1m. Minutes 47=6
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Wing and
Councilwoman Dimler
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Workman
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul
Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Scott Harr and Jean Meuwissen
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 1 -8, 1992 AS "VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK ".
Mayor Chmiel: First thing we have this evening is a public announcement. This
is a proclamation declaring March 1 -8, 1992 as Volunteer Recognition Week.
We're going to be adopting a resolution for this. The resolution will read, A
Resolution proclaiming Volunteer Recognition Week, March 1 -8, 1992. Whereas,
the Volunteers of America, a Christian Social Organization, commemorating the
founding of the organization on March 8, 1896; and Whereas, Volunteers of
America have demonstrated it is a dynamic organization, able to keep up with
ever changing world, recognizing the constant need for developing new and more
creative ways to solve problems, meet community needs, and improve the overall
quality of life for all members of our society. Now Therefore, Be It Resolved
that 1, Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim the
week of March 1 -8, 1992 as Volunteers of America Week in Chanhassen. Further,
that a copy of this proclamation be transmitted to the Volunteers of America
office as evidence of our. esteem. Can I have a motion?
Councilwoman Dimler: So moved.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion. I guess I just want
to point out there's an awful lot that they do do for a lot of different people
in different areas. It's nice to see that they have concerns about people.
Resolution #92 -17: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
approve a proclamation declaring March 1 -8, 1992 as "Volunteer Recognition
Week ". All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning Non - Conforming Uses, Structures and
Lots, Final Reading and Ordinance Summary for Publication Purposes.
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
d. Approval of Accounts.
e. City Council Minutes dated January 27, 1992
f. Resolution #92 -18: Establish 1992 Lake Ann Park Entrance Fees.
g. Resolution *92 -18: Designate the Park and Recreation Commission as the
Chanhassen Tree Board.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON WATERMAIN AND SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS IN SECTION 24 AND LAKE RILEY HILLS; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 90 -10.
Public Present:
Name Address
David Mitchell OSM, Engineers
Mike Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd.
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
John Klingelhutz 350 East Hwy 212
. Jim Dolejsi 9260 Kiowa Trail
Richard Chadwick 420 Lyman Blvd. .
Rick Reger 520 Lyman Blvd.
Russell Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd.
Jim Curry
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You will recall that the
. public hearing was first opened at your regular meeting on November 4, 1991. At
that time you voted to table action and continue this public hearing for a
couple primary reasons. First of all at that time it was not known whether the
trunk sewer that would provide service to this area would be gained by
reconstructing the existing line along Rice Marsh Lake or whether the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission would grant Chanhassen additional capacity
in the Lake Ann Interceptor which would make available a more cost efficient
joint Lake Riley /lower Bluff Creek trunk sewer line. Secondly, large lot and
hobby farm type parcel owners expressed concern over the financial impact that
the assessments would have on the parcels since they are currently not planning
on developing. And also they expressed a concern that it may be difficult to
maximize development of their parcels to the number of units that were proposed
in the preliminary assessment role. Finally, since the Lake Riley Hills
property was the sole petitioner for these improvements, Council directed staff
to investigate any possible options that would meet the needs of the developer
and also reduce the financial impact on other non - developing properties. Over
the last couple of months the project consultant engineer and staff have been
working together to address these issues and are here tonight to present two
options for consideration to meet the established criteria. I'd like to
introduce Mr. David Mitchell, the project consulting engineer with OSM who is
here tonight to give a more detailed presentation of our efforts.
2
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
David Mitchell: Thank you Charles. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. As
Charles has outlined, you directed us to investigate further alternatives to
this petitioned improvement. Since November 4th, some of the things that have
happened is the City's consultant has made significant progress in developing
comprehensive plans for this area. That area being the lower Bluff Creek and
Lake Riley Hills area. Also the City has received an allocation of an
additional 3 million gallons per day going into the Lake Ann Interceptor. Other
things that the study has established to date is to establish a recommended
assessment rate for this entire area. That area including again the Bluff Creek
area and the Lake Riley area of $1,275.00 for watermain and $970.00 for sanitary
sewer. Also within this study, comprehensive plans have been developed to
indicate density for development. That density being 1.7 residential equivalent
units per acre with associated multiplication factors to take into account the
density of the redevelopment. For example, medium density residential would be
multiplied by 1.5. High density residential and mixed use areas by 3 and
industrial commercial areas would be by 2. What I'd like to do now is briefly
go through the alternatives. Number one, as we went through on November 4th and
for Council there's smaller of the overheads in the back of the supplement
rather than opening up the large scale drawings. This is the proposed sanitary
sewer alingment. I guess another thing that should be pointed out is during the
public hearing on November 4th the residents of the area were somewhat concerned
with putting in a proposed watermain one year when they knew that sanitary sewer
would have to be coming through in the not too distant future. This graphic
shows the proposed sanitary sewer coming down Lyman Blvd., up TH 101 and
extending into the Lake Ann Interceptor that goes through here. You may recall
one of the initial alternatives was to rebuild this line here which is really no
longer an alternative. The proposed watermain under Alternative 1 again is a 12
inch watermain on Lyman Blvd. with a 16 inch watermain extending out to Lake
Susan Drive. Coming out of the Chan Hills First Addition area. The 12 inch
watermain would then be extended through to the Lake Riley Hills development
providing service to the high density residential areas over on this side. Over
on the east side of Chanhassen. What we've done using the recommendations
developed by the Comprehensive Plan is developed, and these two are also in the
supplement that you have. Developed some preliminary assessment calculations.
For Alternative 1 the estimated developed residential equivalent units is 463
with an additional 255 units coming from the apartment complex that has been
previously assessed for sanitary sewer. Again, total proposed for assessment is
the same. Areas that are in green acre status by the way the green acre program
was set up, are deferred from assessment until which point that the status is
removed or the use of the property changes. Therefore, there are approximately
137 units within the area proposed to be assessed that would be under green
acres at this time. The net residential equivalent units for assessment, 326
which is 463 minus the 137 and 255 for watermain only. Assessment rate being,
this is the $1,275.00 plus $970.00 which is recommended by the comprehensive
study. The watermain of $1,275.00. Total proposed trunk assessment is $1.364
million. Net trunk assessment for the 1993 or 1994 tax roll...is $1,056,000.00.
Estimated lot...benefit which is an assessment to the Lake Riley Hills area that
would front on the 12 inch trunk watermain that would extend through their
properties an additional $60,000.00 bringing the total proposed assessment to
$1.4 million. The net assessment, this is again the net assessment is those
green acre areas subtracted out, is $1.116 million. Estimated project cost for
this alternative is $1.5 million. So what you see is the total proposed
assessment is approximately $75,000.00 shortfall. The net assessment, if none
3
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
of these green acre developments in the near future, shows a shortfall of
approximately $400,000.00. In looking at this a little bit further and talking
this over, discussing this with staff, we've come up with a second alternative.
That alternative would be to extend the 16 inch watermain northerly on TH 101,
extending easterly on West 86th Street and coming southerly into the property.
Again the internal lines being the same as if Alternative 1 was the route
chosen. I should point out that on this graphic the areas outlined in red are
actually the acreages that are currently in the green acres status. Again,
going through similar calculations for Alternative 2, I won't go through all the
details but again we see Green Acre status being subtracted out with a total
proposed trunk assessment of $349,000.00. Subtracting out green acre areas is
$164,000.00. Again the estimated lateral benefit to the Lake Riley Hills
development is $60,000.00 with a total assessment of $409,000.00 or a net
assessment, again subtracting the green acres of $324,000.00. Here we have an
estimated project cost of $328,000.00. Somewhat of a shortfall in that the net
assessment is showing approximately $80,000.00 in excess for the total proposed
assessment. It should be pointed out that it looks like this is excessive
assessments but again this assessment is set up to provide funds in the future
for the water towers, the wells in this area and those are currently not on line
or proposed to be on line but definitely would be needed in the future as this
area develops. What I've got here is a map showing the assessment areas and
this should be something that was handed out just prior to the meeting. This
dark line is in essence the dividing line between Alternative 1 and 2. The
areas with the crosshatch going from the upper right to lower left are areas
that would be assessed under Alternative 1. Again this area being the green
acres status at this time. Alternative 2 being upper left to lower right cross
hatch. What you notice is the Lake Riley Hills area and also this property
immediately to the east, or west of Lake Riley Hills would be assessed under
both alternatives. The primary reason for that is they would have the
opportunity to hook up to that 12 inch. It would be serviceable from that 12
inch that is extended through Lake Riley Hills. I guess with that I don't have
anything else to add. I can turn it over to Charles if he wants to add anything
at this point or we can turn it back to the public.
Charles Folch: I think at point we can open it up for any public
discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I said, this is a public hearing and I'd
like for those of you who would like to address this issue come forward to the •
podium, state your name and your address and the position that you have. And
I'd like to try and limit everyone to at least between 5 to 10 minutes at the
max. So with that, anyone wishing to come forward at this time, please step
forward. It's always the first one that counts.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to recommend Al Klingelhutz start.
Al Klingelhutz: Seeing you asked me I guess I'll come foward. Could we put
that last thing you had on the screen showing both of the assessment areas. At
the last assessment hearing Alternate 2 wasn't even discussed. It came as kind
of a surprise to me. I got the assessment notice of this hearing and I guess
I didn't read the whole thing. I thought it was still the part, the number 1
portion of it. I came up here last week one day and I talked to Charles and he
said, hey. You're in this now. I know that land has been in the metro urban
4
•
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
service line since the very beginning. A think a developer should have a right
to develop that property. I know he's been delayed a considerable amount of
time already because of the lack of water to the area I guess my biggest
concern about Alternate 2, and I'm not against new utilities going through but
the fact that Hwy 212 and new TH 101 are sort of bottlenecks at the present
time. That land is virtually in limbo and I think you probably heard that
from Mr. Curry the "last time. His is pretty much in limbo because of the
proposed zoning on it. Proposed zoning is commercial, high density on most of
this land and I have yet to see a developer come in and buy a piece of land and
put up commercial property when there's no highway there. So this is the real
hang up I've got. I wouldn't mind the $85,000.00 assessment coming against my
property except for the fact I'm going to have to be paying 7% or 8% interest on
that and I won't be able to do anything with the land until that highway comes
in. And if that interest could be deferred until Hwy 212 is built to Lyman
Blvd., I wouldn't have any problem taking that assessment. My land is in green
acres at the present time. I could assure you if there was any development
coming into that property prior to that time, you could put the assessment on
that part of the property. And this is my big concern. I'm 70 years old. I'm
ready to retire. My income is not completely shot but it's going to be very
limited and to think of paying an additional $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 a year in
interest on something that I can't use, it makes it pretty hard to take. Outside
of that I have no problem with the assessment but if you could defer the
interest until such time as actually the land can be developed, fine. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Al. Is there anyone else?
Jim Dolejsi: My name is Jim Dolejsi. I live on'9260 Kiowa Trail. I represent
probably the majority of that property that's in green acres in Alternate 1. Up
until recently I haven't been certain if a certain developer that's been working
with me has been serious but he's pledged his commitment to working on a program
of developing my property and we've recently drafted a contract. We as the
sellers signed it and delivered it to the buyer and have come to a tentative
agreement on all the terms of the contract so from our perspective that property
is going to be calling for utilities in the very near future. And that property
will, as a result of development, be coming off of green acres. So we'd like to
let the Council and the City know what our intent is for that property.
Furthermore, we feel whether that property develops or not, Alternative 1 would
be a more proactive approach from the city's standpoint in that if Alternate 2
were pursued, we would be adding a water utility and developing that one
development and then really not have the sewer capacity to do any further
development without adding utilities. Whereas if we proceeded with Alternate 1,
it would pretty much open up that whole Riley Lake area for development and we
see that as a real benefit. And I'd like to let Al know I'm in mid -30's and my
income is shot. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, how many acres do you have?
Jim Dolejsi: 51.19. It represents about 87 units of the proposed assessment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Wing: Where is his 51 on there? Can you just point it out?
5
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
David Mitchell: It's primarily this parcel right here, and correct me if I'm
wrong, this area here. This is in error. This is not in green acres. This
small 5 acre parcel down here. Again Mr. Dolejsi's property are these two
parcels here.
Richard Chadwick: My name is Richard Chadwick-. I own about 15 acres just to
the south of Mr. Klingelhutz' property and it's part of the Hwy 212 will come in
and take about maybe 1/4 of the 10 acre section that I have in the northwest
corner. There's not very much that can be done with that until the highway
moves in. I'm in much the same position. I don't think that anyone's going to
come in and do any developing at all until something is solidified as far as
that road is concerned. It would put us, most everyone down in that area to the
south of proposed 212 in substantial financial difficulty to have the
assessments come through against it without being in a position to do something
with it. I would certainly oppose, as I did last year, Alternative 1. From
what I understand this proposal 2, or Alternative 2 probably would not assess
any of my property. Is that correct?
David Mitchell: That's correct. I should point out that through staff...,
what we've done is taken into consideration this property as well as any of
these properties in the area and have proposed that they would be assessed on a
one residential unit basis at this time being a total assessment of $2,275.00.
Previously what we had planned was 10 acre parcels could develop into
potentially 17 acres that could be a sizeable assessment. There would be a
sizeable assessment against each property. Like I say we got it proposed that
that be a single unit at this point. I should point out that this is also
similar to the properties up on the Teton Lane. Again similar assessments have
been proposed for those properties.
Richard Chadwick: I've been advised by City Hall that I can't subdivide any of
that property at this time. Certainly without sewer and water into it and I
don't think anyone is going to come in and do any developing or purchasing of
any of the property until 212 is finished and we're in a completely different
. situation. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Al Klingelhutz: I have one more question. ...10 acres on 86th Street don't
show any hash marks or... How would that be served with water?
David Mitchell: In the future I believe what would be proposed is the watermain
would be looped through this area. The sewer service could come off of this
line as it comes back here and into a line along TH 101 up to the Lake Ann
Interceptor. Is that right Charles?
Charles Folch: Yeah. Just to clarify initially what was stated in the
watermain. What will likely happen is where we leave off on 86th Street with
the watermain, that eventually will extend further to the north along TH 101 and
tie in to the crossing under TH 5 at Great Plains Blvd.: So that will likely be
the frontage side that the property will access water service from.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else has specific questions?
6
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Rick Reger: My name is Rick Reger, 520 Lyman Blvd.. If we go with Alternate 1
rather than 2, am I correct that it's going to cost the City itself a lot of
money other than us?
Charles Folch: Basically what we have is a project which we estimate the cost
of about $1.5 million. With the information we had going into the meeting
tonight and assuming that there would be 80 acres of property under green acre
status that would have to have a deferred assessment, we would only generate
approximately $1.1 million worth of initial assessment revenue until the other
properties came off of green acres. If in fact the Dolejsi property would come
off of green acres, that would create an additional 87 units which would be
approximately $200,000.00 of additional revenue of the initial assessment and
we'd be $200,000.00 closer basically to matching the initial construction cost.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. In addition to that are you also taking consideration of
the other 51 acres that is in green acres presently?
Charles Folch: The 51 that I was referring to was Mr. Oolejsi's property. The
other 29 acres is just to the east of him owned by Mr. Rogers.
Councilwoman Dimler: If we did go with Alternate 1, there is no assurance
though that, he wouldn't have to come out of green acres would he just because
we did that project? He'd still have the choice to stay with green acres if he
chose to?
Charles Folch: That's correct but it is something to certainly consider.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we're putting ourselves in a little bit vulnerable
position?
Charles Folch: Well it's a risk that you have to decide whether it's a risk
yo -u're willing to take or not.
Rick Reger: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Russell Frederick: Yeah., I'm Russell Frederick. I live at 540 Lyman Blvd.. It
seems that Alternate 1 is a shortfall proposition at this point as far as the
future can be seen probably through '95 or '96. Until the road is complete and
Option 2, from what I can understand is a planned watermain to complete the
waterloop for this area that will be done within a matter of probably the same
timeframe. So it seems to me that even if it's a $200,000.00 shortfall, it
doesn't make much sense with the economy as it's been going to run the risk of
running up to a $400,000.00 shortfall with no guarantee that that couldn't run
at least 5 years and longer. The other option I was looking at was if Option 1
were to be gone with I would think that it should not be gone with unless it was
guaranteed that the land south of Lyman was coming out of green acres. So that
it would at least assure a minimum of the $200,000.00 shortfall rather than the
$400,000.00 or better. -
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? This is your opportunity to
voice your opinion. Now's the time to at least let Council know your feelings.
7
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Is there anyone else? Do we have any of the developers that would like to say
anything?
John Klingelhutz: I'm John Klingelhutz. I guess it's kind of your call here. I
believe that the first alternative probably is as good a decision as the second •
because of right tonight we heard of somebody coming up and saying there's
going to be another 51 acres of land within this project that will be developed
and I believe that in the next 2 years or 3 years you're going to see a lot more
of that. It doesn't make any difference to me. I'm just sitting here listening
to you people and thinking that that whole area is probably the next area in •
Chanhassen that's going to .develop and with the market as strong as it is today,
it could be shortly.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. John, is the assessment to you the same whether we
go with Alternate 1 or Alternate 2?
John Klingelhutz: That's right.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's what you're saying?
John Klingelhutz: It's the same. And it's the same yet to everybody here. If
they have a 10 acre piece, their assessment is only on 1 unit so really no
matter which way it goes, it really doesn't hurt any of these homeowners any
different if they have 1 acre or 10 acres. Thank you.
Jim Curry: Jim Curry. I own the 75 acres there north of Lyman. The one thing
I can't assess here and I'd like to hear from you people. I suppose maybe that
comes next is what impact on the city does $200,000.00 have? I know it would be
about as popular as $200,000.00 worth of new staff or what. We can't assess
that out here, or at least I can't. $400,000.00 is obviously twice that but
most of mine's in green acres so I'm here kind of like Mr. Klingelhutz was kind
of watching. Sooner or later it's going to happen of course. We can't put that
into context. We don't know what that means. Sooner or later will the project
inherit that interest and sooner or later we'll pick it up down the road? Is
that how it works? I'd like a little edification that way.
Charles Folch: Well initially anytime the City would carry a deferred
assessment with a project it basically on your bottom line balance sheet it's
looked upon as a debt that the City is carrying. As we mentioned in Dave's
presentation, in the future the sewer facility to be constructed along TH 101 up
to the Lake Ann Interceptor will also provide future service to a portion of
what area that's termed as a lower Bluff Creek or a 1995 study area so there
will be future units generated from that area to help ultimately offset the
construction costs of the trunk sewer line along TH 101. But again that area is
currently zoned or termed in the Comp Plan as 1995 study area and basically
development won't occur in that area until after 1995.
Jim Curry: Are you doing this sort of thing now? Do you have other areas where
you have done this in the past or is this a new territory breakthrough? I'm
just curious for precedent.
Charles Folch: Well, being relatively new with the city I can't speak for
what's been done over a period of 5 or 10 year history but basically.
8
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Jim Curry: It's something you'd rather not do, is that right?
Charles Folch: Well maybe that Don is back in here he can address that question
having more history with the projects in the city. The question Don that's been
posed is this potential deferment of somewhere between $200,000.00 and
$400,000.00 on this assessment for Option 1, is this an idea or a plan that it's
similiar to projects that the City has done in the pat where we've just
deferred or basically gone into initial revenue assessment shortfall for a
period of time until future properties come on line?
Don Ashworth: Generally.you do not want to go into a project where you have a
deficit position. You can establish through bonding techniques a means to let's
say set aside a certain principle will not start coming on until a specified
date. 3 years from now or 5 years. But once that date occurs and if that
development has not come on line, it will be necessary to start levying for
that. So if this project is carried over a 15 year period, you set aside the
first 5 years. That means that starting in that fifth year, if the deferments
aren't received, 1 /10 then of that balance will need to go on starting in that
fifth year. And each year for 10 years.
'Jim Curry: That's helpful. When I look at the calendar 1 think here we are in
February and I know how things go. I've sold an awful lot of land in my life to
people. I feel sorry for the man who owns the land south of Lyman there because
it sounds like if you went for this option 2, he'd be shut out right now. Isn't
there, if you had 90 days. 90 days gives a guy a chance to finalize a deal, get
a plat and a plan, at least then you'd know if you was $400,000.00 or
$200,000.00 and you're still May so you're still able to get possibly into the
Parade of Homes in the fall with some of the models and that sort of thing. It's
stretching it a touch but it would work I think. This guy owns a good hunk of
ground there and just once suggestion. I'm not one ordinarily wants to delay
but I think that's cutting a loss in half is quite a substantial thing. Maybe
in May it would look cleaner. That's a lot of time. Just one suggestion.
Charles Folch: Just to address a potential 90 day delay. Given the size of
this project, the preparation of the plans and specifications would be rather
extensive and fairly substantial in cost. It is likely that if we waited 90
days, preparation of these plans would also have to wait 90 days.
Jim Curry: So you'd lose a season?
Charles Folch: We would probably lose the season.
Jim Curry: I see. Well okay, that's helpful. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Good thanks.
John Klingelhutz: I guess I'd like to say one other thing when it comes to the
season. I really want to get this project in the ground this year and I'd like
to do it with whatever process we have to get the water there. And if it means
we have to do that in the second phase here, that's the way I would like to see
the City look at this. We've been working on this project for somewhere's
around 3 years now and I want to make sure that we in the ground this year.
9
•
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
•
Jim Dolejsi: I guess I didn't say this earlier but the buyer that I'm working
with wanted to be here tonight. Doesn't want it misinterpretted as a lack of
interest or lack of dedication to the project but he had commitments in Champlin
tonight with some meetings. Couldn't attend. We even met with Charles earlier
today and then after that meeting he met with me for a couple of hours this
afternoon so I mean there is a dedication and a seriousness to this project and
I don't know if I conveyed that. But otherwise my buyer would have been here
tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Rick Reger: If they do go put in the project south of Lyman, I know Lyman Blvd.
is not going to handle all the traffic. It doesn't now. I mean if we get a
heavy snow, we don't get out the next day. Is that considered in that
$200,000.00 to $400,000.00 to rebuild this road to make it a decent road to
serve these two projects or how does that work?
Charles Folch: No. There's no provisions for any type of reconstruction work to
the road. We're proposing to install the utilities off the roadway in the ditch
sections so there would be no, very little disturbance to the road and therefore
no provisions to reconstruct.
Rick Reger: I think you're going to have to look at the road because it's bad
news.
. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Al Klingelhutz: Concerning Lyman Blvd. and I think Charles might be able to
walk through this a little better. I think in the East Carver County
Transportation Plan, sometime in the future that road is supposed to become a
county road. Is that right Charles?
Charles Folch: Well, it's quite possible it could become a county road but if
the traffic capacity or carrying capacity in the future is estimated to put it
in a classification as a Class II collector which would possibly require a 4
lane section of roadway. But whether it will be under local jurisdiction or
county jurisdiction is still not known.
Al Klingelhutz: A couple more questions for Charles. If Phase II was put in,
would that waterline be the connection to Great Plains Blvd. or future extension
of it? Or is that one has been planned in the past to run that way and then
back up on Great Plains or was it designated a shorter route at some point in
the future?
Charles Folch: Actually the route that is proposed under Alternate 2 would have
been and still can be a future looping line for the southerly project. Both
will happen ultimately in serving the entire area. Lake Riley Hills service
area with sewer and water so whether we do the sewer and water project down
Lyman or whether we just do the watermain project along 86th Street, both will
be long term functional systems.
Al Klingelhutz: I guess that's why I asked the question. I didn't want to see
a waterline going there that wouldn't be of any value as far as the loop is
10
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
concerned sometime in the future.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Al. We had just a slight discussion here and I just
wanted some additional information which I finally got. Is there anyone else
that would like to address this issue? If seeing none, can I have a motion to
close the public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that one of the more concerns that I have within this is
of course the shortfall of $200,000.00. In lieu of the economy as it is, it
sort of bothers me a little bit too. I'm not trying to push away from this but
I do have to look at it from a cost aspect from what it might be to the City.
I'm still keeping an open mind on this and I'd mike to have a little more input
from Council. So with that I'd like to open it up for discussion. I'll start
out with Mike, being lucky you're on the end there.
Councilman Mason: Thank you so much Mr. Mayor. Couple of things come to mind.
Can we do Alternate 2 and defer interest until something is decided with 212?
Is that an option or not?
Mayor Chmiel: That's always an option.
Councilman Mason: Is that advisable for the City to do that?
Don Ashworth: That typically does not occur. It typically as it would be
submitted to the County Auditor's office, the interest would occur.
Councilwoman Dimler just asked me the same question and in the meantime I asked
Roger to check on another item so that's the reason he's out of the room. When,
he returns I'd like to pose that question to the City Attorney.
Councilman Mason: My next question would be, if we approve Alternative 2 now,
is there any reasons, depending on what happens in the near future that we can't
come back a month later and say well let's do Alternative 1 also? If it so
seems prudent with land being removed from green acres and what not.
Mayor Chmiel: 1 think that's a good point. Being that just as Mr. Curry had -
indicated potentially 90 days to see if there's anyone out there that is really
overly interested in platting that now.
Councilman Mason: Well it sounds like it could be even less than 90 days right?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the point. It could be 30 days or 60 days.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, my concern with that would be, with the people
that are inbetween there, the two projects, would they be assessed twice? Once
for this project and once for the other one?
Charles Folch: No they would not. There would be no duplication of assessment.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
11
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Mike?
%
Councilman Mason: No. I'd like to know what Roger has to say about my first
question. From a city's standpoint it certainly seems fiscally prudent to steer
clear of Alternative 1 until we have a little better feel for that green acre
status.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I kind of concur with Mike. I guess I look at Shorewood how
they ran separate projects and remember out in Minnewashta Heights we kind of
fought putting sewer and water in at the same time because we claimed we didn't
need them but how foolish it would have been to do that project twice and I'm
glad we bit the bullet on that. I think if we were going to look really long
term here and do what's really maybe in the best interest of the city for the
next decade, you do project number 1. However, we can't predict the future and
with the economy and the shortfall to the city... So the words that came out to
me were 212, unknown. The word limbo. An unknown. The word shortfall. The
Mayor tends to look at, it's not your ballgame, the word shortfall and I think
we have supported you on that. We have not tried to move on these issues if
it's going to force development or force sale of land or interfere with green
acres. So I guess number 1, although it certainly makes sense long term, more
prudent, number 2 seems to meet an immediate need and doesn't force us to
predict the future which I don't think we can do right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Basically I agree with the two that have just been stated.
I don't think we should go into a deficit position and also I don't like the
position of being real vulnerable on taking Alternate 1 and then not having that
land come out of green acres. I think that would be foolishness on our part. I
would like to see Mr. Klingelhutz' concerns and the other people who are
green acres with accrued interest. If we could do it somehow through the
bonding. To be paid later when that property develops, I would like to see that
done.
Mayor Chmiel: Now we'll pose the question. Roger, you've had some discussion
with Don and, what's the answer?
Roger Knutson: As I mentioned to Don, you have the ability to assess and then
defer with or without interest your option until development. You could if you
could financially afford it. If you thought it was prudent, you could assess
this project and then defer any undeveloped parcel without interest until
development. Yes, you can do that. Whether you can afford it, that's
different.
Don Ashworth: I think another alternative, and correct me if I'm wrong Roger.
Since these assessments are being put on in the form of REC charges, equivalent
unit charges, for sewer and water, we go through a process of updating those
charges. Not usually every year but every 2 or 3 years. Could they not put the
assessment through, the number of units that are being benefitted at this time.
Ones that would be under green acres would be charged the then current REC
charge at the time that they develop.
12
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Roger Knutson: You can do it with a combination of special assessments and
connection charges.
Don Ashworth: I guess the point is, there's probably a way that that could be
done. I prefer that alternative because it does give the city some recognition
escalating costs but it doesn't have the double or triple compounding effect of
interest that's just going on interest.
Councilwoman Dimler: Does that alternative then though put us into a deficit
position?
Don Ashworth: Sure. Until such time as those.
Councilwoman Dimler: Which may be what, 10 -20 years? Can we afford it is what
I'm saying. Should we run a scenario to see if we can afford that.
Don Ashworth: We should test it. I have not posed it back to McGillvery but if
we're looking to a total project cost of $1.5 million, $200,000.00 represents
between 10% and 15% of the overall project.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we're looking at Alternate 2 though. So that was,
what was it?
Don Ashworth: Alternate 2, the cost to the city on Alternate 2.
Charles Folch: The estimated project cost is $328,000.00. The net initial
assessment revenue, taking out the green acre property would be approximately
$324,000.00.
Don Ashworth: So Alternate 2 is basically a push for the city. Number 1 is
where you pick up the potential $200,000.00 to $400,000.00 deficit position.
Councilman Wing: Don, just a question on that same line. In the Minnewashta
Parkway project there was . a lot of large acres involved and we assessed them one
unit until such time as they develop and then they have their charges and so on.
What's the difference between that and this? Why wouldn't the green acre just
simply get one unit charge until such time as it's developed? Is there any
difference between the Minnewashta Parkway project and this one really?
Don Ashworth: Well the biggest difference comes about in that State Aids
financed a good portion of that project and so the necessity, that provided a
source of money that if some of those other units did not come on line, you
still had sufficient dollars to balance. You don't have kind of, if we had been
able to do that in a similar fashion where there might be an underlying tax
increment district where they could potentially pick up the differential.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Any other questions that you may or
may not have? This is not the easiest situation to...assess and it becomes
rather difficult but yet if we have that opportunity to be able to assist
somehow, I shouldn't say take a position of either or, I'm going to just leave
that open.
13
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Councilman Wing: My question, I just asked specifically to the City Manager,
what does he recommend as our business manager perhaps clearly too?
Mayor Chmiel: I think.
Don Ashworth: I wish I would have been able to hear more of the comments from
the effected property owners. I think that that would have swayed my decision.
because I think either of these are reasonable alternatives and I'm not really
that fearful as to the cost implications back to the city with Alternate 1. But
again I think how the project affects the people that are out there probably has
more, is a greater weight to me than some of the numbers.
Mayor Chmiel: There's also the potential of additional 51 acres coming on which
is green acres presently. I don't know if you were here for that.
Don Ashworth: Well I did, I read that.
Mayor Chmiel: Of course with the balance of the others that are there. Somehow
I like that idea of even a 30 day period. I don't know how we can arrange that
in the event that there are other developers that are out there who are willing
to come in with some plannings to us. If we were to vote on this, either
Alternate 1 or Alternate 2, and just out of the sky in comes another development
that says I'm going to develop these properties and I'd like to buy it from Mr.
Curry or whoever. How can we word that Roger so it might leave a door open for
rather than Alternate 2 to Alternate 1 as well?
Roger Knutson: Leaving the door open Mr. Mayor is not difficult. The problem
is you have order preparation of plans and specifications and that gets
expensive. I mean theoretically you could just order tonight do a plan and
specification on Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 as an alternative and do it all. I
would think Charles would probably say that's fine and dandy but it's going to
cost you an awful lot of money and you're not going to get very good use of at
,least half of it. When you commit to ordering the plans and specifications,
you're really committing to Alternate 1 or 2. I mean you could postpone making
the decision for 30 days but that's about it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I had the same concerns you did but I think the
question that Mr. Mason asked was if Mr. Oolejsi did decide to go ahead and
develop, that we could still do Alternate 1 and the same people were not
assessed and I guess that puts my fears to rest that he would not be able to
develop or you know that it would be costly to the city later on and people
would be double assessed. I think we could go with 2 and he could still
develop if he wanted to within this year.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I guess too Ursula, we have to be fiscally responsible
in doing things prudently for you. Also what's good for the area as well as
it's people there.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of the other questions I wanted to ask Mr.
Ashworth was, does this affect our bonding capacity? Are we at the limit? Are
both projects feasible separately?
Don Ashworth: The difficulty I have in responding to that issue is that the
14
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
City has been carrying, has carried out bonding at a level of about $3 to $4
million per year. In fact that's the approximate amount of bonds that are
dropping off on a yearly basis. So as long as you stay generally in that range,
you don't really have a problem. At issue is we know that there are a number of
different projects that are being considered around the city and which one comes
first and which comes last. Which one will exceed your yearly limit. As we sit
here today, no projects have been approved as 1992 projects yet we know that
Ryan development is on their way in and they will be looking to something both
south of the railroad tracks as well as north. In all likelihood from Near
Mountain will be before us.
Charles Folch: One thing I should point out from the standpoint of considering
doing possibly both projects this year. Because the Kligelhutz, Lake Riley
Hilts subdivision and the adjacent property immediately to the east which is
owned by T.J. Hirsch Management Company, because those two properties are
technically included in both alternatives for assessment, if you do both
projects you're actually going to create initially a little bit larger
shortfall, revenue shortfall until future development comes on line because
they're factored into both alternatives. Just those two properties so they're
assessed on both one or the other. It amounts to approximately $200,000.00 from
the watermain standpoint.
Mayor Chmiel: John, normally the hearing's been closed but I'll.
John Klingelhutz: I wanted to bring that up and the other issue I wanted to
bring up is, normally when you start a development in February, you don't get it
done in that year. I have never been able to do that. I guess I'm wondering
how reasonable that really is. To buy a piece of land the first of March and
have it in the ground in that year.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? Any other questions?
If not, I would entertain a motion.
Councilman Wing: I guess I heard everybody showing number 2 as more
conservative. A little more financially prudent at this matter and I guess I
would, to move this along, would just move approval of Alternate 2. Approving
Section 24, Lake Riley Hills, preparation of plans and specifications for
Project No. 90 -10. I think that's what I heard.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do we want to incorporate Don's idea about deferring the
interest?
Roger Knutson: You don't have to. This is not your special assessment hearing.
Those things get worked out later.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that we have a motion on the floor. Is there a
second?
Councilman Mason: For the sake of a little more discussion I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion.
15
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Councilman Mason: I want to get straight in my mind that if we go with
Alternate 2, we're not necessarily including Alternative 1 in the near future.
That's correct right?
Mayor Chmiel: You can always come back.
Councilman Mason: And furthermore, if we go with Alternative 2 we can do a
special assessment or something like that if it's deemed purdent to defer some
of that interest payment?
Councilman Wing: That's the assessment hearing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Hason: That would be the assessment hearing? I mean that's another
ballgame right?
Councilman Wing: Except I don't think we want to get into that.
Mayor Chmiel: It could be deferred but it can be done one of two or three ways.
Ones that Roger had said and the other is that we had said we could approve over
those years but yet still be deferred.
Councilman Wing: Didn't we promise, after Frontier Trail that we'd go on
everything pretty up front and know what's going on. When we hart talking
about unknown assessment hearings, that starts to scare me. A lot of gray area
there. I wish we knew up front what we were getting into.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I brought that up if we should put that in this
motion. I don't know if it's prudent or not.
Roger Knutson: Legally, of course the Council's always free to express it's
intent or what it's thinking right now but legally you're required to have a
separate hearing. Public hearing on the special assessment and you really can't
tie your hands. Of course you're going to express your intent but you can't
make a formal commitment to anything until that hearing. That's the purpose of
that hearing.
Don Ashworth: Stating an intent into the record though is a good idea to assure •
that that hearing, it just makes that hearing go that much easier because
everyone understood initially what the intent of the Council was and the
citizens.
Mayor Chmiel: And if that's the specific case.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would move that intent but I don't know how to word it
Don. Would you word it for me?
Don Ashworth: That the REC charge being established for properties within the
green acre designation would be charged at the then current REC charge when
those properties so developed. So whatever amount today, in 5 years from now
that equivalent REC is 10% or 20% higher. They would be paying on that higher
basis.
16
•
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that being acceptable as a friendly amendment.
Councilman Wing: Please.
Mayor Chmiel: Would the second also accept that?
Councilman Mason: Sure. Does that also address the property along proposed
212 then? Because I think that's a very legitimate concern. If that goes on
the rolls and it's just sitting there for 10 years, I mean somebody's got to pay
an awful lot of interest on that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's true. Potentially even though we've gotten $8.7 million
dollars, that's still doesn't say it's going to move next week or next year or
10 years.
Councilwoman Dimler: Isn't that the same property that 212 is proposed to go
through is the property that...?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: Most of that is in green acres.
Councilman Mason: Most of it is in green acres?
Councilwoman Dimler: Let Mr. Klingelhutz address it.
Al Klingelhutz: I guess I've got a little problem with the same REC charge say
5 years from now as today. You're putting in the line today at a certain price.
Why should it cost more to, why should the REC charge jump 20% or 25% 5 years
from now when the cost has already been established as of today or when the line
goes in? The line is there. The cost of the line isn't going to cost anymore 5
years from now because it's already put in now.
Don Ashworth: The reason I• would suggest that it be put in and not go the
traditional fashion, yes. That's correct. The cost is there and when we go to
assess it, those people who want to pay off that full assessment amount, brought
in money and paid it. Everything's fine.
Jim Curry: Wouldn't it be either future cost or today's cost...Isn't that what
you're dealing with?
Mayor Chmiel: If we could let him finish first. Thank you.
Don Ashworth: Well I think that Jim kind of cut through it and that is that you
do have that interest cost and the city is paying those costs during that
timeframe. But by adding the interest each year and compounding it, I think it
changes what might be a 10% or 20% or 25% increase and magnifies it to 50%, 75%.
I think we've had certain properties that have been 150%. I think the Kerber's
property, that they looked that interest compounding on interest and by.the time
they did come in, it was 100 and some percent. .
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, would you like to?
17
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Jim curry: This is what he just pointed in the works. It seems to me you're
II better off to get the cost then instead of interest on interest on interest.
The cost of putting those things isn't going to go up. It's not my issue but I
mean that's your alternative. Either interest from now on and that way he can
do his property now and we can go on.
I I
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, are there some unanswered questions here regarding
some of these issues on assessment and interest that maybe makes a decision
tonight this much premature? I'm just slightly getting a little buried now. 1
think I'd like a little more clarification on some of the concerns by Mr.
Klingelhutz and Mr. Curry. It might make a decision much more intelluctual. 1
feel like we're kind of groping to get this through and I want to get the
1 development going. That's a real valid point. I'm not asking for a long delay
but certainly by the next meeting we could make a firm decision on this. Maybe
with a lot more input from the City Manager and City Attorney on what's best.
1 And if there was any feeling on your part for that, I would withdraw the motion.
If not, it stands. I'm happy either way. I'm looking to you for.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I don't know, if we were to delay I don't think we'd probably
come up with any other answer for right now that we're coming up with at this
time.
II Councilman Wing: Let the motion stand then?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. .
II .
Councilwoman Dimler: And I'm satisfied that the people in green acres would be
better off with the way we're proposing and then with interest on interest. So
I I think in the long run they'd be happier with that too.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
1 Resolution #92 -20: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for watermain and sanitary
sewer improvements in Section'24 and Lake Riley Hills as presented in Alternate
1 2 with the intent for approval being that the REC charge being established for
properties within the green acre designation would be charged at the then
current REC charge when those properties develop. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROGRESS VALLEY MINI - STORAGE FACILITY. 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE.
GARY BROWN.
1 A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RENTAL OF TRUCKS AND TRAILERS.
B. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN INTERIM
1 USE PERMIT IN THE BUSINESS FRINGE (BF) DISTRICT.
C. INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE.
Jo Ann Olsen: Briefly, the applicant first applied for a conditional use permit
II to allow the rental of trucks and trailers. This is permitted as a conditional
use permit in the BF district. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions in the staff report. The second
II item was a zoning ordinance amendment to allow screened outdoor storage as an
II 18
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
1
interim use permit in the BF district. The applicant requested to be allowed
outdoor storage. The ordinance did not allow that as a permitted or a
conditional use so we did amend the ordinance. Recommend amending the ordinance
to allow it as an interim use and that it has to be totally screened. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of this ordinance amendment. And the
last section was the actual interim use permit for the screened outdoor storage
and again the Planning Commission recommended approval with the conditions in
the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is the proposer wishing to address the Council at 1
this time? On what staff has indicated. Gary, do you have anything you'd like
to add to?
Gary Brown: No, 1 agree with everything.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is
there anyone else wishing to address this at this time? Going once. Going
twice. Going three times. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Dimier moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public 1
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilman Mason: I think if the Planning Commission is okay with it, it sounds
okay to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Also staff recommendations as such?
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimier: I just have one. I usually don't like to alter ordinances
for one particular situation that's occurring because it might affect some other
business fringe districts. Can you think of any other area that this would
affect that they may not?
30 Aran Olsen: You mean in the BF district?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Do we have any other BF districts that this will
really affect adversely?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. I mean there's one other storage facility in the BF district
and they are permitted a certain amount of outdoor storage but it essentially
has to be screened already. So no, it's consistent with outdoor storage in all
the other districts in the city.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Then I don't have a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, just one other question I had. With the storage of the 1
trucks and facility per se contained on site, will any of these have any
maintenance being done on those vehicles?
1
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Jo Ann Olsen: They should not have, no. Nor can they be stored in the
building.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of item 4.
Councilman Mason: Second.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger.
Roger Knutson: Can I point out one procedural item. 4(b) is an ordinance
1 amendment. This would be the first reading unless you waive the second reading
and since you can't approve 4(c) until 4(b) has been accomplished.
1 Mayor Chmiel: We can go 4(a) and have this as a first reading for the zoning
ordinance amendment?
' Roger Knutson: Right and then table (c).
Mayor Chmiel: And table item (c). So if we could get a motion for that with
item (a) as approval; item (b) as a first reading; and item (c) as a.
Councilwoman Dimler: Contingent. I so move.
' Councilman Mason: Second. And then the rest will go on Consent.Agenda next
t ime?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Right.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit #87 -2 for the rental of trucks and trailers with the following
II conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a landscaped screen with evergreens along the
' fence line at the southwest corner of the site.
2. The storage of the trucks and trailers shall be confined to the area as
shown on the site plan and the area shall have a gravel surface.
3. The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning
Commission and a letter of credit shall be submitted to cover the cost of
1 material installation and one year warranty.
4. There shall be no more than 20 trucks and 4 trailers and no trucks can
1 exceed 26 feet in length.
Also, to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #92 -1 by adding
Article II, BF, Fringe Business District, the following to Section 20 -775,
1 Interim Uses:
(3) Screened outdoor storage.
1
20
•
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Amend Division 4, Standards for Business, Office, Institutional and Industrial
Districts by adding the following:
Section 20 -294. Screened outdoor storage.
The following applies to screened outdoor storage:
(1) All outdoor storage must be completely screened with 100% opaque
fence or landscaped screen.
And to table action on the Interim Use Permit until after the second reading of
the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. All voted in favor and the notion carried. '
Mayor Chmiel: Now we did indicate, I should back up on that one with all the
recommendations of staff on each of those perspective items.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Councilman Wing: It appears that Mr. Brown is stunned. You might want to '
explain that it's over.
Mayor Chmiel: You can leave, thank you. '
Gary Brown: What would you like me to explain?
-- Councilman Wing: No, you look stunned. I was just trying to explain, it's
over. It's done. You can go home.
Gary Brown: Oh, thanks a lot. Send me a letter as to what you want done. '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, just send money.
AWARD OF BIDS: CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT, RESCUE TRUCK. ,
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor and City Council. I'm here tonight to recommend the
purchase of a new heavy rescue truck as discussed in my memo to you, that was
included in tonight's Council packet. Also in attendance with me tonight are
our newly elected Fire Chief, Jim McMahon and Captain Bob Halvorson who has
chaired the truck committee. Any of us will be happy to answer any questions
you may have about the recommendation. It is a recommendation of the Fire
Chief, the truck committee, the general membership of the Chanhassen Fire
Department, the Public Safety Director and City Manager that the bid from Lynch
Display Vans be accepted and that the Public Safety Director be directed to
proceed with the purchase of a vehicle and necessary equipment providing that
any cost above the $102,000.00 system be funded from other existing sources,
including the transfer of funds from the utility department fund so as to permit
them to use the existing vehicle.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Are there any specific questions that anyone may
have? Let's shift through this proposal for a rescue vehicle purchase. It
appears that we have the Lynch Display Vans, Inc., the people who have the low
bid and I guess what's being recommended is we authorize staff to establish the
fair market value of the old rescue truck. Authorizing it's transfer to the
21 1
•
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Sewer and Water Department as recommended and if you've read the correspondence
contained within, that would be used with each of those compartments for all the
different fittings and things that the sewer department would need and there's
another need for that particular truck there. So with that I'm going to throw
it open. Ursula, do you have anything?
Councilwoman Dimler: I've talked to Scott extensively on this and after he
explained that this company, Lynch Display Vans is probably the only one that
can meet the specifications and it's unlikely that we would get any other bids,
I'm all in favor of it and I like the conservative approach that they've taken
also to getting funds from another area within the Fire Department.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard?
Councilman Wing: The only thing I'd - point out Mr. Mayor is that, of course
being on the Fire Department I've had a little insight into this but I think for
the first time in my history in Chanhassen, both the Public Safety Director and
the Fire Chief have clearly directed the Fire Department that they're not going
to go over budget. What money was alloted is the money they're spending and
they've held at that tenaciously. And I think they should be complimented for
' that. They had x dollars to spend and they held the line on it and that's
exactly what they did on this. The slight overage now is based on that rescue
truck. That's all.
Councilman Mason: Yeah I concur with that. I think both Scott'end the Fire
Department are to be commended for that. For staying within the budget. I mean
we approve their budget and how they think it's necessary to use it. If things
' get shifted around, yeah. Good job.
Mayor Chmiel: And I guess Dick indicated there's been a lot of time put into
this. A lot of extended effort. Of course that's the things that we like to
' see done as well. So maybe if Jim would just stand up so people would know who
our new Fire Chief is. Thanks for coming, unless you have something to say Jim.
' Jim McMahon: Thank you.
Councilman Wing: He was really hoping for a fight, I just want you to know
I that.
Mayor Chmiel: He said that if we didn't pass this, the next fire at my house
they wouldn't come. 5o consequently, thanks Jim. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Wing: So moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Resolution *92 -21: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to award
the bid to lynch Display Vans, Inc. for the purchase of a new rescue truck and
authorizing staff to establish the fair market value for the old rescue truck
and authorizing its transfer to the Sewer and Water Department. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
1
' 22
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
RECONSIDERATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING MOORING OF WATERCRAFT.
Kate Aanenson: This is a reconsideration based on your request that the staff
look at the way the wording is written in Section 1 and that was raised the
concern that riparian owners. The number of boats would still be limited to 3
as long as the owner had permission. Someone else could dock their boat there
as long as there was no fee involved. So that language has been changed.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Appreciate that. I would move it. " 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve adoption of the new
language for the proposed amendment for the Mooring of Watercraft. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. '
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I thought that was a good catch.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, can I just ask a technical question of the City
Attorney? This was already approved once and we published it once but it was
never signed. Now we reconsidered it, do we republish that and then sign it?
Mayor Chmiel: No. We voted on it didn't we?
Roger Knutson: What you have done tonight is you have voted' to reconsider.
That does not pass anything. All it does is put it back up on the table. You
did not pass' an ordinance by your motion to reconsider. You put it back up on
the table. You have not passed an ordinance by your motion to reconsider. You
brought it back up on the table. Under your By -laws you're not supposed to act
on it tonight. An ordinance itself. You're supposed to give everyone notice
who had notice of the original, initial action.
Aanenson: We did renotice this. ,
Roger Knutson:. You did renotice, okay. Then unless you want to wavie the
requirements of your By -laws, it has to come back on your Consent Agenda for
your next meeting.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, it was my understanding that we reconsidered it
at our last meeting.
Roger Knutson: Oh, you did reconsider it? Oh! 1
Councilwoman Oimler: So this is the time to do action.
Mayor Chmiel: You weren't here. I was going to say, you were absent. 1
Roger Knutson: I was told to stay home.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, I wanted to save money.
Roger Knutson: I said that because your agenda item says reconsideration.
23 1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, okay. Sure. But this is the report for the
reconsideration that we approved last
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we discussed it at the last meeting and that's why we
II brought it back.
Roger Knutson: You reconsidered it at the last meeting and you're bringing it
back now?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. So this is the time to act on it.
11 Roger Knutson: Okay.
Paul Krauss: So do we then just republish it with the correct language and have
II that signed?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
REQUEST TO EXTEND VARIANCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
Paul Krauss: There's no action required on this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you.
II ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENT FOR NON - CONFORMING
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS OBTAIN A NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT.
II Public Present:
Name Address
II S.M. Knigge 3910 Glendale Drive
Jerry L. Kortgard 3901 Glendale Drive
I Jerry Johnson 3940 Glendale Drive
Michael R. Ryan 3850 Maple Circle
Court MacFarlane 3800 Leslee Curve
Peter & Lola Warhol 3831 Leslee Curve
II Dan & Debbie Ament 4010 Crestview Drive
V.R. Isham 4030 Leslee Curve
G.A. Peters 4010 Leslee Curve
II Mark Rogers 3851 Leslee Curve
Tom Merz 3201 Dartmouth Drive
Dr. David Tester 3897 Lone Cedar Lane
Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Bill Finlayson 6320 Fir Tree Avenue
John Merz 3900 Lone Cedar Circle
Ivan Underdahl 7502 - 77th Street
Bernie Schneider 7501 - 77th Street
Bob Hebeisen Lake Minnewashta
Terry Johnson 3898 Lone Cedar Lane
t
24
11
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Kate Aanenson: There's a long history of the recreational beachlot ordinance
and the lake management, which I'm sure there's other people that can speak to
that more eloquently than myself. I just would like to go through the brief
history of the two ordinances that you have before you tonight. Back in
September we told the Council that we'd be bringing these ordinances to you and
we have met with all the homeowner associations as we did the inventory to
explain to them the process that we'd be undertaking. As you recall the intent
of this ordinance is to establish a baseline of what these non - conforming
recreational beachlots have as far as inventory of boats. When the ordinance
was passed in 1982, there was an inventory taken and since that time there was
an inventory taken in 1986 and in 1991. The reason we recommended the two
different proposals is the matter of all we have is a written inventory back in 1
1991. September of 1991 when we did it, we took pictures and a video as well as
taking inventory and we felt that, there was a little bit more validity.
Although there's the same margin of error in the fact that it's taken on a one
day spot. You know, all the boats may or may not have been in. So the Planning
Commission felt that the intent should be upheld and that we should stick with
the '82 ordinance, although staff still feels like 1991 may be acceptable too.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I know we've had a lot of discussions on this and we
did do a lot of review of discussions with it but 1 will open this up at this
particular time if anyone wishes to address any of those issues that staff has
brought up. So at this time I'd like to have about 3 minutes per each and we
will open it up. Open the floor up for that discussion.
Y
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? If I could just interject here shortly. The
recreational beachlot, or the non - riparian lots of course as you mentioned, have
been discussed at length. But what's been lacking here throughout this
discussion was a history of why previous Planning Commissions, City Councils,
City Planners and the ONR have in fact created these ordinances, the
non - riparian lot ordinance or recreational beachlot ordinance. There's been at
least two study groups put together that studied the city's lakes in terms of
boat counts and useage and acreage and that history really involves the
environment of the lakes.. It has nothing to do with the individual people,
personalities or anything else. It strictly involves lake useage and the
environment. And I've asked a gentleman, Tom Merz who lives on Lake Minnewashta
who was active in the Carver County Park Board and also on the Planning
Commission in Chanhassen during this period of time and also in 1986 he served
actively on the Park Study Committee and I thought it might be appropriate if we
could start out discussion this evening with Tom just presenting the history of
why these things occurred and why they were done and why and how we've gotten to
this point tonight. Because I think there's some real background here that goes
well beyond people. It's strictly having to do with boats, lake useage and the
environment, and Tom might be able to address that for our use tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, fine. 1
Tom Merz: Well I prepared some notes. I didn't think I'd get such a nice
introduction. 1
•
Mayor Chmiel: I'll scratch that 3 minutes for you.
1
25 '
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Tom Merz: I see. Well it's a lot so've got to stop me. So maybe I've done
more work here so you can stop me. What I thought I'd do is just try and go
back through. Let's see, I've been 32 years involved in this thing. For those
of you who say I don't look that old, it's nice of you to say that but I have
been around here 32 years. In 1965, we'll start. Naegele sold that Ches Mar
Farms to the park and with that he had a covenant of 15 boats with a maximum of
10 horsepower limit. 1968 to 1972, Carver County developed a master plan for
this park. Annalee Hanson and myself were part of the Lake Minnewashta
committee and the other committee members for Carver County Park. We developed
this park. As you know it's a passive useage. It's got the different boat
launching and we felt that the park was designed to maintain Lake Minnewashta,
which means it blended in with it's natural environment and that was the work
for the committee during those years. 1972 to 1975, Carver County and DNR, the
DNR came onto the lake and gee, because you've got a boat restriction on your
' lake, a maximum horsepower, we will not stock your lake. So due to some
hassling we said okay, we'll eliminate the horsepower restriction and you'll
agree to stock our lake. Of course we eliminated the horsepower but we have yet
to see the stocking of our lake with any fish. About 1975 Carver County
continued to increase it's useage from 15 up to about 25 boats. I'll never
forget this Carver County Commissioner at this meeting saying well, nothing is
cast in stone and therefore all of these rules are subject to change. About
1978 to 1980 Carver County and Lake Minnetonka Homeowners met. At that time we
had finally gotten to be the Department of Natural, DNR. Department of Natural
Resources and we asked for their guidelines as to what is the riparian and non-
riparian use on an ordinary lake. And that formula amounted to one non - riparian
boat for every 20 acres of surface acres of lake and there's 700 surface acres
of lake divided by 20. That's 35. The DNR said at that point, when you have
more than 35 boats of non - riparian use on this lake, you are exceeding the
guidelines. About 1980 Carver County requested that we close all the park
access, I mean all of the other accesses on the lake and that we allow only one
access to the park. At that point then we still had an agreement of 15 boats,
15 horsepower or less and then we agreed to up the other to 26 boats. So now
we've got 41 boats where we had agreed to a total of about 41 boats on a lake
that was supposed to have 35. In 1980 Carver County Park and the City of
Chanhassen entered into some agreement where you jointly were running the park
and I'm not priviledged to that but there's somehow that Carver County and the
City of Chanhassen are involved in the rules of the park. Somebody else can
expound on that. About 1980 to 1985 I became a Planning Commissioner member and
at that time I think that during those 4 years about, at least once a month some
new developer would come in and say I've got this 20 homes off the lake and I
want to this 65 -70 foot lot and I want to put on 10 -15 type of additional boats.
II And of course we spent all our time fighting then. About in 1982 we finally
said that we'd develop an ordinance and we said well all of the, because at that
point we were fighting with the existing homeowners who were trying to expand
their property and we were trying to of course comply with maintaining this so
called DNR limit of 35 to 40 boats. So in 1982 when these guidelines were, at
this time when the guidelines were approved, we had Carver County Park that had
45 boats in it. We had Minnewashta Heights and I'm guessing, they must have had
10 to 15 boats. We had Pleasant Acres who has 15 boats. We have another 6 to 8
developments that probably had between 3 to 5 boats. Or another . 40 boats so
even in 1982 we had a total of about 115 what we'll call non - riparian boat
useages for a lake that the guidelines were down to 35. So in 1982 we had
already exceeded these guidelines by 300%. 35 is the limit. At 1982 we were up
' 26
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992 1
to 115 non - riparian boat uses. In 1991 I guess all I'm saying is that, you know
as I go out on that lake and you can talk about the quality of Lake Minnewashta
has gone down. I mean you talk about Saturdays and Sundays and then sometimes
instances, the lake is overused. I think our goal in 1970, '80 and '90 was to
preserve the quality of Lake Minnewashta. We've spent this many hours, whether
it's Planning Commission, Park Commission, and we tried to maintain a lake that
wasn't a Lake Minnetonka. Something that we didn't have surface zonage or
surface useage. Where we'd have hundreds of boats going around in a circle. We
tried to maintain a lake that we were all proud of. That we could pass onto our
children. And in essence that's the summary of my, I've devoted and like a lot
of you, 20 to 30 years of this time and I think we're seeing the quality of this
lake deteriorate. We agreed in 1982 that the lake was being overused and to
come back in 1992 and to find some reason to say that we want to increase this
useage again, it doesn't make sense. The purpose of this thing was to pass on
something to all of our children, and I don't care whether we're homeowners.
That we want to take some of our boats off the lake or if we're non - homeowners
and we agree to take some off. Let's spend the time and take it back instead of
trying to increase this useage. That's all I've got. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you Tom. Is there anyone else?
Dr. David Tester: I'm Dr. David Tester. I'm a dentist. I've lived in ,
Chanhassen for the last 20 years and for the last 15 years I've lived on Lake
Minnewashta. It's a beautiful lake and at the time the property was subdivided,
there was a provision that there would be a homeowners association and the
homeowners association would have a beach recreational lot. Now that
recreational lot has about 70 foot of frontage and since the inception of the
homeowners association, we've kept Minutes that date back to the 1977. Actually
we were platted and our covenants were approved in 1975 and we were given the
ability to govern our beachlot as many boats as we thought we could handle.
Most of the people did attend the meetings annually. We had one meeting 11 annually and it was usually determined how many boats would be moored or docked
at the one dock that we do have. In 1981, prior to the beachlot survey, in the
Minutes we had authorization for 4 boats to be moored at the dock. I think at
that point in time we only had 2 boats. But I say I think this is apparently 2 1
boats because at the time the homeowner to the south, Chuck Crompton, it appears
from some pictures that we had, we think that from the survey that Krueger did
in 1988, that actually we had one homeowner that was actually probably docked ,
off of the recreational lot that was the outlot. Because that survey seemed to
afford us about 12 to 15 more feet of frontage so I think at the time the
initial survey was done in 1982, I think there was more than 2 boats. I think
there was actually 3 boats and 2 docks on that property. I would just like to
say that we would be happy if we could keep our covenants and have 4 boats as we
planned in 1982 and we'd be happy with that. As far as the 1982 or 1991
ordinance, we don't really, like I said, we'd just be happy with what we had in
our covenants and the level that we were planning in 1981. that's all I have to
say. Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, on that line as the gentleman comes up. We get 1
into the discussion of city ordinance and covenants. Are we worried or dealing
with covenants tonight or are we dealing with city ordinance?
27 ,
•
1
II City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
II Roger Knutson: The City does not enforce covenants. Has no right or ability to
enforce them. We're concerned about ordinances.
Councilman Wing: Alright, so the fact that covenants'allowed them 20 boats is
1 irrelevant to us?
• f
Roger Knutson: 20 or 100 or none.
1 Councilman Wing: Okay.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir.
Mark Rogers: My name is Mark Rogers. I live at 3851 Leslee Curve. I'm the
Dock Chairman of the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association which is located on
I the west short of Lake Minnewashta at the intersection of Glendale and
Minnewashta Parkway. I believe the gentleman just referenced our beachlot.
This property was deeded to the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association in May of
I 1968, so we've been around for quite a while. Several of the other members of
this association are also here tonight to listen and participate. You've got
two versions of this amendment, ordinance rather in front of you. With a few
minor changes we would support the adoption of the 1991 version of the ordinance
1 as did the city planning staff for the Planning Commission meeting. The minor
changes are to, and I'll list them first so we can concentrate on the major
issue last. Are to strike the last sentence of paragraph (c) which essentially
I releases the city of liability in the event that notice is not given of the
hearing to the lake homeowners. And I would also want that notice to be
extended to the owners of the beachlots as this ordinance deals with primarily.
I It does not do that now. I'd also like to ask for later clarification of the
Section on violations, which in it's extreme could be fairly severe. Back to
the primary issue. The conditions of 1991 and 1982. We, and the city staff
originally support the 1991 version of the ordinance in contrast the
1 recommendation of the Planning Commission, because the intent of the ordinances
are very good. Basically to prevent the abuse of beachlots and the lake and the
neighboring lakeshore owners.. The 1991 version seems to provide fairness to all
and it allows the process to proceed much more quickly. The 1982 version I
believe will lead to disputes and protracted negotiation and possibly lawsuits
due to the admittedly relatively poor documentation of the 1982 conditions.
I've already tonight seen a couple of examples of where the documentation
II concerning the number of boats has varied dramatically. Pleasant Acres is a
well organized homeowners association. We police our beachlot well. We believe •
in cooperation with our neighbors and to my knowledge we have no outstanding or
1 prior complaints against our association. And I'd appreciate knowing if that's
not true. We maintain our beachlot very well, as again noted by the city staff
in it's inventories and with much pride as we recognize and enjoy it's value
I perhaps more than anyone. We are already limiting the number of boats and boat
access amongst our own members. Even now we have 11 people on the waiting list
with homes under construction and many more planned. Others certainly recognize
the value of this property also, most noteably real estate agents and property
1 - appraisers, as evidenced by the number of telephone calls I receive yearly on
what is the likelihood that a perspective buyer can have a boat down at the
beach and so on. In summary, rather than somewhat blindly attempt to recreate
1 the uncertain conditions of 1982 and much has changed since then. I'm not
certain what all has with regard to the lake and the boats but I know Chanhassen
1 28
•
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
certainly isn't the same city that it was in 1982 and neither was the lake. We
would recommend that the City focus on quality, responsibility and cooperation
and the 1991 version of the ordinance would seem to be the most consistent with
this goal.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else ?. 1
Mary Jo Moore: Good evening. My name is Mary Jo Moore. I live on Dartmouth
Drive in Chanhassen. I've been a resident of the Lake Minnewashta area for 12
years. I've been involved and very aware of the lake useage ordinance. I
studied it thoroughly. I've tried to control, my home is situated between two
recreational beachlots and I know that the Minnewashta Shores has always been
maintaining theirs. The other side does not maintain theirs and they said, when
I had proven documentation and the city had proven documentation of the number
of boats in 1982, they came to me and said, we'll just extend the dock and then
we can have more boats. I think that's a lot of times what these associations
are doing. They feel they can handle more boats so they extend the dock. The
lake can't handle the boats. The Associations can. This lake cannot do it.
It's unsafe out there now on weekends. And I stick with the '82 census,
which I've lived with and the others have and I think it was a good census.
They have the documentation. I have documentation. That's it. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? 1
Fill Finlayson: I don't have any prepared notes but I Bili„Finlayson from the
Minnewashta Beach Association. I'm the Beach Chairman there. It's interesting
to hear what the Pleasant Acres Beach Chairman goes through. I have the same
things happen with me. We have people coming into the neighborhood, we have
real estate agents calling us. Selling homes on contingency that they can have
a boat down there. The answer is always the same. You can't sell a home on a
contingency of you having a boat. We only work with a certain number of boats
in our Association. Minnewashta Heights Beach Association we feel is a well run 11 association. We're a well organized group. We do not have an overrun amount of
boats. Like I said, we work with a certain number and if that number is greater
than the number, than those people are actually thrown on a waiting list. We're
all concerned with the environment of the lake. I'm down there all the time. I
do not see that Minnewashta is an overused lake. It doesn't have the situation
that Minnetonka is for instance. The park acts as a turnstyle for boats to come
on and off that lake. They can't have more than the certain number that the
park allows. I think that's all I have to say. We are in favor of the 1991
part of this ordinance. If there must be an ordinance at all then we would go
with, be in favor of be able to work with the '91 version of that ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
John Merz: I'm John Merz and I live at 3900 Lone Cedar. I also am a member of
the Trolls Glen Homeowners Association and I probably do not represent the
majority view there. However, this issue is not necessarily just about Lake
Minnewashta. There are other lakes in this city that are impacted by this.
Minnewashta happens to be the largest and probably the most populated.but people
on the Council should indeed think about the water useage for the other lakes
involved here. The smaller the lake, the fewer number of boats it would take to
impact this useage. This isn't about Trolls Glen or any of the association ,
29 1
II City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
•
II beaches. It's really about what the Councilmembers have as a duty to protect
the environment for all the lakes in Chanhassen. I'm not going to belabor the
point. I think my viewpoints are pretty well known from previous appearances so
I'll just defer any further comment. Thank you.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Thanks John.
I Ivan Underdahl: Ivan Underdahl, 7502 West 77th. Member of the Trolls Glen
Homeowners Association. I would also speak in support of the 1991 baseline. I
guess in our particular situation, as far as number of boats, it wouldn't make a
great deal of different to the lake. It means going from 2 or 3 to 4. I guess
1 I wonder if the objective is to cut down on the number of boats on the lake or
that could use the lake. I'm not convinced that just number of boats determines
the amount of use either because some boats are, even though they're at a dock,
I they're seldom out on the lake and I'm speaking for myself in that regard.
Another point, and I don't know what bearing or effect it would have but this
ordinance you just passed earlier this evening where you are allowing a boat to
I be docked at private property with the owner's permission. Now I don't know how
many pieces of private property there are around the lake but suppose 15% of
them allowed another boat to be docked on their property. Isn't that going to
have an impact on the lake?
II Councilman Wing: Ivan, that ordinance that was passed affects you also. It
means that your son -in -law or brother -in -law or anybody can use your dock space.
I That's all it says with your permission. Everybody's numbers still stay the
same. That's irrelevant. It just says that you don't have...
Ivan Underdahl: Yeah but I guess what I'm saying is, maybe a property owner has
1 only one boat.
Councilman ding: Most of them do.
II Ivan Underdahl: He would allow 2 more.
I Councilman Wing: That's true.
Ivan Underdahl: That's the . oint I'm making.
g
1 Councilman Wing: That's right. The property owners can have 3 boats. That's
included.
II Ivan Underdahl: That's right. I understand that. And I guess even in that
regard, I find it difficult to accept I guess that a private property could have
more boats than a recreational beachlot. So I guess I would speak strongly in
II support of 1991 as a baseline, or perhaps some variations I think if it really
involves large numbers. But I think in our case I don't see that 4 boats
presents any problem.
II Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks. Anyone else?
Bob Hebeisen: My name is Bob Hebeisen. I've been a resident of Lake
I Minnewashta for 14 years. I don't have a homeowners association on either side
of me so I feel I'm a little bit impartial on this thing. But it just seems to
1 30
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
1
me that if we had an ordinance that was passed in 1982, I don't really
understand why we're going to chapge it in 1991. Then we look forward to
changing it again in the year 2000. I guess one of the questions I would throw
back is what provisions are there to enforce this? If I had 5 boats, which I
know is not legal on my dock right now, would that give me the right then to
continue that? I don't think so. It shouldn't. And I think if we had an
ordinance in place in 1982, I.think we should stick with it. Everybody thinks
it was a good ordinance in 1982, it should be a good ordinance in 1991. Thank
you. '
Dan Ament: My name is Dan Ament. I live in Pleasant Acres Addition. I've
lived there 10 years. I have had my boat on the lake in that time, the full
time. Obviously I think we were pretty well represented on how well our beach
area is kept and I guess when we moved to this area we moved there because there
was lake access. Obviously I can what everybody says. We want to
have it limited to so many boats on the lake. At the same time, I would like to
see Highway 5 limited to so many cars. Highway 7 limited to so many cars. You
know life goes on. We'd all like to move back to 1964. It was a great year but
we can't move back. You have to move forward and I think we have to take care
of all of, try to appease society as a whole and I think obviously in that we
have to make sure that everybody does their part to keep it up properly and keep
it clean and make sure our lake is you know, for our children. I think we have
FOMC people here who have their homes on the lake and they talk about having the
lake for their children. I think we all feel that way. We all want to have a
society for our children as well as for ourselves today. Thank you much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? '
Mark Rogers: First, just a note of clarification. You know the lake is graded
A as of 1991. The DNR's highest rating and it's one of the premium quality
lakes in the Twin Cities, even with the boat useage that was there in 1991. I
agree it can get busy but it does not get as busy as Minnetonka and th DNR is
still pushing to expand the use of that lake. So again it is a quality lake.
It's serving a good purpose to our society and it is more crowded than it was. I
imagine 10 -15 years ago, I wasn't here but it's still providing quality service
to the people that want to use it. Now the other item I eluded to earlier was
the violations part of the ordinance. I'm a little worried about this as it
says that each day of violation is considered a separate offense. Now if at the
end of the season someone comes to us and takes out a tape measurer and we set
one of our docks wrong, you know that's an entire season of misdemeanors that
could have accumulated against us. I think this is a little bit of unfair
treatment for some violations. We do not intend to violate any sections of this
ordinance should it be passed for our permit conditions but I think there'd be a
little bit more moderate way of dealing with that.
Tom Merz: Can anyone tell me the amount of additional boats that will, could be
allowed onto the lake if this was changed? Does anybody have that figure?
Mayor Chmiel: Something like 25 more or something.
Tom Merz: So we're not only going to take our boats from 115, 300 %. We could
go almost another 75% more. So we're going to go up to 400% of the allowed DNR
31 1
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
boat useage on that lake. I mean I don't know how all of us can sit here and
I/ say that the lake isn't abused.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's what you quoted in 1985, 115.
Tom Merz: Yes.
•
Pete Warhol: My name is Pete Warhol and I live at 3831 Leslee Curve and I've
lived in Pleasant Acres for 4 years and I've had a pontoon boat for 4 years.
And I mean, all of these boats aren't out at the same time. I mean I think the •
only day the lake's busy or overcrowded is on 4th of July when they have a
parade of boats around the lake and I just would like to say, I would like to go
with the 1991 staff recommendation. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else?
George Peters: My name is George Peters. I live in the Pleasant Acres section.
I'm on the list. I've been waiting on the list and I think I'll die before I
get a dock. So by the time I get my.
Mayor Chmiel: Don't think that way George.
r George Peters: By the time I get my boat in the water I'm too damn tired to
sail it. Then I have to sit there on the bench, get my breathe back and haul
the darn boat back home. I have gone over to the park to launch over there
because I find it's easier to launch. There's better launch pads there than we
have at our beach. There's been a lot of discussion mentioning impact. How
does the impact of the park come in? I've been a resident in Pleasant Acres now
for 7 years and I saw the park expand over there. I don't know how many spaces
you have over there but there's quite a few spaces between those two boat
launching sites. Now if all those were filled, plus every boat of a homeowner
or those that are fortunate enough to get a dock, plus all those who have their
boats trailered on their land, all get out on the 4th of July, we're going to
have problems. But I did want to bring up that one point and I'm a little
concerned about the impact of something like a park in addition to all the
homeowners.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to just address that because I was
involved in that. The park was a trade off and Tom Merz' committee addressed
that very directly. It's not unrestricted access. There are exactly 26 spots
for boats and when 26 comes in, the park closes. That was the number agreed
upon and the trade off was Leech's Resort closed down which brought up to 50
boats on a weekend and then all other public accesses on the lakes were closed
down at the same time so the lake was tighten up. All accesses closed down and
• there's a, in...there's a boat launch for, was under 10 or 15 horsepower but the
main power boats, the water ski type boats were limited to 26 parking places and
that's a total number on the lake so the impact on the park was predicated on
what the lake would handle on the 1982 boat count. That's Mr. Merz' argument
here is that there was something established at that time and again in 1986 that
directly impacted the park's ability to impact the lake. So that was clearly
defined and very restrictive.
1
1 32
•
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992 1
George Peters: Can I ask one question? The impact on the lake, is that judged
at all by horsepower or sailboats or is a boat a boat's as far as impact?
Councilman Wing: You'd have to address that Mr. Merz. I don't know.
Tom Merz: They don't differentiate. They have the guidelines and all they say
is riparian and non - riparian boat useage without any reference to the types of
boats. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Ivan Underdahl: I guess I would just say again, as_far as being crowded out on
the lake, seldom have I ever seen it crowded out on the lake. It could be some
weekends. I'm usually not out on the lake on the weekend but speaking of our
dock, where we've had 4 boats, never have I seen more than 1 boat away from that
dock at any one time either.
Terry Johnson: Terry Johnson, 3898 Lone Cedar. I would support the Planning
Commission's recommendation of the 1982 to be the baseline. Really the only
other point that I'd like to bring up is that I feel that 1982 has been what the
ordinance was set at for so many numbers of years and the people that have
expanded on that useage that they willingly knew was the ordinance and I know in
some instances the City Attorney has written letters to the people that had
expanded on that use. I have the feeling that you're rewarding the people that
have expanded that use and disobeyed the ordinance since 1982 and it seems
unfair to me to reward those people by giving them the right and making 1991 the
baseline which is of course an expanded use from the 1982 original ordinance.
Thank you. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Mary Jo Moore: If you'll give me one more minute. When this gentleman said i
that there's no impact on the lake. Prior to my time at Lake Minnewashta I was
10 years at Lotus Lake. When I moved out there it was a gentile, nice lake.
Very clean. I understand it is now one way and on a freeway if you get too many
cars, the Department of Transportation comes out and they survey it and they put
a couple more lanes in. We can't do that with our lakes. We've got what we've
got. There's no more and that's what we need as protected. And I'd hate to be
on Lotus Lake right now and have to go one way. If I had to go home quickly,
I'd have to go all the way around the lake to get back there so it does make a
big impact with the number of boats.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If not I'll bring it back to Council. Are there
any other further discussions? Richard, why don't we start with you.
Councilman Wing: Of course I live on Lake Minnewashta and I've been there for
27 years and so I've seen a lot of changes. I participate in the disc test for
clarity and I'm on the County Dive Team and I can say that Minnewashta in the
last 10 years has deteriorated. The disc tests have gotten considerably worst.
It's still an A rated lake but we're not assisting it. Milfoil has come on the
lake now. The lake's being used and as somebody that's been very active on the
lake, clearly it's becoming more used. Weekdays, weekday evenings, weekdays.
Weekends are of course the issue. I've talked to some of the gentlemen from
33 1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
these associations just Sunday, Saturday and Sunday. I was sitting here just
vacillating back and forth on trying to decide what's fair and what's best. I
was able to talk to Mr. Merz this morning and get the history of this and why we
did what we did and what has occurred and the decisions that were made by
previous Councils. I started to say, boy what are we doing here. I've got a
100 foot lot and I have one power boat. Last year I had a friend keep another
boat there but I go up and down my shoreline, we've got all these 100 foot lots
and Mr. Hebeisen I think has one boat and Mr. Merz has one boat. John Merz I
11 think has two boats. And so I started comparing that lake useage and intensity
with my next door neighbors in Minnewashta Heights and again, I don't want...
anybody but the heights has I think 50 feet. I'm not sure what the frontage is
11 but 50 feet with 12 boats and I looked on the list here tonight with Pleasant
Acres, they had I think 150 feet and they've got 17 boats. Trolls Glen has 65
feet and they want 4 boats and I'm starting to see an incredible intensity here
that we really didn't plan on at any point. And one of the comments on the
Planning Commission was, yeah you have a lot of boats but you were never
entitled to them in the first place so there's really no argument here if we
went back to 1982. The documentation issue comes in and there I see some room
for negotiation. So I guess in all fairness to everybody, if we go to 1991, it
allows Trolls Glen to have tripled. Or the Pleasant Acres to have tripled where
we're only going to allow Trolls Glen to double. That doesn't make sense. If
one can triple, I guess the other one can triple. So I don't see any fairness
here unless we start back at point one and justify 1982 and then move forward if
we have to and then staff has to negotiate and justify their position, that's
fine. But it puts the burden on the property owner then. And .7 guess it comes
-down to you Roger. What is your opinion as to what's fair and just here and
what is the City's position?
Roger Knutson: The only advantage staff has identified and I have identified in
the 1991 baseline is ease in documentation. That's the advantage it has. It's
easier to figure out what was there in 1991 than back in 1982. The disadvantage
with the 1991 baseline is it rewards folks or associations that have ignored
your rules. There is a certain unfairness about that. Some people, I don't
know anyone personally, probably very knowingly violated the rules. Maybe some
of them unknowingly but you're creating an amenisty program in saying let by-
gones be by -gones and we'll just start with what's out there in 1991. On
balance it seems to me, although there is some adminstrative convenience in
going to 1991, even if we agree on 1991, I imagine we'll be getting into some
arguments over what was there... It will be a little bit more difficult
adminstratively than the summer of '82 but I think that's a problem we can
handle and we'll deal with it on a case by case basis the best we can. I think
on balance, I frankly don't see much advantage in going with the 1991 baseline.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, just one additional comment then. I was determined
tonight to shut myself off from this and just try and listen and be very
objective and if I'm just picking up on tonight, the issues that were brought
up, I heard too much of me and I and today and what I want and what's best for
me. What I want to do is look to the future to the lake. The lake useage and
the environment because I see that as the issue. And if I separate those two
out, 1991 has got too much me today and the 1982 is addressing the issue of the
environment and the lake use. I guess just tonight that's where I'm finding
myself winding up here. -
34
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Before I start I'd like to ask a couple of
questions. Was Pleasant Acres there in 1982 Richard? So they'd have a
baseline. 1
Mark Rogers: It was formed in May of '68.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Are there any other developments that have come in
since 1982 that would not have been?
Mark Rogers: I know for a fact we had at least 7 boats there in 1982. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: What I'm asking is, are there any more developments that
are going to have lake rights that are not here right now? '
Paul Krauss: Yes, but they've all come under the ordinance as it exists since
1982. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: They come under the existing ordinance? But that will be
an expanded use of approximately 25 boats did I hear?
Paul Krauss: No. We don't know what could happen.
Councilwoman Dimler: You don't know what that will be? Okay. So expansion is
inevitable is what, is that correct?
Paul Krauss: In all probability, on some of the lakes there will be additional
beachlots.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, good. Also, it was my understanding that in 1991
staff took a video of all the non - conforming uses so you would have good ,
documentation for 1991 which is not true for 1992?
Kate Aanenson:. Correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, with that information I guess, also I would like to
know why this is before us again today. Could you explain that a little bit?
Kate Aanenson: When the ordinance was passed in 1982 there was existing non-
conforming beachlots. What happened is nobody went out and took an inventory of
what they had so as far as the complying basis, we have no baseline to say what
was in place and give them, I won't say a permit. A non - conforming permit to
say this is what you can have and you can't go beyond that. So because of that
they've continued to expand. What we're trying to do is to give them a permit
that says you can have this number of boats so when" we get a complaint we can go
out and enforce it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and this didn't come before us again because of the '
lawsuit for Trolls Glen then?
Kate Aanenson: No.
35
11
II ' City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
I Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. I just wanted to establish that. I guess my
viewpoint is that I don't favor goingsback in time so I would go with the 1991
baseline because it's easier, it is already documented and I think the 1982 may
be hard to verify and I think there'd be a lot of disputes. It would intensify
1 the struggle that's out there. As far as the Trolls Glen area is concerned, we
got the Minutes here from their meeting dated 6 -6 -81 which indicates that even
in 1981 they were at 4 and I would guess that, you might say the covenants won't
I/ stand up in court but I belong to the Sunrise Hills Civic Association which is
on Lotus Lake and we did take our covenants to court and they prevailed so
courts do have a real respect for covenants. Roger, would you agree with that?
11 Roger Knutson: Oh absolutely. My earlier comment was, not in response to that
question. The question as I understood it was, is the city in the business of
enforcing covenants? No, it's not. But the covenants can be, they can be
II valid. Oh yes. Definitely. That's why they're there.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, and they do stand up in court because our's has been
tested. So even if we went with the 1982, I can't see that that would resolve
the situation with the Trolls Glen. To me they're even with 1982 they're at 4
so I have no problems with that. I do have a concern, the safety issue has been
II brought up several times so I would guess, if there's been problems with skiers
dropping and so forth, which I have heard, I would be real concerned that the
City does have a responsibility to go out and check and see if all the required
setbacks are being met with docks and with swimming rafts because I can see that
I to be a real danger. I did have Scott check into the police records to see if
any unsafe incident had been recorded and he informs me that there is none on
record. So I guess even with the high useage that I'm hearing about, it is
I relatively safe. Also, I think that construction is inevitable and it's going
to be expanded and I think these properties also have a right to use the lake. I
did talk to Mr. Johnson today and after much pleasant discussion we ended up our
conversation with agreeing that although we would both like to see Chanhassen
stop development as it is today, we both realize that that's unrealistic and I
told him that if I had taken that approach 17 years ago, that once I'm in no
more, that many of you wouldn't be here today. 'So I guess I'm open to looking
II at things gracefully and growing and having a balance so I would favor the 1991.
Councilman Mason: I guess I see the issues as being basically environrhental.
Where as I agree we can't control what goes down Highway 5 or Highway 7, I think
we can control what happens to the lakes in our city. Being on the Surface
Water Management Team or whatever you want to call it, we're constantly dealing
with those kinds of problems. I live 6 -7 blocks away from Lotus and it's the
II pits. It's the pits on the weekends. It is one way. There's a beach there. I
won't take my kids there to swim unless it's a Wednesday at 9:00 because it's
just, it isn't safe. Now certainly Minnewashta is not at that position. I
think from the City's standpoint it would be easier, while as I understand the
difficulty with going back to 1982, I think it would be easier to negotiate
upward than it would be to negotiate downward. If we accept 1991, that's it and
II those are the boats that are in there. And while I certainly agree progress is
inevitable, I think hopefully in Chanhassen we're structuring it in a way that
we have progress but we also need to be aware of what's going on-around us. I'm
not sure what, in my mind, what rights non - riparian lot owners have. I mean
1 clearly we have these beachlots and there will be boats on them and that's fine.
With what I see happening to the lakes in this area, I would just as soon see
36
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
the 1982 ordinance. I think it was, I forget who said it earlier. The
ordinance was made in '82. We change it in '92. What happens in 2002? Maybe
something needs to be changed. I think that's kind of a drastic change to
accept the 1991. I would support the 1982. I also think that there will be
some negotiating to see what boats can go.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I think really basically what you said is sort of the
position that I'm coming from as well. Environmentally there are a lot of
concerns with the lake, and that's the number one issue. That's what we have to
look at and of course we found some. But I too feel that having those
restrictions back in 1982 probably was a good establishment and probably some
good thought put into what has developed on that lake. Overcrowding is, as some
said there's a lot of boats across that lake. You can almost on the 4th of July
or probably some other times that you could almost feel like you can walk across
the lake because of total numbers and that's not right either. Improvement to
the lake is not going to be there if that continues and will cause some
additional problems with additional boats. Again, looking back from '82 to '91,
being that there are establishments made by staff with numbers per se, it'd be
sort of nice to reach a happy medium but you don't know what that happy medium
is. Because everybody should have that opportunity to use the lake but not
abuse it. I think that's what it really boils down to. I guess I would just
sit back and see what the motion by Council to see where we're going to go with
this. You know it's not the easiest thing to tell people what to do or how to
do it. Especially when they're entitled to use that lake. With that I'll just
sort of throw it back open for any other discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make another comment here that the
DNR restrictions have been brought up and I find the DNR is a wonderful
organization but they frequently contradict themselves in the fact that they
always are pushing for public landings on the lakes and the attitude is that the
lake belongs to everybody. And then on the other hand, restricting the boat
useage, sometimes it doesn't make any sense and that's one reason why I tend not
to put heavy emphasize on that.
Councilman Mason: I guess I disagree with you on that Ursula. I think, I'm
sorry. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just finish?
Councilman Mason: I'm sorry. I thought you were done. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you, no. And the other issue that I'd like to see
addressed is the violation and I thought maybe Roger could address that. The
gentleman that had the concern about the violation.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael. t
Councilman Mason: I think by limiting, I think you could make an argument that
by limiting the useage you do allow everyone to use it. Because with a set
number, I mean that's the way it is and there's overuse and there's use. I'm
not going to deny what you're saying about how State agencies can have a way.of
making things more difficult.
37
1
II City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
II Councilwoman Dimler: I guess and the other point is, you know it's only a
couple days a year. Maybe Memorial Day, and even if that, or 4th of July where
there is heavy useage. So to me I'm thinking does it justify those two days?
II Councilman Wing: That's an assumption.
Councilman Mason: It sets a precedent though I think.
II Councilman Wing: That lake isn't heavily used on 4th of July and Memorial Day.
It's used every evening it's hot. Not used on cold days and it's not used in
II the fall but it's certainly used during the nice weather of the summer.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but not overused. I'm talking about overuse.
II Councilman Wing: How do we define that and at what point do you want to cut off
the number of boats here? We've expanded, expanded, expanded. Where do we
stop?
II Councilwoman Dimler: I call overuseage when you can't navigate comfortably.
There's too many boats and you feel that your direction is being threatened
somehow. You can't have a skier. Then I would say probably too heavily used.
I Councilman Wing: Why in the last 10 years has the water clarity dropped almost
4 feet? Why doesn't the dive team even use Minnewashta anymore? What devotes
II it, I'm all for it. If the argument came down to it, I would mote than happy to
.give up my boats and have canoes and sailboats because I know what my power boat
emits into that lake. There's no question about it and there's a lot of it
going in there. So the more boats, the more gasoline'and oil's in the lake. I
just don't know where to draw the line. We tried to do that in 1982.
Councilwoman Dimler: The other thing that I see that I'm also on the Water
II Surface Management and I see our purpose as being there is to control water
_quality. That's my main purpose of being there. And the reason we're trying to
have a good quality of water is for recreational purposes so that we can fish,
I we can ski, we can canoe, we can do all those things. So I guess I come at it
from the other approach that which proceeds what there? That's the reason for
having clear water is for recreational purposes. Otherwise why would we bother?
II Councilman Mason: Agreed. Of course, I'm a canoeist. Not a power boatist so,
but that's.
II Councilwoman Dimler: I'm both so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With the discussion that we've had, is there anyone that
I would care to make a motion?
Councilman Mason: Before I do that, is it an option to, and maybe this is
opening such a big can of worms that throw it out. If so, so be it. Is it an
II option to go with 1982 knowing that there will be some type of negotiation with
each association?
Councilwoman Dimler: You're opening a can of worms. .
I
1
II 38
II
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
•
11
Councilman Mason: I understand that. I understand that.
Paul Krauss: In my opinion I think that's exactly what you'd be doing by going 1
with 1982. We've always had the assumption that we're dealing with some
information. We're going to have to rely on them to give us some information
and the Planning Commission and youselves will have to ultimately decide what is
fair. I mean if we had 3. boats in 1982 and they maintain that there were 5 and
they just weren't on the lake the afternoon we were there, I don't know how we
could disprove that too well.
Councilman Wing: I think some are documented and some aren't. I think there is
some gray area Roger and is that tolerable?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that 1991 can be disputed.
Roger Knutson: If I can just comment. So no one's under misapprehension if you
go with the 1982 baseline or whatever you decide. When you say negotiation
under this ordinance, if someone comes in and says we have x boats there. I'll
make up a number, we had 5 boats there and our best information says there was 3
and there's no other information, then you have to make your best judgment on
what was actually out there. But if someone comes in and we can know they had
only one boat there and they want to negotiate it up to 6, there is not kind of
flexibility when the ordinance was drafted. The negotiation process is in
determining what was actually there in 1982 to the best of our ability.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do feel though that we are really putting staff in a lot
of jeopardy by going with the 1982. It will be a lot of staff time and be a lot
of tax dollars spent to try to verify that. 1991 is cleaner. Easier. Maybe
that's what we need to look at.
Mayor Chmiel: I think if everyone were to come in with actual, factual and not
add a couple one or two to it, I think we'd come out alright. If everybody was
as truthful as they could possibly be. And I think we've got some back
information here showing what they've been back in 1981. 1982 as they've
indicated. And some of those have gone up from that particular point. Some
didn't have any. As we go through more of these, it just automatically shows
how many boats have been moored on each of these locations. But I think too, I 11
go back to what I just said before.
Councilman Mason: One point I wanted to make earlier and I didn't. It does
seem to me, if we approved the '91 one, we are essentially saying we know, we 1
suspect, excuse me. We suspect that some people knowingly violated the
ordinance and we're saying so what. I have trouble with that. I don't think
that's right. Because that isn't fair to everyone else. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Well no it isn't but you know, a gracious.spirit grants
amnesty. We did it with the military during the Vietnam.
Councilman Mason: Well put Councilwoman Dimler. Well put. I don't feel
gracious on this one.
• _
39
•
1
II City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Councilman Wing: I wish you would have been more at the variance hearing
earlier.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think discussion has been done.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I do have one more concern and that is that if staff is to
deal with them on a one to one basis, I do have a concern about the Trolls Glen
one since that was a court case that was thrown out and basically the city was
to decide. From what I understand, the judge threw it back to us to decide and
now we're letting staff decide so those people have gone through the process
over and over and over again and still no decision.
Mayor Chmiel: True. True. But I think being reasonable with something of that
nature, I think that can be.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we just direct staff in what to do in that case?
Kate Aanenson: Do you want to take that one first, is that what you're asking?
Councilwoman Dimler: Because I assume the Judge wanted us to make the decision.
Kate Aanenson: I think what the Judge said, they didn't exhaust their
administrative remedies and they had to proceed through this process first
before they could go further in court.
Councilwoman Dimler: So do you feel comfortable making that decision?
' Paul Krauss: Well we wouldn't be, you would.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know we're just throwing it to you.
Kate Aanenson: We're going to just research it and come up with the best facts
and present it to the Planning Commission and then they'll come up with a
recommendation and then pass that recommendation onto you.
' Councilwoman Dimler: So it comes right back to us?
Councilman Mason: So it comes back to us one way or the other.
Kate Aanenson: Each one, we'll proceed with all 13 of them and maybe take a
' couple at a time.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's acceptable.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'm still looking for a motion.
Ivan Underdahl: Can I just ask a question? If they come up one at a time, or
whatever and all property owners on the lake have to be notified prior to the
application being considered?
Mayor Chmiel: Paul? Roger?
11
' 40
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Ivan Underdahl: I thought there was something in the documents that all
property owners on the lake where the matter arises have to be notifed in
advance that this is going to be considered.
Kate Aanenson: It does say that.
Roger Knutson: What the ordinance provides is that a 10 days mailed_ notice be
given to all owners of property on the lake that the beachlot is located.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. In and adjacent to the beachlot. Not all property owners?
Roger Knutson: All property owners on the lake that the beachlot is located.
Paul Krauss: We should clarify that too. We don't know who's got covenant
rights beyond the lakeshore homeowners. We mail notice to the President of
the beachlot association but we don't know who the members of that association
are. Now if we will get lists of their members, we can try to notify them as
well. Otherwise we don't know who they are.
Ivan Underdahl: But as I understand it, that means all property owners around
the lake. Not necessarily just recreational beachlot owners.
Roger Knutson: That's correct. 1
Paul Krauss: That's true.
Ivan Underdahl: So think of all that paperwork.
Roger Knutson: We do it all the time.
Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately, it's one of those things. I agree.
Resident: My point was, when it goes to the Association officers and then they 1
take care of all the members that's in the Association.
Mayor Chmiel: What we do is we look at whoever gets the tax statement.
Assuming it's the beachlot association that gets the tax statement, whoever gets
the tax statement will get a notice.
Resident: In this case it's the property owners...
Mary Jo Moore: It's no longer separately taxed... Each owner is taxed.
Councilwoman Dimler: Our's is exempt. Sunrise Hills is exempt.
Roger Knutson: Whoever gets the tax statement. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. It goes to every homeowner in the association.
Mark Rogers: It should but it doesn't. The mailings do not do that. • 1
Roger Knutson: Whoever the owner of record is and there won't be 70 owners of
record for an Association.
41 1
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
I Ivan Underdahl: And will the cost of all that mailing be the City's cost?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
' Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately.
Councilman Wing: But it's not a yearly cost. It's a one time cost.
Kate Aanenson: We need to establish a fee as a part of this. We had decided
that we talked about putting a fee in when they come in for their permit
process. That was one of the issues that was brought up before.
Mary Jo Moore: Excuse me, can I ask a question? Will the City accept
documentation from the people who have it from 1982 as to the number of boats?
Paul Krauss: We'll accept anything to look at. Whether we make our
recommendation on that or not we'll have to submit it.
Mary Jo Moore: No, but I mean when you were saying you wanted to go back to
1982, would you accept documentation?
Paul Krauss: Sure. That's the reason why we'd notify everybody, .even beyond
the beachlot homeowners. If you have documentation you want us to look at, we'd
be happy to.
' Councilwoman Dimler: The point is there will be disputes amongst associations
and you'll have to settle that apparently.
Kate Aanenson: She keeps saying we.
Paul Krauss: No, you will.
•
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you comfortable with that?
Councilman Mason: It will come back to us I think.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Their recommendation though. _
1 Bill Finlayson: Violation of the 1982 ordinance, beachlots have been allowed to
grow past the 1982 numbers. There was never any permits issued giving beachlots
a specific number of boats in 1982. How could they violate something they
didn't know what number they were working with? I mean I don't understand what
this violation is or how that can be a violation.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? In 1982 the City passed an ordinance that required
anyone who wanted to establish a recreational beachlot to come in and get a
permit from the city. Beachlots that existed as of that date, as the date the
ordinance was passed, had the right to continue but they did not have the'right
to expand. Any expansion of that use is illegal unless they came in and got a
II permit from the City. So you were frozen as of 1982.
' 42
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992 '
Bill Finlayson: Somewhere it is written down that Minnewashta Heights has a
certain amount of boats that the>'had to work with in 1982? '
Roger Knutson: The City went out and did an inventory in 1982 and now this
ordinance is passed, the process will be fixed right now to determine what was
actually there in 1982.
Bill Finlayson: That's one thing we've never been, I've never seen and have
felt at a disadvantage that I never have not been able to know which number I'm 1
actually working with. What is the 1982 numbers?
Roger Knutson: Which beachlot?
Mayor Chmiel: Minnewashta Heights,
Bill Finlayson: For Minnewashta Heights. '
Roger Knutson: According to the inventory that was taken in 1981, 6 boats were
docked there in 1981. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: One more question?
Mayor Chmiel: One more question. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: On the Sunrise Hills beachlot here, I see that in 1981 we
did not have a portable toilet and in 1991 we did and that was with the change
in our ordinance. Does that mean they would lose the portable toilet then if we
go back to 1982? Because this is a non-conforming..
Kate Aanenson: They came in separately for a conditional use. They met the ,
criteria.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call a question. ,
Councilman Mason: I will make a motion. We don't have one on the floor do we?
Mayor Chmiel: No, no.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a motion leaving the ordinance to stand with
the 1922 guidelines knowing full well that there will be some further
discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there a second? ,
Councilman Wing: Well like Mr. Emmings said, he wasn't popular but I'll second
it. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Mark Rogers: A question? '
Mayor Chmiel: We're voting.
43
r
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
' Mark Rogers: I understand that but you haven't addressed a couple of my
questions and Ursula brought them up.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I did bring that up.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
' Councilwoman Dimler: For Roger to address the violations.
Roger Knutson: The purpose of, what you have in this ordinance is the same
thing you have that's applicable to every other provision of the City Code.
Actually this violation provision wasn't even necessary. It's already in the
City Code but the Planning Commission and staff felt it better to point it out
to everyone so they realize the seriousness of it. In eforcing the zoning
ordinance, we're not out to get blood from people. Punish people. We're out to
get compliance. We have never, ever without a warning that I can ever recall
since I've been here, cited someone criminally for violating the zoning
ordinance unless it was just appalling. I can't recall such a situation, until
we've sent them a letter say hey, we find you in non - compliance. Get in
compliance. And if they thumb their nose at us and they ignore us and don't get
into compliance, then we cite them criminal. Otherwise we would not do so.
It's not our policy.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good.
' _ Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the first reading of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing requirements that Non - Conforming
Recreational Beachlots obtain a Non - Conforming Use Permit using the 1982
guidelines. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who opposed and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
' Roger Knutson: Mayor, just so I can point out. This is the first reading. For
first reading you only need a simple majority but obviously for the final
reading you'll need 4 votes.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Thank you for coming.
' APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY UPGRADE; AUTHORIZE
ADVERTISING FOR BIDS, PROJECT 90 -15.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. The most current engineers
estimate for this project is estimated to be $2.1 million. This is consistent
with the preliminary estimates that were presented at the time of the
feasibility study. Presently we are working to accomplish some of the
' • housekeeping items such as construction easement acquisition, agency permit
approvals and roadway annexation from Victoria. The project schedule at this
point calls for an award of contract on March 23, 1992. A consultant staff
intend to make every effort to maintain open communication on the project,
particularly as it relates to boulevard slope matching and tree removal
replacement. In fact a neighborhood meeting was held January 22, 1992 to
present and discuss these project plans with the neighborhood and this.meeting
was a very, very positive meeting. One last item, as.a part of MnDot's State
Aid approval process, they're requesting that the Council pass a formal
44
1
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
resolution designating Minnewashta Parkway as no parking on both sides of the
street pending the completion of the project. So at this point it is therefore
recommended that the plans and specifications for Minnewashta Parkway
improvement project 90 - 15 be approved. That authorization be given to advertise
for bids and that the roadway be signed no parking following completion of the
project.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. So moved.
Councilman Mason: Just one question. Why does it have to be no on street
parking?
Charles Folch: That's based on the road width that, we have for the roadway. 32
foot curb to curb would be a no parking designation.
Councilman Mason: Okay. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Is there parking there now that would be something that
the residents are enjoying that's going to be taken away? 1
Charles Folch: That I'm not aware of.
Mayor Chmiel: I've not really seen any cars ever on there as many times as I've
gone by. I don't know about you Richard. I've never seen them out there.
Councilman Mason: I was just curious. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't see anyone here to address it so.
Mayor Chmiel: I moved it. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution #92 -22: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
plans and specifications for the Minnewashta Parkway Improvement Project No.
90 -15, authorize the advertisement for project bids and Resolution #92 -22A:
adoption of a resolution instituting a "No On- Street Parking" restriction on
both sides of Minnewashta Parkway. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I'd like to get an addendum to the.
Councilwoman Dimler: So moved. Agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Agenda. It's getting late. I'd like to move to item
11 and get the resolution adopting a redistricting plan.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to amend the agenda to consider
item 11 at this point. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
45
•
1
Cit/ Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A REDISTRICTING PLAN.
' Mayor Chmiel: Who is going to be that lucky one? Mr. Ashworth.
Don Ashworth: Well, the real one that will answer questions for you will be
Jean because she had prepared the map that you have and thank you for moving the
item up so that Jean can leave. I was really disappointed because the precinct
' work that Jean had completed before I really thought was the best. We followed
the school district boundaries and people generally know what school district
they're in. It created a nice, clean lines. It would have been easy to put
into the newspaper. When people call in. Unfortunately the new guidelines and
accordingly we couldn't use it. It has to follow physical features. Shoreline
of a lake, a road, etc. and again think Jean has tried to look at it in terms
of quality as well as those distinguishable lines. Therefore oh, I should note.
' Because I use that example with the Carver Beach Road as an example where you go
in and out of three different precincts and then I went back and asked Jean to
kind of relook at that. She agrees that we should modify and have Carver Beach
' Road represent the boundary. There's still going to be three different
precincts but you'll end up, if you're on the north or east side of Carver Beach
Road, being in Precinct No. 1. If you're north of, and I don't even know what
the road is. If you're south and west of Carver Beach Road you would be in
Precinct No. 4. And then again, properties along Carver Beach Road, south of
whatever the...would be 2.
I Councilman Mason: So you're just telling me my polling place just changed?
Don Ashworth: Probably. Actually the reason Jean has it in this fashion is it
does parallel the school boundary lines in that area. So you've got a couple of
' choices. The old one used to be Carver Beach Road. That was the dividing line
in that area for the existing precincts. As shown, following the school
district lines. And if you want to remaintain that Carver Beach Road as one,
then you draw your line down the center.
Councilman Mason: By changing the line to, I mean nothing would change. Leaving
' it the way it is now, nothing changes for the people in Carver Beach right?
Jean Meuwissen: That's right.
' Councilman Mason: So what's the advantage to changing that on Carver Beach Road
then?
11 Don Ashworth: This is going to be crazy because somehow we're going to have to,
you said that they will mail it, the County Auditors agreed to mail everyone a
notice as to what precinct they're in?
' Jean Meuwissen: And where they will vote.
Don Ashworth: I can imagine somebody calling in and saying well I live in the
Carver Beach area. I'm not quite sure what road it is but what precinct am I
in?
Councilman Mason: Well, if you do it down Carver Beach, if you change it to
Carver Beach Road, Carver Beach is going to be in two different precincts. Now
' 46
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
it's just in one precinct. The Carver Beach area. Not Carver Beach Road. If
you change that line to go down Carver Beach Road, my side of Carver Beach will
be in Precinct 4 and down in Pawnee and Mohawk and what not, will be in Precinct
1, if I read this correctly.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. • '
Councilman Mason: And I would almost think that might create more confusion
than what's there now.
Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point you're probably right but. I think what
they've done is proportionally tried to have numbers within each of those
precincts and trying to get as close as they possibly can. I know I've moved
from Precinct 2 to Precinct 5. Before we go to Chan Elementary and now we go to
Public Works. That's going to con 'fuse people as well.
Jean Meuwissen: Actually I'd prefer to leave the line the way it is because it
leaves everyone in the Minnetonka School District in one precinct. And if you
ha4e a school election at the same time you have a regular election... ,
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I guess just for that reason I'd go along with Jean on
that one. I'd just as soon not change it. Because that will. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Because yeah, if you go straight on.
Jean Meuwissen: It involves 125 people. '
Mayor Chmiel: Lake Lucy Road as well? You've got that split there right? Much
of that to the north of Lake Lucy Road is in Minnetonka School District. '
Jean Meuwissen: ...any good way to do it otherwise.
Don Ashworth: I don't know if Al has seen this. '
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he's seen it.
Don Ashworth: I know he had the old one and I think he supported the old one.
Mayor Chmiel: Whatever.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess population wise this is, there's some discrepancy
but you're looking for growth in those areas right?
'Mayor Chmiel: Review areas some time. Al, did you take a look at?
Al Klingelhutz: I took a look at the original one that the County got down
there...the way Jean had it the first time. I don't know if it makes any
difference in that most western districts at this time... They're still going
to be, put us over the equal number of people...I think Jean tried every effort.
The original one, according...because it put the bigger Chanhassen district
below the people population and you...one way or the other. Where the way it is
now, put us right on or a little above it. In 10 years from now with the growth
we're having, we'll probably have the same 'circumstances we've got today...
47
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
11
Today in my district I've got about 33% of the people in Carver County... And
I I'm supposed to have one - fifth. With this new plan is satisfactory to the
County...
Mayor Chmiel: Do you happen to have one of the last ones that we had Jean? Do
11 you have one handy from our previous?
Jean Meuwissen: Yeah, I think I have one upstairs.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it went from 7 to 6.
II Don Ashworth: See the old one kind of had the split across representing the two
school districts but we don't have any physical features to go across
Minnewashta or Lotus.
II Councilwoman Dimler: I never saw the old one so I don't know.
Mayor Chmiel.: We had 7 districts as opposed to 6.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, precincts.
II May- - Chmiel I should say precincts.
Councilwoman Dimler: And this doesn't really have anything to do with how the
commissioner districts will be for does it?
I Jean Meuwissen: Yes it does.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Would you explain that? `
Al Klingelhutz: It has a lot to do with it because Chanhassen actually will be
in two commission districts in the future. Two of equal population. The
���e•st.e:n district, it looks like we'll be going with Victoria and Laketown
township and then down to Chaska.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay.
Mayor Chr;icl: The western portion you said Al?
II Jean Meuwissen: Precinct 6.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That would go.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And then the rest of the 5 precincts would. be
another commissioner district?
II Al Klingelhutz: That would be commission district 1 at the present time.
II Mayor Chmiel: Let's move it.
Councilman Mason: Well I'll move acceptance of the Precinct Boundaries as
stand.
1
II 48
II
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? 1
Resolution #92 -23: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the resolution entitled "A Resolution Designating Election Precincts for
Future Elections ". All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard, do you want to be included in this one? '
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, which one?
Mayor Chmiel: Redistricting. Okay. Do you want to be included in that? 1
Councilman Wing: Yes sir, I have no problems with it. I'd like to see my area
with more people in it but that's okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we might get you one or two more. You're probably going to
ha-o two more spaces on the lake. '
A. RECEIVE REPORT ON SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN FACILITIES IN MUSA EXPANSION
AREA, PROJECT 91 -12.
B. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TRUNK SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
UPPER BLUFF CREEK AREA; CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, PROJECT 91 -17.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's take each individual one on that and Charles.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Briefly we have two related
reports to present to you tonight. The first involves a study on the trunk
utility needs for the municipal urban service area expansion. This presentation
will follow more of an executive summary if you will pending the completion of
the comprehensive sanitary sewer policy plan and the comprehensive water supply
and distribution plan which are expected to be completed in May of this year.
The project consultant engineer Mr. Robert Schunicht of Bonestroo is here
tonight to elaborate more on this MUSA study. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the question I had, just a quick one. The items such as
the 5 lift stations, the forcemains and future wells that we have to look at.
Are all these items figured into the cost per unit acre?
Robert Schunicht: Yes. Yes. Really what we do with these comments, water
supply plans and comprehensive sewer policy plans is take a look at the whole 1
- system. Everything that you need to build systems completely to serve
saturation development in the city of Chanhassen. So we laid out that whole
system for both the sanitary sewer and the watermain system. Estimated those
costs and as we'll get into a little bit later, we determined the rates you need
to charge for those systems and those are the rates you heard talked about in
the public hearing on the Lake Riley Hills area. Is there another question or
should I cover this?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
49
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Robert Schunicht: Well as Charles mentioned, we finished these two studies. We
finished basically the design and the cost estimate and we're able to present
some information to you tonight and as I mentioned, cover saturation development
in the entire city of Chanhassen for the sewer system and water system and to j
put that in perspective. That means that you can serve up to a population of
40,000 people with your sewer system and your water system. Just briefly some
major features of the sanitary sewer system. We were able to get an additional
3 million gallons capacity...system over in Eden Prairie. That means it would
almost take complete saturation of development in the city of Chanhassen in the
MWCC system and they think that we can tweak this, when we get to the point 20
years down the line, they think the system can be tweaked and adjusted so it can
get the additional capacity. Basically they're thinking it's no problem of
Chanhassen being completely served with sewer capacitx in the existing
facilities they have over in Eden Prairie. We've got what we call a'permanent
' Upper Bluff Creek lift station. Additional capacity allows you to take
basically everything north of future TH 212, build a lift station for it and be
assured that you have permanent capacity for that in the MWCC facilities. And
1 then we've got also permanent capacity for the Riley Lake area and we've also
laid out the systems to take everything in the Lower Bluff Creek area...bring
that out into the Metropolitan Waste Control facility system. That essentially
is the most expensive system you might have to deal with to provide sewer
service for the City of Chanhassen, So again, what we're doing is looking for
making :sure you can cover the costs and costs for the facilities. The watermain
system has some major features too. The dual clustered well field. You have a
well field right now on the south end of Lotus Lake. You have a "well field over
.on Galpin Road just west of Lake Ann. We're expanding those to provide dual
cluster...system and you have two aquafir sources for safety. They're spread
' apart so again the same consideration. But we clustered them to some extent so
in case you want to put a treatment in at some future date, you can easily do
that... We've expanded the high pressure zone. That's the zone that serves the
school up in the north end of town. We brought that down a little bit from the
II north.end to serve some of the high areas around TH 41 and Galpin Road. We
proposed a reservoir out in the industrial area on TH 41 that will serve the
industrial area along TH 5. Also a connection out to Minnewashta will enable
you to provide better water service out there which has been a goal all along of
the city. We've also proposed a reservoir on Lyman Blvd.. That's to serve the
area south of Lyman Blvd. so as the MUSA area expands to the south, you'll be
able to take care of the water system needs down there. The needs that the area
north of Lyman Blvd. can be completed served and developed and,not have...
Mayor Chmiel: How many dead ends would we have on this? And how do we solve
11 the problems of sometimes having water problems such as impurities or whatever
because of not total amount of total circulation through this system?
Robert Schunicht: What you'll have when you get done with this system is a
looped system. It loops trunks...12 inch and above. You'll have to deal with
looping on the lateral...development and stuff like that between cul -de -sacs and
stuff like that. You'll still have all those questions that come up when you
I dead end. You loop them around another cul -de -sac. This will be a complete
looped system. The major...and all the well fields so one main is down, you
should be able to by - pass and get water... And one of the features that we •
talked about and mentioned to Chaska in their connection. Chaska has a
different water supply and aquafir than Chanhassen and by connecting Chaska to
{
' 50
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
the Chanhassen system we can supply either system very easily in an emergency
condition with one of three aquafirs so really it's a safety feature. It's also
a feature that the Met Council is looking to be included in all the future water
plans and they're just...bid on that right now.
Mayor Chmiel: What aquafir is Chaska in? 1
Robert Schunicht: Chaska's in Hinkley, which is the lowest aquafir. The Jordan
is the well out by Lake Gaipin Road. The Drift is on Lotus Lake so you've got 3
aquafirs so you're really looking at a very safe, dependable water supply for
both communities by doing this. It's very easy to do since you've got the main
right there. So very quickly just to give you a synopsis, what we've done is
we've tried to give you a synopsis of this trunk system to respond to the
development pressures that you're seeing out on TH 5. So we looked at the 2,800
acre MUSA expansion area and we said okay, we'll give you a synopsis. A brief
preview of the overall plan. Tell you what you need to do to get this area
going while we're working on the rest of the plan. The plans are expected to be
read' in May. One of the things that is holding us up is that we're still
working on the digitized, a computerized base map that we're doing as part of
the storm water management plan. We've wrestled that to the point where all the
maps and studies you'll see tonight are computerized. Are part of this future
project...that you're getting as part of the storm water management plan. So
again we're looking at the 2,800 acre MUSA expansion area. Generally from Lyman
cri the south, Audubon on the east and the city limits. Not city limits but
THi 41/Lake Minnewashta and the Arboretum on the west. Phil will get into the
actu1 sewer system a little bit later when we get into details but basically '
we've gl a major lift station at the intersection of Lyman and Audubon Road.
Mains and sanitary sewers going up the Bluff Creek area and also a sanitary
sewer over in the, what we call the TH 41 /Gaipin Road area bringing the
development that's owned...Lake Ann Interceptor. So basically this system...
e.atura {.ion development. Permanent capacity saturation development in the 2,800
acre MUSA expansion area. Also, looked at the watermain in that area. A series
of mains connecting the existing system to the east. Looping around and going
out and around TH 41... As you can see, this is the boundary of the...high
preseure zone that's been expanded down to the south. We have another towering
hich zone which will... Now to come up with the most important...estimated cost
and male sure that development and new connection to the area will pay for that
system and probably...make some adjustments in that system as you get done. So
that's one of the things that we do as part of this study. When we take a look
at the overall cost of the system. Now sanitary sewer...much more developed
especially in the Lake Ann area than the watermain system so we're estimating
that completion of the Chanhassen sanitary sewer system will be about $8.8
million while the completion of the water system will be about $17.3 million for
a total of $26 million. Now that's a lot of money when you look at it all at
once but when you look at it over a period of 20 years, it will be something
that's phased in as development occurs. What you do is you have a plan, you
know how much it's going to cost...road map to tell you how to expand your water
and sewer system. What we did as far as determining how to pay for this system,
we used your basic system that you're using right now which is the system of
hook up charges and what we did, we took the land uses that are in the
Comprehensive Plan. Estimated the amount of areas that were left in the city to
be de.:_loped with those land uses, and assigned minimum densities to those
areas. Minimum densities in determining what the charges per acres are going to
51 1 •
•
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
' as the sewer and water services are provided to the various areas. So by
establishing a minimum charge for these areas it means that you're assured of
getting this money in from them to pay for the system. Lateral charges are
based on capacity that the system was designed, the capacity of the system was
designed for these areas. So they're really paying for the capacity that they
have been allocated in the system. As they develop to a high density, then you
charge them some more. If they develop at lower density, well that's too bad
11 because they aren't using the full capacity. The capacity's there. It has been
paid for. It's their responsibility to finance it for the area. So we've
estimated the connections for the sanitary sewer system and water system. The
water system being more essentially because we've got the Lake Ann
development... So the numbers that you already heard tonight when they were
talking about the Lake Riley system with trunk sanitary sewer costs of $970.00
for the Residential Equivalent Unit... Charging those costs as the system is
1 expanded will assure...pay for the overall system. With that I'd be happy to
answer any questions. Phil Curvel from our firm is also here. He's done the
more detailed work on the feasibility study for...Opus, Hans Hagen, Roos, the
development that's everybody's talking about in the west end of town... With
that I'd be happy to answer any questions...
' Mayor Chmiel.: Any questions? Thank you. All we're going to do is basically
receive this report?
Charles Folch: And adopt it as the accepted interim guide for this area until
the future comprehensive studies are completed.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
r Councilman Wing: I have just a few questions on this report Mr. Mayor.
M.a Chmiel: Alright, go ahead.
Councilman Wing: I'm being sarcastic. I wouldn't know what to ask. Just real
quick in passing. What's being done here, is that pretty much the thrust of the
initial project or are there some other things running parallel with this? Are
you pretty much concentrating just on this one report right now?
Robert Schunicht: We've got the technical work done on the overall sanitary
sewer. All the technical work is done. What we have left to do is write the •
report and finish the drafting of the maps and then draft the maps...
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I understood that. I thought I heard Watershed Utility
District on this whole project we have going. Are there other things occurring
at the same time or is this pretty much the concentration right now?
Robert Schunicht: Well there's a whole other effort going on for the storm
sewer. The wetlands..., the water quality modeling.
11 Councilman Wing: That's ongoing now?
Robert Schunicht: That's ongoing now. That is probably at about a 30% level...
11 These are about 80% to 85% level of completion.
51
r
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'd make a motion that we recommend that this report be
adopted as the interim guide for trunk sanitary sewer and watermain systems in
the MUSA expansion area pending completion of the comprehensive sewer policy
plan and the comprehensive water supply distribution plan and that the following
chart system be adopted for the financing of trunk sanitary sewer and water
assessments. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adopt this report as the
interim guide for trunk sanitary sewer and watermain systems in the
MUSA expansion area, pending completion of the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan
and the Comprehensive Water Supply Distribution Plan and that the following
charge system outlined in the staff report dated February 4, 1992, page 3 be
adopted for financing the trunk sanitary sewer and water systems. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Item 9(b).
Phillip Curvel: As Bob mentioned, my name is Phillip Curvel. I've done quite a
bit of the work on the Upper Bluff Creek report and I just have a 45 to 50
minute report here.
Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. If it takes you anymore than 3 seconds, we'll be
haPPY.
Phillip Curvel: Actually what I'd like to do if we could is go through quickly
r:ith the proposed construction and then talk a little bit about assessments and
then get into revenue and then we could answer any questions that might come up,
The proposed project area is roughly in some of the area that Bob talked about.
It goer west to the Arboretum area and south of TH 5 over to Audubon and then
north of Lyman. The area highlighted here is the area that petitioned for the
prcject...we neglected to put in the report but it is important to remember is '
that 55.2% of the project area has petitioned for this work. For the purposes
of the report we've divided the proposed construction into two phases. ...made
kind of an arbitrary and random basis that one thing we kept in mind was that
this area by Ryan here, this business center was probably the closest of all the
proposed developments in the...so we drew the line at the Twin Cities Western
Railroad here and below that was phase 1 and above it is phase 2. Now that's
just for construction purposes. If this property or the corporate center
property wanted to go sooner, we could easily incorporate that into phase 1.
For purposes of the report and tonight's discussion, the...construction broken
into phases. The proposed sanitary sewer as Bob mentioned, connects -onto the
Lake Ann Interceptor and it's a gravity system along Audubon...and then this
enables us to pick up as much of the area on either side of Audubon with gravity
sewer and even part of this proposed residential development here. The big part
of this project is, as Bob mentioned also, a lift station at the intersection of
Lyman and Audubon. This would be approximately a 6 1/2 million gallon lift
station. The proposed sewer then runs up an NSP easement and along the Bluff
Creek alignment. The exact alignment of this has not been determined other than
we'd like to stay within that NSP easement where we can. We need to do some
additional soil borings to determine exactly on that. The Phase 1 work is below
the railroad. Phase 2 work again is north of the railroad. Another benefit to
53
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
followinc this alignment with this...is that on the city's map, the trail plan
it called for a nature trail along here and that would work out well with the
design of thi' also since it would provide an access to the sewer system. The
proposed watermain is quite similar nature actually. Again broken up into two
11 phases. The phase 1 work would be pretty simple with just getting some water to
serve Ryan and also install the trunk along Audubon in conjunction with the
sanitary sewer service. The phase 2 construction is more elaborate and that is
based on the needs, the flows and fire flow needs for the proposed development.
There's also some work in this area that's not being proposed at this time that
would be triggered at such a time as the area gets wholly saturated. That
includes for sure this reservoir...But the work that's being proposed as Phase 2
would be enough to serve the immediate potential development in the area.
Assessments, the area we're proposing to assess for sanitary sewer is the
benefit area actually consists of most everything...assessed in this area under
the lake Ann project. And the big kicker here is we're excluding the large
residential areas at this time which include the Sunridge area here and the
TimberwoDd area. We're not proposing to assess them at this time. They're not
included in the revenue forecast...although it's certainly an option if this
area doe: develop at some time. They would be assessed the unit charges that
8,5 discussed in the previous report. I won't throw up the watermain overhead
but it's essentially the same district as this except that we eliminated this
area here and this area here. For trunk watermain assessments because these...
and this area wouldn't be immediately served...
Councilman Laing: Why are the residential areas excluded?
Phillip Curval: As far as I know, it's just due to their not being willing
participants.
Bob Schunicht: In the overall trunk sanitary sewer and trunk watermain
philosophies, we didn't know that...so it's a way of making sure again the
F >e'.r-m is paid for by development...
Phillip Curvel: I also wanted to mention that there are a few proposed lateral
equivalent assessments for areas where these trunk utilities would be running
through a development where they would be able to get some lateral benefit from
the trunk sewer or water going through their property. That's described in the
report pretty well. Here's the grand finale. The total sanitary sewer cost,
when you take the phase 1 cost and the phase 2 cost, is about $2.8 million. The
total water cost on page 1 and page 2 and is about $2.3 million. The revenue
generated with the proposed assessments for the sanitary sewer is about $2.9
million and that results in a net revenue of about $120,000.00 remaining.
Likewise for the water, that'd be around almost $900,000.00 remaining. That
water would go towards future projects in the area like I mentioned. The tower .
11 and a couple of trunks that we are proposing to put in right at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I ask a question on those dollars?
Phillip Curvel: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: As I looked in the report, on page 6 it shows that phase 1 and .
phase 2, more specifically phase 2, shows it as $2,946,000.00 and in our
memorandum it shows total cost on phase 2 of $2.3 million. Which is correct?
54
arty council sheeting - February 10, 1992
Phillip Curvel. The $2.3.
Mayor Chmiel: $2.3 is correct?
Phillip Curvel: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: And what's in the report and what's in the brochure is not right? 1
Phillip Curvel: The $2.9 is not right. The final thing after the Lake Riley
hearing, I hesitated to bring this up. If things would go as we have roughly
proposed here phased wise, there would be a light deficit in phase 1
construction. That could easily be alleviated by simply assessing some of the
area north of the railroad tracks. Their trunk assessment earlier and in all
likelihood, maybe the Hagen or the Ryan properties would want to be included in
phar.c 1 regardless so that would alleviate this problem. This figure I think
will get s,000thed out on it's own but if not, there is this $336,000.00 deficit
to contend with. Otherwise, scheduling wise where there's a neighborhood
meeting proposed for this on Wednesday night and then we'd like to come back to
the next Council meeting and have a public hearing on this and if things go
smoothly, authorize the preparation of plans and specifications. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Is this on the developer's request that we pursue this at this
point? Moving it as we have from the 12th to the 24th? To meet in that time
frame is what I'm saying.
Charles Folch: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
Mayer Chmiel: We're moving on this rather quickly. Looking at having a
nFi :hborhood meeting on Wednesday, February 12th and public hearing at City
Council's regular meeting on February 24th. It looks like we're just trying to
push thiF a little quick.
Charles Folch: Well it certainly is an aggressive project schedule partly
because of the, in talking with the developers who have petitioned for these
improvements and finding out what their desired schedules area and also it's a
rather, as you can see it's a rather large project and the sooner that we can
get started on construction, the more that we can get done through this season.
We have sent notices on the neighborhood meeting out last week so they actually
will have probably 10 notice of the neighborhood meeting coming up.
Mayor Chmiel: I just want to make sure all the people within the neighborhoods
are well aware that this is going to move as quickly as it is. I think we're
being maybe just a little aggressive on it but that's what I was asking the
question.
Charles Folch: Wednesday night should give us a good indication as to what the
feelings are of the adjacent property owners. Particularly the large lot and
small acreage type parcels.
Councilwoman Dimler: These people have all been notified as to Wednesday's
meeting?
1
55
i
II City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
II Charles Folch: That's correct. Every property within that boundary that you
see outlined there has been notified of the neighborhood meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Where is that going to be held? 1
II Charles Folch: Right here in the Council chambers at 7:00.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Any discussion? Hearing none, can
we have a motion?
Councilman Mason: I will make the motion to receive feasibility study for trunk
II sewer and water improvements in Upper Bluff Creek area and also call for the
public hearing on February 12th, on project 91 -17.
1 Mayor Chmiel: February 12th is the neighborhood meeting.
Councilman Mason: Oh I'm sorry. 24th for the public hearing.
II Mayor Chmiel: I guess with the determination once after we see what the
response is.
II Councilman Mason: Okay, so do you want me to take the public hearing off then?
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to just see that.
y
II
.Councilwoman Dimler: Just say have a public hearing within the next month
rather than setting a date.
II Phillip Curvel: ...advertisements and sent out notices.
•
Charles Folch: Those would actually go out tomorrow. The notices of the public
II hearing. They should have 10, basically 10 mailing days prior to the hearing.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's pushing it.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think you're going just a little too fast. We may not
encounter any problems but I'm thinking if we just moved it back 2 weeks into
March.
I
Councilwoman Dimler: First meeting in March?
Charles Folch: We could do that.
Mayor Chmiel: First Council meeting in March is what I'd like to see done.
I - Because we're sending it out, we're already telling them what we're going to do
and we've going to have a public hearing at that particular time but yet we're
not going to be there to get their input and take that into consideration. I
think we are pushing a little quick.
II Charles Folch: We could certainly push it back.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I agree.
1
i
II 56
II
V rCy VVLa ll.11 Ileetl11Tj - r CUI U0.1 - 7 1V, 17 /4.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, so do I. Goes, point.
Councilwoman Dimler: So with the public hearing for the first meeting in March.
I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussions?
Resolution #92 -24: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
receive the feasibility report for trunk sanitary sewer and watermain
improvements to the Upper Bluff Creek District, Project No. 91 -17, and that a
public hearing on the findings of this report be called for the first City
Council meeting in March. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AUTHORIZE UPDATE TO FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR STREET, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE ,
IMPROVEMENTS TO TETON LANE (ASHTON COURT TO LILAC) AND LILAC LANE (TETON TO
COUNTY ROAD 17), PROJECT 91 -4.
Mayor Chmiel: Before we get into that, has all that been taken out of
bankruptcy? The property?
Charles Folch: The property from my understanding is Mr. Jim Fenning has a non -
contingent purchase agreement on the property from the Sheriff's Sale and it's
scheduled for closing in April. I can be as brief if you want. 1
Ma, Chmiel: Yes.
Charles Folch: Basically the previous, about a year ago at this time we were 1
looking at the same, basically in the same situation. James Development Company
ass basically walked away from the property. It went into foreclosure and a
Sheriff's Sale resulted. The new potential owner of the property wishes to
suLdivide the property. In fact they presented staff with some conceptual
plans. As a part of the subdivision of the 90 acre parcel, the property would
rec:..ire sewer and water and storm drainage improvements along with street access
0 based on the increased traffic generation from this proposed subdivision
weu)d require improvements to Teton Lane between Ashton Court and Lilac and
Lilac Lane between Teton and County Road 17. This has basically been explained
to then. I've acquired a proposal from Bill Engelhardt who prepared the '
original feasibility study back in 1988. His estimate to update the study would
be about $5,000.00. The developer's acceptable to that and is willing to
provide a cash escrow or letter of credit to secure payment of that study. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Did we, with the previous on that was done by Bill, did we ever
collect our money for that part of it?
•
Charles Folch: From the study that was done in 1988 or the study that was going
to be initiated last year?
Mayor Chmiel: No, '88. The study that was prepared at that time. I see us
charging $5,000.00 but did we, were we compensated accordingly?
Charles Folch: I believe that was done in conjunction with the Curry Farms 1
development. -
1
57
11
•
4 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
I Don Ashworth: Right, and I think what the Mayor may be thinking of is that the
developer protested some of those costs and wasn't paying. We had a series of
meetings and he ended up paying. That's the bottom line. He ended up paying.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I just don't want to lose a few bucks. Okay.
I
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a concern though that this is a real controversial,
1 or has been over the years. If we go ahead and authorize this study today,
there will still be time for public input after we accept the feasibility study.
Is that right?
Charles Folch: It would be a very similiar process to what we've done tonight
with the MUSA expansion area, Upper Bluff Creek. You'd have one evening to
receive the study. We'd probably hold, likely to hold a neighborhood meeting in
II the interim between receiving the report and holding the public hearing. Pretty
much the same process which we're seeing here tonight with the other project.
I Mayor Chmiel: I think way back when we discussed this, we indicated that we
were not going to bring this back to Council unless those properties were
developed. And of course as another way of having accessibility into those
1 properties without even going down Teton as well I suppose. Access coming off
of Lilac. But that's something we can look at.
Charles Folch: Absolutely and you'll also be going through the review process
II i�. with the pr and final plat of the property.
mayor Chmiel: Okay, any discussion? Can I have a motion?
II Councilwoman Dimler: The developer is paying for this and the money will be put
in escrow? It's not going to cost the City anything?
II Charles Folch: That's correct. We would require a letter of credit or cash
escrow.
II C ounci 1 wc,,:n„ mar Dimler: I guess then we don't have any reason to deny it.
Councilman Mason: I make a motion to authorize update to feasibility study for
II street, utility and drainage improvements to Teton Lake and Lilac Lane, Project
?I -J.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
II Councilman Wing: Sure. Second.
II Resolution #92 - 25: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
authorize the updating of the original feasibility study for street and utility
improvements to Teton Lane between Lilac Lane and Ashton Court and Lilac Lane
I between Teton Lane and County Road 17 conditioned upon the owner /developer
providing a total security (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of
$5,000.00 to pay for the study and that the consulting engineering firm of
Engelhardt & Associates be designated as the engineer on the project. All voted
II in favor and the motion carried.
4
II 58
II
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
1
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m..
Submitted -by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. 1
I
1
1
1
•
1
59
/I -
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 5, 1992
' Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings,
Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens
' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; and Charles
' Folch, City Engineer
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR FOR 1992.
Emmings: I'm going to make some nominations myself. Right out of the box
I want to nominate Brian Batzli for Chair and I'm going to nominate Joan
Ahrens for Vice -Chair for the next year. Are there any other nominations
II for either position? How do we handle this? Do we need a second or just
go ahead?
I Conrad: Not on a nomination.
Emmings: Okay. Tim, I'm going to bring you up to speed real quick.
Brian's been nominated for Chair for the coming year and Joan's been
I nominated for Vice Chair. The message came to us that you were not
interested.
' Erhart: I've taken the Chairmanship of the Storm Water Utility. That's
going to keep me real busy for the next year.
Emmings: I think that's kind of a weak excuse.
II Erhart: That's what Paul said too. So I would like to concentrate on
that. I think it's great.
1 Emmings: Okay, we'll close the nominations. If there are any more.
I Chairman Emmings nominated Brian Batzli as Chairman and Joan Ahrens as
Vice - Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1992. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
II PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND
THE MITIGATION OF APPROXIMATELY .76 ACRES OF WETLAND, CITY OF CHANHASSEN,
' ENGELHARDT AND ASSOCIATES.
Public Present:
NAME ADDRESS
Barney Leach 3830 Red Cedar Point
II Jim Hoefer 7098 Red Cedar Cove
' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order.
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 2
1
Barney Leach: My name is Barney Leach. I'm at 3830 Red Cedar Point Drive.
Or Road they tell me. I have a question. I had a question from Mr. Connor
that lives on the corner of Red Cedar Point Road and Minnewashta Parkway.
He is in Texas right now for -the winter and because of a heart operation
' he's in poor health but he's down there. He's called me twice. He's
concerned about this holding pond that they're building across the road
•
from his property and he says he's paying taxes on that land and wondering
' if they're going to put a holding pond in there, is that on the access
property or is it on his land?
Olsen: Do you know which one it is Charles? It's not on the access
' property.
Folch: Pond B is going to be awfully close to that original access...
Barney Leach: If it goes in the northerly direction it's going to be in
his property. His concern was if they're going to do that, he wants it
' removed from the tax roll. That was all.
Olsen: Yeah, we're acquiring easements.
Folch: ...any areas which are constructing these facilities outside of our
existing right -of- way...
' Barney Leach: Yeah, okay. We're going to be going down to see him and I
wanted to give a report kind of to calm him down a bit because he's kind of
upset so.
Folch: It'd be good for us to know an address on how to contact him.
Barney Leach: Oh boy. He's in El Paso, Texas but I don't know.
' Emmings: Maybe you could ask him to contact the City for any details and
if it is on his property, they may want to negotiate with him to get the
' easements.
Barney Leach: If it's to the right as you're facing the lake, if it's to
the right of that access, it's his land.
11 Emmings: There aren't any lot lines out there that you can see so saying
it's to the right probably isn't going to get us too far. Okay. Again
' this is a public hearing. Does anybody else have any comments on this
proposal?
I have a question about Pond C.
Emmings: Would you come up and state your name please.
Jim Hoefer: My name is Jim Hoefer, 7098 Red Cedar Cove. Where is that in
relation to King's Road?
Olsen: Just directly south. Probably about 100 feet south or so.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 3
1
Jim Hoefer: In that area is a, I'm not sure what it is. Some sort of
electrical box. Phone connection or something.
Olsen: A utility. Yeah, there's like a utility station there.
Jim Hoefer: Will that have to be moved? '
Olsen: No, it will be south of that.
Emmings: That's quite close to King's Road as I recall. 1
Jim Hoefer: Thank you.
Emmings: Any other public comments? Comments from neighbors? Is there a
motion to close the public hearing?
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Comments. Any comments up here? Joan? '
Ahrens: I hate to go out of order here but I'd like to hear from our
resident environmental guy...
Emmings: Before you say anything?
Ahrens: Right. 1
Emmings: Because you might want to change what you're going to say?
- Ahrens: No. Because I'm interested to hear what he says...
Ledvina: I did have a few questions for the staff on these wetlands.
Wetland alteration. I was wondering first of all, when is the construction
proposed?
Folch: We hope to let the contract for the project by late April -early May,
of this year and we'd like to complete... Try and get all of the storm
drainage improvements including the pond and the road surface, curb and II gutter and the blacktop this year... It's a rather agressive construction
schedule but that's what we're going to have to do.
Ledvina: Will the ponds be constructed before the other areas are II disturbed in terms of the road, the existing roadbed and such? How do the
ponds fit into the construction schedule?
Folch: The ponds will fit in and will be constructed at the same time as II
the storm sewer system is put in. So that once you have a collection point
basically functioning... There is likely to be additional grading that
will go on prior to storm sewer construction and we'll have to mitigate any
potential erosion with erosion control at that point.
Ledvina: This seems to be kind of a skeleton of a description of the
activities. I was wondering what the specific provisions were for the
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 4
1
maintenance and the cleaning of the ponds to maintain the removal
efficiencies and such.
Folch: At current status or current point in time we do not have an
established maintenance program or schedule if you will for maintaining the
' City's retention ponds. Typically what's happened in the past is once
we've seen a pond or take notice that it's silted up or it's having some
problems functioning properly, then we go in and we take care of that. The
' maintenance program is something, is one area that is going to be generated
and derived out of this new surface water management program that we're
currently undertaking. And that will involve not only maintaining the
ponds on a regular basis but also frequent street sweeping and such also.
Ledvina: So that's something to be developed in the future?
' Folch: That's correct.
Ledvina: And it will be developed.
Folch: Within the next 12 months.
Ledvina: Okay. And then the drawings that I have didn't show erosion
' protection for the outlets. You do state that there's Type III erosion and
I don't know specifically what that is.
'
Folch:. There should be a detail in the, the standard detail sheets in the
front of the project plans which basically shows the Type III erosion
control which basically consists of your silt fence, a layer of the snow
fence and then the hay bales behind that.
' r
Ledvina: Okay. And that will be used for the outlets as well?
Folch: Initially until we can get the vegetation established.
Ledvina: And there's no need for like a rip rap or erosion control based
on the flows, etc.?
Folch: Exactly. All of the outlet structures are being designed to
release the water for the design storm at half a foot per second which is
1 basically the minimum to try and prevent or mitigate any potential erosion.
Ledvina: Okay, thank you.
1 Emmings: Those are basically the questions you were going to ask.
Ahrens: That's right... I did have a couple questions on...Minnewashta
Parkway storm water management project. Of the wetland alteration. What
is the, that first paragraph...
Olsen: That's...
Ahrens: You're going to excavate, okay.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 -- Page 5
1
Folch: That's actually going to be the area for the detention pond and
that Pond C will be set up in such a way so that it will upon revegetating
will take on wetland characteristics.
Ahrens: The cattails will grow back?
Folch: Exactly. So basically what we're trying to show there is that
we're encroaching on a pond about 1,400 I guess it is square feet of
existing wetland but we'll be creating via the detention pond about 5,000 I
so there's actually a plus creation of wetland area.
Ahrens: You don't have easements yet...?
Folch: No We are currently in the process of putting the easement
documents together and I would expect over the next 2 to 3 weeks we would
go through the process of trying to acquire the easements. '
Ahrens: What if you can't get them...
Folch: We hope that the process will go smoothly but if it becomes '
difficult, we'll have to take those measures.
Ahrens: You talked about doing landscaping around the pond... ,
Folch: Basically in working with the planning department on this wetland
alteration permit, they had made a rather good suggestion as to providing II
some sort of landscaping of vegetation plantings around these detention
ponds so they don't look like these rough man made structures out here in a
natural environment. And so we're going to work with them. We don't II officially have a landscape plan but we will work with them in putting in
shrubs and other plantings that will help to disguise or camouflage the
pond itself but we also will do it in such a way that we can maintain
access to get in and clean out the pond. '
Ahrens: So the structures just mean the ponds?
Olsen: The ponds and there are outlets but it's all going to look pretty II
much natural.
Ahrens: I don't have anything else. 1
Emmings: Okay, thanks Joan. Jeff.
Farmakes: We had a gentleman come up here. Are there are any other
property owners, the other two property owners or are there more than two
that contacted you at all?
Olsen: No. I had one other person who lives along the road that was just
interested in what was going on but.
Farmakes: Were they a property owner? I have no other questions.
Batzli: Normally we do this in accordance with a staff report or plans or
something. We obviously didn't get the full detail set of plans but are II
1
Planning Cor: mission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 6
there a set of P lans that this will be done in accordance with?
' Folch: That's correct. The reason we didn't pass out a set of plans,
there's about 45 sheets to the plan set but there is a copy that we have
sitting out in the engineering department for anyone, residents or anyone
1 who's interested in coming in and seeing the plans so feel free to come in
and take a look at them if you would like.
Batzli: Are they dated stamped received like a normal set of plans would
be?
Folch: That's correct, they are.
Batzli: What's the date on them?
Folch: These actually, the copy that I have actually was a working copy. I
gave my set out to my street superintendent to take a look at so 1 don't
actually have an official copy but this plan set here was prepared about 2
' weeks after the first of the year.
Olsen: We can get that date.
' Batzli: And when you say that this is going to hopefully aggressively go
through the whole year, obviously we're encroaching on wetlands and where
the part, the wetlands we're actually altering is fairly small but is there
' a particular time of year that it would be better to do some of this
construction?
Folch: Actually winter construction, this time of year would actually be
probably the least disturbance to the wetlands. Unfortunately in the
project process here we're not ready to let a contract at this point in
time and it just wouldn't be feasible to start and do one this year. It
also wouldn't be feasible to hold the project off or at least that portion
of the work until next winter either. It's something that we'll have to
deal with. It's often done and as long as the work is accomplished, we're
' taking great care into maintaining erosion control and protection of these
water bodies, it can be done. But winter time is typically the least
disturbance time.
Batzli: That's all I have.
Emmings: Okay. Do you have anything additional Matt?
1 Ledvina: Yeah, I think as far as the conditions that are listed with the
recommendations, I would also like to add a condition that the ponds be
constructed as early as feasible in the overall scheme for the roadway
upgrading. I think if you have the ponds in place, they can function for
sedimentation control as the construction is being carried out so I think
that's important, if that can be phased as such.
Emmings: Is that kind of a condition pose any problems?
Folch: Well actually I guess I can't say at this point in time. We are
sort of going to leave the issue open to the contractor to determine how he
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 7
1
best wants to stage and phase the construction of the project. As I
mentioned before, we would construct the ponds in conjunction with the
storm sewer. So the storm sewer system would be set up and outletting
directly into these water bodies without having the detention ponds in
place. Having the ponds in without the storm sewer probably still isn't
going, you're not going to have much benefit from that standpoint until you,
are able to get the boulevard and areas draining into the street into the
curb and gutter and then collected by the storm sewer system into the pond.,
So as soon as the storm sewer improvements are being conducted, the pond
will be constructed at the same time.
Ledvina: And that's the normal sequence of construction?
Folch: With this type of project where basically there's no sewer and
water improvements being done, the first utility work to be done is the
storm sewer. 1
Ledvina: Okay. So that's the natural course of events anyway?
Folch: But the contractor may do the road improvement in phases. He may II
split the whole entire road segment into two phases or three phases but as
he's doing each phase the storm sewer part will be the first part of the
improvement. '
Ahrens: May I ask one more question? Do you have a time line for getting
the easements? '
Folch: Yeah, actually we'd like to have the easements in place before we
let the contract.
Ahrens: When do you think you'll get those out?
Folch: Get the easements out? We should be out over the next 2 weeks
acquiring those easements.
Emmings: Ladd.
Conrad: Charles, does all the water from the new street will drain into
this system?
Folch: That's correct.
Conrad: Jo Ann, have we upheld all the guidelines and standards on this
project that we'd apply to a private contractor?
Olsen: Yeah, we've tried to do that. I mean we require them to do that.
The areas, like Pond A and B don't have a real large area to get the
creative wetland areas that we'd like to do when we have more room but they
are meeting the standards of ponding prior to it entering the wetland and
that's what we were really trying to achieve. 1
Conrad: In wetland C, sometimes we uphold the DNR standards. They have 5
points in terms of.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 8
1
Olsen: The Fish and Wildlife standards?
Conrad: Yeah.
Olsen: We are doing that with that one and we do have more room to work
with it. It has been designed for that.
Conrad: It has been?
Olsen: The other two, no.
Conrad: Basically a net benefit to the lake.
Olsen: Right.
Conrad: That's all.
Erhart: I don't have anything.
Emmings: I don't have anything further.
Batzli: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #92 -1 in accordance with the staff report dated January
29, 1992 and the plans dated received whenever they were received with the
following conditions. 1, 2, and 3 as set forth in the staff report and a
fourth condition to read the construction of the ponds A thru D shall be
completed as early in the construction process as is feasible to minimize
erosion and shall be constructed to minimize impact on the adjacent
wetland.
Emmings: Is there a second?
11 Conrad: I'll second that.
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration permit #92 -1 in accordance with the staff
report dated January 29, 1992 with the following conditions:
' 1. Type III erosion control shall be used around the construction area of
Ponds A -D.
2. The City shall receive all permits required from the DNR and Watershed
District.
3. Plans be revised to incorporate landscaping around the ponds and
structures.
4. The construction of the Ponds A -D shall be completed as early in the
construction process as is feasible to minimize erosion and shall be
constructed to minimize impact on the adjacent wetland.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 9
1
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS.
Emmings: This is old business. I don't know if anybody has come because II
they're interested in this item tonight. Is there anybody here that is
interested in addressing themselves to this issue? Alright. Why don't you
go ahead. 1
Conrad: What'd you say?
Emmings: Tim. 1
Erhart: Okay. Page 2 here. Boy, I read your Minutes. I was really glad I '
wasn't here last time. I'm still wondering how it was that Brian and I
were so important in this particular thing.
Batzli: I actually came at the start of the meeting and asked them to '
postpone it.
Erhart: Oh, you did? Okay. Page 2. Is this Paul or Jo Ann? Paul. Page
2 there on item number 4. It says the rear yard shall contain at least two '
over story trees. Is that consistent with our new landscape ordinance?
Krauss: No, it's not. This has been going on for a food long time and
things have changed in the interim but I think initially there was a
decision that even though we retrenched from that position in the standard
subdivisions, that it would be left this way'in a PUD because the
expectation was a PUD gave you higher standards of development anyway.
Erhart: But to me it's, in the first place in the landscaping includes 2 1
front yard trees and 1 rear yard. Is that what we ended up with?
Krauss: We left it at.
Olsen: 3 trees.
Erhart: 3 trees. Well you know when the object here is to provide II flexibility and then we come in here and detail what they've got to do, it
seems to be contradictory to what we're trying to do. I just wouldn't go
along with that. I also think some of the other, well. There's a few
things like that where we get into a lot of detail where we're trying to
spell out exactly what's to be done and I'm not sure we're in line with
what our overall goal is. Do we have a definition statement that defines
what a single family detached and a clustered home is someplace in our
ordinance book?
Krauss: I don't recall off hand. 1
Erhart: You don't have to look it up now but it's just a question. If
we're going to put that in there, that ought to perhaps be defined. Again
when we get down on page 3, I know we've talked about this one before but, 11
that's right I've got 5 minutes. There's a few things going on here
bothering me about it. Okay, let me give you what I feel about the whole
thing. I still think the residential PUD is a good idea but after reading
all the Minutes and talking to some of the Council people and everything, I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 10
think we ought to step back for a minute and decide what our standard city
lot size here in Chanhassen. And I see in your Minutes, your discussion of
the Minutes Paul you make a statement that you feel that you state, that 1
can tell you from the metro area standpoint we've got one of the largest
lot sizes in the metro area. Did you mean our current ordinance of 15,000
square feet?
Krauss: Correct, yes.
Erhart: Do you really, you'll stand by what you said there? And
Minnetonka is what, 20?
i Krauss: Minnetonka is 22.
Erhart: Okay, what's Eden Prairie?
Krauss: I'd have to go in and look. We gave you a table on this about a
year ago. I don't recall what it was...
Erhart: Okay, given that you've . got two things. One, it doesn't appear to
me that you're going to get this through Council this way. And secondly is
with the 5 years I've been on here I've heard us talk about is 15,000 the
right size and I've heard a lot of people come in and say it's too small
and quite frankly I've always kind of gone along with 15,000 because from a
socioeconomic standpoint small seems good. But you know maybe we ought to,
instead of trying to pounding on this thing, maybe we ought to go back and
look at what our city lot size ought to be because I think it's time to
have that discussion. Secondly, if you're going to have a PUD that
anybody's going to apply for, they're going to have to be incentivised and
you're not going to get, I don't think you're going to get 10,000 square
feet through the City Council. So I think if you're going to have a PUD,
you're going to have to increase the average size of your lots to something
like 18,000 or 20,000 square feet and then incentivise them with something
like 12,000 to 15,000 square feet minimum. Otherwise it's not going to
work...
Emmings: I guess what you're doing now is sort of, this is the problem
we've had all along. Both with the subdivision ordinance and with the PUD
ordinance is almost every time we sit down, someone comes up with a new
idea and almost everybody changes their idea almost every time we sit down.
Just like it's a thing that keeps slipping around on the table and we can't
put a nail in it. And I don't disagree with you, it's just hard to know
where to go.
Erhart: Except political reality is, it appears that the City doesn't want
10,000 square foot lots and the Planning Commission wants a PUD ordinance.
The compromise is you increase the city lot size so you can still
incentivise the developers.
1 Emmings: We always get back to Brian's point. He made it kind of
facetiously. In the subdivision ordinance make minimum lot size half an
acre and then everybody will do a PUD.
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting 11
February 5, 1992 - Page 11
11
Erhart: Now half acre is 22,000 so maybe it's 20,000 or 18,000 or
something but. '
Emmings: Maybe you said an acre, I don't know.
Batzli: I said 20,000.
1
Erhart: Oh, because this isn't going to fly I don't think. And yet I
think it's a good idea. To make it work we're going to have to increase
the subdivision. Pardon?
Ahrens: What did you think was a good idea?
Erhart: A PUD. A residential PUD. I don't think we should be this
specific but I think the concept's good and worthwhile.
Krauss: Okay. 5o as far as what you think we should do as far as taking II
action on this so we don't just keep beating a dead horse here, what do you
think needs to be done?
Erhart: I think we should go back and review our subdivision ordinance and
decide what the city wants. Only in terms of what our subdivision
ordinance says our minimum lot size is. Without that'you're open. ,
Emmings: It's not unreasonable, just scarey. Ladd. You don't want to go
back to the subdivision ordinance do you? '
Conrad: Well I've been through this and maybe that's not fair to say I
should even reflect an opinion. Yeah, I don't want to do that and I've
been to so many - public hearings and maybe that's the problem but I've been
to so many. We've hit lot sizes which I was always a proponent of larger
lot sizes but it never flew. And at this point in time I'm real
comfortable with how Chanhassen is developing. I don't mind the 15,000. II Industry says lot sizes are getting smaller. I just couldn't conceive of
us going out and increasing lot sizes right now when I'm real comfortable
with the 15,000. I'm real comfortable with most of the land that's being 11
developed and I see an industry that says geez, and the public that says
hey I don't know that I want larger lot sizes. And again I say that, you
should know that I started on the Planning Commission one, because I wanted
to maintain some of the character that Chanhassen had and that was larger
lot sizes. I like that. But I am convinced that lot sizes don't matter
that much. It's zoning for the other things that you like. It's zoning
for•the trees and it's zoning for the wetlands and it's zoning for other II things and it's not lot size. So I don't want to talk lot size at all in
terms of going up.' I think it is a dead horse and I don't want to be
there. In terms of this ordinance, we're looking for flexibility in terms
of a carrot. We're looking for a carrot to persuade some developer to put
in a PUD and obviously the past carrots haven't worked. Therefore the best
thing we can do is reduce our lot sizes. I'm not real comfortable with the
way the current ordinance or the proposed ordinance is worded because it
still could appear to a developer that they could come in and, well I'm
still not sure I'm comfortable with the wording. I don't mind the 15,000
square foot standard. I don't mind going down to 10,000 feet for a certain
portion of the units but I don't know what that portion is. What I don't
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 12
want to do is give a developer the idea that really our standard could be
' 10 when it's really 15. I'm still looking for a larger lot but I don't
mind shifting in a subdivision. I don't mind shifting density to preserve •
something and so far I haven't seen the words yet to make me feel
comfortable with that. I don't mind 10,000 but I don't want to see a
11 development that has one large lot that has 500,000 square feet of space
and then the other 99% of 10,000 square foot, that's not the character that
we're building in Chanhassen. But I don't mind having 10,000 square foot
lots in a development. I'll go back to Lundgren and I've heard some
negative things said about that. It still was a classy way that they put
onto some small lots in a big development. It's a good, they did a good
job. There were some reasons it looked good. It's still small. There's
some people who will buy that and you can make lots look good and houses
look good on small lots. End of sentence. End of thought I guess. I
still like the concept. I don't like the wording. I'm still real
concerned about the overall appearance of this PUD and I think what Paul
could say is, hey. You still have control over it when it comes in and my
only comment to that was yeah, but I want to paint a picture to the
developer before they come in of what is acceptable to me. I don't want to
send a picture off that acceptable is a whole bunch of 10,000 and just a
few of the large lots.
Erhart: I have a quick question for Paul. Did we ever have, or anybody,
did we ever have a minimum lot size for a subdivision of anything other
than 15,000 in the city's history?
Krauss: I couldn't verify it but I've heard that, in fact I think I've
heard from the Mayor that at one time it used to be something on the order
of 20. I'm not sure when that was.
Emmings: I don't remember that.
Conrad. We tried a 40,000 square foot lot size. A zoning district and it
just didn't fly.
11 Emmings: Matt, I don't know if you're familiar.
Ledvina: I'll pass.
Emmings: This has been raging through here for literally years. Okay.
Batzli: My response to Ladd is that it's not our job to incentivise our
' ordinance so developers give us smaller lots to protect natural features
that our ordinance should protect anyway. You can't fill in the wetlands
anyway and if they can use the PUD to give us really inky dinky lots, then
it's not being used correctly. If what we're going to do is have an
ordinance to preserve natural features like trees and wetlands, then we
should draft it that way and make sure we understand what we're getting
into. That we're going to get small lots and they're going to be able to
count the wetlands in the footage of their lots. And if we want 5,000
square foot lots with 6,000 feet of wetlands, that's fine but then we
should change our ordinance to show that that's what we expect and that's
what we're going to get and when you develop around a wetland, this is the
ordinance you use. I'm not convinced, you know my original thought on PUD,
Planning Commission Meetin
February 5, 1992 - Page 13
when I first came here and it still is that we're trying to get people to
be creative and we don't get people who are creative. We're getting things"
that they should have had to give us anyway. So we're allowing a reduced
footage and I don't believe that the people moving into the community are
benefitting at all and I don't believe the people who are in the community
are benefitting at all because they have to preserve the wetlands and they
should have to preserve the trees anyway. So I don't get it. I just don't
get it. And like I said, if that's what we're going to get, then I think
we should go back and revisit what the objectives are for this ordinance
because what we heard from Lundgren and the other people were, this is how
we're going to cluster homes and do this and keep open space. Well we're
not getting any of that. We're getting wetlands. Well we've got a 11 wetlands ordinance that already protects it. What have we gotten? So I
don't buy it. You know I live in a PUD. The lot sizes are small and I
think that the kinds of development that we're getting in the PUD's are
not, you know Lundgren's come in and they've done some very nice ones.
We've got some other PUD's in the community that aren't as nice as the
Lundgren's ones. And the people who are purchasing those on the smaller
square foot lots are first time homeowners. They're not necessarily the 11 people that are going to check with the City to see what they're getting
into and I don't want to be too paternalistic but they're going in.
They're buying a lot that the city has said can be undersized but we're II going to keep the same setbacks and everything else and the question is, I
can use my lot less than everybody else in the city and what have I gotten?
What has the city done for me? Well they protected a wetland that they had
to protect anyway. Well that's great. It's caused problems for the city. II
The people moving in are unhappy in a lot of instances. I don't think it's
promoted either developments which are unique or clustered or anything.
They're just smaller lots and if that's what we're going to do, then let's ,
open our eyes and do it but let's not put in here an incentive for people,
for the developers to come in and put stuff on smaller lots and we get
nothing in return. And .that's kind of how I feel about this, and you II already knew that. Really I'd like to see us look again and I know we've
already done it but we at least need to decide as a group why we're doing
this. If we're going to do it to protect natural features and allow the
developers to do it that way, that's fine but let's all acknowledge that
that's why we're doing it. We're not going to get a cluster of 10 homes in
the middle and open fields around. That's not going to happen apparently.
I don't know why but we're not putting the right incentives in it to do
that. If that's what we want, then we have to revisit why the Statute
won't accomplish what our goal is. And so I see us as not having a focused
goal of what we want. We've got real good language of intent at the start
but maybe it's too broad. Maybe we want this ordinance to do everything
and it can do one or two things. And then let's concentrate on those
things that we really want it to do.
Emmings: It will be kind of interesting when it comes to making a motion II
isn't it. Jeff.
Farmakes: What more is there to say? I guess I'm a little surprised by
this. As I read this and as it was explained to me because it is
complicated. I didn't see this as a major development tool. I saw this as
a development tool for a unique piece of property. A piece of property
that would be difficult to develop otherwise. There seems to be some
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 14
11
confusion, and maybe it's from past history that I'm not familiar with.
That if you do have a developer that treats this unethically, I can see
where you would deal with some of the problems that you have or some of the
problems that you had in the past with undersized lots. It would seem to
me however that if we are going to do this, that there has to be a reason
11 for the developer to do it and we're just wasting our time here. If you're
going to make it 15,000 square feet and it's already 15,000 square foot
• minimum, what's the reason for the developer to do it? There isn't any.
' If we don't want smaller lots and we don't want to compromise on the 10,
make it 12 or 13, again the comments I made before is where are these
figures coming from? It's how much less than the minimum is now will they
bite and if we can't live with 120 x 100 foot lot, well that's, we
shouldn't be wasting our time with this. I feel it's unfortunate because
I have seen in other parts of the country and I have seen publications and
so on what I feel are interesting developments that take advantage of PUD.
But as you said, there's no sense in doing it unless we're getting
something for it and the same holds true for the developer. And so what we
have to figure out as you said, what are our goals here and I can't help
but feel that there are going to be certain lots out there that we're going
to lose out on. In particular the odd lot that's up there that we were
talking about. But the undersized lots proportionately there were, I think
were 3 or 4 out of the total so I don't really feel in that instance that
the developer was being, trying to put something by us. I think that those
were leftover lots that in developing they basically couldn't do anything
else with and they had to try and put them in there to make their bottom
line. But I still am uncomfortable with us wasting our time with this
thing until we have a consensus of what it is we're going to do with it. It
seems the more time goes on it seems the more we are in disagreement on
this thing. And getting the feedback from the Council and so on, there's
going to have to be some discussion on this minimum lot size or otherwise I
don't see any reason to continue with it.
Ahrens: I don't have a lot more to say. I talked myself out at our last
meeting on this but after listening now to my fellow commissioners, I think
the water is muddier now than it ever has been. I still don't understand
really what everybody wants, and I'm sure you don't at this point. It's
getting worst than getting better. I have a problem, and I think my
position is getting muddier too...but I have a problem developing a PUD
ordinance with a smaller lot size than our subdivision ordinance requires
just to get people to, just to get developers to develop a PUD if what we
get is not what we wanted. Not what we really wanted anyway and I agree
with Brian when we developed the land in the northern part of Chanhassen,
we got some nice big ponds but that's not to the benefit of the
development. That's to the benefit of the landowners who are lucky enough
to own the larger lots around the pond. It wasn't for the benefit of the
smaller lots and people who live on smaller lots. I'm not sure what that
gave the city and what that gave the whole development except for the
people who happen to live around the pond. I don't particularly want to go
back and change the minimum lot size on your subdivision ordinance. I
agree that there is a problem having a 15,000 square foot minimum in a PUD
ordinance when that is the minimum lot size of our subdivision ordinance.
And I realize that the trend is toward smaller lots also and I think in
some instances that's good planning also. But unless I can see that we
really are going to get value in a PUD by having smaller lot sizes, I can't
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 15
go along with reducing. I'd have to go along with the alternative. You
have stated here that the minimum lot size in PUD should be 15,000 square
feet which I don't think is a large lot to begin with. I don't think we're 11
talking about huge lots here.
Batzli: I think he just said the average has to be 15,000. I don't think 11
your alternative was that it was 15,000.
Krauss: Yeah. We gave you two alternatives but the third one is a 10,000 II
minimum. The other is a 10,000 with a 15,000 average. The third
alternative, which is not spoken here is just don't do it. Don't have any
residential PUD's. Except to the extent that we had one like Lundgren
where the average lot size in that was 25,000 square feet and it was a
rather unique circumstance.
Ahrens: The Lake Lucy Road project? 1
Emmings: Do you have any more? I think Joan's right. It's getting
muddier the longer we work on it. I agree with Ladd, I've become more and II
more convinced too that lot size is not, that's not so terribly sacred to
me as it once was the longer I'm here because if the project is done right,
it isn't the size of the lot. It's how the whole thing is conceived and
executed and that's why I don't like this ordinance. °I don't like writing
down. If you're trying to maximize the potential for a developer to come
in and be creative in the sense that he looks at a piece of property and
says, the best way to do this piece of property is to preserve the natural II
topography. It's to preserve the trees. It's to preserve the wetlands andll
all that stuff, which they have to do anyway it's true and then the houses
should fit in this way. I mean that's sort of, we've sort of got, at least"
I do, sort of got an idea that we'd like developers to do that. Sort of
take the land as a given and figure out how it could be developed instead
of just coming in and making it flat and starting over. And I don't know
if that will ever happen but Brian might have a point there that he made
tonight that if.
Batzli: Might. ,
Emmings: Well yeah. It's unlikely but it's possible. That if our other
ordinances were strong enough, and maybe some ordinances we don't even have
yet were put into place to regulate all the things we care about, maybe we
don't need a PUD ordinance. Maybe that makes every subdivision a PUD. I
don't know. That might be a whole other way of attacking the problem that
I don't think we've ever talked about. 1
Erhart: Excuse me but I heard you and Brian both say that there's an
ordinance that protects trees and I don't think that's quite exactly
accurate.
Emmings: Yeah we've been talking about it. I don't know what's in place.
Erhart: We have an ordinance that disallows clear cutting. We don't have II
an ordinance that says you have a stand of mature trees and I can save a
whole lot more by having large lots in those mature trees as compared to
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 16
just having a bunch of 15,000 square foot lots in those mature trees. In
fact I think Brian that's not entirely true that.
Batzli: Our mature tree overlay map which will probably be out in the near
future would help.
i Erhart: It would help but you can't project, you will never arbitrarily
write an ordinance that says you can't cut down a tree where you're going
to put a house and a street.
Batzli: True.
Erhart You're not going to see that so when you have 15,000 square foot
lots and streets to service them, you're going to lose x amount of trees
where if you could raise the lot size in that area, you could save a
significant amount of those trees. I still don't understand why if we are
properly incentivized, why you can't take and maintain gross density and
allow, incentivize the developer to give the public or the people in that
subdivision, that public essentially a public ground and take the ground
that he is going to use and make the average lot size smaller. I just
don't understand why that won't work and essentially Brian you keep saying
it won't work and I don't understand that.
Emmings: Alright. We're going to get into a discussion that's going to go
on for 7 hours again here tonight and that's not, going to happen because
this is my last act as Chairman. I'm not going to let it happen. But I
think, I don't care if the lots are small but I care if there's a whole
bunch of small lots or if they don't fit. Somehow it doesn't fit, whatever
that means but I think the way you do that, instead of talking about lot
size is you talk about what you're looking for and you tell t-hem they're
not going to be able to go under our traditional gross density. Whatever
area you're in, so you set the density.and then tell them, this is the
upper limit you've got. Show us what you want to do and I think that we've
got enough power, because they have to replat the property, or because they
have to rezone the property to PUD, I'm convinced in my own mind that
we've, you know we're not in a situation where if they come in and meet our
plan, we have to approve it. Because we have to rezone, we can say no and
feel like we're in pretty solid ground and that way I think we get to help
the developer in a way. Tailor the property and if you set the maximum
density at what we've traditionally done at 1.8 or whatever number we pick,
or whatever number's in our comprehensive plan, if they want to bring in
small lots, big lots, clustered lots, whatever, but make sure that maybe we
11 spend more time in the ordinance talking about the kinds of things we're
interested in seeing them do in a general sense and not talk about lot
sizes at all. Lot sizes has gotten to be kind of a sacred cow and I don't
know why it is. That's my view, and we're not going to get any motion of
11 here tonight. There's no way. We're all over the map.
Batzli: I'd support you if you put a guideline minimum lot size in there.
' Ahrens: I think the reason it's become a sacred cow is people feel that's
the way to preserve the things they want to see in a development. That's
why lot sizes, trees and open space.
r
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 17
1
Emmings: But if you don't exceed the density that we've traditionally had,
how can you? If the project doesn't exceed that maximum density, how can
you get in trouble? I think that's protects us.
Erhart: Really you could take this whole PUD thing and make it one
paragraph by saying, the City is open to consider anything you've got.
We'll look at it but keep in mind we don't have to give you a thing.
Emmings: Huh?
Erhart: The whole PUD could be put in one simple sentence. We'll look at
anything and we don't have to approve it. We encourage you to bring in and a
let us look at it really.
Emmings: No. I think you can say a lot more than that Tim. I think you
could say we're interested in preserving the topography. We're interested 11
in roads that don't go straight and that follow the natural contour of the
land. We're interested in wetlands and ponds and trees. There's a whole
lot of things that I think you could say that would give them some
direction.
Erhart: But we certainly don't have to get into all these details that
we've now got in there. ,
Emmings: I think the fewer details you've got the better chance you have
of somebody actually using it. Because this thing sounds just like our
subdivision ordinance. Just another version of the subdivision ordinance
to me. Well, I don't even know. I think this should be turned over to the
new Chairman. I have no idea where we should go with this but we clearly 11
are all over.
Krauss: You know, I'm not opposed. It gets a little frustrating trying to
come up with ideas when you're not sure which way to go. I think there's II
enough merit in this that we can do something with it that I'm willing to
keep working at it. One thing, in the interest of saving time tonight so
we can get onto the other item, you may want to do. You may find it
interesting. We've got one developer right now who's already prepared a
couple different site plans for a piece of land that you're familiar with.
One is based on his ability to put some 10,000 square foot lots in an open 11
soybean field but go with 20,000 and 25,000 square foot lots on a wooded
hillside and I think it pretty clearly demonstrates some of the merits of
being able to cluster. He's offered to come down here and show you the
stuff or I can show you the stuff if that will help put it into a context. '
Alternatively, or concurrently, if there's a couple three that want to sit
down one afternoon or whatever. One morning and knock something out, we'd
be happy to do that too.
Emmings: The trouble with, a small group isn't a bad idea. The trouble
with a small group is, there's a lot of people up here with, everybody
seems to have kind of a strong opinion about where they want to see this go ,
and I don't see where the compromise is. Usually you can kind of see a
path through the middle of the mess but I don't know if I can see it here.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1'92 - Page 18
11 Batzli: Have we been given guidance by the City Council that they want a
minimum square footage in there and we can use that?
Krauss: Well and maybe you do want to send this up and get their opinion.
I know that the Mayor and Councilman Wing have clearly spoken to me in my
office indicating that they're both opposed to lowering lot sizes.
Emmings: Well I wonder if the Minutes, with the statements that we all
made tonight, at least everybody's kind of said what their position is, if
maybe the City Council should take a look at that and give us some
direction.
Conrad: We don't have any good rationale to send it up to them.
Erhart: But they can give us some direction. Whether we should even
pursue it. Maybe there's no interest in it.
Ahrens: ...I think they should give us direction.
Emmings: See one approach is minimum lot size it seems like. One approach
is average lot size and one approach would be overall density.
Farmakes: Doesn't it come down to whether the merits•of the PUD are valid.
Whether or not they believe that they're valid. If they don't, where
they're going to shift off the minimum square footage.
Emmings: Well yeah. If you don't believe in PUD's, then you just stick
with your subdivision ordinance.
Farmakes: That seems to be the difference between the 15,000 and the
10,000. Somewhere within there lies the argument.
Batzli: But as Tim said, if we can in fact save more trees and do some
things that aren't in our subdivision, is it worth going to the smaller
square footage to incentivize the developers to do it that way? That's the
issue. At what point. I mean it seems like we started this whole thing
with lowering lot size to give a further incentive to the developer to do
it this way. Apparently we crossed the threshhold of too much incentive
and too small lots. Somewhere I suppose there's a compromise of somebody
would actually look at it and want to do it but we don't think the lot size
is too small.
11 Conrad: Well our current ordinance allows the developer to go down to
what, 12?
Krauss: Well, you eliminated that ordinance last summer.
11 Conrad: Is that gone?
Emmings: Yeah, the 12 is gone.
Conrad: Did we ever look at other, you here we are looking at a PUD
ordinance as if we're the first community that's thought of it. Did we
look at others Paul?
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 19
Krauss: I can't recall if we brought it to you. We have a bunch. I could
certainly do that.
Batzli: We looked at somebody's. We looked at at least one.
Conrad: I guess I keep going back. We're struggling to find some
standard, some direction and we don't have any. What Steve has said about II
gross density, I brought up several times but we've never gone down that
road. For some reason we haven't gone down that road and I don't know why 11
it is because that seems logical to me. We haven't explored it. We're
sticking with hard numbers on lot sizes but maybe there's a couple things
that we can do and I'll just suggest them. I still am interested in good
PUD ordinances if somebody says they're good. The other thing is I think,"
we probably should sit down and say, like somebody brought up and maybe
it's Brian, of what are our standards? What are we looking for. What are
we trying to get out of this? Going back to Tim, we're trying to preserve
open spaces but when we get the open spaces, who's taking care of the open
spaces? Yeah. Who gets them and so philosophically we have some good
ideas but we're not taking it anyplace. Maybe that's the case where we sit
down. I'm still uncomfortable sending it up to the City Council because we '
don't have any direction.
Emmings: The only thing there Ladd is, at least 2 people here mentioned
that they've been talking to City Council members and Paul did too and they
obviously have some feelings about it already and maybe we ought to know
what they are. I don't know if, you know it may or may not affect what we
send up to them but maybe if there is a consensus of opinion there already,
maybe we ought to at least take it into account.
Ahrens: But maybe...
Conrad: See, that's my biggest fear. If you don't know what a good PUD
looks like, you sure can kill it real easily. 1
Ahrens: I don't think we can write an ordinance until we know what we're
expecting...
Conrad: Paul just wants the flexibility to negotiate.
Emmings: No, I think that's what we owe him isn't it? Isn't it really. 1
Conrad: Then you can take in particular situations. You can give the long
vistas. You know, how do you quantify long vistas and things like that. 1
Batzli: If that is our goal, and I would subscribe to that goal, then your
idea of net density is perfect. To do it that way. If all you want is
flexibility.
Ahrens: The project...
Batzli: That's right. And then it's all up to these guys. 1
Ahrens: Right. 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 -- Page 20
11 Conrad. Chairman, what do Y ou want to do?
Emmings: I don't know where it should go. I really don't. Maybe the
thing to do is at our next meeting just take it back down -to ground zero
and talk about whether we want a PUD ordinance and what the goals of it
ought to be. And then talk about, once we get a list, if we can at least
agree on that much, maybe between now and then think about the
alternatives. Whether we want to go with that minimum lot size, average
11 lot size or just density. And also talk a lot about the idea of just
having sort of Brian's notion of having all of our other ordinances, be
happy enough with all of our other ordinances so we don't really care.
However they develop the property, they're going to have to preserve those
things which we're trying to encourage them to protect in this PUD
ordinance because that seems to me to be the other approach and then just
forget about a PUD. Or have it there as an alternative.
i Conrad: Then you get into standards. You get into stuff that, 2 trees, 3
trees, 80 feet tall.
11 Emmings: No. I think we've got to ask if we want to do that at all. I
sure don't. I never like writing ordinances that way but I don't mind in
the subdivision but I don't like it here. So why don't we throw this one
away and start over.
Krauss: Fine with me.
Batzli: Paul, in the meantime if somebody comes in with a R5F kind of a
PUD, what do we do with it?
Emmings: We approved one without having an ordinance already.
Krauss: But that didn't involve minimum lot sizes which that is the issue.
I've been telling developers that they're welcome to come bring a concept
before you but I didn't see a lot of hope in it.
Emmings: Let them read the Minutes of this meeting and they'll just go
away. •
Erhart: Have you would discarded the concept of forming a small
subcommittee to work with staff on the new basis or do you just want to
have them work on it?
Emmings: Well what do people want? I think we ought to try and develop a
list of what we want here.
Conrad: I'd like to see that and I'd also like to see Paul or 7o Ann talk
to the American Planning Association or whatever and get what they perceive
to be model PUD ordinances.
Krauss: We've got this in- house.
Emmings: Or the University of Minnesota might have something to offer, now
that they've heard the discussion.
r
Planning Commission Meeting 11
February 5, 1992 -- Page 21
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated January 15, 1992 as presented. '
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Emmings: We've got the report from the Director and let's hold onto that. II
Paul, is there anything in there that you want to tank to us about?
Otherwise we'll just assume everybody's read it. Unless anybody has any
questions. 1
Krauss: No. I think it's all self explanatory.
Ahrens: Is there a judgment yet on Moon Valley? ,
Krauss: No.
Emmings: What are you waiting for?
Krauss: We spoke to Roger today and we understand the Judge ceases to get
a salary if he goes longer than 3 months on giving us a ruling.
Emmings: There was a Judge down...who used to turn himself in because he 11
frequently took more than 3 months to get it. He turned himself in and
have his salary cut off until he got it right. Quite a guy.
HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY UPDATE - DISCUSSION'AND NEW DIRECTION. 1
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, just to give a little bit of background and then
I'll turn the meeting over to Bill Morrish. I think it's useful to go over"
how we got into this very briefly. This thing grew out of the
. Comprehensive Plan study and issues along TH 5 and TH 5 study area,
specifically led to an agreement between yourselves and City Council that
you'd do some sort of a study on that study area to define those land uses.II
We have representatives here tonight from the Mills Fleet Farm that's in
that study area and I think most of you are familiar with that. As the
summer progressed, largely at the instigation of a concerned Councilmember,
we began to look at some of the bigger issues with TH 5 itself beyond that
immediate study area. And wound up establishing a relationship with the
University of Minnesota, Bill Morrish, Lance Neckar and their staff to
bring a little bit of creativity to looking at what could be done. The
scope of their work changed pretty dramatically from when we first brought
them on but the Council established a, I don't know what you'd call it.
Sort of working group. It's an unofficial working group that included a
couple members of the Planning Commission, City Council and HRA to work andll
take a look at this thing. Now all this work is a conceptual study.
There's never been any public hearings and there never was an intent to be II
at this point. This was sort of get our act together. Get our minds
working. See the possibility of the thing and it's basically brought
to fruition to the point where you now need to decide if your desire to
proceed with something more formalized or if you've got enough out of it oil
whatever you want to do. In my memo I point out a lot of things that we've
done over the last few years. I think you've got a track record to be
proud of. All of the things that have changed. All the programs that have ll
been initiated. All the ordinances that have been changed...and the HRA's
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 22
been active too working on TH 5 improvements. So there's a lot that's been
happening. I think that there's a lot of merit to doing a formal corridor
study. There's a lot to be gained out of it. One of the most important
things is that you get a common vision of what you'd like to see out there.
We've got a tremendous amount of development pressure out there. Last
meeting I stuck a map in your packet indicating the properties that have
either petitioned for utilities, have come in for development applications
or have talked to us and I haven't added it up but it's about 600 or 700
acres, mostly on the corridor. At this point I can tell people, developers
that our expectations for that happens in the corridor are higher than they
were 6 months or a year ago but I can't really tell them exactly what they
are. I have some idea but it's kind of tough to know exactly. So
hopefully when you listen to Bill tonight you'll get some feel for what's
been done to date and through Bill's comments and from some of the stuff in
my memo, you'll get some feel for what could be accomplished. You know,
it's really going to be a judgment call on your part, on the City Council's
part as to whether or not there's a desire to devote the time and the
resources to do it. And it's a considerable effort. Most of you have just
come off doing a comprehensive plan. It's that sort of an effort. I mean
it involves properties. It involves public hearings. It involves all the
rest. We stand ready to do that if there's guidance to do that. But
again, I'd like you to review what Bill has and make your own judgments.
And with that I'd like to pass the meeting over to Bi31 Morrish.
Bill Morrish: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. It's
an honor to be here this evening in Chanhassen to present to you what we've
been playing around with for the last couple months with members of the
Commission, members of the Council and Paul's staff. As Paul said, this
has been a collaborative effort between the City of Chanhassen and the
Urban Design Center at the University of Minnesota. In our interest to try
to really get at the heart of principles for making a community and the
discussions we've had about planning and development in reference also to
this. What are the features that you hold important in your community that
you want to carry through from one generation to the next and by that
continuity as things have changed, as cycled up and down... What are those
things, the continuity that somehow people can count on. Our interest in
the Urban Design Center is of course the physical environment. How can the
physical environment work with the economic development issues and the
social agenda in a collaborative and equal way to make a framework for
development. What we did, and it's very quickly up here in this overlay,
is we didn't produce a project or master plan to be voted on but we held a
class. A classroom course but it was hard to know who was the teacher and
who was the student. The whole idea was to do a demonstration drive of the
corridor before you figure out whether you'd like to even buy the car and
it's much cheaper to do it on paper than do it in concrete. So we started
out with certain suppositions to investigate this corridor area with some
known facts. One, the comprehensive plan which we feel is fine. It's good
structure to begin with. It organizes the basic land use but we need to
begin to start looking at the physical structure itself and that is what
you're now doing in your GIS. Your Graphic Information System where you're
beginning to identify those areas of wetlands and topography and we're very
interested in that because a lot of what's to be defined in there to help
you define what you think will make good spaces. Not only define where
wetlands are but those sensitive things or the scientific part of the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 23
community. But also the spacial organization as part of the community.
GIS can be very helpful in providing that framework for providing which
wetlands you want as part of your civic space and which wetlands do you
want as part of your private space. The other factors of course is this
discussion about we have this rural character out here and we want to
maintain it, which is always difficult as you grow. And what is that? How '
do you maintain that as you actually become more urbanized? You become
less of an agricultural landscape and more of an urbanized rural character.
We've heard that word a lot. We're a rural community. We're a country
town. Those words are nice and hopefully they mean more than just a sign II
as you enter into the city. The other one has to do of course with the
upgrading of TH 5. Traveling in and out...sections you can see the sort of
three versions of it. Way out of a rural road into a medium size rural
road and then back here an urban finger extending out from the metropolitan
area and making this way much more urbanized. What is the character of the
road and what can, maybe that's a wrong analogy but it might be
appropriate... and how can you react to what is being constructed
constructively. How can you mitigate the negatives in TH 5 and enhance the
positive aspects of that road? So what we did was, oh? And also
development pressures. Not pressures but actually the issues of how to
develop the land itself and what kind of uses, what kind of principles can
we derive in looking at some of those parcels. How can we make better
parcels out of these sites. How do you make better sites, excuse me, out
.of these parcels. By organizing specific landscape in order to make much
better private sector development. And the 1995 study area represents one
of those opportunities and plus all the other open parcels along the way.
What we did in the process was to begin to look at the physical landscape
and technology is at it's best tonight so we sent a student up in a
helicopter to take photographs at about 800 feet which is about the angle
of some of these photographs in here. To begin to see it's a really great II
height to see not only the geography of the open plain of the community but
some sense of the spaces that define the structure of your community.
Those areas between the hedgerows, the large vegetational stands, the II wetlands and so forth. You can really begin to see what you're doing and
what you're...and there's a great slide in there which shows downtown
Chanhassen looking westward and there are things that you're doing.
There's the older part of town and the greater... and mature stand of
trees. Everybody says this is great. We want more of this. You've had
your downtown area and your main street which you've been working on the
planting and it just sort of says you know, if you just take that street
and make main street going, you keep making much more of the civic
structure and . community structure and there's a whole set of questions of
how do you continue on what you've been doing correctly farther out into 11 this landscape. Other aerials show that you really do change in almost
geographic,...from one around the old part of town to sort of middle area
and all the way out to Minnewashta. There are sort of 2 or 3 climatic
zones if you want to begin to look at that. And what we did was to begin
to characterize those things. One is to locate you in the metropolitan
area as between two dynamic landscapes. The lake and Minnesota
From the north to the south. The metropolitan area on the east side and II the rural country lies out to the west and you're exactly right there and
you can see why developers are really interested in land in this way. You
have TH 41 which is great for a backbone between the lake and Minnesota
River and you have the Bluff Creek and other creeks. You're the headlands II
•
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 24
11
for several streams. Three or four watersheds which extend and radiate
from that area up in and around where the red line which is TH 5. Very
active, geomorphic area. The topography, water, roads, people. They're
very sort of important center out in the southwest, western sector of an
interchange between urbanism and natural systems. And of course it's the
backbone for your community. A reason to live here. The corridor, we also
said the corridor is more than just the right -of -way of the road as MnDot
might see it We brought to the task force other images of exaggerating .
the topography. That you really go from a highland here to a much more
roiling landscape out into here with different forms of vegetational
stands. The lake itself, Lake Ann, We also talked about on the bus ride
that we took last June that some of these almost operated as landmarks.
The Mayor pointed out the oak tree on the hill over here as kind of an
orienting landmark and we talked about that some of these vegetational
lines that you see in the distance are like skylines. They orient you and
11 you say oh, I'm in the middle of Chanhassen because I'm enclosed by this
stand of trees. As those things disappear, that sense of enclosure, that
sense of community becomes a problem. So we went through a whole series of
different physical elements from the natural to the built such as the road
systems and how important those things are and a whole discussion begins to
talk about are these roads going to unify or are they going to cut you up.
Are they going to divide you? Or are you going to upgrade all the roads to
such a point where you become segmented into corridors or can you define
the unifying element that's how you get the unification. It's the
statement that came out of that first work session, how do you connect
community across a road? Very important topic whether you're in the city
or you're in the suburbs. Natural systems of course, Bluff Creek is a
major player. The wetlands along it and a composite with the park system
is very important backbone structure. You know where it is. You know what
it is. Defining how you're going to use it as a community space and how
much access you're going to give it to. Private. It's a very important
piece when you start looking at your whole city and maybe have in it some
of the answers offered in your PUD discussions that everybody seems to be
involved in tonight. That's one way you may begin to look at the
principle. Urban design principle for the community that...system as a
primary system as paying very special attention to that and we get very
concerned if you don't pay special attention to it. Another major accent
of course is the Arboretum which is at one time a very distant and remote
piece of the community. Of the metropolitan area. Now becoming part of a
much more urbanized area. An almost central focus point to Chaska,
Victoria, Chanhassen, Excelsior and how does the concept of what's embodied
in the Arboretum, kind of a collection and manifestation of the character
11 of Minnesota and this side of the state. How some of the notions here mayb
be carried out in a way in which Chanhassen would be common known for it's
certain kind of landscape or certain kind of environment that comes with
urbanization. That urbanization brings certain benefits which is an
extension of this notion of living in the landscape. Not a loss of that
character but in addition to that character. And cities across the united
States have to solve this problem have turned very locally to what they
' have. A great example to this of course are the chain of lakes
in Minneapolis and the 1880's when they're trying to figure out what to do
with their subdivisions on the outer edge of town. Imagine that. That was
the third tier somewhere around Lake Calhoun. They began to talk about
what they had here. They had a bog, a wetland. They had mosquitoes and a
r
Planning Commission Meeting 1
February 5, 1992 - Page 25
drainage problem. And they began to work with that and say well gee, maybe
we can get the water out of here. Get the mosquitoes out and also maybe
make a backbone for development and you can see how successful that has
I/
been. And cities at that time, Boston, Kansas City, those kinds of cities
made that decision at that point. And you are at that point with pieces
like Bluff Creek. You're also at that point with TH 5. And though a lot II
of it, although not all of it, has been engineered and for one time we
begin to even look and question at that and should we be looking at other
alignments and so forth and we evaluated pretty much that this right -of-
way's in place and this right -of -way really isn't too far off where it
should be actually. Experimenting sort of wildly with bending and so
forth, it actually is in the right place... But as the result of that
first workshop which we had where we talked a lot about this and talked
about these photographs which the members of the committee took with box
cameras. You can see everybody's view of the world here. But beginning to
look at this environment that hasn't in some respects been in the main view
of the community. Main view of the community has been sort of in this area
and now the focus of the community is starting to move westward. What is
it going to see? What is it going to be? It's somewhat like this area buts
t is a little bit different. Different kinds of growth. Meeting
different markets as we go into the future. So out of that came the notion
that out of the discussion that there seemed to be in Chanhassen and the
environment issue moved westward. These rooms left over from the
agricultural working of the landscape and those remnents of the
vegetational zones, that there's some idea of oh, you drive through a room.
There's the room of Lake Ann. There's a room at the intersection of TH 5 I
and TH 41. You can almost feel that you've arrived somewhere coming from
the west. And that there's also this connectivity question that we see in
Bluff Creek as a drainageway kind of comes through up. Touches the road
and then just goes off. You can pass through it and you can kind of see
why past Bluff Creek and now I'm going to go past Lake Ann. So the
connection is made to the vegetation and occasionally you'll see a hardy
citizen trying to make it across TH 5. So there's community on one side
and community on the other and in your land use plan you're also proposing
to put schools on one side and new neighborhoods on one side. So as you
begin to look further into your land uses by the comprehensive plan, you're ll
starting to realize that there's a community that should be integrated
around TH 5 and through TH 5 and not separating. You also have the issue
of the highland and the lowland. The fact that there's hills up here and
ability to see across the highway on the north side and on the south side, II
you have the land falling away and vistas looking out towards the Minnesota
River. But very simply we've called it the Fridley effect but I've been
working with Fridley to overcome the Fridley effect and that is a pretty
typical drawing of what happens when you put a right -of -way in. An
expanded road and everything follows suit. You get a frontage road. You
get front parking. The position of the building and then you mitigate,
mitigate, mitigate until you get to the neighborhood. Usually a fence.
And you may perceptually, the appearance of that road right -of -way much
wider than it actually is. So if you go through Fridley and say boy, that
road is really, really wide. We took everybody out with these box cameras II
and said take pictures of the right -of -way. They took it out of the front
of their cars and I said, now measure the width, the actual road right -of-
way and it's only this big. But the perceptual width of the right -of -way,
the annoyance which comes with the confusion, the sense of what happens
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 26
when it's urbanized over a long period of time becomes ever, ever wider.
More communities now are coming back and responding to this, especially as
they move out of the lower price and first step development. Beginning to
push back into this. Now one of the things that's unique about the western
area is the fact of these rooms and I sort of hinted at the fact that
there's already in the structure, you don't have to go out and row it. A
community of open parcels and wetlands and trees which are part of your
land use plan so it's not like I have to go out and make these things up.
They exist. The possibility of keeping that, you can't change the road and
you're not really changing the development as much but one important thing
that you're doing, which we'll talk to you in this first drawing, is you
don't make frontage roads. You make city streets. And that these road
which carry traffic and service this area can be defined not as a frontage
road which is usually a very sort of non - descript kind of road. You
actually plant it like you've been doing in your main street for several
reasons. One to move water along off that road sideways into your water
system. Move it away and begin to organize your detention ponding along
the TH 5 which you're going to have some because you have all this upland
11 water that has to get through the road somewhere. But also begin to work
on your development. We just looked at a development parcel the other day.
What was the property?
Krauss: It's the Ryan property.
Bill Morrish: And the whole organization of development so that a person
who builds a corporate headquarters has a premiere opening facade and you
go by and you go ah ha, IBM. Ah ha, General Mills. It's framed by the
landscape. Positioned. Parking to the rear but actually to the front
because this is a major street in the middle of the city and you begin to
create an aesthetic and a presence of the building and the developers
within the landscape rather than just to confuse you no signs and parking
lots and frontage roads that look like this. Well that's a very utopian
dream. That is kind of principle to achieve and the question is how close
can you get to entering paradise. So what we did was to play the game and
see if we could do that and what we did was to take the frontage road on
the north side first and to take actually a very severe and tight alignment
to TH 5 and begin to start figuring out how to construct a road which is •
really extending main street which became known in the group as Chanhassen
Boulevard. So as you came down from a new neighborhood in here, you got on
this road, you would know that you're really part of downtown. Which is an
important thing for downtown as the city begins to urbanize. A lot of
cities as they urbanize sort of forget to connect the roads back to
downtown and they keep wanting to know why people never go to downtown.
We're working with the city of Rosemount, Minnesota. We found out all the
subdivisions roads don't lead to downtown. They all led to Apple Valley.
11 So no one was keeping track of the subdivision roads because they were
going to the county roads. Well, they were heading to that K -Mart. And
it's difficult to keep track of all of these so one of the ways to do it is
to actually sort of make this drawing to sort of remind you and we were
talking about again the Ryan property again the other day and just the
principle of looking at this site and it's simpleness was able to come up
with a discussion about how t� look at that property. I think actually as
11 we began to work it, it became a better developable property because the
building's have more of a presence to the street themselves and not being
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
February 5, 1992 - Page 27
1
cut off by TH 5 by a frontage road. Actually the frontage road serves the
property better back in here then around in front. So we moved ourselves
along this way and looked at one alternative for the 1995 study area. We
even played with the Fleet Farm, which we'll come back to in a minute but
with the notion of the road being something. Here it is. It loops into
the wetland. Here it comes along and connects into Lake Ann. We also
looked at the other frontage road and began to look at how it becomes in
talking with Peter Olin and the Arboretum, the possibility of even moving
the entrance from here down to here and this frontage road now becomes
Arboretum Blvd., which is actually the old name of State Highway 5. So
what you have here is a great round for people in the community to
circulate in the community and not to be caught up into the State Highway.
You actually, on Arboretum Blvd. you go somewhere. On Chanhassen Blvd. you ll
go somewhere and if someone has a project here, you know 1555 Arboretum
Blvd. and you know 1227 Chanhassen Blvd. puts you in the context of the
community. You can sell it. You can market it. It gives you a presence.
It also gives you a great race track if you want to have a bicycle race out
here. And it can also form a backbone for pedestrian network where people
can begin to move laterally across your community this way picking up
wetlands. We also looked at a couple other roads which might be developed
as kind of parkways as a development along your wetlands and your drainage
areas in here. There's a couple of other kinds of roads we begin to look
at but that forms the backbone. It also can form the'backbone for a park II
ride system that you have, proposed park ride system here but also the
possibility down in this area next to the school. The other park ride
system which is sort of picking up this market area here and bringing it, II
it might be even a loop for people working here and living there. They can
just take it down and come to the Rosemount Company. And it's very
interesting the way you have organized your industry down here and the way
people could actually not have to drive to work. Live here because they
can work here, and I understand you do have a high population that do do
that and here is a structure of a system that actually sets that system up.
We then talked about the notion of making roads which by using placement of il
buildings, site plan concepts, the preservation of stands of vegetation
which most of them exist in wetland right -of -ways and actual planting and
landscape architecture of those detention ponds, the shaping and sculpting
is what their pond see, sort of shaping them to make it give an aesthetic.
Taking those pieces and instruments, you can begin to start making spaces
so as you're traveling along TH 5, development is sitting in sort of a
room. Space that you feel or district that you're passing through. Then II
you go through a narrowing where Bluff Creek goes through or underneath.
And then you come into another place and you don't feel like you're just
going through sort of one relentless flow of development. And actually
you've done a lot of them downtown. This just sort of shows you extending
downtown and extending it out here. These buildings are already positioned
and the whole idea of keeping this building back you're going to need a
detention pond there anyway. And giving this as kind of a premiere corner,"
you can make a kind of gateway intersection here where coming
underneath the underpass here of the railroad, one could see the stand of
trees. This big detention pond which is also to be shared by housing. Once ll
it begins to kind of make a giant environmental intersection. You already
have the components down here with the Rosemount Industry. This pond.
Their pond over here and I think with experimentation with horticulturists
and other landscape architects and even artists now have become very
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 28
interested in the artistic merits of plant materials you can create in this
detention pond structure. A very significant landmark that might come up
every spring and fall that people would like to pass through. And we went
all the way through to extending Lake Ann and then all the way up down to
the intersection there of Highway 5 and 41. So that gives you a notion
that once you're passing through this space, just using in our sort of
first pass over, the structure that you have already. What becomes very
interesting is what the developer can add to that structure in the way they
11 landscape. The way they do development. The way they position the
building to actually build upon that and make them much a stronger presence
in the landscape than actually having a large sign. And in looking at the
evolution of development in California, which I have over some 20 years,
the sophistication of thinking about using the borrowing of the landscaping
as they say because that you can't buy it all. It's so expensive. How can
you sort of leverage all this landscape that's behind you to be yours.
I Positioning of the building in contrast to a background landscape is
something to become very, very interesting and the building and the
landscaping becomes the signature and it's less reliant upon the signs.
Also people like to pay more sitting in the landscape having coffee than
sitting under signs. You've got to figure out someway to sell expensive
coffee. The other backbone which we've been talking about is this wetlands
culture which again is one of the major, is probably the major building
block of your community and how do you manage that How do you develop
that becomes a very major issue and not only in the existing structure but
even how it's done by development. How this water moved across the
11 developrnent. How can it be seen in the structure of the development as it
feeds into the fingers of Bluff Creek and actually one could sort of feel
the structure of water moving across the landscape in all development as a
way that unifies a city. And that one important connection in crossing of
course is Bluff Creek. It's one of the deepest ravines. It is one of the
most mature ones. It is also perfectly located against the school. Next
to the school with the residential area and the whole development of
probably if you're going to make one underpass here that people might go
under, this might be it because there's enough depth and height to not see
all the way through and have the vegetation go through. We're not talking
about height here. We're talking about something that is more like this
bridge down here which is on River Parkway. We are looking at a series of
bridges. These are also some pedestrian bridges because one of the issues
is, and I know you've talked about it here, is this pedestrian bridge
possibility up here so this neighborhood can get up to this open space and
schools and so forth. But these kinds of things and earmarking those now
and identifying those now and developing these things tend, in the right
place, you may only have to do one but done in the right place such as
Bluff Creek can make that community connection and the whole community can
get underneath. Probably the best example in Minneapolis that I can think
of right now is Minnehaha, the way it goes underneath 35W. It's really the
only major pedestrian break in the whole length of 35W and you slip
underneath it without really worrying about crossing 35W. I'm not pushing
public art. That's just a very successful pedestrian bridge. But the
water system, the vegetation system, working with the roads and the rooms
begins to sort of create this structure of this hypothetical land that is
here before you in various different compounds. I've just gone very
quickly over this and I thought what we could do is through questions begin
to come back to more details because of the lateness of the evening. That's
Planning Commission Meeting 11
February 5, 1992 - Page 29
11
what we've done. We will be packaging this up into a little small report
in about 2 weeks and we will get you some copies of it so you can see a lot
of the more thought that we have in it. Several of the recommendations we
made and begin to already talk to Don and Dave Hartley is this question of
what kind of information and how you're going to deliver the information in
your GIS to help you make decisions about site plans. That's one thing
that I think would be very, very interesting. On what kind of data you
collect on that. The other one is the discussion of the bridges at Bluff
Creek. Who pays for it. I've just received actually this weekend the new II
Highway Surface Transportation Bill and I've had someone do some research
back in Washington in Moyahan's office and I have some work on that but
actually compounded of it is that 10% off the top now in the new Federal
Highway Bill is for highway enhancement. No longer a mitigation question
I/
anymore and right at the top is pedestrianization. Right next to it is
wetlands, environment and it's not just one of, you know we'll kind of stay
away from environment. They're actually talking about something more like II
this and what's very interesting is that I think that communities, a very
important piece of the legislation is that it's up to the language of the
MPO, the Metropolitan Planning Organization to set the criteria for how
this money is to be spent and I think what's important is that the
communities in the metropolitan area I think can play a very active role in
establishing how that money's to be spent and there are many, many other
components in the Bill but one of them is how to define enhancement. It
-could be a pedestrian bridge here. That could be a requirement. The
pedestrian bridge underneath. How wetlands are taken care of and detention
ponds are taken care of. The whole nature of the right -of -way has been
radically changed by this Bill and the intention of Moyahan in writing
this, as this person told me, was to expand the nature and the notion that
roads are part of the community. They're not something just sort of to
pass through so I can give you all some excerpts from that Bill that might II
help you also to see that there are some ways to fund some of these
projects. That's a new bit of information.
Emmings: Thank you very much. Your input into this process has been I
think just outstanding. In every way. I've heard you deliver this 2 or 3
times and I get different things out of it every time. I don't think, in 11
my work, I don't think like you think and this helps, is very stimulating.
I really like it. But I don't know, there are other people here who
haven't heard it before and I don't know if there are any questions from
anybody. Let's just throw it open to anybody that wants to talk about
anything should just feel free to do so.
Conrad: It's hard to response. There are so many things. I guess what
I'd like you to do is just work from one end to the other. Not in any
detail but other than the frontage roads, tell me what other major, and I
see on the east end we start with where there was a bridge. A pedestrian
bridge but tell me other major things that occurred as you went west.
Bill Morrish: I'll take you on another bus ride. I think the development
of this park ride and of course I know there's been a major argument and
somehow would help reminding Eden Prairie the importance of this stand of II
trees here. Is an important landmark and gateway to your community. Not
only from a visual sense but also a nice environment that was one to get
out here on many days in Minnesota and leave here and the important station
1
Planning Commi Meeting
February 5, 19 -- Page 30
11 to your community for many commuters. that's y y or any ommuters. Maw that s designed and one notion
had about this was that some of the possible upgrading and further
enhancement of the some part of the Arboretum with more formal plantings,
flowering fruit trees and so forth might repeat. So whatever's at that end
would be at this end and it also might repeat in other places along the
way. That there's this kind of civilized orchard theme that repeats
through and oh that's a gateway. The formal tree represents gateway come
seasons. Welcome to Chanhassen it's spring. The cherry blossoms. And
then this whole intersection here which is interesting and that the fact, I
love seeing up this because you can see the church steeple and that
wonderful thing you see in the midwest, that sort of street that goes up
there and you expect to find the County Seat. But at the top of the hill
there's a church. That counts too. And keeping that and the possibility
of developing another formal monument at the bottom and to sort of remind
you that that's a point of orientation point of beginning of downtown. We
even played in here the possibility if light rail ever began the future and
this happens to be corridor, because of the grade change and the separation
and the high bluff and low, it's a great transit point. A person could
come right in on a light rail and then the pedestrian bridge can take you
straight out in the upper areas. Give them the high points of the land.
You don't have to deal with the problems of a ramping of pedestrians which
is always problematic and even Armegente and the Walker had a difficult
time figuring out to get people gracefully up. Handicapped and so forth so
that was a kind of transit...and a linear room with the possibility of
shaping that earth so. What's nice is the way the land squeezes in. You
kind of leave Eden Prairie. You go through this bend in the road. It
squeezes and then it comes to Chanhassen and really come into your major
service area and entrance into Chanhassen Dinner Theatre. The next move is
this sort of composite wetland. The outlet is in progress out there at the
11 base of your new development which sits up here on the hill. Market Street
and the possibility of developing the first kind of wetland you see more of
out here as you head out into that more crowded landscape. The other
notion is to then continue downtown keeping buildings moved forward so you
can keep a pedestrian zone in here. Very important component I believe to
marketing and retailing in the future suburban area and I've seen it in
many, many communities. The people on Saturday and what do you have to do
on Saturday which is everything and enjoy yourself, is to have these areas
where you can do a lot of those things and pick up a little bit of
enjoyment. Downtown Wayzata. 50th in Edina. 50th and France. Those
kinds of things. You've got most of it. You can really finish it...
possible City Hall Park and making this a very wonderful structure and then
coming out into this area and beginning to work with this wetland coming
11 down and the drainage. The next big room is Lake Ann and again this type
of vegetation might then pick up what's here and there. A formal entrance.
A new entrance to Lake Ann. Maybe picking up what we talked about in the
1 Arboretum. Moving westward is actually playing with the catching of water
off the roads and tree plantings. Instead of planting trees in the middle
of the road and we're trying to come up with the vocabulary of principles
for laying out a road. You can put trees in the middle. You can put trees
to the side. You can also put double rows to one side and pick up that old
kind of farm wind row which exists in 'my home city in California and here.
It's a kind of universally known agricultural symbol but also creates what
I always remember as there's this county road and then the old county road
and it's always between the, this old hedge row. They've actually, you
1
Planning Commission Meeting • 1
February 5, 1992 - Page 31
might plant across this space. This hedge row which is the entrance to the
residential development and then the residential development could have
its own thematic landscape. But this long space would be held together.
Development of a parkway which services these communities with a slight
drainage swale in there but as this becomes more developed, the possibility
of moving water from this development and this development across here
parallel to the road might save a lot of people some time, money and energy
and also into the future create a new parkway out of something which is
just a drainage swale now. Then there's Bluff creek. With actually
organizing the development in such a way that it could become a small
pedestrian node in the park and ride. Here's the park and ride parking
area that you walk past the pond, pick up the bus and move out. Pick up a 1 ,
cup of coffee. Some kind of small cleaners restaurant kind of thing. This
piece down here and then the school. The school I think is a really good
access at that point. Moving forward up into the intersection. Staying
away from the lowlands so you can put your playfields out there. Keeping II
the road down roughly, I understand it's better here in this area and so
looking at the site in more detail. But creating a zone where somebody
could actually walk across the intersection because it's concentrating the
pedestrian activity in that area. People are more aware of drivers when
there's people around them and the expectation is I'm driving . through a
people area. So if you want people to be in the area and don't design the
road that way, then drivers are going to sort of drive quickly the way the II
road goes. So by moving this development forward is more of a sense of
it's concentrated around that pedestrian. You see people walking around
the building. So there's a kind of important commercial note serving this II
area and as it kind of satellites to this. Then this office park here, the
possibility of a corporate park focusing itself around this wetland. One
of the really truly dynamic pieces of property here is this hill and the
focus towards it and maybe sharing the entrance to the Arboretum. Looking II
at residential, the organization of roads in and around here and we had
this discussion of wetlands. How much private access. How much public
access and here's one way of having private ownership along it and then
also public access and houses and things organized around here sQ that
people living around here would have access to this wetland so this is sort
of like a leg of the IOP but yet it doesn't have to go around. And then
down here, we thought we'd even take the hard problem of trying to figure II
out how Fleet Farm would go in there rather than avoid it and say oh what
we need to put there is houses. We thought we'd just sort of take it on
and see the interesting opportunities. One mature stand of trees gives you
a landmark. It is a wetland area. Important wetland area. It's also a
gateway symbol. We have another stand on the other side as a possibility
of making a kind of hedge row to go through. The development of TH 41,
very important issue. Right now it's a very beautiful road as it goes
through the landscape but we know once it's re- engineered it's going to be
wider and a lot of that vegetation is going to disappear. So if some of it
is going to disappear and be upgraded, what do we replace back into it. So '
is it possible to develop a vegetational corridor working with the parking
lot of the Fleet Farm. Placing buildings in such a way that the back side
of it with it's storage areas and it's truck loading behind the hedge row. II
The head of the building is to the front. Using the wetlands as formal
planting and the parking lot to give it a thematic connection to this area
and begin to start talking about the possibility of integrating this use inll
such a way that maybe apartments over here and here and smaller houses over
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 32
here. So we just took a quick look at that. And then down to this
intersection and the rebuilding of the Arboretum's entrance through some
very powerful landscaping. Rather than small signs you kind of have to hit
real quick with your brakes to slide in there right. That's your favorite
corner. And then actually here is this wonderful display of flora and
fauna which could be done and presented to the community and again the
major gateway from the west into Chanhassen and the middle point between
the lake and the river. And I think those memorable pieces are the things
that people are going to use to Oriente themselves around in this sprawled
suburban area.
Erhart: Where in the metropolitan area has this been applied so you can
see the final outcome of some.hing?
Bill Morrish: I guess I would have to make you a composite. It hasn't bee
1 done completely as a corridor here. I know other places around the country
it's been done. And what they've done has, they've done everything. I'll
give you the sort of types of legislation that they've done. One could
take Camino Real, well I know actually, Palm Springs. They took a major
I/ boulevard and they zoned the thing from top to bottom with very stringent
design guidelines. Setbacks. Placement of buildings. Materials. That
whole thing. In fact the city of Santa Barbara did it extensively fighting
off California Transportation Department on a State Highway and it's even
thematically Spanish which is, it's Spanish highway bridges which is rather
odd but they held to it. At the other end, a lot of communities have
11 described a basic physical features and then established performance
standards to meet those so they can have some flexibility to adapt to new
markets that come along and they're not interested in being totally Spanish
the whole length of it. And those have been somewhat more succesful in one
end in the ability to adapt to market but they've had to be very stringent
about those landmark elements like the wetlands or how you build right at
those edges and site plan becomes very important and site plan review
becomes very important. How the parking lot is built right next to the
buffer filter strip to the wetland.
Tim Keane: Tim Keane, Larkin Hoffman. I think the closest two examples I
can think of readily are 80th Street in Bloomington which runs parallel to
494 and how to a growing extent 76 extension through Edina into Richfield
paralleling 494. Those are sort of parallel collector corridors which take
on different personalities. Themes through different land use patterns.
Bill Morrish: 80 as it goes past Normandale and the Trammel Crow site and
11 a lot of the things they're now talking about in redoing the land use along
that area. I'd say, my memory's coming back now. Some of what they're
trying to do in France Avenue, since Southdale's not complete yet. It's a
very heavily traveled road but they're trying to do it there. The most
closer example is what you do in resort areas along scenic highways through
communities. Like what Stillwater's trying to do with it's entrance to the
north. Coming in through downtown along with it's parks and down through
downtown and out the other end. So there's segments here and there.
Emmings: Anything else? Anybody?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
February 5, 1992 - Page 33
11
Councilman Wing: Bill, while you're speaking, that Highway 41 and 5
intersection is obviously going to be commercial. We can make that
assumption and living out in that area. I guess I'm willing to accept
traffic and accept people and accept the commercial development but there's
two factors. Number one. You've got this commercial development. How is
it going to affect downtown development and is it going to in fact
anniliate downtown commercial business? That'd be the first part of my
question. Secondly, is real heavy retail commercial appropriate land use
butting up against the Arboretum and Lake Minnewashta and parks. All our II
natural environmental amenities are sitting right there and suddenly we
bring in a very intense commercial /retail area. And then as I sit over on
Lake Minnewashta, basically we still have our night sky. If you build a
strong retail commercial on that intersection with all it's inherent
lighting, is that the end of our night sky in that area? Are we now in an
urban area and will we lose that particular amenity for the campers in the
park and the Arboretum? 1
Bill Morrish: If all those factors are important and the city feels that
light quality is important, that the predominant value to the community is II
the dominant presence of the Arboretum. All those factors, then one those
need to be stated very clearly and described and then within that context
one begins to first make a decision. I think the business one is one that
requires a market study and a clear sense about what It is that you want to
do with downtown. 1 mean 1 have seen something like this kill downtown and
I've seen it work. It depends on what it is and how it's done. And the
relationship between those merchants. Is there a solid relationship or arell
they out to sort of cut each other's throats. A lot of this stuff fails
because the merchants fail to come to some common agreement. Within the
problem of how you do it, I've seen some very interesting answers. Squaw
Pink- Parkway which is a very large project in Phoenix going to Scottsdale
had a problem with lighting. It was the neighborhood and a problem with
the astronomers on the mountains worried about all that light coming off
the road, they wouldn't be able to see the planets anymore. So believe or II
not the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal government
came up with a different lighting scheme that throws the light down and
it's fabulous lighting and they're so excited they're going to do it all
over the state. By taking those parameters they came up with actaully
better lighting for the highway. It's a hooded cobra head that drapes the
light right across it and you don't have this sort of big burst of light as
you go down it. And so it solved both the problems but it took a while.
And 1 think within that context one looks creatively at each one of those
questions and begins to work back. But I think for you and probably why
there haven't been many of these roads in this area is you're just
approaching the question that has to look at this problem. You've been
pretty much an area that hasn't had these large things come in and now you
are looking at them. 1 think what you need to do is describe those factors
which means you need to have general principles for the community but then ,
you need to start looking at districts. Geographic districts and say, as 1
call this district out here, the Arboretum district. It has certain
performance criteria that we feel is important to the investment the
community has made in here and continues to rely upon in their investment
that they have made in committing to build here and live here and pay taxes,
here. And then you go across to the various different kinds of districts. II
And so that adds an overlays upon the zoning and they work together and
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 34
4
those become your performance criteria to then look at specific design
problems. Does that answer? Okay.
Ahrens: I have a similar question for the intersection of CR 117 and TM 5
where you envision the coffee shop...area. Is that the northwest corner?
Bill Morrish: Well this whole area here?
Ahrens: The whole area. Right. That's where the driving range is?
Bill Morrish: Yeah. That great little stone wall and everything.
11 Ahrens: Right. Is that considered a commercial area? Is that considered
a better land use or is that just kind of a clever way of using the corner
or what's wrong, is there something wrong with leaving it the way it is?
Bill Morrish: All these things have different time lines. One of the
problems that you'll have is when the road is engineered up to its new
standards, the position in which the frontage roads will take will be
anywhere from 150 to 200 feet back I believe from the intersection so some
of the geometry is going to push itself in. If and when the road,
Chanhassen Blvd. or aka the frontage road comes through, you'll be going
through that piece of property. Someway up or down. 'So what we decided to
do is at some, you know we all love this. All the students love this place
because anyplace that's strange architects love. Landscape architects love
11 and we'd probably all fight for that stone wall. It's just a great stone
wall. A lot of stone. Very busy person. I think if you put him to work
on your roads he might just them all for you. Maybe it's just a lot of
energy in the wrong place. There are a lot of towns built by mad stone
masons who just sort of started making things. All of Europe in fact.
They became known as free masons. They organized into political
organizations. Well it's where the pyramid comes in on your dollar bill.
Jefferson was a free mason and the theme carries on. So I'm not going to
make this person Jefferson and the dollar bill but I think what we began to
in looking at many scenarios at that intersection. One we found it's a
J very difficult intersection. It's a big decision to decide where to put
that road coming from the east going to the west as it impacts the bluff.
Bluff Creek piece because it's a very mature stand of trees. It's a
dynamic piece'and there's a lot of debate. Gee, do we put it low, do we
put it high? In this case we pulled it high in that we found that by
taking that piece up high, that Bluff Creek defined a kind of space and a
room appeared. Gee if we take Bluff Creek and kind of say, the vegetation
of this site and bring up the vegetation on the other side and work it, it
became this very interesting site. Now there are all kinds of things that
can go into it. We began to look at that area in thinking about basic
convenience level service to that area as your town almost doubles in size
probably by the time you get out to here. Where would those things
normally occur? So we decided to take the hardest problem and put it in
this space here. Also the school drove it a little bit. This whole
11 problem of how schools are not only educating but there's latch key
programs. There's all these other social services that schools are going
to provide so what happens to the structure into the evening? Somebody's
coming home from work on the shuttle or the tram or transit. Their kid can
be picked up. Can they do that convenient pick -up the cleaners and then go
11
Planning Co Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 35
1
back. So is there a possibility. So we lumped all of that in there to see
what we could do even with the park ride and went say who knows, it's
probably 15 years away but one of the interesting things right now that you,
have to decide and think about is where does that road go. That frontage
road go because where it goes will affect what you can do with that parcel.
If it goes low through Bluff Creek and comes into the intersection, that
site's a gas station. Very easily a gas station.
Ahrens: Another question. It seems like a lot of this planning is aimed I
at hiding a lot of the development along TH 5.
Bill Morrish: Some of it. Not all of it. Most of the stuff that's hidden
is residential which is buffered on the up side. The lower side tends to II
look into, a variety of things actually. Some hide. Years ago the room
notion. Here actually it's open. The notion of this commercial industrial
area actually being part of the park open space. These here. This is open
here though this is more of a screened kind of vegetation. The residential
is screened through that. That's one way to look at it. The development
of that road. What you really have is a full vocabulary of the different
kinds of rooms and you can change the pieces to create different effects.
I think if you went back and had more information about the kind of
development'a developer would do here, then you could begin to start
orchestrating how to create screening where you need It to create some
-sense of connection across these large open parcels where the highway goes
by and some opening. And actually I just thought of a very interesting
case study. I've been working with the Mayor of Rochester and we got into,"
he made a presentation about his city and how great downtown was and he
said, we don't have any problems in our city. And everybody raises their
hands, but Mayor we can't find downtown from the freeway. So he organized
a public /private sector organization of landowners and they've actually
organized to get together to make a corridor plan and it's all the
businesses along the way. They realized that everybody that goes through
Rochester thinks they're trash because it's so disorganized and there's
this big beautiful sort of Oz of the Mayo Clinic down there all organized II
so everybody things they're trash and don't stop. So actually the business
community and it would be very interesting to actually work the land owners!'
on this to start talking about the multiplicity of types of developments
they may be thinking about in organizing the best place for that frontage
road.
Ahrens: Should that be going on now?
Bill Morrish: I think so. I think discussions could begin. I mean
there's many examples of public /private partnerships where you're not
sitting down to hammer out a plan but you're talking about what's possible
because there's certain things that you as a city have to do as part of
your infrastructure that if you lay in now will be cheaper to them and
cheaper to you. And if you put it in the right sort of way, I mean
developments come in certain parcels and if you do housing, there are
certain kinds of parcels that you'll be looki -ng for. If you do gas
stations, you're looking for something surrounded by frontage roads and
lots of access. Those kinds of things. Any other questions?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 36
Peter Olin: In speaking for the Arboretum, we're very excited about the
planning Bill's been doing and I'd like to know what sort of things you are
envisioning. Not let this just drop into the waste basket after the great
presentation but to carry forward with the plan. We're very interested in
being part of that.
Emmings= Thank you. I don't have an answer to your question. I think
that's the issue here tonight. Are there other questions for Bill? Okay.
Address yourself to that Paul. Where are we and what are we going to do
next?
Krauss: Well I think you've got to realize that what Bill's done to date
11 is a series of concepts that are thought provoking and involve some
techniques but this is not a document which he or I would ask you to adopt
as a part of the comprehensive plan. I think if you want to move forward
with this, the clear answer is, undertake a formal corridor study. Set a
relatively short time ideally because things are happening quickly but it
means devoting the time and the resources to do it.
I Emmings: And to do a corridor study would mean doing what? What are the
steps?
Krauss: Well I tried to lay out in my memo about 10 things, about 10 items
that I think need to be touched on in a corridor study. Some of the stuff
Bill has scratched the surface on with a formalized inventory of natural
features but coordination with land use plans, development patterns, zoning
patterns, that sort of thing. We've never officially defined the corridor.
You need to do that. Traffic is a real major element that would have to be
looked at. Regulatory controls. I mean you get this, how do you bring it
about? I mean it's something to have a plan. It's another to make sure
it's enacted. You need to develop a land use component for the study area
because we've never gotten one. Whether or not you bring it into the
MUSA in 1995, year 2000 or tomorrow, we were committed to filling in that
blank and that's one of our tasks. The process of working with TH 5 design
with MnDot is a very potent element here. I think you're going to see some
really nifty stuff happening this summer with the construction of TH 5
through downtown and that's because there's been a partnership between the
city and MnDot to do something different. Tomorrow afternoon Charles
Folch, Don and myself are going to meet with MnDot to kick off some
11 discussions about doing something comparable on the rest of TH 5. But the
HRA spent quite a bit of time and effort and dollars for getting Barton -
Aschmann to develop plans of how to work those intersections in downtown so
I mean there's a clear city role in that. The image analysis is real
important. One of the most important implementation tools is the capital
improvement plan. The city is very heavily involved in what's happening on
TH 5 through downtown. It's also tremendously expensive. You need to know
that there's an element that the city can participate in beyond that we're
able to. Beyond that you really want to develop public /private
partnerships. Ways of working with developers so hopefully they get what
they need out of the project and we get what we need. The long and the
short of it is, if there's a desire to proceed with this, I think a
recommendation has to go up to City Council accordingly. As for what this
will cost and exactly how much time is involved, I honestly don't know.
You know other communities have done corridor studies. Minnetonka did one
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 37
11
completed after I left the city. Burnsville has done them. There's a
number of them out here so there's a number of expertise to draw on. But
again I'm not sure what it costs. But it clearly would involve some cost
on the part of the city because We frankly don't have the time,
availability or the expertise to do it all in house. There are elements
that we need to get expertise on and we'd like to keep Bill's folks
involved in some of the design elements as well. So I guess if you're
interested in proceeding, the best way of doing that at this point is
asking the City Council to evaluate undertaking the program. 1
Emmings: Alright, so what do we need? I don't know how other people feel
about this thing but it's such an opportunity. I think what Bill said
about the fact that we're, I think we're kind of fortunate here in being
able to plan this whole strip before there's much in place that we have to
work around. And I keep thinking too about Dick Wing's comments. We don't
want to wind up with the west side of the city looking like the east side
in some ways. But I think I can't imagine that we wouldn't want to go
forward with this but is there anybody, is there any opposition to this
thing going forward? 1
Conrad: Well we haven't really, it's my understanding that there's going
to be some detail plans that we can look at. Are we going to receive that
or are we just sort of saying it kind of looks nice? ' 1
Krauss: Well no. This is not a document you're being asked to say yea or
nay on. It just wasn't developed with that goal in mind. I think when the
City Council first established this, it was designated as a pre -task task
force kind of a thing. To get a handle on what's the possibilities. What
are the major issues. Get some guidance as to where you go from there.
Emmings: The way I look at this Ladd, and I don't know if I'm off on this
but this shows us what we can do. It gives us just a rough, well it's not
even that rough to me. I'd vote for this tonight but it feels like
you're making such a big step in the right direction where we haven't done II
a damn thing before. And so it feels real good to me but still, it's just
a starting point and obviously we have a lot of work to do and I think what"
people are doing is asking the City Council if they want to, if the City
wants to get behind taking this kind of an approach to the whole corridor
or not. Whether we're willing to devote the time and resources to it that 11
it's going to take to do it, whatever that might be.
Conrad: Makes sense to me.
Farmakes: The working packet basically covers what he did today.
Emmings: What?
Farmakes: The working packet that we worked with on the subcommittee
basically covers what he talked about tonight and details each individual
room and also some of the subject matter that he touched on. The wetlands II
and transportation corridors. Things of that nature.
Emmings: I remember the first time he mentioned driving through the rooms,"
I remember thinking what the hell is he talking about you know and it's
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 38
taken me some time to get the idea. But when you start thinking about it
that way and then you drive up and down. that road and when you drive
through Bluff Creek, you feel the vegetation come in on you and then you go
out into other spaces, they're real powerful images once you catch onto
them. Or once you start thinking about them I should say.
11 Farmakes: And it's a good way to assimulate the information. When you
look at it in it's entirety, it becomes very vague and this way it becomes
11 very assimable. Somebody without really being good at looking at those
plans can understand what they're trying to do with the overall plan.
Batzli: I think it would be an opportunity lost if we don't pursue it. I
think this is an excellent start in order to control development of that
area in a way that we like. So I think we should continue on this route.
Erhart: Who determines to what depth you're going to do this study?
.all the various things that we could do. I mean formalize inventory of
natural features. You can get, I mean you can get real detailed or you
could get by as much as almost essentially generalize this is what we're
looking for and this is the kinds of things we're going to require.
Frontage roads removed from TH 5 and then just a general guideline. Or you
can get very specific obviously and the question is going to be how much
money you want to spend on this? Who's going to detetmine how detailed you
want to get? Do you have a range of dollars ranging from just broad guide
lines to detailed? Every quarter mile by quarter mile plan.
Krauss: I'd really be shooting from the hip to give you numbers. I mean
what we've done recently on contracts is to lay out what the goals are.
11 Get those to qualified firms and say okay, here's the palate of what we're
looking for. Give us your best shot of how you're going to respond to it
and then in a competitive bid let us know what it's going to cost.
Erhart: But it depends on so much what your goals are. What are you, do
you envision actually going through here and actually laying out all the
details that you've listed here in the study? Or what do you think is the
best investment for this study to actually get some kind of a corridor
plan.
Krauss: That's a hard one for me to answer Tim. I would prefer to have
the knowledge of pretty much exactly what you folks and the City Council
believe is an optimal development package out there. That you've been able
to go through a process that you can intellectually and intelligently make
some decisions in greater detail than we did with the Comp Plan which was
the city in it's entirety. That when we show a road on the map, that the
road is reasonably placed and does the job and that traffic is being routed
the right way. I mean some of this stuff we're developing. When Bill
talks about the water features, you know from your work with the swamp
committee that we're going to have very detailed information on most of
that stuff there. Now you can take it a little bit further and do some
design work on it. As far as TH 5 itself goes, I see a need if you really
want to work it, we need to do what we've already been doing on TH 5 which
is have a professional design staff working with us. Working with MnDot to
make that highway look like something different.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 -- Page 39
Erhart: Okay, in the first place, I think we're all saying yeah we'd
really like to do a unified plan all the way out. The question is, how far"
do you have to go with that to get what appears to be a real sensible idea
and the question is if you start detailing out roads on the north side of
Bluff Creek over there at the intersection of CR 117 and TH 5 and then the
developer comes in and says, well no this is my plan and it's all
different. Are you going to say you have to follow that plan or are we
getting too far ahead if we detail it?
Krauss: I don't know. I can only give you my own reaction to that sort of"
a thing and a road is a major city system and we have every opportunity and
ability to decide exactly where it's going to go and the developer has to
take it Now if they can come up with a better idea, I think we've always
been willing to listen to a better idea.
Erhart: Yeah I think we would but what's the likely outcome? We're going II
to follow our own design or is it likely when we get all done 20 years from
now it will actually turn out different than what we invested all the
planning money.
Emmings: But right here is where, at least the major features like the
frontage roads, especially if you've got an opportunity to connect one of
them into the Arboretum or something like that. It seems to me you've got I
to grab that stuff and say that's what we're going to do because that's
part of the big vision. I think you can tinker with the details later on
but if you don't nail down that big vision now, the analogy is the lakes ini
Minneapolis. If they haven't done that, it never would have. You know if II
they hadn't done that in the 1880's, it never would have happened and this
is, I don't know if this is really analogous. That's so dramatic and I
don't know if this is that dramatic but still there are features there that
I'm sure we'd all agree on would be, ought to be saved and protected and
used in certain ways and those major features you know have got to be
nailed down now. Not later on. 1
Peter Olin: I know it's not my place to make a suggestion but to tell you
what you might do. On the other hand, Bill's giving you a whole set of
concepts and some idea of what it might look like if you sort of develop in!'
a certain way but the important things are the concepts of the rooms and
creating the city streets and so on. Perhaps the Planning Commission may
want to take a strong stand and say we support those concepts and send it
right back to...right onto City Council to move ahead with this. Now again
I think Paul's right. It's going to be awfully hard to say how far you can
go on some of these things until you essentially get some of those concepts
and say we want to try and work with those concepts. That's the ideal and
how far can you go with you need to do some work on it so I think it may be
limited in terms of you're setting a budget of x dollars. But you could
conceptually move the whole thing forward by taking a strong stand on that
in the conceptual term...
Emmings: Thanks. 1
Krauss: Maybe if I could touch on one thing. Jo Ann raised a point and I
think it's a valid one. We had, I mean this task force serves a good
purpose in terms of bringing the HRA, the Council and the Planning
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 40
Commissioners together to get to this point. But this was not a process
that was designed for public consumption that was going to result in a
11 document that is going to have a significant bearing on people that own
property and want to buy in the future. If this is proceeded with it
would be my recommendation that it be handled in a manner that the Comp
Plan was which is that the Planning Commission become the active body in
this and you've got the expertise and the ability to interact with the
public to accept input and make recommendations. You did that very well
' with the Comp Plan and ultimately make a recommendation to the City
Council. So I think it would be my recommendation that that be how that's
formatted.
Emmings: So I think what we've got to do or what we should do here is,
there are a lot of members of the City Council on the task force and there
are some here now. I guess endorsing the concepts and then, or not, and
setting up some kind of program to get it moving or keep it moving.
Yeah, I agree with you. I think it should be held by the Planning
Commission...
Erhart: If you're proposing that we endorse the concept and suggest we get
moving, I don't think anybody's against it. Let's just proceed.
Emmings~ No, it's hard to imagine. Do you want a motion?
Brad Johnson: Can I say one thing?
Emmings: Yeah Brad.
Brad Johnson: To piggy back on what, oh Brad Johnson. I think there are a
number of design concepts or elements in this particular plan that all of
us wrap into and then if some of us want to see it detailed all the way
out, it would appear to me that you could take another meeting and go
through these and kind of say, hey these things are and you could explain
it right Bill. I like the north /south pedestrian. To me that's a big deal
because I know that's what could divide this town and the bridge...ride my
bike down or my kid could walk and the entrance to the Arboretum. Whatever
they are. There are even some elements that I'm a little concerned about
and...how you'd handle the CR 17 and TH 5 corner, that's all green. That's
a major decision. You'd have to say that's not only a concept. We would
like to support and we'd better get to work on so we have to get control of
that...another gas station in there. I'm just saying there are some
elements that are going to be developed very quickly okay and there are
11 some that are just concepts. And so there are things on this end of town,
I think all of us developers, that's a nice piece of land. The whole idea
is just great. It's going to affect everybody on the corner. Who owns the
corner. I don't happen to own it...and I think you can take an element
like pedestrian crossing is here. Those things, we endorse that. We
endorse this road system out here and you can pass that onto the Council
and then you've got to figure out how you get that under control in your
Comp Plan. Because someplace you get control of that, someplace down the
line. My concern because I'm in the downtown, I think we have a primary
retail opportunity here. I think all those roads do lead downtown. They
don't actually lead to TH 41 and TH 7...that our primary road concerns in
addition to what...101, Powers Blvd., 101 South and how they all fit into
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 41
1
our community because our population's on the east side and our community
runs another 2 or 3 miles that direction as far as the viability. If you
see we're going to have sort of a downtown. We're not going to have 50th
and France because 50th and France today would never be built. It'd be one
big Target. I'm not kidding. People aren't building small buildings
anymore because there aren't any small retailers to build them but there
are Targets and there are Gateways and people are coming with big
buildings. We have to figure out how that all fits in because I hear on
one side the image is small buildings. The chances over the next 5 years
of building a lot of small buildings in Chanhassen is not very good... But
I'm just saying there are some things that are going to happen to the
downtown area that will protect that you should probably act on and say
these are important... I'm okay with it because I don't have to own it and ll
I think that might be a nice idea. All the gas stations will be over here.
But those are elements you should probably get at.
Emmings: I think your comments point up the fact that we need to get input"
from people like you and that's part of the whole process that we went
through in the Comp Plan and everything else.
Brad Johnson: What you see there is good. And then you've got Fleet Farm
worrying about certain things and me worrying about certain things. But as
a community person, I live there, that's great. What you're trying to do
but I think there are elements you guys are grabbing onto that you can say,
hey. Of these things we believe the following and you could leave a
statement. Do these things. Pass them onto the Council and Paul can
figure out how to get them into a real thing.
Emmings: But I think the first step here is getting it up to the Council
to see if this is where they want us to spend time. Do they want us to be
the primary body that's going to do it? Do they want to devote city
resources and time to this in other ways? You know that isn't a decision
for us to make. I guess the staff is asking us to tell the council that II that's what we think should be done. That's our recommendation but we've
got to get them to tell us.
Brad Johnson: I was trying to... '
Emmings: Well, of course. We sure can't do that tonight until everybody's -
had more time to digest this and I think getting your report is going to bell
a big step in that direction.
Bill Morrish: Yeah in about 2 weeks. It's somewhere in the computer right"
now...
Emmings: Okay. Do we need a formal motion on this or anything?
Krauss: I don't know. If you've got, there seems to be a consensus of the
Planning Commission. That's probably sufficient.
Emmings: Does anybody have anything to say that sounds different than what,"
we've already said several times? Okay. Uh, I have to go. If you want to
continue I'll turn it over to either the next Chairman or the present Vice
Chairman. Okay, is there anything else?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 5, 1992 - Page 42
I/
Krauss: No.
1 Batzli: Do we want to approve the By -laws and that stuff?
Conrad: Let's do that next session.
Emmings: We've got to do (b), (c), and (d) on this. Informational things.
Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in f r v
J g :favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10 :15 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
e
i
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 28, 1992
1 Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Jim Andrews, Randy Erickson, Wendy Pemrick,
1 Larry Schroers, Dave Koubsky and Jan Lash
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator; and Jerry
Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor
1 WELCOME NEW MEMBERS:
Schroers: The first item on our agenda is to welcome our two new
commissioners, Fred Berg and Randy Erickson. Congratulations. Welcome to
the Commission. We look forward to working together and hopefully we'll be
able to accomplish a lot. You have had an opportunity to meet everyone
here so far? We are honored to have Mayor Chmiel in our midst this
evening. Have you had an opportunity to meet the new commissioners?
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Schroers: Very good. For your information, there's a couple of items of
past business on the agenda tonight such as approval 9f the Minutes of
December 10th and.
Hoffman: Item 8.
Schroers: Yeah. Priorization of the 1992 Park Acquisition and
Development. You probably won't want to vote on those two items seeing how
' you haven't been involved with them in the past. But other than that we
have all been in the situation where we're sitting here brand new and we
know that it might be a little uncomfortable at first but we hope that we
' can make you feel as comfortable as possible and encourage you to
participate at whatever level you feel comfortable. Okay.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS: CHAIRPERSON AND VICE - CHAIRPERSON.
' Schroers: Do we have any nominations?
1 Pemrick: I'll move that we keep Larry Chairperson and Jim Vice -
Chairperson.
1 Lash: I'll second that.
Pemrick moved, Lash seconded to elect Larry Schroers as Chairman and Jim
Andrews as Vice Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission for 1992.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: •
Lash moved, Pemrick seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and
Recreation Commission dated December 10, 1991 as presented. All voted in
favor except Berg and Erickson who abstained and the motion carried.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 -- Page 2
APPROVAL OF 1992 AGENCY MEMBERSHIPS TO THE NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARKS
ASSOCIATION (NRPA) AND THE MINNESOTA RECREATION AND PARKS ASSOCIATION
(MRPA) .
' Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, really no explanation of this items is needed.
What I simply wanted to point out is that our membership to these different
agencies are both important to individual members but they're also
' important to the city as a whole due to the work that these different
agencies do. The one example which I cited there is the lobbying efforts
which initiated LAWCON which the City has been a very big benefactor of in
both the Minnesota Association and the National Association carry out
' extensive lobbying efforts which do benefit the local municipalities in the
areas of park and recreation. That's one of the major reasons I feel it's
important that the City does maintain those memberships with those
different agencies.
Schroers: Okay, very good. Can I ask for a recommendation to approve the
' agency memberships to the NRPA and the MRPA?
Andrews: So moved.
' Pemrick: Second.
Andrews moved, Pemrick seconded to approve Chanhassen Park and Recreation
' Commission's membership to the NRPA and the MRPA. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Hoffman: Just one side note as well. I've listed the publication sheet
you should be receiving and if you don't start receiving those in the next
month or so, please let me know either through a phone call or at a meeting
so we can get that mailing information back on line.
' NAMING OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION AS THE CHANHASSEN TREE BOARD.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners. The City has recently
completed an application to become a tree city USA. If Chanhassen meets
four standards we can become a tree city USA which allows us to be eligible
for several grants through the DNR, forestry section. We also receive a
' walnut mounted plaque, a tree city flag, special highway signs for the
community's entrances. Attached for your review is a copy of the
application and a copy of the brochure on tree city USA. One of the four
' standards is the naming of a tree board. We are asking that the Park and
Recreation Commission be named as the Chanhassen Tree Board. A second
standard is establishment of Arbor Day Celebration which all City Council
members and Commission members would be able to participate in. That way
we would formalize and expand on our tree give away program which is held
every year. Make that in a form of a celebration. Expand that at Arbor
Day recognition and proclamation. Again the preservation and planting of
trees is a practice which many of us are near and dear to our hearts and
we've talked about on numerous occasions. The Planning Commission talks
about trees. The City Council talks about trees. I think anything that we
can do to further their importance in our city is beneficial. This
application has been made. We have not heard back from them yet. The
other two measures which we need to meet are you need to spend $2.00 per
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 3
capita on a tree program. That's outright purchase of trees. Maintenance
of trees. Purchase, trimming, moving of trees. All those things combined. ,
We did meet that. We were up in the $40,000.00 to $50,000.00 range in
expenditures as they relate to trees on an annual basis. Then the other
standard is a proclamation. An official proclamation of the Arbor Day
Celebration. With that we are asking tha tthe Chanhassen Park and
Recreation Commission make a motion to name themselves the Chanhassen Tree
Board as well. '
Berg moved, Lash seconded to designate the Chanhassen Park and Recreation
Commission as the Chanhassen Tree Board. All voted in favor and the motion '
carried.
Lash: Todd? I think I read, I guess I'd like us to check into this. In
the past Chaska I believe has had a program for residents where they were II
able to buy. I don't know if they got a deal through a nursery or how this •
worked but they were able to buy trees, if they were a resident for a
reduced rate as an encouragement. I think it was for mostly new homeowners
to try and get some trees on their lots and I think that would be something '
I'd like to see us check into and see if we could have something like that.
Schroers: I was hoping that this would generate a little bit of 1
discussion. I guess are we going to include the Tree Board in our name or
are we abandoning the Park and Recreation Commission for the Tree Board?
Hoffman: Just an additional title. You're still the Chanhassen Park and ,
Recreation Commission. Being named as a Tree Board is a formality as part
of the process of making this application.
Berg: I guess as far as Arbor Day celebrations and whatever are concerned,
I'd like to see us get involved with the schools as much as possible too.
Educate the kids. '
Lash: You know the little seedlings that they passed out to the kids on
Arbor Day, do we pay for those or where do those come from? Are they
donated?
Hoffman: Received through a donation.
Lash: Just speaking for myself when those come home, they're so small that
and they come at the time of year when it just doesn't seem like it's not a
time that you can plant something like that. You've got to put them in a II
bucket or you've got to take a lot of care of it and then work it
transplanting it. It's so small to put it in your yard that the first time
you mow you mow it over and it's history anyway. I thought if we were
putting any money towards it, I would rather see it go towards a program
where people who need to have more of a substantial tree in their yard
could get it at a reduced cost. I like the idea of giving the kids. It's
an experience for kids to get the little seedlings but I wonder if any of I
them have ever survived.
Hoffman: The survival rate is very low and we recognize that. Tim Erhart
does donate the trees each year simply because of his interest in seeing
trees planted within the City. Program which you spoke of in Chaska is a
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 4
very good program. What we would do is, I believe they take orders and we
' would put the order list out for bids and obviously being a muncipality and
having a very large order of trees, you're going to get a substantial price
break. Then you have a pick up day and that type of thing. I believe
' residents are very interested in planting trees. However when you go to a
nursery and you need to pay retail prices, it's fairly prohibitive. Those
are some of the issues that were discussed at the Council level when the
tree ordinance. For new homes you currently need to plant 1 tree and we're
talking about shouldn't it be necessary that they plant 3 trees or 2 trees
but again you start tagging on additional costs into moving into the
community so they wanted a balance there as well. But giving the people
the opportunity to purchase at their own will for a reduced price would
probably be a successful program.
Schroers: I think that just giving us this additional title hopefully will
make the entire community a little bit more aware. Maybe in terms of
construction. Taking extra precaution around trees and that sort of thing
would be a big benefit as far as I'm concerned. I noticed that we've lost
' a lot of nice trees due to construction. Hopefully this will help the
problem on that a little bit too.
II Lash: At one point a while back, a year or two ago, wasn't there work on a
-tree ordinnnce?
Hoffman: Yes.
Lash: At Council. And was that finally approved?
' Hoffman: Yes. They worked through what we discussed earlier. The 1 or 3
trees. Ordinances are in place for developing, replacing the caliper
inches which is if you cut down a 30 inch oak you need to replace 30
' caliper inches which is hard to argue that you're replacing the 30 inch oak
tree or whatever you cutting down. But measures are being taken in that
regard. The map over, the aerial photo over on the board here is in
conjunction with the DNR and working on a tree preservation, reforestation
program through our Planning Department. Working in conjunction with a
forester under contract to take a look at the remaining forest which were
originally here. ...and then taking a look at what areas might be likely
' to reforest to gain back some of that forested area in our community. I
believe it's just under 10% that's currently forested which is very
insignificant as compared to what the City of Chanhassen used to look like.
11 Andrews: I have a procedural question. As the Tree Board, do we meet
within our Park Board meeting? Do we have to adjourn and reconvene as the
Tree Board?
Hoffman: No. As issues for the Tree Board would come up, those would be
discussed in the context of the regular Park and Recreation•Commission
meeting. There has been discussion or I had discussion today with
Councilmember Wing about the possibility of having a subcommittee. Tree
Board subcommittee comprised of somebody from the Planning Commission, a
couple members from the Park Commission and interested Council members that
can discuss these issues and that may be an avenue which the Park
Commission would like to investigate as well.
1
Pa.k and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 5 1
Schroers: This may enlighten us or open some doors as far as how to
preserve some of that Bluff Creek area.
Andrews: I just have to make a comment too. I think it's kind of ironic
that they're going to give us a walnut plaque as a part of the Tree Board. I
One of the most rare trees in our area.
Pemrick: When it says $2.00 per capita. Where does that money come from?
Hoffman: They want you to, in your overall budgets so a portion of my
salary, a portion of the Planning Director's salary, a portion of the
people doing site plan reviews insuring that trees are not clear cut for
development. Our park maintenance people who are out trimming trees.
-Cutting down dead trees. The work they just completed in Pheasant Hill
Park is considered part of that. Controlling the dead tree population that'
was in that park. The removal or the moving programs we've had within the
parks. Leasing a tree spade to move trees. That's all included. So it's
included in our overall budget but we certainly could increase the
expenditures in the area of trees if we make a point of it and if that's
what the city would wish to do.
Schroers: Good. Any further discussion on item 5? ,
ESTABLISHMENT OF 1992 LAKE ANN PARK ENTRANCE FEES.
•
Hoffman: Each year the parking permits for Lake Ann are established by
resolution. The history of the permit fees and annual gross revenues since
1987 is shown for your information. Attached are the Minutes of last I
year's discussion which is maybe fresh in your memory and inclusion of the
1991 - revenue report which was prepared by Jerry. Please note that
personnel costs for seasonal employees are shown on the report. However
the cost associated with administration of the gate attendant program and II
the cost of the permits is not identified. It's interesting to note the
series in 1987 revenues were down at about $14,000.00 and they jumped
pretty dramatically in 1988. That was the heavy drought year. By the end
of May we were substantially ahead in revenues generated. Parking permits
sold. They leveled back out in 1989. But then agaiii raised up in 1990 -91
and that was due to the implementation of the charging $5.00 for 15 ball
players on each team. That increased revenues by just over $5,000.00 so it '
shows where that increase came from. Last year's discussion on this issue
at the February 26th meeting brought out the following points. It was
discussed whether or not we should consider raising the fees in 1992 to
increase revenue. Revenues generated are insignificant in the overall
budgeting for Park and Recreation operations. Non- residents playing on
adult softball teams receive a resident pass and should users of Lake Susan"
Park be charged a fee? Responses to each of these points has been
prepared. I'm sure you've read through them. The fees can again be raised
or lowered in any given year. It's reviewed by the Park Commission each
year and then approved by the City Council. All we need to do is determine"
what the consequences would be if we raised or lowered or whatever we do
with the fees the public is going to react in a certain measure. That's
what we want to try to do to determine. A second issue is revenues
generated from the parking fee program are relatively insignificant on
their effect on funding Park and Recreation operations. They represent
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 6
about 2% of our annual operating budget. Non - residents playing softball in
Chanhassen are saving $5.00 in the purchase price of a pass and then again
as can be seen from the revenue figures. However, incorporating the $75.00
charge into the softball fees rather than relying on the belief that the
' players would buy a pass anyway has resulted in increased revenues. As
stated there, if we attempted\to go back in and pluck out that additional
$5.00 from those non - residents, we would have some very tricky bookwork and
tracking type of operations to complete within the department. Then again
Lake Susan was acquired, purchased and developed through a variety of
funding sources. Charging users to enter this park. To use a community
amenity which the vast majority of cities provide free, the fee at Lake Ann
Park was originally based upon the assumption that revenues collected be
placed in the general fund to offset the lifeguard cost. So the free was
originated approximately 18 years ago at Lake Ann Park in an attempt to
offset some of the costs in the lifeguarding program. My position as the
Coordinator of the city parks continue to be that parks are a service to
the community which are available free of charge. The thought of packaging
parks of a product for which you must pass a gate and pay a fee does not
match my expectations of municipal parks. However in that Lake Ann is a
special use facility offering to my knowledge, the largest fully guarded
beach in Minnesota, I have acted neutrally in reference to parking fees in
' the past. However considering the number of negative aspects associated
with the gate attendant program, those are listed there, I'm asking that
the Park Commission take a look at, a close look at the parking fee
' program. This has been an issue which I've put a great deal of thought in.
I'm interested to hear the Park Commission's viewpoint on this. You've
read through my report there and again it's a situation where we run into a
substantial amount of problems operating that gate house. And for the
' $10,000.00 which are received back for that, I'm questioning whether or not
that's a program which we need to continue to operate as a part of the
operations underneath the Park and Recreation Department. It is revenue. I
know that the Park and Recreation Commission has been very conscious of
that particular revenue. It's about $10,000.00 give or take on any
particular year. The City Council is very conscious of that revenue.
' However, taking a look at that number as it relates to our overall budget,
it's fairly insignificant. If we were just to dismantle the gate attendant
program, $10,000.00 being worked back into the revenue side of our general
budget is pretty insignificant. We are a municipality which is different
from most others. There are very few municipal parks within the State of
Minnesota which have this type of fee and so again the recommendation
which I'm bringing forward to you tonight is that the revenues which were
anticipated in 1992 have been budgeted in our 1992 city budget.
Recommendation is to keep the fees for 1992 as they were in 1991 but to
take a close look at what we're accomplishing with that gate attendant
program and to forward an appropriate recommendation upon doing so to the
City Council.
Schroers: Thanks a lot Todd. I think that this is an item that definitely
I deserves some discussion here. I know that I have some particular points
of interest regarding this and I wouldn't be surprised if there are others.
Jan, how would you like to?
Lash: Start? Gee, I was interested in hearing what everybody else had to
say first. I do have one question first for Todd. I'm not quite clear
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 7
about your meaning. By doing so the City would realize increased service 1
in other park and recreation areas? How would we?
Hoffman: Simply by the, it takes a considerable amount of time to
administer that program. To hire employees. Go ahead and conduct employee"
training and make out time schedules. Receipt the money each morning and
if we do not have that program, it would simply be hours gained to
accomplish other things.within the department. '
Lash: Okay. My thought was that your meaning for that was that we would
use the gate attendant in another manner. '
Hoffman: Other manner, no.
Lash: Okay, because then I didn't see any cost savings for us. '
Hoffman: Approximately 6 or 7 people are employed as gate attendants each
year and those positions would simply not be available undeft the
department.
Lash: I know one of the concerns that's come up in the past, and I think
that this is Larry's and it is one for me also, is the fact that having the
gate attendant I think does tend to make people feel a little bit more
accountable for their actions within the park. Maybe if we were to review I
this whole program and instead of having a gate attendant, have more of a
roving person throughout the park and I think we've talked about that as
something we wanted to look into anyway. More with volunteers or senior
citizens as having some park patrols. Maybe that would be an option rather'
than having someone at the gate.
Schroers: Okay, maybe I can elaborate a little bit more on this. I have I
quite a lot of experience in this gate attendant arena. I totally concur
with Todd that it is, it does generate several administrative problems.
However, my experience has been that gate people tend to be very helpful.
They answer many questions that people will have upon coming into the park I
and very importantly as you mentioned, I think that they give the
impression that that park is staffed. It's a place that we care about.
We're concerned about and I have a real concern. If we take the gate out
of there and we just have an open door policy, people are going to get the
idea that they can just come in there anytime and do just about anything
they want when the gate is not locked. And even though we may have some
patrolling going on and some police protection, they aren't going to be
there at all times when the park is accessible and people are going to go
in there and cause damage and carry on disruptive behaviour and that sort
of thing in the absence of a staff person. I think it's really important II
to have that there. Another reason that it's good to have someone there is
to have a phone and someone who knows how to get a hold of someone in case
of an emergency. I realize that there is a phone and lifeguard that's
trained down on the beach but there is quite an expanse of park that is nod'
on the beach. The ballfields and at the tennis court and if there is an
injury, someone can go right to the gatehouse and say I need help and then
they can get some help in a hurry. So my concern is not losing a revenue II
or the revenue that's involved but we all calling a special use facility
and I think the reason for it is because it's a special place to all of us
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 8
and we need to give it special care and it maybe doesn't have to be a gate
person but I think that we have to have some visible staff person in the
park to both be helpful in a number of ways and to protect our interest in
the park as well.
Berg: Tying in with what you're saying, I'm wondering if the fact that you
have to pay a fee even though it's fairly negligible, if that doesn't help
create the image of it being a special park. That doesn't add to it ,a
little bit.
Schroers: I think it does but if there's no one there to collect a fee,
it's on your honor system, the younger people, the people that you're
generally going to have problems with. Saying ah, I'll pay next time.
They're in the park.
Berg: I'm saying the two together would, they'd have to be together. I'm
not saying elimination of the guard. I'm saying having the fee and the
guard there helps create the feeling that it is a special. It's a
' different place to go.
Schroers: Yeah. I think that I would not be interested in attaching a fee
to the use of Lake Susan Park unless at some time we got that up to where
it was on line with Lake Ann and we were offering a full service beach with
lifeguards. I think we're basically going to be catering to a younger
crowd at Lake Susan and I wouldn't care to charge a fee to get into Lake
Susan. I guess I like the structure, the rates as they are but I think we
maybe need to work on the attendant program and maybe do some creative
thinking and kick around a better idea. However I don't know what that
' might be. I think a roving park person, unless he's someone that's on a
vehicle that really gets around and the vehicle is signed and he's real
identifiable, I think that that's a workable situation but otherwise having
an attendant in the gate is everyone that...and that sends them a signal
when they're coming to use our park.
Koubsky: It's the one benefit I see too to the program is we do create,
even though our mission isn't to create jobs, we do create some part time
employment for 9 people which is, the community's paying the fee but out of
that we're giving some people some job experience and some level of
responsibility. An idea I had just here, we have the extra $10,000.00 and
I know supervising or overseeing 9 additional people is a drain on staff.
I was wondering if it's possible to research an internship. Somebody who
11 may be studying for park and rec. Possibly a part time position over the
summer. Roll some of that $10,000.00 into that which would help you and
Jerry out Todd. There again we'd be creating a position. We'd be creating
some employment. Keeping a watchful eye over our park system which I think
we're all concerned about. We would be helping you out. We'd be helping
the 9 gate guards out and possibly somebody's potential carreer path.
' Hoffman: We have included in the 1992 administrative budget $5,100.00 for
a contract employee for approximately 4 months. Their position title would
be program specialist and so they'll carry out quite a few of the duties
which Jerry would be working on. Freeing up more time for Jerry to be
involved with the gate attendants. The training of the gate attendants has
been one issue which we've put additional time in each year. It's a unique
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 9
job. You're isolated. You have a lot of time on your hands in certain
cases and in other instances you're very, very busy. That tends to lean I
towards, how shall we say it, inappropriate work habits at certain points.
It's hard to keep these people on the ball. Having some experience with
the folks at Hennepin Parks, I believe their gate attendants do a good job.,
They are a messenger. They do provide information about the park.
However, on the other hand they do receive a lot of verbal abuse and a lot
of heckling as well from folks. So it's an issue of concern to us and we 1
continue to try to work out the problems.
Lash: Has the verbal abuse declined though over the last few years? I
know at one point you did think it was really not worth the effort that wall
going into it when we were having the problems with the visitors. The
visiting team parents coming in and having to pay and when we changed that
policy. What kind of people are objecting to this? Are they non-
residents?
Are they residents?
Ruegemer: I think spectators coming in to watch adult softball would be
one of them.
Hoffman: It's a pretty wide gambit. A number of people see the park sign
and pull off TH 5 and just want to drive through the park and find out what"
it's location is and they get nailed with a fee and they don't want to pay
it so either they turn around or they give you some type of their opinion
of being charged to enter this park and pull a U turn and head out of the I
park. We talked about that. I think the point was brought up tonight
about the Commission. My thoughts were down the same avenue. It does
provide some security for that park. It does provide jobs. Employment.
We keep a very close tab on that. We try to hire city residents for our
seasonable positions if they are available so there are benefits to the
program. If it is the wish of the Commission to continue that, we would
certainly carry out that program and continue to work on it to improve it. 1
Schroers: Several of these issues have come up for me in the past just
personally at work and we have the same thing. People drive up and say we I
just want to drive in and look and see what the park is like in case we'd
like to come back and see what kind of picnic facilities you have. We say
go ahead. Come on in. We don't charge them a fee. I think that the same
courtesy can be shown to someone who comes and says well, I just want to II watch my neighbor play ball for a few minutes or something like that. We
can certainly let them drive in. I don't know, besides the seasonal
stickers, do we actually hand out a sticker for a daily parking pass that
they have to display in their window?
Hoffman: It's just like a post -it note with the daily pass on there.
Lash: Why is that necessary?
Hoffman: Why is it necessary? Simply to, if we do do an enforcement of a II
community service officer going through the parking lot, they have
identification on their vehicle.
Koubsky: It's a receipt. 1
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 -- Page 10
Hoffman: Receipt as well. If we did not do that, if we ever chose to do
' some type of enforcement, that type of issue...identification on the
vehicle.
1 Lash: But you could assume if the vehicle is inside the park grounds
they've gone past the gate attendant and they have either shown their pass
or paid their daily fee.
Hoffman: On numerous occasions when people do drive up and they don't want
to pay the fee, they just take off into the park. Then we instruct the
employee to call a community service officer: Hopefully get a license
plate and then they head on down and try to locate that person that just
flew by the gate.
Lash: How often do those kinds of things happen? I'm naive I guess but.
Hoffman: Jerry has worked with that program for the past few years but in
my experience, I'd have to stop in there just to work with the seasonals on
the way home and things like that and for the most part people are fairly
cooperative but there are instances where I stand out there and people are
fairly objective to the system. Again it's unique. There's only one other
II city park that I'm aware of in the metropolitan area,.or in the State for
that matter, and that's the Bloomington, it's a special use, the beach
there at Hyland. Across from Hyland Park in the city of Bloomington. So
' many people aren't used to it. That may be one of the... If you go to a
State park or County park you're fairly tuned in or you're patterned to
expect to pay an entrance fee when you get there. People who are used to
going to other communities to watch a ballgame or play in a ballgame or
come to a particular softball tournament typically are not charged and so
when they show up at our door, they say what?
' Schroers: I think that's understandable. I think if someone wants to
drive in the park to look for their dog. To look for their lost child or
to see if a neighbor or a friend happens to be there. Whatever, some kind
of reason like that, the gate person could just say fine. Just go in. If
' someone wants to come and attend an event, a ballgame or something or spend
time at the beach or something, I think we have a right to charge for that
because we do have a capacity limit in that we have only so many parking
' spots and people who aren't willing to pay for a place and to come into
should maybe go somewhere they don't have to. I understand what you're
saying about the ballpark thing and I really agree with that. It would
probably upset me a little bit if I had to go somewhere and pay $2.00 to
get in but I just don't know how you can get around that. How can you say
well we're charging if you're using the beach but we're not going to charge
for using the ballfields or the tennis courts. That would create more
' administrative difficulties I think than leaving it as it is.
Lash: You have given instructions to the gate attendants that if somebody
hassle them they should just let them in.
Hoffman: Let them in and take their license plate.
' Lash: I guess if people make a stink about it, you should just let them
through. We don't have to have these hidden tactics on them or anything.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 11 1
Schroers: Do you have trouble with the attendants themselves? Do they
complain? Do they generate a lot of problems because of whatever? It's
too hot or someone hollered at them or something like that of that nature.
Do the attendants themselves create problems for the staff?
Ruegemer: I think when they do have a lot of time on their hands, they do II
tend to not have real good work ethic I would say but that's something that
we have to work on as far as service training. How can we motivate the
employees to not screw off. Keep their mind in tune to what their task is.
Hoffman: Be expecting that next car into the gate. Welcome to Lake Ann
Park.
Schroers: Some of that we've come to take in stride. At certain jobs, our
lifeguards when it's 60 degrees, cloudy and windy and no one's at the
beach, you hardly expect them to sit in the chair and stay focused and that
sort of thing so we just kind of take a certain amount of that into
consideration and then as supervisory staff, just to make sure that it
doesn't get to an unacceptable level. That's our job and that's what we're'
getting paid for is to say you know, for these seasonal employees that are
at that age where most gate attendants are still high school age and then
others, lifeguards and stuff are a lot of time college aged or whatever.
But park and recreation should be an enjoyable thing not only for the
people that come to use the facilities but for the people that work there
as well and we try to keep a balance. I don't think it's reasonable to
expect to pay somebody $3.50 or $3.75 an hour and expect them to perform
like a Swiss watch or something like that. So we tolerate a little bit I
think we kind of stress the fact that we're trying to maintain an image and"
you know, if you're reading a book or something, just don't be sloppy.
Don't be obvious. Be half undressed and have obnoxious music bothering
other people and that sort of thing. II Lash: I agree with your points totally Todd and I came with the idea that
I would be flexible on this issue and if everybody else, because usually
I've been kind of a stickler on this one but 1 decided I'd be flexible and I
if everybody else thought it was something we could live without, I'd go
along with it. My biggest concern about if we tried it without a gate
attendant and without the passes is if it didn't work out, to try and go I
back and start it again. Then I think we'd have really a big uproar from
people. I would fear that reaction of trying without and I'm trying to
think of a way that we could do an experiment or try something different
but still have that to fall back on in case we realize that that having the ll
gate attendant for the security part of it was worth the money we were
spending. Maybe at that point in time maybe all we'd have to do is
reinstate the gate attendant policy and come up with the money to just pay
a gate attendant and not use the pass money to offset that cost. If that's
basically what everyone wants is to have the security and it's important
enough for us to do it, we need to try and figure out a way of coming up
with the money. And whether we want to keep it by the parking permits or
whether we want to come up with it a different way. Is that what it's
boiling down to?
Koubsky: Well Todd what would our other options be if we had gate
attendants for raising the revenue to pay them? Without having a fee?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 -- Page 12
Hoffman: A fee?
Koubsky: A fee. You know a fee is one method of generating revenue.
II Hoffman: Correct. If we did not have a fee, then it would simply be a
budget expenditure out of the general fund.
Lash: And as of, well not this next year but the next year we'll have to
have staff down at the.
Koubsky: Concession building.
Lash: Right. And that money would come from the boat rentals. Do you
think that the boat rental fee would be enough to offset the attendant
salary too?
Hoffman: Probably not.
' Lash: We're just going to break even?
Hoffman: If we put a gate attendant out there without the job of
I collecting fees, that would really be. Then they'd have nothing to do.
This issue has been revisited. You go back each year, maybe it's a silly
ordinance. Maybe we ought to make it every 5 years because it's been
discussed on and on each year and the beach discussion has been brought up.
Should we move the gatehouse down to the beach parking lot and just charge
for the beach and let everybody use the ballfields at will? So the program
in the past few years since we instituted the policy that youth sports or
I anybody who's paid for swimming lesson and their parents, participants,
whoever so we're essentially letting 25% of the people that drive up to
that gate in free. Since we've instituted that policy it's worked fairly
I effectively. We've had some moaning from the softball teams since they
have to pay $75.00 per team for the parking passes but again, it's raised
our revenue. It's helped out the program so it's ran fairly smoothly. The
recommendation to keep it at last year's rates for 1992 came across.
However I did want to test the waters about the gate attendant program. I
have mixed emotions as well about the gate attendant program at the boat
access. Again, a very unusual situation to staff from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00
p.m. or 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. to staff a boat launch. A municipal boat
launch. The only one that I'm aware of, it occurred simply because the
city at that time needed to appease the concerns of residents in that area
when that boat access went in. The program does cost the city dollars to
administer and dollars to hire those people. The benefits we receive back
are again that it does tend to enforce or at least we can enforce the
parking policies which are in place down there at South Lotus. Not parking
on the street and that sort of thing. With the Eurasian Water Milfoil
issue, which was brought up, some of that checking is taking place but as 1
mentioned in my report, again it's really a small portion of the total time
when that boat access is open that we have somebody there staffing it so
you can't expect that it's going to keep Eurasian Water Milfoil out of
Lotus Lake. In fact the lake already has Eurasian Water Milfoil so. Again
' the gate attendant policies, we can certainly continue to operate as we
have in the past. It is generating some revenue. Again I just wanted to
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 13
test the waters about the feelings of the municipality or the city charging '
for city parks. Or at least one of our city parks.
Schroers: I'm curious about a couple things. I guess that you could sell
me on the fact that we don't need an attendant at the boat launch. I could'
live with that. I think just we can inform Carver County Sheriff and our
local deputies that we're pulling the gate person out of there but we would
like the ordinances enforced and I think word will get'around real fast I
when they start getting ticketed for parking in the wrong place or for too
many vehicles parking in the designated parking area and they start getting
ticketed. They're going to be unhappy and they're probably going to holler.
about it and that sort of thing but that will definitely get the message '
across. I think we could live without a gate attendant there. But I'm
wondering how staff feels about not having an attendant on Lake Ann. Do
you feel comfortable with that? Do you think that just opening up Lake Ann '
and not having an attendant too will be okay? I mean I just, the first
thing I see is people out spinning donuts out on the ballfields and that
sort of thing. When there's someone standing in that gate, that tells
somebody hey, we can't go out on the ballfield and drive around with our
cars because that person in that gate is going to call someone. That's
what they're here for But I really believe if we leave Lake Ann
unattended we're asking for some real problems that could seriously deface 1
the park.
Andrews: I want to make two comments. I'd like to make a motion because Ill
think we've beat this to death.
Lash: Again.
Andrews: And I think it will pass unanimously. My only comments were the
attendant will help with glass. Keeping the glass out of the park and
keeping the pets out of the park. I think that's another benefit out of I
that and the presence of a gate attendant at Lake Ann will definitely cut
down on potential vandalism or inappropriate use. I mean it's just
inevitable it will have some positive effect. And with that said I'd like
to move that we approve the fees as they were in 1991 for 1992 and that we
beat this to death again next year.
Schroers: Okay. Before we move to second that, would you want to add the II
discontinuation of the gate person at.
Andrews: At South Lotus? '
Schroers: At South Lotus.
Andrews: Yeah, I would like to add that actually. I think that's '
unnecessary based on what I've -seen over there.
Lash: Is that something we can take action on tonight since it was not on II
the agenda? That's something that could generate.
Hoffman: It will generate some discussion. It certainly will.
•
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 14
Schroers: Do you want to bring that up as a separate item on another
agenda, that's fine if you think that would be more appropriate.
Andrews: I will agree with that then that we remove that addition.
t Schroers: Okay, then is there a second to Jim's motion?
Lash: Second.
Berg: Another discussion item if I could.
Schroers: Sure.
Berg: I guess I'd like to see too in terms of the training of the
employees with the gate attendants to use some discretion in terms of the
people that they hassle. Not hassle but insist that they pay. I'm
thinking if a neighbor goes down and wants to watch his best friend play a
softball game, the bad will that we're going to create by insisting that he
pay the $2.00 is not worth it. If the money is negligible anyway, it's
only sense, the attendant's sense that there's some abuse of the system.
If they want to go in and watch a softball game, let them do it. If
' they're coming every we :k and they're establishing a routine, then they can
spend the $5.00 for the pass or whatever but I don't think it's worth the
ill will that's going to be created by insisting that these poor people pay
' the $2.00 every time they come in to watch a•softball game. If they're
clearly going down to the beach and they're clearly not just going there to
do that, then insist that they pay. But ask them what they're coming in
for. And if they're coming in to watch the game or they're going to be
there just looking for their friend or their neighbor to see if they're
there to pick up their kid or whatever, I don't see why they have to be
charged.
' Hoffman: It's been discussed. We attempt, even individual from employee
to employee. Each employee enforces that to a different degree. It's
difficult to set up policy in that because it's fairly arbitrary. If we
started to do that to any significant amount we could probably see the
revenues drop by a few thousand dollars in very short order.
Schroers: We could also have a situation where somebody's coming back at
us and saying, hey I had to pay $2.00 and this person didn't and we're
doing the same thing.
' Hoffman: Yeah. It's pretty difficult. If we want to do that, we need to
do that in a consistent, policy basis such as we did with the youth
programs. It's stated specifically, in fact we should restate that in our
' motion, that participants of youth sporting activities or swimming lessons
or youth activities where they paid an initial fee, whether it be swimming
lessons, T -ball, Little League.
Lash: Soccer.
Hoffman: Soccer, and their parents and their spectators do not need to pay
a fee to get into the park. That all came about because of the outside
teams, the visitor teams coming into town and feeling it was very unfair to
1
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 15 1
pay a fee to get into our home field when we went to their home field and I
we don't need to pay up there.
Schroers: I want to apologize to Jim. I think I lost control of your
motion here. I think we should follow through with that and then we can
continue on with a little discussion after if we want to do that since we
started it.
Andrews: I think we should call the question. 1
Schroers: Okay, so we had a motion from Jim, second from Jan.
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to establish the Lake Ann Park entrance fees at the 1991 rates as
1
$2.00 - daily pass
$5.00 - Seasonal pass - Resident
$10.00 - Seasonal pass - Non - Resident
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Schroers: Okay. The motion is carried. Now if there is any additional
discussion or concerns.
Erickson: There's one thing I'd like to say I guess. I really see both
sides of this that Todd has brought forth and I can see why you discuss
this every year. Being new to it, I don't have as good of background in I
this maybe as the rest of you but it sounds like one of the major concerns
is just a security issue. I shouldn't say just a security issue. That's
very important but maybe. in the future if this can be brought up, you might
want to look at, what time does the park close? 10:00? 10:00. The gate II
attendant leaves at like 6:00 typically?
Ruegemer: No, it's usually 8:00. 1
Erickson: About 8:00. Okay. I guess I would just think that a lot of
possible, and I don't know. You can maybe check records and stuff but
vandalism probably happens at that later period. I would think that during'
the middle of the day, from that 10:00 to 6:00 with more people in the park
there would be less of the vandalism just because of the sheer number of
people in the park. Maybe in the future you might want to approach that as'
when problems do occur. Of course that's not going to be real scientific
with someone there and then someone not there. You're going to have less
with someone there but maybe look at it that way in the future. See if
there is a problem after the attendant leaves.
Schroers: I think I agree with you on that Randy. The majority of II malicious vandalism and stuff is going to be done probably after darkness
and in the late hours but I think when a person drives past the park and
sees during the daytime that it's wide open and it just looks like a place
where you can go in there and do what you want. They're going to also
remember that for the evening. I guess I'm just, because of past
experience, I'm uncomfortable having an area that isn't attended or else
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 16
patrolled frequently enough to get that message across because any areas
' that we have had like that have been problem spots in the facilities and
the very environment itself has suffered as a result. I really hate to see
that happen to Lake Ann after all the money that we've just poured into the
place and as nice as it's becoming. I just think that we really need to
take care of it.
Andrews: I would like to see a future agenda item though on South Lotus
Lake. I think that's a good idea.
Schroers: I like Dave's idea earlier about that internship program.
' Possibly being able to work that in to help staff out with some of the
problems in keeping the gate attendant program enforced.
Hoffman: We'll be back at 3 basically full time staff people this summer
where, because of the departmental changes last year we were not.
Andrews: When do you put out the hiring notices for these part timers?
1 Hoffman: In fairly short order.
1 Ruegemer: Yeah, typically about February. Late February.
Andrews: Maybe we should put this on next month then.
1 Hoffman: We'll put it on the agenda for South Lotus. That will bring out
some in depth discussion probably. Since it's not, needs not be reviewed
each year because there's not a fee there but if we go back and present a
packet of that and we start reading Minutes, you'll see the discussion
which were held that initiated that program which were much more on fire
than any discussion which has ever been held about the fees at Lake Ann
1 Park.
Lash: Was that prior to the access going in originally?
Hoffman: No. It was all along with the access and the neighbors having
concern about the use of the access.
I Andrews: There were some real problems there when it first opened with
parking. It was just totally out of control. I used to use that access.
It was just nuts.
1 Schroers: I think that we can certainly rely on our law enforcement people
to get the message across with the parking. If we'r -e not getting our
money's worth out of an attendant there and it's costing us more than it's
1 worth and actually creating more problems, I think we could justify our
actions by not having an attendant there. I would think most of the
concern of the people who are living there are the actual goings on on the
I water. What's taking place on the lake and that is something that the
attendant can't do anything about anyway.
Hoffman: The original concerns about the number of boats and parking and
1 that type of thing but again all those are coupled with this Eurasian Water
Milfoil issue which many of the lakeshore homeowners are very concerned
1
1
Pars, and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 17 1
about. If they think this gate attendant program can assist in stopping
the spread of milfoil, it is now in Lotus Lake. We do not know to what
extent the weed has grown in that lake yet so that's another issue which
we'll need to take a look at.
Schroers: Okay. Well like Jim said, we'll beat that to death next time 1
around. I think just to make up for some of the slack here, we'll just zip
right through it and we'll move right on to item 7(a).
1992 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION GOALS.
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. For your information item 7 was thel
5 year capital improvement program for trails within the city. That would
have been a fairly extensive discussion. With the request I received from
the City Manager Ashworth for the Commission to come up with some goals for/
1992 to present to the City Council, we deleted that item so you could have
some time to spend on discussing what it is exactly that the Commission
would like to accomplish. Again other than some items will parallel what
we've already discussed in capital improvements. Be it Pheasant Hills or
trail segment down to Lake Susan Hills. Or from Lake Susan Park to
Chanhassen Hills but there's other things that we've discussed on a broader
range which would be labled under goals which the City Council is
interested in hearing about. So City Council, staff members, other
Commissions and this Commission all know which direction we're heading in
as far as the park and recreational facilities within the city. So we'll I
open it up from here. I'll take notes. We'll try to generate some
discussion but then again we need to compile a list of specific goals. The
City Council has set their goal session with staff to review these goals
for February 29th. That's a Saturday at the fire station so we will be
sitting down and going through it. Staff member department heads will be
' sitting down with City Council going through these particular goals with
the City Council that day.
Schroers: Why don't we on this, since this could get to be a real
philosophy session here, why don't we just start at one end and go through
and give each person a chance to express how they feel about the trails
then and what you would like to see. Actually what you feel are maybe
somewhat reasonably attainable goals are and I know that that's difficult
to say regarding funding and other things that are taking place.
Construction of TH 5 and how much help we can get putting these trails intoll
place but I think everyone has got probably an idea of what they would like
to see in the way of trails. Let's do that rather than just. 1
Andrews: I have a question. This is pertaining not to the trails?
Hoffman: Correct. To clarify Larry. Item 7 was deleted. That was the 1
trail discussion for capital improvement. We just need to talk in broad.
Schroers: Just in general goals? '
Hoffman: Yes. The Tree Board. Parkland acquisition. The future of the
city's greenways. The future of the city's lakes. 1
Lash: But it's annual goal isn't it?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 18
Koubsky: This is 1992 goals.
' Hoffman: Correct. This is 1992 goals.
' Lash. So it's not too broad of brush strokes. It can't be your vision.
Hoffman: Yeah. You can start your vision. Visionize in 1992 and go from
I
there.
Schroers: Alright. Well we can still operate the same way. Why don't we
start with Jan. You're on the starting end this evening.
' Lash: This is a tough. I think this is a tough assignment. I can only
think of a couple of things that, I don't know how to do this but I guess I
would like for this commission to prioritize or to, I can't even say what
I'm thinking. We have in our long range vision acquiring park property out
by Lake Minnewashta and completing the Bandimere complex and the trail
system and some pretty big visions that we know won't be coming very soon
' for us because of the financing. 1 guess I would like us to try to work on
identifying narrowing down our big visions into a couple of smaller visions
and then prioritizing them and coming up with a way for us to deal with the
financing. How we are going to do this and make a plan so that we can
finally attain these big visions. Instead of just plunking them into the
budget for 1995+ and just hoping by 1996 we'll get a windfall and we'll be
' able to do it. Actually show that it is a priority for us by starting to
plan how we are going to be able to do this financially and not count on a
referendum or not count on a grant or anything like that. I guess it would
have to mean budgeting some out of our yearly budget each year. Bitter of
' a pill as that is for us. But at least to do some brainstorming. I guess
that would be my goal. To look at some possible solutions for us to reach
those long range goals.
' Koubsky: I guess my thought, I agree with Jan. We need to sit down and
prioritize some type of planning strategy. What do we want to accomplish?
One of those things might be to continue to provide sufficient facilities
' for youth and adult sporting activities. To do that we may need to develop
Bandimere. We may need to have a bonding issue. If that's our priority is
to maintain enough facilities to insure recreation activities to continue,
then I think bonding would be an appropriate recommendation to the Council.
But I do think we need to prioritize what does this Board what to achieve
or maintain in it's park system, and that would be throughout. As
demographics increase, we have to change and develop our land that we own
or purchase new land if we see that's a priority but I think athletics is
both mens, womens, boys and girls is a very important part of recreation.
We have to live up to the fact that it's a growing community and we need
additional facilities. I agree with Jan we have to prioritize and plan. I
think bonding is okay if that's what we think we need to fulfill that
priority. Part of that too, we need to maintain safe facilities. I think
this year we don't have a lot of money to spend but we should insure that
recreational facilities, the totlots, the swings, the docks are in safe
working order. Even if we have, there's quite a few parks that we haven't
had funding for, if they have swings or whatever like was brought to our
attention last year. There were some unsafe environments in one of the
parks and we responded quickly to correct that. That I think is a
i
Park and Rec Commissio. Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 19
priority. That all the parks and the things are safe. I think we need to
work at developing each of our parks so at least some of the land, we have 1
some type of activity throughout the park. Or throughout the city to some
point. Be it a bench or be it a mowed walkway on some undeveloped land.
That's what I think. Priority is number one. What do we want to...
That's my goal.
Pemrick: I agree with what's been said here tonight wholeheartedly. It I
seems that we always come up against these road blocks. Well wouldn't it
be great but we don't have any money. Like you say pushing things out to
1995 -96 -97 like we talked about the Bandimere - development maybe having to
go into those years. I believe a bonding issue at this point would maybe III
not be real well received under the economic circumstances of the community
in general. However, it would kind of give us a starting point. You know
we'd have something to go on for the next round. At least we'd be moving
in that direction and trying to achieve some funding for these things. But
other than that I think just making sure we do provide safe facilities at
this point and keep everything operational as best we can that we do have
in place I think is important. I think we do a good job of doing that.
But yeah, with the population growth and with the orientation towards
greater youth in the community, we're going to have a lot of demands on us
to provide more and more for that whole area so I think we'd better
seriously start looking into those areas.
Schroers: Randy, do you have any?
Erickson: Well relatively. new, I don't have a lot of things. I
guess I was thinking what's already been said. Maintaining things at the
quality level that I believe they're at is kind of my simplistic goal I
guess for the year.
Schroers: Yeah, you know maybe keeping things in perspective and not
trying to bite off a bigger hunk that we can chew just kind of, do the
things that we can accomplish and not try to overshoot our limits. Jim.
Andrews: I've got several goals. This has to do more with trails but I've '
been doing this for 2 years and one of my frustrations is TH 101. How
incredibly unsafe it is and how difficult it is to provide any access to
the people that live north of town and north of Lotus Lake. I feel that
for me the most important thing that I can accomplish or help accomplish
would be to somehow get that project, even a glimmer of hope of having it
done, I just feel it has to happen and it's going to be a tragedy when some
kid gets run over on that street because he's trying to come downtown to
come to the hockey rink and use our nice facilities at City Center. I'm
just getting real frustrated with let's wait for the State. No, let's wait
for Eden Prairie. No Eden Prairie, let's wait for Chanhassen and nothing's
happening. That to me is my number one priority. I'd like to see us also,
Lake Ann. The park pavillion area. Making sure that's successfully
completed in a first class facility. That we don't trip and stumble. I II think there are high expectations both at the'Park Board level as well as
our citizens to see something there that's going to look good and work
smoothly right away. And I think it's going to be important for us as a
city, we're attracting corporate picnis or whatever to really have a first II
class operation. I think that hardly justifies the fees that we are trying
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' January 28, 1992 - Page 20
to charge is that we've got a controlled park with first class facilities
' and we make sure that's a top quality facility for those that use it.
Bluff Creek is also important to continue to see that project. I think
it's sort of in an envisionary stage right now but it's such a rare natural
asset to the community. To make sure that we do what we need to make sure
that that land isn't lost to development. I think Jan's comment about long
term planning and long term funding being looked at sort of simultaneously.
We've taken sort of the plan it out for the future because we can't see the
' dollars and I agree that if we don't plan the dollars along with the
project, it's probably never going to happen. I look at Bandimere in
particular, I agree the bonding environment is terrible right now but I
feel it would probably be best, well worth our time to try to get a grip on
what kind of money we're looking at. I think part of the project is to
educate the citizens that we have something that needs to be done and it's
worth while doing. We understand and it might be difficult now but
typically these things don't go through first time anyway. I think it's a
lot easier the second time once you've justified and can establish and
prove the costs really are necessary. And the last thing is, we do have a
' real lack of parkland in the western part of Chanhassen. I think we have
to be eagle eyed for whatever we can find there. I feel that especially
our contacts with the larger developers that have worked with us in the
past are really important. Really make sure that they understand our
interest out of that and we make sure we do what we can for west of Lake
Minnewashta. I guess that's about it.
•
' Schroers: That will keep us busy for a while. That's good Jim. Okay,
Fred do you have anything in this regard?
' Berg: Like Randy being new, I would echo and certainly would share the
concerns that the other Commission members have said. One goal I'd like to
' see in some of the parks and particularly totlots and that sort of thing,
talking with neighbors and aquaintances, the issue of safety and being able
to be there with their kids or not having to be there with their kids all
the time is always an issue and I'd like to see us address that problem.
That concern. Whether it be through supervisors. Your senior citizen idea
was a good one or explore different avenues to have people there to
organizing things for the kids to do. To be there as an adult. Not to be
a babysitter but just to be there as an adult in case of an emergency or if
a concern came up and let that be known in the community. I think that
would be something I'd really like to see happen.
Lash: Can I start again?
Schroers: Sure.
Pemrick: You can't talk about trails. I wanted to and I didn't. Jim did.
Lash: No, City Center. I'm trying now, now that I got off of my big
vision and future vision I'm trying to focus for some things that we do
already have somewhat on line for the upcoming year. One of those I
believe is some work at City Center Park as far as expansion to the
playground there. I guess I would like us to explore any possible funding
options that we have in the past that were successful and to try and add as
much as possible to that in this phase. Also to work as much as possible
.1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 21 1
with the HRA, if they go forward with this city center. What are they
calling it?
•
Hoffman: Central park?
Lash: Yeah, this plan and looking at how much we can benefit City Center
through that plan as far as possibly acquiring the additional property at
the other end and going through with the whole master plan that we have in
mind for City Center and seeing if we can make that a reality at very
little cost to us. If we work with the HRA, maybe we can do that. Another
thing I thought of in tacking about Bandimere is I know a few years ago we
talked about the Army Corps of Engineers doing the grading and we were
supposed to be on a schedule and all of that and I never really heard an
update on that. If that actually occurred and we are on a schedule and
we're just biding time until that happens or if we never got put on a I
schedule and we need to get put on or what the status is of that. I think
that big financial ramification of this whole development for us because it
was something we were counting on. Isn't it?
Hoffman: Something we're exploring.
Lash: Okay. I thought financially that that was basically the plan. To
have them do it because it would be so much more cost efficient. And if we
had to do it, would we then not have enough, we're not going to have enough
money anyway but would it be that much more on top of the estimated
projections that we had before?
Hoffman: The driving force that was behind that was Councilmember Johnson
at the time being in the Reserves. I reviewed the correspondence back and
forth and it's never a definite. It's if the Army Corps is in your
neighborhood and they have the time and you're ready to roll, you have a
grading plan for us, those types of things, and it fits into our schedule,
then they can perform the rough grading.
Lash: So is it something you need to do yearly? Keeping in contact with
them yearly or how does that work?
Hoffman: It needs to be a short timeframe. If we're ready to go say next,
not this spring but the following spring, now would be the appropriate time ll
to contact them to initiate those conversations. Those discussions. I've
had thoughts on we could probably accomplish that in -house as well. We've
done North Lotus Lake Park and now we're doing Pheasant Hills Park.
Contracting out for grading of site preparation is very expensive. We can
lease the equipment and use park maintenance and street crew staff to do
that. It would be a fairly extensive project but a tremendous cost savings
to the City.
Lash: Okay. Another goal, this doesn't cost money so it's probably
attainable, and I think that Todd has achieved this goal in my eye but I
would like to keep this as an on -going goal. Is that we have proper
communication with the residents. All of the business that affects us and
affects them between notification by mail and the paper, I think that Todd
has done an excellent job with that and I just would like to make sure that II
that continues. And lastly is my hope that we can work through cooperative
r
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 22
efforts at building our trail fund to an adequate amount that we can then
start to meet Jim's goal of TH 101 and my goal of CR 17 and someone else's
goal of whatever their goal is.
Pemrick: South TH 101.
Lash: Right. Whatever they are. Everybody's got their own. One of the
' ways that we could achieve that is by being financially, what's in our
mission statement?
Hoffman: Fiscally responsible?
Lash: Fiscally responsible. Yes, that one. In looking at all the trail
projects as they come in and being really conscientious if it's something
that we really think is necessary. If it's something that really fits into
the trail plan or if it's something we think we could live without for now
and would rather have the money to do a trail that's a higher priority for
some of us.
Schroers: Okay. I'm kind of saving for last but if anyone else has
anything they would like to interject.
- Hoffman: Wendy, we can talk about trails. This is our overall so if you
want to bring up the issue.
Pemrick: I would just like to emphasize the need for something done on
south TH 101. I'm speaking of the area from Chanhassen, well south TH 101.
I guess the entire stretch. I get calls almost monthly from residents
saying when is something going to happen to TH 101. People that use it for
walking now and jogging and what not, it's really bad. But we've discussed
that so many times and it definitely needs to be addressed. All I say is,
it's in the plan when they realign TH 101 to be the most cost effective way
to do it but that just doesn't seem to be real satisfactory as an answer so
I don't know what else to say.
Schroers: Okay. I'd just like to address a couple things in pretty
general terms. I think what we have to do is ask staff a lot of questions
because they are the people that can really help us out with things. It
is, I think very realistic to anticipate that there is no way out of park
and rec budget that we will ever put a trail along TH 101. We are
definitely going to have to come up with some creative funding sources.
Trying to save what we can out of our park budget will help in our totlot
areas and things like that but when we're going into major trail
development and major community park development, we will never be able to
satisfy that kind of funding in a reasonable amount of time. I think that
we have to maybe look at our dedication process and see if that can be
somehow negotiated with contractors. I don't know how much more
development is scheduled for the part of TH 101 north of town but for south
' of town for that matter, but we may want to look at sacrificing some open
residential park space like the neighborhood parks for the sake of gaining
linear parks. Trading totlots for trails. That sort of thing. And also
whatever kind of deal we can make along with the straightening out,
reconstruction of the road and that sort of thing. We may have to have
something that we can really gain there. But I think that if we think that
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 23 ,
we're going to save money to be able to do that sort of thing, I don't see I
that as a reality. I also think that we need to do all the checking that
we can and find out what all is going to be available to us as a result of
becoming a tree city and possibly some other things that we have talked
about before but not actually really pursued like the fund for development
of public land. 1 believe that's what it was called. It's an organization
that researches and tries to attain funding for public land and also in the
Bluff Creek area, trying to somehow sell the fact that that should maybe be
included into the National Wildlife Refuge which is just about connected to ,
it. And the trail system running through there that may be available to us
from the abandoned railroad bed. Coming up with some kind of a plan that
connecting that all together and making it look like something in an I
overall plan that would be desirable and that might work out and we would
maybe be dealing with working with the Federal government in that it's a
Federal Wildlife Refuge down there. I guess I don't know what kind of I
political clout being a tree city gives us but that may open up some doors
and I think we're just going to have to try to be creative and think about
putting some things together rather than kind of just save out of our
pockets to accomplish something that would really be unattainable. So I
think creative funding is the answer rather than savings account. They're
not gaining much interest these days. Okay Todd, did we give you enough to
keep you busy for a little while? '
Hoffman= I believe so. I think what I'd like to do is go back through
here and just express some ideas which were generated in my mind due to
your comments to hopefully get some additional information back from the
Commission members. I will as in the past take the liberty to write these
out in some fashion or form that makes sense to the City and go forward
with presenting them to the City Council on the 29th at that goal session.. II
They're in no particular order but creative funding for trail plans and for
- construction of trails is definitely the way to go. The goals that's set
there is simply to maintain awareness of construction projects or projects I
associated with the roadways where we have the possibility to attain a
trail segment identified in our comprehensive trail plan. Example,
Minnewashta Parkway. The sidewalk connected with Minnewashta Parkway
upgrade, that project's about $350,000.00 and 90% of that is funded through"
State Aid money for roadway construction. The rest of it is funded through
the roadway project through the engineering department and we simply do not
pay a dime for the construction of a sidewalk over close to 3 miles on ,
Minnewashta Parkway. If we were going to attain that on TH 101, it would
cost in excess of $350,000.00 to try and do that. It's been joked it would
be cheaper for us to buy two buses and stick one at either side of the TH
101 and drive back and forth. Jim's comment in the past. So creative
funding is the way to go. We just need to keep our eyes open for that so
if those roadway projects are coming through, TH 5 is the other key
example. As they're bringing TH 5 through the city, there's an 8 foot
bituminous trail going on the north side of TH 5 and it's going in as we
speak. Plans in the Minnesota River Valley. It was interesting as we went
through these, many of these things have been my interest as well and 11 hopefully that's a good sign that staff and Commission have the same
interests. Talked with the Director of the National Wildlife Refuge and
the Federal agency today and the land directly south of Chanhassen is not
in one of their blocks. They have seven blocks of holdings along the
Minnesota River valley from Highway 494 north of Bloomington down to
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 24
Jordan. This particular piece is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota
' DNR and they're really not interested in going any further north than TH
212. In fact their Comprehensive Plan_ simply states that they cannot do
that. It would take some pretty effective lobbying to get them to move
north of there. The one thing which they are very interested in is the
creek there. The trail creek. They're very interested in the wildlife
aspect so we can probably buy them into that into moving north into
preserving that creek as they purchase land in that area and we can work on
' them on Bluff Creek. We talked about establishing priorities. My question
back to the Commission is, is that a goal in 1992 to establish priorities
of the Commission or should we be identifying what our priorities are in
' 1991? The bond issue, it's not a very good climate right now. We're
witnessing that in school referendums, etc., etc. plus it's an election
year. Not a real good time to put a bond can and can't be but do we want
to look to next fall or the next election? When is Bandimere...the trend
1 is for ballfields. What our needs are and that really should be a goal for
1992 to identify that. There's a potential that we should be taking a look
at another community survey. Since we did the last survey we probably
increased the population by about 4,000 or 5,000 people. Our demographics
have changed. Our parks have changed. Our land holdings have changed. It
may be an appropriate time to do that so the Commission has a better handle
on what the community is feeling. Safety programs wap mentioned three
times. Again that would be a job which would be put back to our park
maintenance people. Each playground vendor has a particular program which
you can pick up and implement in your particular city. It's a very good
idea. It's been on my individual's goals list last year. It was not
accomplished so it's good to see it back so we can realize that goal.
Highway 101 trail. Park pavillion at Lake Ann. Again that's going to be
an item we're going to discuss tonight. We're still not out of the woods
in that particular issue. If this rebidding doesn't come back favorable,
we're back down into the planning stages. Preserve Bluff Creek.
Discussions on that continue on a weekly basis at the staff level, at the
Council level. The two gentlemen that were in that gave the slide show and
the presentation, they continue to call and follow up. The one thing that
did come about, that was the bluff preservation ordinance where you can
only build down to a certain distance from the bluff. That came about
essentially because of the Redmond house being developed right on the cliff
of the bluff and that really detracts from the bluff line itself. Long
term planning and long term financing. In budget meetings with the Council
this year I mentioned the possibility again trying to go from where we're
at and trying to reach out a little bit farther in that many, many cities
fund some of their park acquisition development out of general tax dollars.
City of Chanhassen does not. I brought that to the attention of the City
Council obviously during their budget meetings and they're trying to trim
our budget. They lent me an ear and said bring it back to us next year in
an official form and we'll take a look at it. But I'd like the Commission
to think about that in that when we develop or improve Rice Marsh Lake Park
or Meadow Green Park or any of our established parks which are already here
and we put $8,000.00, $10,000.00, $15,000.00, $20,000.00, $40,000.00,
whatever it may be out of our annual budget back into those parks, we're
taking that money from Chanhassen Hills, Lake Susan Hills West. Developing
areas where these folks are really thinking that that money's going to go
1 into their neighborhood park. We're essentially, we continue to rob Peter
to pay Paul and for many cities they recognize that and they say, okay 25%
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 25 '
or 40% of the annual CIP program will come out of general tax dollars
because that's really where the improvements are going. They're going back'
into established park areas. At some point the give and take has got to
quit. So if we go back to the City Council for or if our CIP
next year is $150,000.00 and we feel $50,000.00 of that should be out of
general tax revenues, we need to formulate why we think that is the case
and take that came back to the City Council. That will again bolster our
effectiveness of our capital improvement bank account in that we don't I
continually drain it back down to the bottom dollar each year. Hopefully
then we can build then upon that.
Schroers: Would staff be interested in developing that as an agenda item? I
Hoffman: Certainly.
Schroers: Just bring it up for a vote and let's get it done. '
Hoffman: Just completed a random survey and obviously cities which are I
essentially developed, they don't get any money from building permit fees
so about 100% or 95% of their CIP each year comes out of general tax
dollars. The farther you get out into the suburbs, it's more of an even
split or slightly lower amount coming out of the general budget compared toll
fees but we are an exception in that we fund 100% out of fees which I did
not find in any other municipality to date. Lack of park property west of
Lake Minnewashta again should be a continuing goal. We have $150,000.00
set aside. That can start the acquisition there. It certainly isn't going'
to complete it. Something more in line of $250,000.00 or $300,000.00 will
complete the acquisition over there. That is if, we may need to identify
what the goal is. 10 acres? I think 10 acres is minimal for what needs toll
be accomplished west of Lake Minnewashta. Land values over there are
escalating. We have initiated discussions with 3 out of the 4 land owners
that own the big blocks of parcels which are left there. All 3 have shown I
an interest in negotiating with the city for acquisition of their land,
They're also in discussion with developers at the present time as well so
it's who gives me a better deal. Will the City work with me better than
the developer. One of the particular land owners was very turned off by
one of the developers which approached that property owner to purchase his
land. So that's a benefit for the city. City Center expansion. In this
project we need to continue to work with the HRA. We need to continue to
lobby with the City Council members and the HRA so they don't lose sight of
what City Center Park means to this city and just take that one ballfield
away and say well, we've really done something great here. We've got II central park. So we lost a ballfield and City Center Park. That's not a
big deal. Many of your Councilmembers sit on the HRA so it's important to
keep those lines of communication open as well. Proper communications with '
residents. We continue to take a look. Last year was the first year we
published the CIP for resident, for citizen input and citizen knowledge.
That will be published again in the spring brochure which is going out in
the near future. Being creative in what we do with developments is again, '
Larry's idea about trading totlots for trails. We need to stand fast. We
need to investigate our ordinances to our best benefit when these
developers come in for what we can acquire. We certainly want to hang onto"
our park fees wherever we can but we want to acquire trail easements,
wetland corridors, outlots, those types of things as well. Fund for
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 26
development of public land is one of the again, one of the agencies which
' Larry has talked about in the past. Just keeping our eyes open to LAWCON
funding, those types of things is always very important.
Schroers: I have to make a correction there. It's called the Trust for
1 Acquisition of Public Land I believe and somewhere in your records you
should have information and the addresses of context for that organization.
Maybe if we could just ask them for some kind of an information sheet or if
' they have some kind of criteria that you need to conform to in order to
work with them. Whatever the case is, I think it would be worthwhile
checking into
Hoffman: Okay. Is there anything that came into any of your minds? I
mean we rely on the Park Commission is the agency which needs to take a
look at the future of Chanhassen and not only, we can't accomplish that in
' 1992 we can certainly start to look at it and to place the, initiate the
plans and put those, get those back out into our other commissions and to
our other agencies. In discussing the wildlife refuge with the Federal
1 folks and with the DNR, these people have an entire comprehensive plan for
that portion of Chanhassen which we are very unfamiliar with I mean these
folks have acquisition plans and they're going to buy this parcel and this
' parcel and they're taking a look at funding and those types of things which
we need to be informed and knowledgeable about. So they're planning for
very long range and I feel we need to be doing the same thing.
' Schroers: Maybe we could on occasion invite them to come and share their
ideas with us and give them the idea that we're interested in working
together to accomplish hopefully our goals would be somewhat similar. You
know if, I would think that if the DNR is on a larger scale but just like
us looking for help and support anywhere they can get it. And if they feel
• there's a community that is willing to work along with them, maybe it could
1 open up a couple of doors for us.
Lash: It certainly would benefit us to know their acquisition plan.
' Hoffman: You look at the map, anything south of 212 they want to buy. It's
interesting to note that you can look at a map and anything east of 169
going to Shakopee, the National people, that's in their comprehensive plan
to buy and the other block between 169 and Chaska, that's in the State DNR
comprehensive plan to purchase.
Schroers: You're saying south of existing 212?
Hoffman: You bet.
,1 Schroers: Not the proposed.
Hoffman: The existing 212/169. The other interesting thing is the DNR's
1 philosophy is they do not want, they just want to leave it natural and not
develop it. The Federal agency is on the other extreme. They want to have
trail heads and have trails running all the way from 494 down to Jordan so
they have mixed feelings as to what they're going to accomplish but the
' river, the Minnesota River Valley is a resource which is probably the best
kept secret. It's right up there with Bluff Creek. Now we discovered the
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 27
Bluff Creek but we have frontage on the Minnesota River Valley which very
few people know about in this city and that may be one of our goals is to
investigate the possibility of opening that up for some funding some
recreational activities.
Schroers: You know you'd almost have to believe that if we truly do have 1
the only surviving native trout stream in the entire 7 county metro area,
that that ought to generate some interest somewhere that someone might want'
to preserve that. I mean beyond just saying well we're going to limit
development to 150 feet from the stream. I mean that's not going to save
anything. The pipes will run all the way down to the river.
Hoffman: The DNR wants to save it. They had a proposal to acquire the
seminary as a regional headquarters for the DNR. Something we never knew
about. 1
Pemrick: Are they still going through with that bed and breakfast?
Remember that was a big write up about it. 1
Hoffman: Not to my knowledge.
Lash: How can we keep better tabs on that so that we. know when people are II
all of a sudden ear marking a plot of land in our town?
Andrews: I think Larry's idea is a simple one but a great one which is to 1
invite them in. Say we'd like to hear what you're doing. Tell us your
secrets. I'm sure they'd be happy to tell us because I'm sure they're
thinking the same thing we are which is geez, maybe we can get those park
board people to throw some money into something we want to do anyway and
save some money. I mean everybody's looking out for their budgets.
Lash: I mean we've been talking for years about ear marking, trying to II acquire property out by Lake Minnewashta. Maybe they already have a site
all picked out and they're just waiting for something to happen and they're
going to buy 180 acres or something and then we wouldn't have to worry
about it anymore. Somebody else would have a nice big park out there so.
It could certainly throw a whole new slant.
Schroers: I think we'd be hard pressed to talk the DNR into a ballfield 1
though.
Andrews: Todd, the other idea I really liked was the survey, and none of II
us mentioned that but I think that was a real good one.
Lash: I'd like us to talk about some different ways of doing that.
Schroers: Shorewood is doing a phone survey again. And that's based,
Shorewood is looking at a pretty extensive bond issue and they've been
putting it on hold simply because of the economic conditions but now
they're just doing a phone poll survey to kind of get a sense of what the
community feels in that particular issue.
Lash: So then Shorewood would get their baseball fields? 1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 28
Andrews: 1 think the chance of any bond going through is virtually zero.
' It's just not going to happen.
Koubsky: It may not go through but you can still think about it because
' that's the point I made.
Andrews: 1 don't think it will go through but you've still got to put
those figures in front of people.
Koubsky: You have to be organized and identify things that you need.
I Hoffman: Compared to the school bonds, a bond for issue for $300,000.00 or
$350,000.00 or $400,000.00 to develop Bandimere, it's still significant but
compared to the Minnetonka issue it's.
I Schroers: I think that we have had some discussion in the past regarding
that and we have, it seemed like there was a consensus of trying to
organize a referendum that was likely to be more attainable and maybe
' through phases or something like that but not offering a referendum that
it's like we need T4 million or nothing. We're definitely getting nothing.
Lash: Yeah, you have it broken down into projects. We need x amount for
this project. This amount to do this and then let the people tell us which
ones they're interested in seeing completed in the near future.
Hoffman: The project which the Commission has been talking about, they may
add up to a million dollars and Eden Prairie's been going after a $9 -$10
million dollar referendum for the past 4 years. They've been unsuccessful
' but they're trying to buy property for a golf course and develop a golf
course and add additional 250 acres to their park holdings and improve
parks and build more ballfields so they've been fairly aggressive. They've
been unsuccessful many of them but they're still out there banging at the
door.
Schroers: And you know I think that a key to a lot of this is to find an
' acceptable way to present our needs and our wants and desires rather than
to try and force a referendum down someone's throat. I think presentation
makes a big difference and I think some barn storming sessions and some
' creativeness in some planning, a little longer range planning might be
something we want to spend some time at. If we ever can take advantage of,
well actually now except for some of these items get to be, these
discussion type items get to be pretty lengthy but if we can work them into
an otherwise light agenda, if we can just kind of work on an area at a
time. You know pick out bonding referendum just for one topic of
conversation and just expound on it a little bit and see what we can come
up with in the way of presenting something that might be a little easier to
swallow. A little easier for the voters and the taxpayers to accept and to
understand.
Lash: The very first step is to go back to the survey. We've got to find
out if people feel that there's a need for anything that we feel we need
the money to provide. If we do a survey and it comes back the majority of
people feel like we have perfectly adequate facilities, then we know right
away we might as well hold off on anything. I'm not saying that's what's
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 29 1
going to happen but we just need to know what the general feel is out there'
before we even think about pursuing anything.
Schroers: You know I think that when we put this survey out, a lot of
people don't know what's going on. They don't know what facilities are I
available. They know what's around within a 2 square block area of their
house. They pay attention to that but the rest of it they just kind of
drive by and they don't realize that it's there. And I think to make this 1
survey effective, we have to send out some information along with it
listing what we have and how much use it is receiving and why we think we
need more of this or more of that. Why we need more ballfields. Or why we
need more open space and you know, it's hard for people just to look at the ,
survey and say well, how do I know if we need more ballfields. Sure I'm a
fan. I'm a sports fan. Yeah, we need more ballfields but they don't know
how many fields we have and how much they're being used. 1
Lash: My idea and now we're getting into how we're going to do this
survey. I don't know if we want to do that tonight but my idea was like in 1
the spring brochure as an example. It's probably too late to do that now
but that would list programs. That lists all the parks. It lists
different facilities within the parks and people would have that and then
that would be the survey. So they would have some reference to look at.
Pemrick: I think we have to make sure if it's done, that we reach every
household and it arrives in that household s� they won't miss it. And I
don't know, personalized mailing would be extremely costly but if you get a
letter with that Chanhassen leaf on it, you know you should open that. I
always do anyway. You know when there's special meetings in our area or
whatever ordinances or whatever's being discussed. So I think to get a
fair response, not just the people that are looking into athletic programs
for their kids or something because I bet there's a lot of households maybe
that don't even read that if they don't have any interest in participating.
I could be wrong but I just think that would be real important to try darn
hard to make sure that everybody sees a survey.
Hoffman: Okay. We can do it in the newsletter. We could accomplish that 1
in either the summer or the fall newsletter. That way it's already being
mailed and we just incorporate it in there.
Schroers: There we go. Good idea already.
Andrews: Can we, 1 think this idea of Bandimere I think is kind of, Jan 1
and I are kind of like, we've got to see some progress there. I just feel
like that's just, if we could come up with some kind of further developed
concept plan like on an easel like we see for City Center, or the central 1
park there, and have that at July 4th. You get such a huge turn out of
people there. It's a real opportunity for us maybe to have our own booth.
You know Park and Rec booth and let's talk about what we've got. Most of
what we're trying, to accomplish here is selling the community that they
should want to spend this extra money. It's a sales job. That's what it's
going to take is a sales job.
Hoffman: Heavy salesmen here. 1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 30
Andrews: Yep, so I think the July 4th to me is our biggest event of the
year and I think maybe we should look at that.
Lash: See and I have real mixed feelings about that because I feel like if
there's a real need for it and people really want it, we shouldn't have to
' do a sales job. We shouldn't have to present articles and booths and all
of this and just deluge people with propaganda about why they should vote
for it and why they should support it. I don't want to have to sell
something because then to me that seems like we're trying to force
something on someone and convince them they need it when they don't feel
the need.
Andrews: I think all you'd be looking at is an awareness campaign.
' Lash: And education or present options and say, the education. If we can
substantiate it with some facts. If we can say to people, we have 30 acres
or 35 that the vision was to create into a youth complex. These are the
youth facilities that we have now. This is how they are used. They're
' used at capacity 5 out of 7 nights a week or however all the statistics
break down and say with future projections of growth based at ...o, by the
year 19.,., these facilities will be maxed out. There will be no more
' space in order to fill that need and we'd have to x amount of money to have
this facility ready at that point in time. And then let people decide if
they figure they want to spend the money on it or not. It's an education.
Lay out the facts. Otherwise it looks like we're trying to sell something
' and if you have to sell something, then people aren't necessarily sure that
they want it.
Andrews: Every developer, every project that comes here is presented in a
sales package. I mean look at Central Park. Look at the park pavillion.
Those are all being sold to us. I feel like we're not focing anybody to do
1 anything but I think it "s to the advantage of the park board and the city
to make people aware. I guess there are some people who will buy on
numbers, others that are going to buy on the pitch. Is it pretty? Does it
make me feel good and I think we need to address both of those. And I
think you're probably going to do both of those. You're going to have a
sketch of what the park's probably going to look like and then you have to
justify it because a lot of people are going to say so what. Why would I
want to do this or why is there a need? But I think it's certainly an
opportunity to communicate and I think we should, in my opinion I think we
should take advantage of it. I'd rather do that than do ring toss.
1 Schroers: I think you can say sell it and I think you can say education
and I think you can put it all back to what we were talking about earlier
was presentation. We just have to find a nice way of getting our
information across so it's accurate. So it's easy to understand and so
that people don't feel we're shoving it down their throat but also that it
is something important enough that they should consider it. Put together a
11 presentation package.
Lash: We've got to have a lot of information to do that and that would
have to come from staff.
Koubsky: It has to start somewhere.
•
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 31 1
Schroers: There are things that are already available that we could ,
incorporate. Larger systems have a little map and on the map it lists the
different facilities and then there's a dot by which campground has which
facility or which beach has which facility or which park has which whatever
and we can lay out something like that to show people what it is that we
have and where it is and then another area proposed. What we would like to
see. What we would like to have and then have a comment section on the
bottom. Get some feedback. '
Hoffman: That park map that, you mentioned Larry, that was the only item
cut out of the 1992 budget for administration was the $9,000.00 to develop
a park map. I believe Chanhassen has an expansive enough park system where 11
we need to have a park map. We receive calls on a weekly basis from people
wondering about moving into the community. Wanting to know what our park
system is like. ,
Schroers: And that was Council cut that?
Hoffman: Correct. 1
Lash: You did have that previously in the mailings didn't you? I thought
I've seen those things come out with our listings of the parks and
facilties.
Hoffman: Yeah, there is the square listing which is included in our I
comprehensive plan which we can mail out, which we do. And we also have a
mock up of the city and the park locations which we mail out.
Schroers: What you're talking about is a printed folder that can be handed
out to people that they can open it up and say here's the city of
Chanhassen. Here's the parks and over here is a guide to use annex you
know. 1
Hoffman: Right. And again it's awareness and we've talked about it in the
past. The thing I'd like to leave with the Commission is that the
Commission, or I need to get my direction from the Commission and we've
talked about that. Staff provides a lot of input but again, to be
effective back to the public, you want to talk about trying to make a sell ,
job or something like that. Generally if it's urgently generated from
staff level and not from the commission, not from the volunteer resident
board, it certainly isn't going to go anywhere so when you have ideas or
each individual commission member has an idea about something they'd like II
to do, bring it back to the commission as a whole can formulate an action
plan and give some direction to staff and we'll go from there. I've got a
list. I can make goals off of that.
Schroers: Alright. Thanks for clearing that up for us Todd. Okay,
there's no action required on that. 11
PRIORITIZATION OF 1992 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners, I think if we go 1
through here we can make this somewhat simplified in that we start down the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 32
list. Wood park signs for Bandimere is already underway. Just cross it
out. Carver Beach play area refurbishment. That would be something which
would be incorporated into our schedule. Carver Beach playground. The
park sign is already underway. The other items need to be ordered and
installed at some point. Chanhassen Estates mini -park. Park sign is being
manufactured. Chanhassen Hills Park. The park sign is being manufactured.
Chanhassen Pond is another park sign there. City Center. Curry Farms.
There's a park sign which is being done. City Center Park, the play
' equipment expansion. That 50% share which Jan talked about. The
$10,000.00 which was put in there. I have just recently written a letter
to Helen Merchent again inquiring back through the school district whether
or not they want to put in the $10,000.00. Their 50% and I have not heard
yea or nay from them as of yet.
' Lash: Did you see the article?
Hoffman: Dr. Kleff?
Lash: Yes. About the cooperative effort because the city and the school.
Hoffman: You bet. Made mention of that in the letter. Herman Field.
Lake Ann. Lank Ann again can basically be put on hold. We don't need to
discuss Lake Ann this evening simply because we don't know the outcome of
the building. If the building does go in, obviously the purchase of this
equipment will fall into place. Lake Susan.. We have a major operation
' there. The trail link to Chanhassen Hills. Meadow Green. Installation of
play area expansion. Pheasant Hill Park. That project is all underway so
we do not have to worry about Pheasant Hill Park. Play area expansion,
installation of trees. The back page, park rules signs have been ordered.
I just took a call today from a person wondering what are the rules in the
park. She lives adjacent to Chanhassen Pond Park. Was very happy to hear
' that we'd be placing park rules signs so then she'd have something... And
then the other miscellaneous things in the back do not need to be addressed
by the Commission. So essentially I've talked about, we do have some
things backlogged. Installation of two backstops. One at Sunset Ridge and
' one at Curry Farms and the installation of play equipment at Sunset Ridge
and South Lotus Lake. By the time we get around with spring duties and
installation of all those things, we'll be into June already so we can
start from mid -June and go from there. Which items you'd like to see
addressed.
' Andrews: I'm ready.
Schroers: Go. ahead Jim.
Andrews: This isn't specific to a park but I guess we talked a bit about
repairs for safety and repairs for maintenance as always being a first
priority. Beyond that I guess I look at the major projects, Lake Susan and
Herman Field as, get those finished up. We talked at previous meetings
about completing projects that we've started. Putting them behind us. I
look at that as kind of following that philosophy.. That's the only
comments I had.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 33
Lash: I think some of them are fairly obvious as far as tree plantings.
We need to do that by spring or late in the fall. And the only two that
I made notes on are Carver Beach Park._ I believe that ballfield is used
for.
Hoffman: CAA? 1
Lash: Yeah. So I think that needs to be either put in right away in the
spring before that starts so we don't have construction going on at the
same time as the scheduled games or else wait until that's over. It'd be
nice to have it in right away so the kids who go with the players have the
playground equipment to play on. And then the same thing for City Center,
although you can't put that in before school's out or you'll have a mess so I
that I think we'd be better off just waiting and getting that in and make
sure it's in by September when school starts but just wait until after the 1
CAA season is over. That's my comments.
Koubsky: The only thing I have is, anything that we have started we should
probably finish first. Like Lake Susan, Herman Field, Sunset Ridge which I
is in the open there. But beyond that.
Schroers: I'm thinking along those same lines. The City Center Park play 1
area equipment expansion and new basketball standards. That certainly
seems like something that's real attainable.
Hoffman: That installation would be contracted as well. So once we hear 1
we get the go ahead from the school district, which is somewhat difficult
as we have seen in the past, we'll take it from there.
Lash: I guess my comments would apply also to Rice Marsh Lake. I hate to 1
have that all messed up during the peak season. So either get it done
before it starts...and I did have a comment from a resident from down there"
about how awful the play equipment is or lack of it.
Schroers: Are we prioritizing as in number 1, 2, 3? Is that how you want
to do it or just our general comments and then see how they fit into the •
work plan of the City?
Hoffman: Yeah, you can prioritize 1, 2, 3, 4. When I write up a work memo 1
down to Dale, he'll follow just about essentially what we prioritize for.
Lake Susan and Herman Field are right at the top. Trying to get in Rice
Marsh Lake. We've received a lot of comments on much more than Carver
Beach playground so if there's one we can get done prior to CAA, that would 1
be the one we'd like to see done. The things that we've carried over are
obviously going to take place first. Tree plantings have traditionally
waited until fall because we simply cannot, we don't have that time in the
spring with all the other things going on. So from your comments tonight,
I believe can successfully go ahead and create that order for,Dale.
Schroers: Very good. Any other comments? Suggestions? 1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 34
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS;
Schroers: Do we have anything?
Andrews: I don't have a presentation. Just an item here. It seems that
we've deferred the trail discussion until the next meeting and several
other similar items. Do we need to consider perhaps a two meeting month so
we can get done a little earlier next month? Just as a question to the
1 Commission.
Schroers: I think that we have had that in the past and I think it depends
a lot on scheduling, what other things are going on during the upcoming
month and where we could possibly fit in.
Andrews: I just sort of feel, this is nothing more than kind of a gut
reaction. Some of these priorities we talked about today, the trails and
the paths or whatever, prioritizing or trying to develop some of these long
range projects. You know survey, these things are going to take more than
' the usual amount of discussion time that we normally allowed it and for me,
I would prefer two shorter meetings rather than going until 10:30 -11:00 at
night. I don't mind staying until 11:00 if that's what everyone else wants
I to do but if I had a preference, I would rather meet more often.
Schroers: I guess that I like that but what I would say is then not to
have two general meetings. Have our one general meeting and agenda and
' then focus one particular topic and go to work on it. If we're going to
talk about the trails, we're going to talk about trails. If we're going to
talk about possible funding resources, then we're going to talk about that.
' Kind of narrow it down so we can really go to work on something because if
we have two short agendas, we're going to accomplish about what we do in
one big one.
' Andrews: I agree with that exactly. That's exactly what I would want to
see done.
Lash: And we don't want to make it February though. Todd already said we
have Saturday the 29th slated as meeting with Council.
Hoffman: For staff and Council.
Lash: Oh it's not us. Oh, okay. That's not bad then because I thought
' well then we'd be getting into three.
Hoffman: That would be my suggestion that we do a work session and
possibly get out of the environment of the City Council chambers. Hold it
at the fire station or something of that nature. Do it on an evening or
Saturday morning type of atmosphere and label it a work session more than a
meeting. Get some opening discussions and then wrap it up with some
definitive action and direction.
Schroers: And set it up with a timeframe. Say that we are going to have a
meeting, if it's in the evening, from 7:00 until 8:30. We've got an hour
and a half to get something done.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 35
Pemrick: I would agree with that, or a Saturday morning.
Schroers: Yeah, if it's from 8:30 to 10:30 Saturday morning. Whatever it
is.
Pemrick: When you're fresh. I mean these topics we've gone over and over
and over and maybe being fresh in the morning we come at it a little better
too. '
Schroers: I wake up at noon usually.
Pemrick: We'll bring you coffee. You need a 3 year old in your house. 1
Koubsky: I would prefer night meetings to Saturday.
Schroers: I would too actually. Evenings. I would prefer a weekday 1
evening rather than the weekend for this sort of thing.
Lash: But even if we just scheduled it on the second Tuesday. We all havel
already made a commitment to Tuesdays so we are, I'm assuming we all have
so we rarely schedule things for Tuesdays.
Hoffman: Okay.
Andrews: I think we can definitely eat up an hour and a half on the
trails.
Schroers: Oh yeah.
Hoffman: Great. We'll schedule it for, whatever it is, the second Tuesday
in February.
Lash: Are we going to designate what the topic is going to be? 1
Hoffman: Trails? 5 year capital improvement program?
Lash: I would rather it be the survey personally. If that's something
that needs to go out in the spring or summer. It's something we need to
start working on.
Andrews: Well maybe that's better because trails you may have public input
that we'd want to receive. 1
Pemrick: Under the comment section.
Andrews: Yeah. That survey's going to take time too. '
Koubsky: I think a survey's important.
Lash: That may take more than one work session even. We'll have to come
up with some questions.
Hoffman: Format. 1
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 36
Andrews: Why don't we all make a commitment to ourselves to bring in our
ideas and be ready to go. Let's not show up at the meeting and say well,
what do we want to do.
Hoffman: Okay. Super.
Lash: Are you setting it for the, what is it?
Andrews: Second Tuesday.
Koubsky: February 11th. 7:00 to 8:30? 7 :30 to 9:00?
Andrews: 7:30 to 9:00. I think an hour and a half is sufficient.
Schroers: I can arrange my schedule. Whatever works out for you guys.
Andrews: Let's go 7:30 to 9:00. 1 think that cuts it off and still leaves
a little relaxation and fun time.
Erickson: And that's going to be for survey questions?
Schroers: To develop a survey. Well I guess that's something we'll
probably talk about at that time but we are not looking at hiring a
consultant.
Hoffman: I believe we can handle this in- house. I'll provide you with an
example of the last one.
1 Andrews: Mail that out earlier before that so we have a chance to see it.
Hoffman: And garner up some information. I'll grab a hold of an example
of the Shorewood questions which are going out and some other questions
around.
Schroers: Yeah, we can ask questions. I think that's the easy part of it.
I think the hard part is going to be providing information so that people
can intelligently and informatively answer the questions. I think that's
going to be the challenge.
Hoffman: Questionnaires are, it's a difficult line to walk. We'll talk
about it but if you provide too much propaganda along with your
questionnaire, you shouldn't be doing that either. It's a turn off.
Schroers: I guess that's what we'll figure out at that point.
1 Erickson: Are we going to meet here for that?
Hoffman: Probably meet at the fire station.
Lash: Are you thinking of sending us?
' Hoffman: Yep, you'll get a packet. An agenda so you'll have that
information out. Just expect your packet just at the normal time.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 37 1
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. LAKE ANN PARK UTILITIES AND PICNIC /RECREATION SHELTER UPDATE.
Hoffman: Item a is to discuss briefly the utilities which went in at Lake
Ann Park. As you've driven by you've seen the big...trenches. The wire is/
down to the beach location. They've got the 3 1/2 inch forcemain sewer
line over to a lift station in Greenwood Shores. B & D will come in and do i
restoration work and install the lift pumps and all those types of things
in the spring. Picnic /recreation shelter was taken back. Approval for
readvertising for bids for the City Council at their first meeting in
January. Those advertisement for bids are going out this coming week in
the Villager and the construction bulletin. We open bids the third week in
February and hold my breath for a reasonable bid. The target zone right
now is that it needs to be below 240 in order for it to be approved by the
City Council. Last bids came in at $280,000.00.
Lash: But there's been alterations right?
Hoffman: Correct. There were some minor alterations in an attempt to
bring the costs down and hopefully this bidding climate now in the spring
is much better than it was last fall. Our economy is. somewhat weak.
Hopefully we have a better bidding climate as well as people will be hungry
for work. If all things work out right. The schedule is there.
Unfortunately this would put a completion date right at the end of the
beach season so we would have a nice beautiful, brand new building to close 1
down the beach.
Lash: Maybe we need that big Labor Day, our first annual Labor Day
celebration. Have Oktoberfest there.
B. PENDING SUBDIVISION REVIEWS: 1
Hoffman: Item 10(b) is of interest, particular interest to the Commission.
The first, these are just information on pending subdivision reviews.
These developers have been in. Talked to the Planning staff. Discussed
park issues. Trail issues. Easement issues with staff. Preliminarily
bringing them to you this evening for some discussion. Especially on the
Bluff Creek site. These folks are real tentative. If the Commission is
going to want some park property, they want to know that so they can try to
incorporate that into their plan. Or if we want to take fees, that sort of
thing. This really brings about, the entire next area of development. II
This quadrant of the city was developed with the business park, Lake Susan
Park and then Lake Susan Hills West and Chanhassen Hills back on the map.
So that section has been developed. The next one which is coming in is
this entire ring... Essentially with agricultural fields or a large lot
residential and now... Chan Business Park was recently reviewed by the
Commission and that's coming around. The Bluff Creek site which we're
discussing this evening is this particular location. As you'll notice, II
I don't know if the topo shows through on the'map...it goes from very high
ground on this end, breaks about here and drops essentially right on top of
creek so it's a very odd site in that there is a lot of grading... That's
a concern of the developers...very little flat, high ground... Hans Hagen
Homes is the other one which is in for development. Again it's single
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 38
family residential in this entire area. Initial discussions have centered
around flag lot as being a 7 acre park. It's very wooded down in this
section with a hill coming up... It does have some flat area right in this
area... The other issue which needs to be addressed here is the trail
corridor coming down to this other segment. You have a section of it right
on the Bluff Creek site. We also want to obtain a connection from the Hans
Hagen site down to this trail and by- pass...get onto the Bluff Creek trail.
And the Comprehensive Trail plan does identify trail segments around this
' entire piece so as these subdivisions touch the adjoining roads, we need to
take a look at securing the necessary easements as well there to provide
for those trails in the future. Hans Hagen was in with the Planning
Director. Their initial development plan, site plan. It's not going to
fly so they're back out for redeveloping their site plan. Bluff Creek, I'd
like to take a further look at. To get your directions. Take a look at
' your site map so you know where this is. The service area of Power Hill
Park does touch this site and a potential service area of the Hans Hagen
park would service this site. It's approximately 75 homes which is a
difficult number. It's on the fringe of if you had a 125 homes, I feel the
Commission would feel a great need to incorporate some type of active park
site within that development. If it was 50 homes, we could certainly get
by without it. 75 homes on a site which is very small, we can take about 3
acres. We have the obligation or the right to take about 3 acres of park
property. If we take 3 acres of park property here and create another
small neighborhood park that we need to go out and maintain, and is it in
' the best interest of the city to forego the park fee in this instance? As
you can see, this is about the break line of the bluff back up in here.
They just have to just continue the lots down in this area, in this
remaining...Bluff Creek when they encompass that trail. That portion of
U the trail and this section may indeed just be a huge outlot. The thing
that'we continually need to protect is naturally a developer comes in and
they want to give you that outlot for park credit. The City ordinance says
' that that's not acceptable. Anything below the high water mark just is
not, cannot be calculated into park credits so you have a battle right off
the bat. If the Commission felt that we needed to take 3 acres of this
high ground, you can bet they're going to be before you pleading their case
I on why they would not like to see that happen. So again so I can get back
to the people working on this particular site, this evening I'd like to at
least get your feelings on what you think on parkland and access to
1 recreational facilities as it deals with the Bluff Creek site.
Pemrick: What are they coming as the lot sizes here with 75 homes?
1 Hoffman: Can you pick it up on there?
Pemrick: I can't. I have a hard time reading these things.
II Lash: It looks like they're 16,000.
1 Andrews: About a third of an acre roughly.
Hoffman: Yeah, 15 to 20. Most of them are in right around 15.
II Lash: How many sites are there in the Hagen?
1
i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 39 1
Hoffman: Hans Hagen? '
•
Lash: Yes.
Hoffman: 140. 157. Something of that nature. 150 for a ballpark number.'
Pemrick: Is that the same again? About a third of an acre.
Hoffman: In that site, no. They'd be about 6 doubles so about 6 acres.
That flag lot up there is just over 7 and in our initial conversations, it
would be basically a wash. They would be willing to give 7 acres for the
dedication.
Pemrick: I'm just thinking with that small lot, the 75 homes, I think they.
should have a park. '
Lash: I do too.
Pemrick: I don't think they should borrow from someone else because that's'
really cramped.
Lash: How far would it be? See I would not consider.Power Hill to be
acceptable because if this area is now going to be developed with homes and
businesses, Audubon is going to be a substantial enough road that I
wouldn't be comfortable with children having to cross Audubon. In an
uncontrolled intersection there wouldn't be any intersection there. To get
to Power Hill. How far would it be from Bluff Creek if we had a sizeable
park in the Hagen site, how far would it be if there was a fairly easily
accessible trail between the two neighborhoods.
Hoffman: It would be within the half mile but it would certainly not be an
after school walk every day to go over to the neighborhood park. It would
be more of a special trip type of operation. Obviously there is going to
be considerable open space on this site simply because of the outlot that's
going to be there so the developer has to, site constrictions says they
have to put all their houses on this end and leave this end open. So there
are but they have to buy the entire piece. So then we want to take 3 acres
from them. We need to identify and obviously if we want an open field it's'
got to be up on the high portion.
Andrews: All the prime land.
Hoffman: Yep. As all developers say, it's the prime land. It's going to
sell the best for them and you're going to take 3 acres. Essentially we're
going to lose about $30,000.00 in park fees to buy that 3 acres or in
excess of that and we're going to need to identify a location where we'd
like to see that park and get back to them. Prior to redesigning their
site plan, they'd certainly want to come in before the Commission
officially on February 28th to present their case in that regard and then II
it would take action from the Commission to proceed further.
Lash: Could you point out the outlot again? '
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 40
Hoffman: The low lying area would all be in this point. That's
essentially the high water mark down would just be grass, open area down to
the Bluff Creek watershed. Again each neighborhood and city has a focal
point. Whether it be a neighborhood park or a school or grassy open area
1 or big woods. Kids from this neighborhood are going to go down in that
outlot and play and if that fills the recreational requirements of that
neighborhood, and we benefit by taking $40,000.00 in park fees, that's
great. If we feel it not, then we need to take a look at acquiring
1 additional land.
Schroers: What I would like to see here is a more clear overview of this
proposed site and how it fits into the area around. I mean it's difficult
when you're looking at these itty bitty squares and things here to get a
real good feeling of what's around. Logistically it's kind of hard. I'd
like to know right exactly where Sunset Ridge Park and Power Hill Park and
stuff fit in proportion to this and it seems to me this might be an
opportunity to capitalize on generating some fees. Some funds that we
could put to use in other places. It may be a good opportunity to acquire
some money rather than property but I just don't have a good feeling when I
look at this as to how it all fits in.
I Andrews: I've got to make one comment and that is, if 75 homes go in there
with no park, I can guarantee you there will be somebody up here saying we
don't have anyplace for our kids to go and play. You know you're going to
hear that. But I don't think we need 3 acres either. I guess I feel we
could meet the needs here with maybe something closer to a half or even an
acre which is a totlot and a hoop to shoot baskets or something like that.
' Lash: At least you have an open area. Throw in some playground equipment.
They can go there and fly a kite. They can shoot some hoops or they can
have just a quicky baseball. When you have just a third acre lot, you
can't play anything on a third acre lot and even with the high water line
back here, that's somebody else's property. Even if half of them think
it's fine for the kids to go back there and play and the other half don't
have kids or whatever and they don't want the kids there, it's marshy half
' the year and the grass gets real tall. They can't go back there and play a
game of ball or anything. So if we could pick a site that is high enough
so we could develop it and it would fill our needs but it would be more one
of the undesireable lots. Say one that backs up to Audubon. Maybe that's
one that wouldn't be as desireable for them to develop or it would be one
of the last ones for them to develop anyway. Take one that's a peculiar
shape like say 1 and 3 even. If you put two of them together, you'd have
almost a square but if you look at them both individually, they're both
kind of pie shaped. That's kind of an odd shape for a lot to try and build
a house on and it backs up to Audubon. So maybe those are two
disadvantages that we could use in our favor. Although they're at the end
of a cul -de -sac which is nice for people, it'd really be nice for a park.
Schroers: It's possible that if you go, if you do something like you're
suggesting that you could cash out on a deal. You could use 1 acre of
property. Collect fees for the other 2 acres and use those fees to
purchase the equipment to put on that property and have a wash.
1
1
Park ar..: Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 41
Koubsky: Todd, do we know what Chan Business Center is doing? This abuts
there? I mean like your park location would abut the Chan Business Center.,
We have trails that were proposed there.
Hoffman: Chan Business Park has the large outlot as well which runs north 1
and south over the creek area. Right where the trail will go through.
It's essentially a commercial /industrial center with there's a 100 foot
buffer zone on the south side of their property which is on the north side
of the Bluff Creek site. And there's a potential trail to run east and
west on that upper site.
Kouhsky: 5o that might be a good place to abut a park would be on a 100
foot easement.
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: And that also would make it more undesireable for someone abutting
the business.
Schroers: This is going to come up in front of us again I presume.
Hoffman: Correct. 1
Schroers: Can we ask that next time, is it possible to fit this into a
better overlay of the area so we can see how.things are laid out a little
bit better than this?
Hoffman: Okay. I simply brought this to you just as a pending subdivision
just so you can get some idea. The site plan does show it hopefully in ,
some to Hans Hagen and Chan Business Center, the Bluff Creek site
and then it also shows Power Hill Park and Outlot G. Just some words on,
recently we've been looking at subdivisions and we're land grabbing and
that's good. Vacant land is the first and irreplaceable to a park. The
money can come later but if we forego park fees on this site, we forego
park fees on Hans Hagen, there's going to be a year down the line where
we're not going to have a capital improvement program simply because we
have no revenues coming in. ...or we take a minimal amount of the
revenues, we're going to be left holding the bag.
Schroers: Well that's exactly what I was saying with this density. This II
looks like a reasonable opportunity to collect some dedication fees and
still be able to provide something adequate for the community. Not
something that's only adequate but something that would be acceptable.
Hoffman: It's a real tricky balance. We don't want to end up with another
Pheasant Hill where we spend $170,000.00 to try and meet their needs. But II
park service areas were set up for a reason and that's to accomplish what
is a comprehensive park plan and what is identified as meeting the needs.
So again, I have mixed direction to give to the developer. I'll take that II
to those folks and we'll bring it before the Commission again in February.
Lash: You know another option that they may be more inclined to accept
would be, a couple of the lots that are right by the high water level and
then we'd end up with a.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 42
Koubsky: A hill.
1 Lash: Well.
' Hoffman: If you want a play area, we need to take something on the
easterly third or easterly half.
Koubsky: I guess I think each area needs some sort of playground. It may
be an acre. I don't think we need 3 acres or whatever but I think they're
far enough away from existing parkland. They've got roads and a railroad
track there. They each need some sort of area.
Lash: I think we need to look at each one individually. At the physical
characteristics and this one has several I think. You're looking at
' Audubon. You look at the railroad track. You look at the fact that
there's a business center abutting it. It's kind of secluded as it is
right now.
' Koubsky: Because we'll also have Sunset Ridge Court there and Timberwood.
We'll have the school going north of it but they have bigger lots but they
don't have playground facilities.
Schroers: Do you have what you need on item (b) now Todd?
Lash: What is the minimum that, I know that there was sort of some kind of
a policy established at one time about the minimum that we would take for a
neighborhood park. Just so staff didn't have to go out and maintain 50,000
half acre parks all over town.
Schroers: It was 5 acres originally.
Lash: Now we're talking about 1 acre.
Hoffman: One acre is half of the size of Carver Beach playground.
Schroers: You can't really do much more than a totlot. What else could
you do besides a totlot. If you put in a totlot, what else do you put in
there?
' Pemrick: Volleyball.
11 Koubsky: Some open area.
Schroers: Yeah, we could put in volleyball. Picnic table.
Hoffman: You're not gaining that much more open area than a backyard in
this area. That's the word of caution. We don't want to create, you know
40 more subdivisions of this nature come into the city, do we want 40 one
acre parks within our city?
Schroers: No, I think we're better off looking at trail easements and
connect them to a park that's more substantial that's going to serve the
area rather than give each little nook it's cranny. Definitely.
11
1
Park and Rec Commission N.,eting
January 28, 1992 - Page 43
Hoffman: It's an issue which needs to be addressed because of the I
accessibility and that type of thing. Bluff Creek corridor would provide
access, safe access to the Hans Hagen site. We could negotiate with that
site and acquire land closer to this site. Closer to this end of the
corridor. Open space and that trail, its not a traditional play structure"
which we identify with but it does provide recreational activity that piece
of it.
Schroers: Well we did want some diversity in our parks. We don't want
them all to be the same thing. I guess there's nothing wrong with just
having a green space and an open area and it 'doesn't have to be overly
developed. It can just be maybe maintained to a point where people can
create their own type of fun there. I mean keep the noxious weeds down. Do
some mowing and that sort of thing and just give them space so they can do
whatever they want to do.
Pemrick: How about requiring larger lot sizes?
Hoffman: Back to the Planning Commission. '
Pemrick: What do they say?
,Hoffman: They'll go through that and they have the ordinances set...
Erickson: Todd, how far did you say that this Sluff Creek is from the Hans'
Hagen? That proposed 7 acre park.
Hoffman: The walk from the Bluff Creek site would be just over a quarter
mile. It's within the half mile service area. You could go north through
the CBC site underneath the railroad tracks. Take an immediate left there
and go about half a block and you're at the Hans Hagen site. Their
original proposal put an on street trail through a portion and then you
cross the ravine and you're up into the park area. -
Erickson: You say it'd be about a quarter mile?
Hoffman: Yes, just over a quarter mile.
Schroers: I don't think that's an unreasonable distance to get to the '
park. I mean at some point in time you have to take responsibility for
yourself. If you feel that your children are too small to go that quarter
of a mile by themselves but you think they ought to go there, then you've II
got to take them there. I mean you can't dump a park on everybody's
doorstep where everybody can look out their window.
Erickson: Plus it's not really a quarter mile across Audubon or something 1
like that.
Hoffman: It may not happen. The Bluff Creek_ site may develop fully in 4 II
years and Hans Hagen may be 10 years down the line so we need to deal with
that issue. It's something when you're in a developing city, you just
can't control.
1
•
r
P rk and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 44
Lash: If that's the route we decide to take, let's make sure we have some
' kind of an access site that's not going between two lots through to the
Hans Hagen area to get to the park for these other people.
' Schroers: Our service area was set up to be a half mile wasn't it?
Hoffman: Yep. This will be within the half mile as Power Hill will be on
the fringe district. I'll lay that out for you.
Schroers: I think that's something we can work with.
Berg: Plus if you build close enough on that end, on the other side, the
other people from Hans Hagen could use the school if it's built too.
They'd have access to the facilities there, if it was built there.
Hoffman: Okay. Anything else?
Lash: Do we need a motion on this thing?
' Hoffman: No.
' Schroers: Okay, we beat item (b) to death. Quite an, indoctrination for
these guys.
Berg: This is normal right?
Schroers: No. Sometimes we bleed a little more.
1 C. STATUS REPORT, SKATING RINKS.
- Ruegemer: Just to give you a real brief, tell you what's happening with
' the skating rinks in Chanhassen. We did have a mid - winter warm spell right
after the first of the year where it did get really nice out. Typically
unseasonable for January but it did do the skating rinks very much good.
Basically what it did do is we had to close down the rinks because they
' were getting very slushy and very dangerous to skate on. Virtually it did
create a...almost we had to start over again. So wh -at we really did hope
for was to get some colder weather in, as we did and park maintenance crews
' did shave and get the ice back to where it was functional again. We opened
up back again January 25th and we have been open since that time.
Hopefully with weather cooperating that we can, this week is going to be
' warm again the way it sounds. Up to 40. 38 tomorrow and 40 by the end of
the week so hopefully we can squeeze through this week and get to where our
target date of the 16th of February, weather permitting.
' Lash: How do you set that target date?
Ruegemer: It's just kind of an approximation.
1 Lash: It'd be nice if you were going to have an approximation, to have it
after energy break.
' Ruegemer: I think that's the middle of February too.
r
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 45
Lash: Yeah but I mean if it's still cold enough.
Ruegemer: Oh, if it's still cold enough we continue, you bet.
Hoffman: It's just published so people get an idea and it's based on the 1
past 15 years of when the rinks have closed.
Ruegemer: Just for an example, last year the rinks were closed February
3rd so it just depends really on the weather. The year before was in March 1
I think. It really just, the weather fluctuates so much, it's...so it will
just depend on the weather. If it's cold, then we'll continue to go. It's 1
just a target date and...
PROGRAM REPORT, CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY.
Ruegemer: With the Christmas Tree lighting ceremony, that was back in 1
December. December 9th exactly. This little annual event is really
starting to grow into a nice community celebration. We did have quite a
few more people that came out to witness the tree lighting ceremony this
year. Mayor Chmiel did flip the switch again this year to set off the
annual tree, official season which was a real nice way. The Chaska choir,
High School choir came up to sing caroles and we had hot apple cider and
cookies and Santa Claus was there. It appeared that everybody very much
enjoyed themselves and hopefully we can just continue to still keep
Chanhassen kind of the small town atmosphere. I think people really like 1
that. That's why they chose to live out here. That's what we're going to
try and preserve that atmosphere and continue to grow upon civic events
like this, We did have a very good turn out so hopefully we can add to
that next year.
Hoffman: That's a real tree this time.
Lash: I have a question on your life size figurine. Is it going to be
cemented into the ground?
Ruegemer: Just kind of an idea that was thrown out. I think it'd be nice 1
to, sure it's nice to have a tree decorated but it's kind of a plain Jane
kind of sitting in the middle. That's my opinion but just to add something
more to it I think would be very nice. 1
Lash: You don't think somebody will steal it?
Hoffman: Just like the cows at the flea market. They steal those life 1
size cows all the time.
Lash: The other thing, just a word of caution that you need to be kind of 1
careful with. Those kinds of things because some people don't.
Hoffman: Don't celebrate the season. 1
Lash: Right, don't appreciate.
Andrews: Watch out for the ACLU. 1
1
Park and Rec Commi.s: ion Meeting
January 28, 1992 -- Page 46
Hoffman: You betcha. Holiday lighting ceremony.
' E. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA).
' Hoffman: Item (e), hopefully you've read it. I'm not going to go real in
depth. It received considerable news coverage both in newspaper, radio.
It's something you cannot shrug off. It's unfortunate we're in this
timeframe so we don't have the appropriate attitude to go ahead and discuss
this but the Americans with Disabilities Act is something which as of 2
days ago is now in place. Every action which we take, it's our
responsibility to insure that not only parks but park facilities, our
recreational programs and employment opportunities are open to all persons.
We're taking that very seriously. We have a senior trip going down to the
ice castle. The first question we received was, can a person in a
wheelchair? My husband's in a wheelchair. Can he go along? The bus which
we had rented, which Judy Colby, the Senior Coordinator had rented did not.
It's just a matter of economics but you can no longer operate in that
fashion. It's law that you need to accommodate that person. It's a public
' program and we'll find accommodations to take that person along. That's
just one ramification. Access to parks. Access to park buildings.
Playgrounds. Our playgrounds. Transfer points as it shows in that
' brochure in there. The surfacing is a problem but they haven't written, we
don't have to put in this rubber mat into every one of our pea gravel
surfaced areas but we need to make them reasonably accessible. So again as
we go through our future discussion, we need to be aware of it.
Lash: Will this include all of the things that we have on line for the
upcoming year already and budgeted?
1 Hoffman: Correct.
' Lash: Because that's going to have a big impact. If we had $10,000.00
budgeted, we could spend it all just in surface material or pivot points
and get nothing.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION.
Schroers: Okay, thanks Todd. Is there anything else of concern that we
wish to discuss in the Adminstrative Section?
Hoffman: Just a couple of short points. I'll finish before 10:30. 1 need
to poll the commissioners as of your interest in a golf course discussion
' which is being held in the Council Chambers on February 5th. That's a
Wednesday evening at 6:30. Members of the Planning Commission, Councilman
Workman and some other folks that are interested in a muncipal golf course
within the city of Chanhassen will be meeting. Jerry will be attending. I
start class again that evening. Please let me know if you plan to attend
simply by giving me a phone call so 1 can let the coordinator, Joan Ahrens
from the Planning Commission. So she knows who to expect.
Schroers: 1 have a question. Is this, they're forming a study group or
' commission?
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 47 1
Hoffman: There's a discussion taking place that evening. There's not a
formalized work committee for the golf course study but members of the 1
Planning Commission are interested, Councilman Workman and some other
people.
Andrews: Is this intended to be those in favor only? 1
Hoffman: No.
Koubsky: There's been an informal since it's been discussed once.
Schroers: So this is just a discussion of interested parties. 1
Hoffman: Okay. Second item is the Pheasant Hills. Construction of
Pheasant Hills Park is moving along. I have an item of concern which I'd
like to address with the Commission. It has to do with accessibility. It I
also has to do with common sense as well. This entire northerly area of
the park has been selectively cleared to accommodate these facilities.
This was cleared off for the open playfield. The mature trees around the
tennis court would remain. This area was cleared out for the eventual
development of those as was the area for the play structure. The problem
being, as you recall those discussions, the neighbors did not want parking
access off of Wood Duck Lane to the north. So parking was included in the 1
master plan down here. The construction of this parking lot would be very
expensive. It would necessitate the clearing of an extensive area of trees!!
down in this location. If we went ahead and constructed that parking lot,
in all honesty I feel it's going to past by for on street parking at Wood
Duck Lane. If these people, if they want to go play tennis or to the
ballfield, they're going to drive up to Wood Duck Lane, park on street and 1
walk quarter block down that trail to those facilities. Human nature
- tells us time and time again that they're not going to park in that parking
lot and walk that long trail up to the play area or the tennis court when 1
they can simply park on street at Wood Duck Lane. It has ramifications
with the accessibility as well. We need to provide the best access
possible to park facilities under the ADA but then again you could run
into, we know where the neighborhood is. They would not like to see it. In'
fact if on street parking started in that area, I wouldn't be surprised to
have them in here asking for no parking signs on the street. It's an issue
which is important. 1
Schroers: If I recall that Todd, their main concern was that we were going
to try to build a parking lot there. Okay. I guess I don't feel that we
would be going back on our word to allow on street parking.
Hoffman: On street parking, it will occur and we'll receive comment back
on it. So then negative comment back from it. So the development plan for
that site, before we bought it was to bring a road. That's a road outlot
right here so there would have been a public street developed right here
with lots starting right here. So the adjoining residents have gone from II
something that could have been negative to a park site. But again the
burden's back on us to formulate equal access and reasonable access to
those park facilities. If they're on the northerly side of the park, I
people are going to park on Wood Duck Lane. 4 or 5 cars parked there and
1
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 48
people begin to become agitated about that. They're going to be back
' before the park board to talk about it.
Andrews: I think you're right that if we don't consider changing the plan
' to provide off street parking on the north section, its going to happen. 1
know given a choice, if I had a choice in my neighborhood of people parking
in front of my house or driving by my house and parking in a parking lot 20
yards away, I'd much rather have them park in a lot.
Schroers: If you'd been here about 3 years ago you'd know about those
parking lot programs.
Andrews: I'm not saying that they're in favor of any cars. I know they're
going to be against having cars there. That's a given but if the choice
is, you know we know you're against it but they're going to be there anyway
and which would you rather have. In front of your house or in a lot, I
think most of them would say I'd rather have them in a lot.
Lash: So are you saying to move the parking lot from the south side to the
north side?
' Hoffman: To study that, yes.. I made initial contacts back with Mark
Koegler to take a look at the master plan. If it's the choice of the
Commission to take a look at this in February, Mark would be prepared to
' come back before the Commission to discuss his feelings on the location.
Current location of the parking lot and ramifications of moving it up to
the north. We know the public opposition but again it falls back, it's our
burden to develop these sites in the best possible manner. 5 years down
' the line if a parking lot goes in there, hopefully the cry is all quieted
down and now you have a successful park plan. That's my concern. I needed
to bring it back to the Commission for your thoughts.
Lash: Is there an option of having the parking lot more within the park
site but the access from Lake Lucy Road?
Hoffman: There's that option. We would continue to knock down mature
trees in it's path as we drive the parking lot into the park.
' Andrews: That entrance is really going to need a lot of fill there. A lot
of leveling. 1 don't think you're going to improve the situation at all by
considering moving it further to the north without going all the way to the
I north.
Lash: Well parking on Wood Duck Lane would be perfectly accessible to
people, why don't we just leave the possibility of putting in a parking lot
if we decide that that's necessary. Communicate that to the residents.
They didn't want a parking lot to start with as I recall and if they had to
have one, then they wanted it off of Lake Lucy Road, right?
i Schroers: And we pretty much told them that's what we would do.
' Lash: Right. And that's the way it is. So what if we were to say to
them, okay. We can't. It's not working out to put it off of Lake Lucy
Road. What we're going to do is designate this area and not develop it for
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 49 ,
now using Wood Duck or Lake Lucy Road or wherever people want to park.
That's what they want is those people to park on Lake Lucy Road. We'll
just say we'll have on street parking like you asked and if we decide or
you decide that it's becoming a problem, then the only option for us is to
put a parking lot off of Wood Duck and let it go at that. See what
happens. If people park on Wood Duck and they don't like it, then the only.
thing they have left open to them is a parking lot off of Wood Duck.
Schroers: That would also be my recommendation. I think that that would I
be the easier sell. I tell you when you open up these parking lot issues,
you've got a can of worms like you wouldn't believe.
Andrews: I'm not saying that it's going to be popular. I know it's going
to be not popular.
Schroers: Yeah but it's going to be less than that when we told them that 1
if it wasn't going to happen and then we come back and dump it on them.
That's going to be really bad.
Lash: I mean if we say to them, hey. We can put the parking lot off of
Lake Lucy, which they didn't want a parking lot at all and that was sort of
our compromise was to put it off of Lake Lucy and they could live with '
_that. Now if we come back and say okay, we're not going to put it off of
Lake Lucy because it's not accessible enough to people and we'll just go
with your original ideas of on street parking. That's what they wanted to I
start with and as a back -up, if that becomes a problem, we'll have to put
access off of Wood Duck. Then they think they're getting what they wanted
and we've leaving their option open of putting in a more accessible parking
lot if they start complaining to us about people parking on Wood Duck.
Schroers: And I don't think we have to advertise Wood Duck as the
designated parking area. I mean what we're talking about here again is
essentially a neighborhood park. There's not going to be hoardes of
traffic rushing to Pheasant Mills to park there and I think we can let them
accommodate themselves and if it isn't working out, they'll come and tell
us what it is that they want and what we should do about it and then we cay
say at that point in time, well what you're asking here is feasible or it
isn't feasible but this is what we can try to do to accommodate.
Lash: But I think the plan we have to make sure that we have provided an
adequate spot to put that and that it's communicated to them that this spot
is being reserved in case we need a parking lot in the future. In case the,
on street parking doesn't work out for you. We want to have Plan B and
that would be to put a parking lot here. I don't know how could they not,
it's what they wanted to start with.
Schroers: I think it's not what they wanted to start with because they
didn't want a parking lot up on that end. So we told them we'd it down
on the other end but now we're telling them, well we're going to park on
your street and if you don't like that, we're going to build a parking lot.II
Lash: But they didn't want a parking lot at all. Remember they didn't
want a parking lot at all and we said we had to put one in. Okay, if you
have to put one in, put it off of Lake Lucy. So we said, okay.
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 50
Schroers: Yeah, but now we're telling them that if on street parking don't
work, that we're going to build it where we told them we weren't going to
in the first place and then they're going to say, oh you people are wishy
washy or you're lying to us. You told us this and now you've changed your
1 mind and done a complete 180 on us here.
Lash: I think the way Todd presented it to us is, you have to take out a
whole lot of mature trees and people are going to go up and park on Wood
Duck anyway. Anybody can look at that and figure that that's their option.
Schroers: Oh I don't disagree that that's the thing to do but I think that
1 if we want to catch some serious flack from the neighborhood, it's go and
tell them that we're going to do exactly what we told them that we weren't
going to do. We don't look good. We don't look good when we do that.
' Hoffman: The simple fact is even developing this park, although they all
wanted it, it's still not a popular action. I've got word back from one of
the neighbors abutting the park that the person that was behind the major
push for this park has moved and would a petition boycotting the
development of this park be effective back at the Park and Recreation
Commission level? I said boy, that's unusual.
Lash: That'd save us a lot of money. If they don't want it.
Hoffman: This is simply because that person.abuts the open playfield and
boy we didn't realize that was going to be an open playfield.
Schroers: One thing that I think is real important is that we maintain the
credibility of this Commission. We had some controversial things happen in
the past and we have learned from experience, when we butt heads we don't
get very far. So at least if we're going to turn things around on Pheasant
Hills, we're going to have to find a diplomatic way to do it.
Lash: I think if it's communicated all the way along and maybe there needs
to be a letter sent and you need to say there's been some new facts have
come to light regarding the parking arrangement for this park. We'd like
your input on this. We're going to have a public hearing on it at such and
such date. You're welcome to come and let us know how you feel.
Hoffman: Okay. But as of tonight we do not need to go that route right?
We'll just leave the park on the master plan. We're not going to build it.
Dale's wondering because they're out there doing cutting and grading.
We're not going to cut the trees down for the parking lot. Let people park
for the next 4 years.
Schroers: We can't go ahead and cut trees down, we're a tree city.
Lash: But I don't know that we can go ahead and develop the park without
the parking lot. Without having the neighborhood know what's going on.
Otherwise it's going to look like...switched the plan without telling them
anything about it.
Koubsky: I think we need to communicate what our intentions are. We could
forego the parking lot but let them know. Just kind of build it without
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 28, 1992 - Page 51
like Jan was saying. If we have to put a parking lot up in that open
space, design it now while we're developing it. It's either going to be
grass or pavement. And then we can discuss later parking issues.
Hoffman: Got it. 1
Koubsky: If we have to go chop trees down because we said that's what
we're going to do, we'll chop trees down.
Pemrick: Transplant them.
Hoffman: Last item is the year end budget. 410 Park Acquisition and
Development budget of revenue for 1991 is $191,000.00. Collected was
$163,000.00 so we were short about $28,000.00. Much better than
anticipated. Interest revenues came up. Had some year end activity in
building so just last year, 93% were collected. This year 77% were
collected so we were behind last year but we ended up much better off than
we thought 3 weeks ago. That's it.
Andrews moved, Pemrick seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim 1
. 1
° 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i i
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
2/13/92
PRESENT: Bill Bernhjelm, Don Chmiel, Brian Beniek, Dave Dummer,
Eldon Berkland
ABSENT: Craig Blechta
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
FIREMEN PRESENT: Geoffrey Breault, Dave Carlson
CCSO PRESENT: Sgt. Julie Boden
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dave Dummer.
Don Chmiel motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to approve the 1/9/92
minutes. All voted in favor and the motion passed.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department will be using the vacant Chanhassen Meadows
Apartment building for extensive training. Observers are invited.
The heavy rescue truck was approved at the 1/10/92 City Council
meeting. Public Safety Director Harr will be ordering.
Firemen Breault and Carlson discussed the questionnaire which is
being distributed to all firefighters and city staff. The survey
will assess the needs /desires of the users of the exercise
equipment /hot tub at the Fire Department. Results will be
tabulated for discussion at a future Commission meeting.
CCSO
Sgt. Boden reviewed police activity in Chanhassen.
Brain Beniek commended the Sheriff's Department on the increased
visible patrol activity.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Commissioner Dummer spent a week at City Hall coordinating the
City's Emergency Management Plan with Director Harr. This is being
typed for review.
Councilmembers and Public Safety Commissioners have been invited to
ride along with County and City Staff. Councilmember Ursula Dimler
will be riding along with a Building Inspector, Community Service
Officer and possibly a State Trooper in the near future.
1
February 13, 1992
•
Page 2
Director Harr mentioned City Manager Don Ashworth has requested
that CPR training be made available yearly for all employees.
Commissioner Blechta will be contacted for this training.
Director Harr explained that previous changes in term length and
number of Public Safety Commissioners passed in 1988, was omitted
from the current City Code codification. The consensus was to have
staff research the changes, and if they were not included in the
present code, to proceed with having it done. 1
Discussion occurred regarding staggering commissioner terms in
order to prevent mass vacancies. Bill Bernhjelm motioned, Dave
Johnson seconded, to recommend changes to the Commission terms.
All voted in favor and the motion passed. The change will be
considered internally unless issues need to go to Council.
Director Harr will invite the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force 1
Coordinator Sgt. Bill Hudson to a future Commission meeting.
Brian Beniek motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to adjourn the
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion passed.
A tour of the Carver County Sheriff's Office followed the meeting. 1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1