueller: Okay. As listed in the letter that we received,
tennis was rated, there was a survey taken, oh I'm not really sure of the
timeframe but maybe 2 years ago in the initial stages. I have a couple
thoughts about that. I think this park's going to be there long after the
initial residents who were polled for what they wanted in that park. And
1 not necessarily that everything that they want should be in there, but
volleyball is going to, according to this plan, will stay and that was
ranked after tennis on this, in terms of square footage and use. You only
need a couple people to play tennis and you need more than a few to play
volleyball. I really think that a park that would have, I guess I'm not
convinced about the not being able to build on the east side of that
northern section for the play area. When we first talked about it, it
looked like it would be a really neat area for a play area because it
would be nestled among the trees. Now I didn't get over there. I only
walked in the path coming in Wood Duck which is on the top of the screen
there. It's a bituminous, it's drawn as a bituminous trail. I came in
through that way so I didn't get to walk in all the way over there. In
the letter it also talked about not wanting a chainlink fence. I'm not
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 7
sure what your rational is for that. I don't have any objection to that. ,
I'm sure it's cost. I'm sure that the tennis court is more costly than
maybe not having it up of course. And I want a clarification of the
American Disabilities Act. This is directed towards tennis courts and no
toward play areas and things like that? I mean do you have to have acces
to everything in your park?
Hoffman: Correct. '
Carol Droegemueller: Everything in your park needs to have access
according to this new? Okay. And the fact that the tennis court would II
have cyclone fencing around it is the impediment there?
Hoffman: No, it's the distance from the parking availability. Any tenni
courts we currently maintain need to be retrofitted to allow access,
uniform access and there needs to be reasonable capabilities for parking.
Carol Droegemueller: And then how does that change the play area then?
The play area is in there in the same area where the tennis court was
going to be and it's not any closer to a parking area.
Hoffman: Correct. It's not any closer. Accommodations will be made to 1
the play area similar to the tennis court to allow for...
Carol Droegemueller: It's still, I mean if you were going to allow accesl
to everything, then the whole thing could be wiped out couldn't it? If
you're going to follow that.
Hoffman: Well again, it's based on reasonableness and in the context of II
the tennis court, it's one of the things...not the highest priority
reason. Again, the preservation of the vegetation in my opinion is...
Carol Droegemueller: Well, I thought as I read this. You know this is,
g 9
don't know. I read in the letter 5 trees. Now I hear 7 tonight, ash
trees, but I don't hear of trees stopping commercial and private industry
construction in Chanhassen. I'm sure you didn't stop the Target
development because of 5 mature trees. This is a park that I see trees
being replaceable in this environment and growing up around the areas that"
you maybe had to destroy to get started the park but we have three wet
outlots in that development, all gone to natural vegetation and that
satisfied the Park and Rec, years and years ago when that development was
going and it didn't do anything in terms of recreational park use for the '
neighborhood and at this time I would like you to consider recreational
park use rather than natural vegetation because it's already been chosen
once. And now to choose it again and leaves us with, I guess I'd like toll
keep our options open. I'd like the design of the park. I realize these
are expensive things and I'm delighted that the open field is there first
because I'll be the first to admit I have broken windows on my side of my
house from the baseball that's going on on the side yard but I would like '
the plan to be flexible and future oriented and able to put these things
in later if the money is there to do that, and not close off those
options. And also I'd like to point out that I thought the parking was II
coming off of Lake Lucy Lane in the original concept and not off of Wood
Duck. It's never been intended to come in off of Wood Duck. That was a
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 8
' neighborhood access, if I'm not mistaken. And the parking was down on the
south end of the park. Off of Lake Lucy Lane. The neighborhood was never
intended on having any parking up in there, which is where the most of the
' park is.
Hoffman: Correct. The neighborhood never had the intention because it
' was undesireable but, as Carol stated, all of the active components are
there. That easement which comes in off of Wood Duck, under the original
plan for the development of this parcel would have been a road to access
those homes. As such it made sense to bring in the parking, an access
road to the parking and a parking lot off of that. Off of Wood Duck Lane.
Neighborhood resistence was there. The discussion centered around putting
on street parking on the Lake Lucy Lane. That was not very desireable.
It finally ended up, as you can see on this plan, with the parking lot
being proposed down in this side. Again, it ended up on the plan. It's
not highly desireable. I would not recommend that we move forward with
it's construction. Number one, due to the fact that if a person was going
to access the park to participate in some type of activity, they would
most likely park on Wood Duck and walk a short distance to the playfield
or another component of the park. And secondly, would require a great
' deal of grading and fill down in that area and it would require the
cutting of this entire hillside of trees here to accommodate that grading.
Schroers: I think we'd have a problem with the ADA access from that
location also.
Hoffman: Distance, yes.
Schroers: Okay. Are there any other residents or interested parties that
would like to speak on behalf of Pheasant Hills? Okay. Thank you very
I much for all your information and we'll see what we can do with it. Do we
have any particular thoughts from Commissioners? I mean the implication
that I'm receiving here is that at least one person from Pheasant Hills is
very much in favor of keeping the tennis court in the plan.
Lash: Well and I don't have a problem I guess with keeping out options
open in the future but I just want to back up I guess a little bit on this
whole plan because I really feel like there's been a pretty good give and
take going on with the residents and the Park and Rec Commission over the
years. I think initially we started out with nothing. There was no park,
and I feel like we took advantage of an opportunity to get this and that
was something that was going to make that neighborhood happy and it did
cost us a considerable amount of money. And we thought at that time it
would be years and years and years before we'd even be able to develop it
because we spent so much money on the property, but now with the Target
development and different things, we've been able to try and push that
schedule forward a little bit. I'm glad to see that and I'm sure the
residents are too. And initially we had, I think the plan did show
parking off of Wood Duck and we had a neighborhood meeting and the
neighborhood was not happy with that idea. So we made the concession and
put it off of Lake Lucy. Then we had to go back on that one because the
soil conditions and the topography was such that it just wasn't a viable
option for us anymore so we went back to the Wood Duck and then we had
another meeting with the residents and at that point then it was either no
t
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 9
parking or parking off of Wood Duck and I felt like we made a concession
there that we would just skip the parking if we had to. And we have been
talking in the last year about a change in the whole philosophy of tennis
courts in the city parks. In respect to their cost. They are the most
expensive item that we can put in initially, and as Todd said, to
maintain. So the Commission has taken a stand somewhat to try to slide
away from putting tennis courts in neighborhood parks and keeping them in
community parks. So in some of our newer plans that we've been doing, we II
have not been putting tennis courts in because of those factors. So I
think that has something to do with what brought up this whole deal of
removing it from the plan. And with the new preservation of the Tree
Board and the feeling in the community of trying to preserve as much
vegetation, as many mature trees as we can, that had a little something to
do with it. I'm just trying to give you some history as to where we're
coming from on this Carol so that you maybe can...but I think when we put II
that all together, and Curry Farms originally had a tennis court in there
and the soil conditions aren't, we've heard anyway that the soil
conditions aren't conducive to a tennis court there. So that's why that '
gotten out of that one. We know that leaves that area short in that
recreational facility but a lot of, most neighborhoods don't have tennis
courts. Most neighborhood parks do not have tennis courts. And if we II want to leave it open, I don't have a problem with that, but I honestly
can say to you that you and I would probably be so old before tennis, we
had the money to put a tennis court in there, that we would not have the
opportunity to enjoy it. So we can leave the plan open, but boy I just II
don't know when we'd ever have the money to ever go back and put it in.
And that's a sad fact but I think that is a fact, and I don't know how
else to say it to you. '
Schroers: Well it really came about when we were going through our
Capital Improvement Program for the 1993 year. In order to complete and '
accomplish some of the things that seemed to be more urgently needed,
other things have to be cut and put on back burners or on layaway and I
also believe that you maybe are not aware but the first formal meeting of
the Chanhassen Tree Board is this coming Thursday and they are going to bell
very aggressive concerning any native, mature, hardwood tree in the city
and if it comes to a tennis court versus losing 4, 7 or 10, whatever nice
ash trees, that's going to be a whole nother political process to
negotiate in order to get something accomplished and that's going to take II
additional time. And they're going to take a very strong stance at not
losing any trees so it's going to be a tough issue there. Jim.
Andrews: I just wanted to kind of go a little deeper on the statement Jar
made about our change in philosophy about tennis courts in neighborhood
parks versus community parks. That is something we've talked about over 11
the last year. I think we, as a commission, feel obligated that if we ar
going to provide tennis courts, we must also provide parking access and I
think that the way this park is situated, surround a neighborhood and som
of the resistance we're getting from the parking concerns, that we felt w
were in ,a no win situation and I certainly would say that if tennis court
were something we felt we had to go forward with, then I would be very
insistent that the parking be provided right by the court that the people
are going to drive to use it. I think it's always nice to have a park f
a private neighborhood type of a use but that's not really the intent of
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 10
' parks in our city, especially when they provide a community wide piece of
equipment or a tennis court or whatever. So I think in being consistent
with that philosphy that we adopted really last year, I would say that
were following along and following it through on our plan to not have
' tennis courts into the smaller neighborhood parks that don't provide easy
and adequate parking. We have some larger neighborhood parks that even
with, you have 20 plus parking spaces, are more than full when they're
' combining a play area and a tennis court so it's a problem that you have
to deal with and deal with fairly for all people that want to use it. So
I think to be realistic, I would say that tennis courts are unlikely to
' happen here.
Koubsky: Todd what is, if a tennis court doesn't go into this park as we
proposed, what's the closest tennis court to that area?
Carol Droegemueller: In that area it would be at MIS...on the corner of
TH 41 and TH 7. There's two courts back in there that from our
neighborhood is about half a mile as the crow flies. You have to go out
on TH 41...to get there.
Koubsky: Most in that area up there, there's quite a bit of undeveloped
land also isn't there? I don't know if there's large lots.
Hoffman: Once you go to the west of Galpin.
1 Koubsky: I guess my thoughts is, I do know there's a Tree Board. I side
with Carol in long term plannings and if, I'm not an advocate of tearing
down trees. Nobody would say they were. I have seen, since being on this
Board, an awful lot of maple trees having to give way for housing
developments. 5 or 6 ash trees for a potential park plan that's going to
service the community to be is reasonable. Now we are trying to move out
of neighborhood tennis courts basically because of their expense. In this
original plan we did propose, or have an option to put one there and I'm
not one for going back on our options. I certainly don't oppose changing
concepts in midstream when new information is brought to light and running
that past residents who are concerned and what not. But at least in the
original plan we have an option, and the city is open to options. If
maybe not 5 or 10 years but maybe 15 years, as the city develops, how are
1 we going to, and the city becomes more capital rich possibly and there's
more political demands for tennis courts around the areas. How are we
going to come up with options at that point without creating a new park?
There's an alternative here that I'd just like to throw out. Half court
basketball does provide hard court surfaces, and it is active. I'm not
opposed to removing trees and I would suggest that we, for the time being
' grade this where we could have potential to put a tennis court in here if
we so desire. Again, we have our option. But instead maybe initially,
due to cost, put a basketball court in there. A half court basketball.
Something we could more readily afford.
Schroers: We have basketball is in there.
Lash: It was in the first one too.
r
t
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 11 II
Koubsky: Yeah, but if we go to the original plan and eliminate our
II
options for a tennis court.
Lash: Well, if you go to the new plan and want to leave a tennis court all
an option in there, it could still be just north of the half court
basketball court couldn't it? It would require taking a couple of trees
down but if in the end that's what we wanted to do, we could do it right?
Koubsky: So we have two issues. We have a play area issue that has to b
moved. Or that may not have to be moved. That's being proposed on a new
plan to be moved. And then we have an issue of, do we keep options open II
for the future to go ahead with the tennis court if the area demands it,
or do we decide here that no. These types of parks will not have tennis
courts.
II
Andrews: I think you have to talk about parking with tennis courts. I
don't feel it's fair to put a tennis court up in a neighborhood without
II par king .
Koubsky: Well we're also, and later on in this Minutes, we're proposing
to have softball games in neighborhoods that don't have parking. Tennis II
courts are 2 to 4 people. Softball games, we're talking about having
teams of players go into neighborhoods without any parking and utilize
softball fields so that.
II
Lash: You know, and there is on street parking on Wood Duck. To me I
don't have a problem with someone parking on Wood Duck and walking in on
the trail to use the tennis court. If they don't want to walk that far, II
they probably shouldn't be playing tennis in the first place.
Andrews: I guess I would say then.
II
Lash: What I have a problem with is the amount of money that would be put
into a neighborhood park that we just don't have and we can't do it. You
know maybe down the road, I don't have a problem with leaving our options '
open and I don't even know with the new plan that that's really shutting
off our options and that's not saying it's definitely going to go in
there. All we're saying is, in the future, like Dave said, someday if thll
magic fairy flies over Chan and drops a bushloads of money and we want to
put a tennis court in every neighborhood park, we can. But you know, I
don't see that happening in the near future anyway. But at least we woul
have that open here if we wanted to. And I don't necessarily agree Jim
that it means that you have to have a parking lot in there. I understand
what you're saying, I just don't necessarily agree with it.
II Berg: My concern is economic too. It's an area maybe we're not touching
on yet and that's the impact that the cost of a tennis court is going to
have on the play area. We're talking 1994 now in terms of getting play '
equipment. My sense is that if we spent what it cost to put in a tennis
court, that that date would be pushed back considerably in terms of being
able to budget in the equipment that we need. My other sense is that
there would probably be a greater need in terms of number of residents
II
using a play area than there would be the tennis court. I have no
scientific data to back that up at all. I don't even know the demographics
II
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 12
' of the neighborhood, etc. but my sense is that we'd be sacrificing quite a
great deal in terms of the play area if we invested that kind of money,
which as Jan's saying, we don't have anyway.
Lash: Well and it would be, in most of our neighborhood parks, we end up
with a time line where we do Phase 1 and that's play equipment. Then 2
years later we put in the basketball court and then 2 years later we put
1 in something else. With the amount of money that a tennis court costs,
the tennis court is always Phase 14 or something because we just never
have that amount of money to plunk into a neighborhood park without
' depriving other areas in town of something that they want too. So I don't
know that it would deprive the play area, because that's going to be the
first think to go in no matter what but the tennis court is going to be,
would be many, many, many, many years down the road.
Berg: I would support the idea too of leaving it open. I don't want to
create unrealistic expectations though in terms of when that money is
going to be there to be able to do it.
Schroers: We had some rough figures but a tennis court basically starts
1 at $40,000.00 and goes up from there depending on how much grading has to
be done and the soil underneath.
Hoffman: That would be high. A double court will cost you in excess of
$25,000.00. A single court will come in at around $15,000.00.
Schroers: That's considering, start to finish?
Hoffman: Essentially on a relatively flat site With no soil
corrections.
Lash: Other than the tennis court, was there some other reason, did I
miss it for moving the play area from up on the hill down by the fence?
Hoffman: The play area, if you're familiar with the park. If you took a
walk from the original concept plan where that play area is down to the
open playfield, you would be removed and the play apparatus would be quite
remote. In this original plan to alleviate that problem it was proposed
that much of that area would be groomed out. It would be cleared out.
Grubbed out, cleared and maintained in a mowed fashion. Obviously if you
do not have to do that, you allow yourself to keep the natural lay of the
land as it is. You get away from some construction costs and from the
future maintenance costs of parks, which in a traditional sense everybody
recognizes but which I think not only Chanhassen but the State, other
1 cities and then our national scale, people are beginning to recognize
parks are not just mowed green surfaces. They are much more than that.
Lash: So if we went with the new concept, is there a way that we can keep
the option open of putting a tennis court in between where the trail runs
and the half court basketball court.
1 Hoffman: You would need to construct the tennis court in a somewhat
perpendicular fashion. Or incorporate the, you would have to construct
it, this is the long way. Or incorporate this half court basketball into
1
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 13
it and fit it into this configuration, which would be much more
desireable.
Lash: But that is an option?
Hoffman: Sure. 1
Lash: Okay. 1
Hoffman: Sure. Again, I should clarify both for the Commission and the
members of the audience the reason why this change in concept is 11 important. As we worked through the grading process with the park
maintenance and street maintenance crews, they want to get the rough
grading. Any clearing, grubbing, tree cutting out of the way and match
that to a park master plan which the city feels the park will eventually II
look like. It's also important so as we go through this process of
educating the neighborhood and as they begin to create perceptions of what
that park is going to look like, that that perception is accurate. So II that is the simple reason. I certainly have no problem with keeping our
options open with labeling a ghost tennis court on here somewhere in a
dotted line, if that's what you choose.
Andrews: I'm willing to be flexible so I think we ought to consider
having the finish grade follow on the...access with the half court
basketball so we would extend that area to a tennis court is necessary. 11
guess I think we could have a multi -use surface that we could provide a
basketball hoop on that also could have a tennis court net put on it at
some later time and added so, can I put this in a motion?
Schroers: I like that idea. I think we'd be ill advised to close any
doors and it's also adviseable to make the best use of the active space
that's available and by incorporating a tennis court, or the potential of 11
a tennis court in on top of the half court basketball, thereby getting
maximum use out of the area makes a lot of sense to me.
Andrews: Okay. I'd like to move that we adopt the new concept plan with'
the addition of the finish grade to allow enough flat area for the half
court basketball to be extended to a tennis court at some future date, if.
we chose to do so. 1
Schroers: Is there a second to that motion?
Lash: I'll second that? '
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission adop
the new Master Park Plan for Pheasant Hills Park with the addition of the
finish grading to allow enough flat area for the half court basketball to
be extended into a tennis court at some future date. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. 1
Schroers: Thank you very much for coming and showing your interest.
I hope that this somewhat explains the situation and hopefully will meet
some of our needs and expediate the process towards getting the groundworl'
going in place.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 14
Carol Droegemueller: May I just make a comment?
Schroers: Sure.
Carol Droegemueller: I have just a couple comments. One is, when Todd
and I first started discussing the options of having a park here, and I
got all excited about the topography of this land and it lended itself to
being kind of a unique park because of it's topography. When I saw the
first plan, or the revision I wondered how we got to the first one. If a
park designer could put all those things in all those places in the first
one, why all of a sudden with the revision they couldn't work when they
had the topography then but. I'm initially disappointed that we're not
spreading out into that space and taking advantage of the unique
topography for the play area and the other things that. It doesn't have
11 to be just a mowed area of grass like Todd described flat, and this is
really a unique setting so I would like to see us be creative here and not
necessarily, not that I want you to spend a whole bunch of ton more money
' because it has to be cleared but that area, I'm not sure doesn't lend
itself for the totlot too. I mean it's not a big space. The distance
from going from the bituminous trail to where the totlot is planned to
going up a little further and maybe changing the configuration of the
trail is very small. And my second thought is that, as a resident here in
Chanhassen, I cannot provide for my family and the neighborhood kids'
certain recreational activities but the City of Chanhassen can and those
include tennis and basketball and volleyball and things like that that I
cannot provide them personally in my yard. I can provide a totlot or
swingset or park bench or picnic area you know, I can do that at my house.
But I cannot do the other things and I would strongly encourage you to
consider that in terms of neighborhood park and community park. As Jim
described, a neighborhood park becomes a community park in an eyelash. It
just does because people are using it and use it for the things that you
can't provide in your own backyard. That's all I guess I have to say.
Thank you.
Schroers: Okay. The motion has been made and passed on the Pheasant Hill
Park Master Plan and the amendment. Is there any further discussion on
that at this time?
r Lash: I guess I just have one question. Todd, because I'm always a
strong proponent of making sure that everyone who was interested knows.
It says that a letter was mailed to the residents adjoining within 500
11 feet. Now I'm assuming that was everyone also who came to any of the
neighborhood meetings. That we have a list of them and it wasn't just a
handful of people but everybody who's interested would have heard about
this meeting.
Hoffman: Correct. And it's not only just the people within 500 feet.
11 Over the process of reviewing this park, we've established a much larger
mailing list which incorporates all the folks up and down Lake Lucy Lane.
Lash: So it was all of those people.
Schroers: Now we've had the entire room filled.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 15 1
Lash: Right, and that's why I wanted to make sure that they all were
aware of what was going on and it wasn't just the abutting property
owners.
Hoffman: Correct. 1
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PRELIMINARY PLAT, BOLEY PROPERTY, LUNDGREN
BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, Commissioners. This is a land development
proposal. Preliminary plat to subdivide 36 acres in Chanhassen into 33
single family homes on property zoned, residential single family. The
location as you've seen is just south of Lake St. Joe, on the west side o
Lake Minnewashta. The applicant is Lundgren Brothers Construction,
represented this evening by Terry Forbord. Again the present zoning is II
RSF. Adjacent zoning, for your information. To the north is the same.
To the south you run directly into the city of Victoria. To the east,
back towards the parkway is single family. And then to the west you cros
over into the city of Victoria again. The comprehensive park plan
identifies this area of the city, which this proposed plat lies in, as
park deficient. This is no surprise to you as commissioners, the applicant
or the residents of this area. There is no park of any kind, public open"
space, playground or other recreational area located west of Lake
Minnewashta between Highway 5 and 7. The only thing we have in that area
is Cathcart Park, which is located in the city of Chanhassen but operated
by the City of Shorewood. The City has initiated steps to eliminate this
park deficiency. First a park acquisition and development fund reserve
was established. And secondly, we are actively making contacts with land
owners in that area inquiring about outright purchase of property for par
purposes. Some commissioners may recall that Mr. Forbord was here back i
1990. During the review that was a separate issue. However he referenced
the possible development of the Boley property. A great amount of
discussion that evening centered upon the designation of land around Lake
St. Joe, with the exception of the Malinowsky property as park and open
space in this city's land use plan, as you can see on Attachment B. This
designation will be honored under the current proposal. This is not an
effort by the developer but as the property is designated wetland, it is II
protected as such. This designated open space, although of tremendous
value, does not lessen the need for a park in this region of the city
however. The question then remains, is the Boley property the appropriat
site for a park west of Lake Minnewashta, which the commission has
identified in the past, needs to be at least 10 acres in size. I do not
believe so for 3 reasons. The topographic constraints confronted on this
site would make development of a park, even one with a high percentage of
passive area, difficult. Two, the site is removed from the center of the
West Lake Minnewashta region. Property north of this site would be more
appropriate for use as a park. Granted you could acquire a park on this
property and service both this neighborhood, potentially Red Cedar Point
in that southern half of the Minnewashta Parkway neighborhood. However, 11
then you would be faced with the job, the task of acquiring additional
parkland in the northern Lake Minnewashta region to satisfy those people
as well. Additionally, the site borders the city of Victoria on two
sides. The preliminary plat includes some 20 lots in Victoria in additio
to the ones proposed in Chanhassen. As you are aware, recent negotiation
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 16
over ownership and operation responsibility of the Cathcart Park with the
City of Shorewood exemplify, point out the difficulties which can arise
from acquisition of so called border parks. As such, in the area of park
acquisition, it is the recommendation that the Park and Recreation
Commission recommend the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land
dedication as condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These
fees are to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in face upon building
permit application. Currently those fees are $500.00 per lot. As it
' deals with the comprehensive trail plan, we have two sections to identify
and to discuss each one separately. The one trail segment which is
identified on the comprehensive plan as Minnewashta Parkway and presently
there's a 8 foot bituminous trail being constructed as part of the upgrade
of Minnewashta Parkway. Thus satisfying that portion of the comprehensive
trail plan. In this neighborhood, or in this vicinity, that trail will be
on the east side of the boulevard so residents of this area will have to
cross Minnewashta Parkway to access the trail, and that should be
completed sometime this summer. The second trail segment which was
identified in the comprehensive plan with a nature trail around Lake
1 St. Joe, I confirmed with Mark Koegler of Hoisington- Koegler Group who has
been participating in the update and revision of the City's comprehensive
plan over approximately the last 8 years. I inquired to him to confirm my
assumption that this was to access that beautiful natural area around St.
Lake Joe to the west. His recollection was yes, it was but in questioning
how we would access that, because it is very rough terrain. Wet, wooded,
wetland areas, his statement back to me was that well, the study never
went that indepth at that time. It was just thought if it could be
accommodated through the development of the City's trail plan, that we
should do so. My findings are that the topography in that area, the
vegetation would not allow for this loop trail to go around Lake St. Joe.
You could certainly build it if you would construct some type of a
boardwalk such as you find in Hennepin Parks or some of the other regional
parks. But I simply could not recommend that type of construction because
I can't justify that cost with this type of low use trail. A trail being
located in a residential area. If it were found in a very large city park
or in the regional park, you may want to look into that. As such, it is
my recommendation that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the
City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easements,
dedication or construction, as a condition of approval of the Boley
property plat. Again, these fees to be paid at the lot rate, lot basis,
that rate in force upon building permit application. That current fee is
$167.00 but again I want to reiterate back to the Commission that I'm
troubled that this recommendation does go into direct conflict with the
city's comprehensive plan. If the Commission is uncomfortable with this,
a recommendation should be given that the City Council require a trail
easement be granted by the applicant on Lots 1 thru 13, Block 1. Again,
simply for some type of rainly day plan. We are simply not planning for
tomorrow or 10 years down the line. We are planning for the entire future
of Chanhassen. To show you where those Lots 1 thru 13, Block 1 are and
11 where that trail easement would be necessary. This would be, Minnewashta
Parkway is here. Lots 1 thru 13 run along this border. The general
configuration of the plan, the comprehensive park plan for that nature
trail started at Minnewashta Parkway, looped around Lake St. Joe and comes
back and connecting to the north. Thus the need for a trail easement
around to the rear of those lots to accommodate that at some point in the
11
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 17
future. You can see potentially in the copy that you have that this plan
identifies the ordinary high water mark and the edge of the wetland. Tha
easement would have to come up with the area above the edge of the wetland
so it would be encroaching considerably on those lots. I believe that till
lots are so deep and they're platted a lot ways out into that wetland typ�
vegetation.
Berg: Do we have a problem Todd with the trail around St. Joe and ADA? I
Do we have to make that accessible too?
Hoffman: Certainly with all trail construction you need to address slope
and those type of things.
Berg: Because of the already difficult terrain, do we have to make it
less difficult? Or is it alright to leave it as nature. We just have toll
provide access to it?
Hoffman: No. You couldn't construct just a dirt nature trail in this
area. It's a wooded wetland. You would have to build a boardwalk, which
can easily be made accessible. The expense of doing so would be
tremendous. 1
Andrews: This would be a nature trail loop, right? It wouldn't go
anywhere or come from anywhere.
Hoffman: It would be a loop off of Minnewashta Parkway and potentially
back to Kings Road which is to the north or back to the Parkway.
Andrews: I think this would be a beautiful trail but I don't think it 1
serves any purpose as far as the trail system.
Schroers: It'd be a semi - circle around the west side of the lake '
basically.
Hoffman: Before we get in discussion, it should be noted that a fairly II
large mailing as well was distributed to the adjacent residents in this
area informing them of tonight's meeting. And then also informing them of
future discussion on this item by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Schroers: Okay. I have a question for staff regarding our development o
the master park plan. We are going to be able to...something north of
this and identify that as future parkland and that should make it more
accessible at the point of development that it's already been laid out and
by acquiring these funds may give us some money to work with towards that
in the future. What I'm concerned with here is that we don't shut any
doors in regards to obtain park space in this part of the city because
that will come back to haunt us if we don't have a plan.
Hoffman: You're absolutely correct in that regard and that is why I took
my time and put a lot of thought into this recommendation. There simply
are 4 large tract parcels left. That's all that remain west of Lake
Minnewashta. Those are all north of Kings Point Road. If you want to
reference the map on the wall there, there are essentially 4 rectangular,
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 18
11 long rectangular pieces of property ranging in size from 10 to 25 acres.
However, you may, Larry may recall that approximately 4, maybe 5 years ago
the Commission requested staff to investigate the purchase price and other
factors associated with a 25 acre parcel just north of Kings Points Road.
25 acres, 4 building sites at that time, I think they had priced at
$750,000.00...but certainly not within the reach of the Park Commission.
You also may be aware that the current reserve level for this acquisition
1 is $150,000.00 so it's a large chunk of park acquisition and development
funds. One of the largest reserves ever held in that fund. But again, in
order to purchase 10 acres, we'll need the resources of additional
dollars.
Andrews: A separate reserve from our capital reserve?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: We have a fund.
Hoffman: Specified reserve. The cash is in the bank.
Lash: What have we got in there? Like $100,000.00, $150,000.00 or
something?
Hoffman: $150,000.00. This, if you take 33 lots. So take in another and
you could pinpoint that directly onto that reserve and raise that up.
Schroers: And then also the trail fee.
i Hoffman: Correct.
' Lash: I don't know if we need to take the trail fee in there because
there is a trail already earmarked to go on Minnewashta Parkway so I don't
know that I would want to earmark more of our trail fund money for that
specific area when we have other areas.
Schroers: I didn't mean earmark it for a trail but also apply that
towards the acquisition fund for the park in that area.
Lash: I don't think we can do that can we?
Hoffman: In theory it's not what it's designed for but I think this is an
11 extenuating circumstance and you may be able to justify that type of
thought process.
11 Schroers: What I'm concerned with and what I wanted to point out to the
other commissioners is that our opportunities in this area are very, very
limited and there is an extreme need for an active park in that western
11 part of the city. There has been lots of interest and more than interest.
There's been quite a bit of displeasure voiced by the residents out there
who feel as though they're not being treated fairly because the residents
closest to the city have things available to them that they don't have.
Yet they're still paying very high taxes out there and they want something
for their money and we have to make very sure that when we let a parcel
like this go, that we have a good plan in place and some resources to back
1
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 19 1
it up, that we are going to be able to acquire the adequate space out
there before there isn't any left because as Todd said, what's available II
is really limited.
Berg: Really expensive. '
Schroers: Very expensive.
Berg: Are we realistically going to have the money to ever do that?
Schroers: Well along with the dedication of the proposed development,
hopefully.
Lash: The best we can hope for is that further up north, somewhere off of
Minnewashta Parkway another developer is going to come in with a chunk of"
property that we'll be able to get some park property out of that
development and then beef it up with what we have in our fund. Don't you
think that's where we're going?
Hoffman: That's one potential alternative but.
Lash: That's kind of what I had in mind. 1
Hoffman: Yeah, there's a variety of scenarios. Outright purchase is
beginning to look more and more justifiable and economically would be you
best choice. The combination of acquisition through the platting process
and park dedication ordinance and then purchase using that $150,000.00,
that can work but it takes a difficult negotiating to make that happen.
My other concerns are, we have 25, 30, 40, 60 acres. Roughly a ballpark
left to the north, if a developer would bring that full 60 acres to you,
you would have some pretty good opportunity to get a substantial chunk of.
property. But if it came in under 4 or 5 smaller developments, the
process of gaining park property in a uniform fashion becomes much more
difficult. If they come in at 20 house developments, you don't have much
opportunity to gain park property. So the scenarios are endless. Larry,"
to address your question, I think you have the, with the addition of the
comprehensive park plan to come within the next 6 months, and the reserve
which you have on hand, you are as prepared as you can be. The other
factors which you can utilize are a future bonding issue to go ahead and II
purchase that. We'll watch with interest how the Shorewood issue does
this coming March. They're up for $900,000.00 for park improvements in
Shorewood. Eden Prairie passed a referendum but in the third go around II
and after reducing it three times. So that's...current taxes not only in
this city but the State, you don't like to hang your hat on that either.
Koubsky: So the thought then too is with this trail dedication fee, if wi
accept it, that basically goes into our general fund.
Hoffman: Yeah, it...park acquisition and trail development. 1
Koubsky: We can roll that in to an acquisition fund if we choose?
Hoffman: Yes. You can justify that I believe on the position that 1
Minnewashta, the trail along Minnewashta Parkway was a considerably
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 20
1
investment in that neighborhood and that community out there. It came at
no cost to your park acquisition and development and trail development
fund, but was funded through cost sharing with the State. State Aid
improvements to the road.
Schroers: Okay, does Mr. Forbord have anything that he wants to bring to
the Commission tonight in the way of information regarding this? Thank
you. Any other thoughts from the Commission? Anyone else in the audience
wishing to make a statement or address this proposal?
Brenda Roy: My name is Brenda Roy. I live just to the south of the Boley
1 property. I agree that the lake would be really tough to go around if
elected. What I'd like to see changed is the name Richard Sudkey on
my...and just that there is a need for a park and we have put our money
into the trailway system and it would be nice to have something, because
the kids are going across TH 7 and that's really dangerous.
Schroers: There's the wrong name on your property?
11 Brenda Roy: Yes. Richard Sudkey is on my property.
Schroers: I don't see where it is.
Brenda Roy: Just south of where it says public street. Outlot B. Outlot
A. Yeah. Right there. And that's it.
Schroers: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
John Larson: My name is John Larson, and I have got a question. The
topographic constraints on the Boley property, what specific constraints
would those be?
Hoffman: The constraints would be the relief which the property offers.
Hilly terrain. Up and down nature of the property.
John Larson: I see, thank you.
Schroers: As far as, I'm not sure the reason for the constraints? Are
you speaking in reference to park property on that development? Developing
park property there or is it trail?
John Larson: I was wondering what the constraints were on the Boley
property as far as putting a park there...
Lash: I think I understand what you're saying, and that's a good question
because I wanted to double check on that myself. It is basically that we
figure that geographically it would be better for the majority of the
residents in western Chanhassen to be further north, on the other side of
Lake St. Joe?
Hoffman: Correct. If the Commission acquired a park on the Boley
property, you would be servicing that southern region and you would have
to acquire to the north. Again, the topographic constraints, being that
you start from Lake St. Joe and come to some very steep terrain. You top
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 21
out at a knoll and then you drop off on the other side down fairly steeply
and then down steeply again into the wetland area just north of Highway 541
he site, you'd be hard pressed to find a very even a small site of flat
property on this site. But again the topographic constraints are merely a
second factor in your decision to acquire or not to acquire park property
here.
Schroers: But also definitely is a factor because of grading costs to
develop a park and that would cost us more to develop an area that I
requires more grading than this. That pretty much goes without saying.
Someone in the audience was asking a question that was not picked up on
the tape.
Schroers: Well, if he was building for his specific development but for
our park, if we decide to acquire some of that property as parkland, we
could try to negotiate with the developer to do that grading for us whilell
he was grading for his development but you know, we may end up losing some
ground or some property or something in that negotiation. I don't know i
I'm explaining it properly or not but I think that in the past that has
been kind of a negotiable. We've tried to get this developer to do some
of the grading and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but you
don't get something for nothing, so when you do that, it's always a give
and a take. Okay, we'll do the grading for you but then I get this lot
back. Therefore, your park is going to be a little smaller than you
wanted. Something of that nature.
Lash: Just to clarify sort of how the system works, because you maybe
don't, most people don't know how this works. When a developer comes in, I1
we have two choices. We can either require that he donate a certain
amount of acreage to the city to be used for park property. In that case
then we waive any park fees that we would, that the City would charge him
on this building permit and it's like $500.00 per lot. So if we do not
take the property, we get the $500.00 and then we can use the $500.00 to
put into our park fund for future park development or those kind of
things. And there's a rule of thumb that, depending on the size of the II
development, you can only take a certain percentage, and what is it?
Hoffman: 1 acre per 75 residents and on this it would be less than an
acre and a half.
Lash: Okay, so the most we would require him to designate to the City for
park property would be an acre and a half which we tend to try to keep th
neighborhood parks at 3 acres I think. As a minimum just so we don't hav
a lot of little half acre and acre sites all over the city to try to
maintain. So this, you know if you just even look at that scenario right"
there it kind rules out, it doesn't fall into any of the criteria that
we're looking at to even require park property instead of the fees. Did
that clear it up for you just a little bit? Okay.
Schroers: Our standard was going to be 5 acres.
Andrews: I think Todd's recommendation is a good one and I think we
should, in this case earmark all the money that would be taken to go intoll
r
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
1 January 26, 1993 - Page 22
1 that acquisition account for that area I think that's the only
responsible thing we can do for that neighborhood. I'd like to move that
we accept staff recommendation and earmark all the park dedication money
and trail fee money to be put into the fund that's being set aside to
purchase and develop a future park in this area.
Lash: Is that trail fees too or just park fees?
Andrews: I'd like to see trail fees in there too. We're going to need
that. We're going to need every penny of that money to get what we need
later and I think that's the responsible thing to do for the people that
are still waiting for the park in that area.
Schroers: I would second that motion and also, maybe not as a part of the
motion but make particular reference to the fact that these funds are
being set aside for park development in that area and have that noted in
our master park plan as that develops.
Andrews: I agree with that.
Andrews moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park fees in lieu of land dedication, and to accept
trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction
as a condition of approval of the Boley property. These fees are to be
paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit
application. The current residential park fee is *500.00 per unit, and
the current residential trail fee is *167.00 per unit for single family
1 dwellings. Also, these park dediciation fees and trail dedication fees
shall be earmarked to go into the reserve fund to develop parkland in the
area west of Lake Minnewashta as noted in the comprehensive park plan as
it develops. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUNLINK ADDITION, SUNLINK
CORPORATION.
1 Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers, commission members. This is a
preliminary plat to subdivide 60 acres into 4 lots and to vacate public
right -of -way street and utility easements. The location is out here on
the edge of our city, south of Highway 5 and east of Dell Road, just
adjacent and including the DataSery property. The applicant is SunLink
Corporation, Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia. Present zoning of that
property is industrial office park. All the adjacent zoning are the same.
The comprehensive plan, read the memo which was forward to Sharmin
Al -Jaff, Planner I in December. The park aspect, this site is on the
fringe of the park service area for South Lotus Lake Park and Rice Marsh
Lake Park. Typically, when we're dealing with commercial /industrial
property, we take a look at service areas in a little different context
than neighborhoods, addressing potential before or after work recreation,
availability of open space, and then noon time activities or lunch areas.
The City has maintained two ballfields on the DataSery property, now which
is shown as Lot 2, Block 2 for a period of years. That practice has been
discontinued for approximately the past 2 years. However, if during the
development of Lot 2, this use could be retained, it would be of benefit
to the city's park and recreation system and I would recommend that we
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 23
work with the developer of that parcel to do that. I should not that I'm
not at all optimistic that that would ever occur, due to the pricetag and II
value of the property. As such, staff is recommending that all lots in
this proposal be subject to full park fees at the rate in force upon
building permit application for each individual lot. Currently those part
fees for commercial /industrial development are $2,500.00 per acre. In th
context of trails it's somewhat more cumbersome. Concrete sidewalks
currently exist along the north side of Lake Drive East. On the west sill
of the north half of this segment of Dell Road. Do we have a map? Did
you follow that? Anyway, the sidewalk which are in are taking care of
pedestrian traffic. The one problem we have is that Dell Road is split
between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. So Eden Prairie is developing homes
to the south of here and they've upgraded their half of the road. The
City has not done so in Chanhassen because we've not been petitioned to do
so. We have no use for that improved road. However our engineer, as I II
understand it, will be working with this application to have them petitio
and then pay for the eventual improvement of that side of the road. Thus
we can make the last remaining, unimproved trail connection which would g
north and south there on Dell Road to allow those residents of Eden
Prairie to connect to our trail system on Lake Drive East and then gain
access to the proposed Southwest Transit drop -off /pick -up station right
there at that corner. So in regards to trails, all vacant lots in SunLinil
Addition will be subject to trail fees at the rate in force upon building
permit application. Currently those fees are $833.00 per acre.
Lash: Do you know what SunLink is?
Hoffman: Do I know what SunLink, I presume SunLink is a developer of
commercial property.
Lash: So you don't know what's going in there? What that really is?
Hoffman: No, I do not. The City Council is wrestling with the 1
development of Highway 5 at the present time.
Lash: I bet it's not automotive. '
Hoffman: The only thing that I know that is driving this application is II the Southwest Metro Transit interest in that northeast corner of the lot
for their park and ride. Pretty straight forward.
Koubsky: Your recommendation is within the planning of the Highway 5
commissioner group?
Schroers: Task force.
Koubsky: Task force, thank you.
Lash: Okay, I move that we accept full park and trail dedication fees as '
a condition of approval of SunLink Addition, with the current fees that
are in force at the time.
Andrews: I'll second. 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 24
Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept full park and trail dedication fees as a condition of
approval of SunLink Addition. These fees are to be assessed at the rate
in force upon building permit application. Current park and trail fees for
commercial /industrial development are $2,500.00 per acre and $833.00 per
acre, respectively. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, RECREATION SECTION.
Hoffman: This is something which is probably long been due in our city.
We wrestled with issues which pertain to this subject each time a land
development proposal comes before you. You wrestled with it again this
evening, and now hopefully within the next 6 months, you'll have the
opportunity to go out, not only west of Lake Minnewashta and identify what
you feel is the most desireable location to satisfy the park needs of that
neighborhood, but to do that in other areas in the city as well. I should
note right off the top that this process is going to be much easier to
accomplish inside the Metropolitan Urban Sewer Service Area, the MUSA line
because outside of that MUSA line, land use gets much more vague.
Obviously zoning, density issues, land use components, all those type of
issues are going to come into play as you lay out the city's comprehensive
park plan for parks in the future. That would be both community parks,
neighborhood parks. If our current plan is missing any trail corridors,
we've identified Bluff Creek as a trail corridor. Are we missing any
linear parks? Are we missing any public water body accesses? Are we
missing an opportunity out there in the city which needs to be identified?
It's going to be a long process but I think it can be one which should
promote some real interest in our community. Obviously the landowners
which you're designating property for use of parks are going to be
interested in this process. Public, open public forums will be many.
Attendance may be a few people. It may... I've outlined the process
there. All I've done this evening is simply to provide you with some
tools which are necessary to begin. That being the recreation section of
the Comp Plan so you can read through that, if you didn't already have it.
1 Land use map dated 2000 and then the City's zoning map... So those are
the items which you need to digest. I didn't expect you to do that over
the last 3 days. Discussions with Mr. Koegler, he may or may not be
available as it turns out on the 23rd. They've had a continuation of a
hearing in Mound which he may have to be present at. However, a member of
his staff will be here that evening to begin the process. I envision
laying a fairly stead timeline that most likely will include additional
meetings on the second Tuesday. Some work sessions if you will to get
into this process. We're going to pick apart the Chanhassen City base
map. You're going to circle and scratch and discuss a lot of pros and
cons about a lot of pieces of property within our city. And then in fact,
sometime in April or May you're going to have to get out and stomp around
and take a look at this property, either individually or as a commission,
to make some hard and fast decisions prior to identifying this property on
the city's official parkland. Then you need to move forward, in addition
to that, and work with the City Council on an ordinance change in regard
to park dedication. Specifically being that the City's ordinance in that
regard needs to detail that developer's need to follow the City's official
map and when they come in for a plat, to designate that land which is in
green or designate it as park property and appropriately on this plat.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 27
Schroers: Good. Well I'm sure that in the near future we're going to be-1
dwelling on these issues quite a bit, so as long as we can't really
accomplish anything further on that this evening, we may as well move
along to item 9. Unless there are any other real specific questions.
STATUS REPORTS:
A. HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY TASK FORCE, JIM ANDREWS.
Andrews: I volunteered for this task force, not having any idea how big
of a project his is turning out to be. What's been happening is, as time]
has gone by, is more and more and more responsibility is being placed on
this group, both by the Council and the Planning Commission. At least
that's my impression is that not only are we now looking at road useage
and trail useage. We're not looking at building design, landscaping, all
various issues. The City is now looking at a potential moratorium on
construction until this task force reports back with all their findings.
It's turning into be a project that is a very, very large one. To date, I
to be real honest, the task force has accomplished little, in my opinion. J
I say that, that's my opinion but we have a meeting scheduled tomorrow
night and I think the whip will be much more firmly used and I think we'l)'1
start to make some progress tomorrow night. The first things we're
looking at are road design issues, as to what kind of roads do we want to
have. How wide of roads. What kind of look or feel we want on these
roads. We're talking about access boulevards on the north and south of
Highway 5, that I think would have a bit of like a boulevard or a parkway
kind of a feel to them. A little lower speed. Maybe a little winding and
a little more interest rather than a straight shot frontage road with no I
eye appeal or landscape interest. I think that's the focus of tomorrow
night's meeting and I think we'll be quickly moving into development
issues regarding the east end of town here. Some of the building designs
Trying to get sort of a master theme of our city development so it's a
huge, huge project. We also have formed a subcommittee for actually `
drafting a zoning overlay district so that we can enforce these design
rules onto people as they develop property on the corridor. So it's a lot
to get done. I think the Council was hoping that we could get done
by July. If that were to happen, I would be really pleased. I think that
the group will probably likely have to start meeting at least twice a =I
month to get the job done on the timetable that the Council's asking for.
I guess I'm just hoping that the project doesn't get any larger than it
already is, and that we can break it down into pieces so at each meeting I
we can spend time actually making decisions rather than just trying to
reacquaint ourselves with the whole big picture, which seems to be a lot
of what we're spending time doing right now. There's about 12 people on
that group but we've typically had 20 or 30 people in attendance. We've I
had a lot of people are real interested in this group as to what's going
on. A lot of landowners are very nervous that something's going to happen
to their property that they didn't expect. So some of the meetings have I
been pretty intense. So anyway, we've spent a lot of time and have not
passed any motions yet. But I think that will change as tomorrow night's
meeting progresses.
Schroers: Will you define the corridor boundaries for us? Are we talkine,l
from like Powers Boulevard West or are you talking Highway 5 from the
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 28
eastern portion of the city to the western portion of the city?
Andrews: The corridor would extend all the way from the east border to
the west border of the city. As far as the north /south boundary of that,
1 it's really not specifically defined but I would say we're probably
looking at somewhere around a mile on each side of the highway as the area
that we're looking at. And because it's such a large area, you're
obviously looking at the impact beyond those areas too because it all kind
of effects one thing and the other. I mean we've spent some time looking
at the intersection of Highway 41 and Highway 5. Of course we discussed
' what could go here and what could go there. Then somebody will say, well
we've already got such and such up on Highway 7. What's that going to do
to that development? So it's becoming a really huge, huge project. It's
in some ways it's so much of a global problem to look at all the problems
' at once, that you find that it's very difficult to get anything done. One
of the things that I've been trying to do, and myself and Gene Borg are
the Co- Chairmen of the group, is we're trying to break this into doable
' pieces. And I've talked a lot with Paul Krauss and with some other city
staff people that we really need to break this down into something so that
we can get something decided. So we're trying to take a intersection, or
a design, go with it and I think try to relieve some people's fears that
we're really not legislating anything. All we're doing is recommending to
Council. I think some people are under the impression that whatever we
decide is it for good. It's a done deal, and that's really not the case.
Schroers: With your meandering boulevard thing, if you don't mind me
interrupting.
1 Andrews: Sure.
Schroers: Are you talking about Highway 5 itself meandering with the
' boulevards?
Andrews: No. Highway 5 is determined by the State of Minnesota. What
we're looking at is a coordinating access boulevard to run parallel to
that road on each side of Highway 5. Where that's going to be positioned,
how it's going to be designed, what the intersections are going to look
' like, what kind of capacity for speeds and uses and land uses, that's
everything. Everything.
Schroers: Okay. So basically almost what you're talking about, to make
' it easily understandable for some of us who are a little thicker, is a
service road?
Andrews: Nobody likes to say frontage road. They like to say access
boulevard but about half the time they call it a frontage road. It would
not be a typical frontage road in that I think it would be further
separated from the road. In a lot of cases we're looking at probably half
a mile or 3/4 of a mile.
Lash: You know I have trouble doing mental visualizations. I always have
to have pictures and diagrams and things. But I don't know how that can
be very meandering when there's already, I mean look at along TH 5, a lot
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 29
of that is already pretty well developed. There isn't a half mile gap
anywhere for you.
Andrews: That's true. And up until you get past Lake Ann, there's no
place to meander. Once you get past Lake Ann, there's lot of potential
options, but unfortunately there are also some property owners that aren'
real interested in some of those options. So we're having a lot of, so
they would like it to meander on somebody else's property. We're dealing
with a lot of people that are very intense about what's going to happen t
their properties and we've had some pretty heated discussions at prior
metings.
Lash: So it's going to end up a frontage road?
Andrews: I doubt it to be honest. I think you're going to see it runnini
fairly close to Highway 5 until it gets past the golf range out there and
then I think what will happen then is it will veer quite dramatically to
the north and go probably like a half mile to 3/4 of a mile north of the II
road and run parallel. Probably to the north of the proposed, I can't
think of the name of it. Fleet Farm. So it'd be approximately that far
away from Highway 5. And then there'd be another road on the south side
of Highway 5. The way these roads are funded right now is we're thinking
that Minnesota is going to kick in a lot of money on the north access
boulevard but likely no money on the south access boulevard so South
access is wishful thinking at this point. Anybody that's interested in J1
contributing to the group, it is just a huge, huge project and the detail
we're being asked now to provide is like building. What kind of roof you
want and what kind of window designs and it's just too big.
Lash: Well, can I just throw out one suggestion?
Andrews: Sure.
1
Lash: Try and have a little variety you know, so it doesn't look like all
of the buildings. 1
Andrews: Like pre -fab?
Lash: Right. I have, I'm a little disillusioned sometimes with the
character that I think the downtown is taking on. I feel like a lot of
the buildings are coming out stamped. They're all built by the same 11 person.
Berg: You can tell the year that a center was built.
Lash: With the exception of the new bank. I really like the new bank. 1
think it looks different from a lot of the other things in town. I
personally like Excelsior. I think it's real quaint and it's unique, and
all the people's are different and I don't like this idea where everythin
has to be the same height and everybody has to have a little green peak o
the top. I like to have a little more character so I'd just as soon not
see the whole Highway 5 corridor end up looking like. '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 30
Andrews: One thing we need to do as a commission, I know I've said this
before. We really need to provide some details to, any trail intersection
having to do with Highway 5, or these potential access boulevards, as to
I what we expect that use of that trail to be. Or our requirements for that
trail to be, because I think if we were to come to that group and say,
here's what we've got to have, here's what our plan says, I think it would
happen. But if we wait until after it comes before that group, then we're
responding to a defensive mode rather than providing the idea to the group
the way we want it.
Lash: Maybe we really need to look at that then when we do this
comprehensive plan. Look at, especially the boulevards.
' Andrews: I'm most concerned about the Bluff Creek area and any other
potential major crossing of Highway 5. What kind of style of a crossing
do we want? How big do we want it? What kind of traffic flow are we
anticipating? I think that when this whole project is finally built, I
think we're going to have a super first class situation. But I think it's
going to be up to us to get our demands in front of the group. I mean
we've got that opportunity so, anyway it's another meeting tomorrow night
' and I hope it goes better than the last one because I was so ticked after
that last one. We had a whole series of motions and we ended up tabling
every single one of them. Didn't get a single thing done, which I was
really upset with.
Schroers: Is there anything creative going on in the way of something
different and unique to handle traffic? An example would be a traffic
circle versus your standard lighted intersection? Something to that
nature?
Andrews: Yes. Somewhat. They are looking at the landscaping part of it.
I mean traffic circles by design are a disaster typically. With any kind
of high traffic flow area. But they're looking at the intersection
designs. Trying to create a gateway effect out on Highway 41 as a for
instance. We've spent a lot of time looking at that one as to when people
coming into the west border, we want to have some sort of impact there.
We're also looking at each major county road in particular on Highway 5 as
' well as the boulevards. What kind of turn lane cutout do we want? Do we
want it to be greenscaped or gravel or asphalt or what? The definite
trend right now is toward a very greenscaped look. Lots of separation
between road and trail. Lots of trees and bushes. Whatever. Trying to
make it look as beautiful as possible, and yet still provide the necessary
traffic requirements. I mean they're looking at some pretty incredible
traffic projections. Especially at TH 41 and TH 5 is going to be a major,
' major intersection.
Lash: Do you think the Tree Board is going to get involved somewhat. on
' the landscaping aspect of this?
Schroers: Well I don't know about, I think the Tree Board is going to
want to get involved in everything that has to do with green space and
' trees within the city limits of Chanhassen. There's no doubt about that,
from what I've heard with some of the people who are already involved.
They plan to make this a very aggressive body. We don't even know what we
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26,•1993 - Page 31
are yet. If we're a Board or a Commission or what exactly we are, but ji
they're going to want to have something to say about it. That's absolutel
for sure. Also, what they're going to be looking at is looking for some
money to work with like we have a Park and Rec budget. We will be lookinil
for a budget as well to operate with and it's really hard to project
exactly where this Tree Board thing is going to go. It's just going to
depend on a couple basic things. How much money we can get our hands in
and how much political clout we can develop. But I know we're going to II
want to have some input. I think that that's pretty much getting to be a
general conception from all the different facets of the city. Whether
it's a planning or the Council or whatever, as not their main focus but all
a sideline. Everyone is concerned about the aesthetics of the deveiopmen
in the city and in that concept, you have to consider the trees and
shrubbery. So I think it's going to be something that's going to be
looked at a lot by everyone.
Lash: Well you know, and I certainly am one who appreciates trees and
shrubs and all that but I hope that when the Highway 5 corridor and the II
boulevard all and that go in, it doesn't get to the point of overkill.
You know like some other things have been done and people who are
sensitive.
Andrews: Well right now we're looking at things in a very detailed basis.
I think actually when it comes down to the recommendation, it will be mor
of a broad stroke. You know yes, we want to have landscaping. The last
couple of meetings we've been looking at, some of the discussion has
gotten down to how close should the trees be to the sidewalk and how wide
should the sidewalks be. I think we're trying to focus on details too
soon. My guess is we'll just say yeah, we want a greenscape look and thell
punt that off to the Council. At least I hope we do, because I don't want
to be voting on what species of trees we should be putting in on Highway
5.
Schroers: I think that's where the Tree Board is going to get involved
and they're going to want to try to stay as native and natural looking all
possible. Just because we have a green space, we're not going to want to
put in all kinds of foreign, ornamental shrubbery that no one can identify
with. Knows what it is. That sort of thing. i
Lash: Well you know, I think of downtown and I know there are a lot of
people who figured that was overdone and it requires a lot of maintenance
and I guess I just wouldn't want to see it go from the east border to the"
west border.
Andrews: That won't, and trying to make turns onto the main street here II
is a real adventure with those trees. Anway, it's a big project. We're
starting to make some progress. I know that some members from the Council
are coming tomorrow night to crack the whip. I think things will start 11
move. I'm sure they will move.
Koubsky: Jim, do you see a time line when we may have to get, this
Commission give recommendations for trail crossings? '
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 32
II
Andrews: I would say that I think we ought to have something on our
I agenda next month because I think it will likely get on the Highway 5
group's agenda within 2 months because we're starting to look at roads now
and then the next logical thing would be things that cross the roads. I
I hope that's the direction we're taking. We are responding.
Lash: Is that something we can do in a regular meeting or do you think we
need to.
I Hoffman: We can accomplish that at a regular meeting, if we focus
ourselves. There has been some preliminary designs put together and
I again, I would caution you that you don't get involved in detail design.
Down to how many corregations on the tunnel and those type of things but
take a look at what's important. Obviously the design, the development of
il these contracts which are going to take place to get this thing done are
not going to happen so there's no need to talk that detail.
Andrews: I think we'd better focus on what our requirements are. As to
II how big of a trail do we anticipate. Not so much what does the trail look
like, but are we going to have a pedestrian trail or two or a horse trail
or bikes and a pedestrian trail? Just so the Commission knows how much
I space they need to allow for the culvert or the overpass or whatever it's
going to be. Then they can do the designing later as to what it will
actually physically look like.
1 Hoffman: You need to make the decisions which 10 -20 years from now people
are going to say, that was the decision which was necessary to make this
happen. You know it doesn't matter how it turns out but those were the
II things that needed to happen in order to, in an organized fashion in order
to get it to this point.
I Schroers: Okay. Well thanks for your information on that Jim and we'll
be looking forward to see how this all develops.
B. CHANHASSEN ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX.
II Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. Commission members. I'll keep
this very brief. You have an Addendum No. 2. Not only did you get the
II largest packet ever but you also received two addendums with this packet.
Addendum No. 2 includes a preliminary program of requirements for this
proposed entertainment complex. An example of one preliminary sketch for
an upper and lower level to the complex, and a preliminary cost estimate
1 sheet. Again, that's at a first glance. That cost estimate is simply
based on square footage and type of uses. I'm not going to go through
those piece by piece. The one you're usually concerned with is Category
I 300 in the program recreation center. It goes through all of the
different components of this proposed recreation center. As stated on the
bottom of this Addendum No. 2, Todd Gerhardt, our Assistant City Manager,
11 and the Assistant Executive Director of the HRA has tentatively scheduled
a presentation by the architect for next Thursday, or excuse me. Next
Wednesday afternoon, February 3rd at 5:30. This meeting would be for the
benefit of this commission and the Planning Commission. I need to take a
I hand count this evening of those of you who feel you are able to make that
meeting. Supper will be served, and essentially I don't believe there's
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, - Page 33
going to be any changes in this program or these, there might be some
minor changes in the concept plan but you'll see this same thing presentell
in detail that evening, so I'm not going to go through it While we're o
the subject of Addendum No. 2, I also included an article which I
referenced earlier pertaining to a proposed park referendum for the city
of Shorewood. Obviously the outcome of that referendum will effect the
city in some regard. Typically just in positioning how is the mood out
there for these type of things. So I've included that so you can read
that for your interest. I will address questions on the Chanhassen
Entertainment Complex and on the process which is involved there as we
move forward in that regard prior to moving onto the next item.
Lash: I have a question just on the entertainment center. Under category"
300, recreation center. It says divisible gym. Are those the dimensions
then? Does it turn out to be like two basketball courts or what are thos
dimensions?
Hoffman: The dimension, divisible court is item.
Lash: The first one.
Hoffman: First one, 301. 75 x 100 is the overall area of the gymnasium.
50 x 84 is the court size. That's a full sized high school court so it's '
one full sized court.
Lash: So but it could be divided in half. Then that could be divided in '
half?
Hoffman: Correct, with a curtain. It's staff desire to see what you
would call a small gym. Or a gym adjacent to this. These are very
preliminary. This is a very preliminary program and space constraints
need to be addressed as well.
Andrews: I need to ask some questions here. These buildings would be
publically owned buildings or these would be built on behalf of some
private developer who would then try to run these as commercially viable
operations?
Hoffman: A portion of this would be privately owned. A portion would be
publically owned. The entertainment complex, recreation center. Well th
recreation center and the, what you would call the convention center woul
be publically owned buildings as part of the downtown redevelopment.
Andrews: This is sort of the community center reborn then?
Hoffman: Something of that but it's part of the downtown redevelopment. II
What to do with the back side of the Dinner Theatre.
Andrews: I think it's great as long as we can figure it out for somebody"
else to do this for us. I think it's a great idea.
Lash: Well the HRA is doing it right?
ark and Rec Commission Meeting
P a e o g
January 26, 1993 - Page 34
Hoffman: They'll be wrestling with the costs. They only have so many
' dollars over the next, the year 2000 to invest. They're committed to
investing those but they also would want to accomplish senior housing, a
library, some issues pertaining to the Pauly /Pony /Pryzmus block and
redeveloping that block as well. So their pot of money, although it seems
large and unending.
Lash: Bottomless.
' Hoffman: Bottomless, is not. So they're going to be making some tough
decisions as well.
Lash: But they have in here figured in a future library. Is that really
real? I thought they had kind of thought of a library up in that end of
town?
Hoffman: Pauly /Pony / Pryzmus? A library's been talked about on the Pauly
site. The library's been talked about in this entertainment complex. The
library's talked about wanting to locate on the corner of Market Square.
So up in the air.
Schroers: Okay. Where is this meeting going to be held?
Hoffman: Here. Council Chambers.
Andrews: That was next Wednesday at what time?
Hoffman: 5:30 for a supper meeting. And a brief presentation by, most
' likely Curt Green of Hammel, Green & Abrahamson. Some representative of
Mortenson Construction organization may also be present as well.
11 Schroers: That may be an interesting meeting to attend.
Koubsky: A couple of hours?
1 Hofman: Or less.
Lash: Well I'd love to come but I can't. Somebody take good notes.
1 Hoffman: Anybody else that's out?
Andrews: I'm out. I'm meeting out'd right now.
Hoffman: Jim, Jim, Jan.
Schroers: Put the rest us down as maybe's. We're all getting meeting
out'd here. Well okay. Since this is going to be coming up again, we
don't need any further discussion on this.
r Hoffman: Again, in regards to attendance, I would caution you that this
meeting is being taken on because of the concern expressed by the
Commission that you want to be brought up to speed so if one or two folks
show up, staff is.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 35
I
Andrews: Okay, I'll be there. I'll find a way. If I come wearing a
frying pan, you know the wife didn't think it was a good idea.
1
Hoffman: Yeah, if you look at the costs associated with the recreation
center here, it's millions. 4 million dollars so it's a very large
investment. We talk at length about a CIP of $150,000.00. We should givl
some...to this process.
Schroers: Will we be receiving anything further on that? An agenda or I
anything for that meeting? Or just show up here at 5:30?
Hoffman: Show up at 5:30. I'm not sure, Hammel -Green may forward I
something to us for distribution but I do not know that at this time.
Schroers: Okay. So we're on our own to remember to show up.
Hoffman: Next Wednesday. I can mail out a reminder.
Andrews: What was the date on that again?
1
Hoffman: Wednesday, February 3rd...
1993 PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT GOALS. 1
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members, as I stated in that 1
cover memo, goals of staff as outlined, need to reflect...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion of the agenda.
The following motions were summarized by the Park and Recreation
I
Director.)
PRIORITIZATION OF 1993 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL I
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Andrews moved, Berg seconded to authorize staff to complete the 1993 Park,
Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program in an order deem
appropriate by the Park and Recreation Director. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
LAKE ANN PARK PARKING FEES. II
Andrews moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission II
recommend to City Council to establish the 1993 Lake Ann Park parking
permit fees at the 1992 rates. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: 1
A. APPROVE 1993 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP; MINNESOTA RECREATION AND PARK
ASSOCIATION AND NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARKS ASSOCIATION. 1
Andrews moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
approve 1993 memberships to the National Recreation and Park Association,
and the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. All voted in favor an
�
the motion carried.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 36
(Taping of the meeting began again at this point.)
BALLFIELD USEAGE REQUESTS:
Lash: Well I have a really big problem with this. I really do. And
Fred's probably been in the same situation as I have, and I don't know if
anybody else here has or not. But if you have kids playing in the CAA
I baseball, ragball and all that stuff and you have to go over to Rice Lake
Marsh, it's a nightmare over there. It's a nightmare to try and park and
if I lived there, I'd be livid to have that congestion every.
r Berg: At least 2 blocks in every direction.
Lash: Yep. So I absolutely would not want to see this happen in any
other neighborhood park. One of my personal goals was to get it out of
Chanhassen Estates. I think it's just terrible that those people, that
everyone who has to use that is going through that. And I think many
times when we've developed these neighborhood parks and people come in
here and they ask, will this be for the community use? Will there be
ballfields? Will there be this? And we say no, no, no. It's just going
' to be a neighborhood park. We don't want to bring in a lot of traffic and
we have told many different neighborhoods that and I am just not
comfortable in going back on those promises that we made and creating a
bigger nightmare and I think if people start hearing, when they call up to
register their kids, and I am all for CAA. I am all for every kid who
wants to play being able to play, but people will never approve a
referendum to develop a youth complex if they do not have to feel a pinch
once in a while. If a few people start hearing on the phone, I'm sorry.
All of our ballfields are full. We can't take any more new teams, there's
going to be a grass roots movement to start getting more ballfields for
the kids. And so I'm looking at it from two different points. One, I
think it's a nightmare to start this in the neighborhood parks and the
other side is we're never going to get that youth complex if we are able
to solve this problem by just shoving this off on all these other places.
11 Schroers: The only way to deal with that fairly is for the City to put
out information to all interested parties that due to limited resources,
1 availability to CAA programs will be limited and offered on a first come,
first serve basis. I guess from the administrative point of view, I can
imagine staff taking a whole lot of grief for people saying, well just
because I didn't get their 10 minutes earlier, now my kid can't play ball
this year? And then how do you respond when they come back and say, look.
You've got these ballfields out here that are virtually not being used for
anything. Why can't we use them? How do we address that?
Lash: Well and if there's 4 parking spots here and there's going to be 30
cars coming in every hour, and at some point in time there will be double
the cars because the second shift will be there when the first shift is
still there. What can you do with all those cars?
Koubsky: The problem with these three parks too is it all thru traffic.
' Rice Marsh really gets jammed up but at least it's a cul -de -sac. It's not
thru traffic.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 37
Schroers: I've been down there. I've seen that.
Lash: It's a nightmare. 11
Ruegemer: The other...if these fields would be implemented, that Rice
Marsh would probably be cut down or eliminated.
Lash: I mean I don't have any solutions. I really don't, so it's not
like I'm trying to shoot down a suggestion to a solution to a problem that,
I know is there but I'm afraid we're going to have more problems. ■
Andrews: The other thing to think about, every time you take a field for"
a game, you've lost it for the practices, plus you've also got that many
more teams that are looking for fields for practices and that creates
additional parking pressures on other parks. I've seen that when I lived
up next to Lotus Lake Park with, there were virtually no scheduled games
there but there were 2 and 3 teams practicing there every night with thei
entourage of vehicles as well.
Lash: I think we'll just be cluttered with neighborhood...
Andrews: I think Rice Marsh in particular, because it's a dead end, is
going to fill up with a zillion cars and it's going to be a traffic jam.
Lash: I know Curry Farms, we've dealt with them before. We know where
they're at and...
Schroers: Your proposal for using these three fields, Jerry how often,
what kind of a schedule? I mean are you talking about using them every
night? '
Ruegemer: It depends on what age group would be there. Probably a couple
nights a week.
Andrews: You'd still be scheduling when they have practices too.
Ruegemer: That's all incorporated in. No more than 3 nights a week. 1
Berg: So it's 5 nights a week. 2 games and 3 practices.
Lash: But that would be this year. Next year there's going to be more II
kids.
Berg: Next year there will be more and then we'll incorporate every ,
ballfield in the city, regardless of where it is.
Lash: And regardless of what we've promised people. 1
Andrews: Some parks have to be left just for the kid that come play. I
kind of look at this say geez, where does a kid go that wants to just go
play, if every park is being used for basically adult commercially
organized activities?
Koubsky: We've put out a referendum identifying this, not that this
solution would have been solved if everybody would have voted for the
r
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 38
referendum. But there's a public education process and any park, like Jan
1 eluded to. Part of the public education process is feeling the pinch or
the need for a facility. I think we've started, actually it's pretty,
it's happened a lot faster than I thought because we were just talking
about this last summer. How long are these fields we have going to last?
It was projected possibly years so we thought, well we'd better think
ahead and think about Bandimere today and put that on a vote. See what
the public thinks about it. Well the public might think a little
different next time we ask for a vote. If we let baseball or athletics
into the neighborhood parks, the only people that are going to be upset
are the people who live in the neighborhood parks, and they're going to
recognize the shortage. If we cut back on teams that can be allowed to
play, the people who are going to be upset about the kids and the families
who have teams that participate, I think it will be a greater amount of
people.
Schroers: Well the people that are sitting right here, what about your
kids and your kids and your kids that don't get to play?
i Koubsky: It's a tough question.
Andrews: I'd personally rather deal with mad ballteams than mad
homeowners because I feel our responsibility is to the homeowner first.
Koubsky: I think what I would do is I would be calling Todd a lot more
' often and I'd be calling the Mayor a lot more often if my kids weren't
allowed to play baseball. And I might move. Those are decisions I have
to make.
Lash: Well I know in other activities, like swimming lessons, I can
remember talking to people who were up at 6:30 in line to try and make
1 sure they'd get the spot they wanted for swimming lessons. It's a fact of
life that a lot of times these things get tight and people don't like it
but you do the best you can and then maybe you fight for the ultimate
solution and that's what we have to get, we have to get some support to do
1 that.
Schroers: I think it's no secret that we would all like to see a youth
sports complex developed but I think when it really comes down to an issue
and you get the people in the community fired up enough to come in, and
they point out the fact that you got a ballfield here and a ballfield
' there and another ballfield there, that is not being used to it's fullest
potential and yet you want to raise my taxes to build a whole new complex
out here, they're going to say, get it together.
Berg: The people I know I think Larry would look at it from a little
different angle. I know I would look at it from the point of view of the
industrial teams. I would say, what do we have these parks for. We're
11 talking about Lake Ann not being, Field No. 3 not being an acceptable
youth field. I have a real hard problem with, a real problem with that.
If you told me my kid couldn't play but we're not going to convert Lake
Ann No. 3 to a youth field. I have more problems with the adults using it
11 for an industrial league than I do not interferring into a neighborhood
park where there isn't any parking. Where we're going to disrupt the
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 39 '
entire neighborhood. I can logically understand that. I can't understand
a bunch of adults and yahoos coming in and, that's not what they are but
that's going to be my interpretation if you take the playtime away from m
kid. That's the area I'm going to go after more than not using the
neighborhood parks 100 %. 1
Koubsky: That's a good issue if we need ballfields when we have
industrial teams that occupy a lot of ballfield time. If you go back to
resident Larry and if I lived in an area, I'd say why did you give me thi
softball field anyway? Why did you design a softball field into my
neighborhood park and then not even give me parking spaces, and now you're
scheduling it for softball activity. I would have just as soon as had an"
open field. There are safety issues with cars and traffic. We already
see one lawsuit deeper down in here.
Schroers: Okay, what we need to do here is just everybody be honest abou
how you feel in regards to this and see if we can get a motion passed. I
we can't, if we go against using this, then realize that we may be
restricting some people from being able to participate in the program and'
we're going to have to be willing to stand behind our decision because
somebody's going to be in here.
Lash: Do we have other people registering besides, and I'm going to sound
like a broken record, but besides residents? In the kids very much.
Ruegemer: There's a real small percentage. Maybe kids coming from Chaskil
or Victoria because there are opportunities down in the Chaska area for
people in that end of town.
Lash: There used to be I think more kids from Victoria but now I think 1
they're going more to Chaska.
Ruegemer: I'm going to pick an arbitrary number here but I'm going to sal
probably 90% are probably Chanhassen.
Lash: Because I know I read that Chaska now has instituted a non- residenll
thing where they charge more, and you know where that's leading. It
ultimately leads to no non - residents and they're feeling the pinch too I'm
sure. What about City Center? I mean we've talked about the HRA and ally
is that on line that that could be solution sometime in the near future?
Hoffman: That plan is on hold until such time as the central park concep
moves forward. That would be the realignment of those ballfields and
creating some more useable space up there.
II Lash: Because that was going to give us a couple more fields wasn't it?
Hoffman: Absolutely.
Koubsky: I think my thought too on making a motion on this is, this is 11
one solution to a problem. I know Fred's brought up another solution.
Maybe we need to visit before we decide on how we're going to move agains
this. This may be the only option, even though it's unpalatable. I thin
my decision needs to be based on all of our options, which I don't know i
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 40
we have here. You know the schedule. How many people have to play? What
11 do we have to jockey around? If we get these 3 fields you can make it.
What if you can't get these 3 fields? How does that effect my decision
making?
Lash: What about Saturdays? Can we start going to some Saturdays?
Ruegemer: Definitely.
11 Schroers: And you're talking about this upcoming 1993 operating season.
Now we can't take into consideration what may happen with City Center and
1 Bandimere because that's not going to effect this particular item.
Hoffman: If I could clarify just a couple of issues. Again, any
registration difficulties which will be felt as part of youth associations
will be felt by the Athletic Association. What we simply do is tell them
what facilities they have. The Athletic Association carries out the
registration, the scheduling, those type of things.
Koubsky: Yeah, there may be more kids on a team. That's a solution.
' Hoffman: The reason Jerry brings this to the Commission, Jerry is the
City liason to the Athletic Association. As such, it would seen as his
responsibility to support the interest of the Association. They made this
request to the Commission. Obviously your responsibilities and interest
are of a larger scope than the Athletic Association.
Schroers: So this is not staff's recommendation to utilize these 3 parks,
but it is the request from the CAA? They came to staff and said, may we
use Sunset Ridge, Curry Farms and Lake Ann?
Hoffman: This does represent Jerry's recommendation to utilize those
spaces.
Lash: But CAA came and said we need a couple more fields.
Ruegemer: There's been discussions, right with projected numbers.
Hoffman: Correct. And again, your comments about the positioning for a
future referendum. The Athletic Association, as you're all aware, is an
important organization in our city. It would be our desire at any point
when we could assist that association, to do so. But again it has been
your policy to attempt to keep at a minimum, adult activities out of
neighborhood parks. Now you're seeing Meadow Green neighborhood park, you
essentially operate it as a softball complex. You're seeing Rice Marsh
Lake Park, and not only Rice Marsh but Carver Beach playground operated as
a CAA ballfield. You're at an important decision making point here and
you accomplish a couple of things. But whatever decision you make is
I/ going to ripple back some major impacts into the community. Those have
negative connotations but maybe in the end they're going to be positive.
Koubsky: That's a good point. There are two community parks that are
being used for the youth athletics. That's kind of what we use.
1
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 41
II
Andrews: There's more than that. North Lotus gets used
Koubsky: Several.
Hoffman: North Lotus and Meadow Green, as far as the neighborhood park II
are more highly developed. They both contain parking. Not to a great
extent but the largest neighborhood parking lots that we have. Some of
the other ones that have been mentioned here, have not been developed
into, in my opinion, for use by association or organized athletics.
II
However, as you're receiving this request because they're simply running
out of room.
Lash: Well I guess I'd be ready to make a motion in that, at this point 11
we deny this request but ask staff to work with CAA, or however they want
to do it, to come up with some other options and review those. And if it l
appears we can't come up with any more solutions, we can review this
again.
Schroers: That sounds reasonable to me. I'll second it. 1
Lash moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission deny
staff's recommendation to utilize the ballfields at Sunset Ridge,
I
Chanhassen Hills and Curry Farms Parks for the Chanhassen Athletic
Association activities. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Andrews: Now there is a second item attached to this. Was that a second
Ruegemer: Did you get a chance to look at the letter? In looking at Jac
Jensen's letter, Jack did bring up a lot of valid points pertaining to th
youth activities in Chanhassen. However, converting Lake Ann No. 3 to a
specific youth complex I think would really limit the use for both youth
and adults. By moving the fences in, I think you tend to maybe specializ
or cater to one group or the other. I feel that keeping the field the wa
it is, having fences stay the way they are. ...we're in somewhat of a
field strain right now as it is with our youth activities and I feel that"
we can accommodate both users by leaving the field the way it is and not
specializing the field. With that I think it would suit a wider variety
of use. If we need to cut back on the adults and that field can still be
used by the youth and the adults, if we need to do it that way. And that'll
would be my recommendation then for Lake Ann No. 3 versus moving the
fences in at Lake Ann No. 2, as we did last summer. That kind of limits.
I think we're going to shoot ourself in the foot if we do that. I think il
we can, it will accommodate a lot more user groups if we keep it the way
it is. That would be my, staff's recommendation to appease a wider
variety of people.
Schroers: Do you want to just incorporate that into your motion Jan? II
Lash: Sure. I would move that we deny the request. 1
Andrews: We can't do that under our Rules. We can't go back.
Lash: I'll just make a new motion. 1
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' January 26, 1993 - Page 42
Andrews: Just make a new motion. It's just an easier way of doing it.
Lash: That we deny the request from Mr. Jensen and keep Lake Ann Field 3
as it is, which is still useable by them, right?
Ruegemer: It's still available. In the past years they've been able to
accomplish their game situations on other fields. But we can take a look
at that...
Lash: To keep Lake Ann Field 3 open to more users.
' Andrews: So as is right?
Lash: As is.
Koubsky: Second.
Lash moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission to
accept staff's recommendation that Lake Ann Park Field #3 stay as it is.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION, SELECTION OF BAND.
Ruegemer: This memorandum is quite straight forward regarding the 4th of
July celebration. The Hi -Tops have performed for the 4th of July
celebration for quite a few number of years and we've always had real
positive comments regarding their performance and enthusiasm. They're
' always thrilled and always anxious to play out here again. John Krumm,
with the Hi -Tops who initiated the initial conversation probably in
September of 1992 to, he asked if they could come back and really the rate
that they're at is pretty competitive, and really below what other
' groups... So it's staff's recommendation to approve the contract for the
Hi -Tops for the Chanhassen 4th of July Celebration.
Lash: I have a question on that. Did they say specifically that they
would not be willing to have the rain out day be the 3rd?
Ruegemer: Does that say in the contract?
Lash: It just says the rain out date is Monday, July 5th.
Ruegemer: I think we requested that.
Hoffman: In talking to them, weren't they unwilling to do that? To take
up those other nights which they're typically booked.
Ruegemer: I think they have a tentative agreement that night.
Lash: I mean obviously the 3rd would be better for us but I can
understand that they're not willing to book it that way and give up a
Saturday night.
Hoffman: 3rd is a Saturday night, yeah.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 43
Schroers: The tough thing too is, that then forces us to leave everything
set up over the whole weekend.
Lash: It forces people to go home at 10:00 for those to get up and go to
work the next morning. Maybe what we could think of doing is, if we have
the rain out, is asking that it start a little earlier. Otherwise if they,
start at, what time does that start? 8:00. It starts at 8:00. You know
maybe what we need to do is have it start at 7:00 or...so at least we'd
get our money's worth out of them. Most people aren't going to stick
around until midnight.
Schroers: Okay, any other discussion? How about a motion to approve? ,
Andrews: Hold on a sec. Are we going to motion approval with Jan's
recommendation to amend the starting time for the back -up, the rain out
date?
Schroers: Yes.
Lash: And definitely they were not willing to have the 3rd as their rain"
out, is that correct?
Ruegemer: Correct. '
Hoffman: Jerry can confirm that.
Schroers: Is that a motion, or does someone want to make it?
Lash: Yes, I'll do that. What I'd say? '
Andrews: I'll second it.
Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
1
approve the contract with the Hi -Tops to perform at Chanhassen's 4th of
July Celebration as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CAA BASKETBALL REPORT, BOWLING PARTY EVALUATION, AND SKI TRIP REPORT.
Hoffman: Other than if there's any questions on 13 (d), (e) and (f), no
need to go into depth.
Ruegemer: Just an update.
Schroers: Do we want to have any discussion on this?
Lash: The prizes for bowling, I thought that was cool. They'll really
like that.
Berg: Just so you have an idea how things are growing. Four years ago
when my daughter was in 3rd grade, there were I believe 4 teams, maybe
half a dozen girls. Now in that grades 3 and 4 there's 35. That's 4
years...
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 44
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET:
1 Hoffman: Any questions on the Administrative Packet? That as well
contains a lot of information.
Koubsky: I guess I have one addition here. On the home numbers, and home
and work numbers on the contacts. My work number's changed. I'm
following in Randy's footsteps. I've taken a new job outside of this
area. It's in the cities but it's over on University and 94. I used to
work in Chaska. Oh my new number, if you care, is 659 -7567. But with
that move I'm going to probably be moving. Or I will be moving. My house
' is on the market. So in light of that, we're hoping to be out of the
area, with regrets. I hate to move out of this area. I've certainly
enjoyed living here but both my wife and I will be working downtown, or
there abouts so we have to move our family with us. All of that aside, my
schedule is probably to let my son go through first grade, which will be
June. So I'd be looking at a move date sometime around June. It's kind
of up to the Board what you guys want to do. You just interviewed a lot
of potential commissioners. I'm kind of at your disposal. I'd be more
than happy to sit here until that time, or if you like with the new
strategic planning and what for park and trail, if you want to replace my
position, that's kind of a thing for you to decide.
Schroers: Well I kind of thing that's more your decision as to whether or
not you want to stay and how long you want to stay. I mean I think that
we'd like, it's nice to get new blood but it's also nice to have some
experience. So that's really going to be your call. I wouldn't be
comfortable in saying that you should stay or leave, because that has to
do with your personal life.
Koubsky: Then I'll ride it out and just stick around and help out. I
1 enjoy this.
Lash: I have a couple of questions on the Administrative Packet. On this
Christopher Thompson thing. I'm not real good at reading legalees and so
I have no idea what this is about. What is this about?
Hoffman: Drove in North Lotus Lake Park, did some damage to the park. We
1 assessed the bill back to Christopher Thompson for $60.00 for turf repair.
That needs to go onto the court. I spent more of your tax dollars in
administrating this claim but it's all in trying to teach a young man a
good lesson.
Koubsky: He cut down a Christmas tree, right?
Hoffman: No, the Lake Ann grinch cut down the Christmas tree. That was
somebody else.
Lash: I had a question on this lawsuit too.
Koubsky: Somebody got hurt?
Hoffman: Correct. The report is about as indepth as we have. Well, did
it include it all? No, it does not. Jerry has been working with the
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 45
insurance carrier and then back and forth with the City Attorney in this
regard. In discussing this with the City Attorney at the coffee station, II
he didn't miss a sip on his coffee. You know these things are not
uncommon. We maintain the fields on a daily basis. We provide safety
bases. As a parent you need to accept some responsibility for potential
injury due to this type of activity. It's a natural occurrence.
Lash: Well what kind of an injury was it?
Hoffman: Broken foot.
Ruegemer: In two places. It required an operation. Now they feel he
needs another operation to correct the situation.
Lash: So it says in excess of $550,000.00.
I/
Andrews: That's standard legalees.
Lash: How much in excess? 1
Andrews: They don't tell you that.
Lash: Okay, so the attorney's feeling like they don't have a leg to stand
on?
Hoffman: Correct. 1
Koubsky: So was that running the bases?
Hoffman: Running the bases. First base.
Lash: Well and they sign waivers to start with. And how about on the ,
Dear Roger letter. The soil testing.
Hoffman: That brings you up to date on what an estimate would be for soil
investigation down at, what is the cost there? No, it's not there.
$2,000.00.
Lash: We'd have to pay $2,000.00 just to get the test? 1
Hoffman: Correct. So I apologize for not attaching his, I believe I did
that in a previous administrative packet. II Lash: And you sort of feel, in your expert opinion, that this soil test
will prove that it won't be conducive to a test?
Hoffman: Right. I don't think it's worth $2,000.00. In - house we can 1
perform some rudimentary soil tests which would tell us that as well. I
apologize, there is no commission member presentations on this agenda. S
any other commissioners have the floor at this time to let us know your
feelings.
Andrews: I think it was on that motion to adjourn. '
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 46
Lash: No. Sorry. I know it's getting late, but two things that I wanted
to discuss. First being I had a discussion with Betty Lang recently and
she's not a real happy camper with this whole Herman Field thing, and you
know it kind of makes for bad PR and bad feelings. She's not happy with
how this all came out and I told her I would bring it up. Of course she
feels like there needs to be a gate and said, she's under the impression
that during our meetings there were some promises made of certain things
that have not appeared. Namely one being a gate system. So we talked
' about that at length and I tried to explain to her, you know it's hard to
do that because who's going to open it and who's going to close it and all
of that.
1 Schroers: We didn't promise them a gate anyway.
Lash: Yeah, see and I can't remember for sure.
Schroers: We wouldn't have done that.
Lash: Well I just thought maybe we could do a little investigating into
it. Maybe write her a letter. I thought I was being nice to just bring
it up to her and see kind of, I knew she wasn't happy when the whole thing
was going on and just say, how are things going now Betty. Is it okay or
is it as bad as you thought it would be or whatever? ..try to smooth it
over with her somehow. I'm not quite sure how to go about doing that.
' Hoffman: I'll take your direction in any regard. Throughout this whole
process I've been very cordial to Ms. Lang and attempted to come onto her
property to discussing what effects this project was going to have on her
' property, etc -, etc. I would agree that she's been not happy throughout
the entire process. I'm not sure that anything we say today is going to
make her any happier.
Lash: That is probably true. You know it's just hard when you face
somebody like that. No matter what you do.
' Schroers: But there's a whole community and a whole neighborhood and
she's the only one really making any serious.
' Lash: But how do we know that? Maybe if I approach some other people, I
don't know anybody else but she goes to my church and I saw her at church.
But maybe if we approached somebody else, they'd say too. Well, I'm not
' happy. The thing is we haven't approached anybody to see how they're
feeling on the end. If it's shaped up the way they want or not.
Hoffman: If any indication, you'll get a copy of these computations of
I these surveys. An indication of those surveys, those people up there on
Herman Field, don't want you to take a step in any other park before you
complete Herman Field Park because they've been waiting 13 years to get
' that neighborhood park. So there are some residents up there who are very
anxious for this park to be completed. And that's not just a singular
example.
' Lash: Another issue that came to my attention in the paper last week I
guess was the article about the snowmobile trails and is there a future
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 47
for them in Chanhassen of staying. Are they in jeopardy? It's something
maybe when we do the comprehensive plan we can get some language in there '
about that. I don't know exactly what we can do but.
Berg: I hate to see them go. I don't have a snowmobile but those guys II
are always, to me they seem real polite and they watch for traffic.
Lash: And you know, there's always going to be some clinkers in any
group. Ball players or snowmobilers or anyone who are going to wreck
things but just because you have baseball players who break glass on the
field, it doesn't mean we're going to close down all the baseball fields.
So I think we need to look at trying to come up with some kind of a futuril
direction of how we can maintain those. I think a lot of people moved
here for that reason and I'd hate to see it lost.
Schroers: I think the City should support the Snowmobile Associations ani
agreements they work out with landowners and that sort of thing and
support that, but I don't think it's the City's obligation to provide
special trails and that sort of thing for something like that. I mean
that's like a license vehicle now, like a boat. I mean we're not going to
build a special lake so someone can run their boats on it and I think the
same people that buy...or think about having city snowmobile trails. We I
need to support the ongoing program for as long as it's practical and
exists but.
Hoffman: We support it to date. We as well become frustrated when they II
drive on the parks and the playgrounds and the ballfields, those type of
things. But we're supportive. We meet annually with the Public Safety '
Commission and members of the Association. Obviously the Association
members are very interested in keeping their rights but they represent a
minority of the snowmobiles out there. But they're the voice. They took
out the $250.00 some ad or $230.00 some ad, whatever it was, in the paper'
The editor, Dean Trippler wrote the article so they're trying to get the
awareness out there.
Schroers: The example, what I'm trying to say is along with the Highway 11
corridor and that sort of thing, my opinion, pesonal opinion on that is
that we ought to be promoting human power trails there. Bicycling,
walking, jogging, that sort of stuff but that's oniy...a non- motorized
corridor there where it's going to be a busy area.
Lash: I'm not promoting that either but it'd be nice if we could have
some areas that are designated that.
Hoffman: There's one trail left.
Lash: Yeah, and how long before that's going to be gone? Then what are
people going to do?
Berg: Until they widen that road I suppose.
Hoffman: The trail goes north, southeast and northwest and they continue"
to battle each year for landowner permission. Keep changing their routes
and this and that. I don't think it's in jeopardy. What's in jeopardy
1
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 26, 1993 - Page 48
I sooner is the right to drive your snowmobile from your house to that trail
system. Currently you have to drive on the roads as a vehicle, but many
people drive on the boulevards. Up along lawns. Do tree and shrub
I damage. That type of thing. That's what brings the complaints into the
city.
Schroers: I have snowmobile tracks all over my yard. Nobody came and
asked. I don't particularly care but.
Hoffman: Tough issue. Winter jet skis.
1 Koubsky moved, Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m.
II Submitted by Todd Hofman
Park and Recreation Director
1 Prepared by !Vann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1