1r minutes r ,
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 10, 1993
Mayor Chmiel called the continuation of the Board of Equalization and Review
meeting to order at 7:00 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason and Councilwoman Dockendorf
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt and Roger Knutson
COUNTY ASSESSORS PRESENT: Orlin Shafer, Ann Wise and Steve Just -
I Mayor Chmiel: Orlin, do you have any opening statements that you'd like to
make?
Orlin Shafer: You will notice on your handout that the lavender colored sheet,
II or purple has, most of those or all of them have been contacted and they've
agreed to whatever those numbers are. The white sheet with...is yet to be acted
on. Those people could not be reached...
' Mayor Chmiel: They have the opportunity, and of course we have the opportunity
to review it as well...to make any adjustments as we see. And that's if those
' people still are not content or happy with the decision that's made, they still
have an opportunity to go before the County Board. And that County Board
meeting is when?
' Orlin Shafer: June 17th and if you call in a couple days ahead and get on the
agenda.
' Councilman Mason: I noticed the hand written corrections. The homeowners are
in agreement with the hand written corrections?
' Orlin Shafer: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Steve Just: There's just the one on that one page.
Councilman Mason: Well there's a couple on the second. I wanted to yeah,
that's fine.
•
(A comment was made from the audience that was not heard on the tape.)
Mayor Chmiel: It's all public information. I don't see why not. Is your name
listed on here?
Resident: I don't know yet...
•
1
Board of Equalization and Review - May 10, 1993
11
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the ones that weren't are the ones that are on this other
page. Orlin, on the second page, on the white one that we have. They show
Richard Ersbo which was $6,200.00 and that was $100.00. Is that correct?
' Ann Wise: That's Wallace Otto I believe.
Steve Just: Both of those are Wallace properties.
Ann Wise: Both Otto properties.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Those are Timberwood properties I believe?
Steve Just: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And those are true clarifications or true numbers now?
' The hand written? Okay. Is there anyone at this time that wishes to come
before the Board with anything they may want to say at this time?
' Randy Koski: We're under the non - agreement list.
Todd Gerhardt: This is your opportunity.
II Councilman Mason: Come on down.
Randy Koski: The Reference Number is 48 -93.
' Mayor Chmiel: Randy and Jennifer Koski.
' Randy Koski: Our assessment had gone up to $149,200.00. After talking to Ann
Wise at the office that they dropped it to $147,200.00 and after doing as many
studies as we could find all around our neighborhood, we can't find anything
' comparable that's even close to that value. We found our neighbors at
$127,600.00. All the others are around $130,000.00 - $135,000.00. For more land.
More bedrooms. k`- space. I had talked to Ann and I believe she told me they
originally came up with $134,900.00 for our's but back in the office, after
' discussing it, they decided on adding $14,300.00 to the value to make it
$149,200.00. We still feel it should be somewhere in the $130's.
' Orlin Shafer: Is it correct Randy that you paid $155,500.00 for that?
Randy Koski: That's correct.
Orlin Shafer: Okay. Why do you feel...
Randy Koski: Are you going by market value or what someone paid for their home?
' When we bought our home we decided we wanted the house and we realized that we
were probably paying $15,000.00 and maybe $20,000.00 too much but we don't plan
to move. We thought over 30 years that's not a big deal if it's the house you
wanted. What we didn't realize is that the tax would be, we thought it'd be on
the market value of the home, not on what you paid for the house. It's still a
2 bedroom house.
' 2
Board of Equalization and Review - May 10, 1993
Orlin Shafer: Yeah, I realize that. The reason I'm asking is this then. Your
purchase helped set the market. We used your house, when you bought your house,
your sale price, your purchase price, helped us define what the houses were
selling for. Not just your house but other houses.
Randy Koski: Okay. '
Orlin Shafer: So your house has direct influence on why we came to the
$149,200.00. Prior to your remodeling and all those kind of things because you
did all that after you bought the house. So in theory you should be at the
$155,000.00 even if you paid too much...makes sense to you or not.
Randy Koski: No, it doesn't. I mean, it's still these other houses are larger
houses. More land and they're in the $130's.
Orlin Shafer: Are you comparing numbers prior to our review, appraisal of that
area this year?
Randy Koski: Well it's hard to come up with what you came up with for
appraisals. I believe we are. I believe our neighbor that has more land and
more square footage is at $127,600.00. There's a few houses on Melody Hill that
are and Hummingbird that are $131,900.00 for 1.6 acres. We have about .8
acres.
Orlin Shafer: A half a tenth of an acre more or less isn't going to change it a
wl lot.
Randy Koski: Well that's not a tenth. That's double the acreage.
Orlin Shafer: I think as my question to Ann and to Steve then would be, how the
comparison was with the rest of the neighborhood.
Ann Wise: It's based on, you know it's a 5 year home. The quality of the '
construction and what you have in it. It's just to look at your neighbors and
say they're assessed less, there are differences and when I went through the
neighborhood, I went through all the houses and assessed them based on what
I found in the homes. Based on their square footage... So really.
Fancy Koski: Didn't you also tell me that you came up with $134,600.00 but
somebody sitting down back in the office came up and added $14,300.00 to the
value I mean?
Ann Wise: No. No. For last year's assessment, for '92 I told you we went '
through and we trended the values in that whole area before, for the '92
assessment before we went through the area for reappraisal. So your value
increased from '92 and then for the '93 assessment, that was based on my
findings when I went through the neighborhood for the reappraisal area. So the
values changed again. Part of it was based on your new construction and part of
it was just based on the market assessment of the neighborhood.
Randy Koski: I guess I still don't understand what criteria you use when you
trend it with other homes in the area.
3
Board of Equalization and Review - May 10, 1993
Orlin Shafer: We trend, that is in the off years. We are required by law to
view a property once every 4 years and I don't know whether this is true for
your's but there are properties in the area that haven't been viewed in 4 or 5 1
years and in order to play a little catch up back on those, we trended. We knew
what the market was doing...so we trended a few percentage points of value for
' those houses that we had not actually looked at in '92. Now in '93 we made it a
point to look at those in those neighborhoods and those in turn then responded
directly to the measurements and the viewing that Ann and Steve did and adjusted
to the current value as established by all sales that took place within the past
24 months.
' Randy Koski: All that's well and good but I still don't understand how our's
can be 15, $18,000.00 higher than anything that's close to comparison in the
neighborhood. What criteria are you using?
' Orlin Shafer: Apparently we're not...
Randy Koski: It can't be better construction. It's the same construction as
the rest of the houses. 2 x 4's and siding and.
Orlin Shafer: There must be something that stands out in Ann's mind. She does
an excellent job and she's not going to single you out. Whether it's the size
or whatever it might be. There's something that's different between your home
and another home that's valued $20,000.00 less than your's.
' Randy Koski: That's what I've been asking. What is the difference?
Orlin Shafer: Yeah. There is something. I think that, to resolve that issue
' we would have to go back to the records in the office and look and see what
those differences are. Put some prices...Maybe it's the quality. I don't know.
Ann Wise: Your numbers, you know when you have the sheet that you had here.
' Your numbers were, these weren't the updated values over here.
Randy Koski: How does a person find out the updated values? They're not in the
' record books.
Ann Wise: Yes they are. These are the '93 values. You probably were looking
' at the '92...
Randy Koski: But I understand the '92's are in a different office. They're in
your office and 'S ^'s are in the.
' Ann Wise: Well I look them up in the computer and these are the ones...these
are the numbers that I came up with.
Randy Koski: Still, I challenge you to show you anything comparable in my
neighborhood that's not, they're all $15,000.00 less.
Ann Wise: No they aren't. Well here's.
Randy Koski: Take 6200 Murry Hill Road that's next door to me.
4
Board of Equalization and Review - May 10, 1993
Aran Wise: That's $139,600.00. That's the assessed value of that one.
Randy Koski: And how much land is there?
Ann Wise: I don't have the records in front of me.
Randy Koski: Oh, okay. How about 6271 Hummingbird?
Ann Wise: I don't have that one here. '
Randy Koski: See I show that at $131,900.00 and the house is only about 4 years
old. 1.6 acres. '
Ann Wise: ...because I did do an adjustment there too. I raised their value.
Steve Just: These are all pay '94 values that we're discussing. Some of them
you may think was a '93 assessment but you may have been thinking that it was
pay '93 and that was the '93 assessment. That's what a lot of the numbers that
you have on here are. '
Randy Koski: Well let's sit down and why don't we sit down and go over the
numbers. I mean instead of keep telling me...
Orlin Shafer: ...before this meeting.
Randy Koski: I've been trying to do that for a long time. That's what I'd like
to do.
Mayor Chmiel: If I could just interject. I don't know if this is the forum
that I'd like to see take place and I know it's a very testy thing with a lot of
people. But I'm looking at, you said that you bought this for $155,500.00. Did
you put an addition on or do some remodeling?
Randy Koski: We put a 3 season porch on that cost a little over $4,000.00,
which I did myself.
Mayor Chmiel: So that would bring it up to about $159,000.00.
Randy Koski: But by that token, if I would have paid a million dollars for
it, you'd be taxing it at a million dollars saying that's what it's worth. I
mean that's ridiculous. It's still got to be worth comparable to what you could
sell it for.
Mayor Chmiel: It's normally 90% of what.
Randy Koski: The market value correct.
•
Orlin Shafer: But if you recently purchased the price, that is what it's worth.
Randy Koski: No. '
Orlin Shafer: If you recently purchased the property, you paid market. You set
the market. You paid it. In theory that's what we should have then.
•
5 1
Board of Equalization and Review - May 10, 1993
Randy Koski: Then why would you do a comparison with other homes in the area?
Or why would you trend it with the other homes in the area? What is the
definition of market value? ...Why do they use the word market value? Why
don't they just say purchase price then?
Orlin Shafer: Because not everyone buys and sells property on the assessment
' date which is January 2, so we have to work both directions from that date on
any given year. Right now we're working towards the purchase of property up to
' January 2, 1994.
Randy Koski: By the same token, what you're saying what you're saying then,
from what I understand is, if I sold that house for $50,000.00 just to get out
of this County, that person would be appraised at 90% of $50,000.00.
Orlin Shafer: No. That person would be appraised at market value and that's
really what this reflects.
Randy Koski: Well what is market value then? It's not purchase price.
Orlin Shafer: It's the price someone would be willing to pay for if it was
offered at an arm's length transaction for a reasonable time on the market with
undue stimulus, either negative or pro. You entered that purchase with an open
' mind and knowing what you want to know. You said that. You wanted the house.
And you agreed that...
Randy Koski: Right. That doesn't make the market value of that.
Orlin Shafer: That is the market value.
' Randy Koski: So market value is purchase price is what you're saying?
Orlin Shafer: For your instance, yes it is. However, when we work it in with
' all the other sales to establish what we then term market value, which we can
use against all homes that haven't sold, it takes on a different computation.
' Randy Koski: Well is market value is purchase price, then I'm talking for
nothing here.
Orlin Shafer: Put it this way. We think you paid too much at $155,000.00
' because we have it at $149,200.00.
Randy Koski: I have nothing further. That's crazy.
Orlin Shafer: I guess I'm disappointed that this discussion is taking place
here. This discussion should have taken place either in your home or in our
' office.
Randy Koski: I agree.
' Orlin Shafer: Okay. And I'm not blaming you. I'm questioning my staff why
it's taking place here.
Ann Wise: Well I did discuss this...
' 6
Board of Equalization and Review - May 10, 1993
Randy Koski: And I disagreed.
Ann Wise: And he disagreed...but I discussed it. The porch he put on, you know
you have to include your labor and you did add a fireplace and it's large. It's
a 3 to 4 season, well 4 season porch right? '
Randy Koski: No, 3.
Ann Wise: Well, it's got a fireplace in it so I mean it's not a $4,000.00 ,
porch. But we did discuss this before. I went to the house as part of the
reappraisal and 7 mean I just feel like it's a fair market value and you don't
agree. ,
Randy Koski: Correct.
Ann Wise: We couldn't come to terms. We talked about it a lot on the phone. ,
Randy Koski: So what's the next step in resolving it?
Orlin Shafer: I can see where Ann's coming from. I think I understand what
she's saying. She tried to do and explain to you what, how we do our work.
You're not understanding it. '
Randy Koski: Evidentally not. I'm disagreeing with it.
Orlin Shafer: Yeah, you're disagreeing with the way we do it or you're '
disagreeing with the end value?
Randy Koski: The end value. I don't care how. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Still, you have additional recourse to go back to the County
Board. ,
Orlin Shafer: You can carry it on to the County Board.
Mayor Chmiel: Which is going to be June the 17th. And appeal it at that '
particular time. But from what I'm hearing here now, from what the additional,
what your price was for the purchase of the house, plus the additions that you
put on, and they come up with that $149,200.00 and they put it at $147,200.00. ,
It seems fairly decent inbetween there. At least that's what I feel, and I'm
not sure what the balance of the Board feels at this particular time.
Randy Koski: So it really has nothing to do with the other houses in the '
neighborhood?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll discuss that right now and see if there's any '
conclusion come up with. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, clearly there is some disagreement and I guess I'd
suggest Koski's, depending on what we do here, go to the County Board with it.
From what I'm understanding here, there's a disagreement with how this is
figured out. After being on this Board for, I guess this is my third time, I'm
starting to understand it a little bit better. And it does appear that
7
Board of Equalization and Review - May 10, 1993
$155,000.00 was high but compared to what's been going on, I guess I see that
the $147,200.00. No, it'd be $147,000.00 even then?
Mayor Chmiel: No, it'd be $147,200.00.
' Councilman Mason: With the information I've heard tonight and with what I have
here, that seems reasonable to me.
' Mayor Chmiel: I agree. I think maybe what should take place yet is maybe Mr.
Koski should sit down with Orlin and see if he understands what the entirety of
this is to be explained and if there's still not satisfaction or justification,
then you have that right yet to appeal before the County Board. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well again, not seeing the property and seeing the
assessed values of the neighborhood, it would seem that if the purchase price
was $155,000.00 plus you're putting on a 3 season porch brings it up closer to
$160,000.00 and it's only assessed at $147,200.00. On the face of it, it seems
more than fair but then again I'd like to see. Not for me to see it. For the
Koski's to see the comparable values in their neighborhood...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that satisfactory with the Koski's? ...yeah. Just sit
down and discuss that further before the 17th meeting with the County Board.
Okay? Orlin.
Orlin Shafer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to say this in defense of Ann and Steve.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not questioning that.
Orlin Shafer: No. No. I had the feeling that we, that that conversation had
not been carried to it's end and I think I understand now that it has. And I
want to apologize for putting Ann in a bad situation here. I have some concerns
for the individual taxpayers as well as my staff. That's where that was...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else at this time? If seeing none,
I'd like to have approval of the Minutes of the Board of Review and Equalization
' dated Frgr:l 19, 1993. Can I have a motion on that?
Councilman Mason: So moved.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Chanhassen Board of Equalization and Review dated April 19, 1993 as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Mayor Chmiel: Being there is no one else who would like to come before the
Board regarding the Assessor's recommendation. Keep it open one more time.
Hearing none, I'll call for a motion to close.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the Board of
Equalization and Review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Board
of Equalization and Review was closed.
8
Board of Equalization and Review - May 10, 1993
II
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
following Property Owners who have come to agreement with the Assessor's
li
t Recommendations:
Reference Value II Number Name PIN Agreed To
1 -93 Al & Janine Afflitto 25.5500270 $112,400.00
2 -93 Charles & Vicki Anding 25.4800020 $210,500.00
II
3 -93 Melvin & Janet Babatz 25.0033800 $ 62,900.00
4 -93 Wayne & Beth Beckman 25.6710060 $ 76,000.00
6 -93 Donald Beadles 25.8590240 $108,200.00 I
8 -93 Martin & Jan Beukhof 25.4950550 $108,200.00
9 -93 James Bennyhoff 25.6150070 $102,900.00
10 -93 Bradford Bloomquist 25.8590290 $102,400.00
II
12-93 John Braden, Jr. 25.3900020 $ 96,900.00
13 -93 Peter Brandt 25.8940020 $343,300.00
14 -93 Gary Carlson 25.7700070 $175,500.00
15 -93 Gary & Maureen Carlson 25.5080130 $128,000.00
II
16 -93 Joseph & Adrienne Carrica 25.6100010 $190,800.00
17 -93 Dennis Clark 25.0034830/ $203,800.00
25.0041211 $ 24,100.00
II
19 - 93 Herbert Clausen 25.0023700 $127,000.00
20 Charles & Tracy Cool 25.8500071 $ 90,900.00
21 - 93 Diane Corey 25.4200110 $161,600.00
II 22 - 93 Scott Deadrick 25.2730650 $115,700.00
23 - 93 Robert & Celine DePauw 25.6710050 $ 99,400.00
24 - 93 Robert & Celine DePauw 25.6710020 $ 98,000.00
25 - 93 Dan Doenges 25.2730360 $128,400.00
I
26 - 93 Armin & Nancy Dreissiger 25.7930050 $252,600.00
27 - 93 Pat & Lila Driscoll 25.1990100 $ 90,000.00
28 -93 Donald & Rosemarie Dudycha 25.2640010/ $ 25,000.00 II 25.2640020 $ 5,000.00
2^ - 93 William Engebretson 25.3000780 $104,700.00
31 - 93 Daniel Fundingsland 25.2000850 $ 89,500.00
II
32 Ray & L. Hackenmiller 25.5500190 $128,000.00
33 - 93 Keith Hamberg 25.3100091 $111,600.00
34 - 93 Thomas Harings 25.4950410 $ 88,800.00
35 - 93 Paul & Sharri Harmel 25.3300110 $267,000.00
II
37 - 93 Martha Heiberg 25.4810160 $ 96,200.00
40 - 93 Char Jeurissen 25.4020010 $109,400.00
41 - 93 Ruth Kalanquin 25.3930120 $ 46,000.00
II
42 Herbert Kask 25.0011200 $ 83,900.00
43 - 93 Lawrence & Kathleen Kerber 25.0021000 $ 63,900.00
44 - 93 James & Jeffrey Kertson 25.0051500 $ 77,900.00
46 - 93 J. Donald Knight 25.6600280 $184,200.00
II
47 -93 Gregory & 0aon Kortuem 25.1860030 $119,800.00
49 - 93 Thomas Lauby 25.4200250 $110,000.00
50 - 93 Donald Leivermann 25.2300300 $224,000.00 II 51 -93 Ralph Livingston 25.5150100 $ 91,800.00
52 - 93 Gary McCauley 25.6300020 $121,500.00
53 - 93 J.B. McKellip 25.4950750 $190,000.00
II 54 - 93 Tony Misslin 25.4060720 $170,000.00
9
II
II
Board of Equalization and Review - May 10, 1993
11
Reference Value
II Number Name PIN Agreed To
55 -93 Dana Nicholson 25.6150200 $ 85,200.00 1
II 56 -93 Donald M. Oelke 25.0022700 $105,900.00
57 -93 Douglas & Darlene Olsen 25.8710150 $199,000.00 r
59 -93 Mark & Kathy Paulsen 25.2620100 $150,500.00
61 -93 Ward Allen & Sandra Putnam 25.8450030 $130,600.00
I 62 -93 Quad Star Prop /T. Rashberger 25.1920020 $710,000.00
64 -93 Irving Raymond 25.8400030 $113,800.00
66 -93 Robert Reutiman 25.1100130 $126,800.00
II 69 -93 Robert & Linda Sathre 25.7660030 $204,500.00
70 -93 John Schevenius 25.6880010/ $ 84,900.00
25.6880040/
25.8070270
II
71 -93 Michael & Joan Skallman 25.4810070 $ 90,900.00
72 -93 Merrill Steller 25.7500030 $101,500.00
73 -93 Richard Steller 25.6030020 $180,000.00
I 74 -93 Kim & Michelle Stern 25.6040230 $132,600.00
75-93 Douglas & Sherry Swanson 25.3100030 $ 97,800.00
77 -93 John & Jane Thielen 25.6800010 $139,000.00
I 78 -93 Charles Velure 25.6040180 $169,700.00
79 -93 Dean & Margaret Wieber 25.8650190 $243,800.00
The following are Property Owners who have not come to agreement with the
II Assessor's Recommendations:
Reference Assessor's
1 Number Name PIN
5 -93 Robert & June Bauer 25.5050150 $103,600.00
7 Beddor Properties - 18 Properties Listed on Letter No Change
11 -93 Michael Bomstad 25.6030110 $124,900.00
13 -93 Michael & Kathryn Clark 25.6790010 $157,300.00
30-93 Richard Ersbo 25.8830010 $147,000.00
I 36 -93 Wallace Otto 25.8520390/ $ 100.00
25.8520400 $ 5,000.00
30 -93 Gary Hiltbrand 25.2730600 $119,800.00
I 39 -93 Per Jacobson 25.5050340 $144,100.00
45 -93 Arthus Kimber 25.5050060 $ 89,200.00
48 -93 Randy & Jennifer Koski 25.5450140 $147,200.00
II 58 -93 Arthur & Jane Partridge 25.5450050 $139,800.00
60 -93 Herbert Pfeffer 25.5050350 $163,700.00
63 -93 Timothy & Julie Rainey 25.2850020 $141,200.00
65 -93 Stewart & Karen Reamer 25.6810020 $ 99,800.00
I 6 -93 Thomas Rode 25.1100030 $141,700.00
63-93 Mark & Mary Rogers 25.6150140 $117,800.00
76 -93 Bruce Swanson & Tauna Holasek 25.2550040 $122,400.00
II All voted in favor and the motion carried.
The Board of Equalization and Review meeting was closed at 7:20 p.m.
II 1
II 10
II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 24, 1993
' Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
t COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason,
Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dockendorf
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Todd Gerhardt, Elliott Knetsch, Charles Folch,
Todd Hoffman, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Scott Harr and Steve
Kirchman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve the agenda with the following amendments: Item 1(b) was deleted per the
developer's request and under Council Presentations Councilman Wing wanted to
' discuss parkland in western part of the city. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
' a. Approve Amended Stone Creek First Addition Development Contract, Project
92 -9.
' d. Bluff Creek Estates Third Addition:
' 1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract and Plans and Specifications
e. Approve Specifications for 1993 Street Repair Program and Authorize
' Advertising for Bids, Project 93 -11.
f. Ordinance Amendment to Winter Street Parking Regulations, Final Reading.
h. Approve Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer and Water Policy Plans; Authorize
Preparation of Hydrogeologic Well Field Study.
' i. Resolution 193 -43: Approve Request for Advanced Encumbrance of State -Aid
Funds for Minnewashta Parkway Improvement Project 90 -15.
k. Approve Settlement Agreement, Sunlink Corporation /DataSery Inc.
1. Approve Easement Agreement for Highway 101 Realignment Project, Builders
' Development Property.
m. Approve Lease Agreement with Paul Rogers to Farm the School Site Property,
Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard.
n. Approval of Accounts.
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
o.
Planning Commission Minutes dated May 5, 1993
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated May 13, 1993
q. Authorize Advertising for Bids, Kerber Boulevard and Arboretum Boulevard
Landscaping Project.
i
I All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
I G. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 90 -15.
Councilman Wing: I want to just apologize to Charles. I forgot to call today.
I had this circled. The extra retaining walls, can you specify where the
II biggest hit came? I'm just curious.
Charles Folch: Probably the biggest hit of the change order came along the
II stretch in front of the property, the Boylan property where we.
Councilman Wing: That's all I want to know. When we saved those trees...
they've held it up. They've been met with no trespassing signs. It's been
I endless. Then they come along and a few branches got broke on second or third
poplar trees, junk trees. I'm going to be upfront and say they're junk trees.
It's there. Small growth and suddenly we've got more problems. We came in and
I paid him $15,000.00 to buy a small portion. Small portion, 6 feet or something.
Then he right away comes back and he's upset that his branches get hit and now
they won't pay off on insurance or whatever. I don't know what happened to
' that. Then we take this incredible hit on this retaining wall trying to appease
the situation. If every person on the Parkway took this attitude and this
behaviour and this direction, that road project costs $33 billion dollars and it •
still would have gone through and I think in this case, from this day on, I'm
I recommending we take a stand and I don't care what we've got to pay. We've got
to draw the line here sometime. And in future cases, simply do what's right and
draw the line. I don't think we ought to be badgered and pushed around and
I knocked around on a public works project like this. Some of the shennanigans
out there have been absurb and I don't think this should happen again and from
this day on I'm recommending. Maybe I can't recommend anything maybe in this
' case but I would suggest that we simply draw the line at no more. I mean if we
have to stop the project at that property line or just plain get the attorneys
going, but don't budge another inch. I think we've done our part. We've paid
our share and this is big ticket. I mean this is big bucks now. We're into
II what, $50,000.00 plus here trying to appease this situation. No thanks.
Enough's enough so that's my comment. That's all I wanted to say.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mark, item (j).
Councilman Wing: Oh excuse me. I would move approval.
II Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution $93 -44: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
I Change Order No. 1 to Minnewashta Parkway Improvement, Project 90 -15. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
4
' 2
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1
J. APPROVE 1993 BUDGET AMENDMENT, TREE BOARD BUDGET.
Councilman Senn: In talking with staff, I understand this is basically a new
budget... The only thing I'm questioning is, we've already had the tree sale
this year and those funds have come in and gone out or whatever. Oo we need to
budget $5,000.00 for additional tree planting at this point without really
knowing or understanding what the program is? My hesitancy there is the
controversy we already ran into the first time around. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can get an answer from Jo Ann regarding that tree
planting.
Jo Ann Olsen: The tree plantings for the Tree Board...that was more for a
reforestation plan within the city or public or private space. That's what that
would go toward. Again we do not have a project specified for that money...
budgeted. But that was not for, when we put that in it was not with the tree
sale in mind. That was not what that was going for. It was more for to
purchase landscaping with the reforestation projects. '
Mayor Chmiel: Something similar to what we're doing along Kerber Boulevard with
planting trees?
Jo Ann Olsen: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Other areas within the city that may have city right -of -way that
could substantially need additional tree planting and I think that's probably
where you're looking at.
Councilman Senn: So this is basically going to be additional tree plantings on
public property then?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, correct. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay? Would you like to move that?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I move approval.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: I have one. I had on my notes that at some point you
know, whether it's Jo Ann or Richard, I'd like to see some kind of verbal report
on what the Tree Board is about and what you're doing and all that because I
mean I hear you talk about it but I've never seen any Minutes from it or.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, we don't. Yeah, we'll give you an update on that. What
we're doing.
Councilman Wing: Good idea.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
3
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
II Resolution X93 -45: Councilman Senn coved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
1993 Budget Amendment for the Tree Board budget. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
P. CITY CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS, AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS, �
II AL FIN READING. M
Councilman Senn: I talked with...and I think the rewrite, where he has
11 revisions is really good. I guess there 'shoneiaread1rwouldeliketionssee beefed
up just a little bit more than it is
conditions for exemptions. Number 1. The organization has at least 15 members
that are residents in the city. I think that's a pretty low number. I guess a
personal preference would bbnsort that
of area
thing
would
have a
I basically, most legitimate chartiable groups and that
lot more than 15 residents and it seems to me that that could turn into a pretty
big administrative...and I think or agreed just over could
be
I That if every little group u nder 15
problem. So I'd like to see that number maybe boosted up a little bit further.
II Mayor Chmiel: Is there any thought on that?
Scott Harr: I agree with Councilman that it'd be a good idea. I don't
II know what number would
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Where did 15 come from to start with?
II Councilman Senn: We couldn't figure that out when we were talking about it.
Scott Harr: ..explained why he, it was just a number that the City Attorney
included because other cities have selected that but there's nothing magic about .
I 15.
II Mayor Chmiel: Elliott, is there any words of wisdom that you might have had
with Roger regarding this?
Elliott Knetsch: No, I didn't speak with Roger on this but I think as Scott
II pointed out, it's a number that's...
Scott Harr: If that meets with amendment afterawe ep an eye on that
nd
I see if there's any problems and I
try it for a year with 25.
Councilman Senn: That'd be fine. I don't know how everybody else feels.
II
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not sure. I'm trying to think of different situations where
II it might apply to even the local groups that we have.
Councilman Senn: I mean any of the churches, schools,
Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts,
anything. Or the Athletic Associations are going to be, many times those
II numbers.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I'm thinking about some of the other service clubs like
II Jaycees. I'm not sure how many members they have but I know they have a limited i
II 4
II
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
number of people.
Councilman Senn: Rotary, Lions, that sort of thing?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ,
Councilman Senn: My intent is to disinclude them, or I mean not include them
but the reason we stuck this provision in was to. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I don't disagree with the 15 and moving that up some. In
fact, there's one other group that I'm thinking of too that may or may not have
that many members within their organization. If we find that to be a given
problem, I think we could just as well then look at it again and make some
additional...but I think at this time.
Councilman Senn: Well all they need to do is meet one of the four and I think
most of those organizations would meet one of the other four.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Why don't we make that 25. '
Councilman Senn: I'll so move.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved with an addition to item (p) to change item
number 1 under exemptions, under Section 10 -143 for it to read, the organization
have at least twenty -five (25) members, and strike fifteen (15), that are
residents of the City; or. It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Hearing none, I'll call the question.
Resolution $93 -45A: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve a Resolution establishing fees with the final reading of the City Code
Amendment Regarding Peddlers, Solicitors, and Transient Merchants with the
following amendment under Section 10 -143. Exemptions:
1) The organization has at least twenty -five (25) members that are residents of
the City; or,
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
R. RIGHT -OF -ENTRY AGREEMENT, WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT PROJECT, JAMES
COMPANY. '
Councilman Senn: I guess I'm not, maybe it's you Don or whatever. I was having
a little hard time following exactly what we were trying to do here.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, would you like to. Maybe you could express some of your
concerns regarding that part of it or where do you see within the rights-of-
entry
or Exhibit A?
Councilman Senn: The right -of -way and the...aren't part of this action and
stuff. What's the right -of- entry? '
5
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
11
Don Ashworth: Elliott may want to step in. As I understand it, we actually
II have the deed but the City Council authorized the quick take process to allow us
to acquire the property necessary from Mr. James necessary for the new
right -of -way for 78th Street.
II Councilman Senn: And that's done, is it not?
Don Ashworth: That's really done.
II Councilman Senn: So what I'm having trouble with is why do we need a right -of-
entry.
II Don Ashworth: To formalize what we really have already done. Elliott.
Elliott Knetsch: Also, we paid him the appraised amount but he hasn't agreed to
I that value. So he still has the option...so in order to have our paperwork in
order and move ahead, we will execute this agreement and then when the Court
finally determines the amount...negotiate an amount, that will be included. But
I at this stage, it's necessary to have this...
Councilman Senn: So technically we don't really have the deed then?
II Elliott Knetsch: Well, I think we do but the deed isn't the be all to end all.
Don Ashworth: We have the deed but we don't, necessarily haven't paid full
II price for it yet.
Elliott Knetsch: Right.
II Councilman Senn: And because there's an ongoing, is this something that's
necessitated out of the ongoing condemnation action or something?
I Elliott Knetsch: Yes.
Councilman Senn: I'm not sure I still understand it but.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there's legalities portion that's indicating that that
right -of -entry wasn't received prior to even the initial acquisition of those
' properties and in order to install that or get it completed, this right -of -entry
has to be done prior to, correct?
Councilman Senn: So this allows us to go ahead and do everything as though we
II own the property even though we haven't technically agreed?
Elliott Knetsch: No we don't. Even though we have the deed, we are not yet...
II until the Court drops the gavel and sets the price.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
II Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to move that?
Councilman Senn: Move it.
1
II 6
II
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Right -of -Entry
Agreement for the West 78th Street Detachment Project, James Company. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ,
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: ORGANIZE RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION WITHIN THE CITY.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to open the public hearing and this covers item number 2
for organize residential solid waste collection within the city. I'd like to
have Jo Ann Olsen go through the process as to what we're looking at and how we
plan on approaching this. Jo Ann.
Jo Ann Olsen: Okay. The City Council has directed staff to review the, or to ,
consider the organized collection of the solid waste, like you say within the
city of Chanhassen. The State Statute lists exactly what steps you have to do
to consider an alternative to organized collection. It's essentially two 90 day
processes and what we're doing tonight is initiating the first 90 day process.
It's the first public hearing for any comments from the public on the process.
We don't have the answers yet. That's what the first 90 days is. Is to
research what the existing situation is. What alternatives there are and to
make a decision on whether or not we do want to pursue an alternative. So we
can't say yes, we're going to go to one hauler at this time. We have no idea
what we're going to do and even if we're going to make any proposed changes.
But tonight is just for you to adopt a resolution that starts the process. To
take public input, and also for you to meet Dean Johnson, the consultant who is
going to be working with the Recycling Committee who will be the Task Force to
go through the 90 day process and that will be making a presentation or
recommendation to the City Council after that 90 days. The recommendation to
you after the 90 days, or however long it takes would be to either keep the way
it is and make no changes or else to propose a change. If you do choose to go
along with the change that's proposed, then the following 90 days is when we
actually get the nuts and bolts of that put together. Working with the haulers
to come up with that new alternative. So I'd like to introduce Dean Johnson. He
can go through the process. What will be taking place at this 90 days and
answer any questions.
Dean Johnson: Thank you Jo Ann. Mr Mayor, members of the Council. You did a
wonderful introduction. I don't know if I need to say a whole lot more. The
Council did receive an outline that I've put on some overheads that I do think
probably would be helpful for people in the audience. If I may just step over
to the projector.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. '
Dean Johnson: Really the purpose of this study is to simply allow the City an
opportunity to determine whether or not organized collection is something that
you want to look at. I think the process, as we'll look at this is one that
will allow public input. Certainly input from the licensed collectors that are
in the city operating at this time and determine what's really in the best
interest of the general public. That's why you're here and certainly this
7
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
process will allow that. There are a number of objectives that we would look to
II accomplish in the process and these quickly include service and delivery
efficiency, cost effectiveness, quality of service, environmental impacts, which
include among other things noise, aesthetics, litter, air quality, energy
consumption. Also impacts on infrastructure, city streets in particular.
' Public safety and certainly not last but impacts on private enterprise. What
will this process do to the existing system of open collection in terms of the
number of licensed collectors that you have here. These are elements that are
I not explained in the Statutes that Jo Ann referenced but are certainly things
that I think as you go through and evaluate the planning process to consider
organized collection really would be the basis of some decision. There'd have
I to be some sort of tangible benefits for the public, otherwise you wouldn't
consider it...to spend money and time on a process unless something happened.
The recommendations that would unfold in this process would hopefully come back
to all of these objectives and try to determine, are there environmental
' impacts? Are there public safety issues? Are there impacts on local roadways?
Are there improvements to the system that might be considered and be more
appropriate under organized collection? The process, as Jo Ann mentioned,
II really is in two phases and the resolution that you have before you this evening
to consider actually would allow you to complete the entire process. At this
particular time not knowing the outcome of the planning portion or Phase 1, I
I don't think anyone wants to speculate what will happen. You really shouldn't
concern yourself with Phase 2 but I'll touch on that very briefly. Really the
first phase consists of the planning portion of this. The evaluation of a
I couple of things. Part of that though, we really recommended an oversight group
and you do have an existing Recycling Committee that provides the oversight
direction for the study itself. They would be ones that would be looking at the
recommendations that would come from this process before it goes to the City
P Council. The committee would be certainly open and with the process that
welcomes and in fact encourages input from the existing haulers. They have
information and knowledge about the system that no one else does. There's
I certainly an interest as well from the general public and would be welcome in
the process at the same time. Two things that would be looked at, easy to
summarize are describing the existing system. What it's all about. The number
of stops you have in the community. What the different collection routes of
I different haulers may be. The days of collections. The types of vehicles and
equipment. Numbers of employees. All of these things hopefully in a
cooperative effort would be made available to determine, are there some impacts
I that are happening at this time that might be reduced if in fact some method of
organized collection was looked at. The other portion of this will be to
evaluate the other collection methods. In addition to open collection which the
city operates under at this time, there are a number of options that are all
' organized to be reviewed by the Recycling Committee or the study committee as
part of this process. That includes municipal collection, where you would own
and operate vehicles. A single contract collection. You may choose to hire one
' single hauler to handle the recycling and solid waste collection for the entire
city. You could have a multiple contract. Same situation. There are other
variations within that where the City actually does the billing under that
process, or the collector or hauler does the billing. Also, have zoned or
routed collection that can be established different districts in the zone that
you may choose on a particular day of the week would be the only day for
collection and you may not limit the number of haulers. You may leave it open.
' But in any given portion of the city on any given day, there would only be that
i 8
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
time for collection. The rest of the week there would be no traffic. And the
other would be where you have a similar zone situation but you may contract
within that. In other words, you may come up with 7 different zones within the
city and have a different hauler or license collector operating within each one
of the sections. So those are the background elements of the planning portion
of this that we'd be looking for, and ultimately put this in the form of a
written summary analysis and recommendation to the committee and ultimately the
City Council. At that point in time if the City decided to go ahead with the
next step in organized collection, that would trigger the second phase of this
and for lack of a better term, that's really a negotiating phase where we would
review the possible arrangements with existing licensed collectors. It's a 90
day review process required under Statute where each of the licensed collectors,
individually or acting collectively as a group would have an opportunity to
evaluate some form or method of organized collection with the city. If there's
impass that the City does wish to organize collection and there's still
negotiated arrangements made during this period, the city's free to arrange
whatever collection method it wants at that point in time. The time table for
this really, Jo Ann touched on. This goes back to...we would be looking at
starting formally in June with the first committee meeting. Doing the
background review of alternative methods and looking at existing conditions and
ultimately making recommendations within a 90 day period. Target date would be
September ist. After the Council has had a chance to look at the
recommendations and consider what action it might wish to take, Phase 2 would
begin and conceiveabiy that could be finished by the end of the year. There
would be no opportunity for the city, unless there's unanimous agreement with
the haulers, existing haulers in the community for some method of organized
collection. There's no way to circumvent this 180 day process. Not that you'd
want to but I merely point out that that is a legal requirement unless there's
some agreement in negotiating an arrangement. And because of the amount of '
information that would be looked at here, and the process involving the general
public and certainly all of their licensed haulers, the number...committee to
review all this, this is a pretty fast time table. Conceivably though at the
end of the year, the City would be in a position to make a decision which
direction they want to go. With that, that's really the process and the time
table. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Are there any questions by Council at this
time, and if there is, maybe we should hold it until we go to the public to see
if there's any additional input that we'd like to see provided to the Council.
Is there anyone at this time wishing to discuss this with the Council? As
I mentioned, this is a public hearing. You have your opportunity to come
forward and at least state your opinion. If you do that, would you please state
your name and your address and business that you're in.
Steve Mitune: My name is Steve Mitune and I lived in the Fox Chase subdivision
and I'm here just as a volunteer from the neighborhood. We have addressed the
same issue within our neighborhood and we found that at a get together of
neighbors that this is a very popular idea and I guess we had 15 neighbors
together and they unanimously said yes. Somebody look into that. That would be
a great idea to cut down the number of haulers that we had in our neighborhood.
We have 6 haulers now for 50 homes and it seems that we have garbage pick -up on
every day and we have most of the haulers making 2 to 3 trips a week through our
neighborhood. So for the safety of our children and many of the issues listed
9
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
earlier, and the wear and tear on the streets as well as the little price break
II that we thought we might be able to get, as well as a couple other smaller
items, we thought that it would be worth exploring. So I simply wrote the 6
haulers as a volunteer with no promises but with the thought of organizing our
own effort and then in talking with Jo Ann...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
1 Mayor Chmiel: ...Yes, that's one of the things that will be done. Having the
haulers part of this group as well. Any other?
1 Mike Berkerpeck: Let's see if we get all your haulers up today. My name's,
Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Mike Berkerpeck. I'm Division
President for Waste Management. A hauler in your community. I think the
' obvious points were brought up already. I appreciate the approach that you're
taking. I think it's well planned out and I look forward to going through that
process with you. It's obviously a concern for us. I think it was brought up
by one of your residents. One of the things that I didn't see in the study
I objectives that I think should definitely be included is what's going to happen
at the resident level and where your residents are at because we see that as,
we've gone through this process as something that sometimes we're not always
1 sure about because this is one of those issues and I think you probably know
better than I, one of those issues in a city that is absolutely going to affect
everybody. And it's not similar to some of the other issues you deal with that
don't necessarily affect everybody. So with those comments, I thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mike. Anyone else? This is your opportunity to
express your opinion. This is a public hearing. I don't see anyone else
II wishing to make a statement. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing.
1 All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's do some discussions from Council. Mark.
II Councilman Senn: Well as I understand the action tonight, I mean really what
we're doing is just acting on proceeding with the process. I think it's a
really good idea to look at all sides of it and I guess the faster we get going,
I the better. I think it's impact on the people as well as the infrastructure and
everything. There's a lot of different angles or ways to look at it. If it
would save any time or money though, I would like them to strike looking at
I municipal collection. I saw that in there and I just said, scratch it out. He
doesn't have to waste any time on it as far as I'm concerned. That's my only
comment.
I Councilman Mason: I agree. It's a good idea and as long as we're upfront and
open, as I think we usually are about it, let's see how it falls out.
I Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm really excited for this one. I think it's the
city doing things at it's best. Again, affecting every resident and it's an
important issue and there's going to be a lot of public discussion but I'm
really looking forward to it.
1 10
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1
Councilman Wing: I'll just echo the comments of the other Council members other
than my neighborhood, which is about 70 homes. At their spring meeting voted to
go ahead on private hauler and they're getting bids presently. The very word
street assessments just strikes terror in everybody's mind, especially at our
age bracket. And our area has looked at the fact that we have carriers coming 1
in 6 days a week at all hours and they're tired of it. And although we're going
to, I happen to like my carrier very much because he'll take anything under the
sun versus the carrier that they get is probably going to limit me to a certain
some. I'm going to cooperate so our neighborhood oddly enough, understanding
the public process, etc, etc, realizes that they'll probably get 2 or 3 years
ahead of the game prior to a decision being made so again I'd support everybody
elses comments that we move ahead on this and get the process rolling.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Being involved in solid waste for the past 15 years...
I understand the process that we're going through. There's going to be a lot of
discussions come from it and hopefully all these discussions are going to be of
a positive aspect. But there are many concerns I'm sure by the haulers who have
their own individual businesses and trying to take away a livelihood is...and
something that I wouldn't want to see really happen. But I know that we have to
go through this process to come up with some conclusions. Being home as I am,
the other day. We had one warm day that I happened to be sitting on my front
porch and noticed one of the haulers coming through. He made his stop. Come to
a T intersection. He turned and he backed up and he went right back down the
street again to pick up on the other side because he has an automatic picker on
his truck so he has to make his turns. And I saw that as the fear that settles
in my heart as well with street improvements that you go through, and I think
that it is a very positive position that we're taking. And hopefully come up
with a solution that's going to be a benefit for everybody concerned. So with
that I'd like a recommendation. Or an approval for recommendation that the City
Council recommends adopting the attached resolution of intent to commence the
process of evaluation and planning for a potential system of organized solid
waste collection in the city of Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move that we adopt a resolution.
Councilman Mason: Second. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the resolution
of intent to commence the process of evaluating and planning for a potential
system of organized solid waste collection in the city of Chanhassen. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, do we have a date that we plan on going through this
process?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well the first Recycling Committee meeting is going to be June 1
7th.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyway we're going to notify the haulers and have '
some type of a.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, they'll get an agenda. 1
11 1
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Informational item in the paper so if there's any residents that
II would like to sit in on this as well, that they'll have that opportunity.
Jo Ann Olsen: Sure.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good, thank you.
AWARD OF BIDS: TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 TURN LANES AT PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND CHEYENNE
II TRAIL, PROJECT 91 -6.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This morning bids were
I received and opened for the Trunk Highway 101 turn lane project at Cheyenne
Trail and Pleasant View Road, which is a cooperative project with MnDot. A
total of five bids were received with the confirmed low bid being received from
I William Mueller and Sons at $55,834.00. This is approximately $1,600.00 under
the project engineer's estimate. William Mueller and Sons has successfully
completed the previous Trunk Highway 101 turn lane project at Sandy Hook Road
and Choctaw Circle so they are inherently familiar with the work effort needed
II to adequately perform this project. It is therefore recommended that the Trunk
Highway 101 turn lanes at Cheyenne Trail and Pleasant View Road, Improvement
Project No. 91 -6 be awarded to William Mueller and Sons at a contract amount of
I $55,834.00 and this should be contingent upon receiving the concurrence from
MnDot on this cooperative project.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Have we used these people before?
II Charles Folch: William Mueller?
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Charles Folch: Yeah. They did the work 2 years ago on the TH 101 turn lanes at
I Sandy Hook and Choctaw Circle.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any discussion?
I Councilman Senn: Just one question. Now, with what we're looking at on the
trail thing, does this have any impact at all?
I Charles Folch: Well, we may have to coordinate this if we do go into that phase
of the feasibility study for the trail project, which is an issue that you'll
have up for discussion tonight. We will try and cooperatively work with that.
' If there's any changes necessary, we will do so.
Councilman Senn: But we'll be able to deal with that up front rather than
coming back after the fact and say we have to redo it or something?
1 Charles Folch: If we can do it up front, we certainly will do that.
Mayor Chmiel: If not, it will probably come back with some additional dollars
as they normally wind up doing. Michael. Colleen. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Same thing as Mark brought up. If we're going to spend
II $55,000.00, let's not rip it up again and if there's any doubt.
' 12
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1
Councilman Senn: That's all I want to be sure. With that caveat I'll move
approval.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution *93 -46: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to award the
bid for Trunk Highway 101 turn lanes at Cheyenne Trail and Pleasant View
Road, Improvement Project No. 91 -6 to William Mueller and Sons at a contract
amount of $55,834.00 contingent upon receiving concurrence from MnDot on the
cooperative project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO REZONE AND SUBDIVIDE 13 ACRES INTO 23 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, ROYAL OAK ESTATES, BRETT DAVIDSON.
Jo Ann Olsen: This is a request to rezone property from A2 to RSF, single
family residential and to subdivide the 13 acres into 23 single family lots. The
area just got into the MUSA line with the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment so
it now could be subdivided with sewer and water. Sewer and water is being
brought to the site currently. The Planning Commission recommended approval
with the conditions from staff with a couple minor changes. We are recommending
that the City Council recommend approval with the conditions in the staff
report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Jo Ann. Is the developer here? Is there
anything that you'd like to say in regard to this proposal? ,
Brett Davidson: Well just a couple things. First of all, my name is Brett
Davidson. I live here in Chanhassen on Gaipin Boulevard. I actually have a
house built on Lot 1, Block 1 so I live on the site presently and am developing
the site. The size and shape of the site make it what we figure is a very
straight forward subdivision...with staff, it ended up being about 23 lots as
you can see that are about half acre lots with one street in the middle
connecting to the parcel to the south, which is owned by Rottlund Company.
About the only comment we have or question that we have is on recommendation
number 3, which is on the surface water management and the trunk storm sewer
project... Because I guess it's still a little bit of a nebulous amount and I'm
not sure exactly how it's going to work, I guess we would like, at least to
express what we think the intent is, and maybe see if it's true or not true. We
think their intent is to assess whatever acreage is not already being provided
permanent ponding facilities and that we would be given credit for all acreage
that we are providing from the ponding facilities too. And to explain just a
little bit, we provide ponding for about 4 or 5 acres of our own site. On the
back part of our site. On the east side of the site. In addition to that,
we'll be providing ponding for a portion of the Rottlund piece of property which
is the property to the south of our's. So we may end up providing ponding into
the order of 8 to 10 acres on site. We would assume then that we would be given
credit for whatever that total amount comes up to for the assessment, and then
also that we would only be assessed for whatever portion of our property does
not have permanent ponding associated with it. Is that a...
Jo Ann Olsen: I believe that's true and we can confirm that before final plat
approval. I think you've got the numbers set now too so we can start giving you
dollars. Yeah, that will all be established before the final plat.
13 t
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Brett Davidson: That's my only comment really. Obviously I'll answer any
II questions that you have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If there are questions, we'll direct them back.
II Brett Davidson: Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Richard.
I Councilman Wing: I've been struggling. Everytime these come through, the
development's good and I look at all these little if's and but's and items 1
I thru 13 and the MUSA line's where. I'll tell you I'm going to give a 2 minute
personal concern. The MUSA line is where it is and suddenly we find out we have
no developable land so we have to move the MUSA line so we have some developable
I land and I say, what for. So we develop it and it's all high density and
maximum useage and everytime I see these fields filling in with all these homes,
I panic. And I can't stop development, nor am I necessarily even against it but
I look at the number of homes and the number of cars and service levels and the
I public safety impacts and I just saying, geez. Everytime we open land it just
fills in and are we filling it in the proper way and I'm starting to question if
we shouldn't be clustering and looking for open space and maybe the same density
' but different ways. So this is just another one of those developments that is
just covering our city and I'm not sure we know what we're doing but I have no
compalints. It's a good development and other than the philosophical thing that
I would like to, well we're doing that in every community now. Thank you for
II your comments. That's all. Nothing more.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree with basically some of your concerns. I guess
I everybody's and I think we're dealing quite well with them. Just in looking at
some of the square footages contained, there's only one lot in here that's
15,381 which is our minimum. Many go from 23 to 37, 17, 18, 18, and 22 and I
41 think the least amount after that is a couple of 16,000 so at least some
consideration is given for just a little larger size of lot that I still like.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I couldn't agree more and you look at them
II
piecemeal and they look wonderful and you look at them all together and it looks
like urban, suburban sprawl and it is but what can you do. Strictly on a piece
of land like that where the only thing it really allows for is a pretty
I unimaginative one street down and houses on either side. My question to Jo Ann
I guess is, I didn't understand exactly what was going on with the street.
Dealing with Carver County.
II Jo Ann Olsen: You mean as far as the right -of -way required?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right.
I Jo Ann Olsen: We know a certain amount that we need to acquire and that's what
we ask them to dedicate that. Is that.
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, that's not what I'm talking about. Oh, let's see.
It's talking about access points in relation to the other subdivisions. Windmill
Run and Royal Estates.
1 14
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Jo Ann Olsen: Oh, what they're looking at is, if these two subdivisions are
coming together, we would probably only have one access point for the two pieces
and you're trying to locate so it goes directly across from the development to
the west. That is now coming in also. Since they didn't come in together, what
we're just trying to look at is the possibility that one of them might be closed
and that we might just use one. Now Windmill is coming in. Continuing. They
had stalled for a while so we weren't even sure if it was going to go through.
So we might still have that ability. So there's still an opportunity. I'm not
sure that we will come up with another alternative but we're still looking at
that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And again, that's one of our biggest problem is that
these are all being developed at their own time schedules and things aren't
being coordinated which you know, I don't know if we can help that or not.
I don't have anything further.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I share some of Councilman Wing's concern, as I think the
whole Council shares those concerns. We discussed this before and I suspect
we'll continue to discuss it. I'm not sure that larger lot sizes are the way to
tackle that issue. It seems to me by doing that we get the houses further apart
which is nice, but then it also creates more housing area in the city and I'm
not quite sure what that does for the suburban sprawl. ...before and I suspect
we'll continue to. And maybe at some point we'll come to grips with it. It
looks pretty well planned out and pretty straight forward.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Do we know how, I mean if you assume the other project goes
to the south of the...do we know how many units that's going to be? '
Jo Ann Olsen: Oh yeah, I do know that. I think it's, I'm drawing a blank. I
believe it's 37... Right, because I knew it was more acres so 37.
Councilman Senn: I guess the only question I had and I guess this goes a lot
back to some of the concerns that already have been stated. Would it be at all
possible to kind of go ahead at this point and make some assumptions on that and
land bank a piece of ground here which would tie with the next development in
creating a neighborhood open space or park or something?
Jo Ann Olsen: That has been reviewed by the Park and Rec Department. Actually '
Todd is here but they determined that a neighborhood park was not ncessary at
this site. Perhaps you can.
Councilman Senn: I'm not saying park necessarily. I'm saying open space or for
park, I mean if you combine this project with the rest of the loop. I mean it
seems to me that we've got a space that. 1
Hoffman: That region of the city is in a park deficient area. What we look for
is try to gather up enough, either park fees so you can go ahead and purchase a
piece of property. Or if you have a large enough development which comes in,
that you can then acquire a portion of that development as a park, you take the
15 1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
1
property at that time. So in essence what we're doing here is taking the fees
on these smaller developments and then using those fees in a purchase of park
property later on down the line. The Park Commission is taking on the effort to
update the recreational section of the City Comprehensive Plan and will be
identifying specific park sites in the city's park deficient areas which this
' Galpin Boulevard, east /west area happens to be. So they're looking for a piece
of park property in that general vicinity. The Council may be aware of the Song
proposal which is coming on line here. The Park Commission will be looking at
' that property, which is just west of this site, across Galpin Boulevard as a
potential site for a neighborhood park as well. So they're looking for the site
but taking a little piece of open space or a little playground in each
' neighborhood from a maintenance and upkeep standpoint, is not the best approach
to take. You try to consolidate those needs within a service area which is
approximately half a mile for a neighborhood park.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else Mark?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: The only thing that I have to add to this in addition is the
ponding calculations that they're looking at for this and it's possible probably
that the applicant's engineer is to reconfigure the pond within the area that
' there are trees so that trees, those trees could be saved. And I'd like see
that really brought forward for that particular aspect of it. Okay. I think
that's about all that I really had to add to the discussions that we had. I
would like to have a recommendation from City Council with an approval to accept
and approve the request, 93 -2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2,
Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential Single Family and subdivision 93 -8 for
Royal Oak Estates to create a 23 single family cots as shown on the plans dated
April 7, 1993 subject to the following conditions of items 1 thru 20.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move approval.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
' Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Request
*93 -2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF,
Residential Single Family and Subdivision #93 -8 for Royal Oak Estates to create
23 single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 7, 1993, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The City shall accept full park fees to be paid at the time of building
permit application at the rate then in force in lieu of park and land
' dedication; and
2. A 20 foot wide trail easement shall be granted to the city along the
' applicant's westerly property line (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2).
Furthermore, that the easement on Lot 1, Block 2 shall be included in the
grading plan for this project with a suitable trail bed being prepared.
This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion
of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future
' 16
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
II
trail construction, and is subject to approval as a part of the grading
plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to the areas east of
II
the trail bench. Full trail fees shall be collected at the time of
building permit application at the rate then in force to assist in the
financing of future trail construction.
II
3. The applicant shall pay an appropriate storm water trunk fee to be
determined by the City's storm water management consultant to contribute II towards the future extension of trunk storm sewer facilities.
4. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with II the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
The street construction shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs
to accommodate household sump pump discharge. Detailed construction plans
and specifications for utility and street improvements shall be submitted II to the City for review and approval prior to final platting. Final
construction plans and specifications are subject to City Council approval.
5. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and ponding calculations
II
verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be
designed and constructed to a 10 year storm event. The retention pond will
be reviewed by the City's storm water management consultant and constructed
II
pursuant to guides implemented by the City's consultant (Bonestroo).
6. Erosion control plans and methods shall be consistent with the City of
I
Chanhassen's Best Management Practice Handbook.
7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the II regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District
and Carver County Highway Department.
8. Prior to the City's signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into
II
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 II subject to City Council approval.
9. The applicant shall provide, at a minimum, a right -turn lane (deceleration
I
lane) along County Road 117 and any other roadway improvements as required
by the Carver County Highway Department.
10. Should the end of the roadway not be connected with the parcel to the
I
south, a temporary cul -de -sac shall be constructed to meet 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. The applicant shall dedicate to II the City the necessary temporary roadway easement for portions of the
cul-de-sac lying outside the right -of -way.
11. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council ordering and
II
awarding the bid for Public Improvement No. 92 -5 for the extension of trunk
sanitary sewer and watermain improvements through the development.
II
17
II
II
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
12. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10 foot
11 wide drainage and utility easements along all side, front and rear lot
lines. In addition, drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed for
all pond retention areas which will include the newly constructed 12 inch
' line along the back of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. 20 foot wide drainage and
utility easements shall also be dedicated with the final plat on the
following areas:
a) Between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 1
b) Between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2
I 13. Should the parcel to the south (Rottlund- Windmill Run) not develop, this
development will be requird to provide temporary on -site retention pond
until the parcel to the south develops and the storm sewer line is extended
' to Lots 1 and 2, Block 2.
14. Erosion control measures and turf establishment shall be in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
1 15. The final grading plan shall denote the type of house and elevation of
garage and lowest floor for each lot.
1 16. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Davidson's) shall connect to the
municipal sanitary sewer system proposed with the site improvements within
12 months after the connection becomes available.
17. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 shall relocate their driveway to
access the new street within 12 months after the new street is constructed.
1 18. The City will spread the proposed trunk and lateral sewer and water
assessments equally over the proposed 23 lots.
II 19. The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide boulevard landscaping in
the form of berms and plant materials. The boulevard landscaping shall
' contain landscaping from the primary specimen list and shall include Lot 1,
Block 1. The landscaping plan shall reflect existing trees which will be
protected by a conservation easement. The required 1 tree /lot shall
contain trees from the primary specimen lists for at least 14 lots.
II 20. Fire Marshal conditions:
' a. Street names must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal,
particularly since it will be connecting to the subdivision to the
south. Street names must be approved so as to avoid duplication, and
house numbers match the city's grid map.
b. Relocate fire hydrants as shown on preliminary utility plan.
1 c. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
d. Fire hydrant caps must be painted per City of Chanhassen Engineer Spec.
1
18
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
II
e. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support
the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a
II
surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. The roads
shall be in place before construction on new dwelling starts which is
greater than 150' from County Road 117.
II
f. If the road does not connect to the south to form a looped road, a
temporary Fire Department approved turnaround shall be provided. See II preliminary utility plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. II REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 1700 FLYING
CLOUD DRIVE, HARRY LINDBERY.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: On September 12, 1988 the City Council approved a conditional II
use permit for a contractors yard. Since that date substantial work and
improvements didn't take place on the site. According to city ordinances, a II permit expires if substantial improvements don't take place within one year of
the date of approval. Staff took the position that that conditional use permit
had expired. The applicant objected to staff's interpretation. We appeared
- before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals as well as the City Council for an
II
interpretation. The vote was that the conditional use permit had not expired
but we were directed to bring this application back before you in order to
revoke it. A public hearing was held at the April 21st Planning Commission
II
meeting which satisfies the applicant's due process concerns. On pages 2 and 3
of the report, you'll find the original conditions of approval. None of these
conditions have been met. Based upon that, the Planning Commission as well as II staff is recommending you revoke conditional use permit #88 -11. Also I'd like
to add that Building Official Steve Kirchman is here today to answer any
questions you might have regarding the building permit or any other statements
made by Mr. Lindbery. Thank you. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Prior to getting to Mr. Kirchman we'll see is
Mr. Harry Lindbery here?
II
Jeff Carson: Mayor and Council. My name is Jeff Carson, appearing with Mr.
Lindbery and on his behalf. I've been here before for one procedural process or II another. I think the, I'm not sure what type of presentation you might
anticipate for the applicant tonight. Every time we've been before a particular
body of the city there seems to be some interest in trying to work something out
but the weight of persuasion seems to be end the pain and, from the city's point
II
of view, and revoke the permit or determine that it doesn't exist. And I think
that the difficulty that the applicant has had, or some of the difficulty is
framed within the initial contact and what I'm calling the attitude that this I
was originally, how it was dealt with. To conclude out of the initial review
that the conditional use permit expired and finding ways or facts, supporting
facts to support that. The reality here is that until the summer of 1992, 4
years after the, almost 4 years after the issuance of the conditional use
II
permit, nobody inspected, apparently nobody inspected the site and nobody
determined anything with regard to Mr. Lindbery's use, or the lack thereof
during that time. Just as your code says substantial construction must be done II within a year or the permit lapses, it also says that at least one inspection
19
II
II
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
will be made each year to determine compliance with that permit. That wasn't
done either so when I say that the attitude that the staff went at the subject
with, it was simply based on the observation of these items that were found on
the property, subsequently put into compliance. We feel, and from there it was
I just like a snowball going downhill. There was no way that Mr. Lindbery was
going to be able to satisfy the Planning Commission, the different agencies or
the Council. If you look, if you really look at the timeframes. A lot has been
made of the timeframes that have elapsed here. There isn't a lot of
I documentation for this but there is some and it does show that applications for
part of a construction building project was before the city the summer of 1990.
And so if you look at the timeframes, from the issuance of the permit in 1988
I through the summer of 1990 where actual give and take was still existing between
city staff and representatives of Mr. Lindbery, he actually missed one part of
one construction season in 1990. Summer of 1990 through that fall. We've
' already explained that from the spring of 1991 for an entire year he was laid up
physically. He could not do anything on this project and in the summer of 1992
that's when the observations were made and the criminal charges brought and so
we have actually been before, in effect before the city for the last year.
I Almost for the last year dealing with this, so a year's time goes by really in
this process in the snap of a finger. If, and let me just highlight what I'm
calling the attitude or the process. The idea that we're going to find
I something wrong with it...of the conditional use permit. That is just different
than the work up that is given. They at least give him credit for, I think it's
number 5. Application to MnDot but if you look, if you go down and look at
' these, you can't just say he's in non - compliance with 1 thru 20 because many of
these things you wouldn't be in compliance with until you constructed the
building. The very building that we're discussing. Number 1, we claim we are
indeed in compliance with today. Okay? Staff says we're not in compliance with
I number 1. We say we are and I don't think, I think the facts will support that.
Number 2, hours of operation. Is there any fact before this body that says we
are operating in violation of number 2? Number 3. Light sources shall be
shielded. There are no lights so there's not a problem with number 3.
Compliance. Number 4. No outside speaker systems are allowed. No allegation
that we violated that so put compliance by that. Number 5, they've given credit
for that in one memo or another. Number 6, the installation, 6 and 7.
I
Installation of bituminous driveways, parking areas and loading areas and 7
would all come with construction of the building. Some of this just has to be
common sense I think. 8, protection of two septic systems. That's again during
I construction. 9, installation of a holding tank. Same thing. Building must be
sprinkled, number 10. Not a problem. Number 11, provision for handicap space.
Obviously, since we don't have the building built yet, we're not to that point.
' But can and will do that. Number 12, contractors yard activities as defined in
your code has been observed and have been operated ever since the issuance of
the permit. Compliance with 12. 13. I don't think there's any indication that
we have not complied with the DNR requirements, or certainly we will. 14. I
II explained initially when I came before you that discussion has been had between
Mr. Lindbery and city staff and a caretaker is living on the property. It makes
perfect sense to have a caretaker living there and it apparently did with staff,
II if that's in dispute, I don't know whether it is or not but I don't think the
facts are clear if that's important to the city or not. 15, erosion control
plan. 15 and 16. There's no indication that there's any problem with erosion.
If you need some plan or if there's a need for a plan, certainly we would
provide that. 17, 18. Providing a proper ponding. Vehicle inventory. No j
' 20
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
heavy equipment. No indication of any of these. No shipping activities. We
claim in essence we are in compliance with essentially all terms of this permit
or, can be when the particular item in question becomes operative. Some of them
obviously do not become operative until the building is constructed. So when
staff makes a blanket statement that he is in non - compliance with every permit
requirement, it's simply not true. And if that's the, again I come back to,
it's an attitude thing. Don't try to work with him and see what he can do or
will do or is able to do with regard to these things. Just simply say, it's not
done. It's just too easy for them to do that. I mean they're looking at it 4
years after the issuance of the permit and they're simply saying, the year's up.
You didn't construct the building. Where in the permit does it say you have to
construct a building? So it's circular and we can't win according to staff. We
can't satisfy them. We're not even allowed to try actually. I respectfully
request based on the history of this. Based on what I'm calling the sensible
common sense look at the permit itself, that you do not revoke Mr. Lindbery's
permit but that you grant him a period of time, I suggest 6 months._ We have
this construction season, to comply with it. That would be the first
opportunity or first time that, if Mr. Lindbery is permitted to work with staff,
that he will have, can't have any more excuses about time but we really haven't
had the type of opportunity that I think we should have. We're talking about
over a quarter of a million dollars investment in this property by Mr. Lindbery.
It's not insubstantial. It's a significant matter to him and to simply say your
land has become, by virtue of a zoning change, farmland, is simply unfair.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jeff. Maybe I'd like to call on Mr. Kirchman to make
some clarifications of some of the things that had been response to your letter,
which was May 14th concerning the plumbing plans and permit applications.
Maybe I could have Mr. Kirchman go through some of these things that are here.
I know you were before us just not too long ago and we did come up with a
conclusion that there was a timeframe that we were going to allow. But it seems
that from the things that I have read here, and you indicated there is probably
nothing that is indicated about when a conditional use permit was granted and
when it expires. There is a section within our own code that does cover that,
which is 20 -236. And I think everyone is fully aware, at least the applicant
should be fully aware as to what that is as well. So with that I'll just let
Mr. Kirchman cover that part of it. '
Steve Kirchman: I'm responding to the letter that Mr. Carson sent to the city
on May 14th, and I did not have time to get a memo out and get that in the
packet. I wasn't around at the time and I wanted to respond to his letter. As
a matter of fact I was in the store the other day and I picked up this and to be
honest with you, I think there's more factual information in this than there is
in this letter. It does upset me. I went through the files and looked at
everything and point by point. The letter from Mr. Stolp who applied for a
plumbing permit stated that, well let me back up a little bit. Mr. Carson's
letter stated that he was mailing the plan that was submitted for permit
application, and that's not the plan that the city has for permit application.
I've enclosed the plan that he submitted and you can see there's differences in
the two plans. Item number 2. Mr. Stolp's permit application #2770 was made in
October, not in June. We went through the old permit files and were able to
determine exactly when the application was made so his time line's quite a bit
off on that. Item number 3. Staff would not have made any requirements as
Mr. Stolp maintained in his letter in June because there was no permit. If
21 '
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
staff had made any requirements, they would have issued a stop work order which
I would have been staff's response at that time because there were no permits and
there was not even a permit application until October. And the last item, item
number 4 that I've got a problem with in the letter is Mr. Stolp contends that
the plumbing permit was refused because we weren't familiar with flammable heat
I or radiant heat and I will admit, the permit was refused but for many other
reasons, none of which include those. Our last contact with Mr. Lindbery was in
October of 1990. We did not issue stop work orders although he was in violation
I of a number of the conditions on his building permits. We did invite him to
come into the city. Meet with the Planning Department and try and straighten
things out and we never heard from him again. Really that's about all I've got
' to add. You've got my memo in the staff report, if you've got any specific
questions I'll be glad to try and answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. We'll go back to Council with some discussion
I to see if there's any questions that may be there. Of the applicant or as well
as from the inspection department. I'll start out with Mark again this time.
I Councilman Senn: Gee I was hoping you didn't.
Councilman Wing: Why don't you make a motion we start with Mike. I'll second
I it.
Councilman Senn: I just, I don't know. It's been before us before. I guess
even before me, more often than that because I've been on the Board of
I Adjustments but I see a lot of words going back and forth. I see no actions and
most of the words going back and forth don't follow the documentation. I guess
it's just my feeling at this point to move approval of staff recommendations and
' findings and get on with this. I think we've wasted enough time on it.
Councilman Mason: From what I understand from the information I've received on
this, I'm concerned about Mr. Carson and his continuing talking about attitude.
This was deleted from the agenda 2 weeks ago because information wasn't here.
Either due from, why was it deleted 2 weeks ago? Wasn't it because of
information we were supposed to receive and didn't get?
II Sharmin Al -Jaff: The Planning Commission requested that the item be scheduled
for today. It was a mistake on our part that we put it earlier.
' Councilman Mason: Okay. Alright, fair enough. I take that back. With what
Mr. Kirchman said, I'm looking at these two plans and was it an accident that
the wrong plan was sent over to us originally? These two plans aren't the same
' and why, I don't. None of this jives to me and I get the feeling we're not
being, we haven't been dealt with honestly. And I have some problems with that.
But I'd like to pass for right now but I may come back to this, if that's okay.
II Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's alright, I'll pick it up. I guess when you're
1 arguing an issue back and forth and your arguments are weak, you retreat to
attacking your opposition and that's exactly what it is when you start talking
about attitude. If that were the attitude of the staff and of the Council, you
II wouldn't be sitting here. This would have been settled long ago. We tried to
' 22
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
work with the applicant. A conditional use permit is issued and it's an
exceptional use and we expect applicants who come in with conditional use 1
permits to be exceptional citizens in our community and that is not the case
here, and it's been thoroughly documented and we don't take this issue lightly.
We don't revoke permits like this and cease business in our community and we 11 don't take that lightly. So we've looked at this issue over and over again and
I agree with Mark. We've spent way too much time on it and I'm ready to move
tonight and get it done with.
Councilman Wing: Do you have something significant to add?
Mayor Chmiel: Well the only thing that I'm looking at, I think if we do go
through the process and deny this, I would say that we should move to direct
staff to prepare findings consistent with denial. With it so they're supportive
enough to not entail any other kinds of proceedings that might come forth
afterwards. So with that I'll...
Councilman Wing: I would just ask Paul. Other than denial, is there any other
resolution in your mind?
Paul Krauss: I don't know what other options there are. Yes you can, if you
want to give them a time period to see if in fact he can comply with all the
conditions, that's a possibility. Based on past performance, I couldn't tell
you that it was going to be successful, but it might be. I really don't, the
issue of whether or not this is a permitted use in the district today really
isn't relevant to that discussion but this has been a tough one for the city to
deal with. We're comfortable with the recommendation.
Councilman Wing: Okay. The CUP is #88 -11. That's 1988 and in '88, '89 and
'90, maybe this was an arguable point and maybe something should have been
resolved in '88, '89, '90, '91. But it's 1993 and this Council's kind of pro -
city, pro- development. Clean things up and let's get on with life and start
thinking in the 90's. What's changed in 4 years? I think we're taking a harder
stand on contractors lots and it's not something we want in the city. I think
this permit's just plain run out. At issue, 1988 it was current. '90 -'91 it
was an issue but it's 1993 and so I guess I'm going to support Colleen and go
along with denial. I sided with him last time and nothing's new. It's the same
arguments and I guess we have to get this thing resolved once and for all.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I, everything's more or less been said. Through the
process we've tried to work with the applicant and nothing has really been
resolved. I think that I would go back now to Michael to find if there's
anything more that you'd like to add to what your comment was previously.
Councilman Mason: No. It was enlightening to hear all the comments from the
rest of Council. I don't think we take this, well. I concur with Colleen's
comments about not taking this lightly. Shutting something down I think is a
big deal but I would also agree with what Richard said about I don't, I think
feet have been dragged on this and I don't think they've been our feet and I
think we've tried to make some accommodations and I don't, I have not seen
anything, so I concur with the rest of Council.
23 1
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll call for a motion
' and that part of that motion be to move to direct staff to prepare findings
consistent with denial for this project.
1
' Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilman Wing: Second.
' Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to revoke Conditional Use
Permit 188 -11 for a contractors yard at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive and direct staff
to prepare Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
DISCUSS OFFICIAL MAPPING OF EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE AND REALIGNMENT OF
' PEACEFUL LANE.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is a more difficult one I'm afraid. We've really
...to ask for some guidance relative to the ultimate extension of Nez Perce.
' Some 4 years ago when Vineland Forest plat was being reviewed, we looked at
alternatives for access in the area. One of the original proposals mentioned by
staff was running the road straight up Pleasant View. That raised a lot of
I - concerns with the folks who lived on Pleasant View relative to traffic and we
looked at alternatives to that that could gain access for a relatively large and
growing city neighborhood. Also, keeping in mind the traffic concerns. We
' looked at a variety of alternatives. Other means of accessing that area, we
outlined in purple. Originally Fox Path was supposed to be extended over to the
east. We looked at that. Unfortunately Fox Path was platted before the city
had topo maps and it runs over a 60 foot hill. Even our engineering department
' couldn't make that one work. We looked at, there's a 50 foot right -of -way that
goes back to Lake Lucy Road inbetween what ultimately I think has now got 2
houses on it. There were grade problems there. It didn't resolve the access
' concern. It didn't, well it raised questions for the folks who lived on Lake
Lucy Road. We came up with a series of alternatives, and in the interest of
time I'll only show you one of them. Alternative 3 I believe was the one that
the City Council approved. What it basically did is it said that Nez Perce
' should be extended out to Pleasant View in the manner outlined here
incrementally as properties were developed. And that was, it was under that
guidance, under that understanding that Vineland Forest was approved. We put a
' temporary barricade up and Sharmin, you can show them where the Troendle border
is. We put a temporary barricade up right over there. It had a sign on it that
said, this road will be extended. I'm pretty sure there was a notice in the
' chain of title for each lot saying that this is going to be occurring. And
that's the way it sat for a period of time. Year, year and a half down the road
Mr. Beddor, who was one of the primary proponents of the street, through option
of Vineland Forest, acquired the Troendle property and worked with us on
' developing it. The Troendle Addition was also approved under that alternative 3
guidance. Basically the alignment of Nez Perce was set aside, taken in that
subdivision. Was built to serve part of it. During that process a lot of the
neighbors who lived on Lake Lucy Road raised concerns at the Council meeting,
for those of you who were here at the time. Their concerns was that traffic,
and Lake Lucy Road is a thru street. There's no question about it but that Lake
1 Lucy Road was receiving what they believed to be an excessive amount of traffic
and as more development took place with only one means of ingress and egress,
' 24
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
that that would continue to build. At the time they asked the City Council,
if I remember right, to not approve Troendle Addition until the road was put
through. Instead we tried to find some creative sort of a solution to that. It
was debated as to whether or not all the lots should be approved right now or in
the future. I think what we settled on basically was that Mr. Beddor was
obligated to pay 510,000.00 to the ultimate construction of Nez Perce so that
when the adjacent Owens property came through, that that would be the last piece
of the puzzle and we'd have some of the funds sitting there to do a feasibility
study and to build I think the Peaceful Lane section of that road was outlined.
The reason for that being was it was always believed that whoever developed the
Owens parcel would be obligated to build that section of Nez Perce so our only
cost would be, or the cost that needs to be shared needs to be on Peaceful Lane.
And again, that's the way that sat for a while. In, I think it was last year,
we came before you to do a feasibility study of where exactly this road should
go and there were basically two alternatives that refined upon the ones that we
had outlined 4 years previous. One basically, well. One basically had a 90
degree turn at Peaceful Lane. The other one had a curve at Peaceful Lane.
These by the way are illustrated by a developer that is proposing to develop
part of the Owens property. So that's the one with the 90 degree intersection.
That's the one with the flowing curve. It's basically on the same theme. At
the same time, I met out in the field with Mr. Beddor's representative, the
architect who laid out the Troendle Addition. We actually realigned, or re-
oriented Nez Perce as it came through here so that it would miss some trees on
Mr. Owens' property and basically tinkered with it in the field just to make it
a little more adaptable. The City Council received a feasibility report. We at
the time suggested that it may be wise to officially map the thing, just so
everybody knew exactly where it was going to be. At the time though the big
element of confusion was Mr. Owens property was in bankruptcy proceeding. It
was unclear as to what ability we had to intercede with the Judge, if any.
Mr. Beddor's attorney indicated that they were negotiating with Mr. Owens and it
seemed that everything would fall into place in a period of time and the Council
asked us to work on that and bring it back to you at some appropriate time.
Shortly thereafter we also worked on a grading permit for the northern portion
of the Owens property where that pond is, if you go up there. The proposal for
regrading it was drawn up by Mr. Beddor's architect. Basically cleaning up the
area. Ultimately providing some landscaping. It seemed like a reasonable thing
to do and it was also consistent with the future construction of the road. That
brings us up to the present situation. Clearly there's been a long term effort
of consistent decision making and planning to make this road happen in a
coordinated manner. I don't know if you want to go into the question of why the
road. I mean this is something that was debated long and hard 4 years ago but
if you take a look at how the neighborhood lays out, I think you can see why
we've always believed that it would be a valid thing to get a free flow of local
traffic through there. We're not looking to introduce anything else into the
neighborhood. There are approximately 30 some, I think 30 homes on the two
subdivisions now. It's a dead end cul -de -sac now is about 1,500 feet long.
Emergency vehicle access and you've heard those kinds of things from us before.
There's connecting neighborhood. So the why question was pretty much
established 4 years ago. At our recent dealings on this, which came about
because we have received inquiries from a developer for the southern portion of
the Owens property. Mr. Beddor's representatives, who Mr. Beddor has since
acquired the northern portion of the Owens property. Have indicated that, as
they see it now, and as I understand it. I wasn't at the meeting but Sharmin
25 '
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
was, that the most appropriate location for a house on the land that they
acquired is right where the road's supposed to go. And that there is some
question as to whether the road should be put through at all. I mean clearly
there's very limited ability, and we can look at it again but there's very
limited ability for the road to go through there. Mr. Owens' house is up here.
The pond's down here. The road was skewed in a particular angle so that it can
transit the hill. We were frankly a little bit incredulous about that. I mean
I understand what the concerns are but clearly, I mean I thought that there was
' some understanding of where we were going with this. That being the case and
given the last guidance that we got from you, this is not a decision that we, as
staff, can or should be making. This is something that I needed to bring back
to you and get your guidance on. There's no action particularly before you
tonight but there is a suggestion of some various actions you can look at
taking. You can accept cul -de -sacs in this area. That is a possibility. There
are ways of serving all the lots, one way or another. It's likely, well it will
II be dumping more traffic back out onto Lake Lucy Road. There's various
alternatives to do that. We don't happen to think from staff's standpoint that
that's optimal. You could go ahead and officially map the road. Pick a center
II line and have it officially mapped. There again that's, that will hold for a
while but the point of official mapping is not to have a defacto taking of
property...to establish officially that this is where the city thinks the road
' should go. But the underlying property owner still has rights and ultimately if
they wanted to put a house right where the road's supposed to go, I believe the
City has 6 months then to condemn or acquire the property. But you don't have
the right to just officially map it and for get it. I mean it does imply some
responsibility on the city's part. There is and always has been the possibility
of condemnation, which is always a difficult thing to consider. To put the road
through and look toward assessing costs back. I wouldn't even hazard to guess
as to how assessments might go. You've been through this process any number of
times and you're all familiar with it. And one possibility that I discussed
with the City Attorney briefly today, or he suggested briefly was the
possibility of a moratorium. Again, you can't do that ad infinitum. A specific
II
purpose. Look for alternatives. Whatever that might be on a specific deadline.
Again, we're bringing this back to you for your guidance and we need your
direction on how to pursue this, or if we should pursue this. And with that
1 I'll return it back to you Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
II Councilman Wing: Paul, I thought that looking back on old notes that I thought
we had gone along with alternative 3. That was kind of agreed upon, but you're
recommending 4?
I Paul Krauss: No.
I Councilman Wing: In my packet. I thought that's alternative 3. Isn't that the
one?
I Paul Krauss: Right. That is Alternative 3. You know there were variations on
all of these Councilman Wing because we didn't know how properties were going to
develop. Alternative 4 actually put Nez Perce down further to the south and
that at this point is not possible because the Troendle Addition exists
II inbetween.
' 26
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: I know there are at least 3 of us that sat on this particular
proposal when it was made a few years ago. I know there was one of the real
major concerns that we had was that the condemnation aspect was not an in thing
for us to do. I think that while that property was going to be developed
accordingly, the other land rights would automatically come back to the city for
that proposed road. Has Mr. Beddor purchased the property from Mr. Owens yet?
Paul Krauss: Yes. '
Mayor Chmiel: That's already done. Okay.
Paul Krauss: Yes. It's my understanding that that was handled through the 1
bankruptcy proceeding.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, that condemnation portion still bothers me. I don't like
it. I don't think we should have to throw away dollars...I think that's a
developer's responsibility basically. To put that in. I don't see why the City
or anybody else should have to pick up those costs for that road. I think that
was...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Daryl Fortier: ...we don't want to consider that alternative is the topography
to the south of the water tower is prohibitive. And that grade change that you
were showing earlier tonight is a reason that we view taking our cul -de -sac
south out onto Lake Lucy Road is being inappropriate in addition to the
neighbors and other constituents and voters in your city and taxpayers feeling
pretty strongly, from our feedback, that they don't want to see that happen.
What we're really here discussing tonight is one resident's wishes versus
another developer's desire and some long term promises made by staff to very
many Chanhassen residents. I don't feel particular strongly personally about
this extension. I don't see that it directly affects our plat. We have access
to Peaceful Lane. Our plat can go through without that extension. So I don't
want to see the misrepresentation made that these two items need to be tied
together. They don't need to be tied together. Unfortunately they seem to be
before you at the same time. That's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Sherry Novachek: My name is Sherry Novachek. I'd just like to start out and
say it is not just one resident who's very concerned about this. I live on
Pleasant View Cove, which is right off Pleasant View Road and 2 weeks ago my
daughter almost got killed getting off the school bus. I was here 4 years ago
when we discussed the danger of extending more cars onto Pleasant View Road.
There have been several accidents since that time. One a head -on collision this
last winter. It is a very narrow, busy, over used road right now and as TH 101
is developed and Crosstown comes in, if we extend Nez Perce it's going to become
more and more traffic used. I think there are hardships to builders but I think
the lives of children and people have to come over that. My daughter got off
the bus and as Pleasant View Road dumps into Pleasant View Cove, there's an
extreme, extreme blind spot. Several car accidents happen almost every year.
There's extreme blind spots and curves all the way around and I think, you know 11 we talked just a little while ago about the developments that are occurring. I
27 '
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
1
think Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road, there are no easy ways to come off
I either one of them. But of the two, Pleasant View Road is far, far more
dangerous. And I think that Daryl's proposal seems to me to be, it's an
alternative to dumping the cars back on Pleasant View Road and I think before
somebody gets killed we really need to look at this very closely.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
1 Mary Stassen: Would you put alternative 3 back up there for me? My name is
Mary Stassen and I guess I'm a little bit surprised that nobody mentioned us
through this whole thing because we live at the corner of Pleasant View Road and
I Peaceful Lane and our house is located right here. Right up at that corner and
our driveway almost comes out like right at that corner and it's, I measured.
It's 125 feet because that used to be the main thru street that went through
there. That's 125 feet across that corner and so, I mean if somebody's going to
I get killed, it's probably going to be us coming out of our driveway because it's
very dangerous for us and we've lived there, we've owned the property for 7
years. We've lived there for 6 and 6 years ago I talked to Jim Chaffee and had
' him come out. He was the Safety Commissioner at that time and he agreed with me
that it was a dangerous corner and that something was going to be done about it
and so we've sat and we've been to every meeting. We weren't involved 4 years
ago because nobody notified us that all this was going on until they started
II considering the connection through to Peaceful Lane and that's the time that we
got involved and that was about 2 years ago I guess. So we're very concerned
about this sweeping corners, as most of you know. And if anything, we want to
I make sure that there's 90 degree turns put in there.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Paul.
II Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, a quick response to that. We did speak to Mrs. Stassen
and her husband several times over the last few years. One of the big problems
though on Peaceful Lane is that you have a wide open curve through here and it
II is, I mean it's big enough to serve the Mega Mall. The alternatives that we
brought forth to you last year and looked at doing is squaring this off.
Actually tying in something like that which would have a tendency, well. It
1 makes a much clearer T intersection at Pleasant View. It also tended to pull
the road some distance further away from the Stassen residence. I don't recall
how much it was but that issue was raised and dealt with in the feasibility
' study.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
I Stuart Hoarn: I'm Stuart Hoarn. I have property adjoining, I guess you'd say.
The Vineland Forest Addition. I've looked at this for a long time too and
particularly in acquiring the property and my understanding has always been of
course that it was going to go through. The sign that's posted there on the
barricade has said that for years and I find it very difficult to believe that
someone could live in that area for a long time and not see the sign and then
II buy property unaware of that or not in comtemplation of that. But that's, so it
looks to me as though, at least I remember that where that green magic marker
spot is, the sign was there and now it's moved. And I had the impression that
Troendle Addition, when it was put in, was in contemplation of that going
through as well and that that was part of the city's sort of give and take in
28
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
putting Troendle in. I think though that we definitely should have some kind of
a traffic control type of intersection. More of a T. More something that would
tend to keep people just from sweeping around the corner. The point is though
that if the Crosstown is coming through to TH 101, which it is and all those
other things are going on, that people that live in Vineland Forest and so on,
are going to go south and around Lake Lucy and up CR 17, or Mill Street,
whatever you want to call it, and they're going to cut onto Pleasant View
anyway. I mean it's not like they're not going to do that. I mean I know I'm
going to do that. I don't know at what speed I'm going to do that but if I'm
late, I'm probably going to be in a bigger hurry because I have to go out of my
way to get around there. I'm being a little facetious in saying that but I
think that will happen. I think there's a tendency that if people have to drive 1
3/4 of a mile to get 50 feet from their front door, which essentially is what
would happen with my house. Not quite 50 feet. 250 feet. To get to Pleasant
View Road, people are going to be in a bigger hurry. So I think that's a factor
as well. Not to mention trying to come through by the water tower is going to
have an adverse affect on the character, if you will, of Lake Lucy Road and the
residents that live currently on Lake Lucy Road. There's sort of the character
of two different areas and I guess one of my thoughts on that is, is that the
character of an area of higher value, higher income homes and so on, may
sometimes there's an air of the word character underneath it has the word
elitism. It's as though property of some value, their kids may be, you know
I don't know how to put it. If a kid who comes from a piece of property worth
$150,000.00 gets run over it may be different than someone who comes from a
piece of property worth a million and a half. But it's still a kid. So I think
there's sort of a balance there that has to be struck. Some people's kids are
more important than others. I understand. Mine are the most important, but we
all have that attitude. I think there's a balance that would be struck and
people are still going to pour out of Vineland Forest and out of Troendle and
try to get to the Crosstown. You're not going to ignore the Crosstown just
because the road takes them another 5 minutes out of their way. They just may
hurry more.
Rod Johnson: My name's Rod Johnson. I live on Lake Lucy and I got up once
before and we've been through this. I guess the biggest thing that strikes me
as another point of this is my wife's pregnant with the 29th kid on that street
from one corner to the other. And I sympathize but, hey. It's got to be shared
equally. I think the corner needs to be fixed but the city needs to consider
too if my kid gets run over and this street didn't go through, I guarantee you
who else is going to be on the suit along with Mr. Beddor. So I mean that's the
way I look at it now and I can see it and I can understand everybody's upset.
Jim Duchene: I'm Jim Duchene on Lake Lucy Road, 961. I think the Mayor started '
it off right tonight by saying commitment. We've been in front of you probably
4 times. I think Daryl had a private meeting with us. I know the Mayor was
with us that evening. Showing us plans where it would connect to Pleasant View
and that has always been one of the options presented and the option that we
accepted as a neighborhood. And to hear this come up again, I know Pleasant
View is a poor quality road but I think Nez Perce is too. I know if you've
walked up in that area and you come down Nez Perce, it's probably worst than
Pleasant View. Okay. Our concern I think, and we have, I think most of our
neighborhood here tonight on Lake Lucy Road, is that it be safe for everyone.
And perhaps there's some problems on Pleasant View and maybe speed limit
29 1
1
11 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
reductions can address that. I know as our family, we very seldom take Pleasant
11 View. We'll take Highway 5 or Highway 7. Pleasant View takes time and it does
wind as the lady said. Has a lot of dangerous curves. We don't use that road.
Will that change? I think the city can address those issues with speed
' reductions and perhaps discourage people from taking that route. I'd like to
see Daryl and the developer hold to their promises or their commitment to our
community. To our taxpayers. To our citizens in that area and that's keeping
' their promise where the road was sketched several times and we came out, as Paul
had said, fairly close to this particular alternative 3 I guess. So I'd just
ask that you hold people to their commitment. Their promise. It's been a 4
year process and it's kind of like, let's go until we wear everybody out. Until
' we don't show up. So I'd like to see you go with the plan as it was proposed.
Thank you.
' Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, could I just interrupt at this point?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
' Councilman Wing: Are you all, are you from Lake Lucy?
Resident: Yes.
' Councilman Wing: Hold on a minute. I'm not going to suggest that Mr. Smith or
Mr. Fortier at any time misled staff, but I guess I am going to say, speaking
' for Lake Lucy and myself, having been here every night, they misled me. There
was never any question in my mind that, thought we had some understanding. We
simply had an understanding. I mean this was to me a done deal. That's why I'm
' kind of stunned that this isn't mapped and done and we've kind of got an
attitude tonight of God save Pleasant View but let's dump all our traffic onto
Lake Lucy. Or we take the other viewpoint tonight with all these people, maybe
God save Lake Lucy and let's not worry about Pleasant View. This road isn't a
' big collector thoroughfare. If you look at this, it's a nuisance to wind
through there and we talked about stop signs. It's not going to be a convenient
way. People are still going to cut down Lake Lucy Road but to come in with a
' development after all this time and all these discussions and again, I'm willing
to pull all these old Minutes out. To me it was an absolute clear cut deal. I
don't know why this isn't done. But tell us you're going to develop property
and put in homes and traffic and dump them onto Lake Lucy, it's clearly already
been decided it's been a problem and a traffic issue and a dangerous road for
kids. There's 29th young child being on there and I will say is a fact, one of
my last trips down there some little, by the way. This is for you folks again.
' I said this last time. This happened again. A little kid came down the
driveway on one of these little bikes, right out into the street off the
driveway and that's a pretty dangerous street. So anyway my point is, it's okay
' for Mr. Beddor to develop his property and then dump it onto Lake Lucy because
he doesn't want to effect his road. Well hell that's not the way we operate in
the city as I saw it. And everything that's been brought up tonight, every
comment that you're going to make has been heard. I mean it was a done deal.
II You don't even to speak as far as I'm concerned because I've heard you loud and
clear. You don't want the traffic. You don't want that dumped down on your
street. I don't think it should happen. That road was already semi decided on.
Whether it went a little north or a little south. Bend it a little here. Bend
it a little there. But I think it's Mr. Beddor's problem, not your's and as far
30
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1
as I'm concerned, whatever we have to do to get this done Paul. Whether it's
number 3 or number 4, we've got to do it. If it's condemnation, we do it.
We've discussed that pond before. We've discussed Lot 5 before. We've
discussed Peaceful Lane before. Do you want to counter, or add? Just a minute.
Let me just hit my notes. Old news. Old news. This is all old news. Mr.
Fortier has not brought up anything new. He discussed this with us hour after
hour about 2 years ago. Year and a half ago. Year ago and every single comment
these people have made, I thought had been heard and decided on and I'm frankly
frustrated that this is even back here tonight. I don't want to hear more about
it. To me I've already my decision. I've already voted. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: Dog gone it Councilman Wing, that's my neighborhood and you
stole my thunder.
Councilman Wing: I want to know what we do to get this off dead center and move
ahead. I don't want to hear anymore.
Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to do is get a motion. '
Councilman Mason: I think Mr. Smith would like to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul. '
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, you may want to get some counsel as to what your
options are. There are some, well. There are some alternatives to tinker with
the alignment. The concern I have, and let's assume for the moment that
everybody can trust everybody to deal with this in a fair manner. There is
nothing stopping Mr. Beddor from using the property as he sees fit at this point
in time. He's the property owner. He's entitled to do whatever he'd like to
do. There may be ways of introducing some more flexibility into the alignment
for Mr. Beddor's property. There is an issue there. I mean there is more of a
taking the way the road is now. However, as I recall, this road, Nez Perce is
skewed this way because of input that we got from Mr. Fortier as to how this
would happen. At that time they didn't know how much they were going to buy
from Mr. Beddor, or not. There is a hill here. It goes up to the Owens house.
One of the possibilities might be coming across a little higher. There is a
grading problem with that. That might be a possibility. That would result in a
T intersection but it would give bigger home sites over here. The problem is
that also involves a lot that I believe is still vacant in the Troendle
Addition. You can see that lot down here, and maybe Mr. Fortier knows if it's
still vacant or not but it kind of comes up that way. And sort of tells you
which way the road has to go because it points you in one direction. You may
wish to consider, and I'd defer to Council on this. Some sort of a temporary
moratorium on that lot, on development there to allow the best alignment to come
out. If that's your wish. I don't know. I just throw that on the table for
you. You may want to bounce that off...
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Good.
Councilman Mason: I'd just like to quickly add that the argument about whether
Nez Perce goes through or not will affect traffic on Pleasant View. If you're
driving down Lake Lucy Road and you want to get to Pleasant View, you're going
to do it. I mean you're either going to go through Nez Perce or you're going to
31 1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
create more of a problem on Powers Boulevard by coming out there, or Kerber or
Carver Beach, and go on Pleasant View anyway. So I don't quite understand Mr.
Beddor's, where they're coming from saying that not putting that road through
will create less traffic on Pleasant View. I use Pleasant View. I live in
' Carver Beach. I'm going to use Pleasant View whether Nez Perce goes through or
not so I don't, that argument I don't understand.
' Councilman Wing: Mike, the other question I had was, if this is such an issue,
why doesn't he just take all his lots and development and connect those to
Pleasant View. This thing probably never would have come up in the first place.
Why does his development have to go down to Lake Lucy? They don't deserve it.
' Jules Smith: Mr. Councilman, you have to understand. We're not here asking for
anything. We weren't brought here. We didn't initiate this. We're responding
' to what the city staff brought before the Council. I certainly think we have a
right to put our use for it. It's our land. We're not asking for anything.
The City Council has an absolute right to do whatever they want. Do you want to
condemn it? Condemn it. We can't stop that. The same is true when we came for
' the Troendle Addition. You said you wanted $10,000.00 and an alignment or we
wouldn't get the plat. Well, we still felt, if we ever, at that time we didn't
own that property. There was nothing we could do. If you want to put a road
' through it, put it through. But don't sit here knocking us because we're here
saying well, it's our land and maybe we'd like to have you take a different look
at it. We're not the bad guys here. We have our view over our lot but you can
' do whatever you want.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the position we'll take. Thank you Jules. Yeah, one
more, please.
Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I guess I don't agree with that comment
because he was at the meeting down at, was it at Victory Envelope or whatever.
' It was pretty clear a road was going to go through. You had said that that
night. I suppose you wanted it there because then it's not official on the
Minutes of the City or something. I'm not really sure what the point was. But
' you're here to try to present a plan to influence the city to put more traffic
on Lake Lucy and keep it off of Pleasant View. Don't tell me you don't have an
agenda. You defintely do.
' Jules Smith: Well sure we have an agenda but...
Mayor Chmiel: Jules, out of order there. Please.
Paul Hanson: My name is Paul Hanson. I live on Lake Lucy Road also and I would
like to point out two things. One, I talked to the builder who built a home in
the cul -de -sac of Troendle Circle and they have informed me that they intend to
begin building a home on the lot in which Paul was discussing. So they are
already getting ready to build a lot on that lot. On that property, as far as
I've been told. That may be misinformation. The other thing is, we're
' discussing 500 feet of Pleasant View. I don't know how long Pleasant View is. I
imagine it's a mile and a half or so, but I think Paul could probably tell us.
I'm guessing that, I paced it off. We're talking about 500 feet from Peaceful
Lane, on Pleasant View until you get to Powers Boulevard and Peaceful Lane and
Pleasant View in those locations are not old, narrow streets. They're nice and
' 32
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1
wide. There's enough room there for lots of traffic and I think if anyone were
to want to look for themselves, just drive over there. I think you'll be
satisfied that there's not a major problem with the road space the way they
exist right now on Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View to go through. I keep
hearing this issue that they have to spend money developing it and it really
doesn't need it if you look at that small portion of the road. The last point
I'll make is if I remember right from the Minutes of the meeting the last time,
the *10,000.00 was put down for the north half of the completion of the road of
Nez Perce to go to Peaceful Lane. I think that's worth looking into. I believe
that's what the $10,000.00 was put in for. It wasn't put in for any
improvements on Peaceful Lane. Thank you.
Resident: I'd just like to say one more thing. That 500 feet is probably the
most dangerous intersection of all of Pleasant View Road and including Lake Lucy
Road. There's a blind spot where the cars come up and over the hill. They come
up very fastly. It's a 25 mph. Right now it doesn't make any difference. You
could put 15 mph or 10 mph, it is a highly, highly dangerous intersection there
where Pleasant View Cove and Pleasant View Road run into. '
Mayor Chmiel: Elliott, do you have any words of good wisdom?
Councilman Mason: As opposed to bad wisdom. '
Elliott Knetsch: I think Paul's recommendation in the report gives you your
options...further addition, the possibility of a moratorium if there was a need
to study further details as to exactly how Nez Perce would connect at that
intersection. I don't know that I can add anything. It's not really so much a
legal issue as one of if you want to proceed.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. As Council's heard, there's two issues that can be
done. One, the moratorium. As indicated to be established for a period of time
until all situations are worked out. Or to proceed with what's presently before
us. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I guess with what Paul's comments about seeing what we can do
to perhaps nudge the road, either a moratorium right now as opposed to official
mapping might be in order just because.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that it would be because it gives us the option to
see whether or not it can be done. Without it having to come back just one more
time.
Councilman Wing: You're stating that our position is the road, there is going
to be a road there?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. •
Councilman Wing: It's just a matter of how we can work it out?
Mayor Chmiel: How that road can be worked out.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the reason I'm suggesting that is given the way the
property's been broken out by the Judge, in the present alignment of the road,
33
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
what they own, there is probably a severance issue with Mr. Beddor's property.
II Maybe that can be minimized.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. So I would entertain a motion for this particular
position.
I Resident: Mr. Mayor, can I add one thing? You haven't closed your public
hearing right?
I Mayor Chmiel: You're out of order right now. We're back to Council. If you'd
like to sit down, we'll come back to you.
II Councilman Mason: This hasn't been a public hearing anyway.
' Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Senn: Can I ask a couple questions?
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: Under the option that you suggested on the moratorium. Are
' any of the affected parcels? I mean what are the status of those affected
parcels?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Senn, the moratorium specifically, and is it possible
II you can come up with a moratorium and...the same night? We didn't publish one.
That's not an issue? Okay.
I Elliott Knetsch: We have to act on this moratorium at the next meeting. I
think tonight we have to authorize that though and get it ready for the next
meeting.
II Paul Krauss: There probably are only two properties that need to be involved
and I think it's been referred to as Lot 5, Jules. Is that? The northern piece
of the Owens property that Mr. Beddor owns. And I don't know what lot number it
I is but it's the northwestern most lot in the Troendle Addition south of Nez
Perce. Or at least to insure that the home is set back far enough so that
that's a possibility. Otherwise there is no option.
II Councilman Senn: Are either of those parcels already platted or preliminary
platted?
II Paul Krauss: Well, the Troendle Addition's all final platted.
Councilman Senn: Then how can we do a moratorium?
I Paul Krauss: We leave that up to the City Attorney to see if that's possible.
' Councilman Senn: I've heard on past things is we can't do moratoriums.
Resident: That corner lot, they've got...it's all staked for a home. Starting
' construction.
' 34
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Councilman Senn: I guess the other question I had was relating to Mr. Beddor's
representative's. Were you aware at the time that you bought the property out
of the bankruptcy court that this plan for the road was there?
Jules Smith: Well we certainly knew it was being considered. '
Councilman Senn: That was the most round about answer I've heard I guess. Were
you aware of the road plan when you purchased the land from the bankruptcy
court?
Jules Smith: Well of course. We knew that there was, I mean this study was
made long before that act. '
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike, did you have something? '
Councilman Mason: Well, how is this moratorium going to work if someone's
already starting to dig a home? I mean that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that...jive with what we've been told in the past.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul can you.
Paul Krauss: Well a couple things. If a house is being built on that corner
lot, it eliminates a lot of the possibilities for realigning the road at this
point. There may still be some potential to realigning the road by twisting it
around in the right -of -way. If the home is actually back far enough, we can
acquire some additional right -of -way. Straighten it up. Those kind of things
may be warranted to look at. The concern that I have though is, even lacking
that. Even a home is built on that corner. That Mr. Beddow is the owner of the
property and can come in with a building permit on his lot tomorrow and we would
have to issue it. I'm not saying that they're anticipating doing that. I have
no idea but we would be obligated to issue the building permit. Official
mapping is a good way to go, if you had time. Official mapping requires a
center line survey. Then it's got to come through the Planning Commission and
City Council. So you're probably looking at a couple months there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I think we've dispensed with one of the two
issues. The first one being should the road go through and a year ago I was at
the podium cipherously arguing that in my neighborhood we should not join two.
As you'll remember Paul. We should not join two neighborhoods and arguing to
maintain a mile long cul -de -sac but that was a year ago and I'm definitely a
year old and hopefully a little wiser so I would agree that the road does need
to go through. We just asked how and, I don't know. It's a toughy. I don't
have any suggestions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I've spoken. I've made my decision a year ago with the Lake
Lucy folks. I thought it was a done deal so how can we best accomplish it.
35
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I'm pretty much in that same boat with you on that.
I don't disagree with you. The only question that I have is to find what
legally is right for us to do and approach it from that aspect. I think that's
what I'm looking for. His words of wisdom as to how to best accomplish this.
Either through the moratorium. Possibly tabling it or going through the
official mapping portion that Paul has mentioned previously.
Elliott Knetsch: Well the unknown is what the development plan is...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
' Resident: ...the way I've seen things go, it's very likely you could have a
building permit request on their desks by 8:30 in the morning tomorrow if you
don't do what you need to do to stop that.
Mayor Chmiel: We realize that. Thank you. Okay. We have before us one of two
things to go. Either to authorize a moratorium hearing or to proceed with,
basically what staff recommendations are.
Councilman Wing: I think staff ought to move ahead on the mapping but we ought
to give them some time to get their act together and get it mapped. So I guess
• if a moratoriu, which I am not. I kind of agree with Councilman Senn. I'm not
so sure we shouldn't just charge full steam ahead and if they want to start
bringing building permits, that process can come before this Council and it
could take years.
' Councilman Mason: Obviously there's been some disagreement and some hard
feelings here. One of the nice things I've felt about being a part of this
' Council and working with this city is that this is the place for hard feelings
and you know things get sifted out and get worked out in the way that's best for
everybody and I would hope that, and up until now I think everyone's done that
' and I would hope that that would continue regardless of what we choose to do.
Councilman Wing: If we went with Mr. Senn's comments and it didn't work out, is
there any reason we couldn't then impose a moratorium on future development? At
' any point we can come in with a moratorium? Of some sort.
Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I'd really like to see, I mean if we start
getting into something to me that's really highly questionable and I'm going to
say given some past things I've heard in the last 6 months, it's highly
questionable, again to me that presents problems that weakens our case. Okay,
to me we ought to just simply pass a motion to direct staff to implement the
plan that was previously approved...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I like your position but I want to make sure that legally
that I have that behind me to support that position. And that's one of the
questions that I throw back one more time to Elliott from what Mark has
basically said.
' Elliott Knetsch: I hear what Mark's saying but I haven't, I don't know how we
would accomplish that tonight from what I'm seeing. I mean if we follow this to
it's logical conclusion, it's right on the board. I mean everybody knows what's
been talked to and as Dick mentioned, agreed to in his mind and the minds of
' 36
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1
many others. The question is how to accomplish that and lock it in tonight. I
think probably the only way to do that is to, and there is a question about the
legality of a moratorium. I don't have the background on how that lot...I was
discussing it with Don. Apparently it's a lot of record and if it is, it may
not be appropriate for a moratorium because the moratorium ordinance does say
that you cannot delay a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval.
If it's an existing lot of record, it's been approved. So I think what we might
be really looking at is authorizing condemnation of that Lot 5. And I would
look at the entire lot rather than just where the road would cross the lot
because if the road goes through across the lot, and then it damages the lot so
it's unbuildable, then you're really talking about a taking of the entire lot
anyway even if you just take the road so you might as well take the whole lot.
Councilman Senn: But is that a direction we give to staff or can we authorize a
condemnation without public hearing and everything else? '
Elliott Knetsch: Yes. You can authorize a condemnation tonight.
Councilman Wing: And I would also...begin legal mapping and then Mike's saying,
just perhaps everybody might decide to get along and come to a consensus here
and resolve the issue anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And that can always happen.
Councilman Mason: I would hope that that would be looked at. Well, are we
ready to go here?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Being there wasn't a second to Mark's first one, then I
would entertain another motion.
Councilman Mason: Okay. I'll recommend that the City Council authorize
official mapping of Nez Perce Drive. I would also further recommend that City
Council consider condemnation to acquire the lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Lot 5. ,
Councilman Mason: Lot 5 as opposed to the roadway.
Councilman Wing: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Resolution $93 -47: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
authorize the official mapping of Nez Perce Drive. The two alternatives in the
July 8, 1992 feasibility study should be reviewed with Alternative A being the
preferred alignment of city staff. Further, that the City Council proceed with
condemnation of Lot 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Paul Krauss: Just a clarification. Consider condemnation or direct. '
Councilman Wing: Do it.
Councilman Mason: Should I strike consider in that motion? ,
37 ,
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
1
Elliott Knetsch: As long as you're saying that you meant direct.
Councilman Mason: I meant to do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, clarification's there.
Councilman Wing: Second to that.
' AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TH 101 TRAIL, PROJECT 88- 22B -6.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor and City Council members. As you are aware, and as
presented in the staff report this evening, this City has embarked on the
process to investigate the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along
TH 101 from Pleasant View Road south to West 78th Street, or the downtown area.
' This segment of trail has been identified in the city's comprehensive trail plan
as a phase 1, 1990 -1995 improvement. The TH 101 trail represents the last leg
of improvements in this timeframe. The other trails which were completed as a
part of that phase 1 include the Highway 5 trail from Eden Prairie to Powers
Boulevard. The Minnewashta Parkway trail and the Market Boulevard trail system.
Councilperson Senn brought this subject to the forefront of the public process
upon election to the Council. His effort in doing so was inspired by the
' overwhelming inquiry he received into this issue during his campaign in that
area. As outlined in Mr. Horn's report, the city has hosted two neighborhood
meetings to discuss this issue. One on March 31st and one on April 20th. With
' 39 and 57 residents in attendance respectively. The second meeting resulted in
the presentation of two petitions to the city containing a total of 210
signatures of residents in favor of the trail. I have those petitions here this
evening. Would you like me to present them to Council to read them into
the Minutes?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Just give it to us so we can take it from there.
Todd Hoffman: The meetings that were held were very well received by the
residents in attendance allowing both those opposed to and in favor of the
project voice their opinions and to hear those of others. I followed up these
meetings with 8 on -site visits with property owners affected by the proposed
trail. AT this time, if it would please the Council, I would ask that Mr. Jon
Horn of BRW provide you with the information which has been disseminated to date
' on this issue. During those neighborhood meetings, and then Charles will close
with some comments on the proposal to move forward with the feasibility study
and we're available for questions from the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, fine. Thank you.
Jon Horn: As Todd mentioned, the Trunk Highway 101 trail project would include
the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Trunk
Highway 101 from Pleasant View Road on the north side to South Shore Drive on
the south side. The total length of the trail alignment is about 9,200 feet.
' As directed by city staff, we've completed a preliminary scoping study to
investigate the constructability of this trail segment as well as to identify
any specific problem areas that would need further investigation if Council
decides to further proceed with the project. We prepared some preliminary
38
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1
exhibits that show some of the problem areas and I guess I'd just like to
quickly run through those for Council. This first exhibit shows the southern
most construction of the trail. The trail would begin at South Shore Drive at
this location where it would tie into the, excuse me. At this location where it
would tie into the proposed trail system to be constructed as a part of the
Trunk Highway 101 north leg project. It would then extend to the north along
the west side of TH 101. As it extends to the north, we've identified a couple
different problem areas on this section of the trail. The first being some
trees and shrubs through this area that would need to be relocated further to
the west to enable the trail to be built along the roadway. As you proceed
further north, there's a guardrail and a steep slope that would make it very
difficult to construct the trail in this location. A possible solution may be
some retaining wall and the construction of an embankment to allow the trail to
be squeezed through that location. The second section of the trail, we've
identified a couple wetland areas that possibly would be impacted by the
construction of the trail. It is recommended that discussions be held early on
with the Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR to investigate possibly impacts to
the wetlands and any mitigation that may be required if the trail is further
considered. Another problem area identified in this area is a turn land and a
retaining wall at Sandy Hook Road that would need some modification to enable
the trail to be squeezed through this area. The last trail segment up to
Pleasant View Road, we've identified again another wetland area that could
possibly be impacted as well as a monument sign and a storm water pond north of
Fox Hollow Drive that may require some modification. While these are all
problems areas that would be, we would impact or would be encounted if the
project is further pursued. I guess we do not feel that any of them are
insurmountable or that they do not warrant this pathway to be unconstructable.
Based upon the results of the scoping study, we held a couple neighborhood
meetings to present the results of this...study to the residents of the area as
well as to help determine their support or objections to the project. Based
upon the neighborhood meetings, I guess it's our general feeling that most of
the neighborhood residents are in support of the project. However, there was
some strong opposition expressed by some of the residents who's property
directly abuts TH 101. Concerns with direct property impacts. Concerns that
the pathway crossing their driveway would create some safety hazards. Concerns
about the loss of some mature trees in the area. Things like that. General
support for the project was felt by most of the residents because they felt
there was a real need for a pedestrian /bicycle access into downtown Chanhassen.
They felt that right now it's a lot easier for them to go north or east out of
Chanhassen rather than to go into downtown Chanhassen. So they felt there was
real strong need for a trail to provide that access. It is recommended tonight
that if the Council wishes to further proceed with the project, that a
feasibility study be prepared to further investigate some of these problem areas
and continue to work with some of the neighborhood residents to try to achieve a
pathway design that meets the objectives of the city as well as addresses some
of the concerns of the neighborhood residents. I guess with that I'll turn it
over to Charles to further discuss the feasibility study.
Charles Folch: Well given the information gathered to date and the great deal ,
of discussion that's been held at these neighborhood meetings. It's apparent
that there is a rather large support for at least taking the next step in
conducting a formal feasibility study. A feasibility study will include
performing a detail field survey along TH 101 and also preparing preliminary
39 '
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
plan drawings to show particularly the properties along TH 101. How they will
' be affected by the project and how any potential adverse impacts are proposed to
be mitigated. This feasibility study will also provide a better cost estimate
as to what the project would need to be completed. And also some recommended
methods of financing options for this project. It should also be noted that in
' authorizing the preparation of the feasibility study, the Council is not
actually ordering this project. That decision would need to be made at the
completion of the feasibility study and following the public hearing
' accordingly. Jon has prepared an estimate for this feasibility study which is
set within the framework of our scope of services contract at an estimated
amount not to exceed of $18,500.00. And it's expected that this study would
' take approximately 6 weeks to complete. It's staff recommendation, based on the
information and the amount of support received, that it'd be our recommendation
to move ahead with the next step and prepare a formal feasibility study.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion?
Councilman Wing: I will so move that feasibility study.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think it's something that's probably necessary to do at this
time, only because of the fact that if and when this does go in, we would still
' have that desired information. One of the things that I look at, and the only
thing that bothers me a little bit about it is that we're looking at a project
range from $200,000.00 to $300,000.00 in constructing this improvement project.
One of the things as it's indicated here, I don't think that that has any
inclusion of right -of -way that would be needed to put this project together. Is
that correct?
' Charles Folch: No, that's correct. We've just, Jon and I in just viewing, in
looking at some of the problem areas that have been identified, we can only
assume at this point how much area it might take to try and make things work but
' again you're correct. Until we can actually do a field survey and do some
preliminary drawings, and see how far back the construction limits are going to
go, we won't know until that point how much additional right-of-way or easement
we would need.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that we would need. We're looking at
and I would just sort of...going through that particular area, you're probably
' looking at, another $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 in right -of -way acquisition for
the total project. So with that, we have a motion on the floor. Any other
discussion? Is there a second?
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have discussion. A couple questions. At these
neighborhood meetings, were assessments talked about at all?
I Charles Folch: No. At this point in time we really, that question was brought
up by a few people understandably at the meeting. At this point in time, we
really can't address how financing would be handled until we know really what
' numbers we're dealing with for the project.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My only point is that, you say a trail and everyone
says, yeah, yeah, yeah and then they get the assessment. And my other question
II is, if we're looking at roughly with $150,000.00 worth of right -of -way, $40.00
1 40
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
to $50.00 a foot? How does that compare to other trail costs throughout the
city? I mean this is a particularly tough piece of land. 1
Charles Folch: It's probably higher than.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I mean like double? 1
Charles Folch: But then again, when you compare apples to apples doing,
building a street in new construction is much cheaper than reconstructing a '
street in an existing neighborhood so recon work, whether it's a trail or road
is typically higher than new construction.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'm just thinking, is the assessment going to
be exorbitant and will people balk at that and is it worth spending $20,000.00
in this feasibility?
Todd Hoffman: There was a variety of funding sources. discussed at those
meetings and assessments certainly were not ruled out but that would not be the
total financing mechanism for the trail. 1
Mayor Chmiel: We still have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Senn: Second. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Mike.
Councilman Mason: No. I'm concerned about some of the cost issues here but we
certainly need to have the feasibility study I think before we make any
decisions. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And this is also part of our comprehensive plan as well.
One of the trails. And as Mark brought this forward again, for the issue of
getting this in, I think some of the other areas that we have going right now
too, we have to also look at those. If we go onto one, we're going to have to
look and see what we do with the balance of the other trails that are going to
be needed within the city. ,
Councilman Senn: But this is the only segment left in the first priority that
hasn't been done yet in the city. '
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct but there are other areas that also substantially
need them. Along CR 17 and even CR 117 and some of the other areas too that
eventually are going to be built.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but most of those, according to the meeting I had with
Don and the County are going to be handled when the County redoes the roads so I
mean it's really a different situation and nothing we're going to have to
participate in one way or the other.
Councilman Wing: Will Eden Prairie be approached after the feasibility study of ,
possible funding?
Todd Hoffman: They'll be approached at the. '
41 '
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
1
Mayor Chmiel: We tried that once before. In fact I had discussions with Eden
Prairie back when I wanted to see TH 101 have a trail along that particular
area.
Councilman Mason: And what did they say?
II Mayor Chmiel: Something about my left ear. They didn't feel that that was
absolutely necessary.
II Councilman Wing: I want to make sure Colleen was heard because if a Minnewashta
trail, which is somewhat complex, is $300,000.00, this one comes in at
$600,000.00. Maybe we don't need a trail that bad. Maybe we need a whole new
II road, etc, etc, etc.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's maybe something that should be.
II Councilman Wing: So, issues to be brought up.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And that's why we have to go through that feasibility.
Councilman Mason: I do sometimes worry about if we, it's kind of assumed. I'm
glad Charles made the comment that just because we have a feasibility study
I doesn't mean we have to do it. I mean I want to see a trail there. Don't get
me wrong folks, but. I hope this all works out. I'd love to have a trail
there.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anybody who'd like to say something?
George Dorsey: My name's George Dorsey. I don't know if there's any difference
between a sidewalk and a trail but if you're only going to build something 8
feet wide, an area that I came from there's Rollerblading. There's bicycles.
There's people walking. There's people pushing pushcarts. When you have 8 feet
I wide, when you get more people out here, you'd better think about expanding them
or building two trails or a road or there's going to be a lot of people very
angry having $600,000.00 stuck into something that nobody can use. There's
' trail going around Lake Harriet in Minneapolis. One person's been killed by a
bicycles coming down. These bicyclists are going 30 mph, 50 mph. I don't know
how fast they 90 nowadays but coming down that road, they get up good speed and
all you have to do is have somebody knocked off and 8 feet's not very wide. And
II
the solution is to expand it wider or put one beside it do something else so
it's something to bear in mind in your feasibility.
I Councilman Wing: Mike, on Minnewashta Parkway. I think the feasibility study
should define a 10 foot trail because we already decided an 8 foot's not
acceptable or MnDot standards or whatever. We want 10 feet on Minnewashta
' Parkway right?
Charles Folch: No, actually we looked at two options of either going 6 or going
8 and we opted with going with the 8.
II Councilman Senn: 8 was our standard as I understood it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to make a statement?
42
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Jim Andrews: I was at both meetings. I'm Jim Andrews. I live at 7014 Sandy
Hook Circle. I'm also on the Park Board. I would just like to reinforce what
was already said that this is part of our Comp Plan and part of our trail system
and is a part of our city on a very, very busy road and with traffic projection
figures which I could give you if you wanted to sit here and listen to it all
but it's a very busy road that does demand a pedestrian way that's safe. We
have several neighborhoods that are isolated from the city and from our park
systems or from our other trails which are available to our other citizens and a
feasibility study is necessary as the first step in hopefully proceeding with
the future construction of this trail. So I would ask that you pass this
enthusiastically with the intent of moving foward toward construction. Thank
you. 1
Councilman Wing: Jim, could I just ask you a question? What if we came back
and said to the most impacted people, which are going to be TH 101 people
clearly. What if you had to pay $100.00 - $200.00 - $300.00 assessment?
Jim Andrews: I hate to answer questions on behalf of other people.
Councilman Wing: No, just you. Would you even entertain an assessment if
necessary?
Jim Andrews: I look at it two ways. I guess I'd come back and ask a question
and that is, what are the people on Minnewashta Parkway paying for their trail,
which I believe is zero. But at the same time, if you put the question to me,
if the choice was no trail or pay $250.00, I would have my check here tomorrow
morning at 8:00.
Councilman Wing: Thanks. 1
Carol Leslie: My name is Carol Leslie and I live on Sandy Hook Circle as well
and I'll write you my check for $250.00 as well. Very quickly. You know I've
been driving around Chanhassen and there are many other trails and some
beautiful parks in other parts of Chanhassen and along the route proposed trail
areas of high value homes that obviously pay a great deal of property taxes to
the city and what we're asking for are some of the amenities that are already
enjoyed by other Chanhassen residents. I want to, I'd like you Council members
to think of how you'd feel if your children could not get out of their
neighborhood. Just could not go into the neighborhood next door to play with a ,
friends they went to school with. Or they could never take advantage of a
Chanhassen city park because they can't possibly get there unless we drive them
there because that's how we are. We are absolutely land locked in. And it's
been in the paper that the city owns land in the center of Chanhassen and wants
to develop in the future into a recreation center. How are our children going
to get to this proposed center without endangering themselves? It would be
impossible so we need this trail. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. If not, we have a motion on the floor. With a second
to authorize the preparation of the feasibility study for Trunk Highway 101
trail, Project 88- 22B -6.
43
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
- Councilman Senn seconded to authorize
X93 48' Councilman Wing moved, Coun riz e
the preparation of a feasibility study for TH 101 trail, Project 88- 228 -6. All
1 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1 CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED DRUG POLICY FOR CITY EMPLOYEES.
Mayor Chmiel: I think if everyone has had the opportunity to review this, Todd
probably can address this. Much of this has been put before our people within
the city and support the position that's here. Todd, do you want to just touch
on it briefly?
Todd Gerhardt: Sure Mr. Mayor. City Council. In front of you tonight is the
City of Chanhassen's official policy on a drug free work place. This policy
came to light during our city audit process this year. The City receives
' federal dollars through our Community Development Block Grant allocations and
with that the City must have a drug policy in place in receiving those dollars.
From that I put a policy together from private consultant provided me with a
' draft copy and from that I passed it out to employees for their review and
comment. It was pretty positive comments that I received from all employees
that were in favor of such a policy. This kind of surprised me because I mean
this will impact all employees in that they will have to live by these rules.
' And they all saw the light and felt that they wanted to work in a safe and drug
free environment. Tonight I would recommend that the City Council approve the
proposed draft as outlined in the packet.
Mayor Chmiel: I would make the motion that we do it.
Councilman Mason: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the City of
Chanhassen's Official Drug Free Workplace Policy as outlined in draft form. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
APPOINTMENT TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, City Council members. At the request of the
School District #112, the Chanhassen adult representative for the Youth
Commission. That position was advertised as a vacancy. Ms. Susan Hurm of 8542
' Flamingo Drive currently holds that position. She accepted it as an uncompleted
term and she would like to continue serving on that commission. Ms. Hurm has
addressed the Council as you will recall representing the Commission on several
1 occasions. With the knowledge that Susan.
Councilman Wing: So moved.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to appoint Susan Hurl' as
the adult representative from Chanhassen to the District 5112 Youth Commission.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' 44
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Wing: One real quick item. Park and Rec discussed park deficiency 1
in the west end and my intention in my comments tonight have nothing to do with
living there or being involved in that area whatsoever. I want to make that
clear. Other than it's an issue of open land. Strictly an issue that where the
city's growing, the land's being speculated. The land's being eaten up. There's
I think what, 6150,000.00 in escrow. There's land available. Land being sold.
Land being promised, etc, etc. But I think that Todd has discussed the issue
with Park and Rec that if we're going to have a park out there, and just do the
basic amenity park on the west end, the city's got to move now or not at all.
$150,000.00 won't do it. And could you just address that issue a little bit? 1
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: ISTEA GRANT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE OVER HIGHWAY 5, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: ...we need to build a series of three bridges...on Highway 5. And
there's a significant city share...If this winds up with the Morrish plan, it
fits in well with the school site. It fits in well with the Highway 5 plan
we've done to date. But if we look towards asking ISTEA funding for those
bridges and trails...Highway 5 and you have each access boulevard on each side.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Send them $3,000.00 and just give a shot at it. It
seems worth it. 1
Paul Krauss: It may be a more...project out there, I don't know.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there could be. For instance where we haven't looked at
with the Park and Ride in connection with the existing TH 101 Legion site and
things of that nature.
Paul Krauss: Mayor, the reason why we did the...is I still don't have the
agreements of Mortenson, Southwest Metro, the Legion for commercial
development...That's why I'm real hesitant to represent that. Otherwise it's a
perfect project.
Don Ashworth: What about TH 101? The project, the feasibility study we just
authorized.
Paul Krauss: Well, that's another one. Now what we have to do is...
Mayor Chmiel: You're right. That's exactly right and I think with all that
information that I brought back, you should have that in there and it
specifically spells it out. All those criterias. 1
Paul Krauss: Why don't we plan on, we'll touch base with you...
1
1
45
1
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
II voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
I City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 46
1
PARK AND RECREATION y M
COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL A 27, 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, and Dave Koubsky
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Lash
t STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer,
Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berg moved, Koubsky seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated March 23, 1993 as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Schroers: I guess Mr. Bob Zydowsky under item A is not present at the
moment so we can move to B, Jack Jensen.
Jack Jensen: Hi. I'm Jack Jensen. I'm President of the Chanhassen
' Athletic Association and at our April 20th meeting we were in agreement to
back the recreation facilities that we need here in Chanhassen to
accommodate our childrens activities indoor and outdoor. The recreation
' center that we feel would, right now that would benefit us as taxpayers
would be the one that was proposed to go, in fact I believe it even went
before you and the City Council, the one in the TIF district. The one
that they have planned over there behind the Dinner Theatre area. And as,
' now I'm going to wear a different hat here. I'm also the coordinator for
the 9, 10, 11 baseball program and the City has a policy allowing
accessibility of facilities to organizations outside city of Chanhassen
' that allow Chanhassen children to participate within the facilities. The
City has been put into a real awkward position here in the last, I guess
the last week because of not, the guidelines haven't been really set up to
' who should have priority over the fields within Chanhassen. And to
eliminate this for the future we're asking you to come up with guidelines
so that city staff and the people in the organizations that are outside
City Hall here, you know really don't have any conflicts with each other
' of who should have rights to what fields and who should have first
priority, second priority, and so forth. And we would like you to, I
guess we'd like to make a motion for you to set these policies and
' guidelines regarding such facilities, whether it be indoor or outdoor
facilities. One of the things that would help with our outdoor facilities
if we had, with the number of children coming up here in the baseball
program, the younger kids are growing into a little bit older kids and
1 we're at a point now where the Little League aged children are at the
seams here of being able to have fields available for actually baseball to
be played on here within Chanhassen. There's one field over at Lake Ann
' No. 2 and then there's Meadow Green can accommodate it but there's also
soccer fields down there that get played. There's girls softball that
gets played there and so it's sharing these fields with outside
organizations and also these inside organizations. So what we would like,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 2
as the coordinator of this age group, is to have in place by next year, is
to have two Little League fields and an older children's field,
' preferrably a 12 and 13 year old field for that size under the AAU
guidelines to be built or converted from existing fields that are here and
present now within the city of Chanhassen. We feel that we have within
the neighborhood parks I know that there's been some indication that some
of the neighborhood parks that we're not allowed to play on, or we've been
requested not to play on these fields because of parking problems and so
forth. Curry Farms and Marsh Lake is kind of a headache because of teams
coming in and out of there, it's really not much of a, I mean you can't
even turn around in there to utilize that field. Sunset Ridge over in the
Joe Miller development. Be able to utilize that field but to have that
' parking, spaces really need to be built so people can access those without
having to really go through the neighborhoods to where that might be
bothersome for those people. Another project that I know has been, I
don't know if it's been before you but it's a city center project and
possibly acquiring that land north of the tennis courts there to also, and
rearrange that whole facility up there to accommodate more baseball fields
and soccer fields within that piece of property up there. Another one is
to maybe redesign Meadow Green. Now these are ideas that I'm throwing out
to you. Meadow Green so it can be reconstructed so you could get better
use of that large, flat field that we have there to accommodate soccer and
' girls softball and boys baseball and the little kids programs too. Just
for number of purposes, last year in basketball we had 300 children
participating in grades 1 thru 4. Because we didn't have the facilities,
and Fred you know how bad facilities. How crammed it was for time and the
' kids had late times for the younger kids to be able to play within this
one gymnasium here. We had programs for 1 thru 4 and we cut out of our
5th grade program and had those children go down into the Chaska program.
Well we're going to, I mean with the growth of the children coming up,
we're forced to, if we don't get the gymnasiums and we need it before
really the elementary school gets built here in Chanhassen because of the
numbers coming up, we could really use two full sized gymnasiums for the
' programs that we have for the indoor use of the children and the adults.
The facility would not only be for children but it would be for adults.
But the children would use it at the earlier times and the adults can use
' it at the later times. That would be our recommendation. But by the time
that the school gets built, we'll need that facility also to use because
of the growth and the children within the area. Right now baseball
fields, I can go back to the baseball fields here. I guess this is gym
hours. Right now we have 43 hours of gym time available to us over at
that school and by the fall of 1994 we're going to need 83 hours of gym
time because of the growth that has been projected, not only by the city
' but through our own organization. What has we've seen increased over the
years. So I guess I'll leave it at that. It's just that we need to have
these, we'd like to have the baseball fields and softball fields converted
or built by next summer so we can accommodate our growth here. And then
the basketball and indoor facilities, you know hopefully by the fall of
'94, if that's a feasible thing with the recreation center. That's all
' I've got to say.
Schroers: Okay, thank you very much. We have been aware for quite some
time of the community's needs to develop youth activity areas, especially
for organized activities. We have acquired a parcel of property called
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
April 27, 1993 - Page 3
Bandimere which is 33 acres and the intent of that ropert or use of the
P Y�
property is to accommodate organized youth activities. The problem we
have with it is that the funds for developing it aren't readily available.'
We're working on it and trying to make it so. As far as scheduling for
the existing facilities that we have, park staff normally does that
scheduling because they have a better awareness of what the uses are and
what the needs of the uses are. I think that we would be looking to staff'
for direction as to whether or not we can accommodate some of these
requests.
Hoffman: It would be a position of staff that the policies I think what
Mr. Jensen is referring to is that policies in regards to how those fields
should be allocated. We have had discussions in regard to the Athletic
Association and their offerings of youth activities are open to all
residents of the community. Some citizens of the community choose to
participate in other programs. You as parents, those of you who are,
maybe have more information than those who do not in what those
opportunities are. It has been discussed that that being the case, shoul
the Athletic Association get exclusive, if not exclusive, get first choic
to the facilities which the city has to offer. And then the other
associations who accept Chanhassen residents, should they get second
choice to those facilities or should it be, since the City represents all
of our citizens, should some type of policy based on percentages of
participants. So what we need, what the Park and Recreation Commission's
what's your job in taking a look at this is really a policy type of
aspect. We facilitate facility requests currently by taking those
requests, setting a request deadline, and then implementing a facility
schedulinj meeting where all the organizations who have requested time sit
down and discuss those requests and come to some type of compromise.
However, prior to getting into that meeting, those requests as they come II
in should be put up against some type of a policy. We obviously can't be
fulfilling requests for outside organizations. However, as the Commission
is aware, the situation in Chanhassen with the school districts and the
amount of neighborhoods which identify with a different city or a
different portion of our community, we struggle with those types of
problems or just ways of life on a daily basis. So that is where the nee
for some type of a policy comes from. We have families who participate i
South Tonka that would like to see perhaps games played in Chanhassen.
Then we have the Athletic Association who is feeling the crunch of
facilities and they're looking to protect the interest of their
participants in the schedule of facilities that they require as well. So
you're correct Chairman Schroers. To date the Park Commission, or the
Park Department and staff has been successful in making the compromise
happen meeting the needs but now we're to a point where we're going to
have to start cutting out some requests. And what Mr. Jensen is asking
you to discuss is how should we make those cuts. That comes down to a
policy issue at the commission level.
1
Schroers: Thanks Mr. Hoffman. It appears that we are going to need to
schedule a work session and request staff to bring the information I
regarding the groups participating and what their schedule is so that we
have all the information at hand so we can best try to compromise the
situation as best we can.
1
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 4
if ' our organization
Jack Jensen: We're all feeling the crunch. Not only but
the other organizations that also, you know our Chanhassen kids
' participate in. They're also growing so it's not an issue that's going to
be I think a short term thing here. It's going to be a continuing problem
as the kids get older and the numbers of those kids get older, to find
space for these kids to do. I guess we'd rather have them doing something
constructive than destructive so we're trying to show, give them positive
things to do. Whether it be sports activities or whatever. Just so we
can help them make the right choices as they get older. And so it's, you
know we're not the only organization that's climbing but we are climbing
at a higher rate. The other organizations around too, the soccer. The
other baseball organizations. Everybody's increasing.
1 Roeser: Are you satisfied with what Jerry has arranged for this summer,
as far as the ballfields are concerned? You know where he's got the
' sharing of the Minnetonka and Chanhassen type thing?
Jack Jensen: I guess.
' Roeser: Well, are they going to, you know we've got this letter that you
wrote seems like you were really dissatisfied with what the situation was.
But that's the policy that he's laid out. Are you going to live with that
' this summer? That's what I'm wondering.
Jack Jensen: Well Jerry came back also with a compromise with that
' situation too. So I guess personally I'm happy with what Jerry has
recommended but I can't speak for the other people within this age group.
There's 99 families within this age group so, that this is affecting so
I'm not going to speak for them. There's some of them here and they can
' well speak for that.
Manders: I guess my question's really along the same line. Are you
' asking for something different than what we've got in place for this
summer? This season? Because you went through a recital of a lot of
suggestions which seem to be quite long term and don't address anything
' immediately.
Jack Jensen: Well the immediate needs I guess coming from, you know when
it first came out that I felt and the group felt that I'm representing in
' the 9, 10 and 11 year old group, we felt that it wasn't assessed fairly.
And so that's why the letter was sent out to that group of, you know those
families so that they could see what was happening and to inform them of
' the situation and to let them respond to that situation. Everyone that
had called me, Jerry had come back with a compromise on kind of trying to
help both organizations and we're not against having any organization come
in here and play on our fields. I guess it's a matter of distribution of
those fields. Who should have the rights.
Manders: What was the compromise?
Jack Jensen: It was a 4 to 1 compromise in day wise at the Lake Ann field
versus, you know I guess what we requested was 5 days. The other
organization required 2 days a week out of that and you all have my letter
of what that had pursued from then. I think you have Jerry's reply after
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,'
April 27, 1993 - Page 5
li that and I guess I would just like you to make some type of guidelines
that for one it wouldn't put Jerry or Todd or any of the city staff in
that situation where we're all, I mean all the organizations and Jerry an
Todd are in a friendship basis too and we don't want to break any of thos�
friendships by having what might be a small quorum, or quarrel between the
groups. And you know we're looking out for the best interest of all the
kids and I mean that's the ultimate goal here is to get more facilities sc'
we don't have to have these family feuds so to speak. And so I mean, it
ends up being that but you don't want it to be that. So we're just
looking for guidance from you to set in place so Jerry doesn't have to
pull the hair out of his head and look like mine. So he's got an easier II
way to deal with it and so the organizations all know where they stand and
what they, you know if somebody else becomes in my position or one of the"
other positions in these other organizations, as long as the guideline's
already been set, they can go to I guess this type of forum and try to
change what you set as policy then. Or they just live with what's policy '
and I think that's what we're asking is to have you set policy on how
those fields should be distributed and just so everybody's knowing going
into it here, this is how you feel and that's how, you know it's a done
deal then.
I
Berg: Are you also asking us to set a policy as far as gym space is
concerned?
II
Jack Jensen: Yes. I mean that's a, I mean we're going to get into,
I mean we'll need to do that too I'm sure. I mean the school district
right now has their priorities of who has, just for an analogy even on th€
baseball situation. The school has in place their level of, okay who has
first priority over the gymnasiums or the school facilities. They have,
you knoN the school district has the first. Community Ed sees to it that'll
that happens. The city I believe is the next one in line to who has
access to that facility, or those facilities. And then the organizations
after that on a first come, first serve basis is my understanding of how II
that works. But I mean there's a tier to that whole process and as long
as everybody understands that tier and agrees to that tier, then I don't
see that there would be any problems whatsoever with, for indoor or
outdoor space.
II
Berg: Because that's, it's a real different baligame when you're talking
about indoor space because like you say with the tiers, that first II organization, the school district has an awful lot of say in how those
gyms are going to be used that we have no control over.
Jack Jensen: Which is true.
II
Berg: They take a big bite of that tier. What we can actually do in
terms of setting any kind of policy as far as gym space is concerned is II
severely limited because of the district.
Jack Jensen: Yeah, but you might be able to, I mean I'm just using that
as an analogy to what they already have set in place. I mean for gym
space. I mean if it was a city run organization or building or complex o
whatever, then I think then you would have the presence to say that you
would have the right to say who has first priority over these facilities. II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 6
In case that that, what we're going to try to push for is that facility
being built for so it's over in that TIF district right now but if that
' facility was completed, then it goes under the guidelines of Todd and
Jerry's you know staff here and how they should distribute that space. So
I think what you would do here would be in tune, going toward that future
' facilities too and if at some time that the policy doesn't warrant or it
gets outdated or so, then there's a time for it to be updated at that time
too. But I mean this is, our needs are and our future, our short term
needs here too are to where we need more facilities and more fields to
' accommodate the youth here within the City.
Schroers: I think your request to develop policies is very valid and we
will ask staff to bring forward the information so that we have the
wherewithal to look at the situation in a work session or at a meeting
where we have a lighter agenda and see what we can do to accommodate it
and I think you're absolutely correct. This is a short term fix. We do
have a plan. Basically it is that Lake Ann is going to accommodate most
of the adult activities and Susan hopefully will accommodate the middle
aged groups and the as yet undeveloped Bandimere will accommodate the
' youth facilities. Also, we hope to be able to capitalize on future
development such as the new elementary school. A proposed community
activity center that would hopefully incorporate some gym space. The
unfortunate thing of all that is that we just do not have the funds on
hand to make this stuff happen right now. It's going to take a period of
time but hopefully there's something to look forward to.
' Koubsky: I guess Jack I'd like to thank you for coming in here and
letting us know at least a year in advance what your needs are going to
be. We've been badgering this back and forth for probably a couple years.
' We've seen this coming. I live up in Joe Miller too. I see the kids and
watch the development there. Some of the things we've been doing is tried
to maintain our current facilities. You know we're putting in some
watering at Lake Ann. We put in some lighting. We're increasing our
maintenance to keep our fields up. We know there's a shortage. When the
first city center proposal came around they were going to take one of our
fields out back here. We were pretty opposed to that. Currently they're
going back and forth on the Council about the rec center. I advise you to
become involved in that.
Jack Jensen: Well we were there last night.
Koubsky: I'm sure decisions are being made today. This is something
' we've been working on. I think the next step is one, we identified it and
we knew this year was going to come up and this type of thing would happen
this year. That puts us in a position where we have to start making
decisions on who gets what space and we're going to be squeezed tighter
' and tighter. We are trying to plan for the future as the MUSA line
develops. Most of that's already under development or plans are in for
that and we're working with some contractors and developers out there and
' arguing for field space. I don't know if we're going to meet these 2 more
fields and indoor gym space. I really don't. We'd like to. And I think
we need to work at it. At least I accept the challenge of setting out and
determining some type of policy of who uses what we have. And that's
1
going to be quite active I'm sure. But I appreciate the advance notice. I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
April 27, 1993 - Page 7
was kind of wondering when this was going to come. Thinking it would com
pretty early this year and it did. We're trying to increase the use of
what we have and maintain what we have and I guess everybody on the Board"
here is very receptive to youth athletics. Myself in particular. And
others. We're doing what we can. But maybe keep us informed too of your
intentions and your efforts.
II
Jack Jensen: Well I can give you some numbers in our baseball program.
Last year we had around 490 kids in the program. This year we have 730
kids in the program. So you can see the increase in the numbers that hal
gone up. So it's, we might not have had the problem last year but we
definitely do have one this year and we just see it getting worst because
the numbers of that age group are coming up and you know, you can only
play so much on the little fields. I mean those can accommodate the II
younger children. The T- ballers, the ragballers, the pee weers, but as
they get older than that, there's only certain fields within the city
right now that can accommodate hard baseball or the older girls softball."
So there's not enough of those.
Koubsky: Yeah, those are very few. Yeah, we've got 3 more items for lani
development tonight so we've watched it come.
Jack Jensen: So we would, I mean we would also like to have your support"
too in pushing the Council because when I went to the Council last night,
they said well bring it up before the HRA. So we'll make that
presentation with them also but we'd like to have your support in trying
to persuade maybe the Council to you know, from a larger perspective, not"
just from an individual group here, but from you know, I mean from you as
member here too. We'd appreciate that support if we could get that.
Schroers: Did you feel that the Council gave you a negative response to II
your request?
Jack Jensen: No. 1
Schroers: They were supportive?
Jack Jensen: They were all in favor of having a facility. Some didn't II
know when or where. But so we're going to try and persuade them to when
and where. And we'd also like to see if we can get some of your support II
too because they look at what you recommend to them too. I mean that's.
Schroers: I think that everyone here is very much in favor and would
offer their support to the Council. In recent years the Council has
worked well with this Commission so, I think from a support point of view,
that's not a problem. And developing policy is needed as a guide but when
we do that, we have to take the entire picture into account and deal from"
a fairness situation and it's unreasonable to expect by setting policy
that everyone concerned is going to come out being a happy camper.
Jack Jensen: Well, we understand that not everybody's going to be happy II
but as long as there's a happy median. That's I guess, that's our goal so
like I say these family feuds don't happen. And we don't put the extra
pressure on the staff here in the recreation department to try and work I
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 8
out, especially between friendships I think is one thing too. You know
it's even tougher to go and not agree with some, you know everybody's got
their own opinions on everything too so it's, and people just have to
realize, okay you have your opinion. His opinion and we just have to, if
we know that there's a guideline that we all have to adhere to or at least
have some guidance within the staff and then I believe the conflicts won't
even arise.
Schroers: Because that would be an ideal situation.
1 Jack Jensen: Yeah, so alright. Thanks.
' Schroers: Thanks a lot Jack. Is there anyone else in the audience that
wishes to address the commission this evening on the same topic?
Jim Bergeson: My name is Jim Bergeson. I live at 1661 Wood Duck Lane in
Chanhassen and I have two children that are in the South Tonka Little
League program. I also am on the Board of South Tonka Little League. I
found out that there was a chance that we might not be getting the two
' fields that we had last year just recently so I wanted to come down and at
least share some things with you folks so that you know where South Tonka
Little League is coming from. This year there's 170 children that are
' from the Chanhassen area that are part of the South Tonka Little League.
We started our planning for the 1993 baseball season last fall and some of
that planning involved finding some additional way to play all the games
that we want to play. We lost a field at Minnewashta because of the
1 remodeling that's going on at Minnewashta School. We also lost a field
called Tonka Mens Club field because of a change in ownership there. So
to accommodate that...we have instituted playing games on Saturdays.
' Again, to make up for the loss of those two fields. We also wanted to
make sure that the Chanhassen Athletic Association was aware of what we
were doing. We did change our league organization a little bit. We went
' from basically having 3 different leagues to 5 leagues now. We broke
up...7, 8 and 9, 10, and then 11 and 12. There's two 11 and 12 year old
leagues. Communicated that to CAA late last year again so that we could
be sharing information back and forth so that everybody knew what everyone
was doing as far as baseball was concerned. I understand that there was a
timeline established for making a request for this year's fields so that
that request was made and I think we made it in the timeline that was set.
' Last year was the first year that we brought the Chanhassen kids back home
so to speak to play games at Lake Ann. And I haven't taken any polls but
I'm sure that most of the parents were very happy to not have to drive so
' far. A lot easier on them as well as on the kids to play on their home
turf. If we don't have the opportunity to use the fields at Lake Ann this
year, some of the situations we would be faced with would be doubling up
games during the week. We'd have to go. Instead of having one game,
' start at 6:30 and end at dark which is 8:15 which technically is not a
full game. We'd have to be playing two games during the week. Those
games would have to start at 5:00 and again, they'd be shorter games yet.
I'm sure that would be a hardship in terms of the parents getting off
work. Getting the kids to the ballpark. Probably missing a few dinners
as well. Again, the travel is so much more convenient. I can attest to
that as far as coming to Lake Ann and frankly we like staying home so to
1 speak. South Tonka Little League represents several communities. Tonka
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 9
1
Bay, Shorewood, Excelsior, Chanhassen and again we're very, very glad that
we have an opportunity to play down here. That's all I want to say,
thanks.
Berg: I have a quick question. I don't know if you have this number or
not. There are 170 Chan kids in your program. I'm assuming, or I'm not ,
assuming anything. Do most of those kids then, will they be playing in
Chanhassen, like at Lake Ann?
Jim Bergeson: This year there will be 68 kids playing in the Major A and"
Major B at Lake Ann. That's due to the type of field that is at Lake Ann.
Berg: How many wouldn't be Chanhassen kids? How many non - Chanhassen 1
residents would be playing at Lake Ann?
Jim Bergeson: It would be, the difference Bill between the total A and B '
68. What is our total A and B?
Bill Kolopolus: I guess I should introduce myself and let you in on some
background. I'm Bill Kolopolus. The other Chairman of South Tonka Littl
League's program.
Jim Bergeson: I'll yield to Bill.
Bill Kolopolus: Okay. When we understood the field scheduling problems
that we were going to have, you know our meeting that we had I believe it ,
was on the 23rd of March here with Jerry. We realized then that even
though we didn't know what Jack's final numbers were going to be, they
were growing. He was still registering and it was going to grow so our
philosophy became one to request only the minimal amount of field space w�
really required. Matching up the major league divisions, which fit very
nicely on Lake Ann 2. That's a very nice field for major league play. I
has a big mound, etc. So the Major A and B's were the only divisions tha
we scheduled and we maxed out all of our field scheduling elsewhere to
make as much room as we could for the Chanhassen program. To answer your
question directly though, the Major A and 8, we don't know until we
actually go through the drafting process where the players are coming
from. Okay. As it turns out we're about somewhere in the neighborhood of
50% Chanhassen kids in that league. Okay. But whether or not they play
there depends really on the luck of the schedule and where the schedule II
was when we drew up the games to begin with. In other words, one night
you could have a team that has 7 or 8 kids on it playing, from Chanhassen
that are playing against a team that's composed almost entirely of player"
from other parts of the South Tonka community as it were. Okay. Other
nights the bounds could be different. So to answer your question, it's
really hit or miss as far as that goes but sometime during the season
those children from Chanhassen cycle through and will play at least 2
games on those fields.
Berg: It's probably a statement of the obvious but then when they're not"
playing at Lake Ann, obviously they'd be playing at a South Tonka park.
Bill Kolopolus: Right. And from our perspective, you know being a multi
community program, we're sort of mongrals you know. We're really a league.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 10
without a country so to speak. You know we rely on the support of all the
communities that participate in our program to help us out with available
field space. Now up to this point in time, in fact until last year we
didn't make any demands on Chanhassen at all and I was Chairman of the
League last year as well in the Major League division and I got numerous
requests from Chanhassen parents to, you know complaining about driving
all the way to Tonka Mens Club. The field we're no longer using but from,
the difference in driving time from there to Tonka Mens was certainly a
lot longer than they have to face now going up to Freeman Field. But that
' was what prompted the interest from the Chanhassen parents to see some of
their games played down here and we got together with the CAA and Jerry
and we tried to accommodate that request within our ability to do so, and
' not interfere with the Chanhassen programs that were trying to get up and
running within their own in -house program. And last year we didn't seem
to have any conflicts. I guess this year with your phenomenal growth
Jack, it's been another issue as far as available field space. I think
' that's the, that really, that just feeds back into what Jack was saying
earlier about the need for greater field space for all of the Chanhassen
community members that are going to participate in either our program at
South Tonka or the in -house program here. I hope that clarifies things.
As much as I can anyway.
' Schroers: Anyone else?
Jay Matronic: Yeah, real quick. My name is Jay Matronic and after you
get all the baseball, we have about 300+ kids that play soccer also and on
' the same fields and we're having the same problems. I think a quick fox
on that, the problem we see is you can't play softball and you can't play
soccer at the same time the way the fields are set up. If we can either
' maybe get some adjoining property or rearrange how we have, I know
Meadowbrook, if you can move the soccer field out a little bit, you can
play two baseball games and a soccer game at the same time. Now whether
' we have any adjoining property or we can bring in fill and do it or just
move things around, that might be a quick fix option. But we're going to
have problems with soccer this year also. We've got 15 teams that we've
got to schedule. Just to let you know there's a problem, it's growing.
' Soccer's growing big. Ball's growing. It's there. It's a problem and
it's a problem now.
Schroers: Thank you. Anyone else? Further comments from Commissioners?
Okay, are you looking for a formal request or action in the form of a
motion or anything on this? As far as directing staff to come up with the
information and schedule the work session. Do you need a motion on that?
1 Hoffman: A motion isn't necessary. Direction as to how you would like us
to proceed. As you can see, for a while throughout the past few days I
' thought the ground was continually shifting under me and I see now that we
still have two sides of the issue and I would suggest that we hold some
type of, this is a small scale public forum but for staff to make a
' recommendation to the Commission which is valid, we certainly need to hear
all of the concerns and the issues from the different organizations which
we represent as a city park and recreation department and commission. I
would suggest that we hold some type of meeting at a regularly scheduled
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 11
1
Park and Recreation Commission meeting if we can in that regard and then
take it from there as far as policy implementation.
Andrews: I think we have to look at not just baseball or not just
softball but there is, as mentioned here, soccer. That's a conflicting
use that has to be balanced and for us to prioritize baseball without
saying well soccer should have a claim or vice versa to the same space at
the same time on the same day. Maybe we need to look at this like on a
seasonal basis. You know the fall season, the summer season, the spring
season and look at what the requests are and what the total numbers of
people wanting to use the facilities are. Try to balance it based on
participation.
Hoffman: So I am open for suggestions on how the commission would like t
move forward.
Schroers: I think what we need to be provided with the current schedule.,
And the perceived needs and any other information you have from the
different organizations involved regarding their requests and we're going
to have to study this information and put it all together and find out if '
we can come up with a workable situation.
Koubsky: Maybe too Todd you can, this policy would be set up primarily II
for next year's?
Hoffman: Correct. ,
Koubsky: I know we have growth and just to take Jack's, going from 450 to
750 I think was about as dramatic the year before growth and I'm sure
soccer is the same way. Maybe we can get back with these groups and try
to get some projections so what we'll be making some decision on next
year's estimates versus this year's numbers. And then before we do make
decisions, we'll get everybody in here. They can justify their growth '
figures.
Berg: 1 guess I'd like to have enough data so that if we're talking abou
allotting 2 extra baseball fields to CAA, that we can see some hard
numbers as to the impact that that's going to have on kids in terms of
real raw numbers. What kinds of teams are going to be displaced. What
kind of numbers, ages, whatever. Who's going to be most directly affecteil
by that.
Hoffman: Jeff, did you have a comment?
Jeff Bros: Well I wanted...CAA and South Tonka, we're willing to do what
we can to help out to provide those numbers for you. We also know with
the redistricting of the South Tonka district by the National Little
League that's going on after this year's season ends, that South Tonka
will no longer be requesting to use Lake Ann Park...stay, not staying but
working with the Shorewood City and Park and they have their...up there. II
This year we're in a real...because we're in kind of transition here.
We've got kids that CAA we were not able to provide the program for 12
year old boys here because of the numbers. You get down 2 years and all
of a sudden you just explode and so we're right at the break point here
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 12
for where things can...so this year's scheduling...city staff, South Tonka
and CAA sitting down and making...and hammering this out and getting this
finished but we'd certainly like to help you people on the Board get these
things settled. If we can come up with a way of defining field useage on
a fair and equitable basis for everybody, based on demand. Based on the
type of field it is and the level of play that's going to be happening on
that field. These things need to be prioritized by the Association and by
the city staff. We certainly don't need 6 year olds up playing on Lake
Ann No. 2 with a mound on it when they don't pitch the ball anyway but we
' want to make sure that the kids that are qualified and would benefit most
from these facilities will be playing on them. The lesser quality and
lower, the younger the ages get, the less priority for a better field they
' need. We can adapt things like that so whatever help we can offer city
staff.
' Schroers: We would certainly appreciate the help. I mean you are in a
better position to know what it is that you need and what may be a
workable situation probably better than we do. And if you want to get
together with the leaders of your organization and formulate some kind of
' a plan that you think would be workable and present it to us along with
city staff, and if we can incorporate that into something that would
benefit us all, we'd love to do that. So feel free to put together some
' suggestions and requests somehow in writing, in a plan or let city staff
know what your feelings are specifically so that we have something
concrete in front of us to look at and plug into the overall picture and
hopefully find a way to make it work. Does staff feel that they know what
' it is that we're asking for in regard of data, schedules and what the
requests are that we need? As far as providing us with the information so
we can hopefully make an educated decision regarding policies.
Hoffman: I believe so. I want to ask Jerry.
' Ruegemer: Yeah. I'm under the clear direction.
Koubsky: I think part of that too Todd, you might come, there are some
existing facilities we're not using. Some of the neighborhood ballfields
' which has been up here before but maybe now is the time, as we set policy
for next year, to revisit those and look at the options within the
community and rediscuss it.
' Hoffman: Sure. Chairman Schroers, for the record. Mr. Jerry Grieg did
call me. He would like to go on record in favor of some type of
formulation of some policy as well.
Schroers: Okay, thank you very much and thank you to everyone who showed
up and voiced.
Jay Martronic: Just real quick. Just for myself. What does 33 acres get
you? Two ballfields? Three ballfields? I know you're talking about it.
' You must have a plan that you're asking for.
Schroers: We have some proposed concept plans and your testing my memory
now but I believe that what we were talking about was 3 ballfields, 2
' soccer fields, tennis court and then there may be a policy that we are
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 13
1
going to be addressing this evening as a matter of fact regarding tennis
courts so we'll see where we go with that. But I think that, weren't
there at least 2 soccer fields and 3 ballfields for Bandimere?
Hoffman: Currently there's 4 ballfields of varying types and distances
and currently there are 2 soccer fields. But with the development of the
Dole.jsi property to the north, we're either looking at that potential lan
swap or acquisition of additional property which would allow us to expand
those facilities. So potentially 4 ballfields and 3 soccer fields. ,
Schroers: We feel that Bandimere is going to offer a lot of potential and
solve a lot of problems and we've been working hard on that and it's kind
of like everything else these days. Funding. Monies available to develo
it are very limited and we're trying hard to work out some of these
problems.
Andrews: We're about half a million short right now to get started on
that.
Jay Matronic: Then what, how do you get started on it? '
Koubsky: It would require a referendum.
Schroers: We have acquired the property. The property is our's. It's
just to develop it from this point is a very costly undertaking and we
simply don't have the money. ,
Koubsky: I think it was about a million two. Is that what we were
thinking?
Jay Matronic: Of the overall...?
Koubsky: Yeah. '
Hoffman: It would probably be up to that point at this time. The
Commission addressed this the summer, this past July. You probably recall'
this survey which was distributed asking the question, would you support
the construction of Bandimere at a cost of about $800,000.00 at that time.
The response back, it's a non - scientific survey but the response back was"
approximately in that 65 to 35 type of range opposed to it. So at that
time a message was sent that maybe this isn't the appropriate time to move
forward with a bonding issue for that development.
Koubsky: Yeah, so there was a 65% opposal rate to that. You know they II
were favoring trails but that would probably require a referendum to come
up with that type of funding.
Schroers: Okay, again. Thank you very much for coming in and expressing
your concerns and sharing your information with us. We will do what we
can do and make an attempt to get some type of reasonable quick fix.
Hopefully it will benefit the programs. Thanks a lot. Okay. At this
time then we will move onto item 3 of tonight's agenda.
1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 14
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PRELIMINARY PLAT 8280 GALPIN BOULEVARD, TANDEM
PROPERTIES.
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. Commission members. This is a
proposal to rezone 31.83 acres of property zoned A2, or Agricultural
Estate to a Planned Unit Development. This is also a review of
preliminary plat to subdivide that parcel into 48 single family lots and a
wetland alteration permit to alter and mitigate wetlands. The applicant
is Tandem Properties. The current name of the proposed subdivision is
Trotters Ridge. Location is west of Galpin Boulevard and south of Highway
5, so this is just on the other side of Galpin Boulevard from Timberwood.
The official applicant, James Development Companies, 7808 Creek Ridge
Circle, Suite 310, Bloomington, Minnesota. Again, the present zoning is
Agricultural Estates. Adjacent land use, to the north we have
' Agricultural Estate, and a future single and multi - family dwelling type of
subdivision. We've talked about that in the past. It's the parcel to the
east of the Opus site, referred to as the O'Shaughnessy at that time. At
' the time you last discussed it we didn't know when it would be in for
development. That is also in for preliminary approval so you'll be seeing
that property shortly. To the south we have Agricultural Estate. It's
zoned for future office industrial. To the east, again Galpin Boulevard
and then to the west the City of Chaska and we run directly into their
industrial /commercial park. The comprehensive plan identifies the area
which this development is occurring as park deficient. However, with the
' current plans for the acquisition of a park in Stone Creek, which will be
taking place shortly, the future development of the elementary school
site, which is across the street and to the north, and the potential
acquisition of a park site on the property north and west of the site on
the Opus parcel, that is no longer the case. As you can see from the
diagram, which is included in your packet, this parcel is now nicely
located in the center of a lot of park and recreational type of
' activities. As commission members may recall, a sketch plan of this
proposal was reviewed during the Commission's recent work sessions,
specifically focusing on that northwest corner of the proposal. You have
' that attachment, or at least a reduction of it as part of your packet.
The question at hand was whether to allow this region to be developed or
to retain it for preservation. Essentially the preservation of trees and
' some natural areas. The concensus for preservation was communicated to
the applicant and they responded by eliminating that northern cul-de -sac
which penetrated that area and identifying...preservation. The contours
of the site in the plat does not easily allow for that designation. I
have walked this site and it's my opinion that the acquisition of Outlot A
is desireable for incorporation into the city park and open space system.
Dick Putnam is here. He's here with us this evening. He represents the
' applicant. I'm going to take off on a tangent now and as far as the
comprehensive plan, as it regards to parks, Mr. Putnam and I had a
conversation this afternoon. Staff time has, we've been pushed with the
number of applications coming in the door. I finally had a full
' opportunity to review this. Take a look at some aerials. Double check
that against my site visit and I think we have an opportunity to do
something really neat on this site so I want to review that with you.
' Mr. Putnam has stated that as far as the applicant is concerned, that they
would be conducive to that taking place. And what that is, you have a map
with the proposal. We talked about C'utlot A...piece of property here.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 -- Page 15
II
Within the dotted line here represents a wetland border which is part of II
this large wooded wetlands to the north that goes up into the
O'Shaughnessy property and then over to the Opus site. In some long range
thinking, to make that wetland area a really neat facility for the city ail
far as parks and open space, it would be the best thing to bring a trail
system down on the exterior of this wetland. Down on this property and
extend that up probably on street or adjacent to the wetland along Galpin
and then around the north side and connecting back up to the Opus parcel II
which you reviewed in the past. Taking a look at that, it would be my
recommendation that not only do we incorporate Outlot A but we incorporate
this area of wetland into that outlot and include sufficient land for the ,
alignment of that trail along that corridor. Again, I discussed that on
the phone with Mr. Putnam this afternoon. I would like to have him speak
in that regard as well when he has the opportunity to discuss this
proposal but I think that, in any recommendation that the Park Commission!'
makes to the City Council, that should be included and then we will pursue
acquisition of the property necessary to make this type of trail system
happen when we review the O'Shaughnessy parcel, and as you know we're
II
continuing to work with the Opus site. Moving on to the comprehensive
trail plan. That currently identifies Galpin Boulevard as a Phase 3 or
2000 to 2010 addition. With the advanced pace of development in this arell
and the pending construction of the elementary school, that obviously is
going to have to be moved up. We have the parcel to the south, Hans Hagen
Stone Creek. They're building houses, or building a model and will be
building houses soon. You have a piece on the other side of the road. W�
have Timberwood already. There are some other residential areas or
subdivisions pending in the wings. So we're going to have to allow for
transportation by the school children up or down Galpin Boulevard to get II
back down to those residential subdivisions. It's currently unknown if
that trail will be fully constructed on one side of the highway or both,
or if we'll construct segments on both sides. That being the case, a 20 II
foot wide trail easement for potential future trail purposes should be
acquired along the entire easterly edge of the subject plat. In addition,
it's recommended that the city require a 20 foot wide trail easement
between Lots 17 and 18 and to the rear of Lot 18 to gain access to the II future park being proposed in that area as I've just discussed with you.
The applicant shall be required to construct an 8 foot wide bituminous
trail within this easement and again, depending on which way we go with II
the eventual trail construction, that could change to a gravel or more of
an aggregate base type of trail. And that construction should start at
the street and then go north to the property's terminus so we can access II
the other property. That connection will be of great value to this
neighborhood and the larger community as they then find it available that
they can gain access to that park site. In discussion with the applicant
pertaining to this issue, found them receptive to these conditions. The II
recommendation as part of the platting of the proposed Trotters Ridge
subdivision, the following recommendations are made. I'm not going to
read those to the Commission. You can enter those into your motion this II
evening but they aren't detailed enough simply to protect the City's
interest as we go into the final plat approval on this site. Just to run
over those trail easement locations. 20 foot wide easements for future
potential trail purposes only would be along this easterly boundary and II
then if it became apparent that we would like to construct that trail, we
would utilize this easement for that construction purposes. The other is
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 16
an internal issue which would take place between Lots 17 and 18. The
' grades, it is the most appropriate for trail construction in this area.
We have asked that we acquire 10 feet of easement on either side of those
lot lines and then we need 20 feet on the back lot line of 18 to get up to
this outlot. So the configuration again, if the configuration of this
' outlot should change to include this wetland area and then enough property
to allow for that trail construction to take place in that area. We're
going to have to take a look. There's quite a drop in elevation here and
from the wetlands data I would think that we're going to need to construct
a trail on the high side, not on the low side. Now if we can get it on
the low side, that's probably a better situation for the applicant and the
future homeowners in that area so if we can accommodate that, I would
suggest we move it down but we'll have to make that kind of determination
when we gather that information. That's all I have.
' Schroers: Okay. Is there anything that Mr. Putnam would like to add to
this?
' Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Putnam. I'm one of the owners
of Tandem Properties. I think what Todd reviewed is going to work fine.
We've met with the Planning and Engineering staff and are sort of tweaking
' the plan that you saw this evening and you probably have in your packet.
We've got some small, older ag urban type of wetlands. One of them's a
pasture. Another one is an upland wetland that's kind of on top of the
hill. And then we have the larger wetland that's the one that Todd was
' referring to on the north. So we're in the process of trying to realign
the roads and work with the Engineering Department on creating road
rights -of -way and widths and so forth that will work within the woods.
' And I think the plan will be very similar to what you saw this evening.
Property lines between lots and things are going to shift a little bit but
the trail connections that Todd spoke of, along the wetland...the gated
' area where we're actually constructing a wetland adjacent to the wetland
and I think the trail that you talked about along that northern wetland
area will work very nicely with that. So I think over the next month or
so of going through the process, we'll be able to get a final plan that
will work for both of us.
Schroers: Very good. Thanks a lot. Commission comments.
Andrews: I've got one and that is, speaking for myself, I very much
appreciate the applicant's flexibility and willingness to help us get the
most out of this property. I think that's to be commended and rather
unusual from what we've seen over the last several years. So appreciate
it very much.
Berg: Ditto.
Koubsky: Todd, is there any trail easements on the Timberwood properties?
11 Hoffman: On the frontage.
Koubsky: On the east side.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 17 1
Hoffman: Not that I'm aware of. They either have to work within the
County right -of -way or go in and acquire easements. Those are rather
large lots.
Koubsky: And we're recommending for that 20 foot trail easement on the II
west side?
Hoffman: Set back from the home? 1
Koubsky: From the road.
Hoffman: From the road?
Koubsky: Or is that a planning? II Hoffman: Well the 20 feet would come just inside of their property line
and so it would be County road right -of -way and then 20 feet easement and
then they would still need to meet the building setbacks from that
easement.
Schroers: Is anyone prepared to attempt to make a motion on this? Is
there additional information Todd that we need to include in the
recommendation beyond the conditions that are listed on the sheet?
Hoffman: Other than including as part of the dedication of Outlot A, thail
Outlot A incorporate the area we discussed tonight. That additional
wetland area with sufficient ground to allow the trail to be constructed.
Other than that it's straight forward. We have not discovered through oull
discussion this evening any conditions which would need to be changed or
amended other than that one.
Andrews: How can we refer to this other area in our motion? This
combination of lots to the north of the property.
Hoffman: As you prefer, as long as the applicant and staff is here, we'll
both then understand what you're talking about. Outlot A to include, you
could say the northerly portions of the lot and we've got a lot of lots in
there but 21, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45. '
Schroers: Well if you said that you include the northern portions of Lots
41 thru 45?
Dick Putnam: ...question.
Schroers: We're just trying to formulate a motion that. ,
Andrews: People can read.
Schroers: Yeah. And not 4 pages long. 1
Andrews: I can put together a motion that would be short and concise.
I'll move that we accept the staff recommended as outlined with the II addition to the motion being that Outlot A is amended and identified as
the northerly portions of Lot 40 thru 45.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 18
Hoffman: We also have Lots 20, 21 and 39. Well, 20 and 21.
Andrews: And also adding Lots 20 and 21.
' Schroers: Is that acceptable with staff?
Hoffman: Yes.
' Schroers: Is there a second to that motion?
Koubsky: I'll second that.
' Andrews moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Counicl require the following conditions of
approval pertaining to parks and trails:
1. The dedication of Outlot A, and portions of Lots 20, 21, 40, 41, 42,
43, 44, and 45 as park and open space. This dedication is to include
' the staking of the property corners, and the intersection points
of Lots 18 and 19, and Lots 19 and 20. Transfer of fee title of this
property shall occur through an unrestricted warranty deed at the time
' of platting. In determining the credit to be granted the applicant
for this dedication, I first asked if the applicant was interested in
donating the property. Finding it their desire to receive credit, it
was calculated utilizing the City's standard of 1 acre per 75
residents that the 48 homes will generate a need for 1.92 acres of
parkland (based on 3 residents per home). In assessing the portion of
the outlot for which credit can be granted, it is seen that all but a
very small corner of the parcel lies outside the wetlands' edge.
Therefore, I am recommending that 50% park fee credit, or $300.00 per
home be granted the applicant for this dedication. The balance of
park fees being collected at a rate of 50% of the park fee in force
upon building permit application. At present, this fee would be one -
half of $600.00, or $300.00.
2. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement along the
entire easterly property line. This trail corridor is identified in
the city's Comprehensive Plan, and no trail fee credit shall be
' granted for said easement.
3. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement between Lots
' 17 and 18, and to the rear of Lot 18, and construct an 8 foot wide
bituminous trail within this easement from the street edge north to
the northerly property line of Outlot A. This construction is to be
completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street
construction. The final alignment of this trail shall be staked by
the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director. A
credit of trail fees shall be granted for this easement and trail
' construction at a rate of $10.00 per lineal foot over a distance of
400 feet, equalling a total credit of $4,000.00. This credit
represents 42% of the total trail fees which are currently assessable
to this project. In light of the willingness of the applicant to
incorporate the desires of the city relative to park and trail issues
into this plat, and for simplicity sake, it is recommended that a 50%
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 19
credit apply to trail fees as with park fees. The balance of trail
fees being collected at a rate 50% of the trail fee in force upon
building permit application. At present, this fee would be half of
$200.00, or $100.00. Trail fee credit being given the applicant is
therefore $4,800.00. 1
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Hoffman: In addition I would simply like to thank the applicant. In '
calling today, you expect to get the perverbial beating around the bush
type of reaction. Mr. Putnam recognized the value of the trail system an
was very responsive to my request so. -
Schroers: That's great. Thanks a lot.
1
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PRELIMINARY PLAT, ROYAL OAKS ESTATES, GALPIN
BOULEVARD, BRET DAVIDSON.
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. Commission members. First let
want to find out if Bret's here... From your letter you can see that Mr.
Davidson thought he would be here probably prior to this time. He i
requested that if we arrived at his item prior to this time, that we
postpone it. It's at the Commission's discretion, if you would like to
postpone it further to see if Mr. Davidson does arrive or if you would
like to address it at this time.
Schroers: Does staff feel that there's a conflict with this
recommendation and that Mr. Davidson was going to provide additional
information?
Hoffman: Yes, I believe that it would be best if he was here. He did
indicate that he would be here but I thought it would be prior to this
time.
Andrews: Did he express a wish to not act on this item if he failed to II
show?
Hoffman: No, he did not indicate that. 1
Schroers: Okay. Well, I don't have a problem with postponing and moving
along. If Mr. Davidson shows up before we complete the agenda, fine.
Otherwise we'll just go back to him at that time.
LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. t
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. This is a, if you
would, a cleaning house type of project. The work session scheduled on
April 13th did not allow us to discuss this item. However I had indicate
to Jo Ann Olsen that we would review it that evening so I'd like to bring
it to you this evening. As I presented in the attached memo to Jo
Ann Olsen dated March 18th, the configuration of Outlot E and it's
suggestion to swap Prairie Knoll Park, or portions thereof, for treed
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 20
property adjacent to Outlot E would be reviewed by the Park and Recreation
Commission. My report to the Commission would be that in configuration of
Outlot E, that I will review with you a colored overhead. I have that
here which more clearly depicts the proposed changes and the configuration
' of Outlot E. Those changes represent a series of give and take areas, if
you can decipher out of that sketchy diagram there, which on the whole do
not detract from the value of the outlot. Thus, no change to that
recommendation is being brought forth to the Commission tonight. As you
can see the colors here come out a little bit better. We've got red and
blue. The red area is located all the way out in here out to this point.
Then we have a little triangle of blue, a triangle of red and triangle of
blue and large area of red. All this red is the area which we're getting
larger than the original depiction of the outlot. The areas of blue are
where they're taking additional properties that were originally dedicated
as part of the outlot. Admittedly when this was platted 7 -8 years ago,
this comes very close to what the concept was at that time. And in fact
the exchange of the plan here comes very close to being a wash as well.
Unless the commission feels otherwise again...satisfactory.
Schroers: Okay. And you're not asking for a formal motion, or are you
Todd?
1 Hoffman: At the end of the item, yes. A motion has been recommended. If
there's any questions on the configuration of Outlot E, I will address
' those at this time. If not, I'll go on to the issue of the parkland
exchange. Commission members probably recall the reasoning that, why this
blue area is in there was because of the ponding. The expanded ponding
1 and it was the then statement of staff that the applicant just did not
have the right to go in there and take additional property. They came
back after receiving those comments in a written form from staff with this
diagram showing that yes, we understand we're taking but we're also giving
' additional property in other areas so I feel that this is again a
compromise which is acceptable.
' Roeser: Is that just a trail or what are they really talking about there?
I didn't understand that map at all frankly.
Hoffman: We're talking about land areas. The original concept PUD plan
show a property line along the back side of these lots. Simply a property
line coming out through here. These will be homes and this will be the
open space down in this area. When they came through for their final
' plat, with the changes in the alignment for property lines, there's some
minor changes here so if that is the property line coming out in this
location. They moved it in a little bit to this location. So the City
' gained a little bit of property here and gained property here, down here.
Loses a little corner of property here because of the configuration of the
lot. Now they're coming straight out to this corner. We're gaining quite
a bit in this area. This is all that canary reed grass, wetland type of
' area. And they take a little bit here for ponding purposes, which is a
give and take situation as far as land...
Schroers: And staff is comfortable with that?
f
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 21 1
Hoffman: Yes. I mean there were certainly implications here because of
the date over the 9th Addition of Lake Susan Hills West. That is the
reason that we were so particular as far as the conditions that were
attached to that Planned Unit Development 7 years ago so this is just one
of those steps to assure the residents who are participating in this '
proposal that we are looking at everything very closely and we're
comfortable with how things are progressing.
Schroers: Okay, well what I'm having here is a problem in finding the
recommendation. I don't see it.
Hoffman: Alright. I'll move on to the parkland issue. You're right.
We'll come up with one. I think what happened there is there's an
attachment to this page which didn't get on the back. Do you need anymore
information then on the configuration of Outlot E? '
Schroers: I don't believe so.
Hoffman: Okay. Moving on to the issue of swapping of parkland. As the
Commission may recall, that concept came up where a portion or all of
Prairie Knoll Park would be swapped for additional property contiguous to
Outlot E. They wanted to knock off a chunk or all of Prairie Knoll Park
and let them develop that into homes and then gain more property down nex
to Outlot E to save some of those trees. At first glance that sounds like
a pretty good idea. Unfortunately then you have landowners who abut
Prairie Knoll Park who are concerned about that. They bought their
property with the knowledge that it bordered a park. They would assuredly
have a problem when you took that away and put houses there. However,
even more important and the real deterrent is that the city does not have ll
fee title to that property. That being Prairie Knoll Park. It is simply
a condition of the plat that this land be used for park purposes. If we •
wanted to change the condition of that plat, then we would need to get
each entity who was party to that plat, that being every landowner, every
lot, every mortgage company, to sign off and approve on that type of land
easement for that change in plat. That is, at best, very, very, very
difficult to do and most likely nearly impossible. To get around that, of
not to have to face that situation, the city now requires that park
property owner should be transferred through fee title or unrestricted
warranty. But it's really not a feasible option to swap parkland in this '
particular site. So it'd be staff's recommendation that the Park and
Recreation Commission recommend that the configuration of Outlot E as
presented by the applicant be approved, and that the swapping of parkland!'
between Prairie Knoll Park and some treed property adjacent to Outlot E
not be considered.
Roeser: So this whole discussion that we had a couple of months back
about the trees and this lot, really there's no options is basically what
you're saying?
Hoffman: The applicant has progressed to some satisfaction of the
residents of the group in opposition to the 9th Addition. By working with
both the planning staff and engineering staff to do some custom grading
you want to call it that. Changing of the designation of the type of
homes they're putting in. Taking a look at road alignments so they have
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 22
done quite a bit of alterations to this plat to attempt to be sensitive to
' those trees. Again, that has met with some approvals to some of the group
opposing the Addition.
' Roeser: That would make the most sense to me. I mean even if they're
going to put a house in there, they don't have to tear down all the trees
to put in that house.
' Hoffman: Right.
Schroers: Alright. If there's no further discussion on this item, T
would move to accept the proposal as stated by staff. I guess we have,
yes. Come forward please.
' Robert Smithburg: Mr. Chairman. Todd. My name is Robert Smithburg and
I live at 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. I've been involved in this
project since actually when it was initially, the initial plat was
' proposed to you about 2 months ago and I'm basically here tonight just to
make a statement for the record, and that's about this proposed
development. And I guess I have to say how ironic this upcoming weekend's
promotion of tree planting, discount tree sales, celebration of Arbor Day
and celebration of Earth Day, Earth Week. It's ironic to me because we
have a proposed development involving approximately 1,000 old growth trees
and I said before, these trees are 12 to 48 inches in diameter. They're
' 80 to 150 years old. Jo Ann has gone out on the site with a designated
DNR person and the trees have been marked and platted. Many of these are
in jeopardy. Staff is allowing 194 trees allowable to be lost. That's
minimum lost. That's what they can take down for pads and streets. Beyond
that, just in the Chanhassen paper here last Thursday from the Arboretum
they show how you should protect trees through custom grading, which the
developer will do but his, from what I understand the way he's going to
'
custom grade, doesn't at all conform to the way the Arboretum suggested to
do this. So I just wanted to just make a few points here and show you
some of these things that I've come up because of this development. This
' is a 1968 aerial view of Chanhassen. I'm sorry I don't have one for each
of you. Here we have the Arboretum, just to get everybody acclimated
here. Lake Ann Park. This is private property. The dark hard treed
areas and the river bottom are here. Okay, number 1 what has been lost so
far to development in Chanhassen is Timberwood, Stone Creek, which was
quite wooded. Number 2 Chanhassen Public Works Building. I'm going to
skip number 3 for now. Number 4 hasn't been lost yet but it's etched in
' stone, proposed Highway 212 roadway. Number 5, proposed 212/101
interchange. Number 3 is Chanhassen Hills development, which abuts the
proposed development which is left right here. What you have left in
' Chanhassen besides Lake Ann and just a few, small percent, number of trees
left is this development right now, Lake Susan Hills 9th. And that's
central Chanhassen like this. Now I'd just like to show you a map of what
will be lost to development...The red are the trees that will be lost.
' And this is either house pads and street only. I haven't, to be fair to
the developer, I haven't put anything else in there. Strictly house pads
and streets. And this is the area off of Powers Boulevard. Which is a
1 solid wooded area right now but they're punching streets right through the
middle of it...So I, you now like I say, I find it real sad that this will
happen... A few things have happened since the initial proposal. The PUD
1
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 23 1
has expired on this project as of December, 1992. The City Attorney says"
that this land can be rezoned. I know that can create hassles upon
hassles but the option is there for things to happen with this property
and action to be taken. It is open to amendments and also Chanhassen's
new codes and requirements. They can apply. We, at this point the city II
tree code, portions of that will be applied to the development and we're
trying for more. I'm asking you, the Commissioners, to look intr. this.
To research this and see what you can possibly do to help save more trees
There are still options. They can make larger lots. They can redefine
boundaries again. There are still things that can be done. So I'm asking
you, the Commissioners to do whatever possible to help save these old
growth trees and these are an irreplaceable resource of Chanhassen. Than
you
Schroers: If you've been working with Jo Ann, you're probably aware of I
the fact that we have formed a Tree Board in the city to address exact
types of concerns that you're addressing here this evening. The problem
is that the Board is very new. We are still in the process of developing
policies and ordinances and until they have been established and are in
place, what we can do from a policy aspect to a development of this natur.
that is at the stage that it's at right now is really very little.
Robert Smithburg: Right. I realize that but like I say, there still are ll
things that can be done. And we have incorporated some of the Tree Code
into this project. There has been, the Planning Commission has proposed I
and was in agreement that these be incorporated and I'm quite sure the
developer will conform to this. So I mean there are things that will
happen. Without the new PUD, or with the old PUD that couldn't have been
put in. So what I'm trying to say is without a, well I can't say it
legally but I guess I'm just asking anything you know. Anything you can
do at all to help promote saving trees or just your influence. Anything.
Manders: I have a question. Do you know, or to your best understanding,,
what percentage of the trees would be retained and what would be lost?
Robert Smithburg: Okay. The approximate figures are 900 and, I'll go
down to 950 trees and Jo Ann's report, allowable loss is 194. So they
figure that many will go for sure. 194. The developer figures, in his
initial, he didn't have the correct figures. We all concluded it would b
approximately 30 %. And they've gone out. They have gone to the site. J
Ann and I say the DNR and they have must save trees in there and you know,
I mean there are trees of course that are dead and dying that will go
down. But I still feel that with influence, the lot lines can be drawn. II
think lots can be bigger in the treed areas. They've only lost during
this whole time one lot. It's 73 acres and 90 proposed lots. Now it's 11
down to 89. So I do think that lots could be increased in size to save
trees.
Schroers: I don't know how we can legally force the developer to do that
though since we don't have an ordinance in place. I mean that's one of
the things we are trying to develop on the Tree Board and different
numbers have been talked about. 20% increase in lot size to save trees II
and up to 40% increase in lot size. But as of yet, that has not hard and
fast so I don't know how we could require this of the developer.
II
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
11 April 27, 1993 - Page 24
Robert Smithburg: Well it's been somewhat of a give and take so I guess
I'm asking you to use your influence and ask or promote. Do anything you
can to
' Schroers: It's basically our common practice when a situation like this
occurs that we do ask the developer to use all necessary precautions when
working around trees to prevent construction and development damage. And
' also to be sensitive to the issue of saving as many trees as possible and
so I think what you're asking for is pretty much in place and pretty much
common practice but it's a good will negotiation, if you will, between us
' and the developer and there's nothing really legal that we can require of
him in regard to making him increase his lot size.
Koubsky: What's Jo Ann said with the expiration of the PUD? Because I
' know my deck overlooks this area. I know they're tall trees. You know I
sympathize with it. I hate to see these things go. It's hard to believe
that they let a development at that time go through the middle of these
' things. But then it's hard to believe Chan Estates went up through the
middle of these things and all this happened. You've obviously talked
to Planning you know Commission. What do they have to say on the PUD
' issue?
Robert Smithburg: Well, they left it, 2 meetings ago they left it up to
the, they needed to get legal advice from the City Attorney. Jo Ann has a
memo, actually I have that with me. There's a memo that does explain.
It's loose that this can be rezoned. Changes can be made on the PUD.
Requirements can be added. Stipulations can be added. So that has been
' legally defined for the city.
Andrews: We already have made a motion requesting that the maximum number
of trees be saved. At the last meeting you were here last time we did do
that.
Robert Smithburg: I know but I'm basically here to also just to update
You on this situation.
Andrews: There's been some progress obviously.
' Robert Smithburg: Right, yes. But you know I guess, we'd like to see
more is what we'd like to see as a citizen.
' Schroers: I think that we all would like to see more. Some interesting
things are coming to the surface as a result of the formulation of this
Tree Board and Alan Olson is the DNR Forester that we've been working with
and he brought out some good points. Everyone's concern is the mature
trees. Certainly they're the most beautiful and they're the ones we are
enjoying now. But his comment was that if we only protect the old growth
mature trees, 50 years from now when they die, what's going to be left to
replace them? So we're beginning to look at all stages of growth of the
trees and try to recognize the fact that we have to protect and preserve
trees at all different levels to insure that we're going to have trees for
the future. We cannot focus only on the nice mature old trees.
I/
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 25 1
Robert Smithburg: I agree with you there but also I have to take issue
with one of the Planning Commission member's statement. Something in
regard with this. He said that, I mean yes we do have to save all trees
but I mean myself and I know homeowners when you go into these treed lots
You hack out the underbrush which means you're hacking. When you have
stately old trees, you're looking at the, it's rare people look 20 to 30
years in the future. They go in, they're going to hack out every small
shurb and bush and small tree there are and that's what in there. These
trees are so large that you have inch and half, 30 foot maples instead of I
10 foot maples. These people, I know this aerial like the back of my
hand. These people are going to go in there and I did it on my lot, as
much as I hate to admit it. I went in and snuffed out the small stuff an
left the big, you know the large trees. I have since planted. I mean I
put in trees I want but I really feel in the long run that's what's going
to happen and I mean with much thought I believe 10-15 years from now
we're really going to regret this. I really do. So I really appreciate_
Schroers: Well hopefully this development of our new Tree Ordinance will"
help. You know what we hear a lot is, a lot of people weren't nearly as
concerned about it when it was their houses that were being built in the
wooded areas but now that the wooded areas that they're looking at, they •
say well...my house here but it's not okay for someone else to put one
over there because I don't want to look at it.
Robert Smithburg: Where the ones that are...a few ash and I've got a
great stately box elder. But also what I showed you on the map here. I
mean you should go over there right now. There's a lot of red oaks laying
on the side of the street...7 full semi trucks...were pulled out of there
All that's left...a perfect example. If you go in the front yard, all
our's are dead trees...which are left, dead oaks, house pad and then you
have a rim, small rim over the back side which was...I guess I keep
bringing this up to you and asking you to be concerned is I want, I'm II asking that the developer with these subs he hires, that these guys are
accountable for what they do and hopefully we've instituted that also in
this development where they are going to be held accountable for which
trees they damage. Because we all know that there's going to be a lot
:r:ore damage than what is allowable in this.
Schroers: Okay. That's also things that are being addressed through the'
Tree Board. Accountability and actually who is the designated authority
in the city that is going to physically check on site to see that the
general contractors and the subcontractors are adhering to the policies
and these are issues that are in the development stage but not finalized.
So for this particular development here, I think that we're very limited
to what we can do except ask for the developer's cooperation and share ou
concerns with him, which has already been done and will continue to be
done through the development.
Robert Smithburg: Great. That's what I'm asking for from the Commission"
here.
Schroers: Okay, thanks a lot. 1
Robert Smithburg: Yeah, thank you.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' April 27, 1993 - Page 26
' Andrews: Larry, I'll second the motion that was on the floor.
Schroers: Okay.
' Schroers moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the configuration of Outlot E as presented by the applicant
be approved, and that the swapping of parkland between Prairie Knoll Park
' and some treed property adjacent to Outlot E not be considered. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
' Schroers: I think at this point now we can go back to item 4 on the
agenda. Is Mr. Davidson present?
' LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PRELIMINARY PLAT, ROYAL OAKS ESTATES, GALPIN
BOULEVARD, BRETT DAVIDSON.
' Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers, Commission members. Prior to
moving forward there's an aerial photo which I distributed to you. In
error I drew a line appro•irnating the existing right -of -way line for that,
' at 33 feet on your diagram. The County is requesting that that go to 50
feet so you need to move that over. I'm going to put up an overhead which
shows approximately...The line you have drawn is this line in this
location. The actual right -of -way that they're asking for is that middle
' line. And then the additional right -of -way, in talking with Mr. Davidson
prior to the item here, this makes you go about a tenth of an inch over,
but not a quarter inch. Just slightly less than that. The letter which
' was distributed to you outlined Mr. Davidson's concerns...speak in
reference to those this evening. What the proposal is is to rezone 13
acres of property currently zoned Agricultural Estate to Rural Residential
Single Family in a preliminary plat to subdivide those 13 acres into 23
' single family lots being named Royal Oak Estates. As you are aware,
these 23 lets include Mr. Davidson's residence...that being Lot 1, Block
• 1. It's located just to the north again of the Klingelhutz - Rottlund
' subdivision which you have reviewed a few weeks past. And the applicant,
Brett Davidson, I would like to thank him for hurrying up his schedule and
Bettina down here this evening to discuss this with the commission. So we
ave adjacent land use north, agricultural estates and rural residential.
' We should just refer to it as Prince's property. His home site. South we
have agricultural estates rezoned to RSF, Residential Single Family. And
there is the date that that was reviewed by the Commission. February
' 23rd. To the east we have additional rural residential, and then to the
west, Galpin Boulevard and beyond that more rural residential. The
comprehensive plan identifies this site as lying in a park deficient area.
But again similar to the Klingelhutz property, Rottlund proposal, due to
the size we will most likely not consider this as a candidate for land
acquisition. Under our current ordinance we could take .92 acres of the
' 13 acres being platted for parkland. Again, that acreage is insufficient
for any type of park and again does not represent something which to build
off of. My recommendation to the Commission will be to accept full park
fees to be paid at the time of building permit application in lieu of
' parkland dedication. This application I think would be a slam dunk other
than the issue of the trail and the easements necessary. The
comprehensive plan does identify Galpin Boulevard, or County Road 117 as a
It '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 27
trail alignment. Current analysis to determin which side of the road thil
trail will be constructed identifies the east as the better candidate,
although both sides are candidates for that trail and again, as the
platting occurs in Chanhassen, we simply gain those easements for an
insurance policy so when the time comes to build then, that we have them.'
If at any point in the future of Chanhassen we wish to vacate those
easements, we can do so at that time. But during the platting process,
that is our time. Our window if you will to acquire those easements. Yol
have a developer and an applicant before you. They need to compromise an
offer the city some, if you would, conditions for what they are receiving
in return as well. To accommodate the construction of that 20 foot wide
trail easement will be required of the applicant. The easement shall be
granted on the westerly property line. That being Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot
1, Block 2. The alignment shall be included in the overall gradin~ plan
for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. Again, that bell
may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the
applicant.. Obviously they want to push those out to the road as closely
as possible but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail
construction and subject to the approval as part of the grading plan. An
again, planting of trees shall be restricted to areas east or to the
inside of the trail bench and then full trail fees shall be collected at
the time of building permit applications to assist in the financing of thil
future trail connection. Recommendation is stated there. It's very
straight forward. At this time I'll turn it back to Chairman Schroers.
Schroers: Okay, thank you Todd. At this point I'll give Mr. Davidson an'
opportunity to address the Commission.
Brett Davidson: Okay, thank you very much. Thanks for sliding the agendll
item too so I could be here to talk. I am the developer and also the
` in this piece of property which I guess is a little different
because normally 1 guess it would be a homeowner and a developer would bell
separate. We did the development under the understanding that we'd need
trail easement along the west side of the property and we oversized Lot 1,
Block 2 as you can see to 120 some feet because we knew we would have to
do that. So we added extra room in Lot 1, Block 2 for that specific
purpose. We planned on doing the trail easement all along on that one.
In addition, as Todd said now, the city is requiring or the County is
going to require an additional road easement so the total distance,
easement from the center road now with the trail easement would include 7
feet. I guess we had planned that on Lot 1, Block 2. Our concern, my
concern is Lot 1, Block 1 which is where my current house is. If the
house was further away from the road and it didn't impact the house, I
would be more than happy to give the trail easement. My concern at this
point however is if you do the 50 foot road easement, which is what the '
c ounty is going to require, then add on an additional 20 foot trail
easement, I won't be able to get into my garage without doing some monkey
rigging around to get into the garage. You can see on the aerial
photograph that you have, the house is actually not perpendicular to the I
°oad. The house actually faces a little bit towards the south which
requires, and it's south of the entrance to the property line...You can
see the driveway is right here and then you actually have to make a left
hand turn to, I'm sorry. Right hand...In fact the current driveway sits
just about along the 50 foot road easement which right here, and...red oa-
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 28
that we transplanted in here. There's also a berm through this area right
here which... If the entire 20 foot trail easement...the red oak would
have to be probably removed to get an 8 foot trail in. The clump of birch
in the back probably would stay, depending on what happens with the root
' structure...So in addition to this, as Todd said, the land north of my
piece of property is owned by Prince and as I mentioned in my letter that
You all have a copy of, and...Prince has an 8 foot high chainlink fence
' all the way around his property that is on the current road easement going
right through here...In addition, this is a wetlands area here and a
little bit of one up here. So from here, from a laymen's point of view,
' and I just don't have the experience to determine where the trail should
go, but it would appear that the trail would be better...north of my piece
of property on the west side of Galpin rather than on the east side of
Galpin. In addition to that, the piece of property that is on the west
' aide of Galpin is now under a purchase agreement with Lundgren Bros. So
they will be developing that into a large subdivision and dedication of a
trail easement at that time could, I would assume could occur during
i development of that piece of property. So my concern is, I guess what I
would like to see the Planning Commission consider is going ahead and take
the trail easement along Lot 1, Block 2 but hold off on Lot 1, Block 1
until we actually decide what's going to happen with development and
' what's going to happen with the future trail easement, primarily because
it's going to severely impact the home that's situated on Lot 1, Block 1.
Specifically it's going to, you can't get in the driveway. Or you could
' get in the driveway but what you'd have to do is pull in, back up, pull
forward, back up and finally get in which obviously as you know would be
anything but ideal.
' Schroers. Okay. It's unfortunate that the County has requested that
additional 6 foot easement for the road right- -of -way there. However, as
identified in our comprehensive trail plan, we really need to stick to the
' commitment that we have made there in acquiring easements. If we make an
exception, we open up a chunk of trail that we'll never be able to connect
which would ruin our entire plan. I think that I'm not sure why it's
' proposed that the better location for the trail is on the east side of the
road. It seems to me that the topography on both sides of the road is
somewhat similar and that the east side of the road is much more treed
' than the west side is. I know that on the west side there's a lot more
open areas and I'm wondering why we determined that the east side is a
better side for the trail.
' Hoffman: In conducting a couple of different site visits out there,
obviously as you know the comprehensive plan does not identify which side
of the road. It simply identifies a corridor. In fact, in many of these
' county roads, once the population is fully developed and the housing units
are out there, you may want to see it happen on both sides of these county
roads. So long term we'll probably see a trail on both sides of the road.
The short term you're correct. At first glance, I mean we've got a lot of
' trees on the Prince property there. Both sides are somewhat similar.
There is a large stand of pines just north of the golf course driving
range which would have to be taken on that side of the road, so that's one
' problem area on the west side. And as you get up to the, above the Song
property and get into the Carlson piece, there's an extensive wetland area
there. We would be out into the, quite a long ways out into that wetland
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 29 ,
type of vegetation. We would have to do some type of boardwalking in tha
area so I have driven it. Again, this is a first glance type of situatioi
but again, Mr. Davidson has been easy to work with. Congenial but again,
simply in the interest of the city, I recommend in taking of that easemen
and then just simply letting it lie dormant. When the time comes that
trail would be constructed, we would then need to obviously address the
situation as far as how tight the trail would come to the house. What
type of impact you have on trees. As you know, the city does not take thil
butcher type approach to it's trail alignments. This is the opportunity
to take that easement. At such time when it becomes necessary to use it,
we will then work with Mr. Davidson or the current owner of that property
to get that trail constructed in that area.
Andrews: I'd like to voice my support also that we take the easement. I
ray not be appropriate to build a trail there now. It could be something
that the house gets torn down for a rebuild or whatever at some time in
the future. I think it's in our interest to protect our option until a
point that we actually do build a trail. If we build it on the west sidel
and determine it's not needed on the east side, we would abandon the
easement. I think it just makes sense for us to take it and then preserve
our options until a later date.
Brett Davidson: I guess if I could just add one other thing here, and I'm
not sure exactly what city ordinance is but in fact the Lot 1, Block 1 is ,
actually not even a portion of Royal Oak Estates. In fact the original
plat that was submitted accepted the Lot 1, Block 1 and the Planning
Commission came back and said, no. You must, simply because we cannot
plat pieces of property with pieces unplatted around it. Not because I
was the owner and also the developer, but because it must be platted.
I do know that there is recent history in connecting the sewer and water.
That there have been some subdivisions, specifically Willow Creek which
developed by Lundgren Bros where they did not, in fact they could not
force the current homeowner to hook into sewer and water because they were
not specifically a part of the development. I guess what I'm saying is, •
I'm not even sure that city ordinance would allow, and maybe you could
know someone else that would know more about it than I do, could speak toll
this, but I'm not sure they can even allow a forcing of an easement on a
piece of property that's not a portion of the development. Simply becaus
the property's being platted at the same time.
Roeser: That's something we'd have to find out.
Brett Davidson: That's exactly right and I don't understand. Or I don't
know for sure. I do know that the Willow Ridge development had similar
problems with sewer and water and an existing home site that was platted
at the same time that Willow Ridge was platted. It was not a portion of
that development however and they came back and said no. You cannot force
that homeowner to hook into sewer and water. That is governed by
ordinance later on and we won't force that owner to hook into sewer and
water. So I guess I'm not knowledgeable enough about city ordinance at
this time to speak to it but I do know that there are, I guess I would be
there is some doubt there whether or not.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 -- Page 30
Schroers= I would think that that would be an option for you to pursue.
What we are charged with here this evening is to move on this development
as it's proposed and I think I had an attempt to do that and I think from
a personal point of view, if you want to pursue actually what the
' ordinance is and how it applies to your lot, I think it would be probably
to your advantage to go ahead and do that.
' Brett Davidson: If the Planning Commission recommends though taking of
the trail easement, and we in fact find out that the city ordinance would
allow for it not to be taking, what would be the procedure then?
1 Schroers: I guess I don't know.
Hoffman: As you're addressing it this evening, Lot 1, Block 1 is a
' portion of this plat. You make your recommendation this evening. If Lot
1, Block 1 gets removed from the plat, the condition of the trail easement
cannot be attached to it. So it's a very clear cut issue.
Brett Davidson: When you talk about remove from the plat, they won't let
me remove it from the plat because I initially tried to except it from the
plat because it's not a portion of the development, and in fact they would
not let me remove it from the plat.
Hoffman: So then again it is a portion of this plat and the city has the
' authority then to go ahead and require that easement as a part of the
final platting of Royal Oaks.
' Andrews: I just would like to say that I don't think it's our intent here
to block your driveway or knock your trees down but I think we're trying
to look at the very long term here and we've had enough experience over
the last several years to know there are many properties that we decided
' not to take an easement on years back that we wish we had the foresight to
take the easements for the future development. This may be a situation
where no trail is ever built here in our lifetime. There may come a
' situation where the house may be destroyed or burned in a fire or whatever
and be rebuilt and at that time it may make sense then to impose the
easement. Or it may be a situation where we build a trail and decide we
don't need it and then we could abandon it. So I'm not sure it's
1 necessarily a threat to your particular house at all.
Brett Davidson: No but you have to, I would hope you understand my
' viewpoint too which is, when I go to sell this house. If I sell it or if
I stay there and I sell the house and there's a trail easement, across the
driveway that says well they're probably not going to use it but they
' might, and the person who's going to buy it says, well how am I going to
get into your garage. I say well don't worry about that because they may
not use it. I guess what I'm saying is, you have to understand whether
it's going to be used or not, as soon as an easement is granted through
' there, it impacts the price of the house. I mean that's the bottom line.
It is a financial impact and I would hope you'd understand a little bit. I
feel a little bit like I'm being, not held hostage but almost in a sense
' that way because the land has to be platted for the development on it. So
it has to be platted so I have to do that but at the same time it's
financially impacting the home that's on it and I just, I would just hope
'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 31 1
that we would, and I know that sometimes things have to happen that you
have to, I mean people are going to be inconvenienced for the good of the II
city. I know that's going to happen. I've sat in City Council meetings
where it's happened before. I would just hope that where we could, we II could work around those and my opinion, like I say from a laymen's term,
it could be on the west side of the road and that would be a way to work
around it.
Roeser: But we're kind of in the same situation though. You had to plat"
the property. We have to take the easements and we'd be making a bad
mistake if we didn't.
Koubsky: We have an easement on this 50 foot extension to the county
road. What's that do to our potential on Prince's property?
Hoffman: As far as?
Koubsky: As far as trail.
1
Hoffman: Trail construction? We would have to work in,-at that portion
of, if we came to the point where we wanted to construct a trail on the
east side and Prince was still in his present home. Did not subdivide
during that timeframe, then we would potentially need to work with the
County within their right -of -way to construct that trail. The County has
obviously taken additional right -of -way to protect the interest of the '
road system as Chanhassen expands, so you understand that. But again,
forecasting what is going to happen in the future is not what this is all
about. As you can see, the separation here is greater than we work in a II
lot of situations. As you reviewed Highway 101, I mean the proximity of
the home and the garage and the driveway is much closer in a lot of those
situations than we have here so. Upon first recollection of what this I
housepad looked like, I didn't see a problem. Upon taking a look at the
aerial, there is some potential for some inconvenience there but to say
that it's too great at this time to not take the easement would be,
Schroers: I hope that Mr. Davidson realizes that what staff has said and'
that we are very willing as the time the trail actually comes, is put
under construction, that we look and it's not like a straight line. Chop'
and cut down everything that's in the way. We do everything that we can
to accommodate saving trees and working with the homeowner within the
framework that we have to best accommodate everyone in the situation and
hopefully we would, we definitely will continue that philosophy.
Brett Davidson: In all honesty, I really do appreciate that. On the
other hand, the minute the trail easement is approved, whether it ever
goes in or not, the value of the home goes down significantly.
Koubsky: I think as the...and I understand. I'm a homeowner. That was
the first thing I looked at. You know they ask it on everything. Is
there an easement? But as the city develops, if we lose a section, we
lose our whole.
Brett Davidson: I understand that and in all honesty, I mean it's just al
concern and I know you guys have to do what you have to do and I even
'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 32
appreciate the chance to address it.
Schroers: Okay, thank you very much. Anything additional from the
Commissioners? Are we ready to develop a motion?
1 Koubsky: I move that the City accept full park fees to be paid at the
time of the building permit application at the rate in force in lieu of
parkland dedication; and a 20 foot wide easement shall be granted to the
city along the applicant's westerly property line, (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot
1, Block 2). Furthermore that this easement shall be included in the
grading plan for the project with suitable trail bed being prepared. This
' trail bed may be meandered within the easement alignment at the discretion
of the applicant, but eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail
construction and is subject to approval as part of the grading plan
' review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to the areas east of the
trail bench. Full trail fees shall be collected at the time of building
permit application at the rate then in force to assist in the financing of
' future trail construction.
Schroers: Is there a second?
1 Roeser: Second.
Andrews: A point of discussion please. Do we want to impose grading on
Lot 1, Block 1 at this time?
Hoffman: It would be a clarification. I don't believe that you're
including your lot in the grading plan and that condition would not be
subject to Lot 1, Block 1. Simply Lot 1, Block 2.
Andrews: Thank you for clarifying that.
1 Schroers: With that then is there a second?
' Roeser: I seconded it.
Koubsky moved, Roeser seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend approval of the following conditions pertaining to the Royal Oak
Estates subdivision:
1. That the City accept full park fees to be paid at the time of the
' building permit application at the rate in force in lieu of parkland
dedication; and
2. A 20 foot wide easement shall be granted to the city along the
1 applicant's westerly property line, (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block
2). Furthermore, the easement for Lot 1, Block 2 shall be included in
the grading plan for the project with suitable trail bed being
' prepared. This trail bed may be meandered within the easement
alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but eventual alignment
must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to
approval as part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall
be restricted to the areas east of the trail bench. Full trail fees
shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 33
rate then in force to assist in the financing of future trail
construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Hoffman: In this type of situation, again we talk a lot about impacts
trails have on property. I would venture to offer the other side of the
issue. Many people, if we take the TH 101 again for example. If people I
would have looked for a home in that particular neighborhood and Highway
101 did not have a trail, many people might not be as quick to buy in that
neighborhood. Once that trail goes in, if that does, people looking at I
homes there then realize that they have an alternative form of
transportation to and from their home and thus would probably see that as
a selling point. So the issue of is a trail a benefit or a detriment,
that does go both ways.
Andrews: Obviously if you're taking a total of a 100 foot wide easement
there for the roadway, they're anticipating the...large traffic capacity I
there...
Schroers: I think that's an individual homeowner's, depending on what do
I want to say, opinion or what their personal preference is. I guess I
would prefer to have the trail...trying to negotiate my bicycle in
traffic... '
FIRST QUARTER PARK AND TRAIL FEE REVENUE REPORT, ENDING MARCH 31, 1993.
Hoffman: Unless there are any questions from Commission members, I'll let,
item 6 stand as presented.
Schroers: Question? Very good. '
REQUEST FOR SOCCER KICK WALL AT CITY CENTER PARK.
Ruegemer: In February of this year we did receive a letter of inquiry ,
from Mr. Dick Maloney of the Chan /Chaska Soccer Club requesting of the
city to provide a double sided soccer kick wall that could be used for
development of skills for the soccer group participants in the area. Thill
type of request was looked at and thought it would be...to bring to the
Park and Rec Commission this evening. There's benefits of the soccer wal
as far as saving on equipment. That type of thing. At this time there
really hasn't been a location determined. City Center Park was brought u
just because of the convenience of having multiple soccer fields up in
this area and it could be used by a wide variety of people. A couple
possible locations that were discussed were a dual purpose wall. One that"
can be used for tennis on one side and one that can be used for soccer on
the other side. There's benefits of having the wall this way so it's
serving that dual purpose and be a better economical use with having that 1
available for two different groups. That possible location would be over
by the tennis court area, City Center Park. So that would be one side.
If we're thinking of doing it for dual purpose. If we're thinking of
possibly just erecting it somewhere in City Center Park to get it away
from the tennis court area, another possible location might be to follow
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 34
the tree line over by Kerber Boulevard. This would better kind of blend
in more with the trees and maybe wouldn't stick out as much, if you will.
Better disguise itself. But that is a concern. Having the soccer wall at
City Center Park would be having to look at this type of a wall, I mean as
large as it would be as aesthetics. The soccer wall would be used to
possibly 4 to 5 months out of the year. We'd have to, then it would be
sitting. We'd have to look at potentially the safety aspect of it too,
having this wall out accessible for kids to be hopping around on too. So
we need to take a look at that. If we could possibly put that in an area
where it could minmize that possibility. I think tonight basically what
staff is looking for is, depending on the soccer wall and if it could be
' better served in another location or if the idea is very obvious at this
time, if we can accommodate this request. What I would like to, if we
could get the opinion of the Park and Rec Commission tonight and then
' maybe direction of where we go from this point.
Schroers: I have a question. How much wear and tear actually in terms of
dollars and inconvenience are we experiencing on...are we talking a lot of
money here?
Ruegemer: No. Not real significant.
Andrews: Is the person who wrote the letter here tonight? Richard.
' Hoffman: Dick Maloney. I had a conversation with him today and asked if
he should be present this evening. I said at the looks of our agenda, I'm
not sure when it can be on. At that time we were thinking 8:30...and he
chose not to come.
Berg: I guess I have a couple questions too. If you tried to turn it
into a multipurpose or two purpose, you're going to have the added expense
' of asphalt to be able to use it at as a tennis hitting wall off grass.
Andrews: And asphalt's no good for soccer balls. Or soccer spikes.
' Berg: So you're going to have to divide it somehow that way. And that's
going to be an additional expense. If you put it along the trees along
Kerber, parallel with Kerber, unless these are incredibly gifted soccer
' players, there's going to be a lot of balls that miss that wall and go out
into Kerber Boulevard and I'd be concerned about the safety there.
' Manders: What kind of dimensions are we talking about on that wall?
Ruegemer: I think we could probably have like an 8 x 16 I would think.
Stacking 4 x 4 sheets on top of each other.
I Hoffman: We can custom design it. Back to the multi purpose. We're
planning on putting a tennis backboard on the inside of that tennis court.
I So if we go to the, if you visualize going to the north and then west
corner of the tennis court and if you put a board on the inside and a
board on the outside. They could use it from inside the court and outside
the court.
Ruegemer: So there wouldn't be any additional asphalt.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 35
Berg: Okay. You'd lose a court but save on the expense of. 1
Hoffman: Well, if the court isn't being used, it can be used. It's a
multi purpose type of thing.
Andrews: I just want to comment. I've coached youth soccer for, I think'
it's at least 6 years. Never had a need for a kick wall as long as you
have at least 2 people. You can kick back and forth and do your passing II
and shooting. I've been at facilities where walls have been available.
What's usually happened is it becomes a contest of kind of like annie,
annie, over. Kicking it over the fences of the tennis courts or the wall
that are there. You know from my personal experience as a coach, I'm not
sure there's really that much value. I can teach all the shooting skills
and passing skills, which are even more valuable, better without a wall.
Accuracy and control are much more important than how hard a shot is II kicked. I think that's the main skill to be developed with a kick wall.
That's just my personal observation.
Berg: It seems like you can repair an awful lot of goals and nets for thl
cost of what a kickboard would be.
Koubsky: I don't think it'd be that expensive. ,
Schroers: I'm also wondering what it would do to a tennis game if you're
in there and trying to play tennis and somebody's on the outside of the II
wall just continually kicking. Bang, bang, bang.
Andrews: If we do have a kick wall, the turf will get very heavy use it
very small area. If you're talking an 8 x 16 kick wall, that's probably
at best a 2 kid kick wall. Unless again they're extremely skillful and i
they're extremely skillful, they're probably not going to use it anyway.
They're probably going to pass back and forth to each other or prefer to
shoot on a goal. Which is more entertaining and more realisitic. To me
valuable kick wall would be something that'd be about 100 feet long and
about 8 feet high and then I could have my whole team line up and kick on
the wall all at the same time. You know there aren't too many people thall
would come to the park with a ball and practice by themselves. I mean
that's just almost virtually unheard of in for soccer to practice alone.
So in my personal opinion I don't think there's a lot of value. From a
coaching standpoint and a skill development standpoint.
Schroers: Sounds to me like we're coming up with more negatives than
positives here. Is that giving you the feedback that you need?
Hoffman: That being the case, it would be my suggestion that we simply II
table this. Allow Mr. Maloney to come in. State his case. I cannot
represent his request, nor can Jerry. And we'll do that at a subsequent
agenda.
Schroers: 7 then is tabled until Mr. Maloney can represent his request.
11
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 36
IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY LIMITING TENNIS COURT CONSTRUCTION TO COMMUNITY
PARKS.
Schroers: Before we dive into this, I'd like to say that I don't know how
much time we've already spent discussing this. I think everyone is pretty
much of the general opinion, as of our discussions as of late, and I guess
that I would be ready to entertain a motion regarding this policy.
' Andrews: I'd like to move that Park and Rec Commission policy, current
policy be that we place tennis courts in community parks.
1 Schroers: Is there a second?
Berg: Second.
1 Andrews moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission make
it their policy to place tennis courts in community parks. All voted in
favor and the motion carried_
' Hoffman: Not done with item 9. I need some direction as far as upon
implementing this policy, the Commission is obligated to notify those
residents living near neighborhood parks, etc, etc, etc.
Andrews: I think we should do it in the Villager.
Hoffman: Submit an article to the Villager. That's all I needed.
SUMMER DISCOVERY PLAYGROUND SITE CHANGES.
' Lemme: Thank you Chairman and Commissioners. We have an item here on our
proposed Summer Discovery Playground sites. A letter was sent out to
' neighborhoods that were concerned on the issues of what we were going to
drop and what we were going to add. These were proposals for this year's
playground program. The neighborhood park that we were proposing to drop
as a site this year would be the North Lotus Lake Park due to low
registration and low attendance and the site that we are proposing to add
is the Curry Farms Park. Due to it's northern location and the amenities
that are at that site. Attached to the memo here, there were copies of
' letters that were sent out to the residents and I received over a dozen
calls from the Curry Farms residents. I would say everybody is in favor
of the actual playground program. However, there is some concern over the
putting in of a Satellite at that site. I think the issue has been
addressed before. The Satellite would need to be placed again in the
parking lot. From what I understand, because of the slope of the hill
going down to the park, the Satellite cannot be placed down in that lower
' level. My recommendation would be to discontinue the North Lotus Lake
playground program site and to add Curry Farms Park in it's place. There
are at least one person we have in the audience, Kitty Brattin who lives
in that neighborhood. Did you want to address or did you want to talk on
that Kitty?
Kitty Brattin: Yes.
' Lemme: Could you come up to the microphone please.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 -- Page 37
Kitty Brattin: I'm Kitty Brattin. I live at 1301 Stratten Court. I'm
directly across from the parking lot. Where the park is. All of the
neighbors signed a little petition. We're in favor of the program and our
concern about the Satellite. As long as there is some kind of camoflauge.
Right now the parking lot is right by the street and there are no trees o
shrubbery or bushes or anything that would camoflauge it or shield it fro
view. So basically as you go to the park, you cannot see the Satellite
and all of the houses, we're on a cul -de -sac and we would all see it too. I
So we'd like some kind of a camoflauge.
Schroers: Screening of some kind.
Kitty Brattin: Pardon?
Schroers: A screening or barrier? 1
Kitty Brattin: Some kind of screening. And it can be temporary. We know
that this is only 8 weeks but yet we, we're going to see it every day ever
though the program is once a week. So it's just that we feel fairly
strongly that it would be offensive to just our neighborhood, driving and
walking. So that's what we'd like to see. Some kind of camoflauge for
1 the Satellite.
Schroers: Do you have any idea what would be acceptable? Something like
a board fence around it or something like that?
Kitty Brattin: It doesn't even have to be, well. I think we would like
to see something like a mature, and my statement...mature shrubbery or
something that would, but even so, or even a, that would be permanent.
Kind of a fencing. But even I think for the people using the Satellite.
I mean we're talking, it is right out in the open. So I think...
Schroers: I don't know if the Satellite company itself has any type of I
divider screening. Anything like that that they offer. Probably not. We
have some that are in the open and they're ugly and we just have to kind
of live with them. Especially when they're moved. If it's only going to
be in use for 8 weeks. The cost of putting shrubbery in place for that
limited amount of time would pretty much be prohibitive I would think.
Andrews: Do we have any conifers in the nursery we could take out and
drop in front of that?
Hoffman: I'd like to go ahead and draw a diagram on the board showing thil
difficulties which would be encountered in attempting to meet that
request. Dale Gregory is here, Park Foreman, so he can also comment in
that regard...draw a diagram. We turn the corner and head up into the
cul-- de-- sac...entrance to the parking lot, as far as I recall, comes about
in the center of the parking lot. The trail system runs down in this
location to the lower level and then a hill... The playground is located'
down here. This would be the main activity center for the playground
program. The difficulty is that you have a very limited space here and
wherever you place that Satellite, if you placed it in the corner or in
one of these back corners, to be effective in screening you would need to
place a very heavy massing in this area. The limitations, due to
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 38
utilities, underground utilities in that area, visual barriers to traffic
' turning in and out of the parking lot, that type of thing, in my opinion
would not allow for the amount of vegetation you would need to plant in
there to be effective in incorporating any type of screening. Through
resident requests, on this side and in general resident requests, we have
gone and I had them plant some mature, you know taller than myself, type
of coniferous trees down in this location. And then we have installed
trees in this portion of the park so that doesn't meet the application
which is just being discussed tonight but I'm not sure that...
Resident: That's not exactly correct...Those trees on the right hand side
' are on the other side of...and the houses are all set up very high on the
hill so the trees look down the hill...
' Hoffman: The gentleman is correct that these trees are on this side. As
far as the maturity of those trees, they're not mature as...but they are
very nice trees as far as what can be transplanted into a park.
Kitty Brattin: Yes, but they're about this tall.
Schroers: They're 4 foot trees?
' Hoffman: They're 6 foot trees. The one on this side, the ones over here
are taller. It's rlly not related to this issue...
' Resident: I have a suggestion. I live on the other side of the park so I
don't have the issue of looking at a Satellite. What's being discussed
here and there are a lot of kids that use the park and I can appreciate, I
wouldn't want to have...In putting in trees and stuff...if the city feels
they want to use this park for that purpose, want to put a Satellite in
there, which maybe serves a purpose other than...would probably be a lot
' more appropriate for this setting...
Kitty Brattin: We'd really like to see it on the lower level but. Could
' you tell me maybe who, is it the Waste Company or who says they can't get
all the way down? I mean I'm not exactly sure who has deemed that that's
impossible.
' Dale Gregory: It isn't impossible but park trails are built, they're only
on about 3 inch asphalt and driving a truck down there continually, that
is going to ruin your trail. You can't take it off the side of the trail
' or the grass, we can't get up and down the trail. Or if it's wet, we'd
never be able to get up and down with a truck.
' Kitty Brattin: So how often do they have to come down to it?
Dale Gregory: Weekly.
Schroers: The season of the year is also very important. At this time of
the year with the frost coming out of the ground, the ground's soft. If
you drive a truck on a path, a trail that only has a 3 inch pad and you're
' guarantee you're going to ruin the trail.
Koubsky: And they're not designed for truck traffic.
It
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 39
Kitty 7rattin: But we would like to see something, even if it was
something as permanent as a fence. But last year, and I think the reason'
why there were so many calls last year. In error the Satellite was put .
there and I think those two can...Everybody called right away because
that's the first thing you notice when you come out on the street. That II
is true. The parking lot is right there at the street and there's some
trees but they're on the side and in the back. Nothing right in front.
Berg: I guess I'd like to investigate the possibility of a fence. Both 1
at Curry Farms but also from the park that we use that's near our home at
Meadow Green. There's the same situation. I've thought many times, thos
people living across the street. It isn't terribly aesthetically pleasin
at all.
Lemme: At Carver Beach playground park there is a three sided fence that 1
goes around where the Satellite comes in and out but again, that's there
permanently so you kind of have to weigh your options. Whether you want
to look at a fence year round or if you want to look at a temporary.
Schroers: Why don't we ask staff to check into cost and if it's, if it
would be cost effective and a practical thing to do, I think that we woul
probably consider it.
Hoffman: Staff has no concern about cost of constructing a three sided
fence. However, I do ask that the Commission weigh Dawn's comment.
You're going to look at that three sided enclosure for the entirety of thil
year. Where otherwise you have the option of living with this restroom
facility for the program for 2 months.
Berg: How do you feel about that?
Koubsky: Yeah. How do the neighbors feel about that? 1
Schroers: Would you rather look at a fence year round or a Satellite for
2 months?
Kitty Brattin: I kind of hate to speak for all of my neighbors. I know
that we all are pretty offended about looking at a Satellite for 2 months
I personally, and I think that's the reason why we thought about shrubberi
because you would be looking at it. Even something portable. Something
in pots just to put out there. Just something to break it up. I mean
we're talking, it's a flat lot and just the Satellite there.
Berg: They'll become real portable. Like in 24 hours they'll be portably
gone.
Kitty Brattin: Well I would say, I'd really like to talk to all of the
neighbors. I mean everyone. They all feel pretty strongly about it. Bu
in lieu of nothing else, I would be, since I'm directly across the parkin
lot, I would rather see a fence year round than a Sattelite. Let's face
it. Our summertime's are prime time. We all have, our houses, we all
have porches on our front of our houses. It's a very nice thing to sit
out when you get home from work. That's what you're going to look at from
June thru August is a toilet. It seems like that's, the meeting area.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
11 April 27, 1993 - Page 40
Everyone goes to the park. It is very nice. We all enjoy it. It is a
wonderful neighborhood park. It is used a lot but I think that whole
problem, if you do have the program, and we're not opposed to it at all. I
mean you do need a Satellite and there doesn't seem to be an appropriate
area to put it there.
Schroers: What seems to me would be nice, if it were feasible, would he
' to do a fence now and then some plantings that at some point in time inthe
future would grow to eliminate the need for the fence down the road.
Maybe by the time that the fence would need replacing or repairing or
something like that. Not necessarily repairing but replacing. That would
' be some kind of a natural screening that would eventually eliminate the
need for a fence. Do you see that as a possibility?
Hoffman: I would like to hear other comments in regards to my thoughts
that were so limited in space and that narrow boulevard there. I don't
think we can plant conifers or what have you and allow them to mature and
have our underground utilities and our sight distances. That tree's
1
either going to grow into the parking lot or into the road.
Schroers: Do you share those same concerns Dale?
' Dale Gregory: Oh I agree with Todd that if you're going to be putting
trees or shurbs close to the road, it's going to be very difficult coming
' in or out. It's not...
Schroers: Its creating a safety hazard?
Dale Gregory: If you're going to try to bring the Satellite to the other
side, you've got quite a hill that you're going to be going down. It's
not, you're going to have trouble there too. It isn't a good situation no
matter what you go. Once you get off the blacktop.
Resident: Can I make another suggestion? In the...looking at the board
' here and my view here. In the lower right hand...that gives you an
advantage here...I don't understand why the plumbing companies can't run
their hoses 5O feet.
Dale Gregory: They don't have that long of hoses on their trucks.
Schroers: It sounds like a good idea but it also sounds like a lot to do
' to ,just accommodate a Satellite. Do you look at this Dawn as being a site
that is going to be used year after year after year for this same program?
' Lemrne: Yes I do. There is a lot of younger children in that neighborhood
and we get a lot of comments throughout the course of the year that, what
about those Minnetonka /Chanhassen bordering areas. That people want to
see us offering programs out there and because I am proposing to drop the
North Lotus site, which is a Minnetonka /Chanhassen kind of bordering town,
I really don't want to just drop out of all my Minnetonka bordering sites.
And so I do look at this just by, even just driving through that
' neighborhood you see a lot of young children and the calls that I received
like the minute this letter went out everyone saying, where do I sign up
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 41
for the program. I've got 2 children. Where do I sign up. I did have a
real favorable response from people.
Resident: There's over 100 kids in that...
Koubsky: Sure. Yeah, that's a new neighborhood.
Andrews: I have two questions. One would be, is there a vandalism
problem when you shelter the portapotty from public view? And also, would
there be any concern from the surrounding neighbors that a child could get
snatched or whatever, bothered because again there's an area that's I
sheltered. Can't be seen. Would there be a concern that that would be
any risk to children using the facilities?
Hoffman: We would make the shelter just snug right to the restroom so
thy,: would not be any room to get around the thing.
Andrews: Okay. And we could secure it so it can't be tipped?
Hoffman: If we have an enclosure, it's probably easier to secure it.
Dale Gregory: It's easier to secure it. We're going around and securing"
all of them this year. We had a vandalism problem last year with tipping
it over.
Hoffman: Staking them down? 1
Dale Gregory: We're staking them down now this year. Hoping that's goin.
to help.
Koubsky: Maybe this is something we want to consider for all the parks.
Is this a way that we want to present it? If tipping over is a problem. II
If we do this here, then why wouldn't we do this somewhere else?
Lemme: I think part of it is just the visibility of the Satellite to the I
homes. Because some of the parks the Satellite can be less noticeable.
Koubsky: I would imagine.
Schroers: If it's in an open area, the wind can actually tip it over. It
doesn't have to be vandals so it's probably a good idea to at least stake
it or secure it somehow. But it does seem like a reasonable request to
put a fence around it.
Andrews: We could get a prefab fence pretty cheap I would think...
Dale Gregory: It's cheaper for us just to build it.
Hoffman: How tall is that Dale? 1
Dale Gregory: You'd have to go about 8 feet high.
Hoffman: Again I mean, I'm not opposed to whatever decision is reached II
here but when you put up an 8 foot by 3 foot by 3 foot by 3 foot
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 -- Page 42
strucuture, it's permanent. It's there.
Resident: ...suggested that maybe you add some trees around it also.
Koubsky: Yeah, that's going to take a while though. Maybe in 15 years or
10 years you're going to have trees but in the interim where you're going
to have a fence. That may or may not get spray painted.
' Schroers: It seems that putting all this together with Dawn's input, that
there's a lot of popularity for the program. There's reason to believe
that it's going to continue on into the future. It would probably be an
issue that would come up again and again and again. I would prefer to
attempt to fix right now. Let's fence it. Let's have park maintenance
staff look and to see if this suggestion is actually workable. If it is
' lay down the aggregate and pad and fence it and then plant some trees that
at some point in time will grow to add to the aesthetic value of it.
Koubsky: And as we budget for trees. I think right now it's, everybody's
vying for trees.
Schroers: I think that we could get some small trees and plant them that
will eventually make things, make it look nicer.
Berg: I guess I'd like to slow down the process just a bit and have you
' check again with the people who are on that petition. And just, you
wouldn't even necessarily have to come back in but at least get in touch
with Todd...
Kitty Brattin: ...somebody had brought up a fence but I don't really know
what everyone, how everyone feels about it.
' Berg: They might just surprise us and think that the 2 months of the the
bathroom is enough and I don't want to look at it for 12 months.
' Kitty Brattin: I would prefer really asking my neighbors how they felt
about this and getting back.
Schroers: Also tell them that very few shrubbery is 8 feet high so
shrubbery is not going to cover the whole thing. The area would still be
exposed. Well what you would have is a toilet growing out of a shrub bed.
That's what you'd see. I don't think that that would be a big
' improvement. You need to totally screen it if you're going to screen it.
Otherwise it's just a half fix.
' Lemme: I did have two callers from that area saying that they would like
to see it fenced.
Schroers: Okay. Well I don't think that this is something that's going
to take formal action on our part. We'll let staff work with park
maintenance on this and provide them with feedback from the people on your
getition and I think that they can hopefully accommodate what you need.
' Kitty Brattin: Thank you very much for your time.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 43
II
Lemme: Thank you Kitty.
II Andrews: Dawn, did you have any calls from North Lotus protesting?
Lemme: I had 3 calls and I did have one letter saying that they felt that
really the neighborhood in the past has maybe just not been notified as
well about the program. Because many of those children do go to Clear
Springs and we do bring flyers there and we do put everything in the I
newsletter which they acknowledged that they received. A couple of the
calls were wondering if we were taking out the entire playground itself.
The structure for the tennis courts. They were somewhat confused because
they weren't really aware that the program was going on. I think I could'
potentially offer this program again and do a direct mail to all the
residents in that area just like I did for this whole thing. And that
might be an attempt.
I
Andrews: I think that would be helpful. I think also with the new
Lundgren, you know the Summit and some of the Near Mountain development
that's relatively new, that would also be a service area of that and I
don't know if those people are aware.
Lemme: Right. There is a Minnetonka program that does run over at Clear
Springs school right after their summer school and I think that's where a
lot of the kids have gone in the past. I would be willing to try it again
this year with doing a direct mailing and see how it goes and if we don't"
let the response this year, then consider that there isn't a need for
that. The next closest site for those children is City Center Park. And
that's a really busy playground site.
II
Schroers: Is there anything else on your item 10?
Lemme: I just knew that this was going to be an issue and that's why II I brought it to your attention.
Schroers: Okay.
II
Lemme: Or else I was informed that it was going to be an issue.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
II
A. PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER.
Poffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members, you're all aware of II
the tour which is coming up this Wednesday. There's been calls made
today. Who was going? Ron, Fred, Jim.
II
Schroers: Maybe.
Hoffman: And Larry's a maybe. Okay. So I'll call the callers off and II
confirm Ron Roeser, Fred Berg, Jim Manders and Larry, do you want me to
call you or just if you're there? 1 should get a confirmation sometime
tomorrow. 1
Schroers: By what time?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
11 April 27, 1993 - Page 44
- oeser: Somebody, who called me today?
Hoffman: Receptionist.
' Roeser: Yeah. So you don't have to call me again tomorrow.
Schroers: What time do you need to know by tomorrow?
' Hoffman: Noon. 1:00.
Schroers: I'll try to get to you at noon tomorrow.
' Hoffman: Okay. We're leaving at 5 :30 tomorrow. Following that meeting
then is the meeting next Monday evening at 5:00 p.m. when the, not only
' the HRA but the City Council, Park and Recreation Commission and some
members of the Planning Commission will sit down and discuss as the only
agenda item that evening. The concept of the community center.
Andrews: What's the date on that? The calendar date on that?
Hoffman: May 3rd. 5:00 p.m. Most likely be held in the Council chambers
due to the size of the group that evening. That is all on item 11(a).
B. LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC /RECREATION SHELTER.
' Schroers: Okay, is there anything on (b), the Lake Ann Park picnic
shelter?
Hoffman: Other than it would be good news that they're back out there
v . -,r king . Questions from the Commission, I would answer those. Obviously
you know this project has not been without it's problems but we can see
the end of the tunnel.
Andrews: Has there been any comment about the...structural cracks there?
' Has there been comment back from engineering on that?
Hoffman: There has rot been an opinion back from the engineer to this
Fate? But that has been requested.
C. LAKE ANN PARK BALLFIELD IRRIGATION.
Hoffman: Simply an update. Innovative Irrigation, due to the rain will
probably not be there tomorrow. But we've run into a situation here again
where we're going to have some inconvenience with all of the people using
the ballfields. What we have asked the contractor to do is at the end of
' each workday they will need to backfill their trenches which they have
made, if they have made any. They're pulling most of the lines so you're
not going to see a lot of trenches in the ballfields but there will be
some trenches and...and that type of thing. Those need to be backfilled
and compacted. The area needs to be cleaned up and ready for play at the
end of each evening. It's a project which will take place right in the
riddle of the active...
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 45 1
D. PARK INVENTORY RESULTS.
II
Hoffman: No further information there. Upon those manuals being updated,
that will be distributed through your packet. II E. EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT.
Ruegemer: It's pretty straight forward. If anybody has any questions. W�
did, we kind of did increase slightly this year...performance was very
well received. Positive comments back on that. Easter Egg, the whole
Easter Egg hunt, I was very pleased the way everything turned out...
II
F. UPDATE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Hoffman: Unless I hear otherwise from the Commission, we'll schedule the'
second Tuesday of May for a work session to get through the next section
of the comprehensive plan. That will be reviewing text and taking off
from there and do the other things that we need to do.
I
Berg: That's May llth at 7:30?
Hoffman: Correct.
II
Schroers: Is everybody comfortable with that? I mean we're getting a
-.retty busy schedule here. Getting right into.
II
Andrews: Can you check with the Highway 5 calendar and make sure that
were not, we've been moving our dates around a lot. I'm not sure if II we're on the llth or the 12th.
Hoffman: The date can be moved forward. I don't know if it's a secret or
not, but staff as well is at a point where, as you can see from preparing
a report and then needing to take a second look at it and then come back
with a recommendation, we're stretched beyond capacity at this point as
well. So if you'd like.
II
Schroers: What works best for you? I mean everybody's got things going
here and we're really cramming up. I mean with the Tree Board as well, '
I can be looking at Monday nights, Tuesday nights, Wednesday nights and
every week. It's getting to be a load.
Hoffman: We could look to the second Tuesday of June. Or I could come II
back with an opinion of when we need a meeting and attempt to schedule
something at that time. Instead of working on a timeline, we can get the
work which needs to be done completed and then come back with a meeting AI
take action on that portion of the work which has been completed. We're
right on the front door of summer here and things aren't getting any more
comfortable as far as time constraints.
II
Koubsky: It would make sense to allow you to put together what you need
to do for the next meeting before we have a meeting.
Schroers: I agree. Running things back and forth doesn't make a lot of
sense.
II
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 -- Page 46
' Andrews: We're going to skip the May meeting?
Hoffman: Correct. We'll set one at the May, regular May Commission
' meeting. Establish a meeting that night.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
A. PARK MAINTENANCE.
Schroers: Actually, that is probably on there because of something that I
' noted and I was wondering if there is a schedule for maintenance on some
of our trails. I know that we have a major focus on our ballfields and
more active use facilities but there are also some trails that are used
quite a lot and my personal observation of the trail between Greenwood
' Shores Park and Lake Ann Park was that it could use some work. Some big
tree branches were down along the trail and the trail itself, and I
realize about going on a paved trail in the spring of the year with
equipment. That that is a no no, but I'm wondering if there is some sort
of a schedule in place or if it's a nice to. You get to it when you can.
Dale Gregory: We usually try to get around to all the trails and sweep
them... This year we broke down the Bobcat. We broke down the sweeper
and in fact it is swept but it's been all beat up since.
Roeser: Yeah, I rode this week sometime.
Dale Gregory: Well the branch was off. In fact I went and swept it
myself today with the Bobcat. We got...But yeah, we do go around to most
of our trails...That's, when you talk about trail maintenance and
everything else, if any of you have walked that trail, look at that trail,
1 there are some bad cracks...and that's really a wet area. That's a trail
that's...
Schroers: Well I'm personally quite familiar with that trail. And as
' were continuing, I mean everytime we come to a meeting here, there's more
facilities. More expansion. More this. Is park maintenance going to be
able to continue to meet the maintenance needs of the facilities that are
currently in use? And what are we going to need to do to address future
needs?
' Dale Gregory: ...updated, I used to have 3 1/2. Well actually I've got
3. I've got 1 person that takes care strictly of the downtown area and
I usually have 3 1/2. Now we've gone to another full time...year round.
That works pretty good through the winter. That takes care of all our
' skating rinks and everything else. And most of our summer work then...
I've got 8 college kids and high school kids that I bring on through the
summer. And that's up too from last year. We had to just basically keep
' up with it. Where we're running into the problem is the park development
and everything else. My guys can be putting in the play equipment and
everything else but the...and things like that where I end up going back
to the maintenance department and try to get people that are heavy
equipment operators and graders and loaders and stuff out there to help
develop, they're getting taxed more all the time with this stuff. They
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 47
have to do and we're just, we're running short... It's getting tougher II
all the time to keep up with...
Schroers: Well that was the origin of this concern because I'm dealing
with a lot of the same issues and my issues are that I can't get help tha
in order to get completed what I'm being asked to get accomplished and
it's a difficult situation to work under and I don't think it's fair and II
reasonable for someone to just go ahead and develop and develop and
develop and dump all these new areas of responsibility on an existing work
force that is way over taxed. So that's why this came up and it
definitely was not intended to scrutinize the maintenance. Park
maintenance. It was to acquire information regarding needs for future an
it's good to hear, it sounds like you're pretty comfortable with what you
have so far. '
Dale Gregory: Yeah, on the maintenance end of it. I can handle real good
with the seasons because they take care of all my grass cuttings, the
ballfields, the garbage collection and all the day to day... My full timil
employees last year and that, they did nothing but put play equipment in
and I know some of them were upset because they...but we had a lot of play
equipment sitting out there. And like I say, basically that's all they
did was put play equipment in. And like I say with the development of th
park and...that's all I have my full time guys doing.
Schroers: So at some point in time are you saying that the need to
acquire another experienced, full time operator is reasonable?
Dale Gregory: The day's going to be coming very shortly that we can be II
looking at another full time person. I have, I just put out a survey to
30 cities basically getting information as to employees, amount of parks,
amount of parkland...and as soon as I get that all put together, I'll give"
it to Todd. It's real interesting when you start comparing some of these
other cities. The budgets they have that they're working on with the
amount of people and the amount of land they have.
Schroers: And everything that you do snowballs. If you get an additional
full time experienced equipment operator, then do you have the equipment in
for them to operate?
Dale Gregory: That's right. With the amount of park that we keep adding,
we're going to have to continually add equipment. We're mowing right now"
we've got that one large lawnmower. That Toro large, it takes up 17 feet
at a time. If we didn't have that, we'd be dead in the water because
we've got that and all the other ones, we've got 3 other Toro's that are
going basically every day.
Schroers: And you're aware of the process and how long everything takes
so you know, when you know what your needs are and if you can let staff
know so they can bring it to us as soon as possible, the more time we hav
to work on it, probably the less time you're going to be waiting.
Dale Gregory: This year...I'm going to have him, basically we're going ti
try to hit every ballfield in the city on a daily basis. Instead of Lake
Ann being a daily basis...twice a week or stuff like that. They're
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 48
' basically going to be hit every day. Every ballfield so whether the girls
play at Chaparral or wherever they're playing, every field should be ready
to play.
Schroers: I didn't mean to cut you off Todd.
Hoffman: No. Just a side note that something Commissioners can, a simple
' thing you can assist in this, and Dale can contend to this. Ever since
the 580, the Toro 580, the big one, ever since that thing was purchased,
it's been a god send for the park maintenance division but the Council,
' and I'm not picking on any individual Council member but they've used it
as a butt of a joke that that was an expensive mower. Never should have
bought that thing. The City doesn't need it but in fact we're going to
need another one of those things within the next couple of years so
anything you can do to mention to them about that one particular mower,
I mean we've gone to the point where inviting people out to see what that
thing can do. It's a what, a $50,000.00 investment but the amount of work
that you get done with that mower is just phenomenal.
Koubsky: $50,000.00 doesn't buy much staff.
1 Dale Gregory: No, and I'm lucky enough, the person I have running it.
I've got one person in the summer, a retired mechanic and he's looking for
something to do in the summer. And I mean he's a great operator and that
' so I mean we're paying a seasonal employee to run this thing. And he's
good, there's no doubt about it. But it's cheap. I mean I figured it
out. We're pushing 260 acres, 270 acres of land that we're mowing and
' that's tough to keep up with that, especially ballfields that are getting
done at least twice a week or that.
Schroers: You'll get nothing but support for good equipment here. I
1 definitely know the value of good equipment and it only makes sense if
we're going to continue to expand in the park, we have to expand in
maintenance personnel and equipment so that's something that we have to
' focus on as we continue on this process. There's no doubt about it. So
this was basically an opportunity for you to come in, let us know how you
feel. What you want and give us a chance to go to work for you. Anything
else? Okay.
COMMISSION WORKSHOP: COMMISSIONERS ANDREWS AND MANDERS.
Manders: I just took down some kind of random notes here pertaining to
the facility and some of the other things that we talked about there. The
overall impression of the facility is that it's an outstanding facility.
' Price range was in the $10 to $11 million. It's on a 40 acre site. The
population of Shoreview is something like 25,000, almost completely
developed. The community center, the idea of the community center that
' we've got here I think has been tossed around that we build some type of
reduced structure and then later on maybe address building another
facility. I'd be of the opinion that if we're going to build one, do it
right to begin with because who's to say we've got the money later on to
' build something more elaborate. In terms of the useage of this facility.
Right at this point they're, at least what I took down was they're seeing
about 50% non - residential use, which is quite substantial and the area
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 49
that they're in evidentally doesn't have a lot of other options. So it II
has a fairly large drawing area and that would be a concern here with Eden
Prairie's and private facilities and Chaska just...the drawing area we
have to work with. '
Schroers: And this is the same facility we're supposed to tour tomorrow
evening? 1
Hoffman: Correct.
Manders: One thing about that facility is that it's on a choice location"
in terms of the other amenities around it. Wooded area. Kind of view
ponds and things which makes the appeal even that much more. It's a good
site to see. It's well worth going if you have't been there and I'm goini
to go again simply because this community center is something that I'm
interested in. I want to see what the options are and what we can do.
What some of the other people think.
Schroers: How do you see this as it relates to what we're proposing and
thinking about perhaps in the area down here adjacent to Filly's and
Chan Bowl?
Manders: I think we're talking two different types of locations. The
location that they have up there is far superior than this location in
terms of the aesthetics. But they don't have a downtown to work with andll
this is really what they're trying to build is this community area with
their community library and this community center and City Hall and a few"'
other things which is a focal point.
Schroers: They don't have a downtown but we don't have $11 million.
Andrews: I want to add a couple comments too. If I remember the figures,'
I think the recreational area was about 70,000 square feet. They built
this, I think it was about 1990. They're considering adding on because oll
the useage already. It appears from the numbers that we've been getting
that it's an economically viable operation that supports itself. We'll
get more detail on that tomorrow night but from the numbers they were
kicking around, it was quite surprising to hear the revenues they're
generating. The way they funded it was a combination of HRA money and
bond money. I think that's something that we could look at. I think if
we could offer a facility that's as outstanding as this one, similar to II
this to our citizens basically saying, you could have a $10 million
facility for only $5 million of bonding, I think it would be possible to
get that through. And I wanted to mention again what Jim said. One of
their main concerns was, they're a building facility and they don't have
downtown. They were concerned that that may be, may make it harder to
support this facility and they wanted to create a downtown. We already II have our downtown. We have an opportunity to build something that will
enhance the downtown and I'll have to admit that from my position 3 years
ago to now, I'm 100% changed as to what we ought to do. I think we
certainly should consider it... It was a really nice pool. Better then II
Chaska's. A nice gym facility. Lots of meeting space which was fully
being utilized and from what the manager of the facility said, it gets
heavy useage. All the meeting spaces for the community.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 50
Manders: Just the way it's set up, it's an open, airy.
Andrews: Feels good, yeah. I like it better than Chaska. Chaska you
feel like hallways. This felt like a community meeting area There was a
' nice fireside room and things that you just felt like you're, it was an
area that you could come just to sit down and read a book if you wanted to
or you could come there and work out. It had a lot to offer. And I think
it is doable for the city. Something like this is doable.
Schroers: For the people who have the opportunity to go and see it
tomorrow night, I know that is great. Also I think as long as I've been
involved with the Park and Rec here, and I think we're going on 7 years
probably, the interest for a community center among the commissioners if
overwhelming. At whatever we can get is better than what we've got. And
1 that kind of attitude and the better. But selling the program to the
community has been the real problem. The real hang -up and that's what we
need to look at. I think everyone is in agreement that we would love to
have a big, beautiful community center but to get the program sold, that's
where it's at.
' Berg: Community's change. 7 to 10 years ago you never would have passed
a bond issue for the school district either. We've got a different
community than we had the last time even as we tried to get this thing to
fly.
' Andrews: I think the opportunity with this HRA money, being able to
coordinate with a bond referendum is critical. I mean it's got to be
' presented as an opportunity for 50 cents on the dollar to get a first
class facility.
Manders: The other thing that I keep thinking about up there is what I
pointed out earlier, is that this community is 98% developed. Their access
to something like this is non-existent basically. I mean there is a YMCA
and some other things but virtually no access so the demand was there and
' the resident base isn't going to change that much. It's going to turn
over. Sure, you're going to have new kids. Young kids. Old kids.
Whatever, but they know what they have. Here, this community is yet to
' evolve into what it's going to be down the road.
Schroers: Also what Jim said and what we know from watching Eden Prairie
is also very valid. Is that what we would like to have if the arbitrary
' number were 70 or 80,000 square feet, actually we should shoot for 100,000
right off the bat. Because we know from just watching what's going on
around us, that people build a community center and within 5 years it's
' inadequate.
Andrews: And I did some checking on population trends here for another
issue and we're at about 13,500 and we're projecting at 25,000 by the end
of the decade here. We're looking at a definite demand situation here I
think that could be justified, or would justify a facility this size.
' Schroers: And you just said that 70,000 square feet with the population
of 25,000 and they're needing more space.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 51
Andrews: They're looking at adding to it. One thing to note is, it does"
not have an ice rink as part of this direct facility and I think based on
what we're hearing about operating costs, from what the director of this
facility said, I think that's one of the key decisions they made that
makes this an economically viable facility on it's own.
Koubsky: The thing there, I grew up in that area and that area started
out as, well one thing. Shoreview's got about 23,000 or 26,000 people.
Andrews: Roughly, yeah.
Koubsky: That area in 1970 started out as probably the coldest indoor ic
rink in the area. And that indoor ice rink sat there for 20 years you
know and was used and finally, there's all the parking space there. They,
built a community center next to it. It's not connected granted but
adjacent to it is your hockey rink.
Andrews: It's in the vicinity. It's owned by the County. 1
Koubsky: Right.
Andrews: So they're not directly related financially. But yes, they haul
a hockey rink. Or an ice facility there but it's not part of their
facility from a cost and revenue basis. And from they're telling us, the
gave some examples of where a civic group constructed an ice rink and gav�
it to the city and the city determined later that they would have been
cheaper to build it and give it to the civic group and let them operate
it. It would have been cheaper, just from an operation standpoint.
Anyway, anybody that goes there. I think you'll be excited by it and
I hope we can mobilize our city because boy, I think it would be a
fabulous thing to do downtown. And I agree 100% with Jim. Either do it II
right or don't do it. If we build a halfway facility, it's not going to
work.
Lemme: Do they have an indoor playground? ,
Andrews: They have a gymnastics only part of the gym but not an indoor
playground per se. No. '
Schroers: And we appreciate the fact that you and Jim took off your time
to attend that workshop knowing that it was a nice day and everything
else.
Andrews: It was a good seminar. One other quick point. I know it's II getting late and everyone wants to go. The gentleman from Eden Prairie,
was it Bob.
Hoffman: Lambert. 1
Andrews: Lambert. Mentioned about how in the city of Eden Prairie they
have provided an open air ampihtheater that he thought would be a white II
elephant, boondoggle. Much to their surprise, that has been extremely
successful for them and something we may just keep in the back of our
minds as time goes by. We have a facility that...
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
11 April 27, 1993 - Page 52
' There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.
Manders: ...the last comment that I have is not necessarily related to
the community center but just related to some of the discussion, panel
' discussion. As a Board, what we should be doing in terms of our
responsibility I think is to encourage and promote and however you go
about it the citizens taking ownership in what we have in terms of our
recreation facilities around here. To take care of them and any group
that we can persuade to take that kind of mentality is only going to prove
to the benefit of the whole community.
Schroers: Agreed.
Berg: I just have one thing. It's going to take 30 seconds and it's
' basically just directed to staff. Residents along the new Jasper
development that's coming in along CR 17. They've made a presentation to
us at the last meeting. They called me up and had me over to look. They
just want to be kept apprised as to where the large settling pond is going
to be. What it's size is going to be, etc. I realize that none of that
is available now in terms of answers and also the effect that this is
going to have on the creek that runs through that area. They just want to
be kept apprised so I told them I'd bring it up.
Hoffman: Thank you.
' Andrews: Last thing was, there was an agenda item for a dog ordinance. Is
there anything that we need to do on that tonight?
Hoffman: We apologize. From what I understand, we did contact Bob
Zydowsky. He switched shifts and the person who took his shift was going
to be here but did not attend. Bob requested that he have the time this
' evening to come and discuss their control efforts with you so 1 will
simply ask if he can attend the next meeting. You saw the letter in the
administrative packet. I just received a copy of that. Here they're
' doing city wide mailings at a cost of who knows what for postage and
printing to talk strictly about dogs.
Schroers: Anything else in the Administrative Packet?
Andrews moved, Koubsky seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Roc Coordinator
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1