1n. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
' NOVEMBER 22, 1993
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Wing,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Dave Hempel, Todd Gerhardt, Scott Harr,
Todd Hoffman, Sharmin Al -Jaff, and Charles Folch
•
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Mayor Chmiel: Just one quick question that I have before you approve the agenda. Item number 5. Should that
' not be under public hearing?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor...
Mayor Chmiel: We tabled it the last time.
Paul Krauss: Right. You didn't get to it last time due to the lateness of the hour. So I think it was on the
' agenda at that point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll go along with that. So we can move that to item number 5 on as new business then.
' Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda with the following
additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Mason wanted to discuss city governments in general.
•
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
•
Councilman Wing: I think I'll just put it on the record a problem I had with my tax statement and resulting
efforts of Mr. Ashworth.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: In fact if we could have a statement clarifying that so anyone watching or here
understands.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll put it down as item number 9 then. Under Council Presentation.
' Councilman Senn: Should we start with that maybe?
Mayor Chmiel: Well sure we can. We can put it under.
Councilman Senn: I mean it's pretty taxing to expect somebody to watch this entire.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's how we get them to watch us.
Don Ashworth: If you would like. I've been informed by the City Council as to what our anticipated tax
capacity would be for 1994. This would be as we're trying to develop the 1994 budget. It's not as exact of a
' science, especially in the early stages until they finalize all of the numbers but I felt really comfortable stating to
the City Council that going into the budget hearings that I anticipated that the city portion of the tax bill would
1 1
1
be roughly 0, at least from what we had set it for the Truth in Taxation hearings. I was quite surprised to get
home and get my own statement and find that it had a 7.4% increase in the city portion. I visited then with the
' County Auditor's office Friday morning. We spent approximately 3 hours going through their records that they
had used to prepare those notices. And what we found is that again, the taxing system is very, very complex
and I do not blame the auditor for the error but that is what occurred. An error in approximately $571,000.00 in
tax capacity dollars. Tax dollars was missed. And when those were put back in, basically the increase
associated with the city portion is 0. So those people out there who have received a tax statement and it shows a
city portion going up 7.4 %, that is an error. And I received a statement from the County Auditor today which I
carried over to the newspaper and it will appear in Thursday edition of the Villager showing that correction. So
it is up slightly. It went from 25. Last year's was 25.5% and if the budget would stay as it is, it would go to
25.8 %. A .3% increase. I'm sure that if the Council wants to ensure that there is not a property tax increase,
that as a part of our budgetary process. That we can hopefully find an additional $20,000.00 in cuts which
would assure that we'd stay at that 25.5 level or lower so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
' Councilman Wing: And I guess the other point I wanted to make is Don, is it in fact true that you went down
as City Manager, went through the Auditor's reports and in fact found that error? Is that correct?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Wing: I would like to say thank you for that. I think that's an extraordinary effort.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll make sure you get another Coca Cola tomorrow. But that is good. That's great.
Appreciate that. Okay, with that approval of the agenda.
' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
' a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to City Code Section 20 -57 Regarding Expiration of Platting Variances, Final
Reading.
g. Request for Senior Citizen Special Assessment Deferment, Minnewashta Parkway Assessment Project.
' h. Resolution #93 -113: Resolution Incorporating Pending Assessments for Projects 90 -13 and 87 -2 into the
Downtown Redevelopment Project 96 -11 Assessment Roll, Market Square.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to keep items b, e, and j and move that just beyond the Administrative
Presentations as number 9.
1 Councilman Mason: Your Honor. f could certainly go down there too, if that's the pleasure.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and f. Yes. With that we'll move to item i.
I. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PURCHASE OF A BUS FLEET FOR SOUTHWEST METRO
TRANSIT TO SERVE CHASKA, CHANHASSEN AND EDEN PRAIRIE.
1
1 2
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
1
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make a presentation please? State your name and your organization please.
George Bentley: Your Honor, members of Council. My name is George Bentley. I'm a consultant for
Southwest Metro Transit. Here tonight is Diane Harberts who is the Administrator for Southwest Metro. Dale
Geving who is a Board member on the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. I might point out that Colleen
Dockendorf is also a member of the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. And it appears that a majority of the
Council is or has been at one time a member of the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. The item on the
agenda this evening is a request for the City of Chanhassen to approve the purchase by Southwest Metro of up
to 22 vehicles for the fleet of vehicles for Southwest Metro. This is the result of a clause in the Joint Powers
Agreement as pointed out by the Southwest Metro attorney and has already been approved by Chaska and by
Eden Prairie. The need for this was brought about by the way that funding occurs for vehicles in Southwest
Metro and in other opt out transit systems. Up until the beginning of this year, all such funding came out of
operation funds. Due to two factors, that no longer is the case. In 1992 the Regional Transit Board passed a
policy which states that all vehicle capital is now paid for out of regional funding and we now do not have to
pay for MTC capital at all because those vehicles were purchased previously. Up until now we've been paying
the cost of those vehicles which we were paying twice because there's also a debt levy. A regional debt levy
that was levied across the entire metropolitan area to pay for the cost of those bonds. Southwest Metro became
aware of the fact that the current fund for those vehicles will expire sometime next year and without legislative
change in terms of our ability to access new bond dollars, we will not be able to continue using bond dollars to
pay for the cost of vehicle capital. We received $6.5 million of legislative authority in the 1992 legislature to
allow us to be able to purchase vehicles. Our understanding, and quite frankly the intent of the legislature,
because I was involved in passage of that. The intent of the legislature was for us to be able to utilize those
bonds to reimburse the providers through a contract. Bond counsel, as you are well aware of, have their own
ways of interpreting law and they have interpretted that those dollars cannot be used for any purpose other than
direct purchase. We will indeed be pursuing the ability to reimburse through the legislature. Our current state
of vehicles is getting old. If we wait until June or so to start this process, we will have some major vehicle
problems so we need to proceed with this. We will be bidding out these vehicles. We expect that the total cost
of these vehicles will be in the neighborhood of about a million and a half dollars. That's the estimate right
now. These bonds are regional bonds and will be, if they're not used by us, they will be used by someone else.
You're already being levied for a debt levy in the region and that will continue regardless of what this does. It
will not alter the amount of the levy that you are currently receiving or you will ultimately receive because those
dollars will be used by someone else if we don't use them.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. I think what we'll do is, Diane. Do you have anything you would like to say this
evening as well?
Diane Harberts: No... 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, great. Is there any questions from Council?
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I just had a comment. Just because I threw out the name Orfield and we go 1
ahead buying all this new equipment and suddenly Southwest ceases to exist. I don't understand the inner
workings, inner meshing here. Who's paying who what for why?
George Bentley: The dollars you will receive will come from the Regional Transit Board and if Southwest
Metro ceases to exist, those vehicles would revert to the regional fleet, i.e. they would go to the MTC because
the RTB does not have the authority to own vehicles.
1
- .r 3
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? If hearing none, I'd make a motion to accept the resolution supporting the
purchase of a bus fleet for Southwest Metro Transit to serve Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie. Is there a
second?
1 Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #93 -114: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a resolution
supporting the purchase of a bus fleet for Southwest Metro Transit to serve Chaska, Chanhassen and
Eden Prairie. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
CONSIDER AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING APPROVAL OF CERTAIN
1 DEVELOPMENT IN THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR.
Paul Krauss: At your last meeting you asked us to bring back up the possibility of a moratorium on Highway
5. This is...I think the third time this question's been raised. We had Roger put together an ordinance for you...
pretty similar to the earlier ordinances and one...factor I guess is that...but it exempts the action that we've
already issued to exclude from the moratorium. The goal is clearly one of, I think of attempting to give staff
' and Planning Commission time to work on the Highway 5 plan. It's been a matter of frustration not only for
staff and City Council but also for the Planning Commission. They haven't been able to do it. Their meetings
since September, when they received the plan, have regularly gone to midnight or 1:00 in the morning and I
think as we know from personal experience, it's impossible to give any coherent thought to anything at that time.
U The problem has really been one of overly lengthy agendas. At last count we had it scheduled for 4 different
Planning Commission meetings. We just never got to it in time. Including last week's. It occurred to me in
writing this up that a moratorium on Highway 5 wouldn't address the entire problem. That the Planning
' Commission agendas are full and the last time they were full, there was nothing on Highway 5 on the agenda. I
mean there's things going on throughout the community. So it would really take a moratorium on everything to
be effective in that regard. What I discussed with the Planning Commission, and I know I've discussed with a
few of you individually, is the possibility of having the City Council order the Planning Commission to clear
' agendas. We've always taken it as a kind of article of faith that I have the right to pull off items that were
inappropriately thought out or incomplete but when somebody made a submittal to staff in the proper manner,
then we had an obligation to honor that. What I'd like to do, and this is what I worked out with the Planning
' Commission. Is go along with the schedule possibly that we've outlined and what I just handed out to you.
Prior to this matter being raised, we set Saturday, December 4th for a bus tour of the corridor. Planning
Commission's been asking for that. We tried to schedule it once before but didn't get enough of a turn out.
' They promised us if we do it again, they'll come. Wednesday, December 15th is a regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting. We're proposing that that agenda be totally cleared and only the Highway 5 plan be
discussed. Starting that meeting early. We needed to get some scheduled business to occur at the first Planning
Commission meeting in January so I put in here that if the Planning Commission feels that even after the first
' work session they need a second work session to digest the plan, that they hold a special meeting on January
12th and that the regularly scheduled second meeting in January be wholly devoted over to the public hearing.
...the public hearing for the comp plan amendment for the Highway 5 plan and potentially also for the new
ordinance that will go with the Highway 5 ordinance. I suggested that the City Council give the Planning
Commission up until February 1 to deliver the document... It's a somewhat ambitious schedule but I think the
Planning Commission's been kind of chomping at the bit to get going on it and I've proposed that as an
alternative. I have a good expectation that I think the Planning Commission's going to be able to come through
4
i A
i
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
on that. They were heavily involved in the Highway 5 process. So I've given you the two options. We do
have a moratorium ordinance. We do have this approach. We did not take the step of mail notifying everybody
in the Highway 5 corridor again of this and there was no time to get any kind of legal notice requirement.
Technically we don't have to publish the notice for this...very short turn around time to get even mailed notice
out and we've already...everybody to the meetings twice in the past and I wasn't sure whether or not I should do
that again. So I took the step not to. So with that we'll pass this back over to the Council for direction. The
ordinance is in your hands. If you want to go with that. The possibility of an alternative approach is there as
well.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, without mincing a lot of words, I think I support the position that you're talking about. I
for one would go with that particular position as you've indicated. Along with that too, I still see the fact that
we do have the PUD effect to this. It gives us all those desirous things that we want as far as the city in telling
what we'd like to see and what we want to see. And I think that in itself gives me enough comfort to not have
to go to that moratorium portion. So with that I'd like to just, I'll move it right along. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Paul did we accept a conceptual plan from Opus and then put them on hold? Is that what
happened on that one?
1
Paul Krauss: Yes. It was, gosh it must have been 9 -10 months ago. You approved the concept plan for Opus
and basically told them not to come back until the Highway 5 study was done.
1
Councilman Wing: Okay, and you know why I'm asking that. Because of item number 3. So we can do the
same thing?
Paul Krauss: Yeah. I should also put you on notice too that we expect to have a third application due to be
filed and probably would expect that it be handled in much the same manner. The 137 acre parcel that the
school site is being broken off of. The balance of that land, we've been working with a developer in putting
together a proposal on that. You originally almost saw it 2 years ago with Ryan Development...it's a big major
piece and they have the possibility of being on that first meeting in January as well.
Councilman Wing: Roger. If I could address the City Attorney. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Be my guest.
Councilman Wing: We sit here as a Council and we set priorities and try to set some direction and then
planning and staff gets buried because there's all these tenacles coming at them from all over and we have State
law that says we have to react to this proposal and so many days to do this and that. Is there any way that we
can legally tell so and so to go away for a while? That until, that the Planning Commission and staff is not
available to react? How can we clear this agenda? Is there any legal way that as a Council we can clear this
agenda so there is nothing else on it? So these other proposals coming out are on hold until this is completed. '
Councilman Senn: ...you mean Paul's schedule?
Councilman Wing: Well there could be 5 or 6 other developers from other areas of the city all on a time frame
that want their approvals but is there anyway that we can just simply say Planning Commission and staff, the
doors are locked until this is completed?
1
5
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
Councilman Senn: Dick, can I ask...
Mayor Chmiel: Hold it. Richard has the floor and you haven't been recognized yet. Just a minute.
Councilman Senn: Just a question to you. Wasn't the, maybe I misunderstood but I thought the schedule still
included a regular Planning Commission date.
Paul Krauss: The schedule that I proposed includes one regular Planning Commission date between now and the
end of...
1 Councilman Senn: So from a legal react time that.
Mayor Chmiel: Which would be the 19th.
' Paul Krauss: No, it's the first meeting in January.
' Councilman Wing: But the point is, if they're tied up on this and it's over whelming and there's a lot to be
done, they maybe will not have the time. I'll tell you want. I wouldn't mind if Highway 5 was on rust and the
other ones second and then if it gets to be midnight, that one gets tabled. But I don't think that anything ought
to be on the agenda ahead of this. You understand my point?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Wing: I'm trying to see, is there any way that nothing gets ahead of this on the agenda and if they
have to be tabled for the next 2 and 3 months but they do go through this process. In fact, if this was fast on
the agenda, everybody would be on notice that it may be midnight before they get to them and it may be tabled
and it may happen for 2 or 3 months. Is that delaying the thing legally?
Roger Knutson: The only iron clad rules under State law are for subdivision approval. If someone comes in for
a preliminary plat, you know 120 days after the...and final plats, you have 60 days. Generally, those are rules
but I've never had that to be a problem for me. You just work with the developers and tell them, we need an
extension and I normally get extensions. And if not, then you would have to process. But no one has a right to
get on a particular Planning Commission meeting. Just because you're stuff is ready today, doesn't mean you
get to go on a week from tomorrow.
Councilman Wing: And there's no reason Paul couldn't put those on as the last items where they're going to be
there at midnight?
Roger Knutson: No.
1 Councilman Wing: I don't see any reason why this is...
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, but why bother doing that. The Council can just by fiat say, this is what
you're going to do and developers go away because these are just concept approvals, or a majority of them that
we're looking at.
1
6
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
Councilman Wing: I'll go along with Paul's presentation here and the moratorium to me has always been a
dangerous word. If we can accomplish what we want. I know this is the second time we've talked about this.
We're going to accomplish it but then it got buried. I think the pressure's on now enough where, you wouldn't
dare.
Paul Krauss: You know the Planning Commission, I mean the Planning Commission under this schedule would
be obligated to hold the public hearing, which under State law, I mean they're required to hold the public 1
hearing. You don't do that at the Council. But one part of this is that, one way or the other, the Planning
Commission has to deliver it to the Council in early February. Whether or not they vote on it up or down, or
take positive action, as long as they hold a public hearing, we're probably okay at that steps. I think the
challenge is there.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well Paul and I talked today about what this would accomplish and I agree that it
will. That it will accomplish what we're looking at. The other thing that I'm still waivering on and I'll bring it
up again on the rest, almost the rest of the agenda items tonight is the other two conceptual approvals that we
have tonight, you know Paul has said that staff can handle those but I'd just as soon push those away as well..
Anyway, I agree with the recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Michael. 1
Councilman Mason: I agree with what the recommendation too. I have nothing to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, Mark.
Councilman Senn: And you're saying be delivered to the Council by February 1st? 1
Paul Krauss: ...have it at your first meeting in February.
Councilman Senn: I'd go with your schedule but I'd also go for it on the basis that January 5th stay a regular 1
meeting because I don't think everything should just be forgotten.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone, I'm sure we have a few developers here this evening. Is there anyone .
wishing to address any part of this right now? At this time. Okay. Alright, with that. I would then like a
motion to accept Paul's recommendations and follow through with the schedule that's been submitted.
Councilman Wing: So moved. 1
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council direct the Planning
Commission to clear it's agendas to consider the Highway 5 Comp Plan amendment ordinance, holding
the public hearing at the January 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting and delivering the item to the
City Council at their first meeting in February, 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried
7
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
unanimously.
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED
A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR A 232 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
COMPRISED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 8, 10, OR 12 UNITS EACH; SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, GALPIN BOULEVARD
1 CARRIAGE HOMES; CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY.
Paul Krauss: It's my understanding, Kate gave me the staff report...This is a concept approval. To go back to
' our conversation a few minutes ago and that was...and I think you can certainly add the expectation that if this
goes through, that you not see it again until the Highway 5...The project is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. It is sort of the high end of the density range but it is...A tremendous amount of unuseable ground on this
site so the gross density is quite low and the net density is relatively high...wetland. The last thing we'll point
' out is that one of the concerns that you raise periodically from time to time at Council and the HRA is the...to
provide some variation of housing affordabilities. This project seems to be more in the, one of the potential...
The fact that it...These are not truly designed to be affordable for income...but it does allow the multi...to be met
' in Chanhassen and right now that's...The last thing I'd like to add to that, what we touched on before is...that
this not come back to you for formal approval until such time as the Highway 5...is in effect. We believe this
plan conforms to the Highway 5 documents...We think it complies. On the other hand it complies with the
document that's not formally adopted yet so it's... It does work towards that end. With that we're continuing to
recommend that the concept be approved but those added conditions be tacked on.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. Is someone here this evening from Centex to make a presentation?
' Dan Blake: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. My name is Dan Blake with Centex Realty Corporation. I think I've
made as much a presentation as I thought appropriate last time. If there's any questions, I'll be available to
' answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Let me just ask one specific question of you Dan. In reviewing the
recommendation by staff with the 11 conditions that are contained, are you in agreement with those?
Dan Blake: I believe so.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thank you. With that I'll start on this end. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I will pass at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: One question. Are price ranges what? $70,000.00 to $100,000.00 ballpark?
Dan Blake: The exact same product is being sold in Eden Prairie today and it's, I believe it's 70's to 90's. I
would anticipate they would be a little bit less in Chanhassen.
'. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because of the highway frontage?
Dan Blake: We're in right by Eden Prairie Center. Just the distance out.
8
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thank you. You know as I said last time it came up. I don't have any
problem with the concept. I think it's an appropriate use in front of the highway. I still have, well there still are
a lot of outstanding issues on the trees and where the park set would go and the architectural standards, etc. I'm
mostly curious as to the whole timing. I know that under our Consent Agenda we approved looking at traffic
lights at TH 5 and CR 17 and it's an issue that I'll bring every time it comes up on the schedule because it's
close to home. When do you foresee all of this timing coming together Paul? In terms of if we approve the
concept tonight and we tell them to go away for a while. Next summer is probably pretty likely. School is
pretty likely next, well almost defmitely next summer. These traffic lights, are they going to go in concurrently?
Paul Krauss: Well I guess I need...MnDot's request and MnDot's well aware there's concerns...school bus crash
there last year and...School wants to open in the fall of '95. That's roughly...it's quite conceivably that this
project would start...units occupiable by fall of next year...One of the things we're working with the School
District is the upgrading of Galpin concurrently we're working with the County...If everything works out, it
should all happen about the same time. The temporary signals are going in quicker than that. But the upgrading
of the street...signalization that will all happen concurrently with the...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks. I don't have anything further. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I've been talking about affordable housing for quite some time so I'm really glad to see
that prices, I mean that sounds affordable. I hope it is. As I commented last time, conceptual I think this is
fine. I defmitely would want to add item number 12. That this would not come back to us again until after the
Highway 5 corridor plan has been presented to Council. With that I'll, I'm okay with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Yeah.
Councilman Wing: Just question for Mike, if it's not out of order. Could you put that affordable housing on the
agenda some night because the Met Council's discussing it. I think we ought to be discussing it.
Councilman Mason: We are. I know Sharmin's working on it from staff. HRA is discussing it also but I think
it's great, yeah. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Mark. 1
Councilman Senn: Paul, question. On your recommendation #2. Is the 20 feet necessary you know effectively
because of the trail? The berming and the landscaping. I was a little confused there. The word, the use of the
word should. I mean is it something we need or don't need? And if so, why aren't we just simply requiring it?
Paul Krauss: That's on condition 2?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, recommendation number 2.
Councilman Wing: What page? 1
Councilman Senn: Page 3.
9
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
1 Mayor Chmiel: Council recommendations basically are on 12 rather than 3.
' Councilman Senn: I thought that carried.
Paul Krauss: If you look on page 12 of the staff report...The conditions in there, oh it's condition 4 here. I see.
Additional trail easement (20 feet) should be considered on Galpin. That's something we're requiring right now.
' We're doing work on the design of Galpin Blvd and finding out exactly where the right -of -way should be and
what we can fit in the right -of -way and what we should not. There's really a variation on how the road goes.
In fact we think that we're going to have the...presentation to the City Council. There's some question as to
' whether or not Galpin should be widen on the east side or the west side to fit the trail there. The County's old
position, if you ask the County Engineering Department...when we ask them to comment on it, they always tell
us to pull the trail out of the County right -of -way. And it's kind of a, I won't say knee jerk...but they do that
every time and every time we talk to them, and we show them how it can fit in there, they go yeah, fine. That's
great. That's what we've done on almost all the properties to the north. The trail is in the county right -of -way.
So I think that's going to be the case here but by the time this comes back people will have figured that out.
1 Councilman Senn: Okay. And that's a condition that we can clear up at the time then you're saying?
Paul Krauss: Yeah, it will be cleared up before it ever comes back to you.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Otherwise just basically I'll go with my comments from last week. I thought the plan
was very good and very responsible given the, especially given the land we're dealing with and I think it's a
good plan so I don't have any problems with the concept.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. About the only thing that I have, and I think I mentioned it last time too. With those
232 units, I think there may be some of those soil problems within that particular area and also with the
wetlands and I just want to make sure that all those things are in conformance with those specific items.
Paul Krauss: The wetlands we had delineated by...That we have a good handle on. The soil conditions we
don't. It's my understanding we really can't get a rig out...
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. You can but you need somebody to pull you out. Always a problem. Okay. I
guess that was the only other thing that I had some real concerns with. Other than that, is there any other
1 discussions?
Councilman Wing: I move approval of the Centex conceptual PUD approval. Item number 3 on the Council
' agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: With the conditions as contained.
1 Councilman Wing: I heard no changes.
Mayor Chmiel: With item number 12. As Michael has indicated.
1 Councilman Mason: That this will not come back to us until after the first of February. Well, until after we get
the, how about until after we get the corridor plan from Planning Commission.
1
10
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
Councilman Wing: I thought that was in my motion. That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Second. ,
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council recommended approval of a
Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to
PUD for a 232 unit residential development comprised of 21 buildings of either 8, 10 or 12 units in each
Galpin Boulevard Carriage Homes with the following conditions:
1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to preliminary plat
submittal.
2. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as a tree inventory,
perspectives from Hwy. 5 towards the development, impervious surface ratio. Compliance with Hwy. 5
goals, traffic construction for Hwy. 5 /Galpin and Galpin Boulevard itself, access to school site, soil
correction issues, more creative berming and landscaping for the Hwy. 5 exposure and more fully explore
the design implications of the ultimate Hwy. 5 expansion. Staff should also explore the potential of minor
guide plan changes that may result from this proposal.
3. The area to be mitigated should be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap additional sediment and
nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development. The mitigated areas should also have diverse
contouring to allow for the establishment of different vegetative zones. The stonnwater pond must meet
NURP standards. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by
the city with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet.
4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin Boulevard as well as space
for berming and landscaping. ,
5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer
and water service if they desire service by next summer.
6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State -Aid standards.
7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event and storm water
retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's water quality standards (NURP).
8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial '
security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in the development contract.
9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993. '
10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27, 1993.
11. Compliance with the PUD and Hwy. 5 Design Standards and respond to other issues raised in the staff
report.
1
11 '
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
12. Preliminary PUD applications will not be processed until the Highway 5 Corridor Study is approved
by the City Council.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1 CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY (190 DWELLING
UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE ON 62.05 ACRES OF PROPERTY AND
VACATION OF A PORTION OF WEST 86TH STREET; LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT
' WEST 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Public Present:
' Name Address
Jim Ostenson Tandem Properties
Dennis Marhula Westwood Professional
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Jo Larson 8590 Tigua Circle
1 David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle
Joe Hautman 8551 Tigua Circle
' Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is a planned unit development consisting of single family units, multi family. The multi
family is 4 plexes, 6, 8, 12 plexes. The single family is basically located along the northeast corner of the site...
Block 4, which is highlighted in blue, contains 4plexes mainly and two 8plexes. Those units are single story and
the remainder which is located south of West 86th Street are all two story units. There is a little over 7 acres
along the southwest corner which is built for, or guided for neighborhood commercial. We've been worldng on
this application approximately...One of the main issues when...appeared before the Planning Commission was the
' fact that the majority of the lots were 15,000 square feet lots. The applicant reduced the number of single family
parcels from, originally we had 18 and now we have a total of 16 units so that it exceeds that 15,000 square foot
minimum. In fact a majority of the parcels that abut the existing neighborhood are in the 20,000 square foot
range. Another issue we have at this time was hard surface coverage. The applicant amended the plan to meet
the required hard surface coverage. Parks were lacking. Park plan was lacking on the original plan. The
applicant changed that and the plans now reflect a new park as well as sidewalks that connect future TH 101
throughout this subdivision and hopefully sometime in the future with Eden Prairie. The commercial portion and
the type of uses within the commercial portion of this site has always been a concern and we would like to see
the type of uses that would be there. However the plan, there aren't any plans at the present time. We tried to
highlight some of the uses that could possibly go in there and we have met with the applicant and he seems to
be in agreement with staff. One issue that still remains a problem is mass grading of the site. Currently the site
' has...especially the northern portion of the site and unfortunately with these plans, the applicant is mass grading
the site. We are recommending that the applicant take a look at this site again and try and maintain the existing
grade when designing units on it. Landscaping was lacking at the beginning. Now we have benning. We have
additional landscaping than what was provided originally. The landscaping around the wetland is going to be
native to the wetlands. Building elevations were lacking. That was provided again with the submittal. Overall
the plan as a concept has come a long way and we are recommending approval of it. There is one issue that
staff should point out. One of the reasons why we pulled the item off the agenda 2 weeks ago was because we
12
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
found out that this alignment does . not accommodate any of the future Highway 101 alignments that were
prepared by Fred Hoisington. We asked the applicant to revise the plan and...Block 4 that is going to see the
most change. Well with this design we accommodate Alternate #3 which was prepared by Fred Hoisington.
This option results in moving 4 units. The commercial area is reduced from 9 acres to 7. A little over 7 acres.
We're recommending approval of those plans with the condition that Alternative #3 is adopted as the official
alignment for TH 101. If that alignment is not approved by Council, these plans would be null and void. With
that we're recommending approval. As we pointed it out to the applicant and we told them that there are no
guarantees which way the Council is going to vote and they decided that that was a chance they were going to
take. So they are fully aware that the Council has adopted an official alignment...Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant, would you like to come forward and please state your 1
name and your address.
Jim Ostenson: My name is Jim Ostenson. I'm with the Tandem Properties. We're located at 7808 Creekridge
Circle in Bloomington. Also with me tonight is Dennis Marhula with Westwood Engineering, our engineer on
the project. I really don't have anything to add to the staff report. Basically we worked through this plan over
the last 3 to 5 months. We've worked with the Highway Department on 212. We've worked with Mr.
Klingelhutz on the neighborhood commercial. We've worked with Fred Hoisington and the other people that are
affected by TH 101. The neighbors to the east that are in single family and tried to work on just a number of
issues that have affected this property. We have some other renditions, earlier renditions down here that would
reflect the generation of changes...gone through that probably aren't necessarily to do right now but we're in
agreement with the planning report. We understand what the concerns are with TH 101. I talked with Fred
again today and if you see approval of this, we would continue to work with Fred on TH 101...preliminary plat.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions that we will have at this particular time? Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm curious as to whether any of the neighboring. '
Mayor Chmiel; Is there anyone here from the neighborhood wishing to address any of this at this particular
time? I know that we have the Minutes of the meetings that we've had before and I see Al, you'd like to.
Okay, if you would just move that Mission Hills down so we can see your smiling face. Thank you.
Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz, 8600 Great Plains Blvd. As you probably know part of this project is on
some of my land. The rest of it is on Keith Parks' land who lives down in Kentucky. The concept plan for the .
commercial portion of this, and it's been brought up many times when we've discussed it and I think these
people should understand why there is no actual concept plan on the commercial portion of this property. The
fact is that Highway 101 has not been aligned and the location of it has not been aligned and Highway 212 is
looking like it could be the year 2000, if ever and to spend a lot of money drawing up a concept plan on
something that you cannot see the future on, is an effort in futility as far as I'm concerned. I think I've agreed
to what could go on that land as a commercial, neighborhood commercial and I know that if the road is ever
built and I come in for a project on that portion of the commercial property, that I'll still have to go through the
Planning Commission and Council...everything that's going to go on there. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If none, Colleen. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I guess I don't have any particular questions. I have some comments.
Would you like to go through questions first?
13 1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I'd like to hear some comments.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do it all in one shot? Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Whatever your choice.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I realize this is a concept plan and I have this same problem with all of our concept
plans. I would like to see more detail but I realize that that's time...I'm concerned about the TH 101
realignment. Are we putting the cart before the horse? It is one of the issues that will be coming before the
' Planning Commission on January...?
Paul Krauss: Yeah. We had a neighborhood meeting on...second neighborhood meeting. I think you're aware,
' Sharmin pointed out Fred's been doing a study on this. There are four alternative alignments starting with don't
do anything. Kind of keep it where it is right now with moving it all the way over to the east...impact on this
property. We expect to have that up before you, it should be up to the City Council by February. And we'll be
asking you to basically amend, pick which one you want. I mean we'll make some recommendations. The
Planning Commission will make a recommendation and the residents have some feelings about it but pick which
one you want. Amend the comprehensive plan accordingly and officially map it which is the step we wouldn't
take 4 years ago. So it really becomes cast in stone and then it's a matter of the long haul of lobbying MnDot...
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, which is a concern in terms of could it currently handle this size of a
development if it stayed the way it currently is for the next 5 -10 years.
Paul Krauss: Well, that gets into an area and maybe it would be appropriate for Roger to comment but I tend to
get a little bit leery about holding a developer hostage...beyond their capabilities of doing anything about.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I agree. I have concerns about the mass grading. I'd really like to see the
developer work with the topography of the land. And then there was also the possibility of a chain link fence
between this and Rice Lake Manor which.
' Mayor Chmiel: I was wondering if it had 1 foot of barb.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Those were requested by the neighbors and as a result.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I would have a problem with that if that came back. A big problem. Not
only looking out for the existing neighborhood but also for the residents coming in living in the townhomes.
' Very happy to see affordable housing being addressed. I just wanted to comment. I don't know if anyone else
read the article about what went on at a City Council meeting up in Maple Grove a couple weeks ago where the
residents were up in arms about affordable housing. I would hope that we don't see the same thing in our
' community. I don't know. I'm not sure I'm ready to go ahead with this until we look at the alignment of TH
101. I'd like to hear what the rest of the Council has to say.
' Councilman Mason: I think in concept it's good. I understand what Colleen is saying about not liking concept
approvals but I think we have to start pushing people or showing people the direction we want them to take and
this seems to be good direction. It seems to me that's quite a gamble to say well, I'll put all this time and effort
into it and if, gee if they don't go with Highway 101, then we're going to get shot out of the water. I'm
' concerned about that but if they're not, I certainly won't. Acceptance of this as a conceptual plan won't be my
' 14
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 III
driving orce between, or how Highway 101 should be aligned. I would hope would not g y g pe that they ou d of assume that
would be the case. But conceptually, I can tell that this has gone through a number of changes and it appears
to be getting better each time. I also am concerned about mass grading. I would want that as one of the
conditions on this. That's all for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Did I understand you correctly that the realignment in effect causes the loss of one 4 unit
building and 2 acres of the commercial?
111
Paul Krauss: That's the worst case.
Councilman Senn: But there's nothing proposed on the commercial so that's pretty open ended and if you lose I
one 4 unit building out of a project like this, it's hardly going to be the end of the earth correct? Okay. You
know conceptually I don't have any real problems with it. I agree with Colleen and Mike on the grading issue
though. I think that needs to really be looked at. I'd like to keep some of the hills and the topography there.
Otherwise I guess what Colleen said. It's nice to see some of the price ranges here and the affordable housing
coming in. I guess the only other thing I would like to just mention so it's mentioned up front is, as you do go
down the road in any commercial...discussed there, personally I will oppose any gas convenience on that site at
I
all. I mean you have 5 within one mile of there now and I don't consider that to be a needed neighborhood
service in this particular case. That's my own personal feeling.
Paul Krauss: No it's not, the question I would want to pose to you though is, I don't happen to take issue with
that at all but it's long been kind of one of the concerns filed away to bring up to the Council at some point. I
haven't had a chance to. There's actually 3 other commercial corners around there too. They are on the comp
plan. They've been in the TH 101 study before that but to be honest, we've never given a heck of a lot of '
thought as to how that whole interchange is going to work. And maybe that's something we ought to be taking
a look at. To the same extent that we kind of set the die for how downtown's going to develop. There's a lot
of space for commercial development. I'll bet you it's about 60 to 80 acres...
Councilman Senn: Maybe that should be part of what we look at in relationship to the realignment.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, it can certainly be tacked on that. Some kind of a land use program.
I
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I mean again that's not before us but I agree. It's something I'd really like to see
dealt with up front rather than down the road. That's it. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: I don't want to belabor this by repeating but I just, Peter Olin who gets very sensitive about
using the existing landforms on development now and I agree with the Council. That's a priority. Let's start
using existing landforms. I get really, I can almost sit back and just stamp these because we, as a Council
discuss the MUSA line and how we're running out of developable space and how much we need it and we
I
discussed affordable housing. We never really defined it. We don't have it zoned. We haven't really said what
is our need and let's...so we keep saying, well this is affordable housing. Well I'd like you to define that. This
is kind of nice stuff here. I'm still worried about density. We move the MUSA line and every single project
1 that has come before me since the MUSA line was moved, in the 3 years I've been on Council, have maximized
15
I
-
1
1
1 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
density. We call it PUD or standard subdivision, it doesn't matter. But it just masses come in and nobody's
J Y
doing anything with low density. I mean nobody's coming in with this land and building any attractive low
density. And the first comment that comes up is, well if we approve Galpin and TH 5, what are we going to do
with all the traffic. I don't know. Well it's sure going to need a stop sign but we don't know if we're going to
get it. Here we've got a windy, curvy road and we're going to dump how many units on it. 100 and some
' units. Incredible amounts of housing or vehicles and cars and traffic and city service drains without the, but
we're not thinking to the future of the infrastructure. We're sort of building and then we react and build and
react and put up more stop lights. I can't get through downtown anymore and they said they'd time them so I
could get from A to B but I go from one red light to another red. I don't think the solution of this city is to
keep bringing in high density housing and then put in stop lights and try to react to the masses of people we're
bringing in. So I guess, I don't have any problem with this but I hope we never move the MUSA line again and
that's where I'm going to take my stand and say, I'm going to vote no, no, no and hope we get a little less
density in the rest of the city because moving the MUSA line, all of these are good projects with good people.
Boy oh boy. This isn't the city I'd like to live in. I guess I like my wider open spaces. Not to diminish
affordable housing. I think that's, there could be well planned and well thought out in our process here but
okay. The grading. The only thing I would add to this, and I'd like to see the same thing we did to Terry
Forbord on the Song property. West 86th Street's going to be a major connector. Wide street. A lot of houses.
Cul -de -sacs coming in. I think we ought to go along with the boulevard trees and the street lighting on that
street. I'd like to see that added as a condition when it comes back. That there be street lights and boulevard
trees on West 86th Street. And now that you've allowed me to editorialize, that's all I've got. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you and good night. Okay. Paul, let me ask a question when we get these conceptual
plans. I noted that there's no PE signatures on any of these. Is it normally not required even though it's a
' concept plan that should be on these plans themselves? And an architectural.
Paul Krauss: We really, I mean I know that you raise that point repeatedly with the formal submittals and we've
been trying to do that. On a concept it's so touchy feely and we've been working with their engineers on it.
They clearly have those people on board. But we haven't asked them to verify the documents in terms of...
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So the next shot that comes at us, it will have them on there at that particular time?
Paul Krauss: Yeah.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too had just a little bit of concerns regarding TH 101. Will that have capacity enough
to carry the volume that will be coming off of TH 212 as well as proceeding on 212 plus all the additional
traffic that's going to be coming from developments within that particular area. Is that going to be enough to
carry that additional traffic?
Paul Krauss: There has not been a traffic study done since the Eastern Carver County traffic...and what that said
' is clearly this thing had to be upgraded concurrently with Highway 212. In the short teen I can't tell you
definitely one way or the other except to shoot from the hip. I mean we've already upgraded half of this road.
It has a good intersection with Highway 5. I don't know if the analogy's an appropriate one but you know it's
probably not any worse than Highway 101 is north of Highway 5, which is not to say it's great. And it certainly
is sufficient in some safety respects. Again, this is a State Highway. You know the State of Florida has a
concurrency requirement that says nothing happens until everything's in place and it's not a taking to do that.
But where we have developers, for example we have the Terry Forbord, Lundgren is looking at the Rogers-
' Dolejsi piece south of here which is 114 units. Single family homes. That will add 10 trips per home. We are
' 16
1`
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 I
working with them to make them pay towards upgrading Lyman Blvd and internal streets and to upgrade the
I
utility system but we're simply not in the position to intervene for the State and say you've got to upgrade a
state highway. We can make them put in safety related improvements. Turn lanes and that kind of thing and
we certainly will. We'll do that here too but there's a bigger issue at stake there when we're trying to move
MnDot off of dead center.
Councilman Senn: That's like trying to move the Rock of Gibralter. 1
Mayor Chmiel: That's a chore. Just a chore. Okay I guess with that I guess I don't have any other questions.
Other than the fact of the grading as well, and I guess I see that as a concern with that to minimize mass grading
of that particular site. We always, when we go to PUD's, I want to make clarifications. What is the city really
getting for this as well. I want to know just exactly that part of it. But other than that I guess I don't have any
other questions at this time. Any other discussion? 1
Councilman Senn: I have a question if I could. Paul, how does this relate back, and I know we have the
alignment problem effectively with TH 101 but is there anyway that that trail configuration can be worked into
this along Highway 101 so it's dealt with...or at least accommodated regardless of how TH 101 in effect gets
configured. I mean if I'm understanding this right, we're probably not going to take final action on this until we
do on TH 101 so shouldn't we just stick it in as a condition that we're going to require the trail along TH 101,
whatever the configuration may be.
1
Paul Krauss: That may well be appropriate and you can certainly put in a temporary trail...You know the north
end of this, it still doesn't touch on the city trail system...but it's not that far away.
1
Councilman Senn: It's not that far off from it and it seems to me that you could come up with probably a fairly
reasonable trail path that would stand at least a little chance, or very little chance of changing from what I've
seen on the plans, correct? Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: I had that as item number 26. '
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to see that added. The only other thing that I forgot about, and I'm not sure
whether this is appropriate for the developer or for the city but it ended up to be kind of interesting discussion
last week with 3 city residents that currently rent in the city. They're single parent households and they work in I
industries in Chanhassen and the issue of affordable housing came up and I kind of said, well I think it's
coming. You know and the responses were real interesting. How do we know? And stuff and I'm not sure
whether it's something we should look at the developers to do or if it's something the city should do but I would
I
certainly like it to be a consideration now as we're proceeding with a couple of these projects to set up some
type of vehicle, especially if you go into our industry such as Rosemount and other places like that and actually
notify the people that this housing's available. The rates it's available at and maybe even go so far as to run it
out and show them, hey. This means like a $500.00 a month payment which everybody paying rent more than I
that. Really I guess promoting it but going beyond general, or I'm going to say normal marketing modes. But I
think that's something that could end up being really a win -win for both the developers and the city and maybe
it's something joint. I don't know but I think.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's something that Mike had brought up some time ago as well. And I think
that's something that could be looked at to see. A question that I was going to have is, what is the, what are
going to be the costs of these specific units? Do you have any idea? I know that Centex has indicated their's 1
17
1
1
.1
1 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
1 and '
ours is probably going to be $5,000.00 less. No, I'm j
Y Pr Y g g $, ' ust. J
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it said 70 to 80 in the report.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah it did say in there but is that still what you're really looking at?
1 Jim Ostenson: Yes, that's the price range. We actually have three different price units and unfortunately this
item got on the agenda a little earlier than we thought and the fellow from Rottlund's not here. We have more
I of a traditional townhouse that's on this plan in several different places that would be approximately
$100,000.00. We have the villa which would be the 70's and the 80's. And then we have a rambler unit which
is really designed for empty nesters and we have a one level unit that would be, I think this is about $100,000.00
also.
I Councilman Senn: Yeah, it said 80 to 90 in here.
I Jim Ostenson: There are really 3 different multi family options on this site.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Paul.
I Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the HRA had authorized Fred Hoisington to do some work with the major employers
in town to do some survey work to find out what the marketing need is, what the desire is to live in the city and
he's in the process of doing that now. And it's been talked about from time to time to see whether or not there
I are ways in which the city could intervene and assist in terms of possibly down payment assistance programs or
something like that. We think that a lot of people can afford to be in housing like this but some people couldn't
afford...to get into it. If there's some way to defray some of that or absorb some of that and there's some
I programs potentially out there that do that. That that would help. And I believe we've got our financial counsel
looking into the possibility of what's just out there.
Councilman Senn: With MHFA and all that.
I Paul Krauss: Yeah. With the State, right. The State programs.
I Councilman Senn: Yeah, the State...
Mayor Chmiel: I think we're, Michael did bring that up at the HRA at that particular time and they are in
pursuit of that. Okay with that, any other discussion? Hearing none I'll entertain a motion of the
I recommendation for.
Councilman Mason: I move approval of the conceptual planned unit development east of Highway 101, north
I and south of West 86th Street with the concerns noted by Council about mass grading and the boulevard and the
lighting.
I Councilman Senn: And the trail.
Councilman Mason: And the trail.
1 . Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and you did indicate the PUD 93-4?
1 18
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 `.
Councilman Mason: If not...
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve conceptual PUD #93 -4 as shown on the
plans dated June 23, 1993, revised September 4 and November 12, 1993, with the understanding that the
developer will address the mass grading issue, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland.
Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans
should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study
should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right -of -way, traffic lanes and signal
justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right -of -way is inadequate.
2. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed
construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street
grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the
MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. Due to the size of the project, the
applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW.
4. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to
NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant
shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should
be as a minimum 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat.
Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook.
5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive 1
plan. If interim service is provide from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility
and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City will authorize /perform a study to
determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The
applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study.
6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 -inch water line. If the applicant installs
the oversized (12 -inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their
assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 -inch
watermain and a 12 -inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire
Marshal's recommendations.
7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in '
conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event and
retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 -
year 24 -hour storm event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
redevelo d runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to quality.
improve water ualit
P Pe Po P q Y
Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on -site, the applicant
1 shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding.
8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public
' improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site.
9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as
well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming.
10. The applicant shall include a drain -tile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no
other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer.
' 11. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right -of -way determined from a
traffic study for future and 86th Street.
12. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide
provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency`
I vehicles.
13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and Engineer's memo.
' 14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall
exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas.
1 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Hwy. 212 and Hwy.
101 right -of -ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots.
16. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission.
A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to
include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play
apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc.
'
B.
Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the
' project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus.
C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the
"park" site. In consideration for the conshvction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit
' equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city
with documentation for verification.
D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force.
17. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations and
development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem
1 Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz.
1 20
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not
exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests
of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate
the Planning Commission's input.
18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. The hard
surface coverage of the multi family portion of the site exceeds the permitted 30 %. Mass grading of the
multi - family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be improved to retain
some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how
water quality standards will be achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for
additional open space.
19. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential
establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to
provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. This can be
discussed further before the formal development plan is submitted.
20. The applicant should hold a neighborhood meeting with area residents to gain a full understanding of their
concerns and attempt to address them.
21. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control
and we had hoped to have it completed by now. By the time formal approval is requested, this may have
been finished but if not, the western edge of the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The
majority of the site is not impacted by this issue.
22. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one would be useful in
the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it would assist in making a determination, an
elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal.
23. Address the hard surface issue to meet requirements of the PUD Ordinance. The hard surface coverage may
not exceed 30% of site area.
24. Eliminate the driveway access located west of "A" Street as shown in attachment ".
25. Street light and boulevard trees be installed along the collector street in the development.
26. A trail be installed along Highway 101.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE 1994 POLICE CONTRACT. 1
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor and City Council. I'll comment briefly on the packet of materials included in the
Council packet. The first of month when I originally prepared the memo recommending an additional 3 hours of
police contract time. The Council and staff budget meetings have not been completed. Because of the present
uncertainty regarding what budget cuts may be necessary, I'm changing my recommendation regarding the police
contracts slightly. What staff is now recommending to you is that you authorize a police contract with Carver ,
21
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
County for the same 32 hours per day police coverage as we have had this year. The Sheriff's Department is
requesting a signed contract as soon as possible and frankly are only waiting on Chanhassen to make their
personnel assignments and other required plans. On Friday I met with Sheriff Wallin and Chief Deputy
Castleberry to explain the situation with our budget to them and the uncertainty of what cuts might become
necessary and they have told me that it meets with their approval that if we enter into a contract for 32 hours,
which we presently have, that we could proceed with an addendum in the future after the '94 budget is examined
to see if it will support the contract increase. I've done my best to make it clear that the Council in it's
budgeting priorities are...additional support service person to take care of the problems in customer service that
we've experience because of the increased work load. The addition of a part -time CSO to support the
community service officer program demands and to continue with the animal control contract-budget permits the
purchase of additional police contract dollars with the County. It creates a new law enforcement position. With
the budget uncertainties I cannot recommend the additional police contract time if it will use money that would
otherwise be used for other more immediate needs. An alternative is to consider budgeting the additional money
that Councilman Wing has recommended for traffic enforcement and to again consider the extra patrol in 1995 if
` the budget so requires. And so it's my recommendation that the Council now authorize us to enter into a
contract with the Carver County Sheriff's Department to maintain the 32 hours of police coverage we now have
and to continue reviewing the optional position with Carver County in the '94 budget to support that.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? Richard.
1 Councilman Wing: At some point the Council is going to have to bite the bullet on the money and keep ahead
of things. So although I can't disagree with Scott's recommendations, tonight just conceptually, just
conceptually we approved 422 new high density homes, 422 new homes in somewhat high density housing and
we know that those high density housing are high call areas. Just by their nature and statistically I think that
would, we have no trouble showing that. So we go from, we stay at 32 with the growth of the city. At some
point we're going to have to take a giant leap here at some point and pay the price so my concern is the 32, I
1 guess Scott you would probably agree does an okay job but that's today?
Scott Harr: Yes.
Councilman Wing: But with the growth it starts to stretch itself. Unless we keep kind of moving ahead here
with the growth, suddenly we're behind and we really have inadequate police service all of a sudden, even
though we might add a radar car and we have the CSO's. The visible patrol cars aren't able to answer calls. So
that's my only concern is that by having to watch the dollars here, and I think the Public Safety Commission
years ago said, when you spend city dollars, and that was adopted by Council unanimously. When you spend
city dollars, you take your police, fire and public safety dollars first. You spend those where the need is and
then you move on to the rest of the city budget because those were really the, we spend less than other cities to
begin with by far and we had, there was some catch up to do so I just remember that that report came out in the
80's, whenever it was, stated that the Council should prioritize public safety dollars and then move into the city
budget per se. So I'm hesitant to find ourselves falling behind here by not going to the 35 hours.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I can't argue with you Richard but I think that we need, I mean Carver
County needs to get the personnel items squared away and we haven't hashed out the budget completely and if
1 they have the ability to add additional hours if we deem that necessary, and we likely will or who knows what
22
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
will happen. Then I'm comfortable with Scott's recommendation. Realizing again, as he has reiterated again
and again that his first priority is the additional support staff to deal with customer service.
Councilman Mason: I agree with Scott. I want to put him on the spot for a minute though. Councilman Wing
just made some comment about high density areas like we have conceptually approved typically have higher
calls. Will you respond to that? I mean is that based on just by virtue of the fact that there are more homes
there?
Scott Harr: With the increase with occupants, with the increase of traffic, we're just going to have more calls.
Whether the type of housing promotes increase in crime rate, I don't have the numbers and I really think that 1
with an aggressive crime prevention program, we can work with the developer, with the management personnel
and with the occupants to develop effective neighborhood watch programs...prevention program and really
develop what Chanhassen has become known for. Group community oriented policing. And the Public Safety
Commission, if I can just take a moment to respond to Councilman Wing's comments as well. The Public
Safety Commission is very concerned about future plans and developing a response to the Chanhassen, that you
folks on the Council are developing. I feel very comfortable with the amount of patrol we have now because of
the planning that's taken place over the past several years. The 3 additional hours that were included in your '93
contract have made the patrol level a very comfortable level that the citizens and I feel very good about it.
Certainly we're going to have to keep on top of it but we also have to support the patrol units with the ancillary
support that makes the system work. When people call in to the bread and butter public safety needs, code
enforcement, animal control, who do I call type of calls, we need to be able to respond. We have to develop a
crime prevention program that is stronger than we've been able to. I think we have right now the patrol service
that this city can be extremely proud for the reasons we've discussed many times before. We're getting a heck
of a deal and it's made exactly for what we need. Now we have to examine what else we need in support
services and then develop the more specific needs, including more investigative needs. More crime prevention
needs and cooperation with the Sheriff's office that the additional 3 hours is meant to be. And I'm not saying
tonight that it's either or. I'm still hoping that the budget might support but as the Public Safety Director I have
to tell you what I feel are the immediate needs and that's what I've done. Again, the Sheriff has been good
enough to say if we want to enter into this after the budget process, the additional time, he's fine with that and
that can be worked out. Or just the option of including traffic time and review this again in '95. So I don't see
it as an either or situation. I'm just asking for the 32 hours so the Sheriff's department can get on with their
hiring that they need to do now and the bid process they go through for people to be placed in certain shifts and
any equipment purchases they need.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else Mike?
Councilman Mason: No. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Should I make a real candid, political statement. Gee, I agree with everything you all said. 1
You know I agree with Dick in one way. I'm not really willing to commit myself tonight, you know whether
it's 32 or 35. I mean we're willing to go with your recommendation but I'd really like to finish the budget
process and look at the overall needs as it relates to the budget process. And I think we do need to stay out in
front on this stuff very definitely. I think it's kind of interesting, if you watch the blotter or whatever. I mean
the calls have been increasing considerably. It's also I think real interesting if you watch it, that with Market
Square opening, quite a number of calls have been initiated relating to Market Square. With Target opening,
23 1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
there's been quite a number of calls in relationship to Target initiating and stuff of which take a lot of time and
effort and this is an area we just can't slack at all. I think we've got to get out in front on but I think we also
have to realize that many of the needs, or some of the needs occurring through the TIF districts aren't really
funding it at all through the payment of taxes and I think we should maybe even look at some other source...
service or districts or whatever that can really help us get out in front on this because I don't think again it's fair
to necessarily take the whole crux of that and throw it back against the citizens. But at the same time I think
this is really an area that we shouldn't be penny wise and a pound foolish so to speak.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I did have some discussions with Scott on this as well and of course 35 hours I look at,
I think that's going to help within the community as well. There's no question. But I was also looking at some
other parts of that. Just seeing if somehow through volunteer services we can get some other people working
within the public safety department and maybe making some solicitations to some of our seniors or those who
are within the city who would be willing to provide some of that time and attention that's needed to provide that
kind of service that he's talking about. So I think we can sort of pursue that aspect of it as well. I would like
to see that continued and probably with Park and Rec to see if any of those seniors would be willing, and if
there's any other volunteers within the community who would like to do this as well. This is a public service
message. Thank you. Any other discussion? If not I'd like a motion so we can get this to the Sheriff's
department and things can get tied down and we'll go with the 32 hours with the potential of the addendum.
Councilman Senn: I move approval.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to enter into the 1994 contract with Carver
County for a minimum of 32 hours of police coverage per day and if the 1994 budget is able to support
the additional hours, that a separate contract will be entered into for the additional 3 hours per day. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
GAMBLING ORDINANCE, COUNCILWOMAN DOCKENDORF.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, as I just said I'll keep it short and sweet because I had asked to take it off
the agenda and Mark had wanted it put back on. The reason I had put it on in the first place is that I'd like the
city to, I don't know if conduct a study or just do research on my own about the real costs and the real benefits
of having gambling within the city and also do an analysis of where our future potential sites are because I have
some concerns. And they go beyond just social concerns of gambling. They address again real costs in terms of
crime. I mean you read about the Subway incident and just what real public costs are associated with gambling
and also look at what the real benefits are. And I realize that there are. I mean this city does profit from it
because a good portion of those dollars have to be spent within our city limits. So that's my issue but I'm not
ready to talk about it tonight. I think Mark wanted to address more the organizations that we're approving.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think what you mentioned in our discussion here, that the National League of
Cities, they have a symposium covering some of these things as well and that you'll probably be attending that
h to gather some more data and some information?
I 24
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
Public Present:
Name Address
Dale Lewis 1020 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Dave Dummer 417 Santa Fe Trail
Bob Smithburg Chanhassen Hills Drive No.
Dale Runkle 3459 Washington Drive, Eagan
Donald Dehn 100 E. Rustic Lodge, Minneapolis
Jim Ostenson Tandem Properties
John Prins 5120 Edina Industrial Blvd.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I may, 8 A and B are actually offered as a combined item. They're basically the
same issue. At the last meeting you...visitor presentation. Bob Smithburg, who is a neighbor of the 9th
Addition raised some questions or some issues about tree preservation...on that site and I was asked to come
back with hopefully bringing in some developers and laying out the issues as we see them. It's kind of hard to
make a long story short but we've had, we've always had a good track record I think of working to preserve
trees in Chanhassen. We've tried new strategies where possible. We've worked to modify the subdivisions and
we came up with the idea a year or so ago of coming up with the conservation easement around tree massings
and we've done a good job of that. Last year...the Council convened a Tree Board. The Tree Board took it
upon themselves to work, as one of their issues, a tree preservation ordinance. And Councilman Wing's been
involved with that and I believe Councilwoman Dockendorf a little bit. They are a very well intentioned group
but I think it kind of gets to one of the issues that I raised when I proposed the environmental commission.
When you convene a group of people who have one sole task, they often do that task to the exclusion of
anything else and frankly sometimes lose sight of what the ultimate goal. Unfortunately I was not able to be a
participant in a lot of their deliberations. I was in South America most of the summer while this was happening,
but they developed some ideas for how to go about preserving trees which would then move us up again to the
next frontier I guess on tree preservation issues and they came up with some well intentioned standards. We had
two subdivisions that came through in that time frame, the 9th Addition and Trotters Ridge. Both of which had
very intensive tree issues. In the case of the 9th Addition it became a very major involvement to the
neighborhood and in fact the tree preservation program became one of the selling points of both projects. But in
particular the 9th Addition where it was a major factor I think in responding to the issues raised by the residents.
Staff was out at that site I don't know how many times. We toured it with the DNR. We toured it with our
forester. We toured it with ourselves. We went out there with the developers and by and large I think both of
these plans are good indications of some of the things that can be accomplished. In the 9th Addition there were
tree conservation easements assigned. A cul -de -sac in a particular sensitive area was deleted. Street alignments
were modified. Lot configurations were modified. Staff came up with the idea of using ejector pumps in some
homes rather than trenching in a gravity line which would run behind the homes and be very destructive to the
street. So there was a lot of creative things that were done. If you could have 20/20 hind sight, where in my
personal opinion I think it went too far is they tried not only to do all those measures I just mentioned but then
also to protect trees in front of and to the sides of homes and I couldn't figure out how many trees there are but
for argument sake, let's say there's 450 trees they had to preserve. A lot of those trees in the front yards and
side yards and you literally go out to Tree 903A. That one's got to be preserved but 907, that can be cut and it
was done to that level of micro management. It's caused us a considable amount of difficulty...in terms of
administering these things. I see Dave Dummer in the audience and he'll probably touch on one of his issues
but we've been out to the site any number of times, I think responding directly to the questions that were raised
by Mr. Smithburg at the last meeting. We tried to do things...but we've been meeting intensively with Joe
27
!A [
1
1
i City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
1 Miller Homes. Bottom line is, is I don't think they did a half bad job. There were, I think our tally was 17
trees that were removed that shouldn't have been. And our forester intern recalls that some of them were
I potentially dead and they used a professional tree company who worked with us to remove these trees and when
we have that many trees, I mean did some of these blow down during storms in the summer. Some of them die
anyway. Were some of them missed? Was it a perfect inventory that was taken and when they went in there
and when clearing out dead and dying materials, was this actually dead and dying and we didn't see it the first
I time. All of those things are possible. Where the developer acknowledges and we acknowledge they messed up
is when they deviated from the plan they neglected to call us. Now it would have been difficult to come out
there 17 times for 17 trees but some of these things were clumped together. But I think they acted in good faith
I in that regard. They spent a lot of money for the tree contractor. There's no reason for them to have messed
up. They actually saved trees around the ones that they cut by accident or in error or intentionally and didn't
inform us. So there didn't seem to be any clear malicious intent here. And based upon that, I was proposing to
the City Council, and I knocked it off in a letter...that we propose that we be willing to accept the 17 trees as a
I fact of life. I mean that there was no malicious intent. Therefore there should be no penalty out there. One of
the other places though that there was a problem out on the site is some of the contractors on the Joe Miller site
took down the tree conservation fencing. Tree protection fencing and then rolled heavy equipment over the
I roots. And they didn't do it every place but they did it in a few places and it's pretty obvious where that was
done. And we have a list of trees we've developed where that happened. And we have the standard option with
that is we sit on their money for 2 years and then we see what's left living after 2 years, which is a pretty
' reactive position to take. And the developer kept on saying, well how do you know that I killed the tree and it
wasn't an act of God or it wasn't cut down by a homeowner after they moved in? There's no clean answer to
that. And their contractor, their tree company suggested as an alternative, instead of being reactive and waiting
for trees to die, that they go in there and, I forget the exact technical term but kind of power fertilize on 3 foot
: centers with a pump machine where they put a rod down and they're basically not only fertilizing, you can
fertilize a tree but it decompacts the soil. Kind of frees up the soil, which seemed to be a much more
appropriate thing than sitting around... waiting for the trees to die, we're actually spending probably less money
although we...trying to maintain all the trees that are supposed to be saved. So in the letter that we wrote back
to Joe Miller Homes, we proposed that that be the approach and if that's acceptable to you, that's what we will
do. Keep in mind that the tree preservation plans for the 9th Addition and for Trotters Ridge are in the
I development contract and they're pretty restrictive. I don't have a whole lot of latitude to do these things on my
own so I need to bring that back up to you so it's kind of appropriate that Mr. Smithburg did. We had to do
that anyway. That's one issue. The second issue here is how we handle trees that are supposed to be protected
when you're building a home. And maybe I can cite Dave Dummer's issue here, and I'm sure he'll speak to
I you directly. This is typical of what happens when a city tries to micro manage. Dave was looking to build a
home that was, I think it was basically a retirement home. It was a single footprint, a single floor home. Kind
of large and arguably not every home should fit on every lot but there were, if I recall, one major oak tree and
I that was the big issue on this thing... oak trees on there. I think it was a 46 inch oak tree. And then there was a
clump of 3 maples that were younger and healthier and I think Dave had Jeff Schultz out there and said, well
what do you want me to cut. Should I cut this old oak tree or should I cut the maples? And the correct answer
is, the development agreement says you can't cut any of them. And in this instance the major oak tree had a
I
wound in it that wasn't visible when the tree survey was done. And it was on the back side and there was under
growth that was eventually removed and they saw it. And I was trying to find a way out of this and I asked Jeff
and said, well is this wound recent? I mean was this something that was done during construction or lightning
I hit it or something? And the answer I got was no. It could have happened 10 or 20 years ago. I said well is
the tree in eminent danger of dying? Is it going to die next year? In the next few years and the answer was no.
It may live another 10 to 20 years. Well I could hardly define that as a tree that I supported they take out and I
1 basically had to get back to Dave and Nikki and say, I can't do anything about it. This is really one where the
28
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
1
developer is obligated to save these trees. You really basically have to find another lot. I honestly don't like
putting my staff in those kinds of positions. It's just not an appropriate place to be and this is... I mean we'll do
everything within our power. We talked to the Tree Board about this and I think they agreed. We will do
everything within our power to massage a development around so that the deck is stacked in favor of
maximizing tree preservation. We'll...where it's appropriate but I sure don't want my staff to get in a shouting
match between a builder and a future resident and a developer where everybody comes out somewhat upset.
Especially when 9 times out of 10 people will do the right thing anyway. I mean you're talking about lots that
are being sold for a premium and if you're paying $20,000.00 or $30,000.00 for a treed lot, you're not likely to
clear cut the thing. I mean it's just common sense. And our original ordinance, draft ordinance out of the Tree
Board, I think unfortunately didn't rely on common sense as much as it should have. But the Tree Board
accepted that change in philosophy and directed us to come back with a new ordinance that addresses those
things. That new approach which is basically the approach we're using for that. And by the way, the Song
PUD that you saw at your last meeting, uses that more current thinking. We gave, we massaged the
development around. We established tree conservation areas and then we gave the developer some ability to
shift homes sideways and backwards and frontwards so that out in the field when they're designing a home, they
can pick out trees to save. We didn't want to put ourselves inbetween the homeowner and the tree... We've
received some correspondence from Joe Miller Homes that they are looking for additional flexibility here and...
Trotters Ridge. Trotters Ridge we have a woodland protection plan that was developed. By the way, one of the
problems we had...Trotters Ridge was one of the stands the Tree Board came up with, and again it was well
intentional but in hind sight there were better ways of doing it, was that you've got to protect 150% of the crown
of the tree. Not allow any construction 150% of the distance of the top of the tree crown. And I got a call from
the developer on Trotters Ridge the day they were getting equipment out there and they said they realized that
not only can they not put equipment on the site, they can't even walk on the site. When you put, our plans
basically would show here's where the tree is. You can see these dots over there for the trunks but it never
showed the expansion of what's 150% of the tree crown and there's absolutely no way to work on the property,
much less build a home. And that was clearly not the intent. Their tree management plan proposes to use...good
practices. They use a vibratory plow. There's ways of doing it so if you do have equipment working in an area,
you could...so it doesn't compact the soil...I've spoken to our forester intern. I've read a document that was just
published by the American Planning Association that's consistent with the recommendations that I'm getting out
of that. And I'm basically proposing that we adopt that woodland management plan, which was a requirement of
1
the PUD. They have that. I'm basically saying that we should adopt, accept the Trotters Ridge woodland
management plan with one exception, and that's to make it clear that that does not give them carte blanche to
remove trees that they said that they would save. Then we also need to confront that same issue on Joe Miller
Homes, and I don't have a good answer for you. I am reluctant to encourage you to allow them some freedome
of choice in cutting additional trees. There was a neighborhood that was very active, if you remember those
meetings, when...you're going to do something, I'm reluctant to change that after the fact. The lots are all
buildable. They may not be buildable for every house. I suppose if the odd problem crops up that we really
need to confront, we're ready to deal with that. Anyway, I've rambled on enough and I'll let you tackle that
and maybe the developers...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Is there anyone, did you have anything more to say to that?
Dale Runkle: Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Dale Runkle with Joe Miller Homes. I'm in a
position with Joe Miller so I wasn't here at the beginning when all the public hearings were going through but I
appreciate what Paul's been going through with the concerns of the trees because at this point all of us are
having problems with trying to fill out the development and the intent that I think we all went forward with in
the spring for the overall plan. I had a chance in the discussions that we had, we tried to put together a little bit
29
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
of information that would be helpful to just to analyze what our problem is. I made a couple of overheads and if
we can go through to those.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Dale Runkle: Again the addition that we're developing now, and I have not been out there in this last few days
but it's my understanding that the streets are now in and blacktopped and the development is ready to
commence. Looking at the overall development of Lake Susan, it originally started off with 90 single family
lots and of those 90 single family lots it went through kind of a count today. 37 of those are wooded lots, and
as you can see, the color didn't come out but as you can see the darker shaded ones that are on the north and
south. Looking at those 37 wooded lots, where we are today with development plans coming in, 12 of those lots
we specifically had problems with. At least of our inventories of the last day or so the kind of pinkish or
' reddish lots are the lots that have a number of trees scattered front to back and then center and what we tried to
put down there in the last day or two is a footprint of a 70 x 50 foot pad, not knowing the specific home style
that will go on there but typically for a lot that's going to range from 60,000 plus, it's an understand that there
will be a 3 car garage and a home that's going to fit more of the 70 foot width than the 50 x 50 than what the
development plan had originally shown. So we're trying to get more realistic to see what kind of problems we
would really have now coming into the rest, looking at how we can construct homes on all of the lots and still
try to meet the criteria to save as many trees as we possibly can. So looking at where we are now, we had 12
lots that definitely...that will have another 7 lots that are questionable. Those are more of the brownish tan lots
and those questionable ones are coming into, there's a number of lots but how big are those trees and there's the
issue that came up a littler earlier in regards to canopies and what everyone can survey, put, locate the tree on
the lot but what does that actually do until you actually go out and have a survey. And the items that we're
' running into, and this is the lot that Paul's referring to earlier that Dave was looking at but this is the, sorry it's
backwards. The survey and the plan that we've been working with kind of located the trees where the dark
black spots are but we physically had our surveyor go out and look at what the canopy is for those individual
trees and the shaded area now is what that actual canopy is of the tree that's located. When you start looking at
what that canopy does for the lot, we're down to less than a 40 foot building pad on that particular lot without
going into either one or more of the canopies of the other trees. So we're sitting there trying to...with the lots
that we now have created, how we can best minimize the impacts on the trees but still provide a home and a
neighborhood that everyone's expected because it's definitely going to be the homes that are going to be larger,
you know up in that $250,000.00 price range and everything else. And with that, a 40 foot pad, a 50 foot pad
isn't going to work for that type of neighborhood too well. So I guess we're at the point now of knowing which
lots we've got some problems with. Knowing that out of 90 lots we've got 12 that are real problems for us and
if we can start the work on those lots on an individual basis with, once we get the actual house plan, the
purchaser looking at it, trying to fit the home the best we can. Locating them around the trees. Saving as many
trees but still knowing we may lose 1 or 2 trees on the lot. Still saving a lot of trees on the lots but trying to
just get the best, as Paul's saying, for everyone. The homeowner, the developer and the city who want the best
neighborhood. And that's the situation we're running into right now. In the past we have worked with the
development process of trying to save trees. Granted there had been some trees taken out but I think in our
development processes we've had on site people trying to manage the different contractors. Being cognizant of
the trees. Trying to save the trees. We engaged with a tree specialist. We have Don Dehn who has a degree in
urban forestry in the neighborhood with us trying to help us put together the tree plan...that everything that went
on. We did go and try to hire the most professional people we thought to help us get the best development we
possibly could. So it isn't that we're out there just trying to clear cut. Do the development that is not in the
best interest of the city. I mean what we're trying to do is get the best development for everyone and we're at a
stand still right now because we do have some problems with some of the lots that we have trying to fulfill the
30
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
goals that everyone wants to...so we're asking, at least at this point for your help as to how we best now can
move forward and everyone can win in getting the...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address?
Don Dehn: Yeah, my name's Don Dehn. I'm the forester for S & S and I think as Dale pointed out, if each lot
is dealt with on an individual basis there's, you know the drip line, measurement of the drip line out to a tree for
the protected root zone is a great concept but in this, this lot is an example. There are some ways you can
encroach in on that drip line and still have reasonable success in saving the given trees. The important thing is
that you don't fully encompass the entire root area. There's some general rules based on diameter and you can
go, if you come in from the side, you can go as close as, for every inch diameter you can go a half a foot from
the truck of the tree. So there are ways that a builder could approach incorporating the layout and actually
getting into some of these root zones but not necessarily affecting the health of those trees. And there may be
some trees...have to take out. So I think it's a good argument to look at it on a lot by lot basis. And there are
other methods but I don't know. I know with the ordinance your hands are tied but that would be our approach
here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thanks. Is there anyone else? Dave, you wanted to get up.
Dave Dummer: I'm Dave Dummer, 417 Santa Fe Trail and we've been studying this property out there at Lake
Susan well before the final approvals were done, in fact I believe if you go back in your records, we've been
studying this I guess since the first of March of this year. Analyzing the property. Trying to find a way to find
a location that worked and we're not trying to take a cookie cutter plan A, plan B off the shelf and slam it in
there at all. We already have spent significant money with an architect studying the plan of how can we move
the house around to fit with the terrain and after taking x amount of our dollars he stopped us and he said, it
doesn't pay to go any further because I'm just going to take your money and you're not going to get a house in
there. And that's not a developer trying to put a standard plan on there at all. This is a unique plan built to suit
the lot. I would love to tallc about that lot because I'm close to it but I think we have to talk about it more in
general for all the developers because there's some 37 lots here. Trotters must have, what 50 there and then you
go on to Stone Creek. You go right down the ravines. You have all those trees. I think we have to obviously
settle on this that something that is beneficial to all the citizens and to all the developers. I do have some
specific situations on this lot that, I could go on forever but I'm sure you don't want to hear about all that but if
you do, I do have pictures. I'll be willing to share them with you if you'd like. I do support the tree
preservation concept. I think it's very important but I'm also concerned what our definition of tree preservation
is. If it means we're going to preserve every single tree out there that we should have never allowed developers
to start. We should have taken this out of consideration for development. Tax dollars, whatever. Park,
whatever but don't let developers get sunk in financially and then try to stop them. I think that's, we weren't
thinking far enough ahead. I don't think any developer's trying to clear cut anything and they're right. It would
be really stupid go out, spend a premium and then clear cut it. One thing unusual about this one is, they show 5
trees. In reality there's about 11 or 12 huge trees. The rest are all to the back, are totally out of play so they
just didn't put them in. And there are other lots that we studied also and there's just no way you're going to
place in there yielding no more than 15, 20, 30 feet wide. So the housepads were just not reasonable the lay
they were laid out originally. So I would ask your consideration for all the developers to come up with a
rational tree project and if it requires doing considerable variances from your existing for each, from your
existing ordinance for each lot, then I would certainly encourage it. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel; Okay, thank you Dave. Is there anyone else? ,
31 ,
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
Bob Smithburg: I'm Bob Smithburg, 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. Mr. Mayor and Council members. I
sympathize with developers and contractors. With Mr. Krauss. I know it's a tremendous problem. Seeing that
it is such a problem, could we possibly discuss the continuation of a forester for the city of Chanhassen. I've
heard budgetary problems. Possibly even allow this. My concern is, who do we trust? I watched the project. I
could go on and on and on. I guess that's what I'd like to ask for at this point. Monetary, which we had all
talked about previously in developing the PUD here. I think that would be, I think a fair way for all involved if
1 something in the concept again as a forester for Chanhassen. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else?
Don Dehn: I was just curious. The City of Lakeville has a tree ordinance. Have you looked over their tree
ordinance? Has anyone gotten a copy of that?
Paul Krauss: The Tree Board has looked at copies of Lakeville, Maple Grove and Eden Prairie.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Paul. Okay. If there's no one else, we'll start on my right with Richard. Do you
have some...
Councilman Wing: Well being on the Tree Board, you know I pulled the parking lot ordinance off the consent
agenda and I asked the Council what are they passing. And this is kind of one of those cases. I think that we
• were forced into a position by developers to start reacting for protecting our city. The developers were coming
in and mowing us down. Point blank and there was no if's and but's and we're not strick enough yet but we're
getting there and we want to protect our remaining stands of trees and the neighborhood has clearly spoken of
' that and none of us disagree with that. And clearly this city is leading the way in tree preservation and no one is
going to accuse me of not having been involved in tree preservation so then when I speak against the
neighborhood here tonight, which I'm going to do, I think I'm on pretty solid ground because simply there's got
to be some flexibility. As soon as that plat was, we have two choices. We could be black and white and
preserve the trees and isolate them. Lock them up. Put them into environmental, what do you call that thing?
The conservation easement. Or buy it. Take it over for park, whatever. But the minute this plat went through,
1 or any other plat, where we allowed building into those trees, you've got to start being a little bit flexible. I was
out there today walking through this whole area, up and down the streets kind of giggling because it's sort of
like, I kept thinking of a pachinko board with the ball bouncing around a tree and which way is it going to go.
And it's kind of a maze and we've kind of set this area up now to see, it's a maze. Can we build or not. And
it's sort of humorous you know. We've got this maze of trees and can these guys possibly sneak a house in or
not. Well, the lots are there. The lots are platted. We want to save all the trees but the key word I've heard
from staff since this came out is, first of all we've got to clean this up and I think we're going to plan on doing
' that for future ones. On the other hand, ones just before this got away with murder so we're sort of in the
middle. One group got away with murder and this group's getting stung and now we'll clean it up a little bit.
But nonetheless we need to be allowed to tweak a little bit here. We want to preserve the trees. We don't want
to go against that neighborhood. They're in the right but we need to be able to tweak this particular one so I'll
' support you tweaking on a lot per lot basis. I'm not sure how we got about this tweaking and this flexibility but
I think we have to move ahead with this plan and when we start bringing people in to aerate the ground and go
to this amount of work, we've gone too far. There's something wrong there so, I noticed the lots Paul. I think
you need some flexibility on this one. I think you need to be able to tweak on a lot to lot basis. And I don't
' know how to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I can look to our counseler here. I think he drafted some of those things for us and to
32
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
maybe look at some of those things in the near future...Roger.
Roger Knutson: If you want to give flexibility there's any number of ways of doing it. One way would be, you
have a development contract. You can certainly require...if you want to change it for a particular lot, they could
propose that...consent item agenda with the recommendation of staff and do it that way or you could delegate to
staff discretion to allow certain deviations. Those would be two ways.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well the way I'm seeing this there are really three separate issues. How do we
deal with the Stone Creek's and the Trotters' who have not done a lot of activity but are running into problems?
What do we do with the ordinance and what do we do with Lake Susan? And I separate those out because I'm
seriously very upset with what happened with Lake Susan because of the lack of notification and we went
through this long process this summer and they knew the importance of the tree conservation and preservation
and yet they cut down trees without notifying the city and I have a big problem with that. Whether it was done
in bad faith or not or whether those trees should have gone is not the issue. They knew how important it was. I
also have a problem with additional taking down of trees because we as a Council made a commitment to people
in that area, surrounding area and to the city that we would save those trees. But I don't want to be so rigid in
saying that we can't be flexible on this and I guess I just, to get off that subject, I have a question as to why this
happened because I mean as you said Paul, we had our people out there. We had our forestery intern out there.
The builder was out there walking the land. Their forester was out there walking the land. Why wasn't this
caught?
Paul Krauss: Well I'd say it was a few reasons. First of all it was a very heavily forested site. Trees were 1
located on the survey but it wasn't perfect and if you have a tree that's 10 feet out of place, it doesn't sound like
a lot but it probably messes up the building pad. It was the first time this was ever tried to this level of detail
and I think my staff and people who were really heavily into it kind of blew it when they kind of just by rote
accepted it as 150% of the tree crown and never applied it. None of the documents we ever got the developer
showed what it was. Kate Aanenson's been working...Trotters Ridge with the Trotters Ridge development where
I mean she actually had to lay out the tree crown. She kind of drafted up a tree...and you literally couldn't walk
on the site. I mean something clearly had to be done. We're also finding that it's not a black and white thing.
That where we had heard, our advice in the spring when the Tree Board was doing this is you've got to be
150% of the tree crown. You're going to kill it. It's got to be there. Well now we're finding out that maybe
you don't have to do that. Maybe you do things like what Trotters Ridge is proposing. To use a vibratory plow
which is able to cut, sever the roots with less damage. Then you go out there and you sit with some expert
judgment just what part of the root zone you can risk and what you shouldn't. And that's a much more flexible
approach. I guess that remains to be seen how well it works after the fact but I mean certainly we're
approaching this with a lot more knowledge than it used to be where you had all the trees...But it's not an exact
science. I think we can do that. Secondly, thirdly or what we're fmding too is it's very difficult, it's almost
impossible, despite the best of all intent, and every one of those trees, if you look real close, every one of those
trees has a little metal tag on it. I mean it's got a number and everything. But given the amount of undergrowth
there, it's just not possible to survey every square inch of a tree. When you're looking up into a dense canopy,
can you tell that there's a major dead limb? They couldn't. They couldn't until they cleared out the brush and
actually had crews going out to every tree and starting to trim them back. You know I think they pushed the 1
level of expertise beyond what was really possible to pull off. Nobody realized it until after it was done.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, you know 17 have been taken down and I'm willing to allow for additional
33
1
1
1 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
flexibility and what needs to happen to make some of those lots buildable but I would really sincerely like to
hold the developer to the contract of replacing whatever additional trees need to be taken down on a per caliper
inch. In the area. Regarding Trotters and Stone Creek. Again, let's try to be flexible before they go with their
backhoes and I'm wiling to let, to trust staff to work with them. And let's look at the ordinance and make it
more workable for everyone involved.
1 Paul Krauss: Stone Creek, we don't anticipate the same level of trouble with Stone Creek. We're coming
around to full circle. Stone Creek, we did put that barrier up beyond which nothing's supposed to happen and
beyond that we kind of left it up to the developer to figure out so it should work...
1 Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I jotted a bunch of quick notes here. I think that this is maybe one of the problems of
perhaps trying to be visionary and trying to be proactive. I think the learning curve sometimes doesn't quite
keep pace with what we're trying to do and I think that may have been the case with this one. Clearly I think
on those specific lots we need to have some sort of flexibility. I do think, and I can think of a number of
1 housing developments in this city that some developers do clear cut and some developers do choose the cheapest
way out and do do mass grading and I think as a Council we need to be forever vigilant. Clearly there are
developers in town that do not do that. But we need to have the strickest standards possible and in that
strickness I think sometimes you know as a parent or as an educator we call it tough love and I think sometimes
you, things aren't black and white. And you do have to look at some things on a case by case basis and I
certainly would not advocate micro managing every development in the city of Chanhassen. But in an instance
like this where we have made a commitment to an existing neighborhood and where we're finding that it's
impossible to build homes on a plat that the city's approved, I think we need to take a look on those individual
lots. I think also, and it's already been mentioned that perhaps reforestation is an area that we need to tackle as
vigorously as we do trying to protect trees. Let's face it, if you're going to build a house, a tree gets cut down
' in many places and reforestation may be a direction this city needs to take...and I think that perhaps Mr.
Smithburg raises a good point. I don't know if the city could afford...I know the County has one. I also know
that the County forester is extremely busy and maybe with, maybe this city should be looking into with one or
two other cities, taking a look at some sort of forester position. And that might in fact go in line with your
environmental commission also. So yeah, I think we do, all of the lots that have been mentioned tonight, I think
we need to take a look at them very carefully.
1 Mayor Chmiel: And I think too with the Arboretum as close as they are, I'm sure they'd be willing to assist us
as well with some of these things. Mark.
' Councilman Senn: You know I guess, I think Mr. Smithburg is basically right on. I really don't want him to
give up in his efforts in terms of, you know maybe our need to relax things a little bit but, and I'm not going to
defend Joe Miller Homes at all because 1 think, I really agree with Colleen here. To me the lack of
communication is somewhat unconscionable in that you find out about it after the fact and stuff but I guess that's
you know, in my personal...that's not a new situation for Joe Miller Homes but you know I'm strongly
supportive of the preservation as well as the new plantings and the replacement plantings. But really our current
guidelines have gone way beyond being guidelines and they're really, our guidelines have become more of an
implementation plan it seems to me in my eyes. And maybe we need to focus on a stronger insistence or
whatever that basically PUD's in effect always be used even as it relates to the residential developments where
staff has basically more leeway in terms of basically negotiating those things out and insistence that they be
1 complied with. But overall I think the staff needs to be given more latitude to implement and monitor the
. 34
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
specific conditions. Every landform has a different or unique set of conditions and each one of those conditions
exist under different circumstances and I think require specific attention. I don't think- staff can necessarily be
running out to monitor and check each tree but at the same time if they have more latitude up front in
II
relationship to the development, in terms of negotiating out and determining what exactly is going to happen,
then it seems to me that there's more ownership and also more follow thru just in terms of making sure that it
happens. At the same I guess I'd like to see that same latitude, or that additional latitude really given to staff
and get the implementation setback out of the ordinance. I'd also like staff to however routinely, you know
where I think with all Council it's an important issue and the Council should be aware of any potential
controversies that are going to arise out of neighborhood circumstances and that sort of thing. So that's basically
my feelings.
1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think what's already been said, there's no sense in me saying too much more. Other
than the fact that I think there has to be a certain amount of flexibility with this. And I would like to see staff
take that and make sure that flexibility is there but yet enough so no one abuses that particular aspect of it.
Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, if you're done. I guess Mr. Smithburg has really carried the flag for this and I
Il
think he speaks for myself and what we're trying to accomplish but I guess sitting up here, to relate to you and
your neighborhood, two things I wanted to make sure we did in this process. Number one, buffer your
neighborhood. And secondly, protect that stand of trees and I think that although not letter perfect, I sort of feel,
I
in speaking the way I did tonight, that we did address those issues and we did a fairly good job but now we've
got the reality of the plat we have to deal with and we did plat those lots and they're not buildable. So now I'm
real comfortable with Paul and your leadership in this and in doing that so I guess I would ask, how do we best
give, to Roger, how do we best give Paul that approval to be flexible? What's the simplest way to give Council
approval to move ahead on this and fix it?
Mayor Chmiel: What the clarification is I think you've indicated before.
1
Roger Knutson: If Paul's comfortable with it, a motion could be made to authorize the Planning Director to
grant minor deviations from the preservation plans for the plats.
I
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, would you?
Paul Krauss: ...I guess we're comfortable doing that but we have a tree woodland management plan for Trotters
1
Ridge that I think also would be appropriate for the 9th Addition in teens of how to manage the site. But the
question becomes one of, I think Councilwoman Dockendorf raised it. If additional trees are to be cut, trees that
were meant to be saved, on these particular plans, should we ask for the caliper inch replacement for that? I
I
think I fmd myself agreeing with Councilwoman Dockendorf. There was a net number of trees with net number
of inches of trees to be saved and I guess I'd like to be in a position to strive towards that.
Mayor Chmiel: But I would think we should probably set some total caliper inch as to what it is. I mean you 1
may have some that are just a humongous tree and it has to be removed. You're not going to be able to plant
another tree like it.
I Paul Krauss: Oh no, but when you do the caliper inch, if you cut down a 12 inch tree and put in...
Councilman Senn: And not necessarily on the same lot. I mean again I think that's part of where the leeway 1
35
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
has to come that there may be better places to place those.
Councilman Wing: What about this 46 inch tree? Civil War oak tree. How many of these are we going to put
in? 46 caliper inches for that one?
Paul Krauss: Conceivably.
Councilman Wing: You know I would rather, if I had to do it over again, this is one of those that we say, let's
put on all the lots are not wooded, they have 3 new trees put in and then these few we lose along the way here,
' we reforest because like Erhart says, this is a renewable resource. This isn't the end of the world. We just want
to make sure we're renewing and protecting. Not, it gets absurd here.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, exactly.
Councilman Mason: Well what does Eden Prairie do? I mean they have some sort of, what's their formula for
replacing trees?
Paul Krauss: I don't know exactly but...
Councilman Senn: They started with absolute replacement. I mean more or less anything you took down,
f you're required to replace by caliper inch. Plus then they had a standard. So I mean you had to do that to
measure up to a standard. So I mean it wasn't a, I want to say it wasn't an unlimited. That just went on and on
and on. It made you conform to a max or to a standard.
Paul Krauss: On these two projects you've already allowed them to cut a number of trees.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and we're not talking about those.
Paul Krauss: The slate's clean on that. I guess we're just talking about if additional trees have to be removed...
' should they be replaced per caliper inch...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I believe so and they can even put them on any lot you want to. It doesn't
have to be on that specific lot where the original tree was taken. But the developer has to take some
1 responsibility for what they agreed to as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay with that, I don't even know if we need a motion on that do we Roger?
Roger Knutson: I think it'd be a good idea to have a motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We do?
Roger Knutson: Yeah, because you're authorizing flexibility to a written document which you approved so I
think the record should be clear that you authorized a deviation from that document.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I would move that we would give the Planning Director some latitude in
dealing with the platting. Or not with the platting but with the conditions of building for Lake Susan Hills 9th
Addition, Trotters Ridge and if necessary, Stone Creek, to deviate from the original agreement. And also would
1 36
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 I
1
move that we enforce the replacement on a per caliper inch basis for trees that, additional trees that have to be
taken.
Councilman Mason: Now that's just for these 3 developments right? I
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. 1
Councilman Mason: So in the future we're going to be relooking at this and retooling it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We'll use the woodland management. 1
Councilman Senn: Could we maybe include in the motion and send that message back to the Tree Board as
such that we would like to see that really relooked at and stuff because I think that's part of the problem that
1
Paul was having. It would be caught between the different.
Don Dehn: I agree with the flexibility and I guess looking at some of the replacements. We also have a number
of trees in the development that we've been allowed to cut down that we haven't taken down and if we could get
some credit on that or if there's some flexibility that we can work back and forth so to sum it up, if we haven't
taken down, get some credit for versus the ones that we may need to take down.
Councilman Mason: On the surface I don't have any trouble with that. I suppose you could throw that back. On
the other hand, then they get a debit for the 17 trees that were cut down that you weren't suppose to. I mean.
Don Dehn: It's a give and take and there's a number of trees out there that we could have gone and cut. We I
haven't because we don't know what type of homes are going to be on the lot and we thought we'd give it the
most flexibility that we can until we get in there and I think some of those, if we could get some credit if they
I
don't come down. I think that's in the spirit that we're working together to make that the best we can. I think
that gives us some incentive too.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you see any given problem?
1
Paul Krauss: I don't know. That's your call. I guess there's some air of legitimacy to it. I know Trotters
Ridge has done the same thing. They've saved trees beyond which we asked them to. 1
Councilman Senn: That's too much detail for us to get into.
Mayor Chmiel: That's my concern. 1
Councilman Senn: Paul ought to be given that latitude to go do it. We know he's going to do it. I think you
should have that latitude. Go work it out. You know what the intentions of it are and Paul, you're the absolute
I
authority. You know you're the word on it. If the developer disagrees with you, tell him tough bounce. You
can go back to the Council. I don't think he's going to want to do that again.
Jim Ostenson: My name's Jim Ostenson with Tandem Properties. We're the developer of Trotters Ridge. 1
Earlier we were talking about micro managing a subdivision and we, as a developer, are very sensitive towards
trees. What was said earlier about you know wanting to clear cut trees and it's foolish on our part. To preserve
1 trees is really what it's all about and where the value is created in the neighborhood. Where the lot values are
37
1
I
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
and the home values. The absorption of the lots and everything else is all created by our ability to preserve
trees. We have less, and I've been developing land for about 17 years, and in the last 5 years there's been a
huge strides that have been made in preserving trees and I think in the past, you know planning departments,
engineering departments, city councils as well as developers have all been negligent in some plans that have
been developed and carried out in the loss of trees. Even with the tree inventory, which we all...and very
expensive on the front end, but is a great planning tool for everyone in developing a neighborhood. In designing
streets. Determining where cul -de -sacs should go. Widths of right -of -way and everything else. We come in and
negotiate with the engineering department as much as anyone as to, we want to save trees. Can we go with a
narrower right -of -way in order to do it. The point is is that there's a lot of give and take in all of this if we're
' going to be able to save trees. For instance out at Trotters Ridge...vibratory plow which was something that was
never required on our part but we feel we have a better chance of saving trees and we even indicated... net gain
over what our earlier predictions were. There's an instance across the street where the watermain is going in
' along Gaipin where there are, I'll say 30 to 50 trees that are going to be destroyed by that watermain and we're
working with that homeowner, or property owner to move those trees on over to our side. We'll buy them from
him and move them ourselves and bring them over there so, they're specimen trees that will be able to be saved.
The problem we're going to have is that if, you know we do need flexibility on this. I've worked with potential
' lot purchasers that are frustrated with their desire to build an architecturally designed home and then they can't
make it fit in any of our lots. It's very frustrating. And if we get into a situation where we're counting every -
caliper inch and we get into, you know we've lost one here but we gained one here. That type of thing. It's
' going to be an administrative nightmare and I would hope that we can work with the staff and use the flexibility
off of the forest management, woodland management plan that we've put together as well as the forester that
we've retained. The forester that the city. The intern forester that you'll be using you know to sit down and
' with a template on each lot and work these things out rather than getting into 2 inches here and 4 inches there.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's some of the concerns by Council but I think the other portions are concerns
over the caliper of the trees that are existing. And prior to you probably coming into this community we've had
' some developers that just come in and sort of clear cut and those are the precautions that we're now taking to
prevent that from happening again.
' Jim Ostenson: I am very much aware that every ordinance is as a result of some abuse some time. Whether it's
street sections or whatever. And my only point is that, you know maybe rather than caliper per caliper inch, if
we could sit down and work out some kind of a ratio or...because we do want to do things that are positive that
we are, right now we aren't being given credit for. But if we're going to be penalized, then we should also be
1 credited.
Councilman Mason: I think I'm hearing Council say that you'll have that flexibility.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I see that that's where it's going to go, yeah. We have a motion on the floor.
' Councilman Wing: And I'll second it for discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There is discussion at this time.
Councilman Wing: Flexibility but we're also talking per caliper inch. So if you cut down a 46 inch tree,
they've got to come up with 15 -16 trees to put back in.
Councilman Mason: Well this is, no this is over and above. Trees that get cut down that are over and above
1 38
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
what has already been approved is what we're discussing here. I don't have any trouble with the concept of
credit for trees saved. I was, my comment earlier was with the, in the situation where there's been some rough
shod practices. ,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I agree. I think you separate that one out because there have been some
abuses there and I'm not looking for punishment. I'm looking for you know.
Councilman Senn: I have no problem with the concept of credit but at the same time, I want Paul to pay
particular attention to the fact that credit necessarily doesn't solve all the problems. I think a buffering or an
area that requires the trees, I think you don't allow the credit and you still insist that the additional trees be
planted in that area where you're trying to accomplish a greater or better buffer or screening or whatever so I
don't think you can view it as an absolute credit just by the fact that it's there.
Mayor Chmiel: And I think that judgment would be done accordingly. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And if there's a problem, bring it back to Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to give the Planning Director latitude in
dealing with the conditions of building for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition, Trotters Ridge and if necessary,
Stone Creek, to deviate from the original agreement. Also to enforce the replacement on a per caliper
inch basis for additional trees that have to be taken. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SET ADDITIONAL WORK SESSIONS FOR 1994 BUDGET, NOVEMBER 29 AND /OR NOVEMBER 30,
CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: I was disappointed with our last budget work session and I take total responsibility for that. I
don't think that I was able to get a clear indication from City Council as to what your priorities are. What you
want me to go back and actually negotiate in or out of the current budget. And again those sessions ran into this
Vision 2002 and again I do not believe that we have had a clear opportunity for Council to discuss back and
forth your priorities as far as the 9 items that were listed as well as there was some reference to individual items
that really should be looked at and yet I walked away from that without really having an idea of what those
individual items were. We have two work sessions set. One for November 29th. One for November 30th. I'm
anticipating, the one on November 30th is the official public hearing for the budget and so I can assure the City
Council that that one, by and of itself should be reasonably short because we're simply taking public comments.
Be very easy on that evening to have a work session starting at 5:30 and going to the public hearing time which
would be 7:00. It's an hour and a half there. I'm also anticipating that on November 29th that some part of that
meeting might also be available to discuss budget priorities and again that's the one set out with the haulers. I
would suggest that both of those meetings be set so as to start at 5:30 but that we quit at 8:00 and so if on the
garbage hauler evening we're still working at this at 8:00, we don't do the budget session that night. But if on
the other side of the coin we're done with the haulers by let's say 6:30 or 7:00, that we use that remaining hour,
hour and a half to talk about budget.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Give us a time. Give us a schedule. Does everybody first of all have the 29th and 30th
open?
1
39
1
1 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
1
Councilman Senn: Don, a question for you on the 29th. How critical is it that we address the hauler issue
before January 1st? Or I mean let's call it, how critical is it to address that issue next week?
Don Ashworth: Paul would have to respond.
1 Councilman Senn: I mean to me the city budget's pretty critical and maybe that's where we ought to.
Paul Krauss: If I can get home to watch Northern Exposure, I'm all for it.
' Councilman Senn: You missed it.
Paul Krauss: I don't know that there's a critical time line. I guess the only thing I'm concerned of is it
1 generated so much public comment that if it kind of fades away for a month. There's nothing that says it has to
be done right now.
Don Ashworth: Well if you wanted to switch things around, I think December 6th. December 6th we might
have another 2002 meeting but at least on December 6th you could start out with the haulers. In other words,
kind of switch the two dates. Do the 29th with the budget and December 6th with the haulers.
1 Mayor Chmiel: December 6th, 2002?
Councilman Senn: I don't have anything scheduled for that. I thought we weren't going to do anything
1 December 6th because 3 of us are gone.
Don Ashworth: I thought most would be back.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll be back.
' Don Ashworth: I think we're flying back in that afternoon but.
Councilman Senn: I thought we avoided that.
Don Ashworth: The only meeting we have set in December is the 13th, which is our regular Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Well my suggestion is, let's get to it and get them out of the way and is November 29th and
' 30th open for everybody?
Councilman Wing: I'll miss the 30th but that's one.
1 Councilman Senn: And I may miss the 30th.
Councilman Wing: I'll be there the 29th for sure. We only need 3 out of 5 to vote or make decisions anyway
1 don't you?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
Don Ashworth: Do you think Paul that we're going to end up with time on the 29th? How is this structured?
1 . 40
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
Paul Krauss: Well, what I'm asking the Council to do is focus in on the issues. You've been placed in a
reactive posture with a lot of people coming in and raising issues...The Recycling Commission gave you a bunch
of issues that they were concerned about. I think it's important for the Council to figure out what... report to I
you. Also, I think you can honestly, sincerely tell the haulers you don't need to listen to all the arguments...
Councilman Senn: Wasn't this a work session, not a
I
Councilman Mason: It is open to the public.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but I mean we don't necessarily take additional. 1
Mayor Chmiel: We don't have to take comments. They can sit and listen as well.
Paul Krauss: One of the things that the Mayor did at the last meeting, was a little bit turn around...the haulers 1
and say, if you don't want this. If you've got some better idea, come up with one.
Mayor Chmiel: Haven't you gotten any?
1
Paul Krauss: Well, we had one. They have a problem with meeting together.
Mayor Chmiel: I know that. That's part of the problem. I
Paul Krauss: Well not only because there are personal conflicts but I mean actually they break the law if they.
I
Councilman Senn: Not if they don't discuss pricing.
Paul Krauss: Right, and that's part of what the issue is. We met with them last week and they're supposed to
I
be here again tomorrow. They may call back.
Mayor Chmiel: You can call the newspaper in.
1
Paul Krauss: Well we'll see if they come back with anything...continue to recommend Phase II but.
Mayor Chmiel: Well let's get back to the dates. Let's set them and see what happens.
1
Don Ashworth: You've really already set both the 29th and the 30th. The only question is, could we start both
of those at 5:30 with the idea that we would be done by 8:00? And if we get to the budget on the 29th, we get
I
to it. Otherwise we do it on the 30th.
Councilman Wing: The 29th's the budget.
I
Don Ashworth: No, 29th's the trash.
Councilman Wing: Really? 1
Councilman Senn: And if that goes all evening, then the 30th.
1
41
I
1
III City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
I Mayor Chmiel: We'll have a cut off on this by 9:00.
I Councilman Wing: No budget on the 29th?
Don Ashworth: Hopefully we'll be able to.
1 Councilman Mason: Hopefully. I bet we can come up with something.
Councilman Wing: If I've got to miss a meeting, I'd rather miss that.
I Mayor Chmiel: And the budget at 5:30?
I Don Ashworth: On the 30th?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
1 Don Ashworth: Yeah.
Councilman Mason: Can I just have a clarification on a couple of meetings. I've got budget down on
I December 2nd and December 8th. I personally think someone came in here and did this on my calendar...
Don Ashworth: The only convened meeting is I believe the 13th.
1 Councilman Wing: So the 6th is also a date to keep out?
Don Ashworth: No.
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, everybody have it down.
I Councilman Mason: I've got one more quick comment about the budget process. I think as, and I believe,
maybe I dreamed this or maybe I saw it in a memo, I don't know. But Don, you talked about something about
we, I believe that we gave you direction to lop off $600,000.00. No tax increase. You know hopefully tax
decrease but certainly no tax increase. And then I know there was some concern about that coming back and
then we get to tear it apart one more time.
Mayor Chmiel: Except for those people who have had re- evaluations on their property. By the County.
1 Councilman Mason: Right. I mean in teens of Council going through with the pen again. That did strike a
cord with me being a negotiator for teachers contracts. I am personally comfortable if you come back.
Don Ashworth: But then I think it's important that we make sure that the Council has had a real opportunity to
express their concerns. To express what they would like to see cut. What they endorse and then after we've
done that, then I totally agree with you...
I Councilman Mason: Okay, fine. Good enough.
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move on to item D.
1 42
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
Todd Gerhardt: You can set one more meeting date for that Vision meeting. This is the volunteer group that
wanted to re- evaluate the results of the second meeting...the 6th was a possibility for that. But if doesn't work
with Council. Fred's looking for a date... 1
Don Ashworth: Well, I think we could do that on the 6th. Vision 2002.
Mayor Chmiel: Does everybody have the 6th open? 1
Councilman Senn: I've made every one of them and I can't be there for the 6th but.
Councilman Wing: ...what night is that?
Mayor Chmiel: Monday.
Councilman Wing: I've got to play fireman on other, odd Mondays so I'm not going to be there.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we want to do it on December 7th and sink it all? 1
Councilman Wing: I'll be there.
Councilman Mason: On December 7th?
Mayor Chmiel: What time? 5:30? 6:00?
Don Ashworth: I think you've been doing those at 7:00 haven't you?
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, let's put down Vision 2002 on December 7th. 7:00. Staff chambers?
1
Todd Gerhardt: Down here.
Councihnan Mason: Is this this ad hoc group or is this the whole shooting match? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, no. Ad hoc. Okay, sounds good.
UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 101 TRAIL PROJECT, PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR.
Todd Hoffman: ...and I guess I'll react to questions from specific Council members. Getting back to Evan
Green at MnDot...is not going to be upgraded in the recent future. The slight possibility as to the highway turn
back. Turn back the highway to Carver County...Specifically targeting the design elements. It's...construction
must be a minimum of 33 feet back at the interesections to avoid contact later. The current design as depicted in
the feasibility study is 20 feet from the shoulder to the trail so you...about 32 feet. Only about 33% of the trail
meets that requirement so the outlook for saving a trail would go in prior to upgrading...So other than the last
meeting which was held was August 26th. The last correspondence out to the neighborhood took place on
September...
43
•
•
1
1 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions?
I Councilman Senn: Didn't the engineer from Carver County at the meeting say if it was turned back or if some
sort of turn back were accomplished under the turn back funds or whatever, is that Carver County wouldn't look
at upgrading to a 4 lane?
1 Todd Hoffman: I don't recall upgrading to a 4 lane. That conversation specifically. This 33 feet was...
Councilman Senn: But that's the State. I mean I would just assume that's a State requirement.
1 Don Ashworth: Well I heard Roger Gustafson state that it should come under the jurisdiction of Carver County.
In fact he even a willingness to head up kind of the project but since that point in time I've gotten the
1 impression that Roger's devotion to the project has waned a little bit, to say the least. He hasn't, he was going
to coordinate literally the next meeting and that hasn't occurred.
Councilman Senn: Well if Roger...TH 101 too from Wayzata to Shakopee basically you know and he said
' unless it's going to incorporate all that, he didn't have a desire from Carver County's perspective to spearhead it.
I remember very specifically and I think that's part of the problem. You're never going to, you're not going to
get a study going on that segment.
1 Mayor Chmiel: That's probably very true. Maybe some more discussion should, we should pursue..
Don Ashworth: Well I'd like to see another one of these meetings occur and Evan should put into writing.
I
They promised to make an analysis of the BRW trail and the effects of that. That should be put into writing. It
should be presented back to us. We should do another one of those meetings. I will call Evan and I will call
Roger.
I Todd Hoffman: From another perspective, just briefly...to construct a trail system were for $800,000.00 total.
Which it failed. This is one trail segment of a mile and 3/4 for over half of that.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll move on back to Consent Agenda.
1
I CONSENT AGENDA:
B. APPROVE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE COOPERATIVE AGENCY REQUEST FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF TH 5 AND
1
CSAH 19 (GALPIN BOULEVARD).
Mayor Chmiel: County State 19. That's the existing one we have on Great Plains and 78th Street that will be
1 moved once the new one.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I tried to catch Charles today and couldn't catch him. I don't know Don if you know
I the answer or not. What is, if we understand this is basically a resolution supporting the cooperative agency
1 44
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
request but what's the cost to Chanhassen out of it? That's not in the staff report.
Don Ashworth: It typically goes on contributing legs and you'd have two legs there that are County. And two
legs that are the State of Minnesota. If you agree with this resolution, it would be sent into the State. The State
would then prepare a cooperative agreement and they would outline what the costs would be and they would
then send that back to the two agencies to review and approve it. And if we then approved the, see you're going
to get another whack at this one and if you then approve the cooperative agreement, that's going to have the cost
in there. The other part of that is, this intersection and Galpin are also part of the County road project that
we've been dealing on for the past year and that's nearing completion. In fact I hope to have that onto your
agenda for December 13th. Included in that document is the signal at Galpin and so it's proposed to be a joint
cost shared between the cities...Carver County. And I'm guessing, if you wanted just a general ballpark. I'd say
$120,000.00. But you know.
Councilman Senn: That'd be the city's portion of the funds?
1
Don Ashworth: No, no. That's total.
Councilman Senn: That's the total signalization you mean?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and that'd be split between the County and the city. Nothing from the State?
Don Ashworth: State would be 50% on that and then city /county would be, well we'd be on the hook for 25 %.
See Grumman doesn't quite break it down on that basis but it's.
Mayor Chmiel: Being as a county road, that should all be born back by the County and State. At least in my
estimation.
Don Ashworth: Well except that that is one of the intersections and roadways which is governed by this master
city /county road agreement for $16.5 million.
Mayor Chmiel: I've been watching the County agendas as they come through and in there it has been on
County State Aid where they're abutting onto highway right -of -way with MnDot. It doesn't say anything about 1
either the city or the township having additional cost for it. That is picked up by those two.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, when you presented that plan before us, that's what it showed. I mean it showed the
County/City basically taking care of the roadway but the intersection improvement was under the State.
Don Ashworth: No. In fact I've got the agreement upstairs and it is itemized. The signal is itemized in there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe you could check with Chaska. They just put up that one on TH 41 and.
Todd Gerhardt Pioneer Trail. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
45
- n
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well in any case, we're not approving dollars tonight right?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: No. Okay. Mark, do you want to move it?
1 Resolution #93 -115: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
Resolution Supporting the Cooperative Agency Request for the Installation of a Traffic Control Signal at
the Intersection of TH 5 and CSAH 19 (Galpin Boulevard). All voted in favor and the motion carried
1 unanimously.
E. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS.
1 Councilman Senn: Don, on page 6 to Strgar - Roscoe. There's a question there. I don't know if you want to
deal with that now or if you want to just pull it off. And on page 5, there was one to Mortenson for the
' entertainment complex which I thought was dead months ago so I had a question on that.
Don Ashworth: Okay. I can tell you what Mortenson is. Mortenson never billed all the way through the
various study things. The alternatives that continued to be looked at as it dealt with the community center
behind the, in the Bloomberg property. And they attended a number of those meetings but they were all just
kind of miscellaneous and they had asked, you know can we just kind of keep a running tab on this whole thing
and when we get, either this thing is going to go and it will just be part of the overall cost or can we be paid if
' it's decided that it's not going to go. And that's what this billing is. So this was the one and only payment to
Mortenson versus HGA received almost monthly, or invoiced us almost monthly. But then again their costs
were significantly more.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and the other was Strgar- Roscoe.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, what are we doing...hotel expansion.
Don Ashworth: I thought I'd just get, do a report back on this one. I'm not sure on that one. The Mortenson
one I do know about.
Councilman Senn: And a lot of things on page 2 there's, what's the cold storage. Are we building a cold
storage building?
Don Ashworth: I believe that they're pouring a concrete floor in the cold storage building out at the public
works garage. That's existed for the last 2 -3 years as a gravel floor and they've been wanting to get that so it's
something that's a little easier to maintain it.
Councilman Senn: So that's the existing garage out there?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Mason: That's it then.
1
I
� 46
A
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
Don Ashworth: Do you know who the check was made out to?
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to move that with removal of Stragar- Roscoe - Fausch? 1
Councilman Senn: Yep.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Accounts Payable with the
exception of check #053336 to Strgar - Roscoe - Fausch. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilman Mason: Real quickly. Last meeting's Minutes. On page 16 and 17, when we got into the
discussion about the moratorium and the east end of Highway 5. Well it all starts on 16 about the bottom of the
page there and Mark was talking about his consideration 9 months ago. The statement was then made that
maybe I, whoever didn't care about the east end of Highway 5 and then Mark you made the comment, I'll let
the Minutes and the voting record show that. I paged through some of those Minutes and I quite honestly
couldn't find anything that said I didn't care about what goes on in the east end of Highway 5 and if you've got
something on that, I guess I'd like to see it...
Councilman Wing: It was all a 4 to 1 vote Mike so it must reflected on the rest of us.
Councilman Mason: Well that's fine Dick. I just, I do save my Minutes oddly enough. I don't read them every
night but I do go through them and I could find nothing that said I didn't care about the east end of Highway 5
so I guess if you could find something, I'd like to see it.
Councilman Senn: Well, I'll have to look then.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I mean I'd appreciate that.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, do you want. Were you going to say something Richard? 1
Councilman Wing: Well tonight, both of the budget meeting and also in tonight's Minutes Mark referred to if
we didn't have TIF or if TIF wasn't there we wouldn't be out of money or be having these problems and on my
three years on this Council, we have...discussed that ad nauseum the benefits of TIF. The options of TIF and
what we've gained from TIF and I don't want to sit here and take anymore of that or I want to stop it right now
and with this Council go over TIF word for word, dollar for dollar, project for project and see if we as citizens
have won or lost with TIF. I am really comfortable with TIF and I am going to defend TIF. If there's an issue
here, then let's get it out into the open but let's not just keep making digs. I'm not going to buy the...again.
Mayor Chmiel: And I'm going to support that position as well.
Councilman Senn: I'd be happy to get into a full discussion of it.
Councilman Wing: Bring it back Mark. No more digs. Either get it on the agenda and discuss it up front and
let's get the City Manager and staff involved or keep your comments to yourself.
47 1
1
1 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993
r Councilman Senn: Dick I've asked a number of times in the past to put it on the agenda. I will ask again.
Councilman Wing: You don't have to ask. You just have to put it on. Colleen had on tonight. She
didn't have to beg or ask.
Councilman Mason: I need to move approval of the Council Minutes, item 1(1).
Mayor Chmiel: With some clarifications along with that. Okay.
' Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the Minutes of the following meetings:
City Council Minutes dated November 8, 1993
Planning Commission Minutes dated November 3, 1993
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 26, 1993
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated November 16, 1993
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 J. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO
REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS ISSUED BY THE
I CITY.
Councilman Senn: If I understand this correctly now, this action is to authorize reimbursement of certain
expenditures as related to all the bond issues. Not the one for, only for the one for $5.630 which was attached
to as Exhibit A back on October 25th?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Item 2(f). The only one attached at that point?
' Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And that's when I raised the issue over did it entail the others. There wasn't an
answer then on the October, you know the following meeting and stuff so...it is all the bond issues?
' Don Ashworth: 1993A was done in January so that is not included. There was a separate resolution at that
time.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but all other three.
Don Ashworth: All B, C, D and E, even though Mr. Kennedy feels that E is a refunding so therefore probably
' not required to put that resolution on that one. To be conservative he's suggesting that they be against all of
them. B, C, D and E. Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so all four then.
Don Ashworth: All four.
48
1
City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you want to move that?
Councihnan Senn: No I don't.
Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of item 1(j).
Councilman Wing: Second. 1
Resolution #93 -116: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Resolution
Declaring the Official Intent of the City of Chanhassen to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from the I
Proceeds of Bonds issued by the City. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move adjournment. 1
Councilman Mason: Second.
Don Ashworth: May I ask for a clarification. Your intent Mark was to ensure that your vote was shown as - 1
being against that particular item, at least as it dealt with the one bond issue. I mean I wrote the thing up
making the assumption that you wanted your vote shown as a no vote back at that point in time and I didn't
know quite how to do that. I should have gotten guidance from Roger.
Councilman Senn: I didn't know either but yeah. My intention was, I wanted it no but no, that wasn't the
intention back on October 25th when it was raised. Back on October 25th when it was raised, the exhibit
I
attached only had one bond issue. Yet the way the verbiage kept going, it looked like it was dealing with a lot
more than that and the exhibit was incorrect and that's what we were trying to get at.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion's been made to adjourn. 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
I favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager 1
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
49
1
1
1
CHANHASSEN
PLANNING COMMLSSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 1993
' Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Matt Ledvina, and Jeff
Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts and Nancy Mancino
1 STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; Bob
Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO A
SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED
SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, NORTH, EAST AND WEST OF LAKE LUCY.
THE PARCEL IS A PENINSULA IN LAKE LUCY, MARK AND KATHY SANDA.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark & Kathy Sanda 1685 Steller Court
1 Ken Adolf Schoell and Madsen
Joe Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road
Eric Rivkin 1695 Steller Court
John & Mariellen Waldron 1900 Lake Lucy Road
Jack Lowry 1665 Steller Court
Sandy & Robert Kendall 1645 Lake Lucy Road
Phil & Kim Thiesse 1675 Steller Court
Jill Willis 1571 Lake Lucy Road
' Julie Farmakes
Donn Andrus 7100 Utica Lane
449 Pleasant View
Pat O'Dell
Brian Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road
Bill Lambrecht 6990 Utica Lane
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public
1 hearing to order.
1 1
1
1
Mark Sanda: First of all I appreciate the opportunity to get up in front of you folks and just
tell you a couple of things and I want to be respectful of your time tonight and I hope other
people that come up and have comments are as well. As we mentioned, our goal is to
receive approval for our plans to improve and upgrade an existing driveway to provide access
to our peninsula property. My name's Mark Sanda and that's my wife Kathy and we're here
representing ourselves. We're not a development company or anything. We purchased our
lot about 7 years ago. Built our home on Steller Court...mentioned in the plan there 6 1/2
years ago. I thought a little history would be important as to why we ended up owning the
peninsula. It really was an issue of preserving our view. When we became aware that the
same owner of that property, who was an absentee owner, was the person who sold the
property north of Lake Lucy Road to allow the Centex development. We became kind of
concerned about what might eventually happen to that property so we went into negotiations
with that party and purchased the peninsula in the summer of '.89. We thought that perhaps
one day we might build a home out there but we didn't give it a lot of thought. But in the
intervening 4 years the peninsula's really kind of become a financial burden to us and
somewhat of a policing burden. There's, we have evidence of a fair amount of unauthorized
trespassing out there. We've granted access to some of our neighbors but we know there's
people out there who litter and that type of thing so we decided to put the peninsula on the
market and as you might guess, anyone's interested in acquiring the property wants to know
' what the access situation is. So we determined after some time that we had to carry through
with this process and that's what's motivating us behind all this. Well, whatever we decide
to do, we...decide to build our home out there or whatever but no matter what happens we're
either going to have to view what happens out there or we're going to be a part of it because
we're not planning on leaving the area. So we're very concerned ourselves about what
happens to this particular piece of property. So then back to the goal. We just want
' permission to upgrade a driveway that's existed. We're going to show in our plan here that a
driveway has existed there for many decades and it's supported by aerial photographs that
were taken. We currently use quite a portion of that driveway to provide access to the
' peninsula which we just sort of enjoy for recreational reasons. We drive a tractor out there to
haul out fallen logs to supply us with firewood and so we've done a little maintenance on it
to keep it up to shape for driving a small tractor out there. The portion that's adjacent to
Lake Lucy Road is in somewhat of a state of disrepair and when Lake Lucy Road was paved •
7 years ago. Some of you might recall the road was raised up about 10 feet and at that time
it made the access a little more difficult to get down onto that driveway and the absentee
owner had never raised an issue with the city and so it has kind of become clogged up with
some scrub trees so that's a portion that would need to be spruced up a little bit. We've
hired the engineering firm of Schoell and Madsen because of their experience of projects of
this type. To draw up a driveway design plan for us which Mr. Ken Adolf is here to share
with you and as it was stated before, we've been working with the DNR and the city since
day one on this process because we wanted to do it right. It was mentioned there's 2/10 of
an acre of wetland to be filed. Our plan, as you will see, calls for over 3/10 of an acre to be
mitigated or recreated which we're going to do on our lot as part of this. We're going to
1 move the appropriate trees and plant growth as the DNR rules require and we want to meet
the regulations every step of the way. We had one little misstep in this whole situation. We
1 2
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
r
had a misunderstanding that kind of arose that led us to believe we might be able to pursue a
subdivision out there. And an ad got drawn up with our real estate agent that indicated that
and our thinking was, well let's just see what that might do to the value of the property in
some people's eye. But we got that straighten out with the city rather quickly and it caused
some undue alarm with people and it's an unfortunate incident but the bottom line is, the
driveway plan that we are submitting is for an 8 to 10 foot wide driveway and city code says
that you can only have one homesite serving a driveway of that width. So we know the
concern of a lot of people is what's going to happen out there and when you see the details
you see it just does not seem practical to do anything any wider than that. I don't know who
could afford to do anything any wider than that so that hopefully takes care of that issue.
We've tried to be wide open on this whole process since the beginning. We've contacted the
property owners immediately adjacent to the driveway. Jill Willis, Sandy and Robert Kendall,
Phil and Kim Thiesse and then ourselves are the property owners involved and I know all
those people are here tonight so I hope they choose to say something. Some of them have
1
given you written opinions of this. We've also talked to those people that have a view of the
peninsula. And in addition to that, we met with the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association,
which is the group that represents all of the owners of lakeshore property on Lake Lucy. We
supplied for the committee a fair number of letters from some of our neighbors that have
indicated their support of the project. In the way it's designed here. There may be some
people that will choose to speak tonight and I know there's going to be a letter read by the
Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. And in what I think is a very magnanimous gesture,
we've received tentative permission from Jill Willis to have a cross access easement for the
very beginning portion of the driveway which is adjacent to Lake Lucy. And when we get
into the plan you'll see why that is a gesture that will help eliminate some of the impact at
the beginning of the driveway. It has to do with where the city dumped dirt when they built
the road up. It's basically taking advantage of what they had put there. So to summarize,
while we recognize everyone is not exactly thrilled with the reality of further development in
the city, we ask them to consider the fact that this driveway is being improved under strict
adherence to all State and City environmental codes and that one homesite limitation should
help maintain the special type of feeling that exists in that part of the city that all of us that
live there like. And with that, thanks for your time and I'll turn it over to Ken.
Ken Adolf: Mr. Chair, members of the Council. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen,
consulting engineering firm in Minnetonka. I've got some boards that provide a detail on the,
first of all on the existing conditions. Hopefully this will clarify some of the previous
presentations. The alteration for a wetland alteration permits really are for restoring a
driveway that has existed over 30 years. I have an aerial photo from 1962 on here which
clearly shows the driveway as it approaches the peninsula. The driveway is fairly well
defined on this area. This is Lake Lucy Road up in this area. This is the southerly wetland
crossing and the most critical one. The existing previous driveway, the center line is
1
3
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
I
indicated by the dark...kind of meanders in and out of this 33 foot wide strip of property that
I extends north to Lake Lucy Road that was really intended to be the access. This matches up
at this point over here in this being the peninsula at this point. This is Lake Lucy Road. The
two wetlands that were discussed, the northerly wetland and...edges are defined with the green
1 lines. The southerly wetland is also defined by the green line. The southerly wetland is
actually part of the Lake Lucy complex and is affected by the ordinary high water elevation
of Lake Lucy, which is 956.1. The DNR prohibits any filling below that elevation. There's a
1 strip of property which is where the old driveway was that comes across like this which is
above elevation 956.1. And that's a strip within which the new driveway has to be contained.
Right at the curve there's actually a break in the 956.1. Right - now there's...in there. And at
I this point it's necessary to make that crossing with a bridge. The second plan shows the
proposed driveway...and it has been realigned to stay within the 33 foot strip except right
immediately south of Lake Lucy Road where it's necessary to do some filling and was moved
I from one side so that all of the filling outside of the 33 foot strip was now on the east side.
It was decided to stay within that access strip until...Lot 4 which was owned by the Sanda's
and then it naturally goes outside of the strip and of course easements will be provided for
I the access. Again, the bridge we're showing in this location. Application has been made to
the DNR for the wetland alteration permits. And actually in that application we had
requested that some very minor filling be allowed below the 956.1 elevation to allow for a
:1 shorter but wider bridge and bigger approaches to the bridge. Building a bridge right on a
curve is difficult and the intent is that this would allow truck access both for construction
vehicles during the home construction and also... The driveway varies in width from 10 feet
1 where there really are heavy restrictions and then as we get into the area where we're
restricted by the filling...8 feet and there's a couple of different sections that are proposed
depending on... strip that's available...There's a culvert that's proposed in this general location
I to convey the drainage that's going to cross Lake Lucy Road as it does right now. Then
we're showing another...culvert in that wetland. That concludes my presentation. I'll be
1 happy to answer any questions.
Batzli: What sort of materials is the bridge construction out of?
1 Ken Adolf: The final design of the bridge has not been done. There's been some
preliminary investigation. One of the bridges that we did look at is a pre - fabricated bridge of
I steel construction. Made of cortin steel which is the weathering steel that turns kind of a
coppertone color and that particular bridge would have a timber deck.
= 1 Batzli: It does have a timber deck?
Ken Adolf: Yes.
1
1 -, 4
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
Batzli: What kind of footings or pilings do you end up needing for a bridge like that?
Ken Adolf: Again, the final design hasn't been done so we haven't done the soil borings but 1
soil borings would have to be done on either end to determine the type of support that would
be necessary for the bridge. We're anticipating that would require pilings of some type.
Those would be either steel or timber.
Conrad: Where's the wetland that you're filling in? 1
Ken Adolf: It shows up better on this drawing. There's actually two wetlands. The
northerly wetland sort of all in that stretch and then the southerly wetland, there's a stretch up 1
here and through here that we would be altering.
Conrad: That's in the 33 foot area? 1
Ken Adolf: In the north area it is. In the south area it's actually in the Lot 4 which is
owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sanda. It's a lot there. A residential lot. 1
Conrad: What are you doing in the mitigated area?
Ken Adolf: The mitigation is proposed in this area. What you get is on Lot 4. The lot
owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sanda. The...mitigation area would be excavated down to the...6 to
12 inches...adjacent wetland and then the wetland soils that are salvaged...from the wetland to
be altered would be placed and spread in here. The details of that still need to be worked out
with the DNR... 1
Ledvina: Mr. Chair?
Batzli: Yeah. 1
Ledvina: For the northern wetland area. If the driveway were to follow the existing path,
would it be necessary to do a mitigation? Would that represent a filling process in that area?
To follow the alignment of the existing path there.
•
Ken Adolf: The existing driveway goes through the same wetlands so there would be
alteration required there as well.
Ledvina: So either way that's.
Ken Adolf: That's right. This area it was important to move it within the 33 feet.
1
5 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
Ledvina: Right. What I'm trying to ascertain is that you're not just moving it to the, to
within the 30 foot strip of property and when in fact there may be an opportunity to relocate
it further to the south and not have that wetland alteration necessary. But that's not the case?
1 Ken Adolf: That's right.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. I'd like to open the meeting up for public comment. If you'd like
to address the commission, please feel free to do so. Please come up to the microphone and
give us your name and address for the record. I could tell you kind of wanted to stay back
there didn't you?
Joe Morin: My name's Joe Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. And I'm representing
the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association and what we have is a position statement that we
' would like to hand out to the members of the commission and for the staff here. This is a
short statement and I'll just read it for the benefit of everyone else also. There's a
background statement that basically says that the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association met on
1 November 10, 1993 to discuss the Sanda's proposal. 8 of the 16 to 18 families comprising
the association were represented. During the meeting Joe Morin, that's myself, was elected to
represent the position of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association at this meeting. I'd also
1 like to reserve the right to represent myself a little bit later but right now I'm just speaking
for the Homeowners Association. The position statement reads, the Lake Lucy Homeowners
Association does not oppose the Sanda's plan to provide driveway access for a single family
1 dwelling. It is our understanding that this would be a permit for an 8 to 10 foot wide
driveway and that city and DNR ordinances prohibit the development of more than one
dwelling under these conditions. We trust that the city and the DNR would strictly enforce
' this regulation should any further request be made to develop another dwelling on this
property. We are also deeply concerned about the possibility of pollution of Lake Lucy and
expect that the development of a single family dwelling would be done in strict compliance
with regulations governing installation of septic systems and other sources of pollution.
' Batzli: Okay, thank you.
Joe Morin: That's the statement. Subsequent to this meeting I also contacted Brian Tichy
and Ted Coey who are members of the Association and they also concurred with our position
1, statement. Thank you.
1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission?
Eric Rivkin: I'm Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court. My property is adjacent to the
Lot 4 where the mitigation site is and I'm also in direct view of the island and the entire
1 6
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
wetland. I have presented before you a letter of concerns that I collected signatures with.
People that are also directly adjacent to the property...lakeshore owners or in direct view of
the...and we share certain concerns. We're not, the first thing that we want to make you
aware. My qualifications here are that, as you know I'm a strong advocate for environmental
protection and I make every effort to keep up with issues and details pertaining to wetland
protection. I just want to make sure that the concern that I had comply with the regulations
and the ordinance. I'm sure that compliance will...and I'm glad to see that the Sanda's really
care and I'm sure that conditions will...but I just wanted to make sure that they're laid out,
present to you information that I found out that may fall through the cracks so that the
conditions were laid out in detail to meet the requirements in the ordinance. Point number 1,
and I'll just go through them briefly. There's only one page of them and I'll just explain
briefly what... We agree with the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association position. I'm also a
member. I'm separating myself. Giving my own personal opinions. That the driveway be
designed for access for a single building site only. We'd like to know, as Joe had also
mentioned, if there's any way to impose a current restriction to a one resident access. Point
number 2. The DNR had given me some information that you see on page 3. These are the,
for the last 20 years the high water elevations that were taken by the DNR for the Watershed 1
District. These do not mean that these are the highest water levels but these are the only
ones that have been recorded by the...agencies that happened to be there at that time. Some
of these readings were taken on the ice. Some are taken in the middle of summer and fall. 1
But nonetheless, it is a valid statement to say that water level frequently reaches or exceeds
flood elevation of 957, which is almost a foot over the ordinary high water mark. And given
antidotes by certain lakeshore residents, it's quite possible that water levels have exceed those
that are on record. The second and fourth page I show a map of the Lake Lucy...watershed
that I got from the Watershed District. They have over a 10:1 surface water watershed
surface to surface water ratio in a relatively undeveloped area right now so surface water
runoff, no matter how many retention ponds or holding ponds we have, in a year like we had
this year, every retention pond is full. Every sub - retention pond is full that feeds into Lake
Lucy is full. And with development that goes in in the future, this ordinary high water
mark...may change higher in upper directions. And obviously nobody's done any analysis of
any future projections of what Lake Lucy could be like in a full development scenario but if
this driveway happens to be at this elevation of 957, right now it appears that frequent
flooding will occur over the top of that driveway. Portions of it. I don't know what kind of
stipulations these conditions have to say about this and I trust the Sanda's and their engineer
to engineer it properly and to meet that. What the data shows. But I just wanted to bring it
to the attention of you so it can be questioned and dealt with. And the third point...Lake
Association worry about pollution. So our lake advisor, Dale Hogan, I talked to him,
described the plan to him and to use a Class V fill in the course of the driveway could have
adverse ecological effects resulting from...erosion. Class V gravel will be subject to spring
thaw and full saturation making it soft and usually subject to heavy erosion. Runoff from the
7 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
clay rich Class V can cause water quality problems in the wetland. This is where water fowl,
I had flocks of egrets and great blue herons feeding in these very wetlands that we're
1 traversing with this driveway and there's small fish and aquatic organisms which depend on
the water quality that exists there now to survive and...to resurface Class V with bituminous
asphalt which has petroleum and oil runoff which can also pollute the water. After consulting
with Dale Hogan, we believe that the driveway design in sections E and F may be the least
detrimental to the wetland and he said it was an excellent design. I concur with that. He
suggested that the design be incorporated wherever possible. By using the narrower design.
It's 8 feet instead of 10 feet and you also reduce the mitigation area acquired and maybe even
eliminate it. Point number 4. We heard from Ken Adolf...
Batzli: Excuse me. On the one I'm looking at. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong. Are you
suggesting that, my section E and F shows an 8 inch thick concrete plank. Is that what you
have for section E and F? Are you suggesting that they pour concrete over the entire length
,. of the driveway for 8 feet of concrete?
Eric Rivkin: Other than the bridge.
Batzli: 8 feet wide?
'. Eric Rivkin: Just in the wetland portion.
.1 Batzli: Just in the wetland portion.
Eric Rivkin: In the Class A wetland portion. Not the upland. Just the part that's sitting in
1 the water...edge of wetland to edge of wetland minus the bridge. And the bridge pilings. Or
whatever support you need for that.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Go ahead.
Eric Rivkin: The wood decking or pilings treated with...or creosol or other petroleum
1 products should be prohibited. Dale Hogan said, and I've seen a lot of evidence of this...
articles from people that arsenic compounds will leech into the water. The comments made
by Jo Ann Olsen a number of years ago when I had applied for a wetland alteration permit
' for a dock through this same wetland. She also uncovered evidence so it may be in the city
file, but it's very well documented that tar oils from creosol timbers are definite pollution
hazards. So we just suggest that only bridge materials with proven environmental safety
records be permitted. Number 5. Any upland mitigation...which there be none but if there is
one, there is an outlet for a continuously running spring. I didn't see it on the plan. Nobody
1 talked about it so I'm just bringing it to your attention. I'm sure the Sanda's...It does flow
1 8
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
year round and should be left open. Number 6. The road south...should be prohibited since
there are no buffer strips in ponding areas...To insure education and...enforcement by
subsequent homeowners, this restriction should be written into the property deed as a
condition. It is well documented that serious water quality and ecological damage in
wetlands and other bodies of water can occur from this type of runoff. There was an article
in the Tribune 2 weeks ago about the de -icing salts from the airport polluting the Mississippi
River. Also south from going to stagnant type water wetlands...project to be a salt water
marsh and have devastating effects. A textured concrete driveway similar to the one in
section E may not be an unreasonable alternative. It's just a suggestion but maybe there's
something better. I don't know but the concern for pollution is there. Since purple
loosestrife, it's very well documented that the DNR, in their brochures and the studies that
they've done that came out in my wetland alteration permit. I was...spoils from my digging a
channel that had to be disposed of in a manner in a condition for my permit to be buried on
the upland areas in a sufficient depth that the seeds would not germinate. One plant
1
generates millions and millions of seeds and it's proven through studies...very well
documented that when you disturb the soil, even if it's just a few plants, that it's guaranteed
the wild proliferation of purple loosestrife. And I'd like that addressed. The existing...and 1
I'm glad to hear...mentioned about the pilings and taking borings and all that to ensure that
that will be taken care of but I am just mentioning it here. And just for your information Mr.
Adolf, that we had done a survey where we drilled holes in the lake every 200 feet and just a
few feet from that bridge...we found 17 feet of muck underneath there. Dale Hogan has done
an analysis of that...call him and ask him what the verdict is...and you have signatures on the
next page of several homeowners. The ones that are starred there are adjacent to this
property. Thank you very much.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? 1
John Waldron: I am John Waldron. I live at 1900 Lake Lucy Road...Our house is situation
we have an unobstructed view of the island and my wife and I, Mariellen would like to go on
record that we do not have any problem with the Sanda's developing the property they own
for this purpose. We feel that between the record that Chanhassen has on wetlands and the
DNR, that the process will take care of problems going through and hopefully we have
enough government already in our lives and that it would be too cumbersome for a private
individual's use...property. Thanks.
1
Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission?
Jack Lowry: My name is Jack Lowry. I live at 1665 Steller Court. I'm a neighbor of the
Sanda's and I'd like to go on record as saying that my wife, Jackie and I totally support the
project. In our association the Sanda's are professional in everything they do and will do
1
9
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
nothing but good for the community...
g g ty ...
1 Batzli: Thank you.
Sandy Kendall: I'm Sandy Kendall. My husband Bob. We just moved into 1645 Lake Lucy
Road. This is our first Council meeting and I apologize I didn't make enough copies of these
for everybody but I'll give you. We sort of found about this after the fact. We bought the
' house in June. We just moved in 2 weeks ago but basically I think...We're the new people in
the neighborhood having purchased the home at 1645 Lake Lucy Road in June and just
having moved into the house 2 weeks ago. We were unaware 'and uninformed about the
access and driveway that borders our property to the east until a short time ago...did tell us
about it and for the record, we're not really opposed to it either. We just are, well we bought
our home for one very important reason. The lot and it's setting. We're both appraisers and
even...we overpaid for the house which was built in the 1960's but we wanted the lot for it's
serene setting and it's well developed trees. So the thing I gave showed some pictures of
these trees that are like 30 to 100 feet tall and they border the property on the east, which
borders this proposed driveway. That's our concern for this issue. Is our trees on that side of
the property. We would request that these trees, their diameter of the drip lines be drawn on
the engineering map for this project and we would want some type of guarantee that these
1 trees not be harmed in any way. They're both our privacy and our beauty. The willows were
one big reason why Bob wanted to buy the property. They're trunks are like this. They're
just huge. Trees this large are almost irreplaceable taking scores of years to grow this large.
1 They were a very big reason why we bought the property so for us their value is extremely
great. We would also want to be assured of adequate drainage if this project were
implemented so as not to endanger these huge trees. The wildlife in the area is another
1 reason we purchased the home. We love the deer and the birds and the other creatures that
live in the area. In fact, seeing 2 deer in the back yard actually made us decide to write the
purchase agreement the next day. And the many months between the first time we saw the
' house until we decided to purchase it, any potential development around us was extremely
important. Only when we found out that what we thought was the neighboring property,
' which was purchased by Jill Willis now. We didn't know about the driveway. Did we
actually, when we found out that that property had been sold to a single buyer rather than to
something that would be developed, did we actually pursue buying the property. We would
' therefore be vehemently opposed to any type of development on the peninsula other than for
a single family home and respectfully but strongly urge a permanent prohibition against any
other type of development. A city street along the east side of our property would not only
I _ reduce it's appeal and value but would have been enough to keep us from ever having bought
the property ourselves. We feel sort of that we're being caught in the middle of something
about which we weren't informed that could affect our property value both visually and
1 monetarily. For this reason we don't feel that our requests are unrealistic because we do not
I 10
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
want the very reasons we bought this property to be violated. We are also concerned about
erosion control and use of only natural and natural looking material to be used if any
driveway were put in. We don't want our lot to become a mosquito infested drainage hole.
Nor do we want to look at anything other than something that will keep with the natural
appeal of the lot when we bought it. Again, we want the guarantee that the huge willow and
evergreen trees that border our lot on the east side would be in no way harmed or killed. We
consider them to be of incalculable value to us. They could not be replanted and grown again
to their present size perhaps for what remains of our lifetimes. The great value we put on
this lot is in very large part due to their size and health and border. In the 4 months during
which we were redecorating our house before moving in, we have found the city of
Chanhassen to be very conscientious about the community and the proper ways in which they 1
want it to grow and be established. We do appreciate the fact that they seem to want things
to be done correctly and hope that the city would in this same way be concerned about this
proposed project and wetland agreement. For this reason we have signed a letter with some 1
of our neighbors that outline some of the important factors in this project's potential
development and the prohibition of any development other than for a single family home.
And we would respectfully request that the city have as much concern in consideration for
our invaluable large and beautiful trees along this border which again is in large part the
reason why we bought the house on this lot. As they do in every other aspect of the city's 1
code requirements. Sorry I had to read this but I didn't bring enough copies.
Batzli: Okay.
1
Bob Kendall: I just have a few concerns on the side of my property there. Where the roots
are, the forester came out and we met with the forester and he said that the willows were
strong but I'd to have that at least known to me on paper that they're not going to get hurt.
The other problem is there's a storm sewer that comes off my property that drains right to
this line of where this road tapers down on the east side. I'd like to have it at least in the
plan where I can see that there's going to be proper drainage. As you can see in these photos
with the evergreens. There's a whole line of 30 feet evergreens but if they get improper
drainage and get soaked, those trees will die and I'd just like to get some sort of contour lines
and drainage and ditching and proper culvert. And I also wondered, if we get all the snow, is
all this going to be able to handle the proper drainage on it. That's all I have to say.
Batzli: Let me ask a question. You're concerned about the roots of your trees that currently
extend over the property line and are under the current driveway?
Bob Kendall: The canopies of the trees go into the slope...of the tapering line probably 15 to
20 feet. But as that storm sewer also, as Mr. Waldorf brought up. That there should be a
culvert in there. Beyond that, I'm just trying to get a picture that I have current drainage
1
11 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
after that point also. Because there's no slopes and I don't have any grades on that plan that
I've seen. Not to say that these won't be addressed later on though.
Batzli: Okay. Dave do you, can you comment at all on the drainage right there?
1
Hempel: It appears by that drawing that was brought in by the applicant, where the green
line on that does show a culvert to maintain the neighborhood drainage that are through the
properties...neighborhood drainage through there. The pictures were interesting that were
submitted there shows that there is quite a bit of water that goes through there in both the
street and the adjacent property on the other side of the street. So it's very important that
they maintain that drainage.
Batzli: Well assuming that we approve this tonight, what would the city need to make sure
that the drainage is being maintained in that area? Are you going to require some sort of
additional grading/construction plans or how are you going to be able to tell?
Hempel: We would require some minor modifications to the grading plan to denote the type,
size and elevation of the storm sewer pipe proposed in the roadway to make sure that it is set
1 at the proper elevation to maintain the drainage.
Batzli: Do we need some sort of condition that says that?
'
Hempel: might helpful expand an el: It mi ht be hel ful to ex and existing condition or add a condition to that effect,
g
' yes.
Batzli: Okay.
1 Bob Kendall: Mind if I say one other thing? The culvert that's in his drawing there is
beyond my property line about I would say 100 feet which would mean all this would have to
' drain beyond my property line and continue down another 100 feet before the other proposed
culvert which you are asking be put in.
1 Batzli: Okay.
Sandy Kendall: I don't know what impact Jill Willis' agreement to allow an access farther
east. I mean...help to us you know because the way it is, well it wouldn't come so close. I
don't know what impact that would have by putting the road further east rather than where
it's actually shown.
1
1 12
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
Batzli: I'm not tracking. Can you point to the map and tell me what you're saying.
Sandy Kendall: The way this is shown, the road as it sits is kind of like this. She giving '
them an access would enable us. This is actually a steeper part and this is actually a flatter
part. By putting it over here rather than in here, that would of course lessen our concern
greatly for our trees because all of a sudden the drip line is not as threatening to these trees
that run all along here. I mean they're just big monster trees. But now that's what's
happened. That wasn't a factor. 1
Batzli: If you flip the maps there. The one behind the one you're pointing to. I think that
shows where the proposed driveway's going to go. So you want it to go even further east
there?
Sandy Kendall: Well the Sanda's, when you talk to, maybe you can help me out here. You 1
wanted it, you told me that if I asked the Sanda's if our trees would be in danger. At first -
they said no. Then they said well, if Jill gives us the access, you know then they probably
wouldn't be. In other words, if they didn't, if she didn't give them that you know there 1
would be some...to our trees and that's something that just happened I guess over the last
day? You know Jill actually gave them that access...in here but that's very important to us of
course because we're concerned about our big trees. 1
Bob Kendall: I have one other thing. Here's the culvert that's proposed.
Sandy Kendall: Thank you.
Bob Kendall: ...but my storm sewer's here. As those pictures show, there's a gully already 1
performed that cuts through here but I'm also concerned from this point on where all these
spruce trees are. Is there going to be proper drainage from this point on with that. Because
if I'm getting a lot of, you know this is the west side. It's not going to get the snow. It
melts. It's going to puddle. I don't want a lot of excess water. That's my main concern is
to keep the water off the roots. ,
Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission? 1
Phil Thiesse: I was asked to clarify one point.
Batzli: You're? '
Phil Thiesse: Oh I'm sorry...My name is Phil Thiesse. I live at 1075 Miller Court. Our 1
13 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
borders the driveway that would be proposed and m
property Y P P Y wife and I feel that if the
Corps of Engineers and the DNR are happy with the way it's being developed, then we're
satisfied with that. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission before we
let the applicant have his one shot at rebuttal here?
' Mark Sanda: No. Ken, were you going to address a couple things that were brought up
about the drainage?
Ken Adolf: I can address those.
Mark Sanda: Okay. I just wanted to mention that in talking to some people about this and
someone picked up on the fact that we said we're not going anywhere. We had talked to a
property owner, a farmer in southwestern Carver County and on an informal, non - binding .
basis, verbal basis, we've talked about him selling us some of his property. It's when this
,1 gentlemen decides he's going to hang up his plow and sell some of his property so we really
can't say if that's going to be the next year, 2 years, 3 years but we suspect it's something
like that. It's certainly nothing that's going to happen on an eminent basis and I just wanted
' to clarify that because some people picked up on the fact that we said we're not going
anywhere. And never say never but there's nothing eminently in the works at all.
' Batzli: Okay. Thank you.
Ken Adolf: Yes, Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen again. I'd just like to clarify a couple
of the issues. First of all regarding the connection point to Lake Lucy Road. When Lake
Lucy Road was reconstructed, somewhat of a post was actually placed and this driveway
actually is in the exact same location. The approach was ended kind of abruptly and it really
' drops off and it's too narrow and too steep so it's necessary to widen it out and then expand
the slope to the south that's a reasonable grade. Regarding the drainage in this area. The
culvert is shown going under the proposed road embankment. You can sense that there was
' some concern about what happens inbetween the existing culvert that goes under Lake Lucy
Road and the proposed culvert. Obviously that's on private property and there's no...any
' easement. That runoff will continue to run just as it has been all these years. There's several
different driveway sections that were proposed depending on the restrictions with the strip of
property that...956.1 elevation and the most restrictive area in order to elevate the road up to
' the 957 elevation, which is the 100 year flood elevation was necessary to raise it with 8 inch
concrete planks because if this wasn't enough width to do it with an embankment. So that's
why those concrete planks were proposed. Obviously that's a very, very expensive option
and in the other areas where there isn't enough space...propose which is still I think all of this
1 14
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
fill is enveloped by a geotextile fabric...and prevent it from migrating. I'd be happy to
address any other questions that you might have. '
Batzli: We may have a question when we discuss it among ourselves here.
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have a question right now.
Batzli: Oh okay. Never mind. There is a question now. '
Ledvina: As it related to the water elevations of Lake Lucy. What would happen. I
understand that the elevation of the roadway is going to be essentially 957. Is that correct? 1
Ken Adolf: That's correct.
Ledvina: Okay. And where the roadway is under water for extended periods of time during
flooding. What happens in that instance? How does that person gain access to the property?
Ken Adolf: Well, it would ideal if the road elevation could be raised more but because the
strip of property that we have to work with is so narrow, after you start raising the road and
provide the width of the driveway, the fill starts to extend out beyond that 956.1 line so some
of the areas it is up to that elevation. The aggregate that we're proposing to use is crushed
limestone which does not have the clay material in it that was referred to in the Hoben report.
So that is a more stable aggregate than a sand and gravel type Class V.
Ledvina: That's in sections where?
Ken Adolf: Well it's in sections, really all of the sections.
Ledvina: Well the Class V does have a clay or a heavy soil as a binder for the aggregate, is
that right?
Ken Adolf: The crushed limestone is fine crushed limestone. 1
Ledvina: But Class V as a MnDot specification has a clay type soil as a binder for the
aggregate, silt and clay.
Ken Adolf: Yeah. What we've shown on a detail is crushed limestone. Represent crushed
limestone.
Ledvina: Okay. '
15
6
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
Batzli: Did you have anything else Matt?
Ledvina: No, that's it
Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the commission? If not, is there a motion
' to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Let the record reflect that Jeff is not voting on this matter. Matt, let's start with you.
Ledvina: Okay. I guess I want to thank the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association for their
' comments. We appreciate their review of the plan and I think it's good to see that
involvement and their concerns being raised. I think that the comments made by I believe
Mr. Rivkin. He presented a 8 point letter regarding some of the issues as it relates to the
construction of this driveway. I think that some of these things are certainly warranted in
terms of their being addressed. I would say that we would want to try to utilize bridge
materials that don't...ability of leeching contaminates. I think that a textured concrete
1 driveway is a good idea to improve the slip resistance of those concrete plank sections. I
think if that's the case, perhaps there will be less salt or whatever that would be necessary
under icy conditions...I guess I looked at the pre- fabricated bridge and I see that it has a
width of 16 feet. I thought that being somewhat odd since we're looking at an 8 foot section
and then all of a sudden we're going way out to 16 feet. I don't know necessarily why that
is and I've walked the proposed route and it is 8 and 10 feet wide. I think that if we did go
to 16 feet there, there'd be quite a bit of fill that would be necessary to make that, provide
that construction. So Dave, have you looked at that at all? Dave?
Hempel: Yes. There's a couple points. First of all because of the curvature of the roadway
there, the additional width is needed as a grid surface. In addition to that I believe with the
curve and larger vehicles, such as moving trucks, emergency vehicle would need the
' additional room in that area.
Ledvina: Well I can understand you wanting to provide that but if you've got an 8 foot
' section and you're saying you need a 16 foot section for trucks and such, what happens for
access throughout the 8 foot section in the road?
' Mark Sanda: There's no curve. It's just straight. It's when a truck angles, you know they
have to make a wide turn. And that's the whole idea. You need the 16 foot width for the
wide turn in making the curve.
16
' -n
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 I
1
Ledvina: Well what kind of trucks are going to be making that turn? _
Batzli: Moving van. I
Ledvina: Okay. First of all, is it possible to get a cement truck down an 8 foot cross 1
section?
Ken Adolf: The alignment is designed to accommodate cement trucks or small moving
1
vans...and if this bridge happened to be on the street section, it could be 8 or 10 feet wide as
well. Because it's on the curve and because the approaches aie so restrictive that the width
of the bridge actually has to be looked at as part of the turning movement of a vehicle.
I
When you've got something like this, the bumpers when they turn can actually overhang the
curb...and when you've got a bridge with...just need more width.
111
Ledvina: Will a cement truck be able to traverse that 8 foot section?
Ken Adolf: Yes. 1
Ledvina: It will be? Okay. Alright. I think that if it's possible, if you looked at, took I
another look at the width requirements. If it's possible to reduce that width I would like to
see that because I think again there would be a lot of additional work that would be necessary
in preparing the entrance and the exit if you will for the bridge. And that was the extent of I
my comments at this point.
Batzli: Did you have any thoughts on requiring spoils from purple loosestrife or anything
about the peat base? You seemed to, I know you have a lot of background in grading and
moving stuff around. Is that going to be a problem with all this muck underneath?
Ledvina: Well I don't think that will be a problem because you have a geotextile that will be I
used as a foundation for the actual road bed. It's almost like floating a driveway essentially
over the peat. So that shouldn't be a problem for the kind of construction that they're
I
looking at here and for the duty that would be involved. So that's one thing. As far as the
purple loosestrife, I don't know about that issue but it seems reasonable to me and I've seen
it done many other times where spoils or excavation materials from one part of a wetland
1
alteration be used in providing a seed bed for mitigated areas. So I don't know whether the
purple loosestrife issue is real significant in that regard.
Batzli: Well we have in the past they've on some occasions where the 've disturbed areas with ,
purple loosestrife that, since we're trying to eradicate it by hand mostly, since if you disturb
it, it may be a good time to get rid of some of it. So one of the proposals Mr. Rivkin had 1
17
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
was that he be required, to the extent they disturb purple loosestrife areas, to dispose of it
upland. Burying it. I'm just trying to get kind of a feel for.
Ledvina: Well if that is the case, where we know that there is purple loosestrife in that area,
that would seem to make sense but I don't know that that's been documented. I mean that
1 there's actually that weed in the area that's being.
1 Batzli: Disturbed.
Ledvina: Yeah.
1 Batzli: Okay. Ladd.
' Conrad: I think the comments from the pros and the cons are all excellent tonight. And I
think the responses that I've heard are good from Dave. I think what we want to do, beyond
what was really listed here but to make sure that the City Engineer does review the drainage
1 so we do preserve or we don't have any negative impact on the trees on the property line.
And I think Mr. Rivkin brought up some extremely valid points. Points 3 thru 7. I think we
do have a great, this is a real sensitive area. We are in a wetland. Or close to it and it's
1 going to go under water it appears so I think we really do have to take some steps in this
permitting process to make sure that the right things are done. I'm not sure exactly what
those are. I guess in a lot of cases I wish staff would get a chance to review some of these
' things before hand so we could ask them questions rather than just spur of the moment
responses. But right now I'm comfortable with granting the permit. I'm comfortable with
the staff report. I've put two footnotes on this. Two additional points and one is talking
' about the drainage so that we can maintain the trees. And also that staff takes a real good
look at Mr. Rivkin's points 3 thru 7 because I think they're extremely valid. There's no
doubt about purple loosestrife. No doubt. If it's there, it has to be treated. And I don't
know what governs that and if it's our permit that does it, then the permit should have it in it.
Period. If it's controlled by somebody else, then we don't need it but these are extremely
' good points. I don't care where they are right now. I'm not going to, if I make the motion,
I'm not going to detail these. I just want to make sure that staff reviews these points and
make sure that they're taken care of in some way. That's the end of my comments.
1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Joe.
' Scott: I'm in favor of the development or proposed development. Just a question. I've got
some additional conditions that I wanted to add and they involve specifically your area Dave.
I have concern about the treatment of the timberton bridge section and my assumption is that
1 you have access to information on appropriate materials and what I'd like to see is that any
1 18
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
sort of a bridge section be approved by our engineering staff for the purpose of making sure
that environmentally friendly materials are there. Same thing is true of the road bed if you
I
will. Utilizing a crushed limestone aggregate which is non, you're talking about sort of a
heavy clay...material that we don't want in the wetland area.
Ledvina: Right.
Scott: Does that matter if we're using some sort of a geotextile base? 1
Ledvina: Well that will help it from actually migrating through the soil but for runoff
purposes that will help.
1
Scott: Okay. And then I'd like to see a grading plan submitted to the engineering
department for their approval to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns. Seeing 1
that they're satisfactory. I have no further comments Mr. Chairman.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. To just run over a couple comments and then I'd like to kind of 1
give a more global answer to at least one of new residents here. I think purple loosestrife to
the extent it's going to be disturbed, needs to be disposed of properly so I'd agree with that
condition. I think condition 4 should be changed to read the applicant or future landowner
shall be prohibited from applying the salts and de -icing chemicals to the driveway in order to
protect the quality of the water running into the wetland area. Unless the applicant or future I
homeowner comes in here and convinces us or the Council that this won't harm the wetland.
I don't know of anything that says applying the kind of salt and de -icing chemicals or
something like this could possibly help the wetlands so I think that needs to be prohibited. I I
agree with Joe's comment. We should have the materials of the bridge submitted to make
sure that they're environmentally friendly and I agreed with Ladd regarding having the
drainage reviewed by city engineering to make sure it's not going to adversely affect the I
neighboring land owners. And finally, just for the new resident's benefit. I think you'll find,
I hope you find that Chanhassen is at the forefront of trying to maintain and protect it's
wetlands. We were one of the first communities to have a real strong wetland protection I
ordinance in place and the State in fact comes to us for a lot of input. I think Paul and/or
former city planner Jo Ann Olsen has worked with the State on some of their wetland
protection kind of programs. We also have a surface water committee that looks at
I
improving water quality throughout the city. In fact on your water bill you may notice a little
tax on there. That's where that's going so hopefully you'll fmd that we care a lot about this
and we're taking it seriously and looking at it very carefully. But thank you for coming in. ,
Those are my comments. Unless there's other comments, would someone like to make a
motion?
1
19
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
Scott: I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion which
is the approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #93 -4 as shown on the plans dated November 8,
1 1993 with the following conditions. Conditions number 1, 2 and 3 would remain as stated in
the staff report. Number 4 will be changed to read, the applicant or future landowner shall be
prohibited from using de -icing chemicals for application to the driveway in order to protect
' the quality of the water running into the wetlands. Condition number 5 should be changed to
read, the applicant shall submit a driveway design section through the wetland area to the
engineering department for approval. And a note on that is to make sure that the aggregate
that's used is of a type that will not have silt or heavy clays running off it. Or leeching.
Conditions number 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 remain as proposed. Condition number 11 shall read,
' the bridge section shall be built to a 9 ton design and made of materials which will not leech
pollutants into the wetland or lake areas when emersed. The bridge section design shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Number 12 added. A grading plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain the existing
neighborhood drainage patterns. And that's it unless there's some other, some things that I've
perhaps missed.
' Batzli: Is there a second for discussion purposes?
1 Conrad: I second.
Batzli: Discussion. Did you mention anything about loosestrife in your motion?
Scott: That would work well as condition number 13. How would you like that to read?
Batzli: In the event purple loosestrife areas are disturbed during construction of the proposed,
what are we calling it, road. Such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly in the
upland area. Do we want to exactly tell them how it should be done?
Al -Jaff: I spoke with Ceil Strauss this morning. She's...a condition of their permitting
procedure. They will take care of it.
Batzli: Okay. So what our condition will read is, instead of that would read, purple
loosestrife shall be disposed of in accordance with, is she DNR?
' Al -Taff: Yes.
1 Batzli: DNR standards. Ladd, did you have an additional condition regarding drainage?
1 Conrad: They're all taken care of.
20
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
Batzli: I'd like to propose that in your amendment to the de -icing chemicals, we say salt
and /or de -icing chemicals. 1
Scott: Sure, that's fine.
Batzli: I don't know is, I assume salt's considered a de -icing chemical but we might as well
say it 1
Scott: Oh yeah, and salt and de -icing chemicals.
Batzli: Okay. Any other discussion?
Scott moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of 1
Wetland Alteration Permit #93 -4 as shown on the plans dated November 8, 1993, with
the following conditions:
1. The mitigation area is intended to be similar to the existing basins and therefore, should
be designed to the extent possible to have bottom contours that approximate those of the
existing basins. We recommend that the mitigation area be subcut to a depth of 6 -12
inches below the desired bottom elevation. The basins should then be lined with 6 -12
inches of organic soils to be excavated from filled wetland areas. This lining of organic
soils should provide a seed source sufficient to facilitate the establishment of wetland
vegetation within the mitigation areas. Mitigation basins should be designed with
irregular edges and irregular bottom contours. Side slopes should be no steeper than
5:1; side slopes of 10:1 or greater are preferable. If on -site soils demonstrate significant
permeability, consideration should be given to lining mitigation areas with clay or other
impervious materials prior to lining the basins with organic soils. 1
2. Notification should be made to the Corps to verify coverage under their nationwide
Section 404 permit. 1
3. A protected waters permit must be authorized by the DNR before the project can
proceed. 1
4. The applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from using salt or de -icing
chemicals applied to the driveway in order to protect the quality of water running into
the wetland areas.
5. The applicant shall submit a driveway design section through the wetland area to i
21 1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
the engineering department for approval.
6. The applicant shall obtain a cross access easement from neighboring properties where
the driveway encroaches.
1 7. All retaining walls over 4 feet in height require a building permit.
' 8. The driveway will service one single family home. Only one residence will be
permitted on the peninsula.
9. The wetland alteration permit will expire after one year from the date of City Council
approval unless substantial construction on the driveway has taken place.
' 10. The applicant shall be responsible for all attorney fees associated with reviewing and
recording this application.
' 11. The bridge section shall be built to a 9 ton design and made of materials which will
not leech pollutants into the wetland or lake areas when emersed. The bridge
section design shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
' 12. A grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering
Department to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns.
' 13. In the event purple loosestrife areas are disturbed during construction of the
proposed driveway, such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly according
' to DNR standards.
All voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who did not vote, and the motion carried
1 unanimously.
Batzli: Thank you very much everyone for coming in. When does this go to City Council?
Al -Jaff: The 13th of December.
1 (The Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.)
1
1 22
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 80.8 ACRES OF
PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD AND PRELIMINARY
PLAT PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE 80.8 ACRES INTO 134 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
AND 7 OUTLOTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN
BOULEVARD, EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND WEST OF LAKE RILEY
BOULEVARD, DOLEJSI AND ROGERS PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROS.
Batzli: Paul, as a technical matter. Is this a public hearing?
Krauss: I believe technically you continued that from last timd.
Batzli: We closed the public hearing but we continued the issue.
Krauss: You continued the item. '
Batzli: Okay. Well, okay. I'm going to run it like a public hearing.
Public Present:
Name Address
Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd.
John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban
Lydia Ardoyno 9235 Lake Riley Blvd.
Del Smith 9051 Lake Riley Blvd.
Russ Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd.
Jamie Heilicher 9280 Kiowa Trail
Eldon Berkland 9261 Kiowa Trail
Hallie Bershow 9271 Kiowa Trail
Pat Swenson 9015 Lake Riley Blvd.
Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Craig & Kate Halverson 9283 Kiowa Trail
Fred Amrhein 9350 Kiowa Trail
Robert L. Eickholt 9390 Kiowa Trail
Larry Klein 9170 Great Plains Blvd.
Gary Skalberg 510 Lyman Blvd.
Jean Christensen 360 Deerfoot Trail
Eunice Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd.
Peter Pemrick 9251 Kiowa Trail
Richard D. Olin 9125 Lake Riley Blvd. 1
23 1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. _
Batzli: Have you had an opportunity to review the letter dated today, 17 November from
Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban?
' Generous: No.
1 Batzli: No, you haven't had an opportunity to review that? Do you have a copy of it?
Krauss: We were given that at the start of the meeting tonight:
Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant like to address the commission?
' Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Terry Forbord, 935 East
Wayzata Blvd. The items that we have submitted to you in written form from Dahlgren,
Shardlow and Uban pertain to issues of the outstanding issues in our mind. I believe all of
' those issues, other than what the new items that were in the staff report this time, are pretty
much the same issues that existed last time we appeared before you. We believe that staff
has done an excellent job in discussing the PUD questions that were raised at the last meeting
by the Planning Commission. That staff has pointed their amendment to the staff report and
those portions are underlined as it relates to the findings criteria of the planned unit
development and we are prepared this evening to embellish upon those further if the Planning
1 Commission finds that the findings of the staff are not sufficient for them to support this
PUD. Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban will address for you the matters that
are in writing and as I said, were pretty much the same matters that we discussed last time
' with a few new twists and they're addressed in also the new items that were in the staff
report submitted to you recently. Both John and I are available for questions from the
' Planning Commission and the public if there as well but I'll let Mr. Uban address those
issues.
' John Uban: May I use the overhead projector?
Batzli: Yes.
1 John Uban: We did hand out at the beginning of the meeting a letter just for your record but
I would like to go through the issues. They're just I think 5. To review. Under the
' recommendations that staff has created, number 5 pertains to parks or park trails. And we
agreed to do that. This is a park issue so it's probably one that you won't really consider.
Just for your information. We're asking that those trails that they're asking us to build
1 should be credited against the trail fee that we're required to pay. It seems only fair to do
1 24
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
that. Number 17 though, here we are talking about I think it's a neighborhood issue. What
has really started as a neighborhood issue and that is, the different ways that this subdivision
can access the adjacent neighborhoods and there are two issues were discussed. One was a
connection to Kiowa and the other was the Lake Riley Blvd. We had always planned,
because we understood staff wanted us to connect to Kiowa and we have developed our plans
I
to do that. And as we have found out at the last meeting, that there was a strong concern
about that and we're quite willing to have the cul -de -sac if it doesn't eliminate a lot or
something in the process. The other issue that came up that we didn't really plan for was a
I
requested connection to Lake Riley Blvd. In here it is to shorten a single loaded cul -de -sac.
In other words, it goes along the lakeshore. In other words loth on one side. Normally you'd
say, well can we do this but the problem really is that we lose a lot. This edge of the
1
subdivision looks out over Lake Riley. Has some of our best lots and we really need to have
some really good lots to help us absorb some of the costs of the other parts of the subdivision
or large lots that we're creating to buffer our development from Highway 101 for instance.
1
So it needs to be balanced. When we lose one of our very big lots, it becomes a great -
concern...and we don't think there's a strong need for it considering that even if it was built,
the remaining cul -de -sac is still at least a quarter mile long. That the efficiency of the Fire
I
Department in my opinion is not strongly enhanced. It only is enhanced for a section of the...
road between Lyman and this entrance. And the rest of it will still have the same perceived
I problems of snow storage, parking, turn arounds and so forth that we have. And so we really
believe that this particular connection is not strongly needed. We're caught in a sense of
different neighborhood concerns and different city requirements in developing this particular I
subdivision considering these two connections. So what we would like to do is try to
cooperate with both neighborhoods and not have either connection. That would be just fine
with us. You do have two good connections up on Lyman Blvd and the whole subdivision I
loops through and connects. The other option to us obviously would be that we would just
continue with the plan that we did prepare with that anticipated access to the south. Number
18 then. Leaving that access...at this point. Is the consideration of the 50 foot right -of -way.
I
We still believe that this is an attribute that is important to us. It does help us consolidate the -
grading and utilities that run from the street. The street size is the same as a standard street
size and the right -of -way is 50 feet instead of 60. The design is curvalinear and it's
I
specifically done to help create a little more intimate atmosphere on the streets. There's a
desire for 60 foot right -of -way. The standard setback which is 30 feet. One way to
accommodate the 60 foot obviously is to make a 5 foot shorter setback. Since neither one
I
seems to be accessible from different...from staff, that we want you to help us resolve that
and we think maybe one compromise might be a 50 foot right -of -way but with an additional
utility easement to allow flexibility for utilities along the edge and then still keep our 30 foot
1
setback. That would keep the physical plan the same but would allow for utilities or for
public safety. To have more flexibility in maintaining their right -of -way that they desire with
the 60 foot right -of -way. So this 50 foot with a 5 foot utility easement on either side may 1
25
I
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
work out as a reasonable compromise in this case. The continuation of required dedication
for Lyman Blvd in addition to what we've already shown as dedication continues to add more
and more right -of -way to our formula of how much of this property is being construed as
right -of -way and it's already very large and we showed some of those numbers to you last
time. That it has a fairly large component of right -of -way dedication. And what that does is
it technically makes their lot smaller so enlarging right -of -way of interior streets. Adding
more right -of -way to the perimeter in essence continues to shrink technically the amount of
land that goes into our lots. And we're really talking about where should this land be.
Should we have it in right -of -way or should it be in a lot. But the physical plan, exactly
where the streets will be, exactly where the homes will be is a'very good plan and that's what
' we want to pursue. And what we're asking for is for you to consider in our PUD application
and subdivision is this need for flexibility in how we technically address these issues but
giving us the ability to be efficient. To create a good subdivision. Good design that
addresses many hard issues on all it's perimeters. And to consolidate in the interior. And
this is a very reasonable request I believe. Item number 26 is fairly simple. That we had -
- talked about a date for a cut off for doing grading and erosion control and so forth as
November 15th. It still says October 31st and I think this is okay with your staff. And
number 32 is an additional request. This is one of the new ones. That more trails and
sidewalks be built in the subdivision to continue giving access to other neighborhoods at
Bandimere Park. We've already agreed to one connection through and it seems like, and it's
not very specific that even more is being asked. We think that we've done quite a bit. We
have a road system that's really designed to keep cars parked in the driveways as most
subdivisions are designed with curvalinear standard width and in most subdivisions, and
certainly in the subdivisions that are around this site. Most people do their bicycling and so
forth on the edge of the street and get to the park. And so we're making the connection for
the trail from Lake Riley Blvd but then it enters the street system and I think at this point, the
way we have it designed and splitting up the different roads so people go out in different
directions, minimal traffic is created and the roads as used in a typical subdivision in a
1 suburban area. It will work very well. And the need for additional trail or sidewalk we don't •
think is necessary here. The other thing that we're finding, that Lundgren Bros finds when
they talk to their customers, and where do you or what qualities do you want in your lot.
That when it comes to bringing a sidewalk or something they have to maintain again in their
front yard, these are some of the things they've left the inner city for. Because they didn't
want to shovel sidewalks. They have a bigger driveway now and that seems to be enough for
them and this is one thing they tend to choose otherwise. Other than the ones that might
have a sidewalk. So we'd like not to add that as an additional burden to the subdivision. To
summarize, we're really here trying to cooperate with the neighborhood. To all their
concerns. We're trying to dedicate as much park, as much right -of -way as we possibly can.
Cooperate in all reasonable fashions but we're getting squished. We've tried to look at all
the options. We end up losing lots if we make absolutely all these concessions. And we start
1 26
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
losing affordability of the subdivision. Lundgren Bros and Terry can speak a little more to
this. It's important that they have a diversity of product in the sense that it all can't be the
high end buildings in the woods. We need diverse but very good quality neighborhoods.
And this is not low end by any means but it is part of a variety of neighborhoods that
Lundgren is trying to create. One in which should have reasonable costs. Good design and a
variety of lots. Some large...and some smaller where people don't have to maintain as large a
lot. So it matches a broad spectrum of customer needs. So we hope you consider these
things and we would like to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. 1
Batzli: Thank you. Would other members of the commission like to see Terry give us more
background on why this should be rezoned a PUD? Any thoughts on that? 1
Scott: No.
Batzli: You don't want to see it more? Ladd?
Conrad: That's up to Terry. 1
Batzli: Okay.
I agree with Ladd.
agr dd. t a
Batzli: Okay, Matt. 1
Ledvina: That's the proposer's option certainly.
Batzli: Okay. Well he basically asked us if we wanted to see more so that's why I'm asking
the question. 1
Ledvina: Well, I don't need to see any more.
Batzli: Okay. I was asking the fellow commissioners whether they wanted to see more 1
background as to why this should be rezoned PUD and the underwhelming response I got was
that, that's at your option so I think the answer was no, at least at this time. Is there anyone
else that would like to address the commission? Yes please.
Lydia Ardoyno: Lydia Ardoyno, 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Before I have a couple comments
but first I'd like to get a clarification of just exactly where this road is going to come in to
Lake Riley from that cul -de -sac. If it's going to come in. I'm not, one of the issues we
discussed was safety and I'm trying to measure the level of safety and what we perceive it to
27
-. e
1
1
' Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
be and what P
ou perceive it to be.
Y
1 Hempel: It would be at this location here where the proposed cul -de -sac is on the drawing.
Lydia Ardoyno: And where's Lake Riley?
Hempel: Lake Riley Blvd is right here.
1 Scott: Is there any way that the residents who live on Lake Riley Blvd can get a fix as to
where that's coming out because I know that there's probably some people who, there's
probably 3 or 4 people here today who think that that cul -de -sac is coming right in front of
their house. And based upon that diagram and anything that we've received, I don't think
any of the residents have a clue. Unfortunately, neither do I.
1 Generous: I have an approximate address. It's somewhere around 9131 or 9203 Lake Riley
Blvd.
Scott: How much of a swing is that as far as residences?
Lydia Ardoyno: My question is, how many homes are there between Lyman Blvd and the
cul -de -sac on Lake Riley?
1 Generous: You mean at the end of the road?
Lydia Ardoyno: From Lyman to the cul -de -sac. I'm guessing there's a dozen.
Batzli: Are Y ou asking for information on how many there are going north to south until you
hit the proposed road?
Lydia Ardoyno: I think so.
Y Y
1 Batzli: Now, I hate to either ask this question but do you live on Lake Riley Blvd?
Lydia Ardoyno: Yeah. I just gave you.
Batzli: Okay. Okay. So I mean I'll ask you. How many do you think there are? I mean
between there.
Lydia Ardoyno: ...I'd say there's a dozen but I'm guessing because I don't know where this
cul -de -sac's going to be at some point.
1 28
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
Batzli: Well let's assume it comes out right at the southeastern corner of the property there.
Say about a dozen because I don't know that our people have gone out and actually
physically counted. So you'll probably have as good information.
Lydia Ardoyno: Well again, I'm only guessing where the cul -de -sac is...No one knows for
sure where that cul -de -sac's going to be.
Batzli: No, but I'm saying assume it comes out right at the southeastern, the southern most 1
boundary.
Lydia Ardoyno: About 8 then? 8 homes. 1
Resident: There's 8 to the corner of that...
Lydia Ardoyno: So there's 8 homes. Is that kind of a general consensus? There's 8 ?...
Okay, let me go on.
Batzli: Please, I mean get to your point.
Lydia Ardoyno: My point is that I'm trying to measure the safety issue from a rational 1
viewpoint and I live further down so I mean it doesn't...coming in if it doesn't impact me one
way or the other, but it seems to me like it has a lot to do about opening up that and it
doesn't seem to be there's going to be very much increase in the safety of the residents on
Lake Riley because you've got 2 or 3 that are right there where Lyman is and that's, you
know unless a tree happens to fall right there, which may happen or may not happen, so
you've got 2 or 3 that it isn't going to make much difference here because they're right on
Lyman and then you've got another maybe 5 or 6 that are going to be in that area between
where the cul -de -sac is and Lyman Blvd and then the rest of us are still in the same situation
we've always been in. So it just seems like it's a lot of to do being made about the safety
when you try to measure exactly what is the benefit, there doesn't seem to be very much
benefit to very many people. And those 5 or 6 all are opposed to the opening anyhow and
the rest of us that are down there, it's all going to be the same thing. No sidewalks. Narrow
roads. Everyone's looking out for the kids on the bicycles and we're all, that's fine. We're
willing to live with that so I don't understand why everyone thinks it's going to be such an
increase in our safety to put that roadway in...maybe I'm missing something.
Scott: I think I know one of the, I was one of the people who would like to see the '
connection and generally speaking, the comments that we get on developments from the Fire
Marshal are primarily just make sure there's enough fire hydrants and the streets are labeled
accordingly and that's usually about all we get. This is the first development where there
29 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
was a paragraph that stated something to the effect that in a relative recent past there have
been a number of fires in that area and because of the one access point, that they felt that the
safety of the residents was compromised and also the lack of water. And then from doing
some other research on my part, from what I understand to fight a fire in that particular area
you need at least 3 vehicles. And if you also add to that another public safety, you could
have a half a dozen vehicles down there and if this happens to be during the winter where
you have access restricted even further. So I was impressed by the fact that the Fire Marshal
took the time to cite that. Because he normally does not get very excited about these things.
He keeps it fairly straight.
Lydia Ardoyno: Sure. We were all impressed by that but the fact of the matter is, he's only
talking about 8 homes that are going to get an improvement. The rest of us it's still the same
thing.
1 Scott: No.
Conrad: No, no, no. That's not true.
Lydia Ardoyno: It's the same thing for that stretch of road. The only situation that changes
it is if something has to happen. A tree falls on that little section of the road.
Conrad: That's the point.
1 Lydia Ardoyno: Then you get to come through, all through the Lundgren Bros development
but it's a very narrow piece, very narrow. It's not even, I don't know. How many yards, a
1 few yards up there. I just, it seems like a lot for a little in my opinion.
Batzli: Okay. Well, thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address the
commission? Yes sir. One of you two sirs.
Del Smith: I'm Del Smith. I'm at 9051 Lake Riley Blvd and I guess I also have some
questions on the validity of the safety issue. I think it was told last meeting, one of our
residents did speak to whomever, fire chief or whoever and as you recall they indicated that
there really wasn't an issue from a safety standpoint. That they could go either way on it. I'd
l re, you know you get down to the end of the cul -de -sac, whether there's a connection there or
not, whether it really benefits anybody. I guess I have a real hard time with that. Whether
the trucks are down there, and to get back and forth from the end of that cul -de -sac isn't
going to be any easier no matter whether there's an access there or not. So I guess I'd like to
really have you look at that issue. Any other traditional traffic that's on Lake Riley Blvd, if
1 you've driven it, no matter what end you're on, it's narrow. And with kids it's even, you've
30
1
I i
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
negotiations with the Dolejsi's... This weekend we resolved our conflict. What we did was,
in effect established a 14 foot right -of -way permanent easement on their property for a
roadway as well as a 16 foot common easement on all of our properties. There's actually 4
property owners but there's only 2 of us that use this, regularly use this driveway at the end
of Kiowa Trail. Somewhere in the verbiage he talks about maybe having to relocate this
driveway to come off a cul -de -sac from the Lundgren Bros development. I'm sure Terry's
building an excellent development but we don't want to be in his neighborhood. We like
Kiowa Trail. We bought our house and feel very much a part of this neighborhood and I
would be very opposed to becoming a part of another neighborhood. Changing our address.
Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone n ne else like to address the commission?
Hallie Bershow: Hallie Bershow, 9271 Kiowa Trail. I have a question about the cul -de -sac.
I just found out about this at dinner time but what I heard is that the back to back cul -de -sacs
are going to be enlarged, or on Kiowa Trail it is and that's our property you're planning to
enlarge it on to. I want to know what's going to happen to Kiowa Trail.
Batzli: Thank you.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that at this point. I did have a telephone
conversation earlier today with Mr. Berquist regarding the back to back turn around so I may
have given some erroneous information as far as the exact location of it. I did indicate at a
point the cul -de -sac may be, with a new subdivision...on Kiowa provide access, parking...
access to the Lundgren residents to use Bandimere Park. Then after conversation with staff
members my understanding that the proposal would be dead ending the Lundgren
development at the south property line of the development in a temporary cul -de -sac and also
provide...turn around facility at the very northerly end of Kiowa Trail. Therefore the existing
gravel driveway that is out there now would utilize existing Kiowa Trail and not the
Lundgren Bros development. What Mr. Berquist read in the report with regards to relocating
the driveway, I believe for clarification purposes is the existing home site of Mr. Dolejsi.
The driveway does run from kind of a skewed angle with the proposed new roadway and then
eventually tie in the very southern tip of the development. What we would like to see when
the new roadway is built in front of the Dolejsi parcel, that...for their driveway to be I
perpendicular to the roadway and the old driveway.
Batzli: That's for the driveway from the house down to the southern boundary? 1
Hempel: That's correct.
33
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
Batzli: anyone Y Okay. Would one else like to address the commission?
Pat Swenson: Pat Swenson and I live on Lake Riley Blvd. As some of you may know I'm
associated with the city from the past and I'm acutely conscious of the necessity of roads for
fire protection and health protection. However, and I really have not proposed it up to this
point. However, with the potential use of a parking area for the park, my ears are becoming
very acute because I can see that we have, as you may know, a very large apartment complex
on the north end of Lake Riley. And I can see a great many of those people driving through
a very narrow road, which is true. Through, this is one area where they would come up Lake
Riley to go into that complex to get to the parking area for the' park. I cannot see anybody
taking this as an access to TH 101 for instance. I think it would be a circuitous route and...
t However, with the potential for the parking area at the end of that area, I could see that this
could present a very dangerous situation for young people. We've got a lot of little kids. I
would like to have that addressed.
Batzli: Thank you.
Hallie Bershow: Excuse me. I don't think my question's been answered about...where the
cul -de -sac goes.
Batzli: I think that Dave tried to address that. Can you show us on the map?
Hallie Bershow: I'm not sure...
Hempel: Are you located on the lot here?
Resident: She's on the first lot right there.
Hempel: The first lot here? Okay. It's my understanding that the future park and...we're
referring to is back in this area. The dead end cul -de -sacs would be...for the Lundgren
subdivision it'd be a temporary cul -de -sac at this location and then what exists up there now I
believe is just a paved section straight on through to a gravel section and it pretty much how
it exists today...being able to turn around up there for the last 20 years so I don't really see us
expanding the pavement section up there any wider than absolutely necessary. So we would
not be taking any more additional property of your's for the turn around.
Don Sitter: I'll make this real quick. Just a clarification. My name is Don Sitter, 9249 Lake
Riley Blvd. I'm the last property to the east shown here. I also have access to my property
through this Kiowa Trail. Our normal drive comes in through Lake Riley Blvd. A couple of
things in the staff report. It says that there is no recorded easement for these properties and I
I 34
-. A
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
think that's in error. We do have a mutual 2 rod easement across the back of the property.
Unfortunately somewhere in the past a surveyor, the story goes it was a drunk surveyor and
got off 16 feet and so the road got placed in the wrong spot and we worked very hard with
the neighbors over the last few weeks to meet. I think we had 5 different meetings and our
objective was to save the trees. To save the existing roadway and make everybody happy
with what we came up with. And we did come up with an agreement with the Dolejsi's and
the four neighborhood properties that live here and I understand from what Dave is saying,
we're going to keep that now? It's not going to, I mean this is the same? When we made
this agreement, that will hold with the city? You're not changing the turn around and we are
still going to have access across these 4 properties from Kiowa, is that right?
Hempel: I haven't seen that, that's correct.
Don Sitter: Basically we have a 2 rod easement right now and we're moving that easement
to go over the road where it exists. The pavement that comes into these two properties. So
we're really just trying to make right what was done wrong 75 years ago or whenever that
drunk surveyor... 1
Hempel: I guess depending exactly where your driveway enters Kiowa Trail in relationship
to the property line there to the Dolejsi and Lundgren development. Maybe the entrance gets
shifted slightly to the south. Something like that. You're not coming out onto that cul -de -sac
to the north. You'll have to maintain your Kiowa access.
Don Sitter: Okay, and I think that's what we really want. Is to maintain the Kiowa access
and not have to cut down maybe the trees that are on the property. There's some very nice
mature trees there and that's what we're trying. And I'd just like to say we worked hard with
the neighbors and I want to make sure we maintain that. And if that's the case, then I'd like
to say thank you for leaving that a cul -de -sac at the end of Kiowa Trail. We were all against
that last time so...
Batzli: Well, I don't know that Dave or Paul or Bob or anyone from the city here can
promise you anything until we act on it and then the City Council takes it up so you need to
continue to follow your issue.
Don Sitter: Okay. Well then I think I'd like to remind you of the neighborhood involvement 1
last time and remember us in your report. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Terry?
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. Members of the commission, Terry Forbord. 1
35
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
Batzli: I always feel so bad when I call you Terry and the n you call me Mr. Chair.
1 Terry Forbord: The other night in Orono I did that and they begged for me to call them by
their first name. Not to be formal so I tried. I'd like to talk about a couple things related to
a couple of these issues. The health, safety and welfare issue is an issue that we take into
consideration on every neighborhood that we develop. I have relatives that are planners. I
would say we're probably one of, if not the only land developer that I know that has an
assistant fire chief to consult with all the time on our subdivisions to try to get their feedback.
I. Every firemen that I know personally, and even our own consultant will tell you that if you
came to them and asked them a question about health, safety, welfare, that it would only
I stand to reason that they would tell you from a best case scenario, here's what we would
prefer. And if I was a firemen, that's what I'd say also because obviously their concern is to
stabilize and protect property. So if they were given a choice, and you said to them now if
.1 you could put a road here or you could make this road this wide or the radius of this road
could be this, or if you could have a fire hydrant here, I can guarantee you the firemen would
say all the things that would be the best case scenario. And they should do that. Absolutely.
I Now part of the job of a fire marshal in reviewing subdivisions is to look at all these issues
and then find the issues that he could, if he had a wish list, amend or change or whatever.
One of the things that's never pointed out, when these get to a body like yourself or a City
` :1 Council is that, does that mean that in an ideal situation that there won't be a problem either.
The fact is that there were 3 fires on this road and that we've spent a lot of time talking
about it. The fact is the fire department fought fires. The gentleman who's house burned
1 down burned down before the fire department got there but they did get there. They did fight
the fire. If this connection would have been here as proposed, those fires would not have
been fought any more diligently. I can document for you fires that have occurred in this city
I recently that were on roads that were totally accessible. They had problems with those fires.
They weren't dead ends so you have to keep things in balance here and you've got to say,
I that it's possible that fires can happen anywhere. It's possible even in an ideal situation a
house can burn to the ground and a life may be lost unfortunately. But I think it's in error to
say that if this connection is made, all of a sudden you're greatly going to enhance the health,
I safety and welfare of this community. I think that's a subjective statement. About the cul-
de -sac. Lundgren Bros has, as was already stated, would not be opposed to having no
connections. We're talking about 134 lots in here and you could easily, and there are plenty
of neighborhoods within this community and other communities, that have 2 accesses for 134
II - lots. You're talking roughly what, about 67 lots per access. That's manageable. This will
not be a unique animal unlike any other subdivision or area in the Twin Cities. There are
I other areas just like that. So it is possible that you can have no other access. You could
close Kiowa Trail. You wouldn't have to make this access here and this neighborhood would
function and there'd be more than 2 ways in and out. There were some items and I didn't
1 know if the Planning Commission wanted to talk about them tonight. I guess I'll leave those
1 36
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
up to them. They're related to affordability. They were items of discussion that were in the
staff report and I guess I thought maybe they were put there because one of the Planning
Commissions may have called and wanted to discuss it so I wanted to offer it for you tonight
if you want to talk about that or if you'd like me to address anything further while I'm up
here. I would be happy to. 1
Batzli: I'd like you to address reforestation.
Terry Forbord: Okay. The reforestation. I'm not sure, I think reforestation is a good idea.
I'm not sure in what context it was meant to be applied here. i mean that there was some
suggestion about working with the University and working with some volunteer organizations 1
and such and that's fine with me. I'm not sure exactly what's meant beyond that.
Batzli: Do you still like it if you have to provide some of the money for some of the 1
reforestation plant materials?
Terry Forbord: I think if it goes beyond what is being proposed in our landscape plan, I 1
think it's unfair. I think that even at the Tree Board meeting when some of the developers
were asked to come in and there was discussion about the reforestation of Chanhassen and
there were many long time residents that were present at that meeting and they were willing
to state that before development occurred in Chanhassen, there weren't a lot of trees because
most of the trees have been clear cut by the farmers and there were a lot of statements to say
how they could see from where the City Hall is now down to Lotus Lake. But when
development occurs, people come in and the plant a lot of trees. Now all of you know, or I
assume you know that when we develop we plant a lot of trees. We exceed what is- normally
required by a great deal and beyond that, when the people move into their homes, if they
can't afford it immediately, they're not only...but as soon as they can afford it, they plant a
lot of landscaping. And so over time these kind of things occur by themselves. It's not
uncommon for us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a neighborhood of this size on •
landscaping. That is not a small amount. And so when there was some discussion about
reforestation, I'm not sure what it meant and I didn't know if they were asking us to
contribute additional money beyond what we were proposing to do but I think what we were
proposing to do was truly a lot...lot of money. Everything has a price and if you elect to
have me talk about affordability, I will talk about that and landscaping and things like that I
would say are directly related to that.
Batzli: Paul and Bob. Under the current landscaping plan. We don't have our copies of the
plan anymore so we can't look at it but in your opinion, is Lundgren Bros going well above
and beyond what they're required to do? Under the PUD ordinance.
37
1
•
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
Krauss: I think what they've done so far is consistent with a standard PUD. Is it...PUD? No.
Probably not.
Batzli: How much better is it than our standard subdivision ordinance?
1 Krauss: Well our standard subdivision ordinance has been amended to require landscaping,
significant landscaping on selected streets and this property is bounded on two sides by
collector streets so you'd get that in any case. As far as the 1 tree per lot goes, that's a
standard requirement as well. I don't have a count in front of me to know how they have
gone beyond that. We came up with that condition after reviewing the site. After reviewing
some direction of the Planning Commission relative to this is a PUD. What are you looking
for. Relative to the relationship of this site to the park and to the highway and to the fact
that the only thing that they've had growing on it for the last 3 or 4 years is corn and
soybeans. We felt that that was an appropriate thing to look at
Farmakes: Is there any other PUD that has a 46% undersized lot ratio?
Krauss: That's a question of a different color. Yeah, I would suspect there are. We never
looked to see. I mean if you want to look at PUD's, you can look at the 9th Addition at
Lake Susan Hills which was reviewed under a different PUD ordinance. But has an average
lot size of 12,000 I believe, or 12,500. This has an average of 15,000 or better. There is no
number, I know the Planning Commission dwelled on this extensively at the last meeting.
We're at a loss to know what to do with it. There is no standard in the code that says thou
shall have some percentage of lots above the standard. It just says the average shall be.
1 Farmakes: I understand that. The problem that I had with this, when I first occurred this was
actually another Lundgren development. The Willow development over on Lake Lucy Road.
It depends on which point you want to make with this, whether or not you go to the average
size. Particularly with property that extends in the wetland areas and areas that even under
traditional development would not be buildable. But if you take them into consideration in
formula, if you wish to beef up the square footage, you add property that under any
t development is not developable. And it seems to me that depending on how you wish to read
the formula, it becomes a deceptive issue. And what we're really look at here, it seems to
me, is that if the ratio for traditional development is 15,000 square, how many lots that we're
looking at, percentage wise in the development are under sized. Under or below that 15,000.
And that to me is a more palatable figure. What percentage is that than looking at large lots,
particular in this property also has to a lesser extent but also has property that cannot be built
�. on which is being used to factor that ratio.
1 Scott: And especially the lots that, I've heard the last 2 meetings that we've had and has
38
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
been said the same way that the large lots that border Highway 101 have been portrayed as
being made very large for the purpose of buffering, blah, blah, blah when the bottom line is
that there's a pipeline running under there and it doesn't make any difference. So I get real
tired of hearing that kind of stuff. And then also obviously these are like 45,000 - 50,000
square foot lots and I think that's kind of, that's a specific example I think of what you're
talking about.
Farmakes: And in a way I hate to bring that up at this meeting because I think that's a
problem with the formulation that we have. And that has nothing to do right now with this
particular development. It's a problem that I had originally when I looked at the Willow
where the lot sizes were truly inflated by square footages on ratios for average sized lots. 1
Krauss: Because of the wetland.
Farmakes: Because of the wetlands where no matter what you built there, no matter how you
built it, you couldn't build on those.
Krauss: And this is part of my concern when this PUD ordinance was put into place.
Wetland acreage was excluded from that calculation.
Farmakes: Right, now in this case though we have a pipeline situation.
g � g PP
Krauss: Which is a different thing occurring. 1
Farmakes: Correct, so I guess for me, in looking at this, somehow we have to come up with
where we would like that to go, either looking at buildable square feet and looking at ratios
against that and I'm perfectly fine with that. And I'm not saying that we should institute a
fixed percentage of under sized lots because I think that that will probably take away our
flexibility, in particular with odd property where difficult type property that you're trying to
save trees or natural facilities. But I have a problem, like I said whenever you can take
statistics one way or the other, depending on which way you'd like to go. I like statistics that
reflect factual information and that can't be taken one way or the other. And I just have a, I
don't know how the rest of the commission feels on this issue but it seems again that the
issue that we brought up in the meeting, and I think a majority of the people here brought it
up, was the issue of under sized lots percentage wise and we looking at what's acceptable. A
third? A half? If the intent statement of the PUD I think discussed that specifically, that we
should look at it closer as that percentage increased in size. And so I'll save the rest for my
comments and I don't want to belabor the issue but I am confused and I hate to sit here and
make decisions on that based that I'm still confused on that issue. Because I think it's
something that we should target. 1
39
-
1
A
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair.
Batzli: Yes.
' Terry Forbord: Lundgren Bros could have laid this out differently and we could have more
lots in a standard subdivision. I believe even staff pointed that out. At least I'm trying to
find it. I read it today. I thought they eluded to that. We could have done something over
in this area with lots over here whether that pipeline was there or not. We could have done
that. There's a lot of things that I can do here that would give me more lots but I know and
I know that you know that it would not be as nice a neighborhood. Now we only have a
number of tools that we can work with when we come to the city. The first item that we
work with is the comprehensive plan. What are the goals and objectives of the city. The city
has a housing policy within their comprehensive plan and it talks about all kinds of different
1 things related to housing. Some of them have to do with diversity. Diversification. Pricing.
Cost. Things like that. There's a lot of things that affect cost and diversification of housing.
The other things are the ordinances and the codes. And there isn't anything in the PUD
ordinance that talks about you're supposed to have this many lots of this and this many lots
of that. There was at one time. There also was an ordinance at one time when all the rights -
of -way were 50 feet also so things change and so we look at the items, the rules that we're
supposed to follow and we try to bring forth proposals where everything isn't the same. It's
specifically our intent to not make all the lots the same. Not make them all the same size.
We want to provide some diversity. We clearly could have done some more things to address
1 all the questions that I've heard each one of you make here tonight and if we would have
done it I don't think this would look the way that you would like to see it. Because I've
heard enough of the comments over the years and what I do hear that you like in
neighborhoods and by doing those other things, we would be taking those things away
ultimately. Lot size is a subjective thing. In Chanhassen you find a lot of people, at least
these days who feel that if it's bigger it's better. Well that's not always true. Remember,
when you drive through this neighborhood, when it's done, I can't tell how large those lots
are and I do this for a living. I can't go through one neighborhood that we've developed or
anybody else's and say well there's a 8,500 square foot one and there's a 15,000 over there.
This one's 30. I can't tell and I do this for a living. You can't tell. There's no lines on the
ground but how does the neighborhood feel. Now some people might feel it's a little tight in
here. On some people they might say boy, this isn't as tight as where I came from in
,` Minneapolis. At Near Mountain there's two whole cul -de -sacs of lots from 8,500 square feet
to 11,000 square feet and I bet you there's very few people in the city who've driven in there
even know that, because you can't see the lines on the ground. They just say well this is a
nice little neighborhood. Now it may not be for everybody but these are large lots in reality.
Not all of them. Some of them are bigger than others but we could have gotten around, and
1 this was not an attempt to try to mislead anybody here. We could have come and cut across
I 40
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
this pipeline and put some lots back in this area. You can go across a pipeline with a
driveway or a road. Absolutely. There's roads all over across that pipeline all through town.
So we could have done those things. There wasn't an attempt to mislead or deceive. An
attempt to try to come up with something that's creative and deal, it's a physical constraint
that we have to deal with and we try to deal with it in the most creative manner as possible.
And try to retain some degree of affordability, which again I'd be happy to talk about if the
Planning Commission elects to.
Batzli: Okay, thank you Terry. Is there anybody else that would like to address the
commission? Yes ma'am. Brevity will be appreciated.
Kate Halverson: Kate Halverson, 9283 Kiowa Trail. And last time I was here I thought that
the back to back cul -de -sac situation there was better than a thru street going through. But
tonight I've been listening and hear talk about 212 and the possible connections and the 1
possibility of just postponing it for the future. I feel that I need to go on record saying that I
am opposed to that cul -de -sac there on the Lundgren side...lot to build a great house on...
because I am concerned. I've heard several good reasons that fire trucks will get there 1
anyway so we don't need it through that. We don't need that for that future possibility. Also 1
I've heard talk about the direction of 212 going north. So like what is the point then of even
doing a back to back and I would just as soon eliminate any potential of that taking place in
the future. And from what I can see here, you know it's somewhat necessary...the possibility
to happen down the road and I feel I need to say something because I don't think anybody's
spoken to that issue and I don't want it to come up in 3 to 5 years from now.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Unless there's someone else who would like to address the
commission, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad: No, let's keep it open.
Batzli: Do you want to keep it open?
Scott: So moved. 1
Generous: Mr. Chairman? If I may. Mary Ellen Jessup at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd called me
today and she said she couldn't make it tonight but she wanted me to give you her opinion
about the, specifically about the Lake Riley Blvd connection.
Batzli: Okay. 1
Generous: She is concerned about increased traffic resulting from this connection. She said 1
41 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
the problem really is that Lake Riley Blvd is a substandard road and that the city is proposing
a bandaid correction to that. Instead of doing that the city should look into improving the
substandard roadway itself and providing water service down Lake Riley Blvd.
' Batzli: Okay. I assume that if we did that, these people would be assessed and then we'd
have even more people in here. Yeah, okay. Did you make her aware of that by the way?
1 Generous: I did mention that.
Batzli: Okay. Well I appreciate her comments. Thank you. Would anyone else like to
1 address the commission? Is there a motion to close?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Matt, let's start with you again.
n Okay. The Kiowa Trail issue with the construction of a temporary Ledvina: O y P ary turn around or
whatever, is there actually going to be any construction out there on Kiowa Trail? Off of the
subdivision?
Hempel: At this point we didn't propose anything I guess. As I mentioned earlier, it's been
I maintained for the last 15 -20 years in it's current condition.
Ledvina: So essentially you'd have a temporary cul -de -sac that would be built on the
Lundgren Bros property and then the barricade and that would be that. Is that correct?
1 Hempel: Essentially.
Ledvina: Okay. Let's see. Dave as it relates to the Lundgren Bros proposal with the 50 foot
right -of -way and the 5 foot utility easement on each side of the road. What is your opinion
of that? Does that get what we need as well?
' Hempel: No it doesn't because with every plat, every front yard there's a 10 foot drainage
utility easement dedicated along with the 60 foot wide right -of -way. It's engineering's belief
that the 60 foot right -of -way is required to provide the road maintenance and safe travel for
1 vehicles as well as pedestrians. We just had an incident here yesterday and part of today
where we had a substandard sized street and ended up digging up the street to put in water
and sewer service in. Ended up closing off the street. It was a dead end street. It happened
1 to be...Lane up here near Shorewood. The residents incapacitated for nearly 12 hours.
1 42
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
Should there have been an emergency...one example. It's a random event that happens but it
does happen. So we changed our standard I believe 2 years ago from a 50 foot wide right -of-
way to a 60 foot wide right -of -way for those reasons. We needed additional right -of -way. All
other developments included in the city dedicate the 60 foot right -of -way it seems like. Even
PUD's unless there's been other topographic constraints such as tree preservation, severe
grade difference which would require additional grading or a retaining wall and so forth and II
we have made modifications in those areas. But areas again though where, a little more
secluded areas that were dead end cul -de -sacs and so forth...or the amount of traffic is much
less...
Ledvina: Okay, thanks. Let's see on condition number 5 I would support the applicant's
contention that the cost of the trail segments built by the developer be credited to the trail
fees. I think that makes sense but as we saw in another proposal, that necessarily wasn't the
case but I'd like to state that. And I guess talking about the main issues as it relates to lot 1
size, I know that there's been a lot of discussion on the number of small lots here but I guess
I support this development as it's laid out. I do believe that the smaller lots and potentially
the lower priced housing in this area can relate to good diversity for affordability. For many 1
new residents of Chanhassen. I think there's value in mixing a development where you have
potentially $300,000.00 houses and $125,000.00 houses or $100,000.00 houses. I don't know
what the numbers are but those types of ratios. I think as a PUD we see that the lots around
the perimeter are the larger sized lots and I think that potentially if we had all 15,000 square
foot lots you may see more residences in here that surrounds development discussing their
specific concerns as it relates to that fact. So I'm buying into that. I think that you're
developing a self contained development and that's going to be well planned and I do believe
it will work.
Batzli: So you like the fact that they've done, in essence, a defacto blending of this
neighborhood with the surrounding neighborhoods?
III
Ledvina: Yes.
Batzli: And that's an amenity both to the city and future residents of this development? 1
Ledvina: Yes, I think that's so. I don't know if there were more residents here discussing
that issue. If we had 15,000 foot lots around here we would be saying, well if this were a
PUD you could have done this. I don't think, maybe that point hasn't been emphasized but I
think it's a factor in evaluating this. I like the curvalinear layout of the streets. I think that's
going to add a lot of character. I think that the houses, obviously the lots are small but I
think those, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
43
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
Batzli: What do ou think about the, and maybe you mentioned this and I misplaced what
I Y � Y Y P
you said but the Lake Riley Blvd access?
n' mention t. I would support No, I didn't tha pp ort the staff recommendation on that. I
think we discussed that from quite a few different angles and I think that's a reasonable
I connection to make.
1 Batzli: Okay. Ladd.
Conrad: It's going to be interesting to see how we get a consensus on this. Actually I
I wouldn't want the connection to Lake Riley. I was opposed to that. I'd rather have the
street, Lake Riley Blvd upgraded.
I Batzli: Can I interrupt you right there? Let me ask a question Paul and/or Dave. Why can't
we extend some water from the main that I would assume is going, looping around this
development over to Lake Riley Blvd for a fire hydrant or two, if the main problem is getting
.1 pumper trucks in there.
Hempel: That is actually one of our, would be one of our conditions for the applicant. If the
:1 scenario before you tonight is approved with a cul -de -sac we would require that a fire hydrant
or fire water line be extended through the cul -de -sac through the common, road common
property. It's to Lake Riley Blvd right -of -way for future connection and extension along
1 Lake Riley Blvd to help flow, fire flow of water quality. That's a given.
Batzli: Okay. So but you could extend it and put a, at least one hydrant if not two along
1 Lake Riley on the comer, the northern and southerly corners?
Hempel: More appropriate is fire hydrant placement when the watermain is extended through
1 the entire length of Lake Riley Blvd to ensure adequate fire flows are provided in the fire
hydrants. Otherwise you have a sequence of dead end cul -de -sacs and water lines. It doesn't
I give you the flow that you may need.
Batzli: Would it better than nothing?
Bat Wou d t be bette g
1 Hempel: At this point, it comes down, from good sound engineering judgment and as well as
economics. Sure, a hydrant there would help...demand use it may not give us the fire
I protection you need.
Batzli: So what you're saying is, you're eventually you'd want to loop it so that it runs down
1 Lake Riley Blvd. But if you can't have that today because the city can't afford to do it and.
44
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
Hempel: The residents don't want it.
Batzli: Right. Would you request that those hydrants be put in?
Hempel: At this point, no. I guess I would just look for the future connection of looping
that water...
Batzli: So you'd just have them stub it to the edge of the property and not even put a 1
hydrant there?
Hempel: That's what we'd typically do, yes. 1
Batzli: Okay. Okay, sorry Ladd.
I
Conrad: Kiowa connection. I'm concerned with parking. I think staff brought up some real
good points. I think the back to back cul -de -sacs is what I suggested before. That's what I
think protects the neighborhood from some of the immediate traffic considerations but I
II
haven't resolved the parking problem for the park. I really don't know how that gets
handled. Actually the residents want certain things and I guess there's a price on a lot of
these things. I think in terms of improvement of the cul -de -sac, I think the residents would
have to pay for it. If they want to maintain isolation, I think then it's their street and that
would be a cost factor. But that would be very definitely, it's real clear in my mind that that
would be their load to pay for. And I would give it back to Riley, I'd do the same thing you
know and I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on this but really if you don't want the
connection to this, then there should be a street improvement and they should pay for it.
Keep the isolation but pay for what it takes to provide decent city service and protection on
those things so there's a cost. It's not like I'm saying, I want to preserve the neighborhood.
I think that's real valid but on the other hand, it's sort of an easy out by not compensating
with something. I think a 60 foot right -of -way is still the right thing to do. I think there has
to be some trails coming from the north down Highway 101. I don't know that. And bottom
line, 56 or whatever the number is, substandard or small lots, there's still too many small lots
in this property. It's just, you know what's the right number? We don't have numbers in our
ordinance because we don't want them. You kind of take a look and you get a feel for these
things and in this case I'm still not persuaded that 56 is a right number of very small lots and
II
I think maybe that's education on our part but I don't think we've ever had a PUD that
looked like this on property that really didn't have any natural amenities. I think when we
put in some small lots and Lundgren has done that on their other developments, those small 1
lots have always had some natural features that have done, that have made up for those small
spaces and they've done a real nice job. Here it's not the case. At least to my satisfaction.
We have small lots. And I guess I'm not persuaded that we're getting affordable housing.
1
45
-e
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
to streets and all this other stuff, regardless of what I said about connections o , I don't like
I the PUD. I think their 56 or whatever the number is, lots below 15,000 square feet is really
not what I'm comfortable with. I like the general design of this. I think there's a lot of nice
features. I think 56 lots, small lots are just too many.
1 Batzli: Okay, Joe.
I Scott: Yeah I didn't pick up on any new information to change my idea. I mean I believe
that it's a well laid out design. I cite similar problems that Ladd does. I'm not going to go
into that. Another comment on connections. I think it was the first Planning Commission
1 meeting that we held this year dealt with our ordinance on cul -de -sacs which we reduced the
length I think down to 600 feet. And the tone has always been, if we can logically make a
connection to shorten a cul -de -sac, we're going to take advantage of that. So I've beaten that
I one to death. I don't have any more comments on it but I don't support this as a PUD. I
don't believe it addresses the intent of our PUD ordinance and do not support it and that's the
end of my comments.
I Batzli: Okay. Jeff.
:1 Farmakes: I think I made my comments earlier about what I use as a guideline and that's the
percentage of lots overall. I think, I'm thinking more of a third and it's almost a half. I am
looking at the pipeline situation. I use that as an example. Could be a ravine. Could be a
slope. Could be one of many things and the different things that we look at, in looking at
percentages. What I look at is buildable square feet when I'm interpreting some of the
interpretable things of our PUD intent. I look at, from a design standpoint, look at the
I pipeline there. If a road was run adjacent to the pipeline or followed it, it would cut off
several of the lots. You could put homes there but it would make for considerable design
I problems. As far as selling a home that's sitting on top of a pipeline, I doubt it very much. I
use that as an example. I think that from a design concept, surrounding larger lots around the
smaller homes is fine. I don't have a problem with that. It's an innovative way to do it. It
I also reduces the amount of conflict with the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly
neighborhoods that may have been there a long time. In some cases maybe larger lots.
Beyond our standard requirements. What I have a problem with is the amount of percentages
I of the overall development. I would like to see that reduced. I've said that in my last
comments at the last meeting. I don't see them reduced. The comments that haven't been
addressed here tonight is talking about why such a large amount of undersized lots. I think
I that the goals of providing a diversity of housing is fine. Those are commendable. I don't
think that the city's position on that has been defined, at least that I know of and that the
city's still wrestling with that. I'm not against it. I just would prefer to see it defined better.
1 I do not see in this report in discussing this issue the median income in Chanhassen, the
I 46
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 I
1
median income in the metro area or the median income in the State of Minnesota. It's an
ambiguous statement that's in there and I would, if it is a driving factor in reducing the cost
of the house, I'd like to see more information on that type of issue in future developments
that come forward here. I think that that's important and basically it takes a lot of the review
I think from the commissions. A lot of information that we could use in determining this
factor. But what that percentage would be say for instance within the development. Again I
want to state that I think the goals of what was the intent here are commendable. So I don't
want to, I don't want to discourage what obviously was a development that took some time
and care in coming up with. In the issue of the connection on Kiowa, I would have liked,
again my comments that were made to see more issue between the parking and access to the
park from that direction and the cul -de -sac. I don't see any plans in the packet here. I don't 1
see any options to that. I don't see Option A, B, C or D. In fact I don't even have my plans
here. I'm looking at the piece here. That's displayed and I don't see that altered from the
original meeting. I don't see, so I see verbal options here but I don't see, don't see any plans
1
to review. So I would not, unless I see that I would feel uncomfortable about taking any
direction with that. As in the comments made in my last meeting, there are substandard roads
and in some cases lots. Not in this case but based on old Chanhassen development, where
old rules were in effect versus newer rules in this case. Obviously as a city progresses and
changes, the rules and considerations in 1960 are not the same as they are in 1993. The City
constantly is trying to improve and change along with environmental factors and so on and
we change things. And I do not think that enough consideration is given when we come into
a situation where we're going to significantly change a neighborhood situation that is an older
neighborhood when new rules are in effect. I'd agree with Ladd's compromise on that issue.
As far as the Lake Riley Blvd. However, I don't think that this is the issue here to be
discussing road improvements on Lake Riley. That would have to be a separate issue and the
residents would all have to be made aware of what that would be as far as assessments and so
on so I don't think that can really be coupled in with this. On the issue of city staff
recommendation not to reduce the right -of -way issue, I support that. There's just a lot of
things here that don't make this fly in my mind and I would vote to not approve it.
Batzli: So you would vote no on the entire PUD?
1
Farmakes: Yes.
Batzli: I mentally counted 3 no votes for the PUD. I would vote yes but it sounds like I'm
going to be in the minority. I'll still give at least brief comments here. I disagree with Jeff's
percentage analysis and you know I'm, my tenure here on the Planning Commission waning,
as opposed to waxing. The issue came up when we were looking at the PUD's as to what
was acceptable lot size. I guess it was funny to me, or somewhat ironic that I argued so long
and hard regarding lot size and everybody thought that small lots were okay. And now we 1
47
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
see PUD's and everybody wants larger lots. I feel vindicated but we've _got the ordinance
I we've got. I live in a PUD and I live on a substandard sized lot and you probably can't tell
that and it does cause a certain amount of interesting problems in the neighborhood but
they're not that big of a deal so while everybody else has gone to bigger lots, over the years I
I think I've gone the other way and maybe I'm just like a half cycle behind you guys or
something here but.
1 Conrad: You did a good job of persuading us.
Batzli: I did such a good job of persuading you and in the meantime I seem to have gone the
1 other way. So it really seems to me that if the development was done right, you look at the
development Lundgren Bros did up, I suppose it's Shorewood up on the hill there where they
do have the smaller lot sizes and you can tell those lots are less than 15,000 square feet. You
1 know I don't believe Terry when he says he couldn't tell that those were undersized lots.
Maybe if they're closer you can tell but you know an 8,000 square foot lot looks pretty small.
The houses are on top of each other. And they did a very good job with those lots but you
,1 know, you can tell those are small lots. Anyway. The upshot for me is if in fact we are
getting- blending, which we would not otherwise get, and if we were getting something else
and all I can, have figured out so far is that we're getting right -of -way and we're getting
1 blending in exchange for Lundgren Bros trying to squish some homes together. And that
would probably be okay with me except I would like to see some more landscaping. And I
think that if they did that, I think you'd have a nice little development. So I would be in
favor of this PUD provided that some of these concepts of reforestation and Lundgren Bros
helping out in that in some way was accomplished. I think that the break away barrier is fine
I on Kiowa. I would like to see that however, I do not want to see that, it will be removed
automatically once 212 is built. I would rather see that it came back to the city for study and
this was not a knee jerk based on 212 being built. I think that would be an error. I think the
I residents should have input at that time. And in fact I would suggest that it's even done kind
of after 212 is built to see what's what rather than projections of traffic patterns. As far as
the Lake Riley Blvd access goes, I think Ladd is right and it is a bandaid to put an access
I through there if in fact the real problem is a substandard road and they need water on that
street. On the other hand Jeff is right that you really can't or shouldn't link this development
with upgrading that road. And I think that to the extent staff and engineering can work with
I Lundgren to figure out how to get some water pressure and a couple fire hydrants over there,
that's really I think the biggest concern. In re- reading the Fire Chief's memo, really what he
was talking about was the tanker traffic back and forth on the road and if you didn't have to
I do that, the pumper trucks, or whatever they are, that probably would mitigate the problem, at
least in this one particular instance. So I would like to see these neighborhoods not intruded
by linking them unless we absolutely had to. And those were my main comments.
1 48
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, may I make a few comments?
Batzli: Yes. 1
Terry Forbord: One of the owners is here this evening and I think if the Planning
Commission would like to, I'm sure he would volunteer the information to you that led up to
our control of this site. There were over 6 developers, or at least that's what I was told,
somewhere between 4 to 6 developers competing for this piece of property. I can tell you I
know fairly well that half of those people, the type of products that they do and I feel very
confident that I know what they would be proposing for this. And I can tell you that I know
they would meet the city codes and I can tell you that it wouldn't look like this. It would
look more like, the old wonderful subdivision I showed you last time. Granted it may not
look exactly like this but that's the kind of development that you'll probably see on this site
if you don't allow a PUD to be utilized here. I know what the concerns were at the last 1
meeting. The first thing that I went back to do was I figured out okay, well how can I try to
accommodate many of the concerns that the Planning Commission has so the next time that I
go back in front of them, they say well geez. They went back and they redid this and pulled 1
some of these lots out and boy I can vote for this. I can't pull any lots out because the
numbers don't work. Now and maybe that's not a consideration of the city but then the
alternative is that somebody else can come in and develop it and they'll develop it in a
1
pattern that won't be as creative but all the lots will be 15,000 square feet. And then when
everybody's done, say well they're all 15,000 square feet. We got what we wanted. I'm still
not convinced that I've ever heard that from this Planning Commission or a previous one or
any City Council say that that's what they want. But the bottom line is, the only way to do it
is to take lots out and when you look at the raw density of this, this is not a dense project. It
isn't. Those numbers don't lie. So yeah, we can take lots out but then we can't do the deal.
So the alternative is that somebody else can come in and do it in a different manner but
maybe I've misjudged over the years what I think the city is looking for. But in some of the
comments that I hear over and over again, I don't think I have. But the owner knows that
when we walk away he will be able to sell his property. I can guarantee it. It will just be
developed differently. And so I'm just telling you that obviously we'll pursue it with the
City Council. It's clear the Planning Commission doesn't support the proposal but we may
not do everything right, exactly the way the city hopes to see it but we really try and we try
to create nice neighborhoods so when they're done they don't look like some things that we
believe that everybody would rather they not look like. But the only reason I mention this to
you is because I did try to take lots out. I made some lots bigger but the numbers don't work
and that gets back to the affordability issue that nobody asked me about. There's no such
thing as affordability in Chanhassen and there won't be. Not until you come out maybe with
500 square foot lots and until there's MUSA expansion and there's more land available and
the price of land goes down. Then maybe it will start getting to a threshold where I think
1
49 1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
from the general public's mind they'd call affordable. But every time you exact something,
you insist on larger lots and you insist on wider streets and you insist on more trees and you
insist on, all those things cost money that ultimately the homeowner pays for. And I have to
just pass it on. I can't absorb it. And so that's why we propose many of the things that we
do to try and add some different sizes and that sort of thing. I'm sorry that we were unable
to do a better job. We tried the best that we could.
Batzli: Thank you for your comments Terry. Does anyone have a motion?
Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Preliminary PUD
#93 -6 subject to the staff conditions with the following modifications. Modifying number 5
i to add, the cost of trail segments built by the development shall be credited to trail fees.
Number 26. The date as it relates to site grading be changed from October 31st to November
15th. Number 27, the condition be deleted as it is repeated at condition number 11. And
adding a condition number 33. That the city and the developer investigate the potential for -a
reforestation project to occur along the right -of -ways associated with TH 101 and also
associated with Bandimere Park.
Batzli: Is there a second? I'll second the motion. In your condition 30. I don't recall. Did
1 you want Kiowa to automatically open if 212 was built?
Ledvina: I didn't' consider that. I guess I would amend my motion to state that the city re-
1 evaluate the modifications, the opening of Kiowa Trail in response to the construction of 212
and I don't know if it's appropriate to request a public hearing or something of that sort.
1 Batzli: In your motion you did want to connect Lake Riley, correct? To Lake Riley?
Ledvina: Yes.
•
Batzli: What condition is that?
1 Conrad: I couldn't find it.
' Ledvina: I assumed it was in there.
Conrad: There's a condition relating to the trail easement. Number 5.
1 Batzli: Number 17. Phase 3 of the development. Is that the? You don't want to delete that
heh?
1
1 50
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
Ledvina: No.
Batzli: Okay. Is there any discussion? 1
Conrad: I don't know. I think just discussion. I think that Terry is talking about trying to
develop I think. He knows that Chanhassen develops with a concern with lot size. He knows
that. And I think it's been echoed by Planning Commission and City Council over and over
again in a variety of ways. So you know it's not that there's a magic number and it's not
that we don't want to go below the 15,000. We're talking about proportion and that's what
this, in my mind, that's what the issue is right now.
Farmakes: Is this discussion or are we voting on the motion? ■
Batzli: This is discussion. 1
Farmakes: I support those comments. My comments on the issue of lot size Brian were
percentages. I would even entertain lots smaller. That's not the point. The point is, the 1
percentage of the development and that's what I've grabbed onto in looking at these tables
because I find the information to be not always representative of the facts with the
relationship that we're using. It's not intentional. It's just what we use as criteria and that's
1
what I have a problem with. I'm closer to a third and this is closer to a half.
Ledvina: Well if they were 14,999, I mean you could say that they're. 1
Farmakes: But a lot of them aren't. A lot of them are closer to 12 to 11.
Ledvina: I understand.
Conrad: There's a lot of small lots. 1
Farmakes: I don't mind diversity. I don't see diversity here. I see about half of it being
under sized. And what I'm saying here is I'd be more amenable to a third. It's not the issue
or the intent of what the design is trying to achieve. But I'm not sure that that's spelled out
very well for us either so I would not be displeased to see this come back again. I think that
generally this development is worth pursuing. It's not, if the numbers aren't there, then
they're not there.
Batzli: Well, yeah. You know my problem with looking at it as a percentage is, the whole
concept in my mind, at least of a PUD is you allow clustering to get open space and
protection of natural features. Here we have no natural features. So the issue is whether
1
51
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
we're getting a larger feeling to the neighborhood by getting the blending that they're doing.
Now whether they're doing it because they have to do it, because of the pipeline or because
1 they're going to have much more expensive lots that can look through the trees, inbetween
houses onto the lake. Whatever reason they're doing it, there is a certain amount of open
space and it's not a real dense development. So you know if it's, maybe the numbers didn't
1 work. Maybe he can recalculate them and maybe even move the decimal point the wrong
way on one of his figures but he can take a few lots out and maybe...but I think the point of
it that there is a clustering here. There is some open space. The development doesn't have a
1 real tight, enclosed look, at least as far as I can tell from a two dimensional representation on
the map. And like I said, I'm here to tell you that living in a PUD with under sized lots isn't
1 all that bad.
Conrad: I just don't see it Brian.
1 Batzli: I know and you either see it or you don't.
1 Conrad: You see it and I don't see it at all. I see the inner circle as being real dense. And
what we've done is put a dense area separated from two major, two highways. Two
roadways. Moved them away. I guess I'm valuing that. I think if I was a resident there, I
would value that but in terms of how I look at this, it's a real dense area.
Farmakes: And I also.
Batzli: But is there a down side to that? What's the down side?
1 Conrad: They've got to live there.
Ledvina: They're going to choose to live there.
Conrad: Right. I don't care who, yeah. Anybody can and I'm not going to tell you that I
don't care. But philosophically, this is really a philosophical deal. We planned with lot
1 sizes so long here. When you change the lot size in Chanhassen, there's got to be a real clear
reason why because we really perceive that to be very important. Really perceive that and
along with natural amenities. And I haven't been sold on that. So when you break that one
1 philosophy, and I tell you. I can go down to 8- 10,000. I don't have a problem with small
parcels. I don't but it's getting me someplace. It's getting us the cluster with a great deal of
open space and I just haven't seen the significant benefit to take me down to the small lots
1 here. I just don't see the benefit. And therefore I don't see the reason to break our standard
which is what we really hold dear to us.
1
1 52
' A
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
Batzli: In the past we've had real clear things that we were trying to save to allow the
clustering. We've had the wetlands. We've had the ravines. We've had forests. Here you
have a lot with nothing on it. In essence. A plowed field let's assume for a minute. What
are you going to try to save, or are you just going to, are you going to require more parkland
to be dedicated? What are you going to do? 1
Conrad: This is not a good candidate for a PUD you know. It's not. Yet on the other hand.
Ledvina: Do you like the alternative?
Conrad: Hey, that's fine. That's just fine. A standard subdivision is just fine with me. 1
Farmakes: And I don't have a problem with seeing this again if there are lots closer to
15,000 rather than percentages that they have. I'd even entertain away from a third or higher 1
to a half if more of them were larger percentage wise. So I did not get the calculator out but
if there were fewer of them between 11 and 12, and more of them 13 to 14, I would entertain
changing my vote in that regard so. If you're looking for any flexibility there.
1
Batzli: I respectfully disagree with Ladd's comment. I think that the city, the residents, the
neighbors, everybody's getting something by doing this as a PUD this way rather than
bringing in a straight subdivision but that's neither here nor there. Okay. Well, is there any
other discussion? Otherwise I'll call the question.
Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
preliminary PUD #93 -6 subject to the following conditions:
1. Submittal of street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for
review and approval prior to final plat approval. 1
2. Revise grading and erosion control plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and
garage floor elevation before final plat approval.
1
3. Tree preservation/landscaping:
a. Detailed plans for perimeter berming and landscaping. A landscaped buffer shall
be provided along State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. This buffer shall be
sufficient to screen direct views of the homesite from the roadway. Additional
1
landscaping shall be provided along Lake Riley Boulevard to provide a natural
transition from Lake Riley Boulevard into the development.
53
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
b. Tree planting to meet minimum size standards in City Code and to be selected
from the official tree list.
c. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees to assure
installation and survival.
d. Existing trees listed in the tree survey to be preserved as part of the development.
e. Development of an approved landscape budget prior to City approval of the final
plat.
4. The applicant shall dedicate 5.3 acres of park land to the City in lieu of park fees.
1 5. A trail easement to be dedicated in the southeast quadrant of the site to provide
pedestrian and bicycle access to Lake Riley Boulevard. The trail segment shall be built
by the developer as part of the phase of development including the abutting property
and appropriate credit given toward the trail dedication fees.
6. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' homesite and a 12' x
1 12' deck and maintain all setbacks on the final plat.
7. A minimum fifty (50) foot building setback shall be maintained from Lyman Boulevard
1 and State Highway 101. This setback shall be included on the final plat.
8. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all
utilities located outside the public right -of -way. The minimum width shall be twenty
(20) feet.
1 9. No lots shall have driveway access to State Highway 101, Lyman Boulevard, or Lake
Riley Boulevard.
1 10. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final
construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council
approval in conjunction with final plat approval.
11. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into a
PUD agreement and development contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of fmal
1 platting.
1 54
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
12. The City of Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance should be employed to require a buffer strip
and setback for the homes adjacent to the homes in the northeast comer of the site, 111 specifically Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 5.
13. The grading plan should be revised to include existing ground contours. Street grades
throughout the subdivision shall fall within the City's standard of 0.50% to 7.0% percent
grades.
14. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to facilitate a 10 -year storm event. The
ponding basins are required to meet NURP water quality standards and maintain the
surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a
100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for the
entire development will be required in conjunction with fmal platting of Phase I.
15. The drainage basins along Lyman Boulevard shall be sized to accommodate the storm -
g Y
runoff for the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. The City may contribute towards
the cost of any pond oversizing as a result of additional runoff generated from Lyman 1
Boulevard. The City will credit the applicant by means of an assessment reduction.
16. Storm sewer and ponding basins shall be designed in accordance to the City's Surface 1
Water Management Plan. The applicant shall work with staff in relocating or adjusting
the proposed NURP basins adjacent to Lyman Boulevard to be compatible with the
future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard.
17. The applicant shall redesign Phase 3 of the development to extend the cul -de -sac to
connect to Lake Riley Boulevard.
18. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat additional road right -of -way along Lake
•
Riley Boulevard to achieve a 60 -foot wide right -of -way. The street right -of -way
throughout the subdivision shall be 60 feet wide.
19. During the construction of each phase, temporary turnarounds shall be provided on all
dead end streets which are proposed to be extended. Barricades shall be placed at the
end of the temporary turnarounds with a sign indicating that "this street shall be
extended in the future ".
20. The applicant/property owner of Outlot F shall enter into a driveway easement with the
adjoining three property owners for the use of the existing driveway through Outlot F if
one currently does not exist or eliminate the issue by relocating the driveway off of the
property. ,
55
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
21. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the Chanhassen City
P PP P Y
Council authorizing a public improvement project for the extension of trunk utility
1 service to the area and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards.
' 22. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance to the City's fire marshal recommendations.
23. The applicant shall provide a 6 -inch watermain stub to Lake Riley Boulevard between
Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 shall be provided.
24. The existing home on Outlot F shall be required to connect to City sewer and water
service within 12 months from the date the system becomes available or sooner if the
well and septic system fails.
25. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits i.e Watershed
District, Health Department, MPCA, Williams Brothers Pipeline Company, MWCC.
I 26. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc
mulch or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before November
15 each construction season accept in areas where utilities and street will be constructed
yet that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored
in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for erosion and
sediment control.
1 27. Deleted.
1 28. The applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the assessments for the
extension of trunk utility improvements and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban
standards.
' 29. Outlot F shall be platted as a lot within the subdivision since outlots cannot be built
upon. Relocate the driveway for this lot so that it connects perpendicularly to the
' proposed street within the subdivision at a location acceptable to the Engineering
Department.
1 30. Back -to -back cul -de -sacs shall be provided at the Kiowa Trail connection. The
pavement for the northern cul -de -sac shall be installed to the project property line. A
breakaway barricade shall be installed to prohibit through traffic on Kiowa Trail. The
cul -de -sac shall be temporary until either area residents petition the City to open the
connection or Highway 212 is constructed at which time traffic patterns will be changed.
The city shall re- evaluate the Kiowa connection in response to the 212 construction.
1 56
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
31. A declaration that the fields in Bandimere Community park will be lighted shall be
included in the chain of title for lots within the subdivision.
32. Sidewalks or pedestrian trails shall be provided connecting Lake Riley Boulevard and
Lyman Boulevard to Bandimere Park. This trail system shall include a trail segment
built within the 92nd Street right -of -way from Kiowa Trail to Bandimere Park,
33. That the city and the developer investigate the potential for a reforestation project
to occur along the right -of -ways associated with TH 101 and also associated with
Bandimere Park.
Ledvina voted in favor and the rest opposed. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 4. 111
Batzli: I'll state my own reasons for voting against the motion. Obviously I seconded it so I
was hopeful that we could take the connection to Lake Riley Blvd out. Since that stayed in, I
voted against it. Otherwise I would vote for it. Also with the understanding that the
applicant would work with city staff to try to get some fire hydrants to the people on Lake
Riley Blvd. Ladd, your reasons for voting no.
Conrad: The small lots. In addition I'm not, we haven't resolved the parking situation for '
the park now that we've put two back to back cul -de -sacs there. And the fact that I do want
to make sure that the Lake Riley is served with water but not connected.
Batzli: Okay, Joe.
Scott: Mine was the same as it was last time. It was the proportion of lots that were quite a t
bit smaller than our minimums. And then after that being...stated as well as the 60 foot
easement. There was no change to the plan so obviously we're up against a fmancial, you
know some financial requirements on the part of the developer and there's no movement so I
didn't see anything new so I felt, I did not feel compelled to change.
Batzli: Okay. 1
Terry Forbord: Excuse me Mr. Chair. Could we turn up the volume? We can't hear any of
the comments here that are being made by almost all members of the Planning Commission.
Are the microphones working?
Batzli: Yeah... ,
Terry Forbord: I heard Ladd. I did not hear the last comment. 1
57
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
Batzli: Okay, Joe. Can you repeat?
1 Scott: My last comment was, I didn't change my opinion of the development from last time
because I saw no new information with regard to lot size. Proportion under 15,000 or the
plan relative to 60 foot right -of -ways.
Batzli: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I think I've already spelled out in detail my issue on the small lots. The issue of
Kiowa. It seems to me that what I would like to see is a design relationship between access
' to that park and even putting a cul -de -sac on Kiowa. It seems to me that those two issues in
that particular area are interrelated in that corner down there. And I haven't been terribly
satisfied with, to make an informed decision based on what I've seen in the plans. Or even
options. I would not like to see Kiowa connected unless the residents versus the old new
neighborhood issue that I discussed earlier. Unless there was a feeling there that it should be.
On the issue of Lake Riley, I think that that again is something, that issue versus the fire
hydrants. The improvement of the highway and so on, I think Ladd summed that comment
up and I won't repeat it. On the issue of the 15,000 square foot lot. I would like to make
one more comment. There's a reason why people want to come to Chanhassen to live and it
' seems that traditional development or traditional development ordinance is looked down upon.
It seems to have served this community well. I think also, to me anyway, from what I've
seen, irregardless of how I feel about it as a designer, and I think that there's a great deal of
' information to support city staff on the issue of smaller lots and diversity and so on. There is
a clear, I think direction based on the information that we got from the community and the
information from our elected representatives that this is an issue that we have to give serious
consideration to when we go below it. And I don't see where we have the go ahead to put
that aside and I think that it's, if we're here to reflect the interest of the community, I think
that if we look at percentages of development, if all our PUD's are going to be 50% under
sized or 46% under sized, and we use that as a guide post, it seems to me that we will never
see anything but PUD's. Maybe we should just eliminate all the rest of our ordinances.
1 Batzli: Some would say that would be a good thing.
Farmakes: Some would. In this particular case, I also am driving hard to find a reason and I
don't want to compare this to a traditional development because I haven't seen a traditional
development on this piece of property. So it would be a lot of what the staff report said and
' what was underlined were the intent statements. They weren't addressed specifically to this
piece of property. And some of the statements were ambiguous to me. And if I'm going to
vote on something, I think to do it responsibly, it shouldn't be ambiguous.
1
1 5
-. e 58
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 I
1
Batzli: Okay, thank you. That motion failed 1 vote for, 4 votes against. _ We normally
recommend something to the City Council. So is there another motion?
1
Conrad: I recommend denial of the proposed preliminary planned unit development approval
of 80 acres, rezoning the property zoned A2, Agricultural Estates to PUD Residential and
I
preliminary plat approval to create 134 single family lots. Planning Case #93 -6 PUD.
Batzli: Is there a second? 1
Scott: Second.
Batzli: Discussion. I
Conrad moved, Scott seconded to deny the preliminary PUD #93 -6 of 80.8 acres of
1
property to create 135 single family lots, preliminary plat and rezoning of the property
from A2 to PUD -R. All voted in favor, except Batzli and Ledvina who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
1
Batzli: I think I made my feelings known earlier. Matt, did you want to add anything?
I
Ledvina: No.
Batzli: Okay. This goes to City Council when? 1
Krauss: December 13th.
I
Batzli: December 13th. Thank you very much everyone for coming in.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning 1
Commission meeting dated November 3, 1993 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Batzli: Paul, do you have anything to report from the Director? 1
Krauss: Well I did...The City Council is concerned and upset that the Highway 5 plan has
not yet been acted upon. I was not at that meeting but Kate, I think quite rightfully pointed
out that we scheduled it 3 times and all 3 times it...1:00 in the morning. She apparently got
her head chopped off by the City Council...City Council actually asked for a moratorium issue
be raised for the third time on Highway 5. So we have a moratorium ordinance coming back
I
59
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
affects properties in the corridor. ...approve that and
to the City Council on Monday. Now i t ects p p pp
the Planning Commission probably still won't get to the ordinance, to the plan, because
' there's a lot of properties outside of the corridor as you saw tonight that's still going until
11:00 or 12:00 at night. What I suggested to them is that they order you to clear several
' agendas. What we're suggesting is the December 15th one, which I think some of you have
been contacted on already. And the second meeting in January which will be a public
hearing. We've got the field trip tentatively scheduled for Saturday, December 4th. On the
' December 15th meeting, some of you asked that if we do that, if we hold it earlier. We'd be
more than happy to do that. Have dinner for everybody and have a real work session where
it's the only topic on there. We could start at 6:00 if that works for you all. But that's what
' the City Council is angling to do one way or the other. Other than that, I don't know what
else. I mean everything...
Batzli: City Council's angling to do, I missed that. What are they going to do?
Krauss: Well they're angling one or the other. I mean they want to get the plan acted upon
' and every time a development comes up, in the corridor, even though we make sure it's
conforming to the corridor plan, the mere fact that it rears it's ugly head without the plan
being adopted, we take hits on that so.
' Scott: Well I know and I remember with that Centex development.
Farmakes: That was the one that precipitated it.
Scott: Right. And there were enough knowledgeable people who know about the Highway 5
' study and what's expected and the study areas and the architectural requirements. I was
extremely surprised because as part of the public record there were some very specific
discussions about what the requirements were. And the developer specifically asked for some
' guidance, which I know Jeff and Nancy were able to give some but.
Farmakes: I think that the issue here and if, we made the comments I think at the last
meeting in regards to the Centex development. The issue I think is when we had the
meeting, or discussion afterwards we talked about the issue of loading up for so many of
' these developments and getting enough time. Having been through that thing for 2 years with
Paul, it is not something we're going to cover in a meeting. And by the time we get to it it's
11:00 and obviously we've got to take a different direction and I'm open to whatever you
' suggest to address that issue but it will take a long time to assimilate this amount of
information.
Batzli: Well I view this as no less important than the comprehensive plan and it's going to
1 60
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
take that kind of an effort. I really think Paul that you have to kind of take the bull by the
horns and start scheduling meetings as you did with the comp plan and we're just going to I
have work meetings and work our way through it and we can't possibly do it starting at 11:00
after these meetings.
Krauss: No. That's clear. The problem is scheduling working those. It's gotten to the point 1
where there's no nights left in the week to do a special meeting. I mean Monday night I had
a special meeting for the City Council. Two of them. Tonight I had a TH 101 meeting. A
Highway 101 before this tonight. Next week we have Tree Board this and it's getting
impossible to find nights to do it which is why I'm asking the City Council, see I don't have,
I have the authority to bump an item if it's half cocked and we don't have enough
information to deal with it but otherwise I'm obligated to process a development proposals we
receive in a consistent manner. That's why I'm asking the City Council for the authority to
say no. You'll just have clear agendas and nothing else will happen.
1
Farmakes: Are you looking for support from us to send a letter on or...?
Krauss: I kind of assumed we had it. I
Farmakes: We touched on that at the last meeting. I asked you how long it took to turn
1
around these things and maybe they have to wait longer. I mean it seemed to me like you
turn around these things far faster than many of the other things that happen.
comment on that. We are getting more and more and more '
Batzli: I really think if I could co t o g g
last minute thingy's from developers, the neighbors, everybody and it does you guys no good
and it does us guys no good to be getting letters written the same day that you haven't even
seen yet. And if that means that you have to put out the packets a week and a half in
advance but slow down the process so that you at least get feedback from the developer and I
then, you know whatever it takes because this is ludicrous. This is really silly and I think
these rules need to be examined as far as forcing you guys to get it out in 24 hour turn
around and then suddenly the developer comes in at the last hour and says, oh by the way. I
We disagree with 8 points and they stand up there and try to go over each one of them with
us without having talked to you guys.
Scott: Well and the thing is, and I told the fellow from the engineering firm. I said if I was 1
running this meeting, I would have tabled your item immediately for laying that on the
Planning Commission and wasting time. But you know I fully support the idea of clearing III the agendas. Sitting down and starting at 6:00 and working through the Highway 5. I
believe it's extremely important and just on that issue, I don't see any reason why we can't
make a requirement that if there's going to be anything that's going to be discussed at a
1
61 1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
I Planning Commission meeting, that it needs to be presented to the city staff 48, 72, however
many hours before the Planning Commission meeting and we will not take into consideration
any documentation presented other than with that kind of a lead time. Because I personally
rely very heavily on what the city staff has to say about things, although obviously I can
make some decisions on my own but you can't react to it. We can't react to it.
I Batzli: And I, if you have a neighbor coming in giving us something at the last minute, I
don't mind that. That's a different issue. It's the developer coming in with all sorts of
I conditions that they don't agree with. I assume they got their package on Friday or Saturday
if they had to go pick it up, just like we did. -
111 Krauss: We've been trying to, I mean we've been telling them certainly. Lundgren knows
this. That the packet's are printed Thursday and Friday. In many cases we've taken it upon
I ourselves to fax it to them so it doesn't get...or we ask them to stop by and pick it up.
Batzli: But you know, it seems for some reason that we're getting more and more and more
I of these last second letters from the, I suppose what's happening is Lundgren's picking it up
Friday. They send it over to their engineers and their engineers sit on it for a day and then
they type it up and revise it. By the time they get it it's Wednesday but then there's
I something wrong with the system that they haven't had ample time to respond and sit down
and talk to you guys about it.
I Krauss: And I don't have a good answer for you Brian. I mean this last week we put out 4
packets. And people were here until 5:00 -5:30 on Friday to get them out.
1 Batzli: And I'm not saying it's your fault. That's not it at all.
Krauss: Well I know but you kind of get at your wits end you know. Do we spend our time
1 on this special meeting or do we try to meet with the developer 3 weeks in advance?
Batzli: Well you have to do it in real time. There's always going to be additional
1 information coming in and so it's silly to say well, the report's going to be generated 2 weeks
early because you know, a lot can happen in 2 weeks. But on the other hand there has to be
some rule of reason here so that we don't sit there and listen to these guys read this letter to
1 us that you guys have never seen. I mean this is just, this wasted 40 minutes tonight. And it
could have been something that you guys could have said, we have no problem with anything
they said. Now in this case there were problems but we've had people do that before. So
I and also in this case, the fact that we didn't approve it, I didn't want to table it. You know
what's the point of having them come back a third time if we're not going to like what they
1 did. But you know, in any event I would like to see, in all your spare time you examine
62
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
those rules and propose something so that this doesn't happen. And whether you propose it
to us or the City Council is no never mind to me other than it's not working quite right. And
I would also, to the extent we have to make a resolution, a non - binding resolution, I would
like us to recommend to the City Council that they do whatever it takes to do, for you to
clear your personal docket and half of Kate's or whatever it's going to take, so that we can
get the Highway 5 deal done. They can't keep on loading you up with meetings and then
scream and shout that we haven't looked at something. In any event. Because our rules are
we don't go past 11:00. Well we've been going until 12:00, 1:00. It will be quarter after by
the time we get out of here tonight. And so it's not like we're not doing the job or that
you're not doing the job. There's no time given our current constraints.
Ledvina: I second that.
Batzli: Okay. Last but not least we were going to talk about goals and everybody was going
to bring their modified list of what they thought was important. We didn't have our ongoing
dealy bob in our packet this week.
Krauss: Well actually.
Y
Batzli: Was it? Did I miss it? 1
Krauss: It was given...secretary. It was delivered late I think.
Batzli: Delivered late?
Krauss: It was supposed to be. When she was putting out these four packets on Friday, she 1
realized that the back 2 or 3 pages of my stuff fell out and then Sharmin was going to...
Batzli: Well in any event, my point was that several of us didn't have it so we couldn't do
our little organizational deal and so if you can give us all one of those, I would like to do
that next time to kind of look at our goals and at least chat about it for a few minutes to see
if something's important to us. Because I know things are and we may not have a lot to say
about it but to the extent we're concerned citizens of Chanhassen and we put in long hours
for no pay, the Council should at least be somewhat willing to listen to what we think is
important.
Krauss: You know the Council, they do have an annual...Planning Commission. Trying to
get, I get the goals and the work stuff, the ongoing work program to the Council during the
budget session and trying to get feedback from them on that is like pulling teeth. I mean
very rarely do I get any direction at all. In fact last time it happened was 2 years ago when
1
63
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
the Mayor said he wanted an ordinance to regulate sexually oriented businesses.
1 Batzli: And we proceeded to sit on it.
Farmakes: We sat on it until the Supreme Court...
Batzli: Yeah, yeah. Well we were sitting on it for a reason. We were cogitating.
Ledvina: It was a lot to get through. It was a thick ordinance.
' Krauss: There's all sorts of things that we just haven't been getting to. I mean the whole
issue of the BF district. South Chan.
Farmakes: Well if the problem when you open the MUSA obviously is that it's a supply and
demand situation. We have a finite amount of people working for the city. We have a finite
amount of time to review this stuff. We don't seem to have a, we seem to have an infinite
1 amount of applications for development so it seems to me that the crux of that issue is the
amount of time it takes us to turn this stuff around. I should say you because you and your
staff do it.
' Batzli: Well but he's had turn over his staff recently and they've been given a lot of new
things recently, in addition to the development. The Tree Board. Your dealy bob down in
the ravine to get the funds. I mean all this stuff. Swamp. Technical terms.
Krauss: ...that throw you for a loop is all of a sudden I found myself running this organized
' collection program. And I come back to my office after one of the meetings and I've got 26
irate phone calls on my voicemail. And those kinds of things kill your week real quickly.
' It's nothing new but it just makes it real tough.
Batzli: So there were 26 people that kind of navigated their way through the phone voicemail
' system. That was pretty good. I've got to get your direct dial number one of these days.
Krauss: 117.
1 Batzli: Oooh, on tape.
' Conrad: Are we going to get a schedule for the Highway 5? If we're going to push this
Highway 5 thing through, shouldn't we have a schedule?
1 Batzli: I think we should have a schedule. Excellent suggestion. I'm glad you brought it up.
1 64
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1
1
Krauss: What we're working on right now is the 15th is a special meeting.
Conrad: I'd like a written schedule. This is what we do. When we do it. And I'd like that 1
to go to the City Council.
Ledvina: Review chapters 2 thru 3 or 2 thru 5 or whatever. I
Batzli: I would just schedule them. I mean literally. People will show up if you give a
I
schedule. If every time we sit there and make phone calls, playing phone tag trying to figure
out who's going to come. If you just give us a schedule of every second week, third week,
whatever it's going to be of at this time we're meeting, people will come. We'll make time
I
and we'll come.
Scott: Or every other Planning Commission meeting starts at 6:00.
1
Krauss: What we're looking at doing is one or two special meetings plus the trip and then
public hearing. 1
Batzli: Pardon me?
I
Krauss: One to two. Probably two. The 15th and maybe one special meeting and then our
tour of the corridor. That should, I mean it's not earth shattering stuff. I mean half the I
commission sat on it.
Batzli: We've gone over a lot of this before but we haven't gone over the particular plan that I
they've come up with. I mean some of us on the commission at least looked at this pretty
heavily even during the comprehensive plan.
Krauss: Right. 1
Batzli: So you know, it won't be all new but clearly what they've done is new. How I
they've tied it all together. So it's going to take a while, I agree. But give us a schedule. I
agree with that. Is there a motion to adjourn?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the I
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss I
Planning Director
1
65
1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993
1
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 66
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
I REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 1993
1 Prior to the regular agenda the Park and Recreation Commission met informally with
high school aged youth representatives from School Districts #112 and #276.
I Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Fred Berg, Jan Lash, Jim Andrews, Jane Meger,
Ron Roeser, and Jim Manders
1 STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist
I APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1 Berg moved, Meger seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation
Commission meeting dated September 28, 1993 as presented. All voted in favor and the .
I motion carried.
Hoffman: Jan did call in with two corrections on the 26th. She will be here sometime after
I 8:00. She had a final for a class. Those corrections are on page 52 and page 60. I noted
them in the record.
I Schroers: Okay. Anything further?
Roeser moved, Manders seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation
I Commission meeting dated October 26, 1993 as amended by Jan Lash on pages 52 and
60. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
I Hoffman: If I could make one on behalf of a couple. Charles Spevacek, 6474 Murray Hill
Road. It's on the issue of a piece of property which is for sale. His wife contacted me last
week. I drafted a letter which got lost in the paper shuffle upstairs. I called them this
1 afternoon. They didn't receive my correspondence but I received their's. It's discussing a 2
acre parcel in the north central portion of the city. To get your bearings. Highway 41 hits
Highway 7 and then just to the east is the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill
1 Road. The property in question is right at that intersection. It's approximately 2 acres in
1 1
1
1
r
t
1
1
size. ...to the city facilities nearby would be Herman Field Park and then the corner of
Pheasant Hill Park starts in that vicinity. This property directly abuts the school property
which comes down something in this orientation. It also directly abuts a trailway which runs
from the street down past the reservoir that's in that location and onto the school property in
that orientation. Last week I had an opportunity to go out and visit the property. It has a
home currently on it and it is for sale. I wrote the price down on the memo which is lost
r somewhere upstairs but it's $160,000.00 so it's, my response to the Spevacek's was that it's
really out of question for the amount of money it would take not only to acquire the property
but then to remove the house, develop the 2 acre site into some sort of park. It would be a
quarter of a million dollars or in excess of that. When you have a facility which is not under
the jurisdiction of the city, certainly a recreational facility as considered by the city when you
1 have the Minnetonka school site right adjacent to it. With the trailway running from Murray
Hill Road right into the school site. So I'll ask if you have any questions of the commission.
If not, I will forward your response to the Spevacek's. They are residents, just FYI. They
reside at the end of the cul -de -sac.
Schroers: You know it looks like a nice location and the trail abutting it there to the school
makes it desirable and I think it's a nice 2 but I definitely share your sentiments. I don't
think we can afford to spend a quarter of a million dollars on a 2 acre parcel there.
1 Berg: Ditto.
Andrews: Yep, I'll second that.
Schroers: I think it's unanimous. I think you could carry it back and say we're sorry, we
can't capitalize on the opportunity.
Hoffman: Obviously the sale price is that high due to the availability for splitting it off...four
lots.
Schroers: Okay. Do you need anything more than that Todd?
1 Hoffman: No, not on that item.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
1 DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOT DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
DENSITY AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 26 SINGLE
FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE UNITS ON 13.47 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RSF
AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 7 BETWEEN WASHTA BAY
ROAD AND ARBOR DRIVE, SPINNAKER WHARF, BOYER BUILDING
1 CORPORATION.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
1
2
i -n
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
John Blumentritt: To the members of Chanhassen, thank you. My name is John Blumentritt
and I represent the applicant, Boyer Building Corporation. He did a wonderful job, if that's
any consolation. The site plan before you for your review is our conceptual plan. We're just
now starting the PUD application with the city and as Tom had indicated to you, this is a
clustered development that we are targeting towards the empty nester market. We have a
project quite similar to this right now in the city of Shorewood that's, well let's see. Are we
about 60% completed. The project is sold out but we are going through the final construction
process and it's been a wonderful development to be involved with. But this one is a
property that Boyer Building Corporation has become involved with. It's owned by Joe
Boyer Sr. I believe he has been the owner of the property for the last 20 years. And as
everyone probably here is aware, it seems to be that last empty piece between a lot of what is
otherwise single family construction right now. To the north, as I mentioned, is Highway 7.
To the south is Lake Minnewashta and we're on that northeasterly edge of Minnewashta. I
hope each of you have had a chance to review our summary and narrative but if not, I'll try
to give you just a real quick encapsulation of what we have. Again we know that this right
now is going through the comprehensive plan amendment. Unfortunately we weren't
delighted to hear when Kate Aanenson had indicated to us that within the low density comp
plan right now it does not allow for clustered housing, which is obviously what we wanted to
have. And because of that issue we need to then say, it's time to see if not only we can go
through the planning process. The planned unit development process, but also the fact that Y11
we would need to then amend the comp plan along with this, to let this type of clustered
neighborhood kind of development happen. The site, as mentioned, is 13.47 acres. We are
only .roposing 27 units so it in essence is ant 1/2 acre per residence. We felt that that's
fairly generous but it's because the site is encumbered with some wetlands that we just
simply don't want to touch or mitigate. Let's see. There seems to be some other little
miscellaneous things that we're now trying to work out with the planning staff too. We ,
originally came in with about a 37 unit development but a lot of that was going to affect this
property and an acquisition of an adjacent piece of property. But it seemed like a lot of the
difficulties as we actually saw them. Now the difficulties of the development along the
channel seemed to rise. We simply said perhaps it would be better for us to simply pass on
this piece of property. Pull off of this area and simply concentrate everything that's on the
buildable land. We really think, again I think the summary narrative is fairly self explanatory
and I would be willing to answer any additional questions that came up. After reading Mr.
Hoffman's report I guess, I received it yesterday a little bit late but we also have some
questions and perhaps the commission could help us out in some of those things. The
comprehensive trail plan I guess, there's just some issues that I had mentioned to Mr.
Hoffman about the fact that the very northerly edge of this property is actually in Shorewood
and I realize that there'd be some issues of resolving that placement of the trail and getting
the community of Shorewood to cooperate with us. We are a little bit unfamiliar with what
the overall status of the comp trail plan would actually be too. How the land is being
3
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
acquired and I think then there's some miscellaneous questions that we had. Assuming that
q q g
right -of -way is needed, I'm hoping that that's not something that would be deducted from our
overall land that we would be using through this application process. It seems like there's
always a jockeying of gross square footage and net square footages that we're a little bit
sensitive to. How the trail fee is actually assessed. I need to have a cleared understanding of
how much that would actually affect the cost towards each of these units. And then would
the trail construction be something that the developer may have an option to perhaps
participate in and have completed as opposed to having to assess the property. There's just
some of those little miscellaneous questions that we would actually have yet that those are I
assume are some things that we can still work out. Otherwise we'll just open it up for any
additional questions that you might have also.
Schroers: I think for the benefit of some of us who are not builders and developers,
clarification of a couple of terms might be nice. Empty nester. Cluster housing. Are we
talking townhomes?
John Blumentritt: In essence, I'll show you. We have one other thing that I'm going to
show you too. A good generic question though. This is photographs, and we took these
yesterday so please pardon the quality of these things but this is the Gideon Cove project that
is under construction right now. And these are two units that are joined together as
townhomes. You're correct. And in essence the thing that we're going to be doing
differently from this, is we'll actually be separating these units. In plan right now we're
going to be separating these units where the touch factor, if you would, from home to home
would be via a deck that we're seeing.
�. Schroers: Like a common entry area and one goes one way and one goes the other?
John Blumentritt: Correct. Exactly. That type of an idea and again, we can't age
1 discriminate but it seems like, what we call the active adult, the gray haired set are the
principle people that we're actually marketing for.
1 Andrews: I have a couple comments. Not question as much as comments but just reading
about the plan here as it's proposed. I have a concern about how this might look from the
lake as far as the tightness of the spacing, as well as the request for a 26 boat dock. If that
were to be accommodated on the main part of the lake, I think that could be rather
monolithic. I know that coming from a neighborhood association where it was a heck of a
battle on our own lake and I think you'll get fair treatment but I think you'll find that your
plans are ambitious for a dock.
1 John Blumentritt: I understand that. We have, and again I've been working with Kate
4
1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
regarding that issue. It seems like we're trying to, not actually rock the boat, excuse the pun.
But there is 1,900. We've worked this out with the DNR and because of the unusualness of
the property, there is over 1,900 lineal feet of lakeshore there and as we separate the area,
both on lineal footage and in overall square foot, required area too, that technically.
Technically we're supposed to be allowed that. We recognize that there's going to be some
conversations that are yet to be had. But I mean this isn't an under the table application.
Andrews: No, no. I'm not saying that. 1
John Blumentritt: We're simply taking each of the requirements as they existed and worked...
with the staff right now to try to make this thing fit. 1
Andrews: Well it's more of a planning issue than a park issue but I guess my concerns
would be, if I lived on the lake, do these houses, does it look too close together as compared 1
to surrounding houses and is a dock out of scale for what you see on the main lake frontage.
And granted you have that channel which provides more linear frontage and perhaps an
alternative for docking.
Roeser: How wide is that channel?
John Blumentritt: The channel, the overall channel width is about 65 feet.
— Roeser: could - they - put docks in the channcl ? - - - -- - - -= -_ -- -- - - - - - -- - --
1
John Blumentritt: No. No. What we're really looking at is, we want to have, let's see it's
coming off of this spot. Just one congregate dock area if you would, with the ability to then
put the different boats off...rather than having it again breaking it down per 60 feet of, or for
75 feet and having docks off of each one of those spots. No, that's not the intent. We'd like
to see that built just to one congregate dock area. I guess I can appreciate the other concern •
about the tightness of these. Rather than spreading it all over the site, which is another
option, I think the people that buy these, and as we identify with these individuals. We have,
just a real quick history. We had Gideon Cove homes open during the Parade of Homes and
as our narrative says, our waiting list for this right now is in excess of 100 names.
Unfortunately it'd be nice to crowd your chambers with those individuals that are essentially
looking for this type of housing but we did ask a lot of the questions. If we were to do this,
how would you help manage some of the design and the idea of the, what we call lock and
leave units. People that may be gone for at least 3 months out of the year. 4 months out of
the year. They have head south or whatever it might be. The idea of this neighbor, this
clustering is really an important feature to have so the close proximity of each of the homes
is a plus in that regards. And I realize from a site plan issue, there are some things that we
5 1
1
1
■ Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
could say, you know I question the overall value from the lake looking at it but in reality,
I how that site campus wants to work is really a function of the design that the residents would
like to have.
1 Andrews: You may be able to accomplish that by some staggering of frontage look and
design features. I mean granted, I understand the constraints you're dealing with and I think
it's a good concept and a concept that's needed for our aging community to be honest, but the
1 visual impact is going to be important. You know screening. Berming. Those things are
going to be very important because this is going to be a very dense area as compared to most
of the rest of the lake.
I John Blumentritt: Well we're in to assign in essence a building pad area of 50 feet for
I �' g
each of the homes so if you simply would go 50, 50, 50, 50 on some sort of modulation on
that basis, that's about how this is laid out. I realize it looks a little bit dense and perhaps it
is because we did want to pull some of these things together. Therefore leaving on the
perimeter far greater openings and there are some very nice spots of the site that we wanted
to keep as a wildlife area. So hopefully, we're trying to keep some of it real pristine features.
The wetland area. The channel, keeping that fairly open. You're right the demand on this,
I they'll also be able to view the lake.
Manders: Is there any chance that eastern portion on the other lot would be developed in a
1 similar nature?
John Blumentritt: I would like to be able to gaze into a crystal ball also because we're really
I seeing a tremendous need for this type of housing. I mean face it, I'm up at the same age
and a lot of us are too, that the big home, there's a lot of folks with houses that are now
available. It's the people that ridding themselves of that and saying, my children are gone.
It's time to now get into something that's more of a manageable, functional, square footage .
` and where are these houses right now. Where are they? And very frankly, a lot of these are,
it's not a desirable to necessarily keep it next to a freeway, although we have one that's here.
That's not well, we'll deal with that. It's something that they'd like to still see these happen
on the nice sites and this is one of the last areas that we see along this spot that potentially
could take advantage of the future of the lake and take advantage of the type of people that
I want to live here and certainly just be a wonderful contributor to the community here.
Schroers: I certainly understand the need for that type of housing. I find that quite attractive
1 myself but actually I feel that we're getting a little bit off course here and we're dealing with
planning issues more than park and rec issues. So to move things along here. I think that
you had a couple questions that you wanted answered in regard to how our park and trail
1 dedication fees worked and I think if I could ask Mr. Hoffman to explain that for us, he can
1 6
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
tell you how that works.
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers: The park and trail fees are assessed at the time of 1
building permit application for each unit...I would assume that each of these would have a
building permit for each unit. Current fees would be $600.00 per unit for park and $200.00
for trail. And those fees would change, or be susceptible to change at the first of the year, of
each year. So January 1 they would change. The other question had to deal with, if there
were any easements that were even pursued along Highway 7, would that change the square
footage of your property. The answer is no, it would not.
Schroers: Okay. Anything else?
John Blumentritt: ...you were addressing that. I'm saying it seems like something in the
words... 1
Hoffman: Yeah, speaking of the update to the comprehensive plan. Highway 7...Park
Commission as well. Highway 5 is obviously a corridor which is identified on our 1
comprehensive plan. Highway 7 is a different. It's kind of separated between two cities.
However, the people north of the lake, because it represents a fairly large community,
neighborhood of this city, are interested in getting a west parkway so they can access the i
parkway and they're also interested in getting east so they can access the future trail on TH
41 and come down Highway 41 into the regional park. So it's my belief that Highway 7 is a
corridor that should be maintained. I -can't tell you what the high-wayfrontage is there. I've
not had a conversation with MnDot in that regard.
Andrews: I'd sure like to see us get a 20 foot easement. Maybe it never develops but geez, 1
how many times have we gone, geez I wish we only could have or should have.
Hoffman: As an insurance. I think if you look at the layout... 1
John Blumentritt: I believe there is currently a water utility easement that's approximately
that width. That is now right on the north of the edge of the property line so that may be
something that...you would want to use as an obvious space that.
Hoffman: Have you contacted the city of Shorewood? 1'
John Blumentritt: We've only briefly talked with the City of Shorewood because there was
another proposal that was on Eureka on the opposite side that was looking into Chanhassen's,
using our site as a drainage area and because of that, even though we were nicely provided a
pond up there that we are wanting to use for it, mostly our hard cover area. I know they 1
7
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
wanted to use that as a...area too but that frontage is...So other than that, to talk about the
corridor in effect, no. We haven't.
Schroers: I don't know if we actually have it identified on our map the trail plan but I know
that we have discussed in the past that it would be favorable from our point of view to be
' able to continue the trail from Lake Ann west and up and all the way around past Highway 7.
We've talked about that before. To connect it with the parkway road and be able to just in
simple terms, to make a loop from downtown to the western boundary of the city and back
around. So I would think that it would definitely be desirable to acquire an easement there.
And I believe that that is what staff is recommending.
Andrews: Yeah, I guess to go further even on it than that. This is an empty nester
neighborhood. Walking is one of the most popular activities.
John Blumentritt: I was going to mention that. Over at Gideons we have the benefit of a
Hennepin railroad site that runs right next to this site and again, the walking to downtown
Excelsior is half a mile from this site and to bike the other way to the westerly part of the
state is an opportunity if one seems so inclined. And it's wonderful. I mean the people there
really, really.
Roeser: I bike that all the time. It's a neat trail.
John Blumentritt: Yes, isn't that a tremendous trail?
Roeser: You can go all the way out to Carver Park on it.
John Blumentritt: Correct. It's a wonderful contribution so I think that'd...
Andrews: Is your intent to offer off street sidewalks here then for your folks?
John Blumentritt: I don't think that we're going to put sidewalks in at this particular point. It
seems like the private drive effect, and we don't see a tremendous amount of traffic that's
going to be here so I think most of the walking would just be a street, except we're talking
1 about maybe, and this is only in the conceptual stage right now. The ability to come down
and enjoy this area. So we'll have walking areas but as sidewalk or really intensive type of a
walking situation, I know that's something that's discussed. I think we'd like to see the
residents really step forward and say that would be part of the community that we'd like to
see.
1 Andrews: You may want to at least consider, if we do...20 foot on the north, to have a
I f, 8
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
linkage off your little driveway directly...
John Blumentritt: Any other questions? Thank you. 1
Schroers: Thank you very much. I think we've covered this pretty well. Personally I'm in
favor of some diversity in housing in the city. I think it looks nice and at this point in time I
guess that, unless there's further concerns or comments, that I'd be willing to entertain a
motion on this. 1
Andrews: Do we have a motion?
Schroers: I think we do. 1
Berg: I'd like to move that we accept full park fees in lieu of land dedication at the rate in
force upon building permit application. And that we ensure sufficient land is available along
Highway 7 to accommodate any future non - vehicular trail routes. And that we also accept
full trail fees in lieu of trail construction at the rate in force upon building permit application. 1
Schroers: Is there a second?
Meg er: I'll second.
Berg moved, Meger seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to
accept full park fees in lieu of land dedication at the rate in force upon building permit
application. And that we ensure sufficient land is available along Highway 7 to
accommodate any future non - vehicular trail routes. And that we also accept full trail 1
fees in lieu of trail construction at the rate in force upon building permit application.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 64,132 SQUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET, A 26,100
SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL
BUILDING ON 13.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND
ADDITION, T.F. JAMES COMPANY.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: Just to clarify Todd. You're saying that the sidewalk is a required part of the plan
anyway? 1
9
1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
I Hoffman: Correct. Typically in our downtown commercial district, sidewalks are required
I YP Y �l
and it's obviously as a developer of the site, you want sidewalks...
Okay. I would be in favor of moving to approve 0 ay. u d g pp rove the aforementioned
I recommendation. Is there a second?
Andrews: I'll second.
1 Schroers moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept full park fees in lieu of land dedication at the rate in force upon
I building permit application. Also to accept full trail fees in lieu of trail construction at
the rate in force upon building permit application. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
I
REVIEW METROPOLITAN MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT ACTIVITIES
I WITHIN CITY PARKS.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
I Andrews: Would there be any chance we could make a motion that this is our permanent
policy, unless we decide to change it, rather than having this be revisited on an annual basis?
II Hoffman: Sure.
1 Andrews: Okay.
Lash: As part of the staff efforts to coordinate volunteer groups, it seems like one of the
1 things we talked about was...some kind of birds that eat mosquitoes.
Schroers: Martins.
I Lash: Martins. Have we of any of those? How about the seniors? I know they're doing
Y Y g
I some woodworking things.
Lemme: They did a bluebird trail at Lake Ann.
1 Hoffman: They did a bluebird trail. We put in money for...
1 Schroers: I think that Janet also. I would like to see encouragement of Scout projects or
I 10
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
senior citizens or other interested groups in the community that wanted to do something and
encourage them to build martin houses and that sort of thing for Lake Ann and possibly Lake
Susan and Rice Marsh. Other appropriate areas would be nice.
Lash: How about we could even contact the shop classes at the junior high level. It could be
extra credit projects or something. All the materials are there. They actually, one of the
things they make is a bird house. I don't know what kind.
Audience: They have a trash pick -up program too in the parks. They pick up all the trash 1
containers that harbor...
Schroers: Basically what we're saying is alternative control measures to chemicals. But I
guess I'm happy with the way things are at this point. Unless anyone sees a need or a valid
reason for changing anything, I would be ready to entertain a motion too. I think it's good to
bring it up every year just to see new developments and what information. What community
response we've had during the year. You know how many complaints we've had about
control measures or how many complaints we've had about mosquitoes themselves and in an
unusual year we may have some issues to address so I think if we can just blast through it
once a year like this, I don't have a problem with that.
current policies and review year.
again in one
Andrews: I move that we adopt our p g y
Schroers: Is there a second? .1
Manders: Second.
Andrews moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission adopt the
current policies of mosquito control within the city of Chanhassen as they are, and to
review them again in one year. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Eric Rivkin: I wanted to know if there was an opportunity to speak. Is it too late?
Schroers: It's not too late if you keep it brief but our recommendation, it's too late to change
our recommendation.
Eric Rivkin: Well I wanted to...
Schroers: All we're allowing is the briquettes at this point for the larvacide. 1
Eric Rivkin: Well since the last time, the opportunity was supposed to be given to me, and 1
11 1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
anybody else who called up to speak on behalf of the, the reason this is up for review is
because of the briquettes. Not because it was taken as an issue last time and I did speak
about it...
1 Schroers: You can share your information with us.
Eric Rivkin: Well I felt that I wanted to officially add the briquettes and the BTI to the list
of banned chemicals. Mosquito control chemicals to the parks as an issue here and get a vote
on it. To add. There's no call for the public hearing, or public comment.
1 Hoffman: Can we get your name for the record.
Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin...Steller Court.
Berg: Well what we've recommended is the policy that's already in existence that we see
that we're happy with that for another year. If we're opening up another issue, I don't see
1 where that's a problem with discussing that now.
Eric Rivkin: ...motion, your comments to your motion...I also would like to know if there's
been any motion to permanently ban the adulticides and the larvacides? Not bring it up... The
City of Maplewood and Minneapolis...I don't see why Chanhassen can't do the same. Since
the 2 years, I've done some research and have got some new things to bring to your attention
that would I think cause a motion, give you cause to have a motion to ban them currently.
Ban them all. I'll start with the adulticides. Two chemicals that they use is Scourge and
Punt. Both are synthetic...One is rysmethrine and the other is permethrine. Both are
synthetic derivatives and classified as...many studies have been done in Europe and the United
States that conclusively, scientifically, without a doubt say that there's extensive harm to the
environment from these chemicals. One thimble full, the New York State Department of
I Y Health has an official, Dr...., the Commissioner of Health has reviewed through an
environmental impact study in the Andirondeks where scourge...had the highest cancer rates
in the Andirondeks counties and they attributed it, starting in 1991, they attributed it to the
spraying of mosquito controls. And...high level of scourge. He did an EIS and in 1985 they
finally concluded through, on this newsletter, that the health hazards to the pesticides were
1 worst than the threat of any kind of human disease or of course annoyance isn't a human
health threat. And they banned scourge. Now our Mosquito Control District, that's one of
their two chemicals that they use, and for the record I can submit these letters from Dr. A...
There's a group of doctors who contributed to a study with credentials...work session on
chemically induced alterations...and these are studies that have been done with doctors from
all over the world. This will be in your packet too. One sentence here says we are certain,
1 underline the word certain...that the synthetic pyrethroids, resmethrine and pyrethrin included
12
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
disrupt the...s stems of animals including humans... persistent. They are persistent. They are
P Y � g P Y P Y
biocumulative, which means they'll build up in the soil. And they'll build up in your body.
And I have an actual test report from a boy who had brain lesions. He lives in the
Andirondeks where it got heavily sprayed and his test results are in this packet. They found
traces of xylene in his blood. Xylene is a compound that's an inert ingredient in scourge.
They also are certain that wildlife populations are already affected by these compounds. So
we know they have reproductive effects. They can cause cancer...as far as the environment is
concerned, one thimbleful of scourge is enough to kill trout in an average one acre shallow
pond. Scourge is applied 3 times as...and in effect they banned scourge from the Andirondek
Mountains. We're going through an active program of education. There are several letters
from doctors who state unequivocally that these adulticides, well documented that they have
problems with people with allergies. It's very common and people...and it has a real
disruptive...As far as the larvacides are concerned. PCI, which is considered the most benign
of the larvacides used by the Mosquito Control District. The Mosquito District spent
$403,000.00 at this point. This is an announcement by the Mosquito Control District that
since this last meeting, that...did a study in the State of Minnesota. Evaluation of the effects
of mes...BTI in non target species in communities in the Metropolitan Control District
wetlands...nesting birds. We don't have any business putting in chemicals into our wetlands,
or in our environment. You should also note that in our local newspaper, that the Thomas
Larson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, he's the person in charge of our wildlife refuge
down here in southern Chanhassen on the river. They have no plans to allow the Mosquito
Control District. They've never allowed mosquito control in there and now that they're
expanding the Mississippi Parkway, his statements are, his fear is -that the toxins affect other
insects and eventually work through the food chain harming ducks and other wildlife. We
don't feel at this time it is proven, it's proven without a doubt to have a negative impact on
the species said Larson. As long as there are some doubts about what other organisms might
be impacted, we've got to err on the side of those other species. I think we should share that
same sentiment and ban all these larvacides from Chanhassen parks at this time. I also talked
to one of the world's foremost expert on mosquitoes. Dr. Charles Morris of the Mosquito 1
Research Facility in Gainesville, Florida and he's very well aware of all the different
chemicals and larvacides used in mosquito control. He's in charge of a $70 million program
in Florida for mosquito control and he knows all the effects and knows all the studies. And I
talked to him on the phone and he said if our, any mosquito control district using adulticides
in a significant way in order to reduce annoyance, he said the larvacides program is
ineffective. And it is ineffective. We still have mosquitoes all over the place and it's not
doing any good. We should just stay on the side of environmental safety and human safety
and just get rid of these. There's also a report...which is a chemical with the brand name of
the metheprine chemical in the briquettes. This lady who has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, has
illnesses resulting from...There's also bills in our State legislature that will allow cities to opt
out of the district. Comments from our own City Council, I will just summarize it in one
13
1
I
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
I
sentence. Tom Workman, Ursula Dimler at the time, and even the Mayor had commented
I that how can we get out of the tax district. It's a waste of money. We could save
Chanhassen residents $80,000.00 if we asked our commissioner who sits on the Mosquito
Control Commission to reduce the levy by that amount. It sounds like a great idea but then
we did, they did reduce the levy overall from $10 million to $9 million for this 7 county wide
area. But it's still impossible for a particular municipality to opt out of the district. We're
still being taxed for services we don't see. And that's not right. So we've got two legislators
I right now that have introduced bills to change that so you cannot, a district cannot be taxed.
So all of Chanhassen. Maplewood is going to do that. Minneapolis is already doing that.
And so is Lakeville and a couple other...So again, I would like to propose here that we ban,
or propose to ban the larvacides...and all Mosquito Control District chemical program and
apply the alternative method that you mentioned here and keep that an active program and
I'm active in it. I'm active with...and I've offered my own time to help with it...Boy Scouts
III about tree, building houses, whatever...trash pick -up program and also a motion to do it
permanently so this doesn't keep coming up again and wasting your time. I don't think we're
going to get any complaints about that. If anybody's got complaints bad enough, they'll
I come forward and it will be an issue but I don't see why it would be practical to keep it up
as a non -issue all the time.
I Schroers: Thank you Mr. Rivkin. We appreciate all of your work and research into this and
you did say that you'd make that information available for staff.
I Eric Rivkin: Yeah I will. I've got some copies to make yet so, do you want what I have no
or would you like to take it...
.1 Schroers: Well what I would like to do, or my suggestion is that you present the material for
staff, to staff for their review and have them come back to us with a recommendation on that
I material and at that point we'll move on it.
Lash: I'd be interested in the legislators who have drafted the bill. Do you know their
g Y
names?
Eric Rivkin: ...she's from Hennepin County. I'm not sure.
I Lash: Okay. But they're not from our.
I Eric Rivkin: They're not from our district but our commissioner...our new County
Commissioner who volunteer to be on the Mosquito Control Commission...so he's in favor of
all this.
1
I 14
-n
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
Lash: If this comes back to us Todd, I guess I'd be interested in us having a discussion on, if
there'd be some way for us to support, as a commission, that bill. If it means supporting the
County Commissioner or sending a letter to the legislature or whatever.
Hoffman: Okay. I'll pass on... 1
Berg: In all fairness I think we should invite...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Schroers: It would be but that would kind of re -open the whole issue again. I mean they're
going to have information to counteract the information that Mr. Rivkin has provided us here.
We already know that. I mean it's a back and forth situation and I think that I would just
like staff to review that and get their feelings and present it to us in the form of a 1
recommendation. That way we can move along with this instead of opening up a battle
ground that's going to go back and forth and ultimately end up in the same way anyway but
it's going to take a lot of precious stuff, park and rec time, both from staff and from the
1
commission that I don't feel that we need to spend on it.
Manders: I have one brief comment. And I assume you're from Chanhassen. I'd just like to 1
say that it's refreshing to see somebody take this kind of interest in this particular issue. I
personally appreciate it.
Andrews: I've got one more comment and that is that last year at this time we were reluctant
to do a total ban. I think our reasoning for that was that we wanted to see how things were
after a year. Based on really refreshing me on the information you gave us last year plus
providing some new information, I would support the idea of also banning larvacides and
revisiting that issue in one year from now and see if there are any significant complaints.
Based on the statistics that the Control District provided, there is not significant data to show
that they have an effective program or a true need and I think it would be prudent for us to
cut back further and see if there again is any response from our citizens or any other health
needs that create a need. And again, that would be erring on the side of our environment
which is something we're in charge of doing.
Eric Rivkin: I think we could use the $95,000.00 for something else.
Schroers: I think my yard is evidence that there is no program in effect that's working...
Thanks a lot Eric.
Hoffman: If the commission's interested, the new Carver County Commissioner who is on 1
15 1
1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
the Board is John Siegfried...Perhaps we could bring this back in January huh Larry?
1 Schroers: No, I don't care if it comes back in December but I would just like it come back
in the form of a recommendation from the staff that we can just move on and don't have to
go through 2 and 3 hour dissertations over a matter of a couple meetings to ultimately arrive
at the same conclusion anyway. I mean we all know that we're not in favor of putting
chemicals in our parks and if, what my interest is, is that staff review this to see that it's
1 valid. That it's coming from a reliable source and if you get a feeling that the information is.
Andrews: Hooey.
Schroers: Yeah. To the point that it would justify some further action on our part and I
think that if staff feels that way, you certainly get our support.
Lash: But I support Fred's motion there a little bit too that it is a very controversial issue.
And I'm not necessarily in favor of having another debate. Lengthy debate over it but if
there is some type of written material that the MMCD would want to provide to us in our
packet to review, I'd be interested in seeing that. I would not be interested in entertaining
long oral dissertations from both parties.
Schroers: I can tell Y ou right now that since Mr. Rivkin had this opportunity to address us
this evening, that they would want the same. And then Mr. Rivkin will want a rebuttal. And
then it will be the same. I mean you were here, you know. We're opening up the whole can
of worms again.
Hoffman: I don't think we're going to spoils the holidays with it. Probably bring it back...
1 Schroers: Okay. Can we move on?
FOCUS STUDY: PARK DEFICIENT ZONES 3 AND 7.
1 Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Schroers: The question that I have Todd is, what can you tell us about the proposed Wal-
Mart right on that northeast corner of TH 5 and TH 41. Isn't that what was?
1 Lash: Fleet Farm.
Schroers: Fleet Farm I mean.
1
1 16
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
Andrews: That was really discouraged by Highway 5. They basically tried to design the
road systems to they couldn't do it. 1
Schroers: But they already, they own the property.
Andrews: Yeah, but it's never been zoned the right way for this...
Schroers: I guess ultimately my question is, are we going to have an opportunity to acquire
park, active use parkland from that development if it should come in? And then enough
adjacent property to get the active use area that we're looking for there. I mean it seems to
me that that's really going to be our only option up there is maybe a combination of using
some of the dedication that we get from Opus in conjunction with acquisition of development
in that northeast quadrant to acquire suitable acreage for an active development. Or an active
use facility. And that probably the, just from my visual observations, that that land would be
more desirable for active use than the Opus property would.
Hoffman: Again the recommendation would be that you identify, the commission identifies a
specific parcel. And how large you would like that parcel to be and then we would have
that, my goal is by the spring of this year to have our comprehensive park plan, so we can
map that and then it goes out to the landowners and they're selling property, the perspective
1
buyers know that the city has a land use they want. It will be retained for park space and
then it comes down to correct, an acquisition that obviously in your case would be through an
outright cash purchase but some of it could be dedicated.
Lash: I have two questions. First one being, do you have some kind of an estimation for us,
how much property you think would be an adequate amount?
Hoffman: That's a question, typically in the comprehensive plan, you know it listed
community parks at 25 to 50 acres. It depends on what you want to get done...37 acres.
Lake Ann is 100 acres. Lake Susan is 30+ acres. So if you're looking at a community level,
you're looking at 25 -30 acres. 15 acres that Opus was giving for 2 ballfields, I don't know
that that...
Lash: Okay. So we'd have to figure a minimum of 25 acres you figure? 1
Hoffman: Yes.
Lash: And my second question. When I'm looking at the map, the big wetland right in the
center. Now is that the wetland that the Song property and the Dolejsi property separates or
kind of incorporates so is the Dolejsi property already being developed? Is that right to the 1
17 1
1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
left of it and the Song property is right to the right of it? Or are those both north of this?
Hoffman: Both north of this. This is another little wetland that comes down. There's a
whole larger wetland to the north. Both of those...
Lash: Okay. So right now none of the property that you have shown here has come in for
development?
Hoffman: No. It essentially cannot be because it's in that study area outside the MUSA line.
Andrews: I know in the Highway 5 group we looked at this. One of the reasons we did not
guide that Fleet Farm for active park was we thought, likely there'd be litigation if we forced
them not to have some sort of quasi - commercial development. We were trying to keep a
Fleet Farm out of there but I guess we thought well, if we looked at an office - institutional, or
maybe a medium density or residential, we could maybe get away with that. But there was'
some pretty intense discussion between Fleet Farm and the Highway 5 Task Force I should
say. And apparently some years back there were some, I don't know if I'd call it promises
but discussions at the city level that led Fleet Farm to believe that this was almost a done
deal. So they, nothing's happened yet but it sure sounds like if we try to guide this to park,
1 we could be into a fight where they may fight us to keep us from doing it.
Hoffman: I don't think there would be much justification in pursuing land right at the comer
of TH 41 and Highway 5. I think moving further to the east on property which would.
Andrews: It'd be cheaper.
Hoffman: Lot cheaper and it's currently agricultural...
1 Schroers: The old Bender Farm is what I'm thinking about. Is east of the property and,
excuse me for interrupting but I think in order to identify this on the comprehensive plan,
' probably the best way to pursue this I think is for interested commissioners to accompany
staff. Gain permission to walk on, look on the property. Actually get out there on site and
see what of the property that's yet undeveloped lends itself best to being an active use area
' with avoiding problems of extensive grading and also what areas and just physically look at it
and identify it and amount of property that we are talking about, these smaller farms in the
area were generally split up into 40's or 60's or 80 acres and I would think that we would
1 maybe want to try to identify a 40. Just identify a 40 acre site.
Andrews: I think that limits it to 2 choices.
1
1 18
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g - November 16, 1993
1
Lash: Right. We've got the one on the west and then one that's sandwiched between the
frontage road and Highway 5 but we've got the problem with the group home right in the
middle of that one. That one would be the one that would probably be the most economical
land cost wise but with the group home right in there, that's going to tie our hands...
Roeser: Does that ou home split the property?
�' P P P Pe rtY
Hoffman: Yes.
1
Roeser: Right down the middle?
Hoffman: You can see their outline of their lot there.
Lash: Are those the two straight lines on either side? The rectangle. 1
Hoffman: Yeah.
Lash: That's their property? How much is there just to the east of it?
Hoffman: Probably about 15 or 15+ acres. The total area is 40 acres in there. They have 10 �.
acres so you can see there's probably about 15 to the right and 8, 7 or 8 to the left.
Lash: So what if we went to the west of their property line and went all the way over to 1
where Fleet Farm is? But that incorporates kind of a big wetland.
Andrews: There's a street stub in there...where the right turn on, right turn off is going to 1
have the Opus there, the plan had a right turn on and right turn off on the opposite side of the
highway. 1
Hoffman: ...you can see the driving range there. The boundary to the far east and just
identify that entire site there. That entire 40 acres and pursue...things start to happen. At the
time...
Andrews: I like that site being as it's, first of all you're getting closer to residential areas
where they can get more access and use of it. It also is close enough to the school site where
you might have potential coordinated use with the school site again, possibly. Plus again it's
about the only viable piece that's to their use. 1
Lash: I like the access.
19
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
Andrews: Yeah, and it's got good access.
Lash: From the frontage road from TH 5 or TH 41.
Schroers: Do you need some formal action from us in order to identify that site?
Roeser: What area are ou talkie about?
Y g
Andrews: The Galpin/TH 5 corner.
Lash: Where it says retain canopy trees. See that right by the group home?
Schroers: Do we need a legal description of the property in order to specify exactly what it
1 is?
Andrews: Does the Bluff Creek cut right through there, or on the edge of that? The eastern
edge of that?
Hoffman: No, that'd be to the north.
Andrews: There's also...
Schroers: How do you want to describe the area?
Hoffman: As far as?
' Schroers: I mean as far as identifying it in order to make a motion to incorporate that into
our master park plan.
Andrews: I'll do it. Put together a motion if you want it. We identify, I move we identify
as our preferred site the northwest corner of the Galpin/TH 5 intersection and approximately
40 acres to the west of Galpin.
Schroers: Is there a second?
Lash: To the west, are ou talkie about the west of the mini-putt?
Y g P
Roeser: We're talking about west of the golf course right, or the golf driving range?
Andrews: Starting from the corner of Galpin and TH 5 and running, going west for
20
- n
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
approximately 40 acres. You're going to need approximately both parcels to get 40. We
probably will be short even with that.
Manders: I mean is there some advantage that you see being so close to the school? I mean
personally I'm thinking that there should be some consideration more towards the west,
towards that wetland that juts down.
Andrews: That whole, if you look at the driving range plus the parcel to the east. Now to
the east of the group home. Those two parcels together are about the size that we would
need.
Manders: Yeah, but we're not talking about pulling in 40 acres for this whole park. I think I
we were talking 25 or something and you wanted to identify a 40 acre area to work in but not
necessarily 40 acres for the park. 1
Lash: Minimum of 25.
Schroers: You know if Y
you'd 'd like to leave yourself that option because if it works I
P
out, you would rather have 40 acres than 25 if it can be done.
Andrews: n That doesn't mean it has to be active use from border to border. You do have an
s.
adjacent Bluff Creek access. You do have a trail access there.
Lash: We've got the, it looks like there's a heavy canopy of trees in that area that would be
preserved so that would not be active park. I guess if we identified the whole thing, we'd
have to figure out how much it is completely and then we have the freedom that if the group
home stays the group home and something cannot happen in the future enough for us to work
with that area, and if something were to happen with the golf range, the driving range, then
we've got that freedom. Or if the driving range stays the driving range but the group home
site opens up, then we've got that. If we identify the whole thing, we can go either way.
What we figure for sure we can score on is maybe the area between the two and then if we
identify both of the other areas, that leaves us flexible to either go east or west.
Andrews: Plus we've always seen on this park board issue that it's always easier to cut back I
space than to try to find more. I mean it's financially harder and harder to get.
Roeser: I think 40 acres is fine. But I just don't think that golf range will ever open up. 1
Lash: It probably won't.
1
21 1
1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
Roeser: No, John's sitting up there.
1 Hoffman: His retirement...
Schroers: So anyway, I don't think it would conflict with the school because the intended
uses would be totally different. The school is, this is going to be.
Manders: I don't know about saying conflicting but I'm just thinking, you've got two fairly
major areas real close to each other and I'm wondering the idea of doing that. It seems to
me that you've got Lake Ann not that much further and you've got a huge, and maybe that's
1 the objective.
Andrews: I could see some advantages though too. I mean I've been to some large soccer
tournaments and I can see where if you've got 8 fields down at the school and you've got
another 8 or 10 fields kitty corner across the highway, it'd be really nice to have a facility
capable of holding a tournament. Or softball tournament, same thing.
Schroers: And also with all this development. The way it's setting up, I mean we've got
parks running lineal east and west, up and down both sides of Highway 5 and that's really a
nice break up. Sporadic break -up of all the development and stuff that's going in and it's
nice to have, just every so often have an interruption of that development.
1 Manders: I agree that that interruption is useful but I'm still wondering if there isn't some
possibility further west. I don't know what it is.
1 Lash: I see your point Jim.
Manders: I personally don't want to get it that close to the school...spaced out. I think you
1 have a better growing area.
Lash: I see your point of not being so close. I also see that it could be a convenience factor
if, say you have ball the same night as one of your kids who's playing over at the elementary
site. You can drop them off. You can go play.
1 Manders: It isn't like you're going miles.
Lash: No. No, but I can see both sides I guess. The problem is that if we go west, if we're
looking at the west site, the one at TH 41, the 25 acres, that's about the only other one that's
big enough. Do you know which one I'm talking about?
1
1 22
1
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g - November 16, 1993 I
1
Manders: That's what I'm wondering. Maybe there isn't any space in there and if that's the
case.
1
Schroers: Okay, can we refocus. I mean what we're doing is identifying a perspective park
property. We want to identify an area that's park deficient where we need space and that 1
doesn't mean that we own it. That doesn't mean that we're locked into it. All we're doing is
identifying an area and there was a motion started here and let's see if we get a second on
that motion and where that goes...When you're talking west of that space, you really don't 1
have anything available until you cross TH 41.
Lash: The other site, my fear is that the land cost there will be just exorbitant for us. And I 1
agree Jim that that would probably be, maybe a better location because it would be farther
from the school site and further from Lake Ann. And a Highway 41 access would be nice
and a frontage road access would be nice. I mean there's some pluses there. I guess my fear
is if we, if the land costs will just keep us...
Manders: Maybe answering this question. Is that entire corner that's blocked out 40 acres, 1
or 41.5? Is that, to the west.
Lash: From TH 41 to the wetland? 1
Manders: This area out here.
Hoffman: Yep.
Manders: That whole area is 40 some acres. I
Hoffman: It's within that dark line, 41 and 25. This blob right here. 1
Lash: So the topography Todd of these two sites, are you familiar with them? Do you know
which you think would be better for grading? 1
Hoffman: Topography would be very similar to most sites. One thing to consider is that the
Task Force has identified as a very key goal as a part of retention of open space and visual
1
breaks, as Chairman Schroers referred to, retaining some public ownership along Highway 5.
So they would like to see that Highway 5 frontage be open space rather than be multi family
apartments along the highway for a visual factor. And the site to the west has the benefit of 1
those wetlands but if you were a developer of homesites, you would certainly see much more
value in that west site being the back of homesites on all those wetland areas. But again,
that's a...
23 1
.1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
Berg: To make an aesthetic point of view, when I see the...community and I see ballfields
and a park I say to myself, there's a community that cares about the people that are living in
that community. And to put them all together I think shouts that. And basically what I was
hearing from the City Council last week, they're very concerned about what's going in along
the Highway 5 corridor and it seems to me, I'd never put words in their mouth but it seems
to me that'd be the kind of thing that they would endorse. Is having a central area in town
where these athletic events can take place.
1 Schroers: And so if you've got the Highway 5 corridor task force supporting you and the
City Council supporting you and we've identified what would be the best and most logical
site of the only two that are available there, I'd say we're standing on pretty good ground,
which brings me right back to Jim's motion. He made a motion. I'm asking for a second.
1 Berg: Second.
Andrews moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission identify as
the preferred site for a community park as the northwest corner of the Galpin and
Highway 5 intersection and approximately 40 acres to the west of Galpin. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
' Lash: Is there the opportunity that that would ever be a part of a TIF district or not?
1 Hoffman: Probably not, unless something would occur...
OPEN SKATING RINK AND HOCKEY RINK SERVICE AREAS.
Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item.
Berg: I have a couple of questions Jerry. What's the cost of putting in and maintaining a
hockey, or skating rink?
Ruegemer: Todd might have a better idea possibly of that.
1 Hoffman: Calculated that probably 3 years ago and it's an astoundingly high number. The
work hours which go into these to be maintained and...
1 Roeser: It isn't that much higher though whether it's a hockey rink or a skating rink. I mean
it's the same amount of maintenance almost, right?
1
1 24
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
Hoffman: Almost. Hockey rinks take a little bit more maintenance because the snow, you
need to remove the snow is a little more consumptive labor but they're fairly expensive and
that's one of the reasons when residents call, I want an ice rink...waltz down with a little
water and away we go. It doesn't necessarily happen that way. The other thing that's a
concern of mine is, with that investment of labor and water, you'd be interested to know that
- some cities have long debates over the use of water. Fresh water...People think that's a waste
of metro resources. In fact some of the...Essentially we're taking drinking water right out of
the well system and plopping it down on the ground...Is the value that we get off of...putting
down a piece of ice, are we getting the value that we should be? Or should we have the
warming houses that we talked about? Should we have the lights? And then should we
spread these things out a little bit more and make them more...They're probably much more
usable in our winter season.
Lash: So the ones, of the ones that we have now, is City Center the only one that has a
warming house and lights?
Hoffman: Correct. 1
Lash: All the rest of them are just...flooded rinks.
Ruegemer: Open areas...
Hoffman: And the fact is, the water frontage. We have a lot of water frontage. They get 1
just as much use in the little ponds you find all over the city. They get just as much use.
Roeser: We don't maintain any of those little ponds. Like Kerber. I can't say Chanhassen 1
Pond. Kerber Pond. They don't ever plow that or maintain it as a rink at all.
Hoffman: No. We maintain the one in Pheasant Hill, which is...you can see a deficient area. 1
We maintained one there for a while right in this location. But now with the neighborhood
park being located here, you can hypothetically draw a circle, service area such as that. If 1
next year you would go ahead and act to construct...skating rink there.
Lash: Since we haven't been having it there in the last couple of years or whatever, have you
heard...from the residents in that area to start it again or have they really not missed it?
Hoffman: No, they have to maintain it themselves.
Lash: Oh they do.
1
25
1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1 Hoffman: The lights are still there and they go down and plow it.
g Yg P
1 Schroers: This has been a low focus situation in Chanhassen so far but I believe that it's
going to become a big issue, as it has everywhere else and that is liability. And when the
I city goes out and maintains an area on open water, they are presuming that it is safe. Okay.
At the end of the season or whatever, because of snow banks around, it still looks like a
maintained area, someone is going to misinterpret as to whether or not it's safe or not, and
I we could have an accident and it could ultimately come back on the city and I think that
maintaining skating areas on open water could eventually be a liability issue and it's
something that I wouldn't be that excited about doing. And also that I think in terms of
1 neighborhood park versus community parks in regards to skating rinks, we need to look at it
site by site. I think Meadow Green Park could accommodate an open skating area and a
hockey rink. A smaller neighborhood park probably could not so I think you really need to
I take a specific look at each site to see what it will accommodate and how much it will disrupt
the residents in the area with lighting and pucks banging on boards and that kind of thing and
kind of take a common sense and practicality approach to it.
1 Lash: Well and we need to think seriously, I mean in the winter how much time do people
have during the daylight hours to go and ice skate? Not very many hours and is it worth the
I amount of money to maintain them for the few days that they can use it. So unless we're
willing to invest in some lights and some warming houses, people are not going to want to go
to skate if you can't go in to warm up. Or if the only time, you can squeeze in one hour after
,I school, it's just not worth it. To get all bundled up.
Schroers: So a site that would lend itself well to that would be like Meadow Green. You
1 would have one at City Center here and one at Meadow Green and maybe one other area if
there's space available at Lake Susan or someplace to just give it a bit of distribution or if
it'd be North Lotus or whatever and maybe just try and maintain three key locations.
I Lash: Actually g I was thinking more of the future sites that are coming on line. We've got
one at City Center. That's the only one we have. Then maybe in the new school site, it's on
I the plan for that. Then if we end up with property just on the north side of TH 5, maybe
that's something we'd want to plan on going in there. And the new property that we want to
I acquire eventually on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway. Those people out there are
always pretty stranded in park from all of the facilities. So if we had something out west and
then in the future site down at Bandimere.
1 Berg: I thought we had this conversation once before. And my recollection is we looked at
Carver Beach, Meadow Green, City Center and North Lotus and we said, because Carver
1 Beach and Meadow Green are so close to City Center, that we were going to explore the
I 26
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
possibility and you were talking about a light going in out at North Lotus. We were going to
explore the possibility of putting a lighted hockey rink there and exploring it and seeing just
exactly how much use it gets.
Lash: I don't know if it was a hockey rink. Lighted. Just ice skating. Open skating wasn't
it? With a warming house.
Hoffman: North Lotus was going to be a hockey rink. The Commission did identify in your
CIP about $6,000 per site for an electrical lights. Electrical service. It's just really one of
those halogen lights. Providing enough lighting for open skating. But then that was bumped
from the budget and thus the satellite warming houses were never pursued either. 1
Lash: But we did leave it for one didn't we? At North Lotus.
Hoffman: Not that I recall.
Roeser: So are we talking maybe it's better to have good rinks with lights rather than all
these little ones?
Schroers: Yeah.
1
Roeser: I think that is the better idea.
Schroers: And I also think having open skating in conjunction with the hockey pretty much
g P g conjunction YP m'
all in the same area so it can be flooded and maintained all in one site and keep it reasonably
efficient.
Andrews: I'm a person who grew up in this environment. I played hockey and went to
outdoor rinks all the time and I guess my attitude is, let's go slow. I agree that we should do
it at a good central location. People will drive to get there. It's really vitally important that
there's a large separation between the open skating area and the hockey area because pucks
fly and little kid hockey players, they will over run the free skating rink if it's near the
hockey rink. An ideal situation is a warming with a hockey rink on one side and the free
skating on the other side so you cannot play hockey on the free skate side without walking
through that warming house. Those are the rinks that I remember that I liked the best. And
lighting is critical. Like you said, one bit overhead halogen is enough for the open skate and
some lighting for the hockey rink is needed too. But I guess I would like to see us try to do
this on one more rink. See how it works. Go slow. This is going to cost us some money.
Let's not.
1
27 1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
Hoffman: I would recommend we take on the...the requests neighborhood for rinks which,
g �
they day they come in and you can see why they're coming in. There's - holes in the system
at Chan Hills Park...work on that so they encompass a neighborhood. And the other one is
the Lake Susan Hills, and it's identified at Sunset Ridge right there. So you encompass that
' neighborhood. Then we hold off on these three and then we focus our attention on getting
lights and warming house out at this facility, which is going to be there in '95. Right now
there's no money for lights or warming house.
Roeser: I agree.
1 Lash: I agree.
Schroers: Sounds good.
1 Lash: And you know, if people are requesting rinks in their neighborhood, are they realizing
along with that is going to be a big light. I mean people are always, that's one of the biggest
concerns when they come in is they don't want lights in their neighborhood park. Well you
put in an ice rink.
Hoffman: The person at Power Hill that called, they realize that and we had that discussion
they said...
' Lash: Never mind. But what about Lake Susan. We have electricity there. Is there a way
that we can flood a rink at Lake Susan? There's parking. There's electricity already isn't
there? Can we put one in there and that would fill that need.
Hoffman: It's hard to identify a spot...install right on the parking lots.
1 Roeser: How about on a ballpark. Would it do too much damage to the park itself?
Hoffman: Yeah.
Andrews: How about on the archery range area? There's that little flat area.
1 Hoffman: ...removed and too small.
' Berg: It'd be nice to put it there because we've got the lake that we could use for the
flooding then too.
1 Schroers: Except there's nothing flat close to the lake. It just all drops off down there.
1 28
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 I
1
Hoffman: There's not a flat site there that we've identified.
Lash: So there isn't any spot around there? I
Hoffman: ...I was out there and doing a site, we have the accessibility done to the tennis
courts so we could get our last money from the LAWCON grant and I drove up into the
Rosemount parking lot, to poke around up there and just to the west of Rosemount there's a
huge field. There's the biggest, nicest soccer field there and it's not being utilized. It's just a
big lawn area for their future expansion at some point. Right now there's the one person that
got written up in the Villager who goes and flies kites there. They just mow it and maintain
it and we just need to walk in their door this winter and ask them about providing liability 1
insurance, if we can bring it into the system for soccer next year.
Lash: How about for skating? Or is it not compatible to use? 1
Andrew: That would require a lot of improvement to their property.
Hoffman: It's flat enough so you can play soccer there right now. I always thought it was a
parking lot because we received a lot of complaints about all the water coming off the I
parking lot into the lake and doing damage. So I drove up there and it's just a big open field.
There's a big, huge berm built between the field and the parking lots so nobody ever sees it.
But it's a monster lawn...excited about that. So we have a consensus on that? I don't think
we need a motion. We will again...I think in the future we'll bring it back in more detail
map showing you some of the property there. The high spots...as far as these little ponds and
that type of thing because...into the formula. You'll see on there that they've got hockey nets
and neighborhood kids go to these things and they're pretty popular as well.
Lash: Well I can remember a couple of years ago hearing from the...people or something. I
don't remember exactly...but out at the Minnewashta one where they said they would go out
there to plow and there was never any evidence that anyone had skated on the rink. For
- weeks at a time. 1
Hoffman: Yeah, maintenance goes out there and floods and they see very little activity. I
live in a neighborhood in Victoria where they flood a beautiful rink, have lights on it all
winter long and a warming house there all winter long, and you can walk down the street, it's
a block and a half away, and skate and have your own private facility. These things do go in
and they go in because it's tradition. We flood rinks. We provide a warming house but...
1
Schroers: The one in Victoria didn't, wasn't that way at one time. There was barely room to
get on the ice. That was the only thing going on. 1
29 1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
Andrews: Back in the good old days.
1 Schroers: The good old days. You know there was no video games.
1 Lash: They can go to the community center and skate inside.
Schroers: That's right. Alright. Let's move along.
PROGRAM REPORTS:
A. SENIOR CENTER UPDATE.
B. ADULT BASKETBALL LEAGUE.
C. ADULT BOOT HOCKEY LEAGUE.
1 D. FEBRUARY FESTIVAL.
E. HALLOWEEN PARTY EVALUATION.
1 Lemme: I have nothing further to add to this memo unless you have any questions.
1 Roeser: The Senior Citizen choir is going to be singing at the Thanksgiving gathering at the
Old St. Hubert's Church. Yeah, Louie called me. He was just delighted.
Lash: I just had a note on here to see if some of those wood crafters would be interested in
,' bird and bat houses.
Lemme: The Mens Club is...bird houses before and we can approach them for next spring for
some more.
1 Andrews: I'm sure if we helped fund it, that would help it a lot so.
Hoffman: We funded it last time...
Andrews: I guess one comment I wanted to make is, I'm just constantly surprised by the
vitality of the senior programs here. It's just amazing the usage that's going on.
Schroers: Moving down to the bottom of that, I would like to compliment staff on another
job done extremely well on the Halloween party. I know that the staff people work hard and
1 there was at least 3 or 4 pick -up truck loads of props and Halloween paraphernalia and what
have you to go along with that and I think that smiling faces and pumpkins full of candy
were evidenced. It was a very successful program. Good job.
1 30
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
Andrews: Are we kind of just going through for questions only on item 8 here?
Schroers: Yeah. On 8. We're just about to move onto 9. 1
Roeser: I was going to ask something about 8, about the cross country ski races at the '
Arboretum. Is that a good place to have it rather than just having it on Lake Susan or
something like that? It's awfully hilly out there.
Lemme: We're looking right now at two different courses. One would be more of a novice
type of course and one would be more towards the...skiers and one would probably be maybe
a 3K and...but we're talking with them just as a way of incorporating a place that already has
trails as opposed to bringing in equipment and making trails.
Schroers: I have considerable, well not considerable but pretty good experience on that. 1
When you're talking about having a citizen race, when you see these citizen racers, they
come decked out for the Olympics. And they want a challenge. The hillier, the tougher, the
better. Absolutely no question about it.
1
Roeser: I thought they liked to show off their clothes and a great big gathering on a lake is
much prettier. 1
Schroers: No way.
Berg: I think the snow sculpture idea is a wonderful idea. The Berg family is already
planning on that one. So get first place ready.
Lash: So are you going to have like some judges and they're going to travel all around and
look at them? 1
Lemme: We're hoping the judges would be the commissioners, which would cancel the
Bergs. 1
Berg: I'll be happy to judge.
Andrews: One thing on the ski racing, if you need first aid volunteers, I'm part of the Ski
Patrol. We provide volunteers for the Birke and any other cross country events so give me a
call.
1
Lemme: That'd be wonderful.
1
. 31 1
1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
Lash: So...is that how the judging would work? You'd go around. Somebody would have to
J g g g Y
call and tell you they have a sculpture.
Lemme: We'd have eo le who actually register on a re istration form with their address
P P Y g g
and then we can bring the judges out to each house. We could drive out in a certain time
period and look at the snow sculptures. Take pictures if we need to. Bring them back and
make a decision. There's three different categories...
1 Berg: My expert tells me Jerry that the touch and feel, apple cider, and movie and cartoons
are awesome ideas.
1 Ruegemer: Is that right?
Berg: Yeah. So that comes right from the horses mouth.
Schroers: Have you looked at that also as an option, the regional park on Lake Minnewashta.
There's a ski trail there as well.
Lemme: We haven't actually at this point.
Schroers: You might just want to take a look at what is available there and compare that to
the Arboretum too because I know that they did maintain a ski trail there in the regional park.
1 I don't know if it's still.
Lemme: ...we were just trying to think of ways of incorporating the Arboretum. They were
1 really looking for some opportunities to...and apparently they're going to be having their first
running race, a walking race out at the Arboretum in the spring or summer. They have a new
trail that they're opening up so they thought this would be a good way of getting people out
1 there and...
Schroers: I think the Arboretum would be a beautiful place to have it. It really would, and
1 there's the people that are actually going to sign up for the race, those are people that race
you know, you're not going to get your average family person here coming and signing up
for a race. These are people that race every weekend and they train for it and all that stuff so
1 they'll love the hills.
Lemme: And that's why we were also trying to offer two different types so that someone
like myself who skis occasionally could maybe just try it for the fun of it. But we could look
at the Minnewashta, that'd be a good idea.
1
1 32
n
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
Schroers: As just an alternative. _
Lash: ...but there's nothing to do with snowmobiles in here anymore. 1
Lemme: That's been looked at. Jerry could probably address that.
1
Ruegemer: Yes I can. We did have discussions about, with the Snowmobile Club possibly
out looking at time trials or a quarter mile type of a race but in conversations with the
Snowmobile Club, they thought maybe that wouldn't be a great idea just with the location, or
to be involved with this festival at this time would be proximity maybe of the people. The
open skating rink and then the fishing contest, that there would be a liability and that
wouldn't be a great idea maybe at this point. At this location. Possibly to have it off site
location like Lake Ann.
Andrews: Lake Waconia.
Lash: Minnewashta has radar races.
1
Ruegemer: But that was felt...with additional parking and it would be easier access. That
was addressed and the Snowmobile Club is going to get involved to some degree. Whether
1
that be a fun ride maybe. A city fun ride type of thing. They're exploring that possibility as
we speak.
Meger: Or also maybe interested in running the concession stand as a fund raiser.
Andrews: How about a rally race for snowmobiles? 1
Lash: It could be like a scavenger hunt. What do you call those things ?..
Andrews: A rally race concept would be a lot of fun because that's a combination of
mapping, reading a clock, stuff like that. It takes the flat out speed out of the race and that's
what you want to do.
Schroers: Okay, can we move onto 9?
1
Ruegemer: One quick comment. I would like to thank Larry and Jim for helping out with
the Halloween party. They did an awesome job. We couldn't have done it without you so,
great work. We appreciate your volunteerism on that night so thank you. Any other
commission members that would like to involved in the 1994, I'll pass a sheet around.
1
33
1
1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
Schroers: They treat you ood at Halloween. You get candy bars and cocoa and all that
g g Y
stuff.
Berg: No t -shirt though huh?
g g
1 Schroers: No t- shirts or hats but.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. VISION 2002
B. CITY COUNCIL UPDATES:
1. CARRIAGE HOUSES, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, BETTY
O'SHAUGHNESSY.
2. SONG PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROS.
Hoffman: This, the Vision 2002, the last meeting that I attended...two meetings took place
' last night at the Dinner Theatre. Lots of things were talked about. When it came right down
to it, the disappointing news was that, as you know, TIF proceeds which everybody is
hanging their hat on to pay for all these things, has been decreased from about 10 1/2 million
to 4 1/2 million and everybody comes in, well. What are we here for. Drop in the bucket.
But the fact remains that the HRA and the City Council will be identifying priorities so in
your conversations with those people you can lobbying for the items which you feel are of
importance to the center and the center of the city. For your interest, the center of the city
was identified as essentially Chan View on the north, CR 17 down there to the west, TH 101
to the east and Highway 5 so that's it. The center of the city and what should go there.
1 Should a community center go there? There's lots of talk about a big civic center complex.
Not only making this central park but then expansion of the library and putting a pool right in
this property out here in the civic center and keep the seniors here and keep the library here
and do all that right on the site. But how do you do it. And then the other one, other
considerations are the Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus property and what should...What should go on the
property where you have the concrete plant which is now owned by the HRA and will come
' down. How should you treat the entrance monuments to the city and all the decisions need to
be made obviously. It's not going to be too many more years, as you can recognize, and the
' downtown area will be done.
Lash: How big a site is the Red -E -Mix?
Hoffman: It's only about 100 feet wide so it can't accommodate much but it's pretty long.
1 Schroers: I think a pension for retired commissioners wouldn't be unreasonable.
1 34
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
Hoffman: You've got to get it...As you know, you saw the invitation list. There was a huge
diversity of people over there...I think everything that was said there has been said before.
The idea was the HRA has been beat up a little bit over the years. You did this wrong. You
didn't do that. You should have done this and they wanted to get together with some public
input and find out well then exactly what do you want us to be doing. So that's essentially
the purpose of these meetings. Moving on to City Council updates. Carriage House. That
was tabled. Carriage House, as you recall, was the O'Shaughnessy property. Portions of the
Council were disgruntled that the Highway 5 corridor study had not been fully completed and
so now they were looking at projects along the corridor and again, so they wanted to get that
straighten away. So that was tabled. The Song property, as you probably read through the...
by the City Council. I think the major change to your recommendations...would be the 250 x
250 was put on 180 x 180 and the other one would be in regard to the trail. Lands are not
going to be dedicated. That trail easement will be dedicated and the trail will not be asphalt.
It will be aggregate. Trail fees will be credited but if the construction costs far exceed credit 1
to be given them, they have the right to come back before the City Council...And they -
dropped anything having to do with the Stockdale property. Including the contingent
acquisition and the grading.
Lash: Anyone else feel a little case of disappointment?
Andrews: Did we lose that one?
Berg: My sense when I walked out of that meeting was, it was a done deal before we ever 1
sat down. Maybe because it was sour grapes and I was just really discouraged with the way
the whole evening went.
Roeser: Well I got the impression that the Council didn't care one way or the other about
that private park. You know. Wing said that it was totally irrelevant to him. It didn't mean
a thing, and I think most of them felt that way.
Andrews: Pretend like it doesn't exist?
Berg: Well, that's what they did but.
Roeser: It's like putting a deck on your house. I mean it's something that they use to sell, 1
and not necessarily has anything to do with.
Lash: They obviously weren't looking at the whole picture. That it was a park deficient
area. I mean that was the heart of the issue that we were trying to deal with.
1
35
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
Schroers: Besides the fact that their private park wasn't going to fill the bill.
Lash: Right.
1 Schroers: But you know so they kind of blew us away by knocking us down on the square
footage here.
1 Lash: That one didn't bother me as much I guess as the trail one. The changes in the trail
recommendation are the biggest disappointment to me 1 think because we worked on that a
long hard time and for it to come, be knocked down to aggregate as opposed to bituminous
and then. And on top of that all the fees are waived for both developments and then he has
the opportunity to come back and ask.
Andrews: And cry later.
' Lash: Right. For credits on top of that. We did not drive home the point enough that this
was a PUD. And being a PUD, now he needed, they needed to provide things to us that were
above and beyond the minimal requirements and we tried to ask maybe for some of those.
And I don't even know how far above the minimum requirements we went with that. We
didn't push it very hard and then to get it cut back at City Council was really a frustration for
me. And I'm afraid this is going to set a precedent for other developers that if they go to the
other commissions and they go, I'm assuming that the developer went before the meeting and
contacted different City Council members to present his case, and if we did not do that, I did
call one person. I knew I wasn't going to go to the meeting but I did contact one person on
the Council and maybe we need, when these issues come up, if we feel strongly, we maybe
need to make a better case to the Council members and maybe ask them to examine the
Minutes more carefully. I know they have a huge packet all the time and they can't sit and
read every page of all of our minutes but when it comes to an issue like that, if we feel
strongly, we maybe need to ask for more.
1 Berg: For me the dangerous precedent is that I think the developer circumvented the process.
He didn't get the answer he wanted here so he just kept going to places where he could
finally get the answer that he wanted, and pretty much ignored us. And I think that's a real
1 dangerous precedent.
' Hoffman: And I think you're correct Jan that reading of the Minutes, by the time it gets to
Council the packet's are an inch and a half thick and what they base their decision on, many
times is they all received a call from the applicant. That prompted them to call staff and to
1 ask questions, which I responded to. It obviously affected I think their position on
development in general in that, at least one Councilmember stated outright, and another
1 36
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
insinuated, that we are asking for more than we can justify in park and trail fee credits, than
we're out of line. But this is a PUD and they're supposed to be doing more, above and
beyond what they're typically doing but many times they just say they're doing much more in
wetland preservation. They're doing much more in tree preservation. They're doing much
more in these other areas so don't expect us to do that much more in parks and trails. We're
doing a lot of other things so it does come down to, if you know anything about lobbying at
any level, it comes down to that last minute. It's the critical inputs right as the decision is
being made that are, in most cases carry the most weight. All of the data which took place
for meetings and meetings...which were documented, sometimes those don't mean much and
that's the reason I pulled out those quotes out of the Minutes. Those did have some impact
on the Council. The Council got a feel that the Park Commission was disgruntled with the
applicant but I think they were, the applicant...
Lash: Maybe in our recommendations when it's a PUD, we need to mention the fact, in our
recommendation, that because this is a PUD, our recommendation is and they are required to
provide above and beyond our recommendation. So that's always right out there so that it
doesn't look like we're requiring more than what we, we're asking for more than what we
1
can really require and make that crystal clear in our recommendation too.
Hoffman: If I could, just to brief you out on the budget process. I'd like to keep you up to
1
date on that, since we do have a new...That's that $3,000.00...updated in park maintenance.
Refurbishment and renewals that we're taking out of the...You will be happy to know that
park maintenance will be a division switched over to the administrative, under park
administration. So that budget will be handled through the park and recreation department so
we can therefore lobby more heavily in the future for the items which we need to carry out
park maintenance. Both the park commission and staff is ultimately responsible. When we
get calls from citizens...so it will be help for us in that regard. However, the entire city
budget is $600,000.00 balance at this time. That represents 20% so $600,000.00 needs to be
cut. Much of that will take place in positions. There are some new positions which were
identified and often times those are the biggest expenditures and the first to be cut, but that
$30,000.00 represents an equivalent to a new position in some respects and the City Manager 111 has actually identified that they will be looking at that. Last night at the budget meeting, the
City Council directed the City Manager to go back and sit down with the department heads
and balance that budget and to bring it back before the Council for their review. So that is
the biggest item on the chopping block for the park department. I feel very strongly that it
needs to be retained obviously. However, you should talk to your Council members and
anyone else here. City Manager, if you get the opportunity, to reaffirm that because it is, the
City Manager listed a priority list last night of...items you feel strongly about. The parks
commission has identified that they need additional money for, to take the pressure off their
annual CIP of $30,000.00 for the next three years. You feel that's a priority. The public 1
37
1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
works department has identified need or p ti ed the eed to upgrade streets o to keep streets and services at
a uniform level. Do you feel that's a priority? So they're going to be identifying these
things. If that $30,000.00 shows up at the bottom of the priority list to the City Council, I'm
going to be hard pressed when I sit down and negotiate with the City Manager to keep it. So
that's something I want to bring to your attention. A side note. You're probably aware of
the conference, or State conference will be taking place the next 3 days so Jerry, Dawn and I
will be out of the office tomorrow, Thursday, and Friday. Thank you.
1 COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
' Andrews: Todd, I don't know if you updated the commission on Highway 101 before when I
missed. Did you?
Hoffman: Last go around we talked about Highway 101 again. I don't recall what
specifically was stated. I know we talked about it at the Council level as well. Currently
they're continuing to look to funding sources...and trying to look at, short term, you know a
' year or two years there's nothing going to happen but if we can set something up so it will
happen, the State dollars for the road upgrading and the County dollars, that will have to be 4
or 5 years out kind of as a guarantee but he's...
' Andrews: I think it's really important that the city communicate with the citizens. I mean
they're, as you're aware, there was an article. It was printed in the paper that was pretty
1 overly optimistic and it was by somebody that had a city staff position and there are a lot of
people up there that are expecting bulldozers and trucks to be out there in the spring. I mean
they're convinced of this and I think it's just, I think the city needs to do a much better job
of communicating the time line and reality curve here and what this project really is.
Probably so people can stay focused on it but probably too so that you don't have an
expectations which are unrealistic. Because it just creates disappointment and frustration and
1 people feel like they've been misled.
Schroers: Alright.
Lash: Did you receive applications? Did you discuss this already and I missed it?
1 Hoffman: Applications for the commission? We had Dave Huffman has picked up an
application. Jeff Bros has...
1 Lash: And what?
1 Hoffman: ...is a past President of the Snowmobile Association. Very active in the CAA.
1 38
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
Jeff Bros is a past President of the Athletic Association. Dave Huffman, past Viking. And I
believe Sue Hurm was in this evening. She applied at the last moment after the deadline last
time around and she was expressing an interest as well.
Lash: Did you say Hurm? 1
Hoffman: Hurm, yes. Susan Hurm. She works with the Youth Commission.
Berg: Can we look at the questions this time, before. In terms of the last couple times we've I
said perhaps we'd like to look at the questions that we're asking.
Hoffman: That was an item. I
Lash: And is that...in December? 1
Hoffman: Yeah, you'll interview in December so this was something.
h the grapevine that you're not reapplying? '
Lash: Now did I hear through �' P Larry Y
Schroers: Yes. Just taking a break. You'll be fine.
1
Hoffman: You hate those questions, well what do you want to do with them? Ad lib.
I
Berg: No, you can't do that.
Lash: Well number one is, duh. Yeah, they wouldn't be here if they were going to say no, I 1
don't have time to do this.
Andrews: But it's a good starting question though. 1
Schroers: But they may not know how much time it takes.
1
Lash: Well okay, but if we want to give them a little crash course on what's required, let's
do that.
1
Berg: If you do that, you can eliminate question 3. And question 2, what are they going to
say? No, you folks really don't diddily squat about what you're doing.
1
Andrews: I don't know. I think we've gotten good answers from all these questions.
I
39
1
1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
Roeser: They're not real bad. _
1 Berg: We've got real good people as a result of it but I'm not sure it wasn't an accident.
I Andrews: I guess one question I'd like to see added would be, what would you identify as a
priority area for Park and Rec.
I Lash: That's a good one. Do you have, underlying that question is do you have an agenda?
And if you have an agenda, what is your agenda? And we may get a little insight into.
1 Andrews: Agenda sounds threatening.
Lash: No, I didn't say that. That's going to let us know if they have an agenda. I like the
I way you put it see, but that tips us off if they have an agenda and if they have an agenda,
what is it. And we know what we're in for. Jane, you were the latest person to go through
this. What did you think?
I Meger: I was just thinking back. I remember Jim asking me a very tough question but I
don't see it on here.
I Berg: Probably the way he asked.
1 Meger: It had something to do with tax dollars, allocation...
Lash: You must have did good on it.
I Meger: Or maybe it was, no. It was you I know.
1 g Y � Y
Schroers: He can be brutal sometimes.
I Lash: I think the one, 5 is kind of what Jim said but I think it would get more specific if it
was, what do you see as a goal or a priority.
I Andrews: What are your personal goals for serving on the park and rec.
Lash: Why do you want to be here and what would you like to see?
1 Berg: I think the second part of it is good.
1 Lash: Well, where is the first part?
1 40
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993 1
1
Berg: ...conservation and environment.
Lash: That's kind of another, duh. Yeah, oh I think it's horrible. But the second part is 1
good, although maybe, I guess we elaborated enough on that.
Andrews: I think it'd be real helpful Todd if you could make up maybe like a half page
sheet that explains that we are a body that makes recommendations to the Council so they
don't have to guess that...I think they should all be given that. 1
Lash: Another thing that would be helpful, and I know Jim had asked this of every candidate
last time. We have their application and that has their address but that doesn't always tell us
geographically where they're located within the city so if we can find out if that's, or even on
their application put downtown or out west or down south or whatever so we have some kind
of an idea.
Berg: Would it serve any purpose at all to ask them how they've used the park system? We
get a feel then for where their biases are maybe. Or use biases are. 1
Lash: I guess I'd have a, be interested in learning too what kinds of facilities they feel are
important in neighborhood parks versus community parks and if they think that those, we
1
have how do you feel about it already. If they feel like the needs in the neighborhood parks
are being met, and at the community level. Who's Larry talking to? Larry, get in here.
Andrews: Yeah, we can adjourn.
Hoffman: Do you have questions? One question or two questions? 1
Lash: See if you can make sense out of anything we said here and make a couple of new
ones. If we take out the first one and the third one.
Hoffman: You're going to take those two out?
Lash: Yeah, because that's just information that we're going to provide.
Berg: And basically the first half of number 4 we're taking out. So we're going to have 1
about a 30 second interview.
Lash: Well, if we expand number 5 as to what would be their goals or their priorities and
number 2. Instead of, impression of the current park and recreation system, how about the
parks. Neighborhoods, community parks. Advantages. Disadvantages. Things like that.
1
41
1
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 16, 1993
1
Manders: My one comment, if I think back to the interview that I went through, and
I something that I elaborated on was the discussion on some of the important points that we've
been dealing with over the last year since I've been here and that's the tennis court idea,
community center and space and skating and some of those things that I think if we would try
I to extract some of their comments regarding those issues, and I'm sure there's a bunch of
other issues that we could. I don't know if it's important that they have a comment on each
issue but something that they've thought about those things. I'm not saying that there's a
I right or wrong answer but it gives you some feel for how involved they are in the community
and if they've given it some thought ahead of time.
1 Andrews: You could ask a question like what city issues have you been involved with.
Manders: Yeah. Something that.
I Berg: Get a feel for their involvement before this.
1 Manders: Shows that they're interested.
Andrews: I think we're getting way too deep here with it.
I Schroers: I do too.
1 Andrews moved, Roeser seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
1 Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Coordinator
1 Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1 42
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1