2k. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 13, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, and
1 Councilman Wing
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, and
Scott Harr
1 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. PRESENTATION OF "CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION" TO ANNETTE ELLSON FOR 4 YEARS
' OF SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to thank you personally from myself and all the Council
for you contributing the amount of time that you have to the Planning
Commission. And with this I'd like to give you a Certificate of Appreciation.
Whereby the City of Chanhassen as...that's Chanhassen City Council has
officially acted to recognize Annette Ellson, Planning Commissioners, from the
Planning Commission. Further that the City Council has hereby placed into the
official Minutes this recognition of lasting expression of it's gratitude of
this city for the services that you have provided. Thank you very much.
1 Annette Ellson: Thank you very much... I think it's a surprise. I didn't join
the Planning Commission for any recognition whatsoever but I'm really glad I
did. I would urge anybody else who's interested, it's a way of feeling you can
do something for the City. You're looking at someone who didn't have a
developer's background, engineering background or anything like that but I was
able to do, put my two cents worth in there...so I appreciate the recognition.
' B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 25, 1992 AS KATIE WALKER, CHANHASSEN HOMETOWN
DAY.
Mayor Chmiel: Item B is the proclamation declaring April 25, 1992 as Katie
Walker Day, Chanhassen Hometown Day. What this is basically is Katie is playing
with the University of Minnesota's Women's Intercollegiate, with their Athletic
' Department playing ball. In conjunction with WCCO radio, Hometown Day Salute,
we are going to be recognizing Katie on April 25th at 1:00 p.m. during the
softball game and I am going to read basically the proclamation that we are
' going to have for her on this day and then I will be presenting to her at
Bierman Field. It reads, City of Chanhassen, Carver and Hennepin Counties,
Minnesota. Proclamation declaring April 25, 1992 as Katie Walker Hometown Day.
' Whereas the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota is actively concerned and involved in
nuturing and supporting the educational and physical development, achievements
1 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
of it's native_ and residents, and Whereas, the achievements, academically and
athletically o' our native citizens, Katie Walker, are a source of great
community pride and interest as she represents our hometown. In the nation and
' at the University of Minnesota as an accomplished ahtlete and scholar. Whereas,
she will especially be honored during ceremonies at the University of Minnesota
and WCCO Radio Hometown Days, celebration of her achievements is representative
of the recognition our city supports. Now Therefore, as Mayor of the City of
1 Chanhassen, Minnesota, I hereby obtain and declare the date of April 25th as
official Katie Walker, Chanhassen Hometown Day in the city. Proclaimed by the
City Council of the City of Chanhassen this 13th day of April, 1992. And it's
' signed by Dori Ashworth Rnu myself ati Mayor. 1 think it ju• {�.., •' ' . ,: t
Chanhassen's in ' our
community and showing all kinds of athletes that we do have within this city.
' Not only with the University of Minnesota but also with our two high schools
that represent our city. The Minnetonka High School as well as Independent
School District #112. So with that I'd just like to give Katie a little round
of applause. We're full with proclamations today. We have one more. This is
not on the agenda sheet as such but it is Arbor Day and it's a proclamation for
Arbor Month. I'm not going to go through the entirety of the proclamation but
it really is something that we are planning on doing and tying in with the
' Department of Natural Resources and the State indicating that Arbor Day be here
and this will also provide us, the City, with a marker that's provided by the
State to be out on our City of Chanhassen signs indicating that we do care about
trees. By our strong ordinances that we do have with cutting trees and
' preserving, we're going to continue in that particular vein. So with that, that
proclamation will be adopted by the Council as well as the Mayor and keeping
this proclamation of Arbor Day within the City.
1 Resolution #92 -45: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve
the resolution proclaiming the month of April as Arbor Month for the City of
Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
' recommendations:
a. Authorize Extension of Construction Work Hours for Market Square Shopping
' Center Project No. 92 -2.
b. Approve Purchase of New Pumps for Lift Station No. 2 and Authorize Repair
' Contract.
e. Approval of Temporary On -Sale Beer License, Chanhassen Lions Club, May 2 and
3, 1992.
f. Ordinance Amending Chapter 7, Building Code and Chapter 19, Water
Distribution and Sewage Disposal, First Reading.
g. Resolution *92 -46: Arbitrage Reimbursement Financing, Designate Project
Coordinator.
' h. Confirmation of Designation of Ursula Dimler to the Hazeltine - Bavaria
Watershed M, Organization.
•
' 2
1
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
11
i. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2, Section 2- 68(a), Public Safety Commission,
Changing 5 Members to 7 Members for Three Years, First Reading. 1
j. Approval of Accounts.
k. City Council Minutes dated March 23, 1992 1
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 1, 1992
All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
C. WILLOW RIDGE. PROJECT 91 -14: APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND APPROVE
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. 1
Charles Folch: I have handed out to you tonight two pages from the development
contract for the Willow Ridge project which contained the appropriate
corrections which are highlighted as such. Basically in reviewing under Section
6 for the security amount, inadvertantly the cost associated with the telementry
system set up for the lift station, that cost was omitted in the development
contract submitted in your packet. It should read, the last line item, that
lift station and telemetry system cost of $46,000.00 which revises the total
cost of the public improvements to $417,660.00 which affects the letter of
credit security amount to now be revised to $459,426.00 and on the following '
page, which is SP - -6, under Section X, the wording basically outlining the cost
sharing of the telemetry system associated with the lift station has been
modified as such.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Are there any questions?
Councilman Workman: Is this, everyone in agreement?
Charles Folch: As far as I understand, we're all in agreement with this.
Mayor Chmiel: If not, I'll make a motion to approve item 1(c). 1
Councilman; Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the plans and
specifications and development contract for Willow Ridge, Project No. 91 -14.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: ROB CAHO. FORMATION OF A CHANHASSEN JAYCEES.
Mayor Chmiel: Rob and I had some discussions an early morning last week on this
and I thought it would be good if he were to come in and give a short
presentation to the Council making them aware as to what the JayCees can do for
a city. Rob. 1
Rob Caho: First of all I'd like to thank the Mayor and also Todd Hoffman for
inviting us here to speak a little bit about the JayCees. Okay, the JayCees
first of all too also we have one of the first members of the Chanhassen
JayCees, Roberta Johnson and a resident. Berta. Okay, the Minnesota JayCees
are a young person's organization from the age of 21 to 39. We have personal
growth through community service. We feel the need in Chanhassen area for the
3
1
11 City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
I JayCees and we're willing to come out here and try to help the JayCees to get
started in this area because we think that the young people need something to do
in the area and the City can well benefit from the actions that the JayCees can
' do. Just in some of the areas that the JayCees have done is just like a Bicycle
Safety Rodeo. Child Abduction Prevention programs. Sponsoring Little League
teams. Hockey teams. All the different sports. Scholarship funds. We have...
We do a lot of park improvements and I think that's one thing that the City
' could really benefit from that area because we do a lot of park improvements and
a lot of volunteer work and also the monies and stuff is raised through
the JayCees organization. The Mayor I think has been a JayCee at one time too
' himself and he could probably tell you a few things more about the JayCees.
Mayor Chmiel: Hundred years ago.
Rob Caho: Yeah. But we also do a lot of family, it is men and women and we do
a lot of socials to get togethers and stuff for the family to go camping. Like
4th of July picnics. Different events like that. We also do individual
' development. Which individual development, we bring in speakers as far as
stress management, time management and so on to build leaders in the community.
And I think it will help the whole city and the JayCee organization. At this
11 time we are working on building a chapter. We're going from door to door and
we're also a3king for help through the community to find young people that would
be interested in the Jaycees. At this time I'd just like to tell anybody that
if they would like, or they know anybody in the age, to please give us a call.
' I'll leave the number with the Mayor and stuff to get a hold of us and stuff and
we'll be putting it in newspapers and we'll be running different things in the
newspaper to get it started. So I'd like to thank you for having us here.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Appreciate you coming down.
' PUBLIC HEARING: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENT TO THE UPPER
BLUFF CREEK AREA; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS- PROJECT NO.
91 -17 (CONTINUED FROM 3/9/92).
Public Present:
Name Address
Doug Barinsky 8731 Audubon Road
Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd.
1 Ron EntingPr 8851 Audubon Road
Bob Worthington Opus Corporation
Tom Michel 8941 Audubon Road
Charles Folch: At the previous public hearing, the Council directed staff to
review the Minutes of the public hearing and provide written and verbal
responses to the relevant questions that were raised. I'll start off by
' addressing the, probably the most common concern and question that was raised at
that public hearing as it relates to the large lot, small acreage homesteaded
hobby farm type situations of approximately 10 acres .or less. In response to
the property owners with those concerns and based on previous action taken by
' the Council on similar projects in this situation, it is proposed that these
parcels with one unit or one dwelling on them be initially assessed one unit
' 4
11
associated with the project. If at some time in the future further development 11•
would occur within any of these properties, they would be charged a trunk
hook -up charge for the remaining units based on the current trunk hook -up rate
at that particular point in time. And again this policy is consistent with what
the action Council is committed to on recent projects that have come before you.
Just to go through some of the numbers. I'll just basically reference the 10
parcels that are affected by this decision. They would be the Stockdale
property, the Raser, the Schmidt's, the Wanninger, Johnson, Wrase, excuse me if
I'm pronouncing any of these incorrectly. Paulson. Gateway Partners. Bongard,
Michel, Entinger and Molnau properties. There's 10 properties that would fit
within that category. Going down through the Minutes, the first speaker, Marion
Michel, 894.1 Audubon Road. Raised concerns about the high cost of the proposed
assessment that would potentially force her off her property. Again, she has a
.net assessable acreage of 10 acres or less and therefore would fall under the
category of being assessed one unit at this point in time. She also mentioned
that her property is currently under green acre status and as such, any
assessments levied against the property would be deferred. And it has been the
Council's verbal statement at the previous hearing that any assessments levied
against the green acre properties, the assessment would go deferred without
interest accrual. Basically the future trunk hook -up charges would be charged
at the current rate at that point in time. So that basically addresses those '
two concerns raised.
Mayor Chmiel: Point of clarification maybe with that. Until such time that
individual were to either subdivide or change from that category, green acres,
Than they would be responsible for those costs at that time.
Charles Folch: That's correct. That's correct. Wayne Bongard of 8831 Audubon '
Road basically expressed concern over the large assessments against his 10 acre
parcel. Again he would fall within that category of the 1 unit assessment as
would Doug Barinsk> at 8731 Audubon Road. Ron Entinger of 8851 Audubon Road
also lives on a parcel of less than 10 acres in size. He also questioned as to
whether hie property should be assessed at this time since no trunk sewer will
actually abut his property. It is staff's contention that he may be and should
be assessed at this point in time since the trunk infrastructure, including the
lift station, is being constructed at this point in time and at such time
there's a future lateral that would service property, he would be assessed for
the lateral at that point in time. Don Patton of the Lake Susan Hills
Parir;Ership submitted a letter to the Council questioning whether or not the
sewer that their development had stubbed underneath Audubon Road to the west
side would be used. In answer to this question, it's our understanding that the
proposed Chanhassen Business Center, a portion of that development is planning
on making use of that sewer link that was provided. Mr. Patton also had some
other questions related to the definition of a trunk hook -up charge and the
lateral connection charge which I explained that night at the meeting. Mr. Al
Klingelhutz spoke on behalf of Mr. Earl Holasek who owns property west of Galpin
Blvd. and south of County Road 18. Wanted to know why the property is proposed
to be assessed associated with this project and including that he felt that the
topography of his land would be better suited to be served via a system from
Chaska. At this point in time, staff is requesting authorization to order the
project for, order the phase 1 portion of the project which Mr. Holasek is not
included in and would not be assessed accordingly. In the next coming years
when phase 2 would be proposed, we can again look at and evaluate the situation
5 '
1
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
11
associated with Mr. Holasek's property, including probably knowing more about
Chaska's ability to serve that portion of Chanhassen. If that's even a
possibility or not. But at this point in time there's associated with phase 1,
there is no proposed assessment to be levied against the Holasek property. Mr.
' Larry VanDeVeire, 4980 CR 10 East in Chaska owns property north of TH 5 and west
of Lake Ann Park. He expressed concerns about the zoning classification of his
property in conjunction with the progress of the corridor study for TH 5. It
was explained to Mr. VanDeVeire that night that he too is only associated with
' the phase 2 portion of this overall project and at such time, the next coming
years when that project would be basically on the table for review, we should
know more about some of the results coming from the TH 5 corridor study as it
' would affect potential zoning status for that property that he owns. Mr. Henry
Wrase of 8175 Hazeltine Boulevard also stated that he has a parcel of less than
10 acres and however he has two dwellings on it. He was told that night of the
meeting that he would be assessed one unit for each of the dwellings that exist
on the property. Wilmer Molnau of 8541 Audubon Road questioned whether his
assessments will be deferred until he hooks up or not. He also owns one of the
parcels fitting within the 10 acre or less category. Therefore, one unit would
' be assessed against the property until such time that development would occur in
the future. Hans Hagen of Hans Hagen Homes testified or he basically has
purchased development rights to the property north of the Twin Cities Western
' Railroad, immediately west of the Bluff Creek corridor and he basically
testified that he is in favor of the project and wishes to be included as a part
of the phase 1 development proposal. Mr. Bob Worthington of Opus Corporation,
who is a partner in the development of some office industrial park located south
' of TH 5 and east of TH 41 expressed concern that the apparent rates for
Chanhassen's sewer assessments to commercial and industrial properties were
higher than other communities that his corporation has worked in. In trying to
' research this and discussing, contacting other communities, what we found is
that there's a variety of different methods with which communities use to assess
these rates. There's differentials in how they determine the rate. Determined
' basically the number of potential units to generate from a property. So it was
very difficult to take the numbers that they give you and look at it and be able
to compare apples to apples and oranges,to oranges with how Chanhassen's rates.
But from what we can determine, we would estimate that Bob is probably correct.
Chanhassen's commercial rates now, are probably about 1 1/2 to possibly 2 times
more than some of other communities that we've talked to. However, staff's
belief that there's a number of factors that affect why this is happening.
II Number one being that Chanhassen's topography is really unique. One of the
things that we do in determining or unit generations from a property is to
subtract out unbuildable topographic areas that are too steep for slopes. We
also subtract out wetlands. Other communities may have rates that basically you
just apply to raw acreage without considering those factors. We also have in
our, as it affects this general Bluff Creek utility region, a lot of area and
land that's lost to the TH 212 corridor. Basically those are again lands that
will not generate any units from them for assessment purposes. What we've tried
to do with Chanhassen's system is design a system that meets the capabilities of
the needs of the service area. Determine a fair estimate as to what units could
' possibly be generated and from that determine what cost is needed to recover
those expenditures. Taking all those factors into consideration has produced
the $970. per unit for sewer and $1,275. per unit for water which we have
proposed and also taking into consideration the 4 units per acre for commercial
' industrial density. Mr. David Stockdale of 8301 Audubon Road questioned whether
1 6
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
1
his property was being assessed twice since he was assessed as a part of the
Audubon Road project. In reviewing the files, it was apparent that Mr.
Stockdale was assessed for lateral sewer charge as associated with Audubon Road
project and his property has not been assessed for the trunk improvement. So
therefore there's not a double assessment against the property. Councilman Wing
raised the question of why the Timberwood Addition was not included as a part of
the proposed assessments. Paul Krauss, the City Planner addressed those issues
verbally that night. Basically eluding to the fact that commitments and
considerations were given to these development areas at the time that the
Comprehensive Plan was going through the amendment process. That's I believe
addresses the relevant questions that were raised the night of the meeting. At
this point in time it's staff's recommendation that the Council authorize
preparation of plans and specifications and the EAW for Phase 1 of the project.
Phase 1 would incorporate that area within the Bluff Creek region which would be
south, between Twin City Western Railroad with the exception of the Hans Hagen
property who has asked to be included as a part of Phase 1. ,
Ma;or Chmiel: Good. Thank you. As I mentioned before, this is a public
hearing. I think everyone had an opportunity the last time to address the
issues_ I'd like for anyone who would like to provide us with some additional
testimony at this meeting, to come forward now at this time and address the
issue. Hopefully if there's something new than what was previously discussed at
the last meeting, we do have the Council meeting Minutes of that and have had '
the orportunity to review those as well. So at this time I'd like to open the
public hearing for anyone to come forward and bring up their thoughts or
concerns. Please state your name and your address.
Doug Earinsk;' Sure, Doug Barinsky, 8731 Audubon. Just a point of
clarification Charles. You read a list of 10 names that were in the small
,acreage. You didn't call my name then but you did later. Was that an
cveri :- t? I want to make sure I'm on the right list.
Charles Folch: Yes, that appears to have been missed from the first list that
I have but it is, you are listed on the.
Doug 8,rinsky: For one hook -up? •
. Charles Folch: That's correct. We'll make note of the correction.
Doug B3rinsky: Okay. Second question or point of clarification. When you're '
assessed for the trunk hook -up, what happens when you adjoin the trunk as far as
lateral charges? Is that a separate assessment?
Charles Folch: That's a separate assessment, that's correct. '
Doug Barinsky: And that's assessed for each housing unit that gets hooked up to 11 the trunk?
Charles Folch: That's correct. As a connection charge.
Doug Barinsky: When, if this project is approved, are you planning to do this
work? Is there a time table that's?
7
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
. Charley Folch: Basically the lateral infrastructure facilities would be
constructed on an as needed basis for properties that would want or desire to
hook up at this point in time.
' Doug Barinsky: But the trunk line, when is that proposed?
Charles Folch: Phase 1 is proposed to be constructed this year. During the
' 1992 construction season.
Doug Barinsky: Thank you.
1 Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin Boulevard, or Road depending on
whether it's Excelsior or Chanhassen. Which is another issue. Postal issue. I
was not here the last time. I'm sorry. My wife and I were gone. We have
' property of 26 acres at 8200 Galpin which is north of the railroad. Is that in
Phase 1 or Phase 2? I thought I heard you say that everything was south of the
railroad except for some piece and I didn't hear our piece mentioned.
Bob Schunicht: Your property is in phase 2 and it's also in green acres.
Jerome Carlson: Right. So we are not affected at this point?
' Bob Schunicht: That's correct.
1 Jerome Carlson: Thank you very much.
Ron Entinger: I'm Ron Entinger at 8851 Audubon Road. I'm wondering, did I
understnd right that if your land is in green acres the assessment is deferred
' tax frEE? And if ;'cu're not under green acres, it's a payable assessment now?
Is th.t correct?
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Ron Entinger: If the, would it change if you were not green acres now but you
1 were very shortly, would it be deferred or how would you handle that?
Mayor Chmiel: Point of law.
Rog:-r Knutson: The assessment hearing which will adopt the assessment roll
won't take place until this fall at the earliest. I'm not sure what the
schedule is. Will it be this fall?
Charles Folch: Probably fall of 1993.
' Roger Knutson: So you've got at least until then, the fall of 1993 to get in.
Be green acred...
' Ron Entinger: Okay, thank you.
Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Bob Worthington. We
don't have anything new to add. We're kind of disappointed with the conclusion
' that was reached which in effect says, yes we are more expensive but we've got
some unique reasons for being that way. It's in terms of commercial industrial
8
1
property. We think that retards and is going to be have a detrimental affect
upon trying to locate businesses within the city of Chanhassen at the outskirts
of the town as it now exists. Especially when you look at some of those other
communities who are going to be competing for those businesses and who probably
will be the first choice. I'm hopeful that between now and the time that you
adopt that assessment roll, that we have more opportunity to explore and
investigate ways to reduce those costs and perhaps even in some way or another •
try to defer some of those costs until development indeed does begin occurring 11
on the property.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else?
Tom Michel: I'm Tom Michel. I live at 8941 Audubon. And I have a couple of
things that .1 don't think were answered, at least not to my satisfaction so far.
I'm Oh, I have to check here. I'm on Parcel 32. And as I understand it, the
sewer project that's going in is going to have a, whatever you call it, a force
flow going from the pump station down on Lyman which would go up just past the,
oh not that far. Right at the edge of the lined out thing. Beyond that that's
an elevation is quite a bit more. I don't know how many of you are familiar
with that. I think Tom's probably been out in that area and has some idea.
Anyway, those parcels which would include the Gram's property, Barinsky and
Willy Molnau, would drain into the sewer because of the elevation. Now down
below that, the 3 parcels down below, as I understand from the engineer would be
served by a, I have a problem because our house is probably 30 feet below the
hill. In addition to that, you include the basement another 10 feet, now I'm
down 4C feet below that road. Now I did mention it to the engineer. I don't
know if he looked at it or not. When I had a chat with him earlier but it's
difficult for me to believe that I could hook up to that. His response is
they're going to put a return on the other side of the road there from up on top
down to the lift station to drain the stuff off of the hill down to the pump
station and then pump it back up on top of the hill so it would flow, I assume
gravity from there to wherever it's going. I still don't see any reason for the
people that have, I don't know, 6 to 10 acres in that one area has been excluded
from this regardless of'what they're built from. It's not the same thing as a
Timberwood- although I don't really agree with that either. That regardless of
what, they were built under. If you're assessing that area, it should include
everybody in there in my personal opinion. But what I'm saying is they're going
to put tics in now. In the event that at some future date which I wouldn't even
probably be here, that I wanted to hook into that, I'm not too positive I could
even hook into it if it was there. I think that water, I mean water will go
uphill under pressure but sewer will not go up there unless you have some way of
making it run uphill and I'm not convinced in my own mind that it will end up
going that way. Plus the fact that everybody else down there below that,
according to the city's own recommendations, everybody on the west side of
Audubon, would not be involved in there so they're running a return from 3
pieces of property on the east side of Audubon for the purpose of taking sewage
down. Now Wayne Bongards which is just above me, is a brand new home. Ron
Entinger who is just to the east of me, that's also a brand new. I admit we've
got an old house. Pret'near 100 years old. But I guess my question is, exactly
what is it going to serve? Because it's not going to serve anybody over there.
It's going to be let's say 20 -30 years before it affects anybody on the east
side except for perhaps me. I'm just wondering is it worth the cost to do that
or put it irr. How are you going to get a return from putting an extra drain
9 '
1
11 City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
from the top of that hill down to Lyman? Now if I was hurting for a sewer, I'd
think it maybe was a great idea but I don't think it's feasible and I don't
think it serves any purpose, at least not at the present time because you're
limited to at the very most 3 parcels of property. Two of which are not likely
to be involved in that for quite a long time to come. And I•don't mind telling
you, I'm agin it. I think that's about it.
' Mayor Chmiel: You're basically on green acres right now, is that correct?
Okay, good. Charles, can you address that one portion?
Charles Folch: You bet. Mr. Michel is correct. He would not be able to
connect to that forcemain which is proposed to be constructed along Audubon Road
and hi: property is significantly lower than the existing elevation of Audubon
Road that runs along him. His property. However, to serve his property, the
' Entinger property, and the Bongard property, if it ever is needed in the future,
a local lateral line would be constructed probably along Lyman Blvd. and then up
to the north through the properties which he's correct, which would drain by
' gravity down to the lift station and then have to be pumped up through the
forcemain. I mean topography, there's no other alternatives for to serve those
properties but at some point in time, a future lateral gravity line would need
to be constructed when service is needed to those properties.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing none, can I have
a motion to close the public hearing?
' Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions for Council?
Councilman "'a I think this report answers any questions I had.
' Maycs C rie_l: Tcft
' Councilman Workman: I'm maybe not sure what Mr. Michel is getting at. Maybe
th._ simpl_ point is that, why run it down there if we're not going to use it?
Why run it down there at this point? What's a simple summary of what he's?
' Charles Folch: Well, if it's a matter of benefit at this point in time, there
is benefit because the lift station and the forcemain is ultimately going to
serve those properties whenever they connect. He's not being assessed, proposed
' to be assessed for lateral improvements associated with this project. That
would be a separate improvement project at a later date in time which would be
basically assessed for accordingly. There is no problem assessing those
' properties or there's no problem serving those properties via sewer with the way
the system has been currently designed. The whole topography in fact, if you
look at the major portion of that whole service area for phase 1 and phase 2,
all flows by gravity down to the lift station located just south of Lyman there
and then it's pumped back up into the Lake Ann Interceptor. It's just a natural
lay of the land. It's all flowing that way and we have to get it back up to the
nearest trunk interceptor facility which is the Lake Ann Interceptor.
' 10
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
Councilman Workman: The Barinsky property is going to be included the same as.
everybody else in green acres?
Charles Folch: If his property's in green acres, that's correct. But I think
the point that Doug brought up was that he should be included in the 1 unit
assessment at this point in time, which he's correct. We've noted the
correction.
Mayor Chrrriel: That 1 unit assessment cost, that's $2,245.00?
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Councilman Workman: I guess then my only or my final point is that I was sort
of, I guess the summary or the comment on the Opus question. I guess I would
like to know or better understand how or why we are a little bit higher. It
does have some serious, well that should matter to the individuals that are
paying two. Not just the people that are paying for larger but this memo didn't
summarize that very well and I hate to think we're going to go ahead and approve
all this kind of without really understanding what that is. But maybe it's
something we can't do anything about anyway. '
Charles Folch: Unfortunately it does appear that it's that way. We're
basically taking pure costs that are associated with doing the needed
improvements and basically saying that the properties that need these
improvements and benefit from these improvements should pay their way and that
basically the Test of the community, from a general tax base should not be
funding these improvements. The costs associated with the improvements should
go to the benefitting properties generating the need.
Councilman Workman: So why then would we be 2 1/2 or 3 times more? What would
we be doing different?
Charles Folch: Well basically, like I said, it's difficult to determine. Some
communities basically have a unit rate based on raw acreage. We subtract out
wetland. We subtract out steep slopes so our rate is based on net developable
land co if were saying that based on net developable acreage, a commercial
property could develop 4 units and we're charging $970.00 for sewer unit,
another community may say well, we don't take into consideration wetlands and
topography but we charge 6 units per raw acreage and then based on our lower
rate, maybe it's somewhat close. Maybe it's not. It's tough to compare apples
to apples in this because there's different methodologies used in approaching
this. Also a lot of it too is constructing costs. It depends on the timing.
Some of the communities had a lot of development occur over the last, majority
of the development occur over the last 5 years and have developed rates based on
thoe. costs and maybe those costs are still carrying over at this point in time.
Whereas we're dealing with real time costs associated with major development at
this point in time. And again, property lost to, we are losing a significant
amount of property to the TH 212 corridor. If you took the entire area that is
mapped, officially mapped, that probably equals the area of a whole full
section. 600 to 700 acres. That basically the only units will be generated
from. And in terms of construction cost, you still have to carry pipe a
certain distance. You still have to put it in the ground a certain depth. All
11
1
City Council Meeting -- April 13, 1992
those inherent costs aren't reduced from the fact of losing 600 to 700 acres of
land in a service area.
Rogcr Knutson: Just to make a quick comment on that as well. Working in
several communities. One of the things it's hard to compare what one city does
with another. Some things get paid out of special assessments in some
communities where in another community it's loaded up on connection charge or it
can be loaded up on new user fees. Certain things can be spun off from one of
those things to the other. I know some communities that do not assess a nickel
for trunk 'ewer. They're not getting a free lunch. They're paying for it out
of high connection charges or higher user rates. So it's really hard to
' compare. You can do it but it takes really, you just can't call up a city and
say what is your typical rate for a trunk charge because depending on who you
ask and what kind of analysis is used, you won't get an accurate answer..
' Mayor Chmiel: Right. I agree. And that's so true because I know of a couple
cit themsslvee that go through that same thing and do not charge for running.
Roger Knutson: I sat on the Metropolitan Council Housing Committee, as we just
finished, and they were trying to compare different rates in different cities
and how things were done and they, having little staff and they didn't want to
' put that much effort into it, they basically threw up their hands and said we
can't compare it. You have to go sit down with every city with their finance
office; With their engineer and see how their city is financed. You can't get
that information over the phone.
' Cou'eeilman Workman: I don't want to think that we're making up our own as we
go. I mean we've got to be going by something that's similar to somebody. It'd
be kind of T CE to know if we are or we aren't. Maybe that's a very complicated
question but if a major developer tells us we're 2 1/2 to 3 times, maybe he can
help us find out why. They're developing in different communities and they know
why or how they do it in different communities. But then that probably affects
the reople who have under 10 acres as well or the 1 unit people too. And so
that's what , I mean I agi ee with your theory that there's no free lunch.
Somebody's going to pay for it somehow but I'd kind of like to get a better
'
handle OH that because as these things come up, they're highly stressful and
frank' I'd like to have a better answer.
Roger Knutson: One simple little factor is density. If you allow more use,
make it not commercial but residential. If you allow everyone on an 8,000
square foot lot, the connection charge per unit will be dramatically different.
' Construction coots per unit would be dramatically different than if you required
20,000 square foot lots.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? Richard.
' Councilman Wing: No, that was my question. I'm somewhat sati.,fied that we're
not talking apples and oranges here. It's sort of, you're comfortable we're not
2 1/2-3 times more than a comparable city?
Charles Folch: What I'm comfortable with is our estimated costs for what the
needs are to provide service to the area and the reasonable number of units that
' 12
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
would be generated. I feel we're dealing with real numbers here and fair
estimates as to what costs should be to have service in Chanhassen.
Councilman Wing: One question that I'm asked, we're assessing these people now
for running these lines down and Mr. Michel's comment is if he chose to hook up
we have to do, I think you used the word run a lateral.
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Councilman Wing: Where does that assessment go? Who pays for that now? '
Charles Folch: Again that would be assessed to the benefitting properties.
Councilman Wing: So they're really not being set up to be hooked up? They're
being set up to be set up to be hooked up? It's another assessment for these
folks is what it sounds like.
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: One additional. '
Councilman Wing: I don't think that happened to me. What might that be or what
might happen? ,
Charlee Folch: Well, we'd have to take a look at it again as to what. It would
depend on how many of those properties, which properties adjacent to him, if any
of the others would want to also hook up at that point in time. We'd have to
look for what would be the best, most efficient alignment to get service to
those properties. Dollars wise, at this point in time I couldn't give you a
rough guess but we would try to stay consistent with what our connection charges
are or our lateral connection charges.
Councilman Wing: If that's part of the integral system of hooking up in the
future and we're not hooking up now, why not do it all at one project now? One
construction project now at today's prices and assess one assessment? In other
words, it's Eort of available but it's sort of not. Until we assess a second
time to make it sort of, this doesn't make sense. '
Charles Folch: The intent with a trunk assessment is not intended that you have
service to your property line. It's basically the major arterial facility if
you will for sewer and water in the area. That's what they're being assessed
for. It is a good point. You could certainly take the viewpoint that we should
put both lateral and trunk in at the same time. However, I think we'd probably
run into a greater wall for people who aren't interested in getting service at
this point in time. Then you're adding probably another $2,000.00 onto their
assessment at this time.
Al Klingelhutz: Could I ask a question?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure Al.
Al Klingelhutz: Prior to this time, the trunks were paid by a sewer
availability charge at the time of a building permit or otherwise. Now with
13
1
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
II
this trunk charge at the present time of $970.00 and $1,200.00 and some dollars,
II will there still be a sewer availability charge when they come in to get a
building permit?
Charles Folch: If the subdivision did not construct the interal lateral
I facilities themselves, and the property has previous lateral improvement which
the city installed and has levied an assessment against the properties, then
there would be a connection charge for the unpaid lateral benefit to the
II -property.
Al Klingelhutz: 'Less their lateral assessment and their...?
II Charles Folch: No, there would be a lateral assessment. Lateral connection
charge assessment but not a trunk hook up charge if the trunk hook up charge is
previously paid.
II Mayor Chmiel: You'd still have your SAC charge which you were going to say I
think. Sewer availability charge that's imposed upon us by the Metropolitan
II Council.
Charles Folch: That's correct.
II Al Klingelhutz: The one that Metro Council...because we have one in the city
you for sure have one pr:or lo this...trunk charges were based on the so called
SAC charges, sewer availability charge. All the services that were put in the
I north service area in the old part of town here, that's how the trunk lines were
paid for. Now they're going to be assessed against the property prior to the
time an; laterals are put in.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none I'll call for a
motion.
1 . Councilman Workman: I'll move approval of feasibility study for trunk utility
improvements to Upper Bluff Creek area, authorize preparation of plans and
specifications for Project No. 91 -17.
I Councilman Mason Second.
II Mayor Chmiel It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Resolution #92 -47: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded approval
of the Feasibility Study for Trunk Utility Improvements to the Upper Creek Area
II and to authorize preparation of plans and specifications for Project No. 91 -17.
All voted'in favor and the motion carried.
I PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED IN OUTLOT B, TRAPPERS PASS AT
NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION, AS PART OF THE PLATTING PROCESS FOR SUMMIT AT NEAR
MOUNTAIN, LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION.
II Public Present:
II
II 14
II
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
Public Present:
Name Address
Kevin Pieper 541 Indian Hill Road
Bruce Nord 551 Indian Hill Road
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This item is more of a house
keeping formality if you will. The new plat for the Summit Addition is
designating the appropriate right -of -way needed for the plat. There is an
underlying 15 foot right -of -way which was acquired previously which needs to be
released in.order to clean up the area for the new plat. Therefore staff is
recommending the vacation.
Mayor Chmiel: Before I see if there's anyone wishing to provide any testimony
on this. We no way the city is going to need this 600 feet by 15 feet wide for
any reason at all?
Charles Folch: No. Actually we're acquiring additional right -of -way to city
standards. Now it's 60 feet for the new road access.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Anyone
wishing to come up at this time to provide any testimony to this, this is your
opportunity to do so now.
Kevin Pieper: My name is Kevin Pieper. I live on 541 Indian Hill Road. I
guess this is first we've heard of it since maybe a couple of years ago and
I guess if someone could explain exactly what kind of easement or right -of -way
is there now and which portion you're vacating, if all or just where you're at?
Charles Folch: Well the existing easement which is 15 feet wide by 600 feet
long basically covers that entire stretch as shown on, there's an attached
diagram. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you just take a look at that diagram that he has there.
Charles Folch: It basically follows, this is that Indian Hill Road coming 1
through here and as a part of the, actually Indian Hill actually comes up to
her;_:. This is on the Lundgren property here. Basically with the new internal
road system which will probably be like this, you'll have a connection coming
like this so what we're vacating is all within Lundgren plat, That will be a 60
foot right -of -way which is a current city standards in order to provide a 31
foot residential street. 1
Kevin Pieper: Is that the intention to make it a full city, residential street?
Charles Folch: I believe that's correct. 1
Kevin Pieper: It was our understanding last time we were here in discussions of
this that Council came to the decision that it was only going to be for
emergency access only. And that's our concern. I'm two parcels away. One of
the neighbors who's with me here tonight lives right there and we're concerned
for a couple different factors. One of which is safety aspect. Anybody that's 1
15 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
1
familiar with Indian Hill Road knows that it's a very steep grade. We have, you
depending on snowfall, we have a lot of trouble even getting home. We don't
feel it's proper to placf: anymore traffic on that street. The second factor
would be that there are several young children in the area. The lots are very
steep. There's not a lot of place for them to play and we're also concerned of
any cars leaving the proposed development area there and coming down that road
at a high rate of speed. Maybe the third point would be because of the angle
coming out, nighttime and once again coupled with the grade differences there,
the angle of anyone leaving that area, their headlights would definitely shine ,
right on our houses which we feel would be a definite distraction. And I guess
that's, maybe that's not the point being discussed now. I don't think we, or at
least I personally don't have anything to say against vacating the street but I
guess we would definitely like to have some input on the new street and what
it's proposed to be used for.
Charles Folch: It is intended, at least from an initial standpoint, that the
road would serve as an emergency access so there will be barricades up at the
property line with the Lundgren property.
Kevin Pieper: So would it be locked then or how would you access or how would
you use it?
' Charles Folch: Basically we would have some sort of, probably a chain type
system. Something like that or some sort of temporary or break through type
barrier system which at least emergency and fire protection vehicles could break
through in the event that they needed secondary access into that subdivision.
Kevin Pieper: Well it sounds like it'd be acceptable to us. Our big concern's
' it doesn't develop into a roadway that's used all the time. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
' Bruce Nord: Yeah, my name is Bruce Nord. I live on 551 Indian Hill Road. I'm
again Kevin's next door neighbor and I guess I'd want to look at this too.
' Councilman Workman: Haven't these people received public notice?
Bruce Nord: Yeah, this is our first notice we've had was last week and as of 2
' years ago we were in talking about this before and we all said we wanted an
emergency access only. The City required that...but yeah, this is the first
we've heard of it and now we hear it's a final deal so. How wide is this
supposed to be?
Charles Folch: The existing is 15 feet wide by 600 feet long that's going to be
vacated.
Bruce Nord: Okay, and where's the new road going to be?
' Charles Folch: Actually the access, or the emergency access will take off the
existing alignment here and connect to a new loop system that's being
constructed in turn lanes.
Bruce Nord: Okay, and how wide would it be?
1 16
i
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992 1
Charles Folch: I believe at this time it would be probably 30 feet wide. There
will be a 20 foot road surface on it and it'd be 30 feet wide. 11
Bruce Nord: Okay. Well that's wider than Indian Hill Road is right now and if
it's going to be used for strictly emergency access, I don't feel you need a 1
road that's wider than the road that is currently there.
Charles Folch: That's governed by city ordinance basically. Has to have a
minimum of 20 foot wide paved surface.
Bruce Nord: Is it going to be paved or crushed rock?
Charles Folch: I believe what the last Council, with the approval it's going to
be a rock surface. Class V rock surface.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, I think that's correct.
Bruce Nord: Yeah, I guess that's our biggest concern. Like Kevin said, we
don't have a lot of traffic down that hill because people could really get going
down that hill.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, it's quite steep. 1
Bruce Nord: And with 50 houses there, they're planning on building up there,
that's potentially 100 cars that could be using that hill.
Mayor Chmiel: Or better.
Bruce Nord: Yeah. Okay, yeah. As long as it's just emergency access that's 1
barricaded, I guess we don't have a lot of problems with that. But in the
future it'd be nice to know about it more than 7 days before it's.
Councilman Workman: How'd you find out?
Bruce Nord: We got something in the mail a week ago.
Mayor Chmiel: You normally have to send that 10 days prior to the hearing.
Bruce Nord: It's just this was the first we've heard about it since 2 years so
okay. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, is there anyone else? This is a public hearing. If
seeing none.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. I think it's quite there fully in detail.
Councilman Workman: It will be a temporary or an emergency access?
Charles Folch: It will be emergency access.
17 1
1
- City Council Meeting April 13, 1992
II Councilman Workman: It will be that way into perpetuity?
II Mayor Chmiel: Amen.
Councilman Workman: We've got other barricades in the city. I would'ask the
residents to be very leery of barricades because they are, perpetuity is not
11 perpetuity. They are something that kind of blow with the wind sometimes so you
might want to, I don't mean to muck rake or anything, but those things are, you
might want to investigate other areas of the city where we have barricades.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can I have a motion?
II Councilman Mason: I would move approval of vacation request 92 -1 to vacate the
approximately 600 feet by 15 foot portion of Iroquois located within Outlot B of
Trapper's Pass in Near Mountain, 3rd Addition as described by the legal
description attached to this report.
II Councilman Workman: Second.
II Resolution #92 -48: Councilman Mason moved,,Councilman Workman seconded to
approve Vacation Request #92 -1 to vacate the approximately 600 feet by 15 feet
portion of Iroquois located within Outlot B of Trappers Pass at Near Mountain
II 3rd Addition as described by the legal description attached to the staff report.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED AT 7600 ERIE AVENUE,
II ROBERT AMORUSO.
Public Present:
II Name Address
Wayne Hagman 7602 Erie Avenue
II
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. It's come to staff's
1 attention that the utility easement which was acquired a few years ago over the
Amorueo property was evidentally acquired in error. The City upon review of
records, we find that there's no actual city utility within the described
I easement. The existing easement that was acquired encompasses the entire
northerly 25 feet of the property. Being that there's no utility within the
easement, it is recommended that all but the northerly 5 feet of this easement
be vacated. The northerly 5 feet would service a side lot line easement as
I consistent with residential lots in the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. As I mentioned before, this is a public
II hearing. Anyone wishing to address this at this time. Please state your name
and your address.
II Wayne Hagman: My name is Wayne Hagman. I live at 7602 Erie Avenue. I'm not
here to contest this easement in any way. But my property abuts the property
under question here on two sides and I heard about this easement approximately 3
weeks ago. I came to City Hall and they told me the easement also ran through
II
18
II
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
my property and that's not mentioned here. I'd like to know what's being done
with that.
Charles Folch: Which property is yours? Are you immediately west or north of
the property?
Wayne Hagman: I'm south and west. 1
Charles Folch: South and west. If you're south and west. If you're south of
this property.
Wayne Hagman: That would not bear on it. The wbst part would though because it
hooks around to the north and then it runs through the easement there where you
put the sewer line in. The city sewer line. My property runs all the way down.
Charles Folch: In contacting Carver County, in fact why don't you come here and
take a look at this document here. I believe, if you're describing correctly, '
this is your property here?
Wayne Hagman: Yeah. They've got the wrong name on it.
Charles Folch: Well this is pointing to this Amoruso property.
Wayne Hagman: Okay, that was my second question. Then that's the name of it.
Charles Folch: Yes, we confirmed with Carver County that the easement as
described for along the northerly portion of the Amoruso property does not
extend further to the west along the northerly portion of Mr. Hagman's property.
Wayne Hagman: It does not?
Charles Folch: Calling the County, there's no recorded easement against your
property
Wayne Hagman: Okay, I was told I did when I came to City Hall. They told me
I did.
Charles Folch: According to Carver County records, it's not listed.
Wayne Hagman: Because if I did, I wanted to vacate it also.
Charles Folch: Certainly. That's what we intended to look at. That's why we
contacted Carver County because we thought we'd clear them all up at the same
time. 1
Wayne Hagman: Plus the easement thing is how do I get my name on the piece of
property? We've been paying taxes 26 years to the City and my name isn't on
there. Everybody else's name is on there.
Charles Folch: We can certainly call the County and have them adjust the half
sections and put your name on there.
Mayor Chmiel: See to that, that's done Charles? Thank you. Anyone else?
i
19
II City Council Meeting - Rpril 13, 1992
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Workman: I would move to.
' Councilman Wing: I'd just like to make a request that Councilman Mason handle
this one because there's no printed recommendation. Excuse me Mr. Mayor.
' Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of vacation of utility easement at 7600
Erie Avenue. Planning File No. 92 -2.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution 192 -49: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve
Vacation Request 192 -2 for vacation of an utility easement at 7600 Erie Avenue.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' AWARD OF BIDS: MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY UPGRADE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 90 -15.
Charles Folch: On Tuesday, March 31st, bids were received and opened for the
Minnewashta Parkway Improvement Project No. 90 -15. Nine bids were received in
' all and the bids were very, very favorable as the actual spread between the high
and low bid were only 11 %. The project had an alternate option bid as a part of
the project. The alternate basically was for potentially using an 8,
' implementing an 8 foot trailway system versus the 6 foot trail on the project.
After further consideration on this matter and evaluating some of the impacts
that this wider trail would have to the project, including substantial increase
in tree loss, some difficulties in matching slopes on adjacent properties which
' would require some more retaining wall work and.such, we-felt that staff's
recommendation is to go back to the original project elements as were approved
and that being construction of a 6 foot trailway system. Given that being the
recommendation, the low total base bid implementing the 6 foot trail for this
project was submitted by Imperial Developers at $1,338,534.40. This is
approximately 19% less than the engineer's estimate so the bid was very, very
favorable. Imperial Developers have performed satisfactorily on previous
projects within the city such as Audubon Road recently. Therefore it is
recommended that the Minnewashta Parkway street and storm drainage improvement
Project No. 90 -15 base bid implementing the 6 foot trailway system be awarded to
' Imperial Developers in the amounts of $1,338,534.40 contingent upon acquiring a
signed cooperative agreement for the project with the City of Victoria.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Charles. I would like to table this particular
proposal at this particular time for two reasons. One, as I've had a request to
look at some of these things that we've just gone through. And secondly, I
would like Council to go out and look at 6 foot sidewalks and 8 foot sidewalks
and see what your feelings are on those for this specific location. Once we get
done, bring this back in 2 weeks and move it forward then.
' Councilman Wing: Do you still allow discussion?
Mayor Chmiel: You bet.
1
20
Lily UULIHUil _
Councilman Wing: Now coming in 19% below our estimate, I'm assuming that that's
good. I'm assuming that that is in the benefit of the assessee's. That their
assessment would tend to be lower at this point.
Charles Folch: Generally we still haven't gone through the project yet, given
the size of the project, unforeseen things could you know.
Councilman Wing: Here, let me get to the point then. Minnewashta Parkway,
whether it's scrub or whether it's quality hardwoods, it is a relatively heavily
wooded green area with a lot of vegetation. And having gone through it with a
lot of the neighbors, I might say Bill has overcome some severe anomosity out
there and I'm really surprised at the success he's had. I think it speaks
highly for Bill at having overcome some of the problems. Unfortunately, I
haven't but the concerns all center around the loss of our parkway. The loss of
our greenway. The loss of what we had. Even though, as I look at it, there's a
lot of scrub. If you sit down with the overlays or if you were to go down the
road with Bill, which I would urge all of you to do, foot by foot, you're going
to find out that we're clearing a lot and it's going to be a war zone and it's
going to be an open area when we're done. I think we were lax, not
intentionally but just not really being able to look at it in a realistic
picture of what we're losing in terms of vegetation and trees. I don't think
we're putting, Bill has been very generous with them but I don't think we're
putting enough in. I don't think we're putting enough back. I don't think we
have enough of a landscape budget. And considering the amenities for the area,
I think that if this is coming in low, perhaps we can afford to up the landscape
budget a little bit to the point of going to the neighborhood and saying, do you
want to foot the bill to put this thing back for the future a little faster?
Your point of 1 for 1 on trees and we're losing some massive, massive greenway
out there. And we're not putting back what we're taking and I think the money
is there to do it. Especially if it's coming under like this so I think it's, I
would just ask the Council to consider that. I don't even have any necessarily
any ideas on what to do other than are we putting back what we're taking? Is
the money there to put it back and couldn't we improve this environmentally
better than we are? '
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I wouldn't want to go back and have this discussion with
the residents again and ask them if they'd like to provide some more dollars.
Councilman Wing: Well not more. They're kind of set on $800.00 - $900.00 but if
we're going to be down to $600.00 - $700.00, whatever the assessment winds up to
be. Whatever it winds up, it's just irrelevant numbers right now. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I think I stuck my neck out quite a bit on this one as
well as Council did as well in trying to get everyone satisfied. We can't
satisfy everyone as we all know. We try to do our best and that's what we do
but at this particular one, I don't know if I'd go back and discus this with
those people. '
•
Councilman Wing: And I don't suggest that Don. My point was, I believe they
would support it. I believe they would say yes, we do want this landscaped.
Yes we do wart this parkway. Yes we do want to spend the money on it. That's
my opinion and I'm not suggesting we go back. But I would ask Bill to look at
1
21
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
•
this seriously and if we're hurting, if we're lacking, I think landscaping
should be given some more thought.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom.
Councilman Workman: I'll leave that task to you. Being that it's, we're going
to rename the road Wichard Wing Woadway. But that I can't phantom that concept.
' I guess I want to focus some of my comments on, we have something of a rare
bidding scenario in that the base bid went to one developer with the alternate
bid it goes to another. We're talking about an approximately $1.4 million
' dollar project. There's a lot of dollars at stake. So we'll have to focus
heavily on whether it's a 6 or an 8 foot and why we have it there and certainly
landscaping and what an 8 foot does and what a 6 foot does. I 'm glad we're
tabling it. I think Ursula should be hereto help us do this. But I don't
11 think in the years I've been on the Council we've had a situation quite like
this. Where one bid went to the other and the other bid went to another. I
think it creates even more drama. I like the fact that it is 19% or so under
' and I'd be happy to go to the people and tell them that. Then probably open
another Pandora's Box on whether or not landscaping. But I think we have a very
big task with trying to decide 6 or 8 because we're literally picking between
' one developer or contractor.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's basically the reasoning that I had for this and in
making the motion for tabling. Michael, do you have anything?
Councilman Mason: I wasn't aware of some of the complications in this bidding
until just this evening. Yeah, I think tabling is a good idea.
Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
' Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the award of bids for the
Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade Improvement Project No. 90 -15 until the next City
Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: STREET SWEEPER.
Mayor Chmiel: Is Harold here tonight Charles or are you going to?
Charles Folch: No. You will recall from the previous meeting that we
' requested that authorization to rebid the street sweeper piece of equipment due
to a couple of factors that Harold mentioned that night. One being that the way
the warranty was stipulated also. That we might be able to save some additional
' dollars in modifying that. And as a result, basically with modifying the
warranty schedule from a 2 year to a 1 year working time warranty application
which basically means that we would, the warranty would apply only during the
' season in which we are using the equipment so that we're technically in effect
getting a 2 year warranty, we basically have saved $6,000.00 over the previous
bid received. As a result, with the new specification to the bidding, Schuster
Equipment Incorporation is again the low bidder. This time at $77,388.00 which
again is $6,000.00 less than the bid we received a few weeks ago.
' 22
City Council Meeting - Apri1 13,
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Any discussion? Can I have a motion?
Councilman Wing: Motion to buy it. Is that what you'd like?
Mayor Chmiel: The award of bid for the street sweeper be provided to Schuster
Equipment.
Councilman Wing: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #92 -50: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award
the bid for the street sweeper to Schuster Equipment, Inc. in the amount of
$77,388.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Wing: Di.d I miss the time line on this?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Wing: When will we be coming on line with this? It's not going to
help us with this spring.
Charles Folch: No, it won't help us with this spring. We expect to receive it 11
some time early to mid - summer.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that too will help the streets and the problems that we
have with our study we've got going right now. Okay, we'll move right on to new
business.
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE NW1 /4 OF SECTION 10 AND NE1 /4 OF SECTION 9 (LUNDGREN BROS.) - PROJECT NO.
92 -5.
Charles Folch: As m;' staff report indicates, Lundgren Bros. has contacted the
City to inform us that they have secured purchase options for a large
encompassing portions of 3 parcels known as Johnson, Turner and the northern
portion of the Dolejsi property located in the northern sections of 9 and 10.
Before a subdivision can take place though, utility improvements and roadway
access are needed for the property. Therefore Lundgren Bros. has formally
petitioned the City for these trunk utilities and an east /west roadway connector
between TH 41 and CR 117, Galpin Blvd.. This east /west road connection element
was previously defined as a needed transportation aspect of the Comprehensive
Plan. You will see on the succeeding pages of the staff report, the manager's
comments that elude to the fact that there are a number of competing capital
improvement projects for the city's annual bonding program and that the City
staff is currently looking at determining our overall bonding ability and
prioritizing the projects that are basically on the table at this point in time.
I have asked, contacted Bob Schunicht of Bonestroo to acquire an estimate as to
what it would cost to prepare the needed feasibility study which he has
submitted a proposal and included in your packet. Estimated at $11,200.00. At
this point in time, it's staff's recommendation that there's a number of ways
that we could approach this. One would be to acquire a contingent authorization
to prepare the feasibility study contingent upon the results of our analysis for
23
1
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
1
the bonding ability for this year's capital improvement programs so that if this
program would fit in, that staff could administratively initiate the feasibility
study. Or we could certainly approach it from any other suggested options that
you might have.
Mayor Chmiel: I just had one quick question. Is this outside our MUSA line?
Charles Folch: No, this is within the MUSA. The MUSA extends north of TH 5.
' The MUSA extends out to TH 41 except for a portion at the corner, at the
northeast corner of TH 5 and TH 41. Which is basically the Fleet Farm property.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, do you want to have Bob, did he come up with any
total costs as to what this might be?
Charles Folch: Yeah, his estimate is $11,200.00 to prepare the feasibility
' study which would, if a project is authorized, be credited against the overall
project cost.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I missed that. Okay, any discussion?
Councilman Mason: When do you, when does the City anticipate knowing about the
bond situation? Any idea at all?
1 Mayor Chmiel. The bonding is part of the problem. Don?
'
Don Ashworth: I anticipate having something available for our next Council
meeting. I had hoped to have it for this one but just couldn't get all the.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think that's some of the concerns that we have with bonding.
How far can we go? What can we do and I don't want to affect our rating within
our bonding by moving ahead too quickly with a lot of these projects. There's
just so many things we can move and proceed with in an orderly fashion.
1 Richard.
Councilman Wino: Dort, I agree with you. I'm just sitting here feeling the
' cart's ahead of the horse a little bit. It's not just this particular project.
It's. roa >be city wide right now. One issue we've discussed that there's been no
resolution on is lot size. So every development that comes in, the one south
' with 141 homes that I walked today trying to picture 141 homes and upteem cars
and I was left. kind of stunned that there'd even be a proposal for that density.
So lot size we've discussed. I think there was disagreement with some of us on
the Council, our present lot size and the density has been brought up. Planning
' Commission has been arguing this and has gone nowhere. Come up with no
conclusions. It just seems our attitude towards future development in this city
hasn't been clarified and I think those combined, I'd like to see this tabled
' until these clarifications are made.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom, do you have any?
' Councilman Workqvur bni if Lundgren, is Lundgren a publically held
company? I want to buy stock in them. They're quite busy in our town. I guess
I'm not against authorizing preparation with noted staff comment.
1
II 24
1
Mpfil 13, 177C
•
Mayor Chmiel: I wouldn't want to proceed with this to go ahead with preparing
this at this time because I just don't want to see anybody waste any dollars
either. I'd like to get some more clarification as to the discussions that
we've had right now before we were to proceed with it.
Councilman Workman: This is not zoned PUD is it? Nor is Hans Hagen.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Wing: It could become a requirement. ,
Don Ashworth: That's a choice of the developer. You can either go through a
straight subdivision process with your property or you can apply for PUD if you It
have more than 15 lots.
Councilman Workman: But if we're concerned about the size of the lots, we don't
have to have a PUD. 1
Councilman Mason: It seems to me the bigger concern right now is our bonding
capabilities. ,
Mayor Chmiel: That's my major concern.
Councilman Mason: And maybe with that in mind, it sounds like we'll have a
better handle on that 2 weeks from tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe 2 weeks or maybe a little more than that.
• Councilman Mason: Whatever. I certainly can see some value in tabling it until
we find out about it.
Mayor Clay. I guess I don't, would you like to say something?
g
Terry Forbord: Yes sir. Your honor, members of the Council. My name is Terry '
Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Blvd.. I'm with Lundgren Bros.. I believe the City's
policy is that if for any reason that this project does not proceed that
Lundgren Bros. pays the cost of the study, is that correct?
Charles Folch: That's correct. As a part, typically it's been the city's
practice that as a part of authorization of any developer petitioned feasibility
study that the developer provide necessary securities to cover the cost should
the project not proceed •.o that the city's not basically left holding the bag.
Mayor Chmiel: I realize that. ,
Terry Forbord: As you know, Lundgren Bros, has been working on this site before
you for more than 2 years and assisted the City in working with the
Comprehensive Plan and the extension of the Urban Service Area into this area.
So it's not a new idea and it certainly isn't a new proposal to the City. I'm
sure you're all aware of that Lundgren Bros. has been good citizens and business
people in your community for more than 10 years and we are now at the end of a
project that has been an extremely successful neighborhood community called Near
Mountain. And it has always been our plan, we have always told that to the
•
25
City Courncil. Meeting - April 13, 1992
city. The city has always appeared to welcome that. That we would be moving to
a new area once that we have completed Near Mountain and so now, after a couple
years of the initial work and the front end work and getting the property
' included in the Urban Service Area, we are now before you to go the next step of
the way. And certainly we don't intend in doing that in a manner any
differently than we have in the past and certainly we're trying to always
improve and create better neighborhoods within the cbmmunity of Chanhassen. So
1 we would certainly appreciate the ty's vote to at least authorize the study so
we can commence with the planning ci for this area.
' Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor at this time.
Councilman Workman: Is there a motion?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes I did make a motion that we table this until we do find out
what we're doing with our bonding. At least that's still my position. Is there
a second?
Councilman Wing: I'll second that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilman Workman: If we weren't able to get the bonding capability, they
still have to pay for the feasibility study? I mean if we approved it.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Either or, yes. I want to put ourselves in a position to know
exactly where we're going. Whether we approve that feasibility study or not. I
' think, I know, I want to know where we're at financially.
Councilman Mason: I don't see that tabling this is any message to Lundgren
Bros. that we're not happy with what they're doing.
Mayor Chmiel: No. No. That's right.
' Councilman Macon: For the sake of city fiscal responsibility, this needs to be
done.
' Councilman Workman: I just thought we could approve it as long as they know the
score. How long is a feasibility study good for?
Charles Folch: Typically it would have to be renewed on an annual basis to
update construction cost factors and such or if there's any new information that
may come out on a project.
Councilman Workman: So I just think, I can live with either.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor with a second to table until we know
' what our bonding is and that could come back to us within 2 weeks or no more
than 4. Is that correct?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
1
1 26
1
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on authorizing the
preparation of a feasibility study for Street and Utility Improvements for
Lundgren Bros., Project No. 92 -5 until the City's bonding capabilities are
known. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Wing: With some of the comments on the news tonight with the State
and the new budget shortfalls, what is the outcome of this as far as the city
goes? Or what's the prognosis for this? Just off the cuff here, I'm curious.
Don Ashworth: I don't see where some of the State budgetary problems as they 1
relate to potential cuts that we will face, will not affect our capital
construction. projects. Those have continued at a higher level and are not again
affected by some of the State problems which again would be problems for us but
not in that particular area. Of more concern to me is the fact that we have
been buEy in terms of housing and redevelopment activities. We've got a number
of projects that we're looking at as a city. A city type of thing at this
point. Project literally from a year ago which I think will still get on the
table is that West 78th Street detachment. Earlier this evening we approved,
finished the public hearing process for that larger trunk sewer and water
project that will serve literally that whole lower trunk service area.
Klingelhutz has been in before us and I would anticipate that we're going to
look at that as a potential project. So you've got a lot of governing projects
out there and to try and keep it under the $5 million dollar mark, which is ,
really desireable. Otherwise you move into another whole step of accounting
type of problems. I think the one year, 89, we went over that mark. We were
looking at rebates back to treasury of about $220,000.00 so staying under that
mark is highly desireable. In defense of the motion made by the Mayor, I think
that the Council would be under a lot of pressure if you accepted money, had
work completed and then said well, your project's not going to be in our
listing_ I think that it would put a lot of undue pressure on the Council.
Councilman ding: That's why Don I'm glad this came up because I wondered, we
moved the MUSA line and I questioned why. And to me that didn't say well, here
we go. Development is wide open. I don't see this as necessarily a priority
project, along with the bonding. I'm also really curious what our priorities
maybe are and what areas of the city and this just may not be one of them. I
think that is a real valid point that concerns me as to give this the go ahead
and then decide this isn't one of our projects. So I'm glad we tabled it.
Thank you.
Don Ashworth: I have no pre - conceived idea as to what areas of the city we'll
pick out but I do see that you're, any area of the city you look at, you're
getting tremendous pressure from people saying, do me and I don't think that we
can do everybody. It's just, we're really stretching ourselves thin to think
that we can do Klingelhutz and the whole lower trunk and then move up to TH 41
and then move over to...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll move onto item 9.
1
27 1
1
' City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
' AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE
THROUGH OWENS PROPERTY TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, PROJECT NO. 92 -6.
' Charles Folch: As Paul has explained briefly in his staff report, a few years
ago the Council, City Council basically approved a concept layout for the
extension of Nez Perce from Lake Lucy up through to Pleasant View Road. This
alignment basically was upheld with the plattings of Vineland Forest and the
' last year's Troendle Addition platting. The final segment though through the
Owens property could not be made in recent time due to the property being in
bankruptcy. At the time that the Troendle plat was up for consideration, a
number of neighborhood residents on Lake Lucy Road expressed concern over the
traffic impact that would be burdened onto Lake Lucy by not having this
secondary connectin to the subdivision via Pleasant View Road. At that time the
' Council basically requested that this item be brought back before you at an
appropriate time within an 18 month period when we knew more about what was
happening with the Owens property. It now appears that the Owens property may
becoming out of bankruptcy and that a portion of the property could potentially
' be sold off. Since condemnation of this right-of-way is likely, the City needs
to more thoroughly define the alignment and the associated construction costs of
this final road segment extension via feasibility study. $10,000.00 as you're
' aware of has been previously contributed by the development of the Troendle
Addition towards the design and construction of this final road leg and it would
be feasible to apply that, those dollars towards doing a study. Now it should
be understood that this project may or may not occur at any time in the near
future. Again development would generate and drive the need for doing this
improvement but it is, as Paul has mentioned, important for the city to better
define what the appropriate alignment should be through that area so we can
' protect that corridor and officially map it.
Mayor Chmifl' Yeah, I guess I don't disagree with that. There's one thing here
' in the second paragraph and third line from the bottom is, we may have to go in
and condemn the final piece of right -of -way. If we go in to condemn that final
piece of right -of -way, the City is going to have to pay for that. Right?
' Charles Folch: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that the City should have to pay for any of that.
' I think if it's going to be an advantage for those developers, those properties
should somehow be provided to the city without a cost going through the
condemnation process.
Charles Folch: It's a complicated issue but it boils down to is a matter of
timing. You're correct. I mean if the City proceeds with condemnation, we're
going to have to buy the property. Whether that cost could actually be added
into a future road improvement project cost or not, I'm not sure. I guess I
would have to ask Roger what the implications might be on that. Whether we
could actually take previous cost from right -of -way acquisition and incorporate
' it into an actual road construction project maybe a year or two later down the
road. Or benefit assessment type purposes.
Roger Knutson: ...cost of right -of- way...draft feasibility report. You can
even prepare plans and specs...
' 28
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: So there would be nothing wrong for us to proceed with this but
my concerns are the...of the condemnation. Just to make sure that somehow we're
not going to be paying that to that developer or property owner. '
Roger Knutson: Ordering a feasibility report does not commit you to do the
project. It doesn't determine how you're going to pay for it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I think we talked about this for a long time. Time to start ,
moving.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Tom. Mike. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Wing: So moved, preparation of feasibility study for Nez Perce Drive
through the Owens property.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution #92 -51: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded
authorization to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce
Drive through the Owens property to Pleasant View Road at a cost not to exceed
$10,000.00 and that Engelhardt and Associates be assigned as the project
engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Somehow Charles I'd like us to stay on top of that portion of it
making sure that we don't get the specs somehow.
Charles Folch: You bet.
REQUESTS FOR USE OF FUNDS FROM SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
A. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF CONTAINMENT AND SORBENT PRODUCTS FOR THE CHANHASSEN
FIRE DEPARTMENT.
B. APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY SUMMER INTERN TO CLASSIFY WETLANDS.
Dor, „_hwortih: In the absence of Paul, Paul did take both of these items back to '
the Water Surface group and they did recommend approval. I think that they're
fairly self descriptive. However, if Council members have questions, I'll try
to answer them.
Councilman Mason: Being a part, of this group that's working on this, they seem
to be more than appropriate requests.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom.
Councilman Workman: I agree.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: I was quoted in the paper of saying that this Water
Managerment program is the way I think spending our tax dollars. I've been
29
r
II City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
I attending those meetings and you people ought to be complimented. I think it's
really making some headway and I'm glad we funded that. I agree with these
purchases. Very minor.
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I ' just have a couple things on this. I don't
disagree with what's being said. Taking this out of this particular fund. Maybe
you can answer this Richard. Should the Fire Department make appropriation in
I their budget for these kinds of needs?
Councilman Wing: No. It's not our ballgame. It just, we have enough training.
II We can call in Plymouth. They have trunkloads of this but that's a half hour,
an hour and we just had a situation occur where had we had this, we could have
immediately moved for containment and then that's the end of it. We're not in
Ole hazmac business. We're only asking for the bare minimum that should we fail
1 to cut it off prior to a stream or a storm sewer so this is a very minimal
request. We don't want to be in the business and frankly we don't have the
money nor did we want to ask for it.
II Don Ashworth: If I may add. As I understand it, these are bill back type of
expenses so whoever caused the spill, whoever is involved and what not and I
II think generally we do get costs back but some of these, it's the initial cost,
the initial purchase so you've got it and then you can replace it after that.
At that point in time but it's kind of the question of where do you come up with
the initial $1,000.00 or $2,000.00.
II Mayor Chmiel: And the other was, I know that staff was contemplating on trying
to get this pulled together because Jo Ann's maternity leave is coming up very
II quickly and it scares me just to see her around yet because I keep looking and I
say Jo Ann, why don't you just go home. She's so close and yet she's here but
how long i this, I know we're making appropriation of $5,000.00 for this.
We're looking at 00 hours, 2 weeks and we're looking at 60 days. Approximately
I about $4,000.00 is what we're going to expedite. Is it really going to take
that long to do that inventory, I guess is my question?
I Don Ashworth: I kind of took the opposite approach. I questioned whether or
not they're going to be able to get them all done in that period of time. They
do need to go out in addition to typing it, physically locate it which means the
II contour map is going to be needed to be taken in some other way to physically
say here is this edge and now we want to transpose that back onto a topography
map that's back in the office and it's not easy to do. I mean when you're
standing out in a field you know and am I at a 988 or 822?
II Mayor Chmiel: But do U.S. Geologicals show much of our wetlands on them?
II Charles Folch: Typically they show some of the larger obvious ones but they
certainly aren't going to.
Mayor Chmiel: The smaller they don't touch.
I Charles Folch: The level of detail just isn't there.
II Don AFhwor Aren't those like any 10 foot intervals or do they go lower?
II . 30
1
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
Charles Folch: Well they can vary.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussions? Can I have a motion? 1
Councilman Mason: I move to approve the requests for funds.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the expenditure of
the following funds from the Surface Water Management Program:
1. $1,000. for the Fire Department's acquisition of containment and sorbent
products. ,
2. $5,000. for a contract with Ellen Klanderman to undertake wetland
identification classification for development of the Official Wetland
City Map.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Macon: Mr. Mayor? I'd just like to make a quick comment on what the
management program has been doing. Particularly with the street sweeping. I
know Charles and public works saved a considerable amount of money in how they
figured out how to do the street sweeping and I would like it to be on the
record that that whole group of people be commended for their efforts.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right, I agree.
Councilman Mason: And if I could just make one more comment. I live on, as you
know, on Woodhiii and Carver Beach and the second time the roads were swept, I
was bringing my kids home from daycare and my daughter noticed that daddy, these
roads are really clean. I think who's ever doing that ought to be tipped. I
saic; hey will be honey. But it is noticed and I have had some people in the
Carver Beach comment.
Mayor Chmiel: I've driven through a lot of townE recently and I have to admit
that I think we're know as Mr. Clean. It really looks great. 1
Councilman Maon: And I think what we're doing is serving more than one
purpose. Certainly the water's getting cleaner but it's also making the city a
nicer place to live. People are noticing it.
Councilman Workman: What's the rule on sweeping a street? Somebody on my
ttreet doesn't have a driveway or a yard and has a lot of sand around and
they've cone around twice. They've come around twice but there's more out there
row. What are we doing? I mean is two it or are we going to do it as needed?
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have a great big broom and a dust pan?
Councilman Workman: I've been out there helping my neighbors, I have. I've
been in the street cleaning it up and I know where the water rolls downhill.
. 31
1
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
CharleF Folch: Typically if it's material that's or soil that's washing out
onto the street from development, home building and such, it's really up to the
responsibility of the builder and /or developer depending on how the situation
works, to make sure that they're cleaning up the streets.
' Mayor Chmiel: And he's trying to say that with a straight face.
Councilman Mason: Where do you live?
Councilman Wing: I also was very appreciative of the Villager picking up on
that meeting and the article in the paper. I thought it was intellectually done
and it was interesting to see, I missed that part of the meeting so I'm glad the
' Villager picked up and let those of us who weren't there see the impact it's
having. For future yard work for the month of May, do we have anything that
regulates people sweeping their yard work into the street? Now we've swept them
' but their yard clean -up time is coming, I'm seeing a lot of stuff go into the
street off the yards and hoping it will go away. Do we have anything that we
can say to them, pick it up?
' Charles Folch: I believe we have something in our ordinance, don't we?
Mayor Chrniel: Yes we do. In fact one day I was driving up Kerber and someone
was cleaning some of the areas off of Kerber and they were blowing things all
over the street and they had just finished sweeping them. I just happened to
come back through City Hall and I stopped in Scott's office and they sent
someone right out there and when I went home it was just as clean as it was
before. So we have to enforce that.
Scott Harr: It's enforced as a State Littering law. Just like throwing any
' other debris on the roadway so if people let us know, we're happy to follow up
cry it.
' Cc:_rncilman Wing: Could I just suggest because of the amount of money being
spent and the amount of impetus into this, that the County Sheriff's Department
be a memo to watch for that and specifically the CSO's and patrols. Watch for
' these violations.
DISCUSSION OF LIQUOR LICENSING ORDINANCES.
Don Ashworth: I've had discussions, I think with most of the Council. This
really stems back to the success that has occurred in the area of cigarettes and
getting those behind the counter and kind of question then is our liquor
ordinances. Councilman Wing did a considerable amount of work in terms of kind
of a background paper. In researching the existing law. Some of the affects of
alcohol and some of the things we might consider doing. I've summarized those
into looking at a modification of the minimum age for the sales. Right now
' that's 16 and 18. Potentially limiting the number of on sale licenses to like 1
per 2,500 population so that would provide us with 6. And the limitation of 1
per 5,000 for off sale or a part thereof which would provide 3 and currently we
' have 2. Probably having some exclusion however for a major hotel. I don't know
how the Council feels on that. No new licenses within 300 feet of a school or
church and another one that Councilman Wing and I discussed. I'm not quite sure
on this one but elimination of off sale as a conditional use in the business
32
i y council Meeting April ,
fringe. What this would do would mean that the existing off sale store at TH 41
and TH 7 would become a non - conforming use. As long as he continued to sell or
if he sold the establishment to someone else who continued the liquor store, it
would remain as a valid grandfathered type of use. However, if it ceased for
more than 1 year, nobody could make a new application for that particular area
because that is business fringe. You've got a lot of powers in terms of off
sale. A good example is the SuperAmerica up in that area had a strong desire to
be able to sell beer and the Council made the determination that they would not
allow sale of beer in that particular corner. That decision was absolute. They
did not try to fight it because they knew they'd lose. If you were to have said
that you did not want the liquor store up there, your decision would be
absolute. There is a potential you may get an application like that from the
area around Brooks which would be adjacent to the residential neighborhood just
to the south. My guess is this Council would say no. But to eliminate the
potential from them even coming in and applying, if you remove them, if you
removed it as a conditional use in the BF zone, you wouldn't even have to worry
about looking at the application. The final, I guess that was the final. If
the Council would like to pursue these any further, we really should go through
a public hearing process. We should notify each of the owners. We should
invity ti to that public hearing. I would suggest that the public hearing be
held at the Public Safety Commission level and at the conclusion of that Public
Safety meeting, or hearing, that they, meaning Public Safety, make their
recommendation back to you including all hearing comments.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a good idea. One of the things as I sat back with
thi. and when I was reading it, resale of are off sale establishment. Normally
when they sell them, and of course it's free enterprise system. They get an
exorbinant amount of dollars for the clientele they're supposedly going to get
plus also the liquor license with that purchase that they're going to buy. For
an off sale, what's our fee cost, $200.00? 1
Don Ashworth: I believe that's set by Statute.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah it is set by Statute and I realize that. Do we, in that 1
particular process, is there any charges that are made for the transferring of
that liquor license from one to the other? And I don't know what the Statute
covers on that. I know it's not a considerable amount of dolllars. I guess I'm
trying to tie it in,so we know exactly who has that liquor license and who has,
or if we have so many, we don't want more than one person having two
establishments or 3 establishments in town. I think licensing each individual
is what it should be.
Don Ashworth: Well that is in the ordinance right now. You can't own more than
one on -sale in town. I don't now if we can regular no more than one owner for
off sale.
Roger Knutson: You could. 1
Don Ashworth: Okay. In regards to the fee portion, if an on sale goes out of
business, like Pony at one time had transferred. I can't remember which of the
two ways it was but we maintained the entire fee from the new applicant and we
kept the prorated fee from the other. So on the one, we received like 6 months.
One half of their fee was charged to them, one half rebated and the new owner
33
1
1
l.lJ y I.UUIIG1i - HP1 11 1J, LYYZ
had to pay the entire fee. So there was a little extra kicker on there.
' Mayor Chmiel: And I think that the $2.00 fee for off sale is so reasonable.
It's absolutely unbelieveable. As I see in some other cities as to what they
charge. Now you say by Statute they can only charge that amount of money.
' Roger Knutson: Every one of the states charges the same. I misspoke just a
second ago when I said you could limit the number of off sale to one. You have
to under State law. On sale is where you have the discretion. Some cities say
you can have more than one. Other cities you can only have one. But everyone
chargeE $200.00.
' Don Ashworth: I don't think at the present time that anyone has paid a premium
for a new license and it's because we have so many. If you went into a
limitation type of thing as is being suggested here, this would show that
there's one additional one in each of two categories if you use the ratios that
' I've presented here. But once that one becomes consumed, then if you wanted to
get into the off sale business, you'd have to buy out one of the existing owners
which meane that you then probably would pay a premium to get that license.
' Kind of like taxi licenses in New York City.
Mayor Chmiel: Council? Mike?
Councilman Mason: I like the idea of the Public Safety having a hearing on it.
See what input they have on it.
' Councilman Workman: Are you aware who the new Chairman is though?
Councilman Mason: That is pretty scarey.
' Councilman Workman: I was kind of confused Dorn by what you were trying to say
here as far as 2,500 and 5,000 and then if that would allow one additional. If
that meant wr would have 5,000. That means we'd have 2 and then wouldn't that
mean we could get 5 at 15,000. I was kind of confused by how you were kind of
putting thet out. I don't know what would be good. I think the liquor
establi °Mment3 will go with what we present. I don't think it's very clear to
' them right now with what we have. I know there were some concerns about whether
we should restrict businesses or not. I don't know that if we allowed everybody
that was already in town to be here, then they of course wouldn't be angry. It
' would be the people who'd want to come in that'd be angry. But I heard when we
were discussing cigarette, you know people would always drive the alcohol in. I
think we should be taking a hard look at it. I think Public Safety should
really be looking hard at it. I think they could do initially at least a better
' job than us but I think we need to address it before it gets to be something
that we wish we had taker) care of.
' Don Ashworth: If I can respond to that. I maybe should have repeated the or
part thereof under number 2. It was the intent that in either of those sections
that we would be talking about, the number of license so in the first case, the
limitation is the dumber of on sale licenses to one per 2,500 or part thereof.
So with a population of roughly 12,000 people, we're right at borderline right
now but this would provide for 5 because you'd have, whether it's 12,000. Let's
assume it's about 12,000 is the population. With wordage, or part thereof, you
34
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
would therefore have the allowance for 5. Once ou went over 12 500 it would
y d
actually kick up to 6. The next one, the limitation of 1 per 5,000, I didn't
rut this in but it was intended, or part thereof, would mean that you'd have the
allowance for 3 off sale stores and yorx currently have 2.
Councilman Workman: I•mean I don't even know and hopefully Public Safety would
find out. I don't even know for 2,500 or 5,000 or 10,000 or part thereof is
realistic or not. These people have got to pay $10.00 for a bottle of Boones
Farm and we've only got 1 store in town, they might think we don't have enough.
I don't know. So I don't know, it's real fuzzy for me.
Don Ashworth: If I could, to think that we would have 12 bars in the downtown
area scares me. 1
Councilman Workman: You're talking about a country boy who grew up near Carver.
Councilman Mason: Is this one of those Boy Scout stories? 1
Councilman Workman: Let me tell you about my country boy days. And I can tell
you this, that the competition for customers gets very fierce. And I can tell
you that I purchased, as an under aged adult, alcohol in that town it was so
fierce. So I don't know. I don't know what it's going to be. But that's what
we need to find out. There's a lot of questions. I tried it, I didn't like it. ,
Councilman Wing: But the point on the public record is you were under aged.
Councilman Mason: I wonder if the newspaper section...
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to keep talking?
Councilman Workman: The only other thing is, Mike Mason is no Bill Clinton.
Councilrnar, Mason: I'm grateful for that. ,
Councilman Wing: Paul Krauss has comments regarding planning issues and there's
philosophical issues that I think go along with the Council. I think the
University of Minnesota has a wealth of information. If we had a public
hearing, they wouldn't miss the public hearing. There's a lot of issues here
and I don't know if we have a problem or not. My little memo here was the rough
draft. I don't know what Karen did with the final draft but my last comment is '
that with proper state laws and city ordinances, perhaps we don't need anything.
But on number 5 on the second page here, it says discussion of alcohol to be
pulled out of any discussion of business and discussed only as a health problem,
so on and so forth. There's two separate worlds and I don't think there's any
discussion tied this discussion in with business. I think business is a result
of our decisions here. And if we're using the excuse of controlling or messing
with businesses, we're talking about a controlled drug and substance, the very
reason the laws exist. So we have every right to and we have every reason to-
and we, it's our responsibility to do that so I'd like to stay away from the
discussion of adults and business. Let's just deal with the issues of the
alcohol and licensing so on and so forth and then get them into business as they
might grow. I see them as very separate issues.
35
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Prohibition coming back.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, and that's the other thing. Boy, I don't want to get
involved in that because I'm not suggesting that at all. Not at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think it's probably our intent to make sure that we don't
have an over abundance of them and I think that we prefer that the numbers that
' we do have is consistent to what we feel should be in place.
Councilman Wing: I think I really like you sending it to Public Safety but if
Public Safety is going to take it as a commission, then I'd like them to take it
1 seriously and move on this and assist the Council and not lally dolly and lag
behind like another Commission I am seeing doing on some issues. Let's either
hit the issues and get the facts and make some decisions and help us or drop it
altogether. But you guys can really have an input in this one, and really if
you have an assistance and I think it needs some decisions and some information
presented.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I have a motion? With those recommendations that were
previously discussed and apply this to Public Safety for their review and
discussion back to Council. And what limitation of time would you like this to
be back to Council? 2 months?
Councilman Wing: Yeah, it's going to take some time.
Mayo, Chmiel: Yeah, it's not going to be something you turn over real quick. 2
month_ is what my suggestion would be. Or is that still short?
Scott Harr: The only factor that...Mr. Mayor will have our annual open house
during the, it place of the June CorrimisEion meeting as we always have. It may
not b> done on a specific night as far as a public hearing or meeting so I think
1 it 2 month: we should be in a good position or I'll report back to you...
Mayor Chmiel: Or I was going to suggest that we come back to Council with this
' at the firct meeting in August.
Councilman Wing: Is that talking about time?
Councilman Workman: That's a long time.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I'd like them to take enough time to discuss this to come
' up with conclusions rather than to use a hip draw.
Councilman Workman: I just think, what is that? May, June, July, August. 4
months. That seems a long time. I don't think we're emphasizing maybe the
urgency.
Mayor Chmiel: It's your pleasure.
' Councilman Wing: What is the Commission, Scott what's your position? You're
going to have to carry the ball on a lot of this. How much time do you want?
1
36
1
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
Scott Harr: I think the most appropriate thing to do, would be to discuss it at
this Thursday's Commission meeting and see what kind of a time line they feel
would be appropriate. The first meeting in August would really give us 3
working months. May, July with one commission meeting off. I think we can do
it either way.
Councilman Wing: Let's have a report by July. I'd like to get a public hearing
in fairly soon and that information ought to be available.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, how about our second meeting in July then? Is that what 1
you're saying?
Councilman Wing: Whatever you're comfortable on. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I just don't want to push them. I'd like them to really
take this and look at it in depth. Come back with a good, strong
recommendation.
Scott Harr: Could I suggest that I present it to the Commission Thursday night
at our Public Safety Commission meeting. That we have the public hearing as
.00r as possible and we'll return with a report in July. If there's any
prcblemo, a:c'11 report back to you at the next council meeting. I don't see a
problem with July. ,
Councilman Wing: Well, we seem to have a consensus. I would make a motion then
directing this issue to the Public Safety Commission. I think the guidelines
are set forth in this document for their benefit. Questions. The time frame
being a public hearing as soon as possible but to report to the Council the
fjrsl meeting in July.
Councilmm Workman: Second.
Mawr Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second to have this back to
Council by the first meeting in July.
Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. I think he started saying the second
meeting in July. It might be better. That gives them the opportunity to, if
got any finish up work and then it'd be back to you.
Mayor Chmiel: I would make that friendly amendment, if the first and second
would accept that? Okay.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to send the item of Liquor
Licensing Ordinances to the Public Safety Commission to hold a public hearing
and report their findings back to the City Council at their second meeting in
July. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, item number 11. '
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, would you allow one comment. This is not
necessary. 1
37
1
Llty LUT.rnci1 rreTZng H t ,
• Councilman Mason: Every time you do this.
II Councilman Wing: I'll dh it next meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Item 11.
1 Councilman Wing: But can I just make one point. 3 words.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes and no.
II Councilman Wing: Maybe 4. Lot size, Planning Commission. Get their butts in •
gear. Get moving on this. I'd like to see them directed to make a decision on
thic. lot size or I think the Council should take it upon themselves to start
II making some decisions because these developments are coming in and things are
going fast.
I Mayor Chmiel: 15,000 square feet is where we're at right now.
Councilman Wing: Yes sir, with PUD's down to 10. I just went through Near
11 Mountain which is a premiere project and I was amazed at how really little those
are with no backyards. 1 don't like it and I don't want any more development
coming in from my position until we've addressed that issue. So I think it's a
i timely issue to rne. Thank you for letting me cut in.
Mayor Chmiel: Amen. Item number 11. Highway 5 Update, Don.
II Don A: :hwarth' Well following on Councilman Wing. Did you want me to place that
onto the next agenda?
II Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Wino Is that your recommendation?
II Mayor Chrri _.1 No. I just did that.
Don A-.hwartL: Because if the Council wished to see the Planning Commission had
II a partici-'.ar direction just as we did with liquor, you should discuss it. Come
up with a motion and the motion should be sent to the Commission.
II Councilmen Wing: We sort of did that but they haven't, even though I stated it
at a meeting, I still haven't heard anything.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we've sort of been knocking this down the tube and I think
I we're at that particular position right now where they know where Council's at
on that. I think 15,000 square feet is where we're at right now. I don't think
we plan on moving from that particular position.
Councilman Mason: There might be a little disagreement there. .
Mayor Chmiel: Well, state your position.
II Jeff Farmakes: Can I step in for a second?
38
I
-I - - --
Hpill
- Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Being Richard opened this up for just a second.
Councilman Wing: Well maybe it really is appropriate to put that on an agenda
for general discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Jeff, go ahead.
Jeff Farmakes: My name is Jeff Farmakes and I'm on the Planning Commission.
There's some miscommunication going on here. This first came up on the issue
over revising PUD. The minimum lot sizes and we're trying to come up with a
formula that was acceptable. And also an incentive to developers to use the
PUD. And of course the minimum lot size is certainly the major area where
that's centered around. That incentive. It was then brought up as a discussion
as to what do we consider a proper minimum lot size to be and then we sort of,
in the discussion, grouped it as to a regular, normal development in discussion
of what a minimum, proper minimum lot size would be and we were discussing both
at the same time. Then there was a response from the Commission here that we
should look at just regular minimum lot size for a normal development on a
single family house. Bring it back as a subject. Now I only have a year on the
Planning Commission but as I understand it from Ladd that this was, Ladd Conrad,
that this was a rather lengthy bit of discussion some time back. If that's the
directivE, I think it was getting confused on the issue between the PUD
revisions and a regular single family development. So that issue should be
addressed. Because I .think it's being confused perhaps on both by the City
Council and by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: I think you're probably right but then at least I know where I'm
coming from and I'm not speaking completely for the rest of the Council with the
statement that I made. But with that, can we get the update now.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: HIGHWAY 5 UPDATE, CITY MANAGER. 1
DDn Ashworth: Okay. Do you want me to put this on the next agenda?
Councilman Wing: I would request that, thank you.
Don Ashworth: Highway 5 update. I had hoped that for this meeting we would
have a, couple of months ago this item was brought back to the City Council.
Paul wa= concerned as to budget and cost associated with bringing in a
consultant. I think the Council was quite concerned in that area. There were
questions as to where we were standing with the project. I think Paul's done a
good job here kind of updating as with some of.the meetings we've had with
Crawford, which was an excellent, excellent meeting and I think that he accepted
that the University's plan, the corridor study, very openly. We turned around
and then met with some of the District people. They were not as optimistic and
direct. We were kind of pessimistic after that meeting. The short and the long
of it is, and then we had a separate meeting with Barton Aschmann and a firm
called Camiros. By your next meeting we will have back a proposal to take us
through the next step which is the local planning effort to convert what's been
done by the Planning Commission or by the University and to identify differences
between that report and our existing Comprehensive Plan. I think that the costs
will be within the guidelines that you've basically stated which I think were
more general. Meaning that's too high. So I'm not quite sure where lower is
39
i
1 City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992
but I think we can come back in in that direction. And we will outline
proposed specific tasks and when they're proposed to be completed. Who we would
see as members of the task force and what public hearings would probably be
looked at in that whole process. And again I hope to have that ready for our
next Council meeting. I was really shooting for this one but we just got bogged
down.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Question. You're looking at me like I maybe should not.
Mayor Chmiel: No. I'm acknowledging your question.
Councilman Wing: For a year we've talked about a task force and nothing's
' evolved and in this last meeting we authorized a task force search. I heard
your comments about coming up with ideas. The task force seems to be having a
wonderful time working on the water district. It seems to be productive and
steering well. When might we have a task force to take on this project to help
steer ark. drive this project?
Don Ashworth: Again the work elements of the task force together with staff
recommendations as to the potential make up of that will be in this report in 2
weeks from tod x; .
1 Councilman Wir.g' Okay, thank you.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m..
Submitted L•y Don Ashworth
City Manage.
1 Prepared by Nunn Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 40
1
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION , , j
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 24, 1992
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Jan Lash, Jim Andrews, Wendy Pemrick,
Randy Erickson, Fred Berg and Dave Koubsky
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; and Jerry Ruegemer,
Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Schroers moved, Andrews seconded to approve the
Minutes of February 11, 1992 and February 25, 1992 amended as noted by
staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, PRELIMINARY PLAT, BLUFF CREEK, KEYLAND HOMES.
' Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and commission members. You've seen this item
a couple times before. Just to refresh your thoughts on where it's
located...south of Audubon. Just west of the Lake Susan Hills West area
' and we talked about it in conjunction with the Hans Hagen piece. These
folks...t.hey're nervous as to what's going to happen with that extension of
sewer and water down in that area. Hans Hagen is moving forward full bore.
' Sewer and water will be coming down Lake Drive West and down Audubon Road,
coming back up to the...as well so it picks up those... They don't want to
move forward until they have a definite answer on that sewer and water
' project. So no action is needed.
Schroers: Okay, very good. Do any commission members have any thoughts or
discussion regarding this? If not then we'll move onto item 3.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, PRELIMINARY PLAT, STONE CREEK, HANS HAGEN HOMES, INC.
' Hoffman: This proposal is to subdivide 81 acres into 141 single family
lots and then provide 8.3 acres of park property as it is shown in your
packet... The layout of the proposal site will most likely change.
There's still some communication down to the County. How many accesses can
' we have out onto the county road in that area? How many alternate accesses
will you be constructing? There will be that access north to Timberwood
and potentially be an access to the east in the future. There's still
' wrestling with those type of issues. However, I think we can safely answer
the question about concerned park property. What exactly would the
Commission like to see in that area as park property? As stated in your
' packet, that we can require about 5.64 acres of land. Currently they're
offering about 8.2. However, 8.2 acres does encompass that creek bottom.
It's fairly rugged terrain and pretty heavily treed. If we wanted to go in
there and plop in an open field, it's not going to make a whole lot of
' sense. I think the Commission bounced that idea off of one another to see
what type of park property they think fits. It's really not a policy
question. We don't have written policies saying you take one or other.
It's really a how does it feel? What do you perceive to be the needs? The
potential of having the school property to the north may take some of the
heat off of a request or a desire for an open field. That type of thing.
The lot sizes in here are... They're not enormous but they certainly would
provide some on site recreation in the residential lots. Other things to
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 2
consider are the trail connections. There is the trail as identified in
the Comprehensive Plan along the county road and then as well there are
' interior trails as noted on your site plan in your packet. Then there
are...as it is shown in your packet. Those would be some potential trail
loops and trail...that could be developed to assist movement within the
' development for park and recreational uses. Again the site is shown in
red. Timberwood is to the north of the Chicago - Milwaukee -St. Paul- Pacific
Railroad. We do need to talk about this site in context with the Gram
' location. The last time this was reviewed in brief, this lowland area was
talked about. That will mostly likely be taken as an outlot. Its
unbuildable. It's really not desireable to put a park down there either
but it does provide open space. But it's safe to say that we probably
' cannot acquire a large parcel of property on that site. We had talked
about traversing from the Gram location through that path, underneath the
railroad underpass and then up into this park. ...trying to reach an area
where you can have open, active ballfield or at least some play equipment
in there is simply, probably not be there. This wooded creek site could be
developed as a trail. Could develop a small play area... To give you a
'
little better feel for how many lots we're talking about. North would be
to the right of the picture. This would be the proposed park parcel.
These are the last corner lots down in Timberwood. This would be the
- street connection to Timberwood. The potential street connection to the
east and this would be the most likely connection straight north to TH 5
making for a fairly convenient access to the location in the future. That
railroad, the railroad tracks...configuration and then that underpass just
' to the east there's a site so the underpass is available to pedestrian
traffic...
Schroers: To go underneath the railroad underpass?
Hoffman: Correct. There are two large viaducts that are...but that would
accommodate that Bluff Creek trail segment...
1 Schroers: Well we really don't have any other neighborhood type parks or
residential type parks in that particular area.
Hoffman: In fact if you look at the entire area, landlocked area by Lyman
to the south, TH 5 to the north and Galpin and CR 17. That whole blocked
area which is now pretty much all in for development, we don't have a large
' parcel of active park property. We did acquire that wooded piece of
property through the Chan Business Center...in this location. It would be
this large wooded lot right there. It was purchased with a development
1 contract...
Schroers: Is what's happening is they're offering us 8 acres of that
steep, pretty much unuseable terrain hoping that we won't come back and ask
for our 5.6 acres of better ground?
Hoffman: It's certainly a bargaining chip on their side, sure. They offer
you 8 instead of 5.64 that we could require. It's the area which, it's
unique. There's a creek bottom there but it's just a matter of choice.
What would you rather see? The upland area as you can see on the topo, if
I you get a chance to take a look at the clear copy, does provide some flat
ground. You could go in there and clear portions of that.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 3
Erickson: How you're talking bout the northern half of that tip of that
g s P
flag?
Hoffman: The flat area would be that south arm.
Erickson: Okay. Where you've got that trail doubled is what we're looking!'
at?
Hoffman: You can see the edge of the field. The entire...field and this
area right in here is fairly unique. It has many large, mature pine trees
in it and there's some open grassy meadows but then it does drop right off
into the street. Which it certainly, it's not such a grade. It's probably
a 16 foot drop down to the creek so it's not like a cliff. You're '
certainly not going to get down into that creek bottom enough onto the
other side. The only other flat piece of property which is on this site.
Essentially, if you take a look, the site is split. This half is heavily I
wooded. Maturing sugar maple forest. Many mature trees in there.
Maturing trees. This half is open agriculture fields. It does have quite
a bit of relief to it. Large hills. Up in the top area. We can certainly '
go back and request another 5.64 acres be incorporated in that flat open
field area to accommodate an open ballfield. More traditional type of
. neighborhood park in that area. They may or may not like it but they would
simply amend that into their road design plan and their plan. Then what
would mostly likely occur on this parcel, they would alter these lots,
potential lots farther back into it and then bring some private drives and
split this parcel up into some large wooded lots and that would obviously 1
settle more for...
Lash: Is that Bluff Creek that's going through there?
Hoffman: It's a tributary to Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek would right down in
this location.
Schroers: It's the creek that comes out of Lake Ann right?
Hoffman: No. It's the creek that comes off of a wetland on the west side
of Galpin Blvd.. Galpin and TH 5 is wetland area. It comes underneath the
road in a culvert comes down under the street and then...through Timberwood
and then down into the Bluff Creek section...
Andrews: Todd, would there be enough room on that flat area of the
existing plan for at least a 2 tennis court, basketball type useage?
Hoffman: Two tennis court, basketball? Most likely there certainly could 1
be. My impression when I went out and walked this site, if you were going
to clear a large area of that, you would be running into some considerable
trees and fairly mature growth. If you wanted to do that, again I think we
should depart from that location.
Andrews: My comment is, this development is roughly the same size as Fox
Hollow where I'm at, and I can tell you the park that they have there is
about 8 acres and it's pretty good size.
Hoffman: Larger than that,
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 4
Andrews: It gets intense useage. It's very important to the neighborhood.
I think if we do not provide an active park facility here, within a matter
' of a year or so after this thing starts to fill up, they're going to be
knocking on our door demanding it from us. I guess since you've stated
that you think that that bluff would be suitable as a high valued home area
for them to develop so I don't think there's a whole lot of negative here.
' It's not like we're denying the builder a chance to use his land but I
think we need to provide an active park facility for that neighborhood.
That's too big of a neighborhood not to have one.
' Hoffman: That's my opinion that that can be there. They did show that in
a initial plan but obviously they came in with this concept showing that as
park so they would prefer that to be park. If we go looking for park
elsewhere, we're certainly only going to get what we can. 5.64. We're not
going to be able to get 8.
' Erickson: In conversations with the school district and other departments
in the City, what are the likelihoods of this potential school zone
becoming a school zone and having some parks and ballfields there?
Hoffman: The likelihood is there. It certainly can't be funded up at this
time. The City of Chanhassen is interested in pursuing that. However, the
' city has tentatively put some negotiations on hold pending the outcome of
the task force, 27 person task force that's been established now to take a
look at demographics and school locations and that type of thing.
' Andrews: There have also been commercial ventures that have offered to
swap property to take that school zone property and give them a piece in
return further to the west.
1 Hoffman: Yeah, potential. I mean there's been many, many discussions
about.
' Andrews: That's by no means a sure thing at all really.
Koubsky: Say Todd, the area to the south that's a sugar maple. That abuts
this property or this development correct?
Hoffman: That sugar maple, I define as a sugar maple forest?
Koubsky: And that's been dedicated?
Hoffman: Yeah. That's been purchased. That would be through the viaduct
1 underneath the railroad tracks and over to the other side. That's a
drainage with mature trees as well.
' Koubsky: And that kind of is right in here, is that correct?
Hoffman: It's farther, right in this zone.
' Koubsky: So we do have at least adjacent to this development some open
area with mature trees.
Lash: What is it that's just north of the flag? The park site?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 5
1
Hoffman: Just north would be large single family home lots. The Timberwood
and then these are 1, 2, 3, 4 individual home sites.
Schroers: Do you know at this time what is proposed for the area just to
the west of the site that we're talking now? I mean we have reason to
believe that there's'going to be a lot of development around that area
wouldn't you think?
Hoffman: Across to the west, across Gaipin?
Schroers: Yes.
Hoffman: The zoning I believe, well no, it's still rural. Right now it's I
used as a business of tree farm and where they sell the black dirt off of
that location on the south half of it. Presumably we could assume that
it's going to be housing... '
Schroers: Where is the new commercial development going on in relation to
this? I wish that we would get rid of Gaipin and Audubon and Arboretum and"
talk 17, 117, TH 5.
Hoffman: Those numbers can be confused very often. This CBC is that new
area which you recently reviewed. But then as well they're talking about
commercial, office type complex up in this area as associated with that
school site. The school site may either be in this location or maybe in
this side. ,
Schroers: That's what I'm getting at is there is more development proposed
for the area and we probably are going to have some opportunity, especially'
in commercial development to acquire more property in that area and
possibly larger chunks.
Hoffman: Acquiring a commercial is somewhat more difficult. This portion
here would be...tax increment financing and the holding for that Bluff
Creek corridor...negotiation of the area. You would then be putting a
playfield in with an industrial /commercial park which...residential
development is going to see that as a neighborhood park. This entire
block, this piece came in. Now that Gram's is on the board. Hans Hagen.
This entire northern...is on our doorstep.
Andrews: Can I make a motion and see if we can try it?
Schroers: Well before we make a motion, let's ask if there's any other
discussion?
Erickson: I guess I'm just curious if we took this flag piece of land here,
with the creek running through it, as far as future maintenance and
troubles and liability problems. Is that much greater with a creek running
through it than if we just took a nice little flat piece of land?
Hoffman: No. In fact your question about maintenance, it brought up
another thought that I had after writing the report in that a natural area
is going to obviously require minimal, no maintenance. Whereas if we put all
5 acre groomed park in, that does add to our maintenance schedule. I'm not
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 6
saying either is bad or better than the other but it's just'another
consideration. As we add additional parks, we need to keep that in mind as
' well.
Lash: What's the rough square footage of the lots?
' Hoffman: A majority of them are about 15,000 to 18,000. 20,000.
Andrews: How much space do we need for a ballfield?
Hoffman: Open play field? Open play field, 200 x 300. 200 feet by 300.
Lash: I guess the only thing I'd like to say about this particular one is
we did look at that other site further south and figured we would bank on
providing park service to that development out of this development. And I
would never, ever say that I would be one to pass up natural and natural
open space because I think that those are so important and I'd love to be
able to do both in this if we could because I haven't had the chance to go
over and see it but it sounds like it would be a beautiful site to just
' preserve as an open space if we could put anything else'in there to
adequately serve all of these residents. It just doesn't sound like we can
do that. We can't actually count on the school site going in. We don't
' know that for sure at this point in time. And even if we do, that's a
pretty long haul for people down in this other site to go all the way up to
the, if a school site is put in up here. That's a pretty long trek for
people in that other site. And then another weighing factor for me is the
' size of the lot. When you have smaller lots like that, people just don't
have the room in their yard for kids to play ball or do anything really.
They don't even have enough space to put up decent swingsets and things
' like that.. So I guess my initial reaction was yeah, it sounded great to
just keep it. It would be a beautiful site to preserve but I don't think
we'd be serving the residents in that area without providing them some type
' of a park facility that they would actually use for something.
Koubsky: How much useable space would you guess is in that flat area where
you've got the little trail going through? Would that be 2 acres? An
acre?
Hoffman: Yeah, if you look at it, it's approximately a third so 2 1/2
acres. 2 acres.
Koubsky: 2 1/2 acres.
I Hoffman: We continually need to weigh what we're giving up. If we take
full dedication, we're giving up what is it, 67 whatever thousand dollars
in, $70,000.00 in park fees. If we acquire an open flat piece of ground
I and they begin building houses in there and we get residents asking for
their $50,000.00-$60,000.00-$70,000.00 worth of development, we need to go
out and find those funds as well. This one's a difficult one to deal with
I because if you, there's so many different options. If you take the natural
end and have the developer put the trail loop in, you're done. You've
certainly met half the needs but you haven't met the need to pick up a bat
and ball and take your daughter or son out to bat the ball around or fly a
11 kite. Those type of potential activities. So it is one to wrestle with.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 -- Page 7
Schroers; Okay. In order to keep things moving around here, I realize 11
that you have a motion Jim. I think we should give everyone a chance to
voice their opinion on this and then we'll get to it so why don't we move II
on to Dave.
Koubsky: I like the open ground. I think with 141 houses they need some
place for kids to play. It sure would be nice if they could give us Lot 13
or Lot 12 too. That's flat. That goes up on the ridge on this blueprint
which would allow us to put some flat land in there. I'm not sure if
that's with their quarter, half acre lots or third of an acre lots.
They're giving us more than their allotment but it's also agricultural land
right now which is cleared and it'd be fairly inexpensive or less costly to
develop.
Lash: In our requirements or whatever that we can ask for, isn't there
some mention of actual useable area?
Hoffman: Property?
Lash: Yeah. 1
Hoffman: Correct. It reeds to be, the only qualifications is the wetlands
so you could conceiveably take that strip, the creek out of there and move II
that closer down to the 5.6 acres. It's not as...as the developer who
wants to give a...
Lash: If there would be a way of us doing like Dave said, of acquiring Lot"
13, would that give us enough space so we could put something in there that
would make it more active.
Hoffman: You can see on your copy of the topo map that Lot 13, the grade II
begins to, certainly would be a grading plan for this development will
change that to some degree but that's essentially Lot 13 comprises the II slope. It flattens out at the rear of the lot and at the foot of the lot
and the lot itself is the entire hillside. So it would be difficult to get
any additional flat property out of that. If you're all looking at your
copy, you can see the largest flat area with the 953 is down in this
location. It's relatively flat. It's got brush in it. It actually had
some standing water the day I was out there but that could be cleared
pretty painlessly. There's not any unique features there. Then you can
obviously see the two grassy open areas which could be incorporated in that
and then you can see the shadows from the large pine trees. These are 25
foot pine trees which you can see on there. There are some large sugar
maple and other trees that are...to that site. So it's certainly
conceiveable that you could make the mix of clearing it but it's going to
take some loss of tree cover.
Andrews: Compare it to Pheasant Hills. How big is this development?
Hoffman. Pheasant Hills. Well I don't have an exact number on Pheasant
Hill but land area, this one is probably a larger.
Andrews: I guess the point I'm making is those people had a wild area that
they could use all they wanted to and they petitioned us quite vigorously
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 -- Page 8
for ballfields, tennis courts and a basketball couc I'm concerned, and
this goes back to where I live too, that those active areas are getting
intensely used and I would love to provide both an active area and a
passive area but I'm concerned that if we provide a passive area, that
there will be a very heavy demand for an active area shortly thereafter and
' we won't have the space to provide it and we'll have another crisis on our
hands of where do we find the parkland at this development and maybe
another one that's across the road right -of -way there that we've talked
about before. That flat area at the top, if that could accommodate perhaps
' 2 tennis courts, combination of tennis courts and basketball, that might be
enough to provide something and then retain that.
Hoffman: Yeah. I think if that is the choice of the commission, we're
better off trying to locate that somewhat central in the development so we
can have some pretty good traffic patterns.
' Lash: Or even further south so it would be more accessible to the other
development.
' Hoffman: Somewhere to the south and to the east up to the tree line. We
obviously don't want to ask for a 5 acre parcel in the middle of the mature
forest, although I mean they're going to be cutting a large amount of trees
to get their lots and streets in there. I'm not sure that we want to add
to the toll.
Schroers: Randy.
Erickson: I just think that .Tim's making a real good point. It'd be nice
to have a passive park there but I think just by the sheer number of people
' and the lack of other park areas that maybe going for some other land for
more of an active park would be a better idea.
Schroers: Okay, Wendy.
Pemrick: I agree. I think we should go for the maximum amount of acreage
for active parkland because of the high density of houses going in there.
' There's going to be lots of children involved. I just think this leads
itself to that.
' Schroers: Okay, Fred.
Berg: I tend to agree too. I just have a couple questions. If that is
not developed for a school, how far a walk is it from where this
' development is up to that school zone? And if it's not used for a school,
will it turn into residential?
' Hoffman: A portion of it may be residential. The other larger portion
will most likely be commercial /office /industrial type use. The distance is
estimated at 3/4 of a mile...
Berg: So if it's going to be industrial, we're not going to want to put a
park up there?
II Hoffman: Probably not, correct.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
March 24, 1992 - Page 9
Berg: I guess I grudgenly then have to go along too with turning it into
an active park.
Schroers: Yeah, that's the way I feel. I'm grudgenly against it. Not
against it but I really hate to see every nice, natural area be full of
houses. And the trade-off that we have, as I see them, is we can get 8
acres of, we can just acquire 8 acres of green space, a natural area that
we don't have to do anything with. We don't have to stick any money into
or we can get the 5.6 acres of active use and then we're going to have to
come up with money to develop it. So there's really where it's at. I I
agree. I think that our job here is to service the needs of the community
but you know also environmental issues are so pressing these days and each
and every tree that we cut down is real effective so I'm going to take the I
environmental stand on this. I'm ready for your motion Jim.
Andrews: Yeah, I want to make a motion so we can call the question. I'd I
move that we return this to the developer and request that they provide a
suitable active park site in their plan.
Lash: And if they'd like to do that in addition. ,
Andrews: We can wish for all we want.
Pemrick: I'll second that. '
Schroers: Okay, let's call the question.
Lash: Todd, do you happen to know where the other site was that they had
mentioned originally?
Hoffman: Originally as park? There was none originally identified. You I
need to tack on there then, in lieu of acceptance of that park property.
It's going to be difficult. There are some other changes going on. We
also need to address, that should be in lieu of park dedication charges.
It may or may not require some trail connections. If not, I would
recommend that the Commission recommend to City Council to require a full
trail dedication fees of this development. If we get this thing located
a central configuration, I can't see that we're going to need internal
trail connections to the park site unless that major road corridor is
identified as a collector, which will eventually go from Galpin to TH 5.
Then potentially that could be looked at for a 5 foot sidewalk but again well
have passed those types of issues up to Planning and I'd recommend that we
just don't allow for credit for sidewalks. Our trail dedication is for I
trail construction. Sidewalks will be constructed at the developer's cost
as part of their road improvements. So Jim I would suggest we go with.
Andrews: A second motion?
Schroers: Since we're proposing to sending it back and it's going to have
to come back to us again anyway right?
Hoffman: Correct.
Schroers: So at that point in time when we look at what area they offer, II
1
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 10
what their proposal is, it might be a better time to look at easements and
trail connections.
Hoffman: It certainly would be. The only reason I tried to pursue it to
get some clearer definition of I'm not sure what the timeframe is going to
' be. We may have to put this on an earlier agenda.
Schroers: Okay, then if no one else.
' Andrews: I guess I'm not sure how.
Hoffman: Just say in lieu of, require maximum park dedication in lieu of
park fees and to require trail dedication fees.
Andrews: I will accept your words as an amendment. Will the person who
' seconded, is that okay with the person who seconded the motion?
Pemrick: That's fine.
Schroers: Okay, then the rest of the Commission still remains the same?
You've got it.
' Andrews moved, Pemrick seconded to table action on the Stone Creek
Development and request that the developer, Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. provide
a suitable area for an active park site. Also, as a friendly amendment, to
' require maximum park dedication in lieu of park fees and to require trail
dedication fees. All voted in favor except Larry Schroers who opposed and
the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, PRELIMINARY PLAT, ITHILIEN.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commissioners, again this is a subdivision
request of 9 acres into 17 single family lots. It's zoned single family
residential. The adjoining uses are all single family residential with the
city of Shorewood lying to the north of this property. Our Comp Plan
' identifies this area as lying fully within the service area of Curry Farms
Park and then a portion of it could be considered in the service area of
Pheasant Hills Park. Comprehensive Trail Plan does not identify any
additional segments or easements in this area. In fact there is a trail
connection located in Curry Farms 2nd Addition. This comes out of Bretton,
or excue me, off of Teton Lane. The Commission recalls conversations...
' It remains there. It is a viable connection for residents, homeowners to
walk Teton Lane and get into the back of the Curry Farms Park.
,..indicated there, the interior street sections of Curry Farms 1st and 2nd
Additions...
' Lash: That trail's kind of a one way ticket.
' Hoffman: Yeah. If you go down it, it's going to be tough to push back up.
I do not see any outstanding questions. You had a, here's a large
depiction of what the cul-de-sac with an eyebrow cul -de -sac is going to
' look like with the 17 lots. It's certainly within the use area of Curry
Farms Park and it is staff's recommendation that the Park and Recreation
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
March 24, 1992 - Page 11
Commission recommend the City Council accept full park dedication and trail I
dedication fees for Ithilien Subdivision.
Lash: So moved. ,
Andrews: I'll second.
Schroers: That is for all 17 units?
Hoffman: Correct. '
Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council accept full park dedication fees in lieu oil
parkland and trail dedication fees in lieu of trail construction for
Ithilien Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONFERENCE /SPA CENTER.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners, this item is brought toll
you mainly as an informational item. Unfortunately we have, the Park
Commission, have no weapons to go ahead and require anything of this
development. It's not being subdivided so we cannot go after land
dedication. We do not require fees. Park and trail dedication fees from
this development. However, we have talked extensively about that area and
the Commission requested that they be kept up to date if in fact any
development was going to come in that area. It's a unique proposal to
develop that site into a conference center with basically a majority of the
conference and spa, there's a real emphasis on spa and going back to the
mud baths and the refreshing water curing power which is water down in that '
area. Deep holes. So they're certainly hanging their hat on those type of
attributes that the Assumption Seminary was founded on. A couple years ago
I did have a chance to walk this site and actually walked the creek and did '
observe the native brook trout which are in there. Fairly extensive group
of people walk this site again as noted in the staff report. That included
the federal folks, the DNR, City Planners, the applicant, building II inspector so they went ahead and looked at the building to make sure that
it would be restoreable. We walked the site, actually walked across the
fen which is back there which the DNR has been very, monitoring very I
carefully. Walked the creek and I was amazed at the number of brook trout
that were present in the creek. Once all the people got around and the
trout stirred up the water, you couldn't see them any longer but there was
a pretty high population of brook trout in that creek location. The
applicant has some desires to go ahead and preserve that area but they
certainly want to clean it up and make it useable which the DNR has some
real concerns over. The applicant voiced a desire to clean up the creek. I
To take away the underbrush and that type of thing which takes away the
shade and the natural overhanging habitats for the brook trout so you'll
most likely see a battle waged there. There's two units to the Department
of Natural Resources who are working on this. That would be waters and
fisheries. They don't always have, as many of you may know, they don't
always have coinciding viewpoints. Fisheries is designated as an official
trout stream. It is the only trout stream in the 7 county metro area with II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 12
a native strand or a native brook trout in it. Water says however that
does not make it a "protected stream ", "protected waters" so it may not
.' have all the rights and regulations attached to it as a protected water.
So we've left it in the hands of the DNR. I'd be curious to hear your
comments on it. Staff has, including myself and the planners will be
' continue to be involved with the DNR on this level. The federal folks have
basically washed their hands of it and said we'll let the Department of
Natural Resources take over. I'm not even sure if the thing is going to
fly. I'd be personally, it's quite a commitment and I certainly think if
they can pull it off, it would be a neat center but...
Schroers: You know you'd like to believe that there was a wa -y of doing
that, letting them have their center without disrupting the last native
trout stream in the 7 county metro area. I mean that would be just a sin
wouldn't it? To go ahead and ruin the last natural thing that we have
there? It's almost like an elimination of a species, or I mean for in the
area. That would be sad.
Hoffman: The DNR certainly doesn't want to see that happen. Leland
' Gholike actually has a trout ranch in northern Wisconsin where he has a
trout stream that he personally owns. Privately owns at the other
conference center. He also has a conference center in Stillwater. So he
' has some experience with trout streams but that's a commercialized water as
far as planted in that stream and is regulated catch and release. He had
voiced that his desire not to, it's not his desire that he's going to do
the same thing here. He'd just as soon leave the trout alone but he
' certainly ought to let people down there to be able to enjoy the creek and
the surrounding areas as you can see by the trail plan which you have
identified.
Schroers: I guess there's really not a lot we can say about it since it's
not, it's out of our hands. We just have to kind of wait and see what
' happens. Does anyone have anything?
Koubsky: Is the Planning Commission overseeing this at all?
Hoffman: Sure. Planning Commission...hands at some point.
Andrews: I guess I'd just like to state that I think the preservation of
' these natural resources that we have, have to be really emphasized. We
won't get a second change. Like Larry said, even though we may have no
actual jurisdiction, I think we should make it clear that's very important.
1 Koubskyr Yeah, I think if there's anything the Commission can do to
publicize our viewpoint to that somewhere down the line, we should be
willing to do that.
Hoffman: I can draft a memo in that vein and send that onto our Planning.
'
Schroers: I'd like to see that a memo to anyone involved with developing
and looking at the plans for that I guess. I don't know if that would take
a vote and a recommendation on our part or not but we certainly would be, I
certainly would be in favor of not seeing that native trout stream
developed or disturbed in any way. Anything else?
Park Rec Commission Meeting 1
March 24, 1992 - Page 13
DISCUSSION, GOLF COURSE. II
Schroers: Then we can move on to item 6, discussion of the golf course and
that person has not yet arrived. We can go onto item 7 and come back to 6
when that person arrives.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS SURVEY, FINAL DRAFT.
1
Hoffman: Thank you Larry. Item 7 is a concern of the final draft of the
Park and Recreation Needs Survey the commission has been working on As
you can see it has been reduced, clarified to a certain degree. We have it
so it can fit back to back on one page. This survey can be printed as an
envelope so when you send it out as a survey, you wouldn't have to send a
self addressed envelope inside the one you're sending out. You'd simply
have the respondent fill this out, fold it, lick the seal which would be
printed onto there and you can send it back. We need to discuss those
types of issues tonight. How we want to distribute it. To every resident.
Through the Villager. Through a random selection of home residents.
There's opportunity to, when we mail it we don't have to pay for every
response we get back. Or every one we mail out. We just pay for the
responses that we receive back so that the...office can track our responses
and bill us accordingly. So we have some flexibility in that regard.
T. 1 ; ' I 11 , , . ; 1 - T i 11i ,nit i im,.,i important. that the Commission decide if this I
answers what the questions at the current time are. If it does that
successfully, if it communicates to the residents what we're attempting to
do and if you're comfortable with the survey and then as I stated, if you
have any corrections, additions. Any type of those nit picky details which"
we need to clean up prior to making some of those other decisions, we need
to talk about that this evening.
Andrews: I have a comment regarding question number 2. It says are you in 1
favor or opposed to a park improvement bond (tax increase) totaling
approximately $600,000.00 to develop Bandimere Community Park as a youth
athletic park. My concern is that the average citizen will have no idea I
what that $600,000.00 represents to them. Is there anyway we can tag some
sort of percentage number on that or anything that would help communicate
to the respondent that, what sort of impact the dollars may have on them. 1
Hoffman: Certainly. That's a very common exercise to go through in a
referendum type of propogranda. In a questionnaire. We can put it in.
I
Leave it out. In fact this $600,000.00 question is, it started out at
$400,000.00. $600,000.00 is just a number picked out of the air. So we
need to redefine that a little bit. I've asked.
Andrews: Yeah, if I was reading this, I would instantly opposed because I
that sounds like a huge amount of money and if you're going to have me pay
that, I don't want to do it.
I
Hoffman: You want to know if it's going to cost you a buck and a half or
$2.00 or whatever?
Andrews: Yeah, or maybe a percentage might be better because some II
homeowners have higher assessed properties than others.
II
II
. Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 14
Lash: $20.00 a year, $30.00 a year.
I Erickson: That would make a lot more sense. Because that is a frightening
number.
Berg: Maybe give a range of what a homeowner could expect.
Lash: Even if you put at $100,000.00 house.
Andrews: An example, yeah.
Lash: As an example would be $20.00 or whatever it turns out to be. It
gives them a rough idea.
Koubsky: But we ask them in question 5 how much they'd be willing to
donate. I guess my thought is, to me $600,000.00 isn't frightening. It's
I just that we give a number for question 2 but we don't supply a number for
question 3. Or any of the items in question 4 so why do we have a number
up there?
' Hoffman: Simply because we're closer to realizing the project so we define
it to a great enough degree where we can identify a figure.
I Koubsky: We do have about half a page and if you were going to present a
number, I agree with Jim that I'm not quite sure what the $600,000.00
represents. We outline up above that it would include some ballfields,
I some soccer fields and some other improvements. If we have some room,
maybe we could itemize those as estimated cost for development or
something. Let them see how the money's spent and then that would total up
I to $600,000.00. We do have room to work with you know to keep this at a
one page.
Hoffman: We have just about another 1/16 of a page because we need the
' remainder for addresses and mailing.
Koubsky: The thing I thought too when I• was reading question 2 was, we got
I that for a pretty reasonable deal didn't we?
Hoffman: Correct. $6,000.00 an acre.
' Koubsky: Can we sneak that in there? Because when I read this I started
highlighting and I said, what I highlighted was all the tax increases. We
acquired this with tax increases. We're going to develop it with tax
I increases. Here's a number for you and if we can, people know what land
values are today. I think if we can at least show them, hey we got this
for $6,000.00 an acre, 1 don't know if it's patting ourselves on the back
I or not but it was a pretty good buy.
Hoffman: Sure. It was in one of the initial...
1 Andrews: A 1/16th of a page is only 3 lines.
Hoffman: Yeah, it's an estimate.
I
II •
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
March 24, 1992 - Page 15
Andrews: At 6 lines to the inch, that's 3 lines.
Hoffman: We don't have a whole lot of room. The $6,000.00 could be worked
in there. We could simply eliminate the dollar figure. If we start to
expand upon it and say grading is $250,000.00, ballfields, roadway,
blacktop, tennis courts. We'd have to go into a much more detailed cost
study at this time. 1
Lash: I guess personally I don't care. I think if they have a rough idea
of how much it's going to be. What they want to know is how much it's
going to be to them.
Schroers: That's right. That's what the concern is. You can throw a
12n mi l l i.on d-1 .. ' IF IL only costs me $20.00 a year I
can de.;1 with it. That's what people need to know so I think you can
eliminate the $600,000.00 and then you wouldn't even need that figure in
there and just say will you be in favor or opposed for park improvement
bond that would increase your taxes by whatever it is per year.
Hoffman: We can take that exercise on. It's simply a question of taking
the estimate, adding on our bonding costs and what potential would be our
rate of interest at that time and having those types of calculations and
- dividing by our population base, etc..
Erickson: I'd just hate to say $600,000.00 and then come up with a $1.5
million dollar bond.
Lash: Since you gave us permission to be nit picky. And I can be pretty II
nit picky when it comes to this stuff. That's the secretary in me coming
out. On question 2, on the second line where it says the next question is
posed to identify your position. I think just that whole part, if you're
trying to save space, could come out.
Hoffman: Okay. ,
Lash: Obviously they'll figure out that the question is posed. You know
and the question is posed so if you just take that out and just put if the '
city was to present a referendum, we're getting into improvement bonds and
stuff quite a big, a referendum to develop this park as a youth athletic
complex and put 6 or 7 ballfields, soccer fields, tennis courts and other
associated improvements, then the next question would be, would you support
or oppose this park improvement bond. And then down below put support/
oppose. Then you can have costing approximately so much per home. The
other question I have is, should park improvement bonds be capitalized in II
that sentence?
Hoffman: Are you in favor or opposed to? Is that the one?
Lash: Right.
Hoffman: Park improvement bond. I can check. '
Lash: It looks strange to me and in other places where things like bond
referendum and there was another place where you had it too. Up in the
i
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 -- Page 16
second line of the question it says a park acquisition bond and that's not
capitalized so either it should be or shouldn't be. I don't know but it's
different in different places.
Hoffman: Do you wish to change the question?
•
Lash: I just think you can take out the next question is posed to identify
your position. That will save you a little space.
Hoffman: And then just are you in favor or opposed to?
Lash: Yeah. I would like, would you support or oppose this park
improvement bond. And also in the question, at the very end of the second
' line where it says, if the city was to present a park improvement bond, if
you just put if the city was to present a referendum to develop this park.
And get park improvement bond out of there again. Would you be able to
' just sort of off to the side, support /oppose place where they check put
approximately how much per home?
' Hoffman: I'll go ahead and include an example and whether that's
$100,000.00 to $150,000.00 or $200,000.00 home or what we come up with as
an example on here.
' Lash: I really like the opening paragraph. 1 thought that explained our
intent pretty clearly. And then where they circle their level of
satisfaction. Underneath where there's a line. I guess I'd like you to
' say comments or explanation.
Hoffman: We're not asking them for an explanation.
Berg: Question 4 is nice. If we get an overwhelming number of people that
votes for the very last thing, we're out of business.
' Lash: Oh, that's the question where it says park improvement bond and then
it's not capitalized. So that was what kind of drew my attention to that.
My question 3, since our last meeting we decided to pass the issue of
' sidewalks to Planning, I'd like that taken off and have it say I'm not in
favor of a recreational trail system or I am in favor of a recreational
trail system. And then there again approximately, well Jim asked that but
you said you didn't really know right? Or have any idea what a cost figure
could be for that.
Hoffman: We have to fomulate a package. We're not even close to that.
Lash: On question 4, do you think that the average person knows where City
Center Park is?
' Hoffman: I thought about that. Probably not all people do. Certainly all
people don't.
' Lash: I thought in parenthesis behind it if we put something like
elementary school, City Hall site or something because people may have no
idea where that is. And then on the list also, didn't we talk about that
not having a community center on there was sort of an obvious omission?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
March 24, 1992 - Page 17
And it's still not on. And also, since we have golf course on the agenda
for tonight, I thought maybe golf course should be added on too.
Schroers: No one's going to know where Bandimere is either. 1
Lash: Well, except for question 2.
Hoffman: It talked about it.
Lash: It talked about it. 1
Schroers: Yeah, but it doesn't describe where it is. It just says that we
acquired 32 acres.
Lash: Maybe we should put up in question 2, a 32 acre parcel of parkland
in southern Chanhassen known as Bandimere Community Park.
Erickson: Because location could be a factor in terms of whether or not
they support it.
Pemrick: That's a good idea. 1
Schroers: That could also work against you because the, as we said, if we
talk about...dividing line between north and south Chanhassen, most of the
population is north of TH 5 and they might not want it before.
Hoffman: But we're after honesty aren't we Larry? 1
Schroers: Yeah, I think we should just be honest and leave it the way it
is. 32 acres. 1
Lash: The other thing is, that's where the site is. I mean what are we
going to do? It's there.
Schroers: They can ask where it is if someone's that interested.
Andrews: We can always buy a bus and shuttle them back and forth.
Lash: I mean that was on the referendum. They might be real happy if they
voted to buy park property in southern Chanhassen, so we did. Now we have"
it and we want to develop it.
Hoffman: Larry, can you get a clarification on the community center and
I believe the golf course issue will be discussed further when Joan arrives
and then we can either add or not add that under the questionnaire at that
time.
Lash: Do you think that should be added?
Andrews: Right now it's not a part of our park system.
Schroers: Excuse me, you're asking me for a clarification on the community
center?
1
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 18
Hoffman: On the question being raised on whether or not the community
center issue should be presented here. In question 4.
Schroers: I guess that's something that each one could answer in turn and
I'll tell you right now mine is absolutely not. No. Big no.
I Pemrick: That could always come in additional comments too. If people
feel strongly about a community center.
I Lash: I'm just really curious. I wasn't even a really big supporter of
the whole thing and I just think it seems like an obvious omission to not
have it on there.
I Pemrick: Really? I didn't think of it at all. Because I guess I'm
thinking that's more private industry business.
I Lash: Well I agree but if I was one who had been a really strong supporter
of it, I would think it was really strange that it's not on here.
' Schroers: Yeah, but if you were a really strong supporter of it, you'd
have been one of the minority and the majority is going to say, here they
are trying to shove this community center down our throat again. I think
if we put that on there, we're going to hurt ourselves for the rest of it,
I really do.
Andrews: I guess I don't exactly understand how that hurts us.
1 Schroers: I think that if you had been here previously and gone through
the last two referendum processes, that it would be more clear but we got,
we sort of got accused of trying to cram the community center issue down
' the residents' throats. Okay? So I'm thinking that if we mention that on
this, the residents are going to look at it and say here comes that
community center again. We've already told them twice that we don't want
I it and it's going to cast a negative shadow over this whole survey. That's
what I think.
I Lash: But that's happened with trails too.
Schroers: But the trails we lost by 2 or 3 votes. The community center we
lost by a lot. So you know, if someone feels strongly about the community
I center, they can write it in on the comment section.
Pemrick: I agree.
I Lash= That's true, they can.
I Erickson: We could put a. write in. Put other. Yeah, I'd like to see
something like that then. Something at the end of this question. Other
improvements that you see are necessary. There's one other thing, not to
get off that subject. Acquisition of land for the preservation of green
I belt corridors, example Bluff Creek drainage. That doesn't seem real clear
to me. I mean I kind of have an idea what that it is but are people going
to look at that, and is there a better way to word that? What that really
is. Just green spaces. Green corridors.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 19
1
Hoffman: Many people I think hopefully would relate that to the
Minneapolis corridor park system. It is vague. You can make the judgment
whether people are going to be able to visualize that in their minds and
make a decision if they would like to see that in the future of Chanhassen
or if they think it's not a pressing issue. I can take a look at the
question and see if we can reword it or we can try to muddle through it
1
this evening and see if we can.
Erickson: What is a green belt corridor?
Hoffman: It's called a linear park. -
Erickson: Like Minnehaha Parkway in Minneapolis? That kind of thing?
Hoffman: Yeah. Green belt corridor. Bluff Creek is the example there. It
winds from one end of the city to the other. There's another one
identified in our Comprehensive Plan going from Lake Ann Park up to
Minnewashta. That trail system. That green belt corridor.
Andrews: Drainage to watershed. '
Hoffman: Watershed?
Schroers: That green belt area doesn't necessarily have to be something
that's developed either. I mean it doesn't have to have paved trails or
something running through it. It can be just a green space that is set
aside for environmental preservation.
Lash: We have a problem right here if one of the Commissioners can't even
understand it.
Erickson: I mean that's what, I read it and I thought I think I know what
they mean but I'm not sure and I'm just wondering. •
Lash: We need to change.
Erickson: I mean drainage really kind of threw me off. That was a good 1
point from Jim. Drainage kind of threw me off. I thought are we going to
buy drainage ditches.
Lash: Can it be open spaces?
Schroers: Open green spaces. Natural spaces. '
Lash: Yeah. Something that the average person is going to understand what
we're talking about.
Pemrick: Natural spaces I think.
Koubsky: Todd, why not just get rid of green belt corridors and just say
acquisition of either open or natural land for preservation?
Erickson: That would make more sense.
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 -- Page 20
Lash: Another thing I just thought of. 1 guess I'm going to be afraid
that people or what are we looking for exactly here? If their feeling is
they do not favor raising taxes to accomplish these types of improvements,
are they just supposed to x that and not prioritize anything? Or are they
supposed to prioritize it but then say I don't support paying taxes? Do we
want to know what their priorities are even if they wouldn't be able to,
1 even if they wouldn't support a referendum?
Hoffman: I would think if they're not in favor, they're going to make that
' big x down there and probably scratch off.
Pemrick: It will be one or the other. I don't think you know.
Lash: But do we want to know how they would prioritize it anyway?
Pemrick: I have a feeling like Todd said, if there's an x there, they're
' not interested period. Boom. That's how I see it
Hoffman: Yeah, we're certainly not going to be able to accomplish any of
' them without the park bond. And this is a process which is somewhat
difficult to venture into but our potential bonding amounts are certainly
much less than the recent ones floating around for schools and $11 and $9
• - million which failed in Eden Prairie and the $4.5 million which was finally
' passed. You all somewhere out in the not too distant future District 112
is going to be looking at an issue. And as we talk about the workshop for
the issues, they'll probably come back in February of 1993 with a $10, $15,
' $20, I have no idea how many million school improvement bond for District
112. Do we wart to position ourselves just prior to that? Just after it?
There's all those types of questions to address. These numbers are large
but in relation to other things happening in our community, they're
certainly not out of line.
Schroers: Moving back to the one we were just talking about. The
' preservation of the green belt. I think the word environment should be in
there. Can we just say, acquisition for the preservation of environmental
areas, i.e. Bluff Creek area?
' Hoffman: Environmentally sensitive? Open and natural land is the other
one we've got going.
Lash: Environmental preservation.
Andrews: That's unclear to me. That's vague.
Erickson: Yeah. And plus 1 think references to some of the parks,
especially the members that have been around a long time are real clear
what Bluff Creek is and where it is. I mean I'm in a brand new
neighborhood and most people there, some of them haven't even been to Lake
Ann Park yet. Not sure what that big great park over there is called yet.
I think references sometimes, that's speaking from a newer neighborhood
I standpoint. They might say Bluff Creek, what the heck is that? Open and
green spaces.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 21
Koubsky: I think it's okay to give them an example. I agree they probably
don't know...
Erickson: ...example I think is good.
Koubsky: If we mention it, it might stir some interest. For me to go II okay, what is Bluff Creek? So they call. So they could go see what it is
and what we're talking about.
Hoffman: Okay. So you like the acquisition of open or natural areas? 1
Lash: Yeah. Or for environmental preservation.
Andrews: I don't like that.
Hoffman: We're talking about parks. We certainly aren't going to acquire I
it for industrial development.
Koubsky: Isn't that going to be a confusion, that just occurred to me.
Park and ballfield improvements at City Center. There's not going to be any
improvement with, or excuse me. Misunderstanding between City Center Park
and the new proposed park?
Hoffman: Central Park?
Koubsky: Central Park. Is that going to be?
Hoffman: That's going to be a confusion point.
Erickson: Improvements to existing City Center Park. Would existing in
there help clarify?
Hoffman: That one should then, the CAA program and the number of parents I
that have gone through to one, that should pick up in there.
Koubsky: I think too the golf issue is a good idea. It may not be part of
our mandate at this point but there are interests in other commissions with
it. To me it doesn't hurt to put it on here and see what the community's
thinks about it.
Lash: Put what on?
Koubsky: Golf courses. That might assist the Planning Commission or give I
them momentum.
Lash: Or it may pull the plug on the whole thing.
Koubsky: Or it may pull the plug on it.
Schroers: It wouldn't hurt to find out how the residents feel about that. I
Pemrick: After all they live here.
Lash: ...anything that you can think of that we're forgetting? 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 -- Page 22
Erickson: So if we put golf course on there and it comes up number 1 then,
are we dedicating ourselves to the establishment of a golf course?
' Schroers: You know what looks kind of funny to me is how many people in
each of the following age groups live in your household. First one is over
55 and then adult.
' Lash: Yes, I did that too Larry. I think it should be adults over 55.
Adults under 55. And then high school aged.
' Hoffman: I like that.
Lash: Are you going to add an Other under question 4? A place where they
can put other.
Hoffman: Yep, sure. Have an Other and then we've got a question on golf
course until we discuss that in further detail.
Schroers: Other than that Todd I think it's great. And I also like the
I idea that you can just fold it up and don't have to have other envelopes
and all that sort of thing. I guess that if it's within our financial
resources, I just as soon have it sent to every household.
Hoffman: Hopefully that would result in a fairly high.
Andrews: Maybe we could put, get the Villager or the Sailer to put out an
I article about the survey and put this in with that particular week's
distribution of the paper. As a loose flyer in with it.
' Hoffman: We can do that. We've had some examples where flyers in the
Villager don't get the impact that a piece of mail does.
Lash: What if we had a story in the paper the week before the spring
I
mailing of the park and rec directory went and it was included in there.
And in the article it could say something like next week you'll be
receiving that and in that is a survey.
' Pemrick: Please take the time to read and return.
I Hoffman: There was discussion about that. At the time we also discussed at
staff level, they're putting on a senior center, senior survey but that's
going to go out in the next 2 -3 weeks here so we can't fit into that
timeline. The summer comes out May 1. Or the end of April so we could
' feasibly accomplish that one. Have it as an insert. Have the front page,
see survey inside and hopefully get some coverage from the paper. Saves us
some dollars.
1 Erickson: I have one other question too Todd. The question, what is your
age? I'm not in any way opposed to that or anything. I'm just curious
what kind of information we hope to learn. Just the distribution of the
I
survey who filled it out. Is that what we're going to try to pull from
that?
' •
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
March 24, 1992 - Page 23
Hoffman: Yeah. Essentially who's answering. Who's taking the time to II
respond. We do know, through the demographic information which you looked
at, essentially who our residents are. But if we're interested in knowing II
who returned the surveys, is it 30 year old class or our older residents.
It can be there. It can't be.
Erickson: I know it doesn't take up a lot of space. I was just curious
1
what kind of information we were hoping to pull from it.
Koubsky: We also get an idea of who's friendly and who isn't and who needs'
to be sold down the hill too. If you have a lot of seniors that are voting
against it, maybe we have to communicate more with the seniors to let them
know what's available for them and whichever group we come up no for
I
example, we can.
Lash: The other thing is if they're below voting age. How much stock you 1
want to put on.
Erickson: So when we get this information back we're going to be able to
pull out say the people over 55 voted against any tax increases.
I
Hoffman: When we calculate the results and tabulate those, we'll bring
those back.
I
Erickson: We'll get that detailed in it?
Hoffman: Yeah.
1
Erickson: Okay.
Pemrick: It will be interesting. I'll be anxious to see the results of 1
this.
Hoffman: It certainly is a focused survey. I mean you looked at some of I
the other ones. Apple Valley, boy you flipped through 6, 8, 10 pages and
the response level should be high. That will provide confidence to the
Park Commission, to the City Council for whatever ventures we do go. And I
it provides information for which issues to drop so I think it will be
valuable.
Schroers: Okay, well if there's nothing further on that I guess I'd like I
to recommend that we present this survey to the City Council for approval.
As amended.
I Andrews: So moved I guess, if that wasn't a motion.
Lash: Second.
I
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend approval of the City of Chanhassen Park and Recreation Needs I
Survey as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Schroers: So we have our survey completed.
I
• 1
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 24
' Erickson: Did we decide on distribution?
Hoffman: Right now I think it's leaning towards the summer city brochure.
Summer city newsletter. We'll see how that fits as far as being an insert
or if we have to actually have it stapled in. We'll run through those type
of details.
Lash: Make sure that we get that info to the paper.
' Pemrick: Front page if possible. Do they ever give you that?
Hoffman: Sure, they'll take suggestions.
' Pemrick: Yeah, I was wonder, if it's freebe, you have to probably take
what you can get.
' Hoffman: It depends on what's the big news in Chanhassen.
Lash: Well it certainly could be made into a whole article. Why don't you
' give them an interview. Grant them are interview and tell them that this
has really been one of our main focus this winter. We've spent a lot of
time trying to develop this. It's very important for us to have input from
the citizens. If you go at it from that point, maybe they'll do an article
on it and it would give people the nudge to take the time to fill it out.
Hoffman: We'll play cat and mouse with the editor. It's always a game.
' You give them a little and maybe they'll ask for an interview. Or if you
give them too much, he'll say you're being too aggressive. This is going
to be buried in the want ads.
' Pemrick: Should we all write letters to the editor?
Hoffman: Sure could.
DISCUSSION, GOLF COURSE.
' Hoffman: I think you all know Joan Ahrens, who has arrived.
Schroers: Okay what we'll do is at this point we'll move back to item 6
which is the discussion of the golf course.
' Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commissioners. Just for Joan's benefit, we
just went through the discussion on the survey which is going out...golf
' course question should be on there or should not be. We deferred that
until this discussion and go through that type of decision process.
' Ahrens: Am I late? ...thought I was on for 9:00.
Hoffman: No, that's fine. You're not late. We just moved ahead quicker
than thought.
II Ahrens: Our meetings never do that. I apologize for handing these things
to you now but I do have a handout. Some of you were on the commission
last spring and received a similar type of a handout... This basically is
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
March 24, 1992 -- Page 25
a pretty brief overview of what we've been doing, which isn't a lot at this
point. As Todd calls us, the adhoc golf committee. About a year ago, and
I've explained some of this in..., about a year ago at a Planning I
Commission meeting we talked about, as a bit of a background first of all.
We, as you know, have been working on this comprehensive plan, or we were
working on the comprehensive plan for the last couple years and we got a
lot of comments from a lot of people that the reason they had moved to
Chanhassen was because of all the open space and they liked the park
atmosphere of all the open space around here and we had lots of discussions
on how we could preserve open space in Chanhassen. We recognized the fact
that we were going to be going through a lot of intensive development and
we wanted to kind of jump the gun I guess you could say on preserving space
before development occupies all the available spaces. So we talked about
ways to do that. We talked about all sorts of ways. Just one of the ways
that we talked about was perhaps developing a municipal golf course. We
thought it was kind of a neat idea because it was a way to not only
preserve some open space but increase the city tax base at the same time.
We didn't have any statistics at that time. We just wanted to look into
the possibility of a golf course so I volunteered to do that work. I
contacted last year several municipalities who are all very willing to
share their information with me as far as their development process went.
Some of them are in here. Just page through here under construction of new
golf courses. Most of them are under that area. We also talked, when I
came before the Park and Recreation Commission last year, it was sort of, I'
asked at that time for consideration of amending your portion of the
comprehensive plan to include a study area for a golf course. That idea
never went anywhere as far as I know and I'm not quite sure why. It just
was kind of dropped. We recently in the last few months picked up the idea
again. We being me and Brian Batzli, who's the Planning Commission Chair
and Richard Wing who's on the Council. We just had a few meetings. I also
met. with the Mayor and talked to him about his feelings about just pursuing '
the idea of looking into a golf course. Whether through acquisition of an
existing golf course or development of a brand new golf course. And
correct me if I'm wrong but he supported the idea of looking into the idea II
basically. So we have been getting more information and more information.
One of the, as you'll see when you read this. We have had a lot of
discussions about development of a new course versus purchasing of an
existing course. We're limited of course in Chanhassen to an existing
course. That being Bluff Creek as the most likely choice. A little
history on Bluff Creek. It was purchased in the mid 70's on a contract for
deed from the original land owners. This information is not in our packet '
but that contract for deed was an unrecorded contract for deed so we don't
know what the terms of that were. I did do a...in Chaska or the Carver
County offices and found out that the purchase price for that was I
$135,000.00 or $125,000.00. One of the two. It has a market value now of
approximately $700,000.00. The building has a market value of about,
believe it or not, it has a market value. It's about $26,000.00 I think. II
Several years ago the owners I understand, and this is unsubstantiated,
were interested in doing something with the property other than using it as
a golf course. They came to the city of Chanhassen with a development plan'
for housing which didn't go anywhere either. They had a preliminary plat
that they filed but a final plat was never filed. There was all sorts of
problems because of the Bluff Creek corridor running through there and...
on development. Part of the reason that we were kind of excited about '
1
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 26
' pursuing the idea of Bluff Creek is because of as you know the Bluff Creek
corridor runs through there and we thought this would be a great idea for
' the city to be able to save that land and get it through some of the nicest
areas of Bluff Creek corridor run through that golf course. 5o we thought
that that might be a neat idea for the City to pursue. Also, because it
would be much cheaper than developing a brand new golf course. It's
' existing. It could produce revenue immediately. It needs a new clubhouse.
It needs some improvements on some of the holes but it's a ready made golf
course. So that's one of the ideas that we'd like the city to consider and
' we have not put together, we don't have any money of course so we can't put
together a feasibility study which is what is really needed for a city to
consider sornething like this seriously. A feasibility study can run
anywhere from well, I talked to the city of North Mankato. They only paid
$6,000.00 for their feasibility study. Some cities have paid up to
$30,000.00. Now North Mankato says that they have a viable project on
their hands. Their place will be opening in the spring of '93 but they
' were able to get a feasibility study done for $6,000.00. But we're not
talking about a budget. We haven't gone to the City Council about money.
We haven't even presented this to City Council yet. Most of the City
' Council knows what we're doing. They're aware that we're gathering
information at this point but what we'd like to do, our next step is to set
up a question and answer session with the Council and with you and with
members of the Planning Commission who would be interested in doing that,
and also inviting representatives from these muncipalities who either
developed new golf courses or purchased existing golf courses and developed
them into muncipal courses. Just to have a question and answer session. I
' broached the subject with several of the cities and they said that they
would be willing to send representatives to sornething like that. I think
that we need that kind of information in order to proceed in any kind of
orderly fashion at this point. We can't, I don't have enough information
to ask you to go anywhere with this. All I'm asking is that you consider
this as an idea that Chanhassen should look into. I talked with the Mayor
today and we talked about including it in on this questionnaire that you.
' would be sending out. And also perhaps if that doesn't work, to include it
in on the quarterly Chanhassen newsletter as more of an informational
segment and not asking the public to say yes or no...
Schroers: I have a question. Has your committee discussed putting
together kind of an overview of the plan that you briefly described to
include Bluff Creek golf course in with the Bluff Creek Watershed area and
approach the owners of Bluff Creek with that and see how they respond to
it? If that happened before your question and answer period, you would
know whether or not you would be looking at developing a new course or
purchasing an existing one.
Joan Ahrens: Well as a matter of fact we did talk about it. I talked to
the Mayor about approaching the owners of Bluff Creek. His feeling was,
and maybe you want to speak to that but his feeling was that the time
wasn't right to approach the owners. That he wanted the Council to approve
that kind of a move and to have more information before we, to at least
' have a statement from the Council that we are going to pursue this
seriously and therefore what do we do next? Do you approach the owners of
Bluff Creek? I think we have to do that but it's just a matter of timing
at this point I guess.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
March 24, 1992 -- Page 27
Schroers: Yeah, I think timing is critical. I think it's a pretty tender"
area and if you go in premature, people might say ah ha. The City wants
us. They want us bad. They're going to pay and that may encourage them toll
increase the cost.
Joan Ahrens: Well I think that's a legitimate concern...As far as I know
they haven't planned on marketing this property. They don't have anybody
actively pursuing purchasing it. We know what the market value is
according to the tax assessor. We know if they're over inflating the price
of it too so we have some figures on that on our side. But that is a '
legitimate concern. The timing when to approach them and I guess there's
never, I mean if the City decides they like this idea and perhaps want to
pursue construction of a new golf course, anybody they would approach would
be excited about selling to the city for a golf course. I mean I think we
can state that as a given but I think that with appraisals and other means
of discovering what the value of land is, I don't think we have to be too
concerned that we would have...
Hoffman: Joan, did you calculate off of that assessor's value...?
Joan Ahrens: No I didn't.
Andrews: Do you know what the taxes paid by the current owners are on that
property?
Joan Ahrens: They're not. much. Just a second, I have that. I have a lot
of information here.
Erickson: Joan, when they bought that for 125, that wasn't a golf course
yet was it? '
Joan Ahrens: Yes.
Erickson: It was? Okay. '
Joan Ahrens: $135,000.00. That's what they purchased it for. The deed
was recorded in 1985 but that was from a Contract for Deed that has been
executed some time ago and I assume it was probably in the late 70's. The
building is assessed at 1991 assessment is $16,700.00 and the land is
$646,800.00. In 1985 the land was only assessed at $345,000.00.
Erickson: What year?
Joan Ahrens: 1985. '
Pemrick: How much land is that? How many acres?
Joan Ahrens: Well, good question. I think it's about, I would say it's at
least 230 acres. I have a copy of a half section map showing, it doesn't
have the acreage on here but it shows the location of it.
Schroers: At this point you haven't discussed funding at all? Would you
be into letting a golf course developer develop it and handle the
financing?
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 28
II Joan Ahrens: Well you know, there's so many ways to go about financing and
I think a lot of it depends on whether or nor you're purchasing an existing
I course or building a new course. Some of the, and it seemed like almost
every community approached it differently. For instance North Mankato,
they sought a developer who would finance it and develop it. And they
arranged it so that the payments by the city would not start until the golf
II course was up and going and the green fees that they would be getting off
the golf course would pay completely for their financing.
I Schroers: It's like getting a golf course for nothing. It's not a bad
deal.
I Joan Ahrens: Well yeah, but not necessarily the city is also, he wasn't
able to tell me the financing on this but I assume it was revenue bonds
because they don't have any payments to make up front and they did not have
to go through a public referendum. The city is building on it's own the...
I Schroers: I see. And also that doesn't include the purchase of the
property I wouldn't imagine right?
I Joan Ahrens: Right. The City.
II Schroers: That's just the development of the course but the property had
to be acquired before.
Joan Ahrens: Right.. And some of the cities go and purchase it outright.
1 Other cities like Brooklyn Park, when they built Edenborough, a private
developer donated the land to the city for the golf course in exchange for
park fees and all sorts of other things.
1 Lash: Do you know what that's zoned down there right now?
Joan Ahrens: What?
II
Lash: That property.
II Joan Ahrens: Bluff Creek? I believe agricultural.
Lash: So say they were to sell it or they were to come in and wanted to
I develop it into homes, it would have to be rezoned.
Joan Ahrens: Rezoned, right.
II Lash: And the City is free to reject a proposal like that?
Joan Ahrens: They already did once.
1 Lash: I guess my question is, the point of it or the goal of it as I
understand it from the introduction is to preserve green space in
I Chanhassen. That people moved here for the open space. The green space.
And I think that Bluff Creek personally would be the way to go because then
we would be preserving the Bluff Creek area and that's something that this
Commission thinks is important, but if Bluff Creek is already a golf
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
March 24, 1992 -- Page 29
II course, it already is an open green space and so then why would we want to
spend the money to buy it when it's already there?
Joan Ahrens: I guess just because the city has turned down development of II
that golf course once doesn't mean that development can't happen again with
the right plan. And once the city owns it, the city owns it forever. And 11
the city is also purchasing it in the 1990's prices and if they end up
purchasing it 20 years from now, who knows what the prices will be. I mean
for the right price people will sell. Even if these guys love managing
their golf course. And I guess that somehow, some way once development
moves out that direction, there would be some way of developing that golf
course. As it stands now, with no sewer and water out there any anything
else, it would be tough. And I don't know if it was because, actually the i
city has all those records and it would be interesting to go through them
all. The file's about this thick. Kate Aanenson, who's a planner, has all
those files and I think she's gone through them. If you had questions, I
I would talk to her about it.
Andrews: I personally support the idea of a feasibility study. I mean
looking at this case study of Brookview and my opposition to this last year'
was based upon the fact that this might be a mine loser to the city. Then
they come up with about $300,000.00, I just did some quick calculations. If
you're talking a million dollar purchase plus maybe a quarter million to
put up a nice clubhouse or a decent clubhouse and some depreciation expense
and extra expense, there apprears to still be room for a cashflow there
that would be positive. •
Joan Ahrens: Well I haven't found and I know Brian and Richard Wing have II
also looked, nobody can find a golf course that's losing money. I mean
they seem to be money makers for these cities and a lot of the cities we
talked to, like Burnsville, they want to build more. Edina wants to build II
more. North Mankato bought extra land so they could develop another one.
They seem to, every single one of them seems to be making money.
I
Andrews: I guess my comment I want to make about that is the accounting
methods used by a city are much different than a business. Like these
examples, there is no accounting for the debt service or depreciation.
It's basically how much money did you take in. How much do you have to pay
for wages. Everything after that is profit and that's not profit in the
real world.
I
Joan Ahrens: Well, the only reason those items were left out of the net
profit figures is for purposes of comparison. Because some of the golf II courses had already paid off their debt service and some of them hadn't.
So they were just not used in the calculations for purposes of comparison.
Andrews: But it does appear that it'd be very possible this could be a
positive cash flow item. I guess if you look at spending $5,000.00 bucks
to know for sure, I think that could be a good idea.
Schroers: The organization that I work for has two golf courses and they II
are money makers. They make money. They don't hold their own. They make
money.
II
1
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 -- Page 30
.loan Ahrens: I think what's neat about these cities is that a lot of them
II are using the club houses for other recreational purposes. They're using
the golf courses for cross country skiing in the winter. Building trails
around them. They're using the club houses for, Brookview as a matter of
fact has relocated their entire Park and Rec Department over to the golf
II
course. They use it for all sort's of community events. Also for the focal
point for the community and I think if residents knew that their golf
courses were losing money no matter how nice the club house. No matter how
I nice the facility, you wouldn't see cities developing them. 1 mean
citizens are smarter than that.
Schroers: It seems only right that the golf course is provided for
II recreation and that revenue earned and generated from that could be
channeled back into the park and recreation department to acquire
additional park space and development into the city. That might be a good
II way of acquiring funds for the Park and Rec Commission.
Joan Ahrens. It's been done.
1 Lash: We'd all be in favor of that.
I Joan Ahrens: Well there's not a lot of money in a lot of city budgets
anymore for park and rec. I know Brooklyn Park too has been putting a lot
of their money back into their.
II Schroers: See that's the problem that we have right now. When you come to
us talking about a golf course, what we're talking about is a purchase of a
large chunk of land and that is what we currently have great difficulty
II with in the Park and Rec. If we don't get it through the dedication
process, we can't afford to go out and buy a chunk of land.
Joan Ahrens: Well I understand that. I think that there's so many ways
II though to get these things off the ground that I think the City maybe
should just look at those options. You know this isn't...the city has to
make any decision on whether or not they want to go with that just because
I they investigate it but as you know, the way development has gone through
the western suburbs, if something isn't looked at in advance, you never get
it. So it's a planning process. And even if this was moving full speed
I ahead at this point, we'd still be in the planning stages probably 4 years
from now. You know it's a long process but you have to get started at some
point and that's what planning is all about.
1 Erickson: I guess one of my thoughts is, if one of the primary goals is
to, at this point is to retain green open space, which I think is a very
good goal, having that green open space in a more visible area would make
I more sense to me than Bluff Creek. Though that's a real nice area, it's
kind of where nobody ever really sees it or knows it. Certainly you can
always go there and enjoy it but you know like Lake Ann Park being right on
II the main drag there. You drive by that and it's green and it's open and
you can enjoy that. Maybe every day you don't look at it but you just
think, that's very nice having it right there centrally located. You can
see it. Having something more, a more central location or something where
II more people would maybe even notice the green openness, I think that would
be better. I guess what I'm talking about is acquiring new land or
II
•
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 31
different land than the golf course that is already there. I understand
the concerns with financing and all of that but I think if one of the goals'
is to have green open space that everybody would enjoy, I think more
centrally located. Maybe once 212 gets through there and some of that,
maybe someplace where more people will see it every day. It's just a
consideration.
Joan Ahrens: I think it would be great to have a golf course on the
Eckankar property. 1
Erickson: Nice club house.
Joan Ahrens: That's right. You could have an indoor practice range in
there too. But I talked to Kate about locating possible sites and she
could only, at this point, if you can believe this. I mean we think we
have all this open space around us. She could come up with one possible
site for a golf course. Down by the river. It surprised me. I thought we
are hardly even approaching being over developed here and she could only
find one site. That's another thing I think that kind of made us nervous. 1
We thought boy, this has got to get off the ground, At least the
investigation of it at some point or we may lose all opportunity to even
discuss it.
Lash: Randy, last spring some of us went down to Bluff Creek and went
through the golf course and down into that area and we really set that as 1
one of our goals to try to somehow acquire that to control it to preserve
it in it's natural state. And this would certainly be an avenue for us to
explore to achieve that goal. It was just a beautiful site and we have not
been able to come up with any way other than this option for us to reach
that goal.
Erickson: I guess the fact that there's only one other site kind of puts
it in a new light too. I've got this little map in front of me here and
it's got all this open light space but if a lot of that's already spoken
for, I think the corner of the TH 5 and CR 17 is going to be pretty hard to 1
acquire.
Schroers: Well that depends on how it's zoned too. What does the zoning
have to be to accommodate a golf course?
Joan Ahrens: It's also the appropriate land. Physically. What land would
accommodate a golf course. But if I'm getting the correct information from
the Planning Department, which I assume I am, we are going to be very busy
with planning proposals in the next 6 to 9 months.
Schroers: What is it actually that you would like from us at this point?
I don't think that you would find anyone sitting here that's opposed to the
idea of having a golf course.
Andrews: Can we make a motion that we support a feasibility study? 1
Koubsky: I think I just even support the idea. I play golf. I've always 1
played municipal courses. Private owned courses are nice but they're only
private for a number of years. Or open to the public for a number of years
1
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 32
1
and then they turn private. We'll lose Deer Run in 4 years. They've lost
Edenvale. It's a thing you like to open up to free enterprise but free
enterprise becomes private. That's the nature of the beast. Joan I
support your efforts here. It's refreshing to know that the city is
looking into it. I think it's a nice area. I think it adds a lot and it
' solves a lot of problems. It does take up some open space that addresses
that issue. It is potential revenue source that may come back to park and
recreation. We're not on, we don't get tax monies. I think the community,
' I think the city would probably take better care of it than it's currently
being taken care of and like you say, as places go out there, it's a long
process. These buys bought that for $125,000.00 and now it's $700,000.00.
We're going to lose the window. It seems expensive. You know a million
' dollars seems expensive to everybody here but you look at what other
communities are doing and million dollar referendums aren't much. I don't
say we have to do a referendum for this but a million dollars isn't that
' much today. You know lots, we were just talking about that Jim, now
they're $40,000.00 to build a house. These guys had a golf course for
$125,000.00. I just support your efforts. I haven't attended any of your
' meetings. I told Tom I would be at a few and didn't make it.
Joan Ahrens: Well I'd welcome anybody who's interested in this idea to
' join us because we would, we need all the input frankly we can get. We
don't have an organized schedule of meetings. We have been meeting an hour
prior to the Planning Commission meeting because that's the only time we
seem to find a hour of time but certainly we would like to start a regular
schedule of meetings and I encourage anybody who's interested, give me a
call.
' Schroers: How about notifying staff. Yeah, let Todd know so that we know
when the meetings are.
Joan Ahrens: Sure.
Andrews: I. would like to make a motion about the feasibility study.
Lash: I don't know if that's something this commission, I don't know.
Andrews: We're not going to pay for it. Just that we recommend it to the
I Council. That we'd like to see them do that. I think it helps to.
Lash: Is that what you're looking for? Or are you just looking for us to
support your investigation?
I Joan Ahrens: Well I was hoping that you would also want to amend your
' section of the Comprehensive Plan to include the study area for a golf
I course. After that, it's kind of up to you as to what you want to do. I
don't know if you need to do anything more than to let the Council know
that you're in support of this idea.
1 Andrews: I think a motion is stronger than just talking about it.
Lash: I think we already did discuss putting that on the survey. Is that
II what you're talking about, the survey?
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 33
Schroers: No. To amend the Comprehensive Plan to include that and if we
made a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the golf course,
that would certainly be clueing the City Council in that we were supporting
that idea.
Andrews: We'd have to have hearings for that wouldn't we? ...okay. I'm II
not ready to support that that quickly. 1 mean I think the feasibility
study is first. Before 1 would say let's designate this as a municipal
golf course zoning area, 1 would want to get more information about the
feasibility.
Lash: We wouldn't have to designate a site. We would just have to put in I
the verbage.
Hoffman: Obviously that white region as Randy stated, it would be the
location for a study area. 1 briefly talked to Kate. There is probably
one real nice location for a golf course but many communities deal with
trying to squeeze in another one. Look at the Minnetonka issue. So there
probably are other potential sites which could be looked at which are less '
than ideal but would certainly accommodate a golf course. Amending the
comprehensive plan is very easy to do but we do need to include with that
some explanation as to what this golf course area is. What it's trying to
accomplish. So prior to doing that it would be helpful to have clear
direction on where the city is headed in that regard.
Schroers: It seems to me that since we don't really have anything organized"
and we're not off the ground with this, we would be premature in making a
formal motion or recommendation regarding this issue right now. But 1
think that we would certainly like to be kept informed of any progress and
MI meeting dates and I think it's something that we're very receptive to
and we'd like to see and help if we can move ahead with it.
Lash: And possibly Todd can come back to us on a future night with some
ideas of amending the comprehensive plan.
Hoffman: Sure. As well 1 think it is vitally important that if this
committee now gains some momentum, that this commission, if one or two
people do not volunteer, that we try to encourage some folks to get onto
that, take a position on that commission. Obviously if this thing comes
down the pike, it's going to fall right into the laps of park and
recreation and the operation taken over by the city. We'll be talking
additional staff and all those types of issues will be certainly addressed
by the Park and Recreation Commission so if you feel so inclined, to jump
on the band wagon, I would encourage you to do so in pretty strong fashion.
We can only ride the issue so long if we're going to look into it.
Obviously if we're going to take the time to look into it, there's a
possibility that a course will be acquired by the city and people will
start to recognize that. I think it's important for the Park Commission to
become involved.
Joan Ahrens: We will be making a presentation to the City Council, a
formal presentation and it would be nice if we had somebody, 1 or 2 or 3 or
however many people from your commission, to be involved in that
presentation.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 34
Schroers: What nights do you generally have your Planning meetings?
Joan Ahrens: Wednesdays. They're the first and third Wednesday of every
month.
1 Schroers: And you usually meet an hour prior to both of them?
Joan Ahrens: No. No, we haven't had that many meetings. We've only had
' about 3 or 4 meetings and we've had a lot of phone calls back and forth
because the adhoc committee has been so small that hasn't been a problem.
But the only reason we're meeting those 3 or 4 times...was because Brian
' and I are the majority of the committee and we're at the Planning
Commission so. It's not like those meetings, times and dates are written
in stone. Certainly if when we start expanding this committee, we're going
to have to consider a lot of schedules... I know the last thing you want
' to'do is become involved in more meetings but I think I agree, the Park and
Rec does need to be involved in it.
' Erickson: Are you looking for just regular Chanhassen residents to be on
the committee also?
Joan Ahrens: ...we talked about this also. Eventually we would like to
have community leaders...once we have something to do. At this point we
need the city to say, yes or no. Otherwise we're spinning our wheels
needlessly.
1 Koubsky: So are we looking for the City to authorize some funding for the
feasibility study?
Joan Ahrens: Eventually that will have to be done. We can't do it on our
own.
I Andrews: I guess I keep trying to make a motion. I would like to at least
have our commission verbally support via a motion that we agree that a
feasibility study is necessary so that can come back to Council so
I something will happen. I feel like we all are agreeing but were not
taking any action whatsoever. I think it would be helpful to your cause if
we did.
I Joan Ahrens: I don't think you're putting yourselves on the limb or
committing yourselves to anything by stating that.
I Andrews: I'm not saying we're going to pay for it. I'm just saying we
support the idea of a golf course and we'd like to see more information and
I think a feasibility study is the next step.
I Joan Ahrens: I agree.
Andrews: I move that the Park Board, that we support or recommend that a
feasibility study be funded by City Council regarding a golf course.
Koubsky: Second.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 35
Erickson: If we could do it to amend it to the point saying that we wish
to show our support for the Planning Commission by asking or by supporting I
the idea of a feasibility study. Get both of it in there so there's no
question.
Andrews: Sure. '
Schroers: Okay. And second okay?
Koubsky: Yeah that's fine.
Andrews moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to City Council to authorize funding of a feasibility study for a
municipal golf course as presented by the Planning Commission. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Joan Ahrens: Does anyone want to volunteer now?
Schroers: That was going to be my next question.
Koubsky: Why don't you call me Joan.
Joan Ahrens: Okay, one volunteer.
Andrews: If you meet at Brian's house I'll come. He's down the block from'
me.
Schroers: You can call me also.
Joan Ahrens: Brian's out of town but I suppose I could volunteer for him 111
now. He's not here. Anybody else want to be called about the next
meeting?
Hoffman: Maple Grove also conducted a, as it's called in here, a case
study feasibility study and I have some of that information includes some
of these golf courses but it has others as well. Some of the comparisons
• showed their entire debt in that and they still broke even or made out
better and as Jim and everybody recognizes, there's a myriad of ways which
they showed how well their golf course did but certainly none of them were I
struggling.
Schroers: On our survey anywhere does it ask anything about a golf course?
I don't remember.
Hoffman: That's the question.
Koubsky: Put on number 4.
Schroers: We did add it right? So we did that before you even came
tonight.
Joan Ahrens: Oh you did?
Schroers: We added it into our survey.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 36
Hoffman: Well we had talked about it. We wanted to find out the consensus
' of this discussion.
Joan Ahrens: Well thank you for your time.
11 WORKSHOP, PARK IMPROVEMENT BOND ISSUES.
' Schroers: So now we're up to item 8 on the agenda. It's the workshop and
park improvement bond issues.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners. This item goes hand
' and hand with the recreational needs survey. Obviously any issues raised
in there would be items which we are considering or would be considering
putting on a referendum. As noted, the City of Eden Prairie recently, last
' Tuesday, St. Patrick's Day, passed their 4 1/2 million dollar bond issue.
The vote counted there to provide some information for comparison of when
and potentially when you should not present a park issue. Ours have, the
last few or at least one of the last two and maybe both of them were during
the general election. One of them at least was during the Presidential
election as we have coming this fall. As discussed with the City Manager
' and Mayor Chmiel who was present here this evening, potentially, first of
all we don't have the timeframe to do it. And it becomes a hot potato in
the arena for the folks running for City Council and it becomes a
cumbersome issue. People have to choose sides and it's really better off
' left alone potentially and brought up in the spring of 1993. Then we have
the issue of District 112 park bond. Do you want to be bringing these
things back to back? Do you want to push this thing off 2 years? What
' type of time frame do you think is necessary in order to bring some of
these improvements on line?
' (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Hoffman: ...past commission meetings. We promised you some numbers on
resident use as far as adult softball and youth athletics. The handout
' which was placed at your counter earlier was collected that information was
collected by Jerry and I'll give Jerry just a few minutes to highlight what
our numbers are for the 1992 season and potentially where we're going from
' here.
Ruegemer: Thank you Todd. Specifically, we'll just go over this real
briefly. Looking at the whole league, we are down currently in the
' industrial league but I think that's due to some of the recent economy.
Some of the local industries did, I have heard through the grapevine, have
laid off a number of people such as UMI and Rosemount and some of those but
' last year we were at 20 teams and that was pushing capacity with the
facilities that we do have. Tuesday night is, we do have room in that area
and we finally growing in numbers for the Women's League which is
' encouraging. And the Over 35 we're really at full capacity right now as
far as the four softball fields that we are using at Lake Ann currently.
That would accommodate up to 6 teams so we're almost pretty close to
capacity on that night. Thursday night was a shock to our department with
' the Men's Open League. Last year in 1991 we had 18 teams total. This year
we had 26 teams show interest in playing in those leagues. What that means
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 37
is that we will be having to be using Field #1 which has really been used
primarily last season as a baseball field. So we will be taking a night
away from the AAU Legion program, baseball program to accommodate the
additional teams for Thursday night. Also we will have to spill into
Friday nights...a the 26 teams. So that's an area which we couldll
use additional fields really for that area and projecting in the future and
seeing an increase in that in the next couple of years also. And Friday
nights, currently this is, when 1 wrote this memo we were at 13. Now we're"
at 14 teams for the Co -Rec so we would be using all the Lake Ann fields
that night with Co -Rec and the Mens Open trickling into Friday night. So
we really have seen a significant growth from last year. We're up roughly
8 to 10 teams from last year. So we are pushing capacity with our softball'
leagues right now as far as the facilities that we do have at Lake Ann.
...increase and since it did dedicate Field #2 at Lake Ann as a Little
League field, we did lose a field right there so we increased our youth '
Little League which was greatly needed but we suffered in our adult
program. So we'll have to take a look at that. CAA approximately has 400
kids registered to date and they're still taking registration for that I
program. As you can see T -ball added 2 new teams and really looking into
the near future, that program is going to grow and the younger programs are
going to grow significantly with all that. For example Lake Susan areas.
There's many young people down in that area and other areas of Chanhassen. '
So we're in need of youth areas also. And currently the ragball has 100
kids. Pee wee has 75 kids. 2nd and 3rd grade softball is a new program
this year. That has 50 kids currently registered. 12 and under softball
has 45 kids so we're constantly from year to year growing in numbers and
number of teams in the youth programs. And we can only see constant growth
in the next 3 to 5 years or in the near future. South Tonka Little League
is servicing from year to year a higher percentage of Chanhassen kids. As
you can see, it's roughly 45% of the kids of that program are kids of .
Chanhassen so they'll be primarily be using Lake Ann Field #2 for at least
half their games the way it sounds this year so some of the 10, 11, 12 year
old kids will not have to go over to Excelsior, Shorewood, Minnetonka area
for their games. Now they will have at least half of those games at Lake
Ann this year which will make the parents of the Chanhassen kids very I
happy. And they will also be using the North Lotus field 2 nights a week
to accommodate some of the overflow. The AAU program is also growing.
They added one team in the 13 year old league this year which is the South •
Tonka program is the feeder program into the AAU program so it's just a
progressive. As they grow year to year, they just go from AAU, 13, 14, 15
and then into a 16 or older AAU program and then into the Legion program so
it's just going to be a constant feeder program from the time they start toll
the time they reach Legion. The Legion program if that's possible. 14 and
15 year olds age catagory will also have three teams this year and you will
be adding a brand new 16 year old. There's enough interest in the 16 year
old team this year so they will be having probably 15 or 16 kids play in
that age catagory. And that's taking away Field #1 on Thursday nights and
possibly Field #1 on Monday nights for adult softball. That puts an
additional strain on their program. As they continue to grow, they will
also be needing facilities for their program. Currently they will be using
Lake Susan extensively. The Legion field over on the TH 5 and TH 101 and
also Lake Ann Field #1 when that is available and also Freeman Field. Even'
with those 4 fields there are still somewhat in a facility crunch and
trying to accommodate all the upcoming teams. And then we get to the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 38
I
soccer program. They still have 3 weeks to go on their program. They're
already up roughly 55 kids from last year in that program and with Lake Ann
being in pretty decent shape this year, a lot better shape than it was last
year, they're going to be using that probably 5 nights a week and also
using Meadow Green and North Lotus for soccer games and the overflow I
think will go down to the track area down at the high school area. And
they will also be using City Center Park on odd days from the Atheltic
Association. So there's a number of fields and as we get older, as the
kids start growing up from the younger programs, they will be in need of
some larger fields. Some of the younger kids can be accommodated in
smaller fields than what we presently have to accommodate them but looking
to the future, we're in dire need of full ':.ized fields.
Schroers: Jerry, are we obligated to accommodate every team that wants to
join the league?
Ruegemer: As far as softball?
I Schroers: I mean is there a limit? Can we just say, when you say it's
putting a strain on the existing facilities, I mean that is also a strain
on you being able to schedule properly and at some point in time I would
think that it would infringe on the rest of the program and a lot of
shuffling around. One week you're playing on one night and the next week
you're playing on the next night and that sort of thing and we could tend
to deteriorate our program by stressing it too much. I mean is there a cut
I off point? Is there a point that we get to where we say hey, we are taking
no more teams?
I Hoffman: That would be a policy statement which would be developed by the
Commission.
Lash: That was kind of my question too and it didn't appear that there was
' a problem with any of them except for the Mens Open League which had the
big increase. And if that's gotten to the point where it is stretching the
system so badly that it is now taking away from AAU time, to me it's at
capacity. It's over capacity and we should have turned some teams away
because it's now affecting another league. And that's not fair to them.
That's not fair to AAU to say well we have a lot of teams in the Open
League who want to play so you guys aren't going to get as much play time
this year.
Hoffman: Jerry did go ahead and schedule a field concern, field scheduling
I meeting with all representatives of these groups and AAU does have an
alternate time slot. Alternate fields to go ahead and use.
Lash: But this is going to start happening more and more and more and we
maybe need to look at that now before it starts happening a lot and figure
out what is capacity and when we're going to draw the line and say.
Schroers: That's what I think. We don't want to exceed to the point where
our progr,5m hegi_n° s r we're starting to go backwards.
Lash: Or that other parts of the program are having to sacrifice.
I
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 39
Andrews: My concern is can these fields stand the stomping and traffic
they're going to get or are we going to end up with a bunch of dead grass I
fields that are going to be totally unuseable by the end of the summer? I
know that's dependent on weather but it seems like these fields are all
getting 3 games a night, 7 days a week and I don't know if they can stand I
that kind of use and be coming up to recover. I think we have an
obligation to the city, as trustees of the park system, that I think our
first job is to preserve the assets that we have and then provide as much
reasonable use as we can but I don't think the obligation is to destroy the
property so we cam L, - vial ;:l ogram i Or everybody that comes to us.
Hoffman: But the folks who get turned away will certainly argue that you II have an obligation to provide recreation for them. They paid just as much
money. They are a citizen as well. How do you make that delineation? Do
you pull teams out of a hat and say you played last year so you play this
year? Do you say, you played last year so you don't get to play this
year ?' Many cities that those defined policy statements. It would probably
behoove us to go ahead and look at this this summer so we have.
Andrews: For next year. There's no doubt about it.
Erickson: Did some of the increased numbers come from players on multiple
teams?
Ruegemer: For the Open?
Erickson: For the Mens Open League.
Ruegemer: They can't play on two different teams on the same night.
Lash: What is the requirement for the Open League? I don't even know what
that is. 1
Ruegemer: If you work or live in Chanhassen, then you can have 4 non-
residents on the roster.
Schroers: And you've got to be young and fast.
Lash: Well why do you think there was such an increase in that league? '
Ruegemer: Some of the teams, maybe 2 are from industrial teams from last
year. Or not industrial teams from last year but some of the, not less
established but like Dexter's is one of the teams. They don't have enough I
people employed at their plant to put a team in the industrial league.
They might have 20 employees. Half of those may be men. Maybe women and
they can't accommodate an industrial team so then they go into the Men
Open because they can have the 4 non - residents on that roster.
Hoffman: Young males are the population that play the most softball.
Koubsky: Most have got new neighborhoods you know that are getting
organized and starting teams. Just a sign of population. Are we
1 sacrificing any of the Legion fields for softball?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 -- Page 40
1
Ruegemer: No.
' Koubsky: That would be a concern of mine.
Lash: Of course you can always go back to the crackdown on the non-
residents thing which you know, I feel like before one Chan resident gets
turned away from playing, all the non - residents should be turned away.
' Koubsky: Any other cities do that though?
Ruegemer: Eden Prairie resident.
Hoffman: One of the first things that I did when I became employed with
the city was to go through and attempt to promote a non - resident policy.
To date it's been the most heated meetings that I've ever been involved in.
The only meetings where we had to have a Sheriff available at the Council
chambers for Park Commission or City Council meetings. You cannot believe
the debate that that generates. Getting it down to the 4 non-residents was
I . a victory and a fairly large one at that.
Lash: And that was like right before I started so Larry's the only one
' left here who was here.
Schroers: We've been through all that but the real problem that you get in
there is on the team that I have been playing on, there are 4 guys who grew
' up in Chanhassen. Went to school in Chanhassen. Their parents still live
in Chanhassen. Their families have been paying taxes here for 30 years but
they happen to live in Bloomington and Minnetonka. Now if you're going to
' tell those people that they can't play ball here, you're going to have a
problem. You're going to have their whole relatives up here.
Lash: Well, their relatives could play. If they want to play, then they
can come. You know they can pay taxes here. They don't have t live here.
But if there's one taxpayer in this city, when we get to the point where
we're stretched and there's one person who lives here and pays taxes and we
have to say to that person, I'm sorry you can't play on these fields.
They've got a real legitimate gripe if there's 4 non - residents on every
team. People who are not paying taxes for the fields. It's legitimate.
' Hoffman: What you're saying then as part of his policy statement, you
would like to include no non - residents.
' Lash: Maybe it can be, you're going to have to start now. We're saying
we're at the limit right now. From now on, if you're a non - resident, you
can be grandfathered in but no more non- residents.
' Schroers: No, we've got that.
Lash: But they can still have 4. Can they bring in a new non - resident?
If one of their non - residents leaves, can they bring in a new non- - resident?
Hoffman: Sure. The tracking of that is simply a nightmare, if you have a
policy or not.
and Rec Commission Meeting
Park g
March 24, 1992 - Page 41
Andrews: Just raise their prices.
Koubsky: Does staff have a handle on how many teams the system can ,
handle? I know you presented us here with some numbers and we see that
it's increasing. The numbers speak for themselves and that's why we're I
discussing a bond issue and what not. I guess I'd like some staff opinion
maybe. You know here you've given us some data. What does the data mean
to you? Do we have to limit things next year and if so, by how many teams?
How many, we see the CAA going up. I'm assuming it's going up. That's
going to put more stress on the AAU. Maybe out of this thing we can
develop some short and long range goals. If we need to cut teams, what are
our options? Maybe we have to reach in the hat and put in another
ballfield or maybe we have to cut teams. How does staff, Jerry, you're
real close to this. What do these things say to you? You know we've put
them together. Now I think the next step is what do they mean and what are
some short and long term goals? And if we have to cut teams, then we can
decide okay, do we cut teams or do we cut non- - -residents? We can be faced
with that. If it's two teams, then we kno w a number about and we can
figure out options.
1
Ruegemer: I guess I did map out something here. If AAU is the concern you
know as far as not using, just letting them exclusively use Field #1 on a
given night. With the fields that we do have we can accommodate 16 teams.
Lash: In each league?
Ruegemer: On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
Koubsky: AAU, are those grass fields? '
Ruegemer: Grass infields.
Hoffman: Not necessarily. They could be. 1
Ruegemer: Lake Ann isn't. Or the Legion.
Lash: So maybe that's what we need to do. Establish a 16 team limit per II
league.
Andrews: But it's too late for this year I assume.
Koubsky: But this year raised some issues.
Lash: But then what are we going to do next year when the Open League
already has 26 teams and we're going to have to say to them, 10 of you are
not going to be able to play. '
Ruegemer: The first 16 people to get their money in I guess.
Andrews: The top 16 bidders. 1
Koubsky: I think we have to figure that out before registration time next
year. •
1/ Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 42
Hoffman: Well certainly. It may be short sighted again to say just simply
16. We had 26 this year. We were successful in negotiating with all
representatives of all athletic associations and leagues, a compromise
situation to go ahead and utilize our fields. We certainly can put some
parameters, bring back some recommendations for parameters. You're going
' to have to struggle with the residency clause. Chaska is going through
that process again right now as many communities have. But again it's been
5 years. The first 2 years we scraped for teams you know. We went out
' there beating the bushes for teams and now 3 years later, we're going whoa,
hang on. We don't need anymore so if it took us 3 years to get to that
point, 1 would have to say in 3 years we're going to be, if we don't add
any new fields, we're going to be in a crisis point. Then it's going to
become very uncomfortable again for us. We're going to have to enter into .
those situations of turning away non - residents. Turning away the
established softball association as it acts and'lives and breathes in
' Chanhassen today, which I cannot over emphasize the volatility of that
question.
Schroers: We definitely do not want to time that into in any way impact on
any referendums that we have going or we're going to be seen in a very
negative image at that point in time. 1 agree with you. 1 don't think
that we should be turning away residents but I think we may have to come up
' with some more of a creative solution. Does the open league also have the
grandfather clause? Why do they need it?
' Hoffman: Why?
Schroers: Why does the open league need it? They're not old enough to
' have people that have played in that league that long for the most part.
Ruegemer: Some still do though. Some of the teams are still the same but
for the most part they're newer teams. 1 think wasn't the policy
II consistent?
Schroers: Those new teams, they sure don't need a grandfather clause.
Lash: Any new team that signs on, should have no.
Hoffman: They have up to 4.
' Ruegemer: Right. Any new team doesn't have anything to do with the
grandfather clause.
' Lash: So if you're a brand new team coming, you can't have 4 non- -
residents?
Ruegemer: Yeah. You still can, but you can't be grandfathered.
Lash: Okay, but couldn't we say any new teams would have to be all
residents?
Schroers: 1 think we could do that. 1 mean 1 don't see why a new team has
to have a grandfather clause. That doesn't make any sense at all.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 43
Hoffman: That was part of the negotiation, the agreement last time around.
Lash: Part of the problem last time. I wasn't here but I heard about it II
quite a bit. The meeting. If we ever do have to get into that issue, and
I know its hot, is we would have to as a commission and staff sit down and"
come up with some guidelines to keep some control in there. We'd have to
be pretty well unified to start with and as far as I'm concerned at a
Chanhassen public hearing, non - residents would have no reason in the world
to be allowed to speak. Their input to us would mean nothing. '
Schroers: There was standing room only and I don't know how many times we
were told how stupid we were that night.
Lash: By non - residents. It's mostly non - residents that are hot about it
and the big issue back then was Shorewood didn't have any fields. Okay,
Shorewood's gotten their fields now. They're working on them now. They're!!
supposed to be, I just read in the paper, they're supposed to be up for
play this year. Okay.
Andrews: Why don't we table this until like August when we know how the
fields survived this summer without being trampled to death. My biggest
concern is if we have a drought summer, we're going to have nothing left
for fields at the end of the season.
Hoffman: We went through those two drought years and I mean the fields
turned into slick, dead grass. Hard packed concrete almost and they've
survived.
Schroers: It does the same thing it does in the wintertime. It just kind 1
of goes dormant and then it comes back.
Lash: And just for your information for the kids stuff. I was at
kindergarten round -up last Thursday night. We had record registration f.or
next year. Last year at round -up we had 187 registrations. This last
Thursday we had 300 and Dr. Clough spoke and said this year the graduating
class has 265, roughly seniors. There's 430 kindergartners this year and
by 1995 they're anticipating 600 kindergartners. So figure the increase.
Erickson: District wide they're figuring in 5 years in excess of 5,000.
more people. 5,000 more students.
Pemrick: How many kindergartners this year?
Lash: 430.
Pemrick: And how many next year?
Lash: Well we don't know for sure yet. We had 300 registrations last
Thursday night.
Pemrick: And you're right now though at that center, you're doing 430?
Lash: We have 408 and there's 20 some...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 -- Page 44
I
Andrews: I'd like to see us bring this back like August. Like a graph or
a sheet showing what our capacity per...and then let's get this capacity
issue decided long before spring starts so that its no surprise to these
people. Deal with it then.
' Koubsky: Possibly before August too or whatever fits your schedule. I
think the sooner we bring this up and discuss it.
Andrews: I'd like to get into the season enough though. Of course the
spring season will be over by then but just to see how at this point, how
it worked.
Lash: And maybe we'll know that this is the capacity. Maybe we'll know we
can accommodate 26 teams but maybe no more.
Hoffman: It's always a balancing act. I think we do need to switch gears
just to get back to the issue of our bond issue. Potential bond issue.
Just in brief to hear some comments from the Commission on your thoughts on
timing for this type of issue. Obviously we haven't gathered all the
information. We're beginning to do that. It's important that we start
taking a look at step by step approach. The article which is attached
there, you may have noticed in one of the past, last February's edition of
the Park and Recreation magazine, it goes through some steps which this
particular park district used to promote and pass their bond referendum...
would certainly be helpful.
I Koubsky: I have a thought. I think the sooner we can ask for this thing,
the better. Regardless of political or elections. I think everybody's
I property taxes went up. You know we just received those. Jan says our
school population's doubling. All I see is new schools and taxes so that's
all I see for the future is property taxes are just going to go up and up.
The City's doing a good job of holding it's own. You know that was noticed
in the statement but if we miss an opportunity now to ask for it, we're
going to get tied up in other referendums and people are just seeing their
property taxes go up and they're going to have to call a stop to it
somewhere and I'd hate to have Bandimere be the stop.
Schroer:: As soon as we get the information back off the surveys and get
things calculated and know what we should be asking for.
Lash: Yeah, I really think we need to wait and find out what the surveys
I say.
Koubsky: Oh 1 agree. I agree. But I think the survey should be pushed
up. May would be good. I think the faster we can move it along.
Lash: But in your memo you're saying that Mayor Chmiel and the City
Manager are saying that fall is premature.
Andrews: I think Spring of '93 makes sense.
Lash: But that's when the school one is coming too.
Andrews: You don't know that.
I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 45
Hoffman: -They're certainly pushing hard for it.
Lash: I'm surprised it isn't going to be in the fall. I'm surprised.
Hoffman: It will be in February.
Koubsky: How much are they asking?
Hoffman: I have no idea. They have a study pack for remodeling and 1
reonstruction of all facilities. All school district facilities.
Andrews: There are large parts of Chanhassen which aren't in Chaska school"
district so.
Lash: Yeah, that's true.
Hoffman: About half.
Andrews: I guess I feel this fall is pushing it to try to develop a plan
of what we want to accomplish when it's going to cost to get a bond, some
momentum behind the bond issue so we can get it passed. I really doubt we
• can come up with a good plan and get it cost to get some good ideas.
Hoffman: Yeah, if it was going to be fall, it should be out in the minds
of folks right now.
Schroers: How about shooting for like January or February and just getting
in under the wire before the 1993 spring?
Hoffman: It has influence each way. I mean if you put it before the
school issue, people are going to say well we've got that school issue
coming up and I'm not going to vote yet for this one. And then if the
school issue fails and we bring up a miniscual park issue compared to that,'
they're going to say well this is an easy one. We'll go for this one and
let the school bring their's back. So there's a variety of different ways
it could go.
Lash: Tough spot isn't it Fred.
Hoffman: Fred can talk to that regard. I think this is all that needs to I
be accomplished Larry. We'll get the survey out and continue to plug away
at a particular portion of this referendum process at each subsequent
meeting or every other and get ready to knock this thing off.
Schroers: Okay. So with that we'll conclude the discussion workshop for
the Park Improvement Bond Issue for this evening. We will be seeing it
again and move right on to item 9. We have another discussion on Cathcart
Park.
DISCUSSION, CATHCART PARK. 1
Hoffman: Thank you Larry. This issue as I briefly mentioned, has been
brought to us by the City of Shorewood. You have a map in there which
- shows some potential improvements. Essentially it's the park master plan.
1
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 46
1
You all recognize one which the City of Shorewood had developed as part of
I their referendum process which they're going through. But then they
questioned it. They said do we want to stick the kind of dollars which are
tabulated on the back of the handout which had Jerry's information on it.
Do we want to spend $163,000.00 in CIP improvements in Cathcart Park which
II
is in the city of Chanhassen when we have Freeman Field just right up the
street. And then they started questioning themselves. Maybe we should
hand this thing over to the city of Chanhassen. Maybe they'd have some
I interest. What are the possibilities of what we could do with this
property? A little background. I think it was 18 years ago, the church
sold this to the city of Shorewood for $10,000.00 because they needed the
' money to establish their church on the north side which is in Shorewood.
So they didn't want to sell it to Chanhassen because they were in Shorewood
so that's the deal that was cut. So the City of Shorewood owns this
parcel...city of Chanhassen. It serves a very small portion of Chanhassen
I if you take into account what State Highway 7 does to the service area. It
essentially cuts it off. There certainly are people that drive to the park
to use it. But its a small service area so there's things to consider on
I what type of position you want to take. We can push it back to the City of
Shorewood and say, filter this thing through and you're right it's not our
problem but they may sell it back to the church for the church to build a
I larger facility there. Then we would need to answer to our residents in
losing that facility since we did have the opportunity. But if you
consider this piece of property carne in for development and we would review
it today, you would probably say well, it is isolated by TH 7 but they can
II get on that trail. They can get up to Freeman Field. You know we don't
need a park there. So another tough thing to crack.
I Andrews. So what exactly is Shorewood asking us to do? Do we want to buy
this or is this sort of a point of information?
Hoffman: Just a point of information. They have outright asked us if we
II
could like to take the park. I'm not sure if that includes payment back to
them but it certainly includes then an obligation to include this park in
our system and schedule it into our CIP and our maintenance budget, etc.,
II etc..
Lash: ...city of Chanhassen?
II Hoffman: Potentially.
Lash`. If they're willing to give it to us.
I Schroers: Yeah, I think we need a little more of a precise indication of
what they're actually proposing. If they want to give this park to us, we
I want it. There is no doubt about it. We want it. But that would be one
way of somewhat appeasing the Lake Minnewashta people even though it's not
ideally and centrally located in the western Lake Minnewashta area. It is
I a parcel of park property out in that general vicinity.
Hoffman: I don't think it's going to do anything for that. I mean the
park is there. It operates. We would not operate it any differently. It
' I would be under a different jurisdiction but to your general resident on the
II
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 47
street, they don't really care if the city of Shorewood operates it or you
operate it. I still have to cross TH 7 to get to the thing. ,
Schroers: That true but if they want to give us that property, we
certainly want to take it. Wouldn't you say? Why wouldn't we?
Hoffman: That's the kind of direction. The reasons you'd be hesitant to
do that is because then you need to schedule it into your maintenance and
into your CIP program and provide improvements and upgrade and take on the
liability for another piece of park property.
Lash: But that's the same as with any piece of park property. '
Hoffman: Sure.
Lash: That's the same as with the golf course. ,
Schroers: If someone wants to give us a 4.8 acre established park, I
couldn't imagine that we would say we didn't want it.
Hoffman: Okay. In the thought process going through that, sure. Heck,
you'd say, take it immediately but then again, if you backed up and if we I
approached it from a new angle. From a fresh perspective. If this entire
area up there was just coming in for development, would you want to have a
park there? probably not. There's two different sides to this story.
Lash: That's like the question that I asked Joan tonight. The golf course
is already there. Why should we bother buying it? If they wanted to give
it to us, I'd certainly take it. That would insure that we had the control'
over it. And as you said, say the City of Shorewood decided to sell it
back to the church and the church tore it down and made it into a larger
parking lot. We'd be losing a park facility that does service some II residents in our city. So the benefit we would have for it would be that
we would have the control of it to make sure that it remained a park. That
would be the payoff that we would have over the output of the maintenance
and improvements.
Andrews: That park does need work. The building there is a dive.
Hoffman: It's like a fish house.
Andrews: In some ways I look at this as an attempt of them to give us
their problem which is it needs to be worked on. We'd rather have you guys"
spend the money on it than us so why don't we just give it to you. Then
you've got to spend $163,000.00 to bring it up to a good park. I can
understand the philosphy of any park is better than no park but we also
have to look at the fact that if, like Todd said, if this came as a new
development and we were faced with the fact that we could spend $163,000.00
on Cathcart Park or we could take that same $163,000.00 and put some
ballfields in some other place in Chanhassen that needed it, which would well
rather do? That's the dilemma in my opinion.
Schroers: Well I think that that Cathcart Park is being used by the 1
residents of the Lake Minnewashta area and if for whatever reason they
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 48
II
didn't have that park available, it's like the only thing that they've got
I we're taking away, or just about the only thing that they have accessible
to them, we're taking away. We would not look very good in that
II Andrews: Freeman Field is right there. It's 20 times the size. It's
within just a couple blocks of there. It probably is more accessible and
much, much better park. Granted it doesn't belong to the city of
Chanhassen but it's a much better park facility. They've got 4 ballfields
II and tons of soccer fields and hockey rink space.
Hoffman: 7 ballfields. .
II Lash: Is this Little League ballfield here already?
II Hoffman: It's there. It's in a different location. It's tucked right up
in the corner. Northeast corner.
Lash: But it would help us in our scheduling. We could schedule.
1 Ruegemer: South Tonka is currently using that field.
' Koubsky: So it doesn't add anything for us.
Hoffman: We're in South Tonka and it's scheduled as part of that South
Tonka program. Again it's a gamble. I mean you can just say, do as you
II may city of Shorewood and they may continue to develop and keep it as a
park. There's the discussion of do you split the CIP in half? Do you go
into a joint maintenance agreement and those type of things get cumbersome
II and I wouldn't advocate those type of arrangements. Realistically you can
upgrade this park for a half or a third of that and make it reasonable. It
does include a building and it includes some other things. There is
I electricity to the site right now. The hockey rink is lighted. Minimally
but it is lighted. There's the old warming house there. But it's aged.
It's an older neighborhood park so there would be some.
II Andrews: The park never has gotten, in my opinion, fair treatment because
I think Shorewood looks upon it as something that's not quite as good as
their own park in their own city so they don't commit to it the way they
I probably would if it was in their city limits. And it's kind of the same
way for us. Since we don't own the park, we don't want to put anything
into it either so I don't think it's ever gotten fair treatment really as
I far as a park facility goes. I guess the other approach would be to say,
well what do we have to lose by accepting the property as is and deciding
maybe not to spend any money on it. We're certainly not any worse off by
doing that either.
II Hoffman: If we could accept the property and then again I'd have no idea
if they're going to just flat out give it to us. They may do that. Then
II you need to come back and fit it into the CIP and whatever that may be.
Schroers: I think that we could accommodate something like that for a park
that's already there and already established. That doesn't mean that we
I just have to take $166,000.00 or $163,000.00 and throw it in there all in
one chunk.
II
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 -- Page 49
Koubsky: That's all zoned single family up there.
Schroers: I think that's a fairly decent little park. I go by there quite
often to access the trail and there's always people there. Always. Every
time. I mean it gets used and I don't think it would hurt us at all to
acquire that park and just invest a little bit now and then to try and
bring it up to speed and improve it. And the people who already are using
it, would recognize the fact that somebody's trying to do a little bit
something to try to fix it up and I think that'd be acceptable.
Koubsky: And TH 7 will always be a boundary. Eventually it will be
developed up there. Won't it? It's zoned single family. Will there be
additional development north of TH 7?
Hoffman: North of TH 7 in Shorewood yes. North of TH 7 in Chanhassen,
there's not very many parcels left. Much of it is unbuildable and not very'
desireable land. But I know the position of the Commission and certainly
this will come up again as discussions, negotiations with Shorewood
continue and you would be making some type of final decision on that issue.,
Schroers: Okay, then can we put item 9 to bed and we can ask you if there
are any Commission member presentations? '
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
Lash: I have a question about Lake Ann and...Greenwood Shores Park with ,
the sewer and water mess that's over there. All the way out to TH 5 too.
Does completion of that work, was it stopped because of weather or why is
it not moving forward? It's such a mess.
Hoffman: The excavation was completed in the winter so obviously when you
backfill you've got frozen ground and all that type of thing. We simply
just have to wait until the ground dries out, thaws out and then they'll
come and do the final restoration and seed.
Koubsky: There will be a lot of settling. 1
Hoffman: Lot of settling. There's no doubt we're struggling with it at an
administrative level. We're going to take a lot of hits on the mess which I
has been caused at Lake Ann Park due to the construction and now the
ongoing construction with the shelter. We're discussing that amongst staff
and the park maintenance and we'll do fencing where necessary to channel
people and we'll make gravel crossings which will probably be there for a
couple of years and then once the grass is established along that big
gouged corridor, then we'll haul that gravel out and plant that area in
seed. So we'll make those type of accommodations.
Lash: Well I walked down there on Sunday. Down to Greenwood Shores Park
and I mean the whole thing is ripped up. It's a mess and I look at that
and I wonder if it was really necessary to make that big of a mess just to
dig a little sewer line. And you know we talked about the possibility of
disturbing a root system of a tree putting in a volleyball court and then I�
look at the damage that was done by that thing down there. We'll be lucky
if there's any trees left. It's a mess.
11
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 50
1
Koubsky: How deep is it?
Hoffman: The trench for the sewer? It varies from 4 to 8 feet.
Schroers: A lot of times it varies even more than that depending on the
topography and you just have to maintain that...
Hoffman: Yeah, the water line went much deeper in some locations and it is
going to be ugly.
Schroers: Okay. Well is there any other commission presentations?
1 ADMINSTRATIVE SECTION=
Schroers: Is there anything on the adminstrative section? Todd?
1 Hoffman: Not on the administrative section. I just have a few
administrative presentations. The Lake Ann park shelter, there it is
upside down. I think that was included in here that we've gone through all
the final approvals. We'll have a pre-construction meeting with the
contractor tomorrow morning and you should see construction start on that
I within the next few weeks as well. We've had some talk at the City Council
level, again this has been an on again, off again thing about park
commissioners attending City Council meetings. Planning Commission has
again made the commitment that they will be attending City Council
' meetings. I think it makes sense but only if there is a critical park and
recreation item on the agenda that representation there certainly adds to
the commitment by the Commission. It adds to the position that the
' Commission has. Planning Commission members speak pretty often at City
Council meetings with issues that they've been dealing with. If you wish
to consider this, I would suggest we lay out a time schedule but then if
your lucky number was up and there was an item, I would give you a call and
' say, you need to be there. Or if it wasn't, you don't need to be there.
It would be really too cumbersome to go ahead and just put you all in order
and when an item comes up, call you up. This way at least you know you
' tenatively may be coming to the Park Commission. But it's really a
question for the Commission to consider. I've had requests at the Council
level that you consider that.
1 Schroers: I guess I don't have a problem with it personally. Why don't we
start with Jan and let's just buzz through.
' Lash: Well I can certainly do that. I guess I feel like any issue that
goes to them, they've seen our Minutes with lengthy discussions on most
items. What more do they want to hear?
' Hoffman: Potentially they don't always read the Minutes and they just want
somebody to pick their brain right at that particular moment.
1 Schroers: And they might have a question.
Koubsky: I wouldn't have a problem with it.
1 Erickson: I wouldn't have a problem with that.
1
Rec Commission Meeting
II
Park and R mmzs n fee z g
March 24, 1992 - Page 51
Andrews: How important is this?
Eritkson: Are their meetings once a week on Mondays? II
Hoffman: Their meetings are twice a month on Mondays. So we've got 7
1
meetings, your random order ticket could come up once every 4 months.
Erickson: That's not a problem for me at all.
II Schroers: Once every 4 months and then if there was an important item and
you had a conflict, you could just call another commissioner or call me or
something. '
Erickson: How often are our issues coming up in the meetings? Every
meeting is there a park and rec?
l
Hoffman: It fluctuates. It just depends on when we get busy and that type
of thing. This would be major improvement projects, CIP's, development
proposals, those types of issues. So probably 50%. Okay, I'll go ahead
II
and prepare a schedule for that and then I would just take that position
that the week prior I'd simply, or when the schedule was set, the agenda
was set I'd give you a call if your turn is up. They also have been, the
City Council has established goal setting meetings for themselves, for the
City Council and staff. They would like to incorporate as part of that a
joint meeting with each individual commission sometime during the year. I 1
would like the commission to consider when they would like to see that
happen. Potentially that could be an outdoors meeting. A walking session.
Site visits of some particular parks or areas within the city. We can
discuss amongst the commission and think about it. Exactly what issues you
think are important to discuss with the City Council at that joint goal
session meeting and what setting you would like to carry that meeting out
in. And then lastly, revenues are about keeping even with our projected I
budget. They're certainly ahead of last year. Building permit starts are
up considerably. We are in a financially conservative time for the Park
Commission for our 410 budget for the department simply because of all the
projects which we've finished out in the last 2 or 3 years. All the
activity which we have undertaken. I'm confident we can carry out our 1992
CIP probably under budget. It's something that we haven't done. Last year
we aggressively hit our GIP. Got things accomplished. This year we're I
probably going to be able to do that under budget and I hope our revenues
come in over budget. Not under as last year. Only items I had.
Schroers: Okay. 1
Lash: We did sit together one time and come up with goals didn't we?
Andrews: Yep. 1
Hoffman: Goals, certainly. So you could discuss some of those goals at II that meeting or branch out from there.
Schroers: Would you like us to pick a time now? II
II
II Pa
rk and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 -- Page 52
II
Hoffman: Potential) I think June, J ul August. You know nice summer
Y � Y y g
month. Talk about some of these issues when they're...
1 Schroers: So is that going to be an additional meeting for us?
II Hoffman: It would be an additional meeting.
Schroers: Or would it be just an early meeting prior to our meeting? Is
I that what it would be?
Hoffman: They would most likely accommodate your schedule and meet at
5:30. 5:30 to 7 :30 on a regular scheduled Park Commission night.
1 Lash: When do you expect the picnic shelter to be.
1 Hoffman: Looking like something? By late June. First of July.
Schroers: I think what we should do, is this going to be up and running by
August? I mean is it going to be.
I Hoffman: You bet. There's liquidated damages if they don't perform their
contract so I would presume it's going to be they're going to start paying.
I Schroers: Let's schedule it when we can have our first joint meeting at
that shelter.
II Hoffman: Okay. august potentially huh?
Ruegemer: I have one thing real quick. If any commission members are
II interested in helping out the Easter Egg Hunt.
Hoffman: Hit them up one more time. .
1 Ruegemer: We're looking for volunteers. April 18th. 9:30 to 11:30. It
wouldn't have to be for the full time. Just judge coloring contest, Jan or
1 perform other duties.
Lash: Now I thought I was the Judge last year. I got there and there were
a bunch of other people there that I had to argue with over it.
1 Ruegemer: So if there's any volunteers, I'll write your name down now.
I Lash: Sure, I'll help.
Pemrick: How flexible can you be? I'll do it if I can bring my 3 1/2 year
old.
I Ruegemer: You bet. No problem.
1 Pemrick: I'll have to be watching her too, you know what I mean.
Schroers: Is that it? Can we ask for a motion to adjournment.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
g
March 24, 1992 - Page 53
1
Berg moved, Andrews seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1