1i. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. . The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman,
Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Todd
Hoffman, Paul Krauss and Scott Harr
•
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda as amended by Councilwoman Dimler to discuss the Lake
Ann Interceptor Assessments under Council Presentations; and Mayor Chmiel wanted
to add under Public Announcements an item regarding Moody Investors. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
' ACCEPT DONATIONS FROM:
A. VALVOLINE RAPID OIL. DONATION FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
Mayor Chmiel: Valvoline Rapid Oil, they made a donation to the Fire Department
of $200.00. They're new within our City and they always feel like they like to
make donations to the City for any specific reasons that they feel are
' necessary. That the City feels necessary. So consequently I'd like to thank
Valvoline from the City Council for making that contribution of $200.00.
B. CHANHASSEN AMERICAN LEGION. DONATION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT.
Mayor Chmiel: The next is an acceptance contribution from Chanhassen American
Legion. The City has been looking to acquire a digital radar readout item. Make
people aware as to speeds that they're traveling within the city of Chanhassen.
We thought by education maybe is the best way to start. Making people aware as
to their driving at speeds either beyond or excessive speeds within the City. By
doing this it will not give you a ticket unless there's a police officer
standing there and he decides to pull you over. We don't intend to do that at
first. We want to use this just to make people aware that they should slow
' down. We've been doing some intermediate checkings on our main street, 78th
Street and there are people who are just driving a little too fast. We have it
within our residential areas. These are the kinds of locations we're going to
' place this particular radar digital readout. And the Chanhassen American
Legion has generously donated $2,884.95 for the purchase of this unit. On
behalf of the City Council and hopefully the citizens, we wish to thank them for
that donation.
C. TONY BIESE, PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.
' Mayor Chmiel: We have one more as well and this one's sort of unique in itself.
It's a $300.00 donation to the Park and Recreation Department provided by Tony
' 1
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
Biese. He has worked for the City for a number of years as a part time and
during the summer. Presently Tony is going to college and come up with the
conclusion that he would like to give the City $300.00 just out of the
generosity of his heart to be put into the Park and Recreation Department which
is quite unusual. We would like to thank him publically as well for making
' that contribution. He felt that he has worked for the City. He has given to
the city his time and being compensated for it plus the fact he feels that he
should probably give something back to the City. On behalf of that, one more
time thank you. Each of these people will be receiving letters back from the
City with that thanks.
D. MOODY INVESTORS TOUR OF CHANHASSEN.
' Mayor Chmiel: A couple of weeks ago we brought Moody Investors into our city.
When we go out for bonding we go through Springsted which is a bonding company.
We came up with an idea through Council and myself to get these people to come
down from New York City. When I say that I want ,to make the quote "New York
City" and come in and see what Chanhassen's about rather than provide bonding
without any realization what it is. What we look like. How we operate and what
our books are. And of course they review the books but more likely what we
wanted to do was have them view some of the businesses within the community.
And seeing that, showing how sound we are, how active we are and that we should
' have a little better bond rating. Consequently we went over to the Rosemount
Industries, Instant Webb and Paisley Park for showing of their facilities to
Moody's and I'd like to also thank them publically because they're CEO's of the
company took their time out to take them through these facilities, which I
thought was really sort of neat. They specifically expressed how well they
enjoyed having their facilities within the City of Chanhassen, which is I think )
a little bit of a feather in our cap. But anyway, after all of this that we've
' been doing with them and in posing of bondings that we have going out that we're
going to discuss this evening, we estimate that this change is going to save our
community approximately, it doesn't sound like much but it will be one tenth of
' one percent. This may sound minor but when the principle amount of the bonds is
say $5 million over 8 years, the aggregate savings on that would be sizeable to
the amount of about $50,000.00. So with that type of better rating. From BAA
' we went to BAA1 and that does make a little bit of difference for all the
taxpayers within the community. So with that I just thought I'd like to bring
it out and make everyone aware of the fact that this did take place. We spent a
half a day with those people and if I could send a letter to or let them see
this communication by TV, I'd like to thank them as well because it does save us
money.
' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
' a. Resolution $91-95: Accept Street Improvements in Zimmerman Farm First
Addition, Project 90-12.
c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Create a Bluff Line Preservation Section of
the City Code, Final Reading. .
' 2 •
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
e. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Rezone Property within the City Zoned A-2
Agricultural Estate District to RR, Rural Residential District, Final
Feading. I
f. Approval of Accounts.
h. Resolution $91-96: Resolution in Support of Clean Water Patnership Grant. I
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
D. ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS REGARDING
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS. FINAL READING.
Councilman Workman: Are we going to try to hit these tomorrow night? I read a
note in the back that perhaps we'd look at these tomorrow night due to the
length of the meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yes, this is going to take a little more discussion. Maybe
we should.
G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilman Mason: Mine for item 1(g), City Council Minutes. On page 52 it
should be., the parking on Woodhill really is not an issue. I am quoted as
saying it really is an issue. Minor point but just somewhere down the road.
Mayor Chmiel: Nice to see that you're reading them.
Councilman Mason: That's all. With that I move approval of 2(g).
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the following
Minutes:
City Council Minutes dated September 9, 1991 as presented.
City Council Minutes dated September 23, 1991 as amended on page 52.
Senior Commission Minutes dated September 20, 1991 as presented.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
VISITOR PRESENTATION: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR FRONTIER TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 89-10.
Public Present:
Name Address
M.A. MacAlpine 7187 Frontier Trail '
Sandra Reger 7197 Frontier Trail
Helen Bielski 7209 Frontier Trail
3
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
Name Address
Arlis Bovy 7339 Frontier Trail
Paul Differding 7228 Frontier Trail
Wayne Mader 400 Highland Drive
'
•
Don King 7200 Kiowa Circle
Pat Pavelko 7203 Frontier Trail
Tom Pzynski 7340 Frontier Trail
' Robert A. Scholer
Lance R. Ford 7212 Frontier Trail
1711 East Koehnen Circle
Joel Jenkins 7305 Frontier Trail
Bill & Helen Loebl 7197 Frontier Trail
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. During the continuation of
this hearing at the September 9th City Council meeting, staff was directed to
' hold a neighborhood workshop as was requested by some residents. Thus notices
were sent out and the workshop was held on September 26th. The meeting was
initiated with a detailed presentation of the project costs and the rationale
' behind the proposed assessment schedule including the front foot versus unit
method of assessment. It was explained that on December 18, 1989 the City
received a petition representing 33 of the 49 affected property owners that were
in favor of the front foot basis. Thus that is the rationale used behind that
' method. As has been discussed previously, this is also a common method of
assessing benefit to properties for street improvements and has stood the test
in the courts. There was also a driveway concern raised by Jim Mady. This was
' investigated by myself and Bill Engelhardt and is no longer an issue. There are
also apparently some other outstanding driveway complaints and it is my belief
that any of these problems that are relevant and need repair could be taken care
' of under the City's 2 year warranty bond for the project. There was also
question raised concerning the assessment of the beachlot and three other
outlots. I reviewed the Minutes from the hearing process for this project and
found no statements on the record which called for an exclusion of the beachlot.
' Concerning the three outlots, two of which are owned by the City. The two owned
by the City are very narrow strips of property •which are unbuildable and
adjacent to the road right-of-way and actually function as an extension of the
' "city right-of-way. According to the County Assessor, these pieces of property
have no value and thus you cannot sustain an assessment to a piece of property
which have no value. The third outlot is a lot of record and owned in fee title
by the owner of Lot 9, Block 3 which is Outlot 2. This outlot has some 3,000
square foot to it's area and thus does benefit the area 2, Lot 9 and it's
frontage is included in the assessment. Finally on the manner of the assessment
split, it has been stated that or recommended by some of the residents that the
1 City should have a policy defining a certain percentage that should be assessed
for reconstruction projects. I guess at this point I'm not sure one certain
percentage would be applicable in all situations. It's believed that maybe a
' more appropriate method may be to continue analyzing each project on a case by
case basis and assessing for the improvements made to a roadway which were not
previously part of that roadway or paid for on that roadway during it's normal
life cycle. Thus staff reaffirms it's position on the 60/40 methodology.
' I should point out that a deadline for certification of these special
assessments to the County for inclusion into the 1992 property tax statements is
November 30, 1991. Therefore it's important that the Council take action on
adopting an assessment roll for this project at tonight's meeting in order to
4
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
allow for the administration process and preparing necessary documents and to
allow for the required 30 day appeal pre-payment period prior to certification.
Thus it is recommended if there are no further outstanding issues to this
project after tonight's hearing, it is recommended that the Council adopt the
Frontier Trail Improvement Project 89-10 assessment roll, revised copy dated
October 9, 1991. That the assessment term-be set for 8 years at an 8%c interest
rate.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this time that would like to
discuss their specific piece of property or any respective changes that you feel
might be necessitated other than what's been indicated? If so, I'll open that.
As I said, this still is a public hearing and I'd like those who'd like to state
their opinions please come forward. State your name and your address.
Robert Scholer: Somebody has to always be first. Mr. Mayor and members of
Council. My name is Robert Scholer. I reside at 7212 Frontier Trail and I'm
the lucky owner of two properties. I own Lot 12, Block 3, Sunrise Hills 2nd
Addition which is my residence. And Lot 2, Block 1 of Sunrise Hills 4th
Addition which is the mountain with a double frontage. One on Longview Circle
and the other one down on Frontier Trail. At the feasibility hearing for this
proposed Frontier Trail I submitted orally and then I followed up by submitting
documentation of the construction of Frontier Trail and the final acceptance of
this City. You may recall that the presentation was a bit longer than you
wanted to put up with but I wanted to establish that the street was built to
. city standards. At that time a criticism that the developer, namely Bob Scholer
had not built it to those standards. I want to set the stage for pointing out,
as others have already done in subsequent hearings, that the City was somewhat
remiss and negligent in my view in not properly maintaining this street since it
was built and also negligent and remiss, again in my view, in not enforcing load
limits during construction of the neighborhood to the immediate west. At that
same hearing I agreed with the staff and the engineers that the improvements, if
they were improved should be assessed according to benefit. But I went on to
say that the only benefit occurring to my Lot 2, Block 1 in the 4th Addition was
for storm sewer. There was no benefit received for curb or gutter or street.
Having said the above, let me respectfully state my position and my arguments
for your consideration. Number one. Lot 2, Block 1 should be assessed at the
very most for storm sewer. No curb cut was provided nor was I even asked if I
wanted one as accessibility was obvious and assessibility was obvious. Number
two. Failure to maintain and police Frontier Trail places I think an encumbant
responsibility of more than a 40/60 split of the cost to the city. I would
believe that a 30/70 division would be fair. Far more fair than a 40/60. Number
three, assessments should be on a unit basis in my view rather than front
footage. In an established neighborhood such as ours of single family homes,
all the lots are built on, everyone receives the same basic benefit o-f access
for their property. Ingress and egress to the total subdivision regardless of
footage. Concluded remarks about people who have collected signatures and
people who sign petitions for frontage assessments. They're neighbors and in
many instances I would consider them friends but I have to say this. This may,
this form of collecting signatures on petitions in this instance may to be an
appropriate part of our freedom under the Democratic process. But unless that
same petition is offered to me and to others with large front footages for
example for our signatures or comment or consideration, I consider that
discriminatory. It shows no concern for what is just and fair and I believe i
5 1
1
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
that it should be ignored. You should go on the basis of benefit. Thank you
' very much. And if I might suggest, a neighbor Tom Pzynski has worked up a
computer printout of what would happen under this various program and with your
permission I'll just submit copies of this letter. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else at this particular time?
Tom Pzynski: Good evening. I'm knocking over the podium. I'm Tom Pzynski.
I live at 7340 Frontier Trail. I'd like to follow up on a couple of comments
that Bob just covered dealing with the assessment based on a 40/60 split and a
front footage basis. I've done an analysis and I've got copies here if the
Council would like them. A spread sheet analysis. If you'd like me to hand
them out now or later.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you just hand them out right now.
' Tom Pzynski: I'd like to comment on what Bob said again. Everybody in our
subdivision along Frontier Trail benefitted from the new streets. We've got a
' nice smooth road. We've got curb and gutter now that will handle water problems
but I don't, I just can't see any benefit to any property owner along Frontier
Trail based on front footage. We all get the same benefit. I've contacted a
number of professional real estate appraisers and real estate sales persons who
have stated to me that at most the way a street improvement is looked at by them
is on an area basis in the neighborhood itself. How does it impact the
neighborhood? They never look at it based on a front footage value or benefit
' to the property owner. The only benefit that an improved street gives to the
property owner itself is utility which basically is use. Access to your
property and egress and ingress to the subdivision itself. So the front footage
' basis and the argument for the front footage basis in my view has a lot of
holes. If you care to take a look at the spread sheet real quick, I've done it
based on, I've got the cities, the last one I have is dated 9/3 so I don't have
II the current, the one that they said was done on 10/9. The last one I have is
dated 9/3. Based on the way the appraisal and the assessment was done, based on
a unit basis for the storm and sewer and a 60/40 split on the front footage,
there's a $3,500.00 difference from the lowest to the highest assessment on the
' roll that I have. And to me I can't see where you can justify that big a
difference to any one property owner. $3,500.00. That's a big difference.
Based on a 70/30 split, per unit basis, each homeowner would end up paying the
I same amount. $3,434.59. Under that formula everybody pays the same because you
get the same benefit. If you'll notice in the last column on the spread sheet
that I gave you, there's a percentage change in difference. There are 5
property owners who's assessment would increase based on that 70/30 split and
II those 5 property owners, one of them is an outlot along Frontier Trail and
Highland. just where Frontier Trail and Highland meet. It's a long strip,
narrow strip about 10 feet wide. I think it belongs to 7341 Frontier Trail.
I The other one is the beachlot which there is some argument, I guess there was
some argument made that the beachlot wasn't supposed to be assessed and I guess
now it is supposed to be assessed. I don't know about that. There's another
I small one along Frontier Trail at 7343 Frontier Trail which is right at the very
beginning of the street which isn't even on Frontier Trail. I mean there's
actually no property that I know of on Frontier Trail there and the two at the
end of Frontier Trail, 7197 and 7199, their front footage is quite small. It's
32 feet and 79 feet. Those two properties. The petition that was sent around
6
11
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
for the front footage assessment never came to my house. I believe that it
probably never came to anybody's house who's property was assessed at a larger
and greater value than most of those who signed it. I think most of the people
who signed it were strictly a pocketbook issue. They were voting their
pocketbook and I can understand that. But I can also argue that based on a unit
split, everybody benefits the same. Everybody pays the same and I don't see
where you can say that there's a $3,500.00 difference between the assessment the
way it is now. Between a 60/40 on a front footage basis and the way it is
proposed. To me it just doesn't make any sense. It can't make any sense. You
can't justify it. Any questions on the spread sheet at all?
Mayor Chmiel: No I don't. Anyone else? Thank you. Anyone else? '
Wayne Mader: Good evening. My name is Wayne Mader. I live at 400 Highland
Drive. Obviously a corner lot. I attended the workshop on the 26th of
September and as of today now am even more disappointed in the lack of
communication from the City to the property owners regarding the whole
assessment issue from day one. What disappointed me most today was that after
the meeting on September 26th at the workshop, I should say during the meeting.
Mr. Engelhardt had commented that there were some adjustments made to some of
the very long lots with a lot of frontage and some corner lots. I was unaware
of it at the time so I addressed Mr. Engelhardt at the end of the meeting and
inquired about it. He informed me that he would check into it. Took my daytime
phone number and that was it. I never heard a word. Called him this morning.
He referred me to Charles who informed me that yes, indeed mine should be
changed and adjusted and Charles stated that he would take care of that. But
based on the communication thus far, I don't know what my assessment's going to
be. I think it's unfair that we're not being informed as we should be. We've
spent a lot of time coming to the meetings and the workshop and I'm
disappointed. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Do we have any response to that at this present time?
Charles Folch: Yes. I took a look at the plat for that particular lot. It
looked visually, the first time run through that that, the side that was being
assessed for the Frontier Trail improvements was the short side of the property.
The shorter length which of course would be assessed the full length. After
looking at the actual plat, it appears that there was a difference and the
Highland Drive frontage was shorter. Thus we basically applied the same
methodology that we have for the previous curve radius lots to make that
adjustment. The reason this didn't actually stand out to us is because the
adjustment we made in the past were just for long frontage lots on curve. There
really was no corner lots that we had made adjustment for. We just used a
corner lot analogy to develop the methodology for that. But initially the only
look was at the large curve lots that were in excess of 200 feet of frontage.
Councilwoman Dimler: . . .amount for the adjustment then? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Is there an amount different from what we thought
•
presently?
Charles Folch: Yes. The actual frontage dropped by.
7
1
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: It was 146.61.
I Charles Folch: It dropped by about 18 feet. About 18.31 feet was the reduction l
in the footage. The original footage was 146.61 feet and it was reduced to
128.31.
•
II Mayor Chmiel: And what does that bring it down to? Do you have that?
Charles Folch: The actual street assessment based on that frontage would be
I $3,073.02. Add that to the unit storm assessment. The total would be $4,433.23
if my math is correct.
Mayor Chmiel: 44?
Charles Folch: $4,433.23.
IIMayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else?
Don King: Don King, 7200 Kiowa Circle. I guess I'm thoroughly confused now.
I Back here on the 9th of September I talked to Charles and we agreed at 154-157
feet was my frontage. Then we got into the tangent game of 190 plus and then
110 minus and then I talked to Wayne tonight and I'm reciting the story that he
' tells me that he took his lot length minus 110 and half of the difference and
110 and half the difference. If you do that, that says my corner lot should
come up to be 133. Now I'm confused. What am I really being billed for?
' That's just one of many issues here.
Charles Folch: As we talked about before between Don and I, when he questioned
the frontage on his lot, originally it was my understanding that he had
IIrequested initially that the platted length be the length used in the property.
As it turned out, that was actually the longer distance so thus he requested
that the tangent distance be used. So we made that change. Then there was a
question on applying this long lot methodology along frontage to his lot.
Unfortunately fiis Frontier Trail frontage is his short side. Not by much but it
is the short side of the lot. Thus no reduction was applied to that footage.
II In this case, in Mr. Mader's case, his frontage on Frontier Trail is the long
side of his lot. Thus the modification seemed fair.
Don King: So you have on the rolls for me at this point in time 157 or what is
Ithe number? 7200 Kiowa Circle.
Mayor Chmiel: 155 as I have it.
ICharles Folch: 155, that's correct.
Don King: Okay, so I'm 10 feet less than he is? So instead of getting a
' reduction, I stay where I'm at? I still disagree with the ratio, the way it's
been set up with the 40/60. 40 on our part. I also am concerned about the fact
that almost every meeting that we have been here at, we have discussed the
status of Kiowa Circle and the devastation, destruction, tearing up that has
been done as a result of the construction equipment that's been on there. I
realize that that street was not part of the plan to be done. It was voted out.
Also at the same time it was not voted in to be a parking lot for heavy
8
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
construction equipment. I don't believe that in the future if you should decide
or have a need to do Kiowa Circle, at that point in time that I should be
subjected to having to pay more because of the amount of repair that might be
required on that street. I do believe that that street at this point in time
should be brought up to some level, whatever it may be. But you can go out
there and see cat tracks. You can see, I mean not little kittens running
around. You can see where heavy equipment has been parked with the wheel marks,
etc. and considered broken out. Mr. Sucher has moved and when he gets unpacked
he will find the photographs that he took at the beginning of the project as
evidence of what that street did look like prior to the start of that equipment.
So I'm very concerned that we've discussed it and discussed and brought it up
and no one has taken any action on the Council whatsoever on this particular
issue. Furthermore, I was one of the family people that did sign on the
frontage basis of linear footage. At the time in my quick analysis of the whole ,
thing, my pocketbook was part of my concern and I thought it would be fair
without someone doing a detailed computer analysis as Tom has done. I further
support and change my vote to that. That I think it would be a much more fair
and equitable for all of us to be on that basis by home because we all do share
that street. My concern further is that since Frontier Trail was put in and
upgraded and made access to I guess what's called the. ..vista or something, that
all the people in that area also share that road and there's been a considerable
increase in traffic. So my concern is, has that street been upgraded in status
as not a feeder or whatever it is but has the status of that been upgraded as
such that the amount of construction work that had to be done, which represents
the 40% increase that Mr. Engelhardt has proposed, is a result of that upgrading
rather than being a farm trail, if you want to call it that to a major highway. ,
To give you extremes. So I feel that, I think there's a lot of issues. As many
meetings as we have, I just don't feel that we're really getting down to the
real root of everything. We're still having concerns that are going on. I
believe that the communication, we've had a lot of meetings in the effort of
communicating but again I think we've fallen short. Such as the issue of the
Kiowa Circle that I have brought up. I've also brought up the fact of why have
we hid the expenses of the actual project? Not until we were shown at the
meeting here on the 26th was it really brought out actually to anyone, and I
realize that I have access to go to City Hall and get it but I also work a
distance from here and it makes it impossible for me to get that. It would
certainly have been nice if that could have been communicated to each and
actually what the amounts were for the families. So I ask your continued
consideration on these particular issues tonight as you ponder it. I
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. King a question. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come back.
Councilwoman Dimler: Don, being that we just got this I haven't had time. It's '
by address, not by name. Do you know how much you save by going to per unit
basis versus what we've got?
Don King: I've seen that report and I'm not, I think it's around 20% or 30% it
means to me a reduction. Now that's based on the 168 feet I think that you used
in there for that which would be a further reduction if we used the 155 number. I
9 1
1
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
I think on the average it looked like, I don't remember the numbers she had
there but it's someplace like 20%. 10% or 20%c per family overall reduction that
everyone sees.
Tom Pzynski: The lowest is 6.7% with an average is about 14%. 14% to 15%.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
I Helen Loeb': I'm Helen Loebl from 7197 Frontier Trail. I want to address this
idea of the petition that was taken up just about 2 years ago. I did not
appreciate the aspersions cast by Bob Scholer. This was presented and I do
believe that Bob was out of town at the time. I wouldn't guarantee that but I
II know one of the petitions we took up he was out of town so we contacted him in
Arizona. Now as I say, I don't remember which petition that was for. And his
answer was no. That he didn't care to sign it. To try to change this petition
I that contains the names of the very vast majority, I'm sure you all have a copy
of it there in front of you. That it is the desire of the majority of the
neighbors and friends that wanted this on a front footage basis. For a few that
have the larger lots to try to change it for everybody I feel that this is being
II unfair. I go along with the other people who object to the 60/40 assessment. I
feel that first of all was this split ever approved by the Council? Was it ever
presented to the Council before it was approved? And if so, when was that done?
II It was my understanding that Council was to approve the split. I would like
your consideration on upholding the wishes of the majority of the property
owners on Frontier Trail that wanted the front footage basis. And as I
I understand, you all have a copy of that petition in front of you. And also give
some consideration to a reduction in the assessment for all of the property
owners, not just a few. Thank you.
IMayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Joel Jenkins: Joel Jenkins, 7305 at this time Frontier Trail. Previously 7226
' and a few years ago when we were debating this issue I owned two properties at
that time. I guess my concern- here is two fold. Number one, it was my
understanding that Frontier Trail was to set a precedent for the rest of the
' city as far as the split in equity between the city of Chanhassen's contribution
and the homeowner's contribution. If Frontier Trail is going to be a 60/40
split or 70/30 or 20/80, whatever it is, I'm not sure that just Frontier Trail
residents should be here negotiating with the City Council. I think it should
I be a city wide discussion as to how we should handle streets in the future.
That would be my first contention. Second position is, through several
discussions with Gary Warren, our previous engineer and communication back to
I me, it's my understanding since I was President of the Sunrise Hills Homeowners
Association at that time, that the beachlot would not be assessed. The reason
the beachlot would not be assessed is multiple reasons. Number one, if you're
II going by a front footage, the beachlot homeowners association is not an owner of
any front footage unless the City has given us property since a year and a half
ago. If they have deeded us the property that is platted which is approximately
6 feet wide on the lot line next to Steve Berquist and about a foot and a half
I wide on the property next to Pavelko's, then the homeowners association has
front footage. Otherwise it's city property. Number two. Outlots apparently, •
according to our County are not taxable entities and therefore I'm not sure and
I was told they are not assessable. Again, this is what I was told at that time
10
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
as President of the Homeowners Association. So I would encourage Council and
staff to review those items before they assess the Homeowners Association which
is already being assessed because we're all homeowners in that area. I'd I
finally like to say that I believe that the unit basis is much more fair to all
those concerned. Whether or not you've signed a petition or not it's fairness
that's appropriate. Lastly in all of our meetings, I am not sure that I saw one
Council member at those meetings and I think that's where a lot of these
discussions were held and I think it's unfair to you as Council members to hear
us at this type of meeting complain and complain and try to make a point when
you're kind of put on a spot to make a decision. And so I would encourage you
to do what's fair and do what's right and provide the taxpayers with what's
appropriate. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Joel. Anyone else?
Pat Pavelko: Pat Pavelko, 7203 Frontier Trail. First of all I'd just like to
say that I think there's been a lot of issues that have been brought up tonight
that are still unanswered. Initially the comment at the beginning of the
session was that it should be voted on tonight to make sure that it is in the
1992 tax base. I really don't think that should come into any consideration
since there are so many unanswered questions to assure that this is in the 1992
tax base. I think we should make a decision that's fair for everybody and if
the proper information is not given to the City Council, let's not be under the
pressure to get it into the 1992 tax base. In terms of the percentage, the
60/40 percentage, some of the calls that I have made to other cities, it seems
like the 60/40% is a very, very high percentage when you look at other
communities and I don't understand why the City of Chanhassen has decided on the
60/40 percentage. You can look at the city of Eden Prairie that has it into the
general fund and if the city of Eden Prairie is able to put that into the
general fund, I don't know how much of a difference the city of Eden Prairie and
Chanhassen is. And other cities have a very less percentage, around the 20%
market which as I understand it, I could be wrong but the state government says
that if you do have an assessment, there's a minimum of 20% on the assessment.
If that is correct, why are we looking at a 40% assessment? Other assessments
in the city of Chanhassen•and the assessments have been 20% and yes, some have
• been State Aid because it's a state road but I guess when you come down to
percentages, whether it's 20%c or 40% and if a road is getting State Aid, why
should that change the percentage from somebody that's not getting State Aid and
a road that is getting State Aid? I guess too in terms of the questions that
have been brought up in terms of the fairness of the front footage versus just
the lot footage, if the cost of each lot on the front footage has come out now,
I don't think it would be too difficult to obtain a new list or a vote from the
taxpayers that live on. Frontier Trail to see which they feel is fair and
equitable. Whether it be by lot or whether it be by square footage. I cannot
imagine that taking more than one week to complete. Again, since it's the
taxpayers on Frontier Trail and that's what they should decide. Whether they
want to do it by lot or they want to do it by square footage. That's all I have
to say. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If seeing none, can I have a motion
to.
11
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
Don Ashworth: I was prepared to respond to some of the points that have been
1 brought up.
Mayor Chmiel: You can still respond to it. We can just close the public
hearing.
11 Don Ashworth: Would you prefer doing that first then or do you want me to
respond?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Let's leave it open in case they want to respond to what
Don has to say.
Don Ashworth: The establishment of the 60/40 split, staff believed had been
' approved by the City Council. I know that in the Minutes there was discussion
on the 70/30 but our sincere belief was that the Council had come back with the
60/40. That is the basis under which the bonds were sold a year ago to finance
' the project. That's really the basis upon which the levies have been set for
this next year. It was additionally set recognizing that the only thing the
property owner would be assessed for would be those items that were not there
before. I know Mr. Scholer stated that he built the road to city standards. I
' agree with that. . I think that the standards that the city had 30 years ago when
that road was first built, it was not anticipated that it would last 30 years
and probably would be closer to a 20 year design. Putting that aside, the City
' is still standing behind the road that he put in 30 years ago. The only thing
we are charging for are those new items. As it deals with a precedent and how
it may affect other parcels within the city, I think we have to realize that a
majority of the roads within this community are in relatively good shape. We
' put those into the sealcoat program and have been able to maintain those.
Streets, like Frontier Trail, were literally declared dead 10 years ago. The
same is true with the Chan Estates neighborhood which is one other area we have
II a problem with. And in those areas we knew that total reconstruction would
basically be required. This policy as it would deal with those areas bringing
them up, puts the fairness position in my own mind, it is fair. Whether it be
I Frontier Trail or that area or Chan Estates, they're going to be assessed for
whatever is new. At some point in time my street Longview, which was brought
into the sealcoat program years ago, I don't anticipate that that roadway itself
will ever be totally taken up as we had to do with frontier Trail. Curb and
' gutter may go on my street. My street, the curbs, the asphalt curbs are in very
poor shape. They'll only get worse. They're probably need to be replaced and
in that instance I'll be paying literally 100% of the cost because there won't
1 be any cost associated with the main portion of the street itself. Issues
presented tonight regarding other cities and paying higher percents, I'm
guessing that the question may be to Eden Prairie and I'll have to respond to
' this if I'm incorrect, were for, I'm not even sure. To the best of my knowledge
all of the newer roads going in in Eden Prairie are being paid through the
subdivision process. They're being paid 100% by the people that are putting
them in. I don't know where Eden Prairie's paying for cost for streets. Maybe
I on some of the county roads and in our own instance I think that's the only
deviation is where you've had a State Aid roadway. Two that come to mind,
three. Bluff Creek, Kerber Blvd. , and now Minnewashta Parkway. If you consider
Bluff Creek, you literally had no frontage along that roadway. I mean if you
12
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
would have seen the people in that area coming in who were paying o f f line
assessments, they felt it was very unfair. The remaining portion of the city,
the property owners have paid literally 100% of those costs. The other point is
in regard to the handling of the split of, the assessment between the property
owners themselves. Again I believe that the 40% cost factor has been known and
should be continued. As it deals with how that would be split between the
property owners, we attempted to use the same basis that basically has been used
for all of the projects I'm aware of. All of the projects within the downtown
area. Within the business park. Going back to projects in the '78 to '80
timeframe, specific area Chan View in which the City assessed frontage plus the
long side and one half of the short side. The only issue in my own mind is
since these are more on an arc rather than two straight lines coming together,
we felt that the 110 feet for a long side and then one half of what would be the
difference represented exactly the same policy that's been used for 15 years.
That decision rests with the City Council. It was initially presented. There
was a lot of disagreement. I know that Mr. Jenkins had come back in asking that
the Council reconsider that decision and the Council reaffirmed that they were
not going to change their position. But again what we're talking about is the
$140,000.00 cost factor. How that's going to be split between the neighbors. I
think that if it wasn't Mr. Scholer, I can't recall, basically got it down to
that point. That is if it's on a unit basis, it derives one cost for this group
of neighbors. If it's done on a totally curvalineager frontage, it produces
another amount for each of them. And if it's done as staff presented it, it
basically is what you have in front of you. We feel that this is consistent
with previous policy but again, that is a decision of the City Council. Should
you wish to use another method, I guess the only thing I'd make you fearful of
or make you aware of and fearful of is that any time you go through an
assessment method, you then kind of set a precedent for the next time around.
At least using this long side and one half of the short side is something that's
been used for 15 years.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I guess I basically agree with that analogy that you
just went through. I know that when we first looked at Frontier Trail, at one
time we were looking at a 50/50 split. After we thought about that and looked
at what was done previously, that's where we came back to the 60/40. I know
when it comes to assessments as a council, we really don't make any friends
because it's a decision that has to be made. But we are really in a process of
establishing a precedent as we are doing right now and have done previously in
trying to continue through with that same way. I think that being consistent
with this kind of a proposal of the 60/40 split to me seems very logical to do.
And to go through the process as we've done. I guess I support that specific
position. What Don had mentioned. Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want me to give my total comments? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I just thought if you wanted to say something.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I wanted to address that because I found it very
interesting that on page 3 of the report it says that the City does not have a
policy established and a defined percentage to be assessed for reconstruction
projects. I'm not convinced that establishing a single percentage ratio would
be appropriate and fair to all projects. It may be more appropriate to analyze
each improvment project on a case by case basis. Now we're saying that this has
13 '
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
been a precedent and I know for sure, as I'm sitting here, that I never voted
for a 60/40 split. I will repeat again that I don't know who made that decision
and what they based that decision on but I know that I never voted for it.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm assuming you were here with us.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was and I never voted on that.
Councilman Workman: Well I don't know that we voted on it or not. I remember
we had an in depth analysis of at least 20 cities in the metro and that was how
we arrived at 60/40. I'm looking at Charles like he should know. Maybe he
wasn't here.
Bill Engelhardt: Councilman Workman, Bill Engelhardt. In the initial report we
did go through a number of different cities and looked at how and what method
they used for assessing these types of projects. It ranged varying all over.
Basically what it boiled down to is what we're doing tonight is that the City's
arrived at their percentage by arriving, taking the cost of the new construction
and determining what that percentage is. In the case of Chanhassen, the 60/40
was a very logical and very accurate representation of the type of materials and
the type of street construction that was going to take place on Frontier Trail.
' Now it was not , as mentioned earlier, it was not beefed up or upgraded to a
higher standard because of other traffic coming through. It was based strictly
on the construction section for a typical residential street in the city of
Chanhassen. The 60/40 split comes out very well in numbers by paying for the
' cost of new construction. Additional base, additional thickness of blacktop and
concrete curb and gutter. And that's why I think after the initial discussions,
the 60/40 continued on through in the bond issue of 60/40. Does that answer
your question?
Councilwoman Dimler: Then we didn't vote. You just made a decision with staff.
Bill Engelhardt: No, I didn't say that. I said that the 60/40 was presented to
the City Council as the appropriate method to financing the construction.
' Councilwoman Dimler: And then I remember very clearly that as the residents
asked us for 70/30 and even 80/20, we were told by the engineer at that time
that we could make that decision at the time of the assessment hearing. And
' here we are and we have been told that we already made the decision and I don't
agree with it.
Resident: Ursula, you're correct in what you just said.
' Mayor Chmiel: Let's continue with our procedures here before we come back, and
we'll come back to you. I'd like to keep this going right up here.
' Councilman Workman: I agree and Ursula I agree with that. I think by voting on
whatever we vote on tonight we are setting that procedure and I think it's
important that we do set a split because if we're going to jump all over the
place with a split depending on the road, it's going to end up just like the
situation we have whether it's a unit method or front footage method or
whatever. You're going to make some people happy and then if you move over here
you're going to make these other people happy but then you know, so for future
14
•
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
1
Council's sake and for sanity I think we have to set, and I suggested and I know
it made it in the report again. We have to set a policy and a list of when
these roads and the schedule so these people do have an idea on when and how
this is all going to happen so it's not such a surprise. We have costs to
address for this roadway and I do remember us making some reasonable decisions
based on 60/40. Did we have a final vote on it? Maybe or maybe not but I do
remember it happening.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Workman, I normally don't disagree with you
but I do this time. I think that going on a case by case basis, I don't think
we need to set a precedent with this one because I can go later on in my
argument I will show you why we can go with the 70/30 here and not necessarily
have to go with that in other roads because each case is different and I think
that's the way we should proceed.
Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, as I look in some of the staff report portions here,
changing the Frontier percentage to the 70/30 could produce a tax increase for
the city in 1992.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't believe that at all. I think that's a bunch of. . . ,
Mayor Chmiel: That might be your opinion but I think we have to.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I tell you why? Because you've already brought up the
fact that we just increased our bonding rate and we're going to be saving
$60,000.00 there. We can look at other projects. We can look at the fact that
that road has not been maintained and all the money we saved over the years by
not resurfacing it has got to come up to at least $50,000.00 so I can think we
could look at getting some money out of there. We also, we helped the people on
Minnewashta Trail by a tremendous amount and we helped the people.
Mayor Chmiel: That was additional contributions though by State.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that.
Mayor Chmiel: So those are two different issues. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: But still, we helped'them a lot. We also helped the
people with the Lake Ann Interceptor a lot and if anything should have thrown us
into a tax increase in 1992 it would be the Interceptor. My gosh we just gave
them huge reductions. I cannot see that $50,000.00 is going to cause us a tax
increase in 1992. I know we can pull it from somewhere.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: It 's before my time Don. ,
Mayor Chmiel: It's your decision.
Councilman Wing: Any comments I would make would be as a resident. With 3 in '
college my greatest fear next to thunderstorms in my work would be an assessment
as a taxpayer. I would agree that I don't believe we're setting a precedent. I
think each one ought to be taken on it's own option. I don't want to see that 1
15 ,
•
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
cast in concrete. I guess suddenly here, and '
9 Y I m speaking in a very naive
position and I'm not in the foreground of this whole project and what happened
I way back when but just looking at the numbers and the issue of assessments, I
guess I tend to favor the 70/30 in support of the neighbors. Not just in
support of this neighborhood but in support of the city residents overall, today
II and in the future and trying to absorb this. Even if I'm going to pay slightly
higher taxes myself, because it's someday it's going to affect me and "they'll
pay slightly higher taxes. At least this enormous burden won't be placed on me
II individually and that's my greatest concern. I don't justify nor suggest a
70/30 but I'm not convinced it's not a more equitable way to go. And Don I say
that again as a very new member. I'm hesitant to bring suggestions up. At this
point I would suggest, I tend to favor 70/30. I just feel more comfortable with
I burdening the assessment. On the other hand, there is a responsibility to pay
for it and I certainly support Mr. Workman in clarify our future projects. . .and
getting up front real early in the process so when a project is going to be
Idone, everybody knows exactly what they're going to encounter. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
ICouncilman Mason: Well, I like Councilman Wing are kind of new on this issue.
I was curious to hear what Don you had to say about past policy and the long and
the short. I'm curious if the people on Frontier Trail were aware what the
I policies were 15 years ago. So before, I understand the difference between
curves and the right angles but I wonder if some of this could have been avoided
had they known that past policies are such that if you have a corner lot or in
' this case a big curved lot, that the long is one percentage and the short of it
is another percentage. I understand the rationale on the previous policy. I
also have a little trouble with having the people with a little less front
footage having to share a larger burden. The other side of that is, there's one
1 lot here that has 30 feet. Should that person have to pay more than the per
foot lot because that lot is significantly shorter?
Mayor Chmiel: I agree with that portion of the analogy that you have.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Engelhardt, you talked about 60/40 is logical. I bet you
could find just as many people that would say 70/30 is logical.
Bill Engelhardt: If you go back I guess way to the beginning, in our initial
feasibility study, we were looking at a 57/43 split and the reason that we
I proposed the 57/43. . .recommendation of Council is we felt based on the analysis
of the new versus old, buy back of the old street, that that was going to be a
pretty good number. But as a tool of the Council will use because we were
' trying to come up with a program for the city. We did show some other splits in
there. We showed 70/30 and we showed 100%. What it would do and how it would
affect the property owners in how they'd be affected. But we go right back to
the beginning and again the 57/43 split. After the analysis was done and the
IIdesign phase and the numbers were firmed up a little more, the 60/40 split was a
very good number for this particular street. Even after all the costs are in,
that 60/40 split is still a very equitable, fair number for the people that are
Ion that street. Whether they're paying for new construction that they did not
previously pay for. Now you may not want to set 60/40 as the next precedent
because as the City Manager said, that particular street may have just curb and
gutter going that is all brand new, they should pay 100% of the cost. I think
16
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
what you should focus on is the methodology that people on existing street pay
for new construction. You determine what the difference in cost is between the
old and the new and you pay for new construction. That's a fair and equitable
way of producing assessment rolls.
3 .
Councilman'Mason: Can I keep going? When. I asked that about if the people on '
Frontier Trail knew about previous policy, I saw some people shaking their head
no. As a taxpayer in the city, I understand what the people on Frontier Trail
are saying. That they're not the only people benefitting from that road. A lot
of people drive on Frontier Trail. I didn't used to but now that the new road
is there, I use it. I'll admit it.
Don King: Put your money in the fare box. '
Councilman Mason: And if we're going with this reduction thing that clearly
came into play late for some of the people here, I guess I kind of see the 60/40
70/30 thing as a possible trade-off.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom. '
Councilman Workman: Are you done Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: I have another question but go ahead. '
Councilman Workman: Well, I don't have anything to base 70/30 on. You said it
could be logical and I agree. It could be logical if it were based on the sound
fiscal balancing and the cost because that's what we're going to have to go
after the people in Chan Estates with. Next year. In two years. And they're
all going to be holding us up to the light and how we handled this deal and you
( all know people over there and you're going to tell them. And so that's the
only way that I can operate on this Council. Not just throw out a figure
because I want to give a reduction and I think that's the way I tried to operate
on Minnewashta Parkway and I think we might have opened ourselves up a little
bit there and every other assessment deal that we have and we have to, it seems
like we have to deal with these things every Council meeting and they're not
fun. And so just as I'm on the Board of Adjustments for variance requests, I
have to make the decisions based on how I'm going to have to treat people in the
future and how they've been treated in the past and that makes it fairest.
Otherwise it gets political and it gets weighty and you can't deal with it. So
Bill gives me very good, sound reasons to say •60/40. And Ursula has said here
tonight that she is going to give me those same reasons.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll give you some reasons for 70/30. '
Councilman Workman: For the 70/30 and I would love to do that and I'm very open
minded to that because I don't have to like 60/40 but so far the money people
have told me that's the way it's supposed to work. Because of the cost and
because of taxes and the budget and everything else. That's about all I have to
go but I'm going to have more to go on. The front footage method was selected,
if I recall, because the Courts have decided over and over and over that that's
the fair way to do it. For me to stick my nose in, an amateur and say the per
unit is fair when the Courts have talked about it, I don't know if that would be
prudent on my behalf. Unless somebody can show me Court cases that show the per
17 '
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
unit is. And I know that doesn't make some people happy obviously. When we
' originally were talking about this program, we were talking about a sidewalk
through there. Who would have had to pay for the sidewalk?
' Councilwoman Dimler: The residents.
Councilman Workman: I can't imagine us having that additional cost in here
right now. Now Joel, you were kind of for or against it depending on which side
of the street you lived on.
Joel Jenkins: I was for it all the way. Either side.
ACouncilman Workman: Okay. I don't know what we're going to do with Kiowa
Circle.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do.
Councilman Workman: Maybe we ought to just redo the whole street. I don't
' know. I think it needs to be addressed and I know Don you brought that up and
we haven't really talked about it but we should talk about it and something
should be done. I don't know if we have recourse or if it was our fault or if
it was the contractor's fault or how they take care of their equipment in other
situations when they're repairing roads.
' Bill Engelhardt: If I could just speak to that briefly. We touched bases a
little bit on that in a workshop. Kiowa Circle was originally included in the
feasibility study. We considered Kiowa Circle to be in as worse or as bad as
Frontier Trail and needed to be improved. It has a thin layer of bituminous on
it. It's a very soft base material in it and we recommended that it be
incorporated and included in with Frontier Trail. Whether the contractor parked
his equipment on there or not has really nothing to do with it in my opinion.
From an engineering standpoint, that street was dead, is dead or will be dead
until it is repaired. It had a patch put in it where they repaired the sewer
and they replaced the patch in the street with the same thickness of blacktop
' that they found in there. That's the way the project was set up for that
particular project. The sewer rehab project, it did take longer and in fact
it's falling apart. That's the way the rest of the street, so I don't think the
contractor or the sewer contractor or street contractor parking their equipment
' in there really had that great effect on that particular street.
Mayor Chmiel: Of course I did see those people park in there but normally in
contracts that you have, if they do,cause some problem, they normally restore it
back to the present condition that it was in. Depending on what condition it
was in, should have been taken care of.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to respond to Mr. Engelhardt's comments.
What I hear people saying, at least from that side all the time is that if the
road is dead, let's not maintain it. That to me doesn't make any sense. We're
doing the same thing now in Chan Estates. Those people are going to be faced
with a project as big as this if not bigger and we're going to go through this
whole thing all over again. I say, whether the road is dead or alive, it should
' be maintained. It should be maintained with at least a resurfacing
periodically. And it was not done. Frontier Trail was never done in 30 years.
' 18
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
I
Therefore the subsoils were exposed to all kinds of weather conditions. The
cracking occurred and the road just got worse and worse and worse. Frontier
Trail at one time did have asphalt curbing. That was plowed down with the
snowplows and never refurbed and many people had drainage problems as a result.
We've been through this and we're doing the same thing. I think a street should
be maintained whether you think it's dead or not. And Kiowa Circle definitely
is in worse shape. Definitely is in worse shape. Like I said even just as
short as 2 months ago they were still parking equipment there and they weren't
even working on the project in our area and it was heavy equipment. So they
need to be told not to use that as a parking spot, just because it's a dead
street.
Bill Engelhardt: I wasn't aware of the last time that they parked on there. I
do know that they parked in there during the project and there were some reasons
for it but I guess to clarify too. I'm not saying that you should just abandon
the street at this point. I think under your sealcoating program, include it in
a sealcoat and it seals it. Cosmetically it brings it up to a little higher
level but it's not going to solve the inherent base and structural problems.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's okay. We just want it maintained. '
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: I've taken my coat off for a reason. Initially when this was
passed to me I sort of withdrew a little bit but now that I've got my mind a
little more established here. I did attend the neighborhood meetings, two of
them and I did listen to all the comments. The arguments tonight we've heard,
for months. The same complaints. Unit versus the front footage. I guess as
much as it's difficult to say this., because the heat of the word assessment is
so strong tonight, the City Manager as I've met with him and the staff have been
very fair and conservative. They live in the city. We don't like it but it's
kind of common and normal what's occurring here. The members of the community
from Frontier that I've talked to personally after the neighborhood meeting, I
sort of said I thought it was cut and dry. Pretty well a done deal. That it
was fair and equitable. As fair and equitable as the city could make it. And
it does two things. It isolates your section from my section so in a 60/40
split, I'm going to absorb some of the cost in the west end but it kind of locks
me out from total cost. On the other hand, if they improve my street, it's
locking out you folks in the future from paying my share. So I guess I've been
left here as speaking somewhat new at the project. I feel, after meeting with
staff and the neighborhood meetings and talking to Council through this process,
that this is as fair and equitable as possible. I still like the idea of
isolating the projects from the community at large. I think it protects both of
us. I think when all is said and done, I have tend to say that this is as good
as we're going to go and the 70/30 split would make no more sense to me than a
90/10 split unless it's justified and we start all over again and we completely
redo what we intend to do in the future and I don't know if I favor that Kr.
Mayor. i
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Ursula?
I
19 '
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
1 Councilwoman Dimler: I guess this is my time to give the pitch for the 70/30
and the reasons for it because Frontier Trail does have some unique
characteristics and remember that I favor going on a case by case basis with no
' established ratio. When we talk about the situation with the outlots, I'm just
outraged when the, city says that they cannot be assessed because they have no
market value. Yet at the same time they want the residents to pick up that cost
when for the same reason they don't get any benefit out of it. There's no
1 market value for the residents as well so to me, that's just one more reason why
the City should pick up more than 60%. Also because the road was so poorly
maintained and that can be documented by people that have lived there the entire
lifetime of that road. It has never been resurfaced. And it simply got a
filling of potholes when they became unbearable and then every once in a while
we got a tarring and the gravel thrown on top of it. I've lived there myself
for over 16 years and that's all that's ever happened since I've been there
and I've talked to the residents who have been there the entire lifetime of that
road and they concur with that. Like I said, it was the snowplowing that did
away with the curbing so we did have curbing. It's not something new. It's
just different. It's concrete now. It's not asphalt and it is better. I won't
argue against that but the question is, or because of the money that was saved
and I'll say it again, without proper maintenance. The money that was saved
for not resurfacing that road over the 30 years, I think that we can very easily
find $50,000.00 somewhere in our budget to make that a 70/30 split and have the
City pay it's fair share of bringing that road to the grade to meet city
standards.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that it?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I, in my infinite wisdom said that I requested that we
establish our assessment policies for the city and that should be in writing.
The more I think about it, the more firm I become with it only because I really
believe that should be done. Basically in dealing with other portions of the
. city, and I still feel that if we go to that 70/30 and you said both, I'm still
concerned with the tax increases that this could create for 1992. I think being
at a 60/40 is a fair split. I keep throwing out the fact that just with my own
area in putting in street, a bituminous curb which no longer is there and the
water and the storm sewer, that assessment of mine came pretty close to
$10,000.00 plus the additional amounts. Nobody helped pay for that and I don't
think that's right either for all those people that that's happened to as well.
' So that's the reason I come back to establishing something in writing and saying
this is what it is folks and there's no argument that can come back from them.
You have to start somewhere and I think this is the place to start.
' Councilwoman Dimler: If you want to do it after this Kiowa, Frontier Trail
project, that's fine with me but I don't think it's fair to say you're starting
with this.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Then you're changing the whole ballgame. Well they did some of
this in the inner portions of the city as well when they did this back at the
time. On some of those things that they've done and in some other areas. And
if we haven't done sort of a 60/40 split, then I wouldn't argue.
' 20
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Then why does this policy, I think this was written by you
Don wasn't it or Paul? Or Chuck.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's on page 3. It says the city does not have a policy
establishing a defined percentage to be.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right. We don't.
Councilwoman Dimler: So why start now?
Mayor Chmiel: Because you have to start somewhere. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Start after this project though.
Mayor Chmiel: To eliminate the problems that go. Ii
Councilwoman Dimler: Right, but start after this project. I don't think it's
fair to start right here with this project then. I
Mayor Chmiel: Tom.
Councilman Workman: Yeah Don Ashworth, is this $50,000.00 theoretical dollars, ,
is that a one time shot or is that an annual cost until '99?
Don Ashworth: I think it's a little closer to $60,000.00. I
Councilman Workman: Are those annual costs?
Don Ashworth: No. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Just a one time shot.
Don Ashworth: Well, the way it would occur is if you look at the bond analysis
report. It's about the fourth sheet from the end. It's the one that looks like
this. What that shows you is that the City, and I've made an asterick by the I
left hand column. That shows you that the city cost associated with this
percent is $352,377.00. You divided that by the 60%, you'd end up with
$60,000.00 for each 10%. So you'd be adding., if you find the sheet, it's about
the fourth one in from the end and the column I'm referring to or row is the one
with the large astericks that's on the left hand side. Going on across and
looking at the total, $352,000.00. So you're talking about $60,000.00 for each
10%. I
Councilman Workman: That is what we will be paying on a 60/40?
Don Ashworth: On a 60/40. '
Councilman Workman: Okay, Ursula's bringing up this $50,000.00. Additional
over the lifetime?
1
21
-- t
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Don Ashworth: I'm saying that that, I think what that is closer to 60 and what
IIit would do is would change this number from $352,000.00 to $410,000.00.
Councilwoman Dimler: So it's an additional $60,000.00 about?
IIDon Ashworth: A little less. 58.
Councilman Wing: On that same line Don, why would we want to get this cast into
IIa policy? On that third page it would suggest that we would be a little more
flexible and look at cost and impact on each project. You tend to support that
or do you tend to support a set policy?
IIDon Ashworth: Well it may sound as though Charles and I are saying something
different. I'm supporting placing in writing really what we've done so even
II with the 70/30, if Helen Loebl would come in tomorrow and say well show me where
that's been done I would pull all of the assessment rolls over all of those
years and say here. Look at Mr. Rowein's lot, which is what Don and I did this
afternoon for the 78 project and the 88 project. But you won't find, even
I though all of those projects were done in that fashion, you can't pick up a
little book and it says, here's how it's going to be done. So you've got 15
years where you've done it that way but nobody's written it down on a sheet of
' paper. That should be done. Secondly I think it should be put into writing
that the City, how the City will assess items. So storm sewer will be a 50/50
split. Sidewalk would be a 50/50 split. Streets, we're basically taking in,
we'll pay the cost of the streets except if there's additional width, in which
IIcase you'd pay that additional width. If you didn't have concrete curb and
gutter you will pay that additional cost. Have each of those in writing. What
I'm saying is, that may then change the assessment amount within different
Iareas. In this area it turns out to be 60/40. But in the Chan Estates area, it
may not be, it may be 50/50 and onto my street, because I'm pretty sure my
street will be totally salvaged, the only cost I will pay, I will be paying all
of the cost for that concrete curb and gutter. I'm real fearful that you adopt
like a 70/30 or 60/40 without basing it on something because otherwise if you
did that and I knew that, when .you came into do my street, I'd say well wait a
minute. I want you to put in sidewalk. I want more street lights. I want
' storm sewer. As long as my cost is going to be fixed out of the thing, why
would I, I'm going to be pushing for more things. Especially as the percentage
gets higher for the city.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: Excuse me. Aren't we just talking about the percentage of
the road though? The 60/40 and 70/30. We're just talking about the road here.
IIWe're not talking about the sewer and the lighting and the sidewalk. We're
talking about road only.
Don Ashworth: The cost though that Bill has in there, he has separated those
Iout. Really the street portion, as far as an assessment, the major portion of
that is over on the city side of the column. Right? And what's adding up to
the citizen's side is the cost of the concrete curb and gutter which is on their
Iside. The overall balancing comes out at the 60/40.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, you wanted to say something. Why don't you come up here.
1
1
' 22
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Tom Pzynski: Based on the 60/40 split again, and recommending a 70/30. I 9 uess
the question I have is, the road's been there for a long, long time. 20 some
odd years. Going on 30 years and the question I have is, if the road would have
been maintained to a minimum level, okay. By the City over those years, what
would be the difference now in this project? Would it still be a 60/40 split?
60% of the road is, the City's picking up 60% of the road and we'•re paying for
40% which is the upgrade for the additional base? Not just the curbs. Not just
the concrete curbs. We're paying for the additional base. We're paying for the
additional thickness in blacktop and the curb and gutters. But if the road was
maintained to a minimum level over these years, would it still be a 60/40? How
can you answer that?
Bill Engelhardt: I believe it would be, yes. I
Mayor Chmiel: Someone raised their hand there I thought.
Councilman Workman: Well Don, one more point. My point was, before everybody I
jumped in. I hadn't finished my discussion yet is, and if we go back to our
original graph and we're paying $32,000.00 this year and $42,000.00 the next and
42 and 47, 46, 50 all the way up to 1999 at a total of $352,000.00 and we are
going to address let's say another roadway issue in the next year or two like
all of Chan Estates. The old Chan Estates and we're going to have anything
that's simple or resembles this. I'm assuming we're going to be paying some
more of that. In the memo we're talking about that the amount necessary for
1992 is $32,722.00 with that amount increasing to $50,368.00 by the year 1999.
Dollars necessary fund the City's share of this project directly competes with
dollars available for police officers, street maintenance, etc.. How many of
these projects could we get going at the same time and still keep afloat until
1999 when we start dropping off?
Don Ashworth: The City definitely has to continue monitoring it's financial
position and once you start loading on more projects than you can, if you're
adding on more projects than projects are dropping off, you're in trouble. So
right now you do have projects dropping off in terms of the bonds of '72 and '73
which is basically providing room necessary for not only this project and also
Minnewashta Parkway project. That is also a large hit in this. I believe that,
this is based on our current analysis that the bonds of '83 currently have about
$85,000.00 per year. It appears as though we will be in a position to basically
delete that levy amount which then again will give us some free board for
hypothetically the next project which may be Chan Estates. But once you're
adding more to than you're taking off, you've got a tax increase or you're
taking away police officers, firemen, other services.
Councilman Workman: Well, and I wanted to kind of add in there that our '
suggested policy of taking the longer frontage lots and giving them a break kind
of throws a wrench I think in that fairness question. Again, I wanted to get
that in there. The budget is a finite amount unless we want to think of
property taxes as an infinite amount like sometimes I think the School District,
the State and the County do. And so we're trying to keep the budget of the City
down which means maybe a higher assessed value for those who have street work in
front of their house, although the 60/40 we've tried to base on fairness. I
guess we could go, I would suggest and be the hero of the night to say let's go
90/10 and let's increase taxes and get in with everybody else. It's not based
23
' City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
on anything. I might be the hero tonight. I might be somebody's goat next week
1 but that we have a small, relatively small budget in relationship to all the
other players in the tax game and our's is most effected. That's why, going by
the sound based of what we've tried to do. I know we've looked at it and looked
I at it. I just don't see where we can make compromise. We don't have a whole
lot of room to compromise. I know how difficult this is for us to move
$50,000.00 here or there and we're about ready to go into that tomorrow night.
II I guess I don't have to, 60/40 doesn't have to be a locked in basis for every
street in town but I have a feeling, and you know I think Milly Ives was saying
we've never had anything done to West 76th Street. When's that going to
happen? They did have something done but we're going to have some, we have time
IIbombs ticking out there and we have to.
Mayor Chmiel: That part Tom we've already discussed with staff. Sealcoating is
going to take place with the balance of the roads. One more comment.
Don King: I guess again I support the 70/30 but you're talking about playing
games with money back and forth here. I've been 17 years on Frontier Trail.
II Over that period of time, how many sealcoatings is city policy? Is there a
policy of how often you upgrade a street? If so, how much does it cost per or
is it roughly 5,000 or 6,000 feet that we're talking about?
IICharles Folch: There is no written policy as far as a sealcoating routine,
although in the last, from records that I've seen over the last 4 years, 4 to 5
I years, it has been the City's intent to try and sealcoat and do street repair,
crack filling, pothole patching and then a sealcoat on each street within the
city on a revolving 4 to 5 years turn. So that every 4 to 5 years we could get
a street with a sealcoat. However, we have to remember that one thing to keep
I in mind is that that annual sealcoating budget is limited by comparison to the
percentage of total streets that the city has to maintain. As we continue to
add more and more streets get built to this city, that $100,000.00 doesn't go as
' far to make sure that every street gets sealcoated every 4 to 5 years. So those
are things to keep in mind too. As we incur more streets under the
responsibility of our maintenance program, there's added cost there but the
amount that we get annually is limited.
I
Don King: And how much would you suggest that the cost of 6,000, roughly 6,000
feet I think it is, of street would cost? If we do it. If I take 17 years I've
I been here, I know of one time that street was done. So we'll take it 4 times in
the years I've been here that that street probably should have been upgraded of
which it was done once. What is the expense of that 6,000? Obviously we made
I some financial decisions some place to call the street dead. As we use the word
dead. Because it's dead it stayed dead. It went downhill. You saved some
money somewhere in the city and now we're asking you to put it back in and go
for 70/30 and you're bickering about it. I don't follow your rationale
II whatsoever here. Also earlier on my comment about the shorter street, I just
reconfirmed with Wayne, you took the longer leg of his home which is 146. Well
mine is 155 long leg. Short leg is 147 so you should be calculating mine the
Isame as his. I think there's just complete inconsistencies continue to go here.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like a motion to close the public hearing.
1
1 24
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Workman moved, Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? If no other discussion. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we recalculate the '
Frontier Trail assessment roll on a 70/30 split with 70% to be paid by the City
for the fact, because of the reasons just stated by Mr. King. That the road was
not maintained and money was saved by not maintaining it. That to me is a good
enough reason to go for a 70/30. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, do you have that as a motion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. 1
Councilman Workman: I would seriously consider seconding that motion if I can
be told where the $50,000.00 will come from. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Money that we just saved in the bonding upgrade.
Mayor Chmiel: You're taking it from the balance of the city. From other people !
that should be benefitting from that.
Councilwoman Dimler: How about the street maintenance fund? They're the ones '
that have been saving money by not doing Frontier Trail?
Don Ashworth: As Charles had stated, and if I may be. I believe the policy is
in writing. Bill Monk was present. He presented that program to the City
Council. The Council adopted what was the $100,000.00 amount. That we should
continue on an annual basis. One of the problems as Charles noted is as you
have more and more streets, it maybe should have been a percent basis rather
than more of a dollar amount. That is a possibility as a potential source. It
could not come out of the amount for the bonds because what you're talking about
is the bonds that will be sold tomorrow night to finance projects such as
Minnewashta and Audubon and those projects. The assessment, the ones who
actually benefit out of that are the people that were going to be assessed as a
part of that project. These bonds were sold a year ago and we're kind of locked
into those payments.
Councilwoman Dimler: But like I said, we didn't make that decision. Council
did not make that decision.
Don Ashworth: That's correct Ind should the Council make a decision to go with
70/30, we will have to accommodate that additional cost as a part of the 1
budgetary process. And yes, I don't know if it will come out of street
maintenance or police contract or what, but it will have to come out of
something. II
Councilwoman Dimler: The other place that we could maybe do it is instead of
buying a lot of seasonal equipment that sits around during the off season, why
don't we contract for services which has shown to be a cheaper way to go and
just simply not buy anymore equipment? Seasonal equipment. I know we could do
a significant savings there. See I have trouble with not giving these residents
25
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
a break of $50,000.00 when we so easily purchase a lawn mower for $50,000.00.
That to me just doesn't make any sense.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion onthe floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Its been moved and seconded. Additional discussion.
I/ Councilman Workman: I guess I cannot make a decision based on that $50,000.00
based on a lawnmower maybe that the HRA bought or where that came from. I
cannot make a $50,000.00 movement in budget based on something I don't see. Out
' of any funds and so I can't vote for 70/30 based on that. Based on the
emotionalism of the room because it's not based on anything that I've ever
discussed the budget on.
' Councilwoman Dimler: But Tom, when we did the one on Minnewashta we didn't know
where the money was coming from. When we did the one on the Lake Interceptor,
we didn't know where the money was coming from and we had no trouble voting for
11 those two reductions.
Councilman Workman: We did. They didn't come out of a lawnmower fund.
' Mayor Chmiel: They didn't come from any other place.
Councilwoman Dimler: No. No, but where did it come from?
Mayor Chmiel: They're still all being financing through the people.
' Councilman Wing: If we're going to set a precedent of raising my taxes living
on the west end by going with a 70/30, then I guess I'd like to complain about
my street maintenance too. This could go on forever. And perhaps there's some
money out there that I could be given back to make up for the additional percent
that I'm going to have to pay additional. We're going to have to isolate these
assessments and I guess I feel like Tom. The emotionalism. The issues tonight
are no different than last week, the week before or the month before. Same
arguments. Same complaints. It has to be paid for. How are we going to pay
for it. The assessment seems to be fair and Don I'm not so sure there isn't
kind of a need and an interest, at least on some of our parts, to table this to
' discuss the 70/30 a little further. Clarify in our mind what we're going to do
and then come back and do it without any further public hearing.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I wouldn't favor tabling because I think this issue needs
to be put to bed. I know that Charles has given us a deadline and I think we're
thoroughly discussed it. This has gone on too long. I'm sick of it and I know
the residents are sick of it.
' Mayor Chmiel: I don't think tabling would be a bad idea to come up with that
discussion myself.
' Councilman Wing: I won't vote for it tonight.
1
26
L
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: But we do have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call a
question on it. Mike, did you want to say something?
Councilman Mason: Yeah. One of the reasons I seconded it was because this has
been extremely confusing for a whole lot of people. I've mentioned some of the
confusion. I think Ursula's mentioned some of the confusion. Certainly a lot
of people have mentioned a lot of confusion. I think we need to come up with a
way to end this kind of confusion. I like what I heard about trying to figure
out some kind of schedule. I think $50,000.00 over 7 years, 8 years comes out
to be $6,000.00-$7,000.00 a year. I think this is a case by case basis. I
think because this is 70/30 does not mean the next project would be 70/30. I
think if raising property taxes in the city of Chan, I mean what. I know our
percentage of property taxes is very small compared to everyone else that takes
their piece of the pie. I think that's something we maybe, maybe need to take a
look at. I'm uncomfortable with the 60/40 split and the methodology arrived at
the lot reduction without the knowledge of the citizens on Frontier Trail and
that's why I voted for the 70/30 split and that's, excuse me. That's why I
seconded it and that's why at this point I would vote for it although I suspect
it may not pass.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I was at that neighborhood meeting and I thought
Bill and Charles made it very clear what the issues were. What the numbers
were. There was no confusion in my mind whatsoever in my mind when I left that
meeting on how these things were derived at. And they were brought up again
tonight but I felt they had been answered fairly and that's why I considered
this pretty complete at this point. So I disagree with some of the comments
from the neighbors. If they weren't at the meeting possibly but having been at
the meeting, I don't think they could make the accusations they have.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll call a question. All those in favor of a 70/30 split say
aye?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to recalculate the Frontier
Trail assessment roll on a 70/30 split with 70% to be paid by the City based on
the fact that the road was not maintained and money was saved by not maintaining
it. Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Mason voted in favor. Councilman
Workman, Councilman Wing and Mayor Chmiel voted in opposition. The motion
failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion to table this issue to
investigate the possibility of coming up with the funds to enable us to do a
70/30 split.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I would second that. Any other discussion? '
Councilman Mason: This would need to come up on the 28th without fail I take
it. '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the assessment roll for
Frontier Trail Improvement Project No. 89-10 until October 28, 1991 for further
investigation into the 70/30 split. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
27
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LAKE DRIVE EAST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
89-6.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing and I'd like to open that public hearing
at this time. Charles.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This assessment hearing was
first brought before you at the August 26th meeting. At that meeting staff had
recommended that this hearing be continued to allow some more time for staff and
representatives of Sunlink/DataSery Corporation, the sole proprietor proposed
for assessment to resolve some concerns that they had for the assessment amount.
Some key points from staff's perspective on this issue. Number one, when the
' project feasibility was first presented, the numbers and the cost for the
proposed assessment were presented and the DataSery company at that time felt
comfortable enough with those numbers to waive their right to a public hearing
at the feasibility time. Number two, the comparative assessment amount that is
proposed at this time is some $118,000.00 less than that predicted in the
feasibility study. Also in addition DataSery has been intimately involved in
the planning and design of this project from it's inception. In fact the actual
' alignment was based on a conceptual design that they had submitted for the
project. It's apparent that there's an issue resolved to right-of-way
acquisition that has surfaced whereby initially the State of Minnesota was going
II to acquire the needed right-of-way for that frontage road in order to provide
access to two lots which frontage would be discontinued off of TH 5. However
that acquisition did not take place. At this point DataSery is now requesting
' that the City buy the right-of-way from DataSery for the project. One thing
that should be noted or considered in this situation is that when a development '
occurs, subdivision proposal, typically the street right-of-ways are dedicated
to the city as a part of the plat at basically no cost to the city. This is
why, given this fact and the fact that MnDot initially was going to acquire the
right-of-way. These costs were not included in the original feasibility study.
At this point in time no favorable progress in negotiations, I'm not able to
' report between the city and Sunlink/DataSery Corporation. Basically they are
maintaining whole objection to the assessment amount even though the comparative
amount is, as I mentioned, $118,000.00 less than that at the feasibility
• hearing. Nevertheless, as I mentioned at the last public hearing. It's
' important that we adopt an assessment roll in a timely fashion given the
requirements and constraints that we have in certifying these assessments to the
County. Therefore, I would recommend that the City would proceed with adopting
' this assessment roll for the Lake Drive East Improvement Project 89-6 and I
would fully anticipate that during the interim that the negotiations would
probably still take place to try and resolve the issue at hand.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone here from DataServ? Sunlink/DataSery
Corporation. If seeing none, is there anyone else wishing to discuss this at
this time? This is a public hearing.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
' closed.
Councilman Workman: I move to adopt the assessment roll for Lake Drive East
' Improvement 89-6.
28
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Should we also mention in that motion Tom that the interest rate
and term be set for 8% for 8 years?
Councilman Workman: Yes. I
Councilman Mason: I'll second that too.
Resolution $91-97: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt
Assessment Roll dated October 7, 1991 for Lake Drive East Improvement Project
89-6 and that the interest rate and term be set at 8% for 8 years. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
REALLOCATION OF YEAR XVI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS.
Public Present: I
Name Address
Emma St. John 1621 West 63rd Street
Betty Crouch Senior Community Services
9801 Penn Ave. So. , Bloomington
JoAnn Kvern Senior Community Services
1600 2nd Street So, Hopkins 55343
Mayor Chmiel: This is also a public hearing and I'll open the public hearing at
this particular time. Paul.
Paul Krauss: Thank you Mr. Mayor. As most of the Council is aware, the HRA
approved a motion to amend their redevelopment plans to allow for the
construction of a senior center in the space behind the City Council Chambers.
The unfinished space in the basement of City Hall. One of the understandings
that was agreed to at the HRA was to the extent feasible we would use Community
Development Block Grant funds to offset the cost of construction and programming
in the center. With that we had pigeonholed a couple of years ago some
$23,000.00 odd dollars in an undefined senior account in the Block Grant money.
These are dollars that we really need to expend or have under contract by
December 31st or we lose them. We need to have them spent by June of next year.
It seems to me that this was the ultimate purpose that these dollars were set
aside for. What we're proposing to do with them is broken into two parts. The
first is that we would propose to contract with Senior Community Services for
two programs that they offer up through June of 1992. That's a total of
$8,172.00. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Senior Community Services,
they're the group that operates the South Shore Senior Center and have a number
of other projects in the area. A lot of expertise and a lot of faith in their
staff and programming. What we're proposing is that $4,900.00 be appropriated
for 12 hours per week of staff time to organize volunteers, organizing
programming and organize the effort for the new senior center so when the doors
open, it's all set to go and possibly even some activities could occur before
the doors open. The balance of the money would be used for what is called the
HOME program. I believe Mr. Mayor this fits in very well with your goal of
getting volunteers in the community to help out our senior community. The
29
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
' HOME program is designed to have a sliding scale of fees and be a volunteer
assistance no fees to enable seniors to stay in their homes but doing chores,
' work they need done around the house. They also serve to channel volunteers to
make sure these are appropriate people to send into somebody's house and they've
got a lot of experience. They operate this program I believe in 5 other
communities. JoAnn Kvern from Senior Community Services is here tonight to
answer any specific questions that you might have. The balance of the money,
approximately $15,000.00 we're recommending be appropriated towards the
architect's fees for the design of the construction plans for the center. We
think that's an appropriate use for the money. Also, you may recall that in
past discussions I told you there's a lot of strings that come attached to Block
Grant dollars. There's very limited places we can use them and this seems to be
' the ideal way, we think to get the senior center kicked off and get it so we can
get into construction early next year. So with that we are recommending that
you approve the reallocation of funds. Again these are old funds. It's Year
XVI. These were appropriated I believe in 1989 originally. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. As I mentioned before this is a public hearing.
The hearing is open at this particular time for anyone wishing to address this.
' 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: Let it be know that Councilwoman Dimler is not present for that
particular vote. I guess I don't see any real problem with this. I think we've
' discussed this before. I think that the appropriations can move forward. Tom,
did you have a comment?
Councilman Workman: I just wanted to make a comment on Mary Heiges, the Carver
County Library system letter in there. Basically her letter contends that the
library apparently doesn't have enough political power to get the rest of that
area. I don't think we made a decision in that space to leave the library with
a shortcoming. I think the HRA and the City have always talked about the need
for a larger library and probably outside of City Hall and we're working to that
means diligently I'd say and so in the next 2 to 3 years we could probably get
' something going. I didn't like the tone of the letter and I just hope she
understands that people are very concerned about that but we have other needs
besides a library also and we're very short on space. But that we're working
probably in the million dollar area in the future to find a permanent home for
the library. I guess I just wanted to.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Workman. A letter will be going out to
' Mary tomorrow expressing staff's frustration and the City Council's in trying to
meet everybody's space needs. Seniors would have liked to have more space than
what they're presently going to be getting. Staff is in need for additional
space. I mean we've physically got people in closets. We understand their
frustration and their needs for additional space and as you noted, the HRA is
hoping to find, to meet their space needs into the future. My letter will
' express the Council's and staff's concerns regarding their concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Any other? !
30
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'll move this very shortly. Just one sentence
here that is so typical of government. I just wish it wasn't here. $23,112.00 '
that remained unspent. These funds must be spent or we lose them. So for
heaven's sake, let's spend them. I agree, this is appropriate but if those
dollars are there and haven't, it always amazes me.
Councilman Mason: I had a hunch somebody was going to make that comment.
Councilman Wing: No, I just wanted to say to the public. I
Mayor Chmiel: His initials wouldn't be RW.
Councilman Wing: I think it's unappropriate to...government operates although ,
I understand how this evolves so it's somewhat sarcastic in it's comment. It
just points out. I would move staff recommendation to spend this grant as shown
by staff of $4,900.00, $3,200.00 and the begining of the senior center with the
$15,000.00 architectural fees. I think they're well thought out programs. Good
direction for the money and I would move acceptance of that recommendation.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Can I ask a question? Are we choosing ,
between Scheme A and Scheme B today?
Paul Krauss: Basically you are. The Senior Commission made some 1
recommendations. I think we asked Senior Community Services to give us kind of
a Chinese Menu where we could pick what we thought was the best package for us
to start out with. There was a support for the 12 hours per week plus the HOME
program. I forget which package that was labeled as but that's the one that
we'd be going to.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but we're not deciding on the outlay? ,
Paul Krauss: Oh no. No. Not at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Just for the funding.
Councilman Wing: Don, under this expenditure. Last year we gave money to the
group out at the Holy Named Church out on TH 7 which I thought was, because I've
been in there twice now. That's not in this one. Why did you choose not to
support that this year? ,
Paul Krauss: This is not your total allocation.
• Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second to approve the
resolution authorizing the allocation of Year XVI Community Development Block
Grant funds as follows. $3,272.00 funding for the HOME program through June of
1992; $4,900.00 for funding for staffing of Senior Community Services for 12
hours per week; and $14,943.00 reserved for architectural fees to prepare
construction documents for the senior center.
Resolution 191-98: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to i
approve the resolution authorizing the allocation of Year XVI Community
Development Block Grant funds as follows. $3,272.00 funding for the
HOME program through June of 1992; $4,900.00 for funding for staffing of Senior I
31 1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Community Services for 12 hours per week; and $14,943.00 reserved for
architectural fees to prepare construction documents for the senior center. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS:
•
11 A. LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER. PROJECT RA-110.
B. LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER UTILITIES.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, City Council members. This morning the Lake Ann Park
picnic/recreation bid opening was held at 9:00 a.m. . Unfortunately the results
of that opening were not favorable. The low base bid of $279,800.00 is
I approximately $90,000.00 higher than the budget and the original estimate. This
difference can be attributed to a number of factors but obviously it's not in
our best interest to move forward with the project at this time. It is
' therefore recommended that the City Council reject all bids for the shelter and
table action on both the shelter and the utilities until October 29, 1991. In
the interim we will prepare a detailed assessment of the bid difference for
presentation that evening. However it should be noted that if the Council
' remains committed to this project, we should look to the utilities portion of it
yet in the Fall of 1991 when the park is essentially vacant. If we push the
utilities off until the Spring of '92, we would run into many conflicts with
both the springtime uses and users at Lake Ann. A number of options are
available to the city to continue to move forward on this project. Hearing the
remarks from the City Council members this evening may help us in going forward
in that regard. As I noted in my original report, I did anticipate a number of
II bids. We did receive 8 bids and we anticipated that they would fluctuate just
not in this high end of the scale. I should note as well that Mr. Scott Harri
of Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings is here this evening to present their viewpoints
in this situation if the City Council so chooses.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I think staff recommends basically we should
reject all bids for the shelter at this particular time. Probably delay that
until Spring. Staff has a good point in putting the utilities in at this
particular time. It would have tendencies to probably disrupt the park during
the Springtime. My only concern is that when we put the, if we were to put
I these utilities in, that it not cause a given problem in location of the
facility with the shelter and that be tied in properly so we don't accrue
additional costs with that. In other words, miss it from where the utilities
are as to where the building is.
Councilman Wing: Where are the costs being...? The utilities. Are those costs
' set? Are those in line?
Mayor Chmiel: Those are probably pretty close. They're a little bit over what
we estimated for the utilities by about what? $8,000.00 from what our estimate
I was.
Todd Hoffman: Approximately yes.
IMayor Chmiel: Which is pretty close. Did you want to say something?
Todd Hoffman: No.
32
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: So what's the wishes of the Council? ,
Councilman Mason: So we're looking at, the way I see it we have a couple
different options here. Todd you're recommending holding off on utilities until
the 28th as well?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Mason: I was a really strong supporter of the recreation shelter and
I don't want to see this thing die a slow death. I'm really concerned about
that with these bids coming in like this. I don't want to see this hung out to
dry. I really don't.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree with you Mike but the cost differences of
$90,000.00 higher than what the estimate was is considerly more.
Councilman Mason: Right. So well, maybe we should just able it because we
still have a lot of stuff to talk about tonight but I think this certainly needs
some more discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we basically have to reject the bids. '
Councilman Mason: Right .
Mayor Chmiel: Tonight and then look at the possibilities of having utilities 1
back on October 28th and get those in before next year when we have the baseball
season going on.
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mason, there will be much more information available at the
28th describing what potential scenarios were and why this ended up where it
did. Potential cost savings. Some of the contractors informed us that there
gray areas which they may have overbid in the project and we can clear up those
types of areas in the specs and bring back some potential modifications as well
that they Council can mull over that.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion? ,
Councilman Mason: I'll move the motion to table this discussion for picnic/
recreation shelter bid and utilities bids until the 28th of October. I
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Councilman Workman: Tabling or are we rejecting? ,
Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll make the motion to reject the award of bids for
the Lake Ann Park Picnic/Recreation Shetler Project RA-110. I
Councilman Workman: And the utilities.
Councilwoman Dimler: And to table it until the 28th? '
33 I
•
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Mason: Do we do this one at a time or do we do it all together?
' Todd Hoffman: You can do it all at once. You're not rejecting utilities. Just
tabling action on that one until the 28th.
. Councilman Mason: Okay, so we'll reject Lake' Ann Park Recreation shelter bids
and table the award of bids for Lake Ann utilities.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion?
Councilman Wing: Because you're looking for input from Council as to what
direction you might go. I went along with this but I felt it was a lot of money
the record would show and I think if we can do the shelter for the agreed amount
of dollars and it can be reduced to that level or rebid to that level, then I
see no problem but if we have to come up with another $40,000.00-$60,000.00-
$90,000.00, I would prefer to see this project die. We're having an assessment
' problem tonight dealing with $50,000.00. I'm not going to put $90,000.00 into a
park shelter under those circumstances.
' Mayor Chmiel: You've got two different issues there that you're talking about.
And here we're providing the recreational facilities for the residents within
the community.
' Councilman Wing: I understand that. That comment was slightly short sighted
but there's just a lot of money on the table and we're talking about a lot more
money so my opinion is we should try and stay within the original bounds of the
' expenditures. That's all.
Councilman Mason: I agree whole heartedly with that. We're talking about a
facility that's going to benefit more than just the people on Frontier Trail.
Something that will benefit Chanhassen and the environs around it for years to
come. If it comes to that, 1 think that needs to be taken into account too.
' Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to reject the bids for the
Lake Ann Park Picnic/Recreation Shelter, Project RA-110 and to table action on
the Lake Ann Park Picnic/Recreation Shelter utilities until the October 28, 1991
' City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CITY CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING 'SELF-SERVICE MERCHANDISING' OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS,
FINAL READING.
Don Ashworth: We have before you the ordinance that the Council had looked at
from literally 2 weeks ago. The major change that was made was the inclusion of
' carton sales from the draft that again was in front of you 2 weeks ago. In the
time following I did receive a call from Mr. John Olson representing Minnesota
Grocer's who asked for a meeting between myself and the Mayor to discuss how the
City or what, at least to provide their input as a part of that process. The
Mayor, that meeting was held. The Mayor and I did attend. I think it's fair to
state that as a part of that discussion, it became clear that the retailers and
again I'm talking about primarily the convenience food retailers, were very
' concerned again with the carton sales. If I may paraphrase the Mayor. He had
' 34
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991 ,
stated his concern for theft as well as illegal sales of both tobacco as well as
alcohol at these establishments. He was not able to attend or stay for the rest
of that meeting but basically gave back over to staff the assignment to continue
meeting with those retailers to see if there was some possible means by which we
could come to some form of an agreement on.how to reduce theft as well as
illegal sales of both tobacco as well as alcoholic products. I will. not say
that everyone in that room was in agreement with all of the points that I'll
bring out but I thought that a majority did state that they could live with the
following points. If they would become acceptable to the City to allow the
continued sale of carton tobacco products. First point that I thought was
interesting was the establishment of what was called a TAS Committee which
represents Tobbacco Alcohol Sales. The group really appeared interested in
getting feedback not only from the community but City Council as to how illegal
sales and thefts could be curbed. They are willing or want to take and receive
that feedback. If there could be this larger committee again representing
community people as well as Council, should the Council determine that, they
would welcome that. They see the sale of cartons of cigarettes as $20.00 bills
and they're not interested in seeing $20.00 bills stolen from them. They would
agree to a certification process. Again this would deal with both the alcohol
as well as the tobacco sales. Where each individual employee would sign a
statement saying that they know that it is illegal to sale to a minor and that
that would be signed annually. It would be given to the City as a part of the
annual licensing processing for both tobacco as well as alcohol. That would be
important to the City as there has been instances in the past where an illegal
sale has occurred and it's been by a younger person, someone who's family has
lived in the community for a long period of time. They have no prior record of
any type of impropriety. And yet they are the ones who had sold an illegal
product and therefore they were the ones that were being prosecuted, not
necessarily the store. That placed the city in a difficult position of knowing,
did that person really know that he should not be carrying. out this illegal
sale. They again would agree that the City should establish again that type of
a forum and should require that that be submitted as a part of annual licensing.
They would look to restricted sales, meaning that the current ordinance
requirement, although not necessarily desired by them, they could live with that
' in terms of no self merchandising of tobacco products that were dispensed in
containers of 3 or less. Penalties, they agree that there should be penalties.
In the proposed ordinance, they would ask that an additional change be made
which would basically make it illegal for the minor himself to be purchasing.
The idea is they do not, I'm paraphrasing this wrong. They do not mind being
held responsible but they also think that there may be a belief by the minor
knowing that he himself is creating or is acting in an illegal fashion and can
be prosecuted himself may additionally be a deterrent to that youngster trying
to purchase a tobacco product. Warning signs, there were all types of those.
The Council has one I think in the packet but they would look back to this
larger committee to establishing uniform signs and they would be willing to post
those however the city wished them posted. I refer again this to cooperative
involvement program, much of which recognizes that they do not care to see
illegal sales occur. They don't really care to see sting type of operations but
maybe there could be some other type of programs. I know that the Mayor had
mentioned this before he left in which the community becomes more involved and
he relayed an incident in which the had gone back and reported to an individual
clerk what he had seen as an illegal activity and felt simply by taking that
action, taking the time to become involved, that that clerk will in all
35 '
I
Lary l.ouncil neeting - octooer 14, 1991
1 likelihood not do that again. Again I'm not quite sure what a TAS committee
might come up with as far as a community involvement program. Maybe it's
II something like the Mayor mentioned. Maybe it's just more awareness that we're
all paying that cost of products that are stolen. Staff placed in writing the
points which I heard the group state. Again Mr. Olson is here. He may wish to
state that I have incorrectly stated their points. This occurred in one
II afternoon and literally the packet was going out at the time that these were
placed into writing. Staff does believe, oh a final point is that the group
appeared to have the biggest concern. I shouldn't say biggest because I know
' that they have individual concerns for a full line grocer and how a full line
grocer may be able to place cartons behind the counter. They think that that,
and again they're not speaking for the full line grocery. They're worried about
I their business but they felt that that full line grover, Festival Foods, should
be involved with this larger committee to insure that whatever type of program
we're developed, that they would be a part of it. They had two suggestions of
things that could be done. One of which has currently been done by Holiday
II where they have created a U shaped sales area. You can only purchase or obtain
cartons by entering the center of the U that is opposite the clerk. You cannot
go behind and grab cigarettes from the back portion of that U. In other words,
' entry only from the front. Another of the retailers suggested that they would
be willing to establish like a plastic or a glass covering over the carton area
prohibiting access. Breaking open of individual cartons with only the bottom
carton being able to be pulled out and further than putting a monitor or sensory
' device on that. They don't know which of those may be acceptable to the
Council. If either. They know they have a real problem in trying to put all of
the cartons behind the counter. They would hope that again this larger
II committee that might be selected to work with them would choose one of those two
alternatives for potentially a better one.
I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there any response? Discussions that Don had just
had indicating what the discussions were. Maybe I see that you're present.
Would there be anything that he stated that would be incorrect. Thank you. Yes
sir. Please state your name and address.
IIAlex Wagenaar: My name is Alex Wagenaar. I reside at 7130 Willow View Cove in
Chanhassen. I'm also an Associate Professor of Epidemiology at the University
' of Minnesota and have spent a number of years studying issues of youth
involvement in tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. I need to reiterate what I
said 2 weeks ago at the first reading of this change in the Chanhassen City
I Code. That is that I'm very proud to live in a city that takes preventing
tobacco, alcohol and other drug use among under aged people and the prevention
of that use seriously. I again commend you Mr. Mayor and Council people for the
preparation of this ordinance change. As we know, almost 400,000 people each
I year die in the United States as a result of cigarette smoking. If we can get
our youth through the teenage years without using cigarettes, they're very
likely to never use cigarettes. To never become addicted to nicotine. To never
' experience the damaging health consequences of that addiction. I have some
additional information that I was not prepared with a couple of weeks ago that I
think may be of interest to you. We've conducted surveys of Minnesota youth.
79% of non-smoking High School students and 97% of smokers say that cigarettes
II are very easy for them to acquire. Most students report that the means by which
they acquire their cigarettes is they purchase them. A child who smokes just
one pack of cigarettes will develop a substantial tolerance to the effects of
36
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991 ,
nicotine that starts them on the process towards addition to cigarettes.
Nicotine addiction is a very difficult addiction to overcome. It may be more
difficult than heroine addiction. More than a half of high school seniors who
currently smoke daily have tried to quit but they've been without success. If
we make tobacco inaccessible to our young people it provides us a consistent
message that tobacco use is not a youth activity. And as parents and concerned
community members, I think we have the right to expect that our children will
not be sold products that are illegal for them to use and that they will not be
openly displayed and readily accessible to under aged people in our community.
I have a few other statistics from some of our recent studies. We asked high
school students for example. If you wanted cigarettes, how easy would it be for
you to get them? Only 6% of the boys and 5% of the girls said that they would
have some difficulty. All the rest said it would be either very easy or fairly
easy to get cigarettes. Have you ever gotten cigarettes from a salesperson?
94% of all smokers said that they had. We asked when trying to buy cigarettes,
have you ever been asked to show an ID card indicating your age? The percent
that had been ever asked for ID, 44% of the males and only 41% of the females.
The ease with which young people purchase cigarettes is not limited to any one
type of store or outlet type. In our studies, I'll go down different types of
outlets that sell cigarettes and give you the rate of success of purchase by
underaged people. Restaurants, 50%. Gas stations, 67%. Convenience stores,
55%. Grocery stores, 64%. Drug stores, 51%. Liquor stores, 50% and private
clubs, 100%. Sold cigarettes to under aged individuals. Now there are some
suggestions in the comments and the City Manager has relayed some of the
suggestions on the part of the merchants. I think I would like to make a couple
of comments in regards to those suggestions for possible ways to address this
problem. First we should make it clear that theft is a very real problem but
only part of the problem. The fundamental problem is that we don't want under
aged people in our community using cigarettes and we don't want them to have
access to cigarettes that are being sold in our community. There's a question
of whether full line grocery stores could possibly comply with the requirement
to have behind the counter sales. But don't forget we have behind the counter
sales on a number of products. When I go to Cubs, the potato salad at the deli
is behind a counter and there's a person there that provides it to me. All the
other salads and deli meats and specialty cheeses are behind the counter. The
donuts, which I'll have to admit I occasionally purchase, are behind the counter
and there's a person there that provides them to me. They're not self serve.
If the donuts can be behind the counter, why can't we put an addictive drug like
cigarettes behind the counter? I think we still need to look at this a little
bit further. Admittedly there may be inconveniences. But I would hope that the
grocers and the other businesses that I frequent in our community will consider
some inconvenience for the seriousness of the problem of addiction to tobacco
and the nicotine that it contains among young people. In regards to the
suggestions about sensor devices. Having those on the bottom of putting in
glassed in cases and cartons and having a slot at the bottom and some kind of
sensor device when somebody pulls out a carton at the bottom. I will only
recall or relate what happened in St. Paul with the compromise that they made on
the vending machine ordinance that we in Chanhassen did right. The compromise
in St. Paul was to have locking devices installed on the vending machines so
that before you can purchase a cigarette from a vending machine, somebody behind
the counter has to push a button that unlocks the device and then the vending
machine works. This was the compromise. It sounded very reasonable. However,
it didn't work because when you go to St. Paul and survey those outlets and look
37
I
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
at how easy it is for young people to purchase cigarettes out of those vending
' machines, despite the locking device ordinance, it indicates that it's not
working. And what happens? The button gets taped over. The wire gets pulled
off. People get tired of ,hearing this crazy thing buzzing all the time. It's
' not a viable solution so I would urge us to think about those kinds of problems
before we might make a compromise like that that would in fact not really work
and we'd have the expense of these devices and so forth and not achieve our
intended objective. Increased penalties for the sellers however do help. In
' 1989 the State of Minnesota expanded the penalties for selling tobacco products
to under aged individuals and there was approximately a 15% reduction in
successful buys after 1989. If there's some compromise that comes out of this
' in negotiation that goes on about what we might trade off and if, although I
would not be in favor of it, carton sales have to remain openly visible and
available and accessible to anybody in a store without supervision, then I think
at a minimum in exchange we should significantly lengthen the license suspension
time for providing tobacco to under aged individuals. It's currently listed in
the ordinance as a 10 day license suspension, for a first offense. Maybe that
could be expanded to 30 days and the 90 day suspension for a second offense. To
' indicate that the people of the City of Chanhassen treat this matter very
seriously about providing addictive drugs to under aged individuals. I urge you
to pass the Code change as it's currently worded and if you're so inclined,
' perhaps to expand the penalties to a longer term of suspension for illegal sales
of tobacco to under aged individuals. Thank you very much for your time.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue?
' Keith Carlson: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is
Keith Carlson. I'm here representing Brooks Food Markets. There isn't a great
' deal that I can say in opposition to the last speaker with the exception that I
think as retailers, maybe we've gotten off on a bad footing to begin with with
the City Council. As retailers I don't think we're at odds with what the city
' is trying to accomplish here. I think at this point it's part of the reason I
was at the meeting with Don Ashworth, to sit down and say look. We are
concerned but we have been concerned and it's not a brand new concern that we
bring to this city. As Brooks Food Markets, the affidavits that Mr. Ashworth
' discussed, we've been having our employees sign those for quite some time.
We've relayed the message to our employees in newsletters. We've had store
meetings. We have signs all over the store. It's not for lack of concern that
' we do business. In our case we do happen to have all of our cartons and so
forth behind the register counter. We made the decision several years ago.
They aren't accessible. That just happened to be a corporate decision. However
' I do respect the corporate decisions of Super America, Holiday, I can't remember
the other operation in town that decided they wanted to have their's on display
and use some of the devices that they can, and probably. . .there's more But I
think that again concern of the fact that we are going down the same path as the
' city saying we don't want cigarettes or any other tobacco product in the hands
of those minors, I think we can do things together to make that a very tough
situation for them and still do retail business the way we'd like to and be
competitive with other sectors. Certainly for a supermarket that's going to be
much more difficult thing but going back to the kinds of things we do with our
employees and the penalties involved. As a corporate posture we absolutely
concur that we do not want tobacco in the hands of anybody under 18. No
question about it. Where we do have a definite problem is if we have an
' 38
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
employee that stands out there and makes a conscience decision to break the law
and under the same circumstance we as a corporation get our license pulled, I
think that's excessive. I think maybe we can do a better job of policing. With
your help. With the police department's help and possibly even with citizens
help but I think it's a situation of working together to try to accomplish those
goals is much more effective than saying here's the City and here's the
retailer. We're at odds with one another and it's strictly a penalty against
that corporation. It's a very serious thing to have a license pulled. I agree •
it's a serious thing to sell to a minor but somewhere along the line I think
we've got to use some reason to come up with good, sound measures to accomplish
the goals. I appreciate you maybe giving some more thought to this to see how
we can get that done. I totally agree with putting a panel together. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Arnie Cribbe: My name is Arnie Cribbe and I'm with Gateway Foods of I
Minneapolis. Mr. Mayor and Councilmen I was here probably about a year ago in
front of you and in fact after I gave my presentation on the supermarket that we
had proposed for Chanhassen, the question was raised about cigarettes and we
tabled it a little bit. I think I was asked what may position was on it. We
didn't fully answer then. I certainly agree with this gentleman here on some of
his points as far as we certainly don't want teenagers or young teenagers and
not adults to be accessible to tobaccos. But in a supermarket we do have a
problem when it comes to displaying cartons. We're probably not like the
corporation of Brooks Superettes where we do put them or are able to put them
behind the counter because of the number of cartons and the number of brands
that our customers demand from us. And a lot of our stores and the supermarkets
we do put them on a rack that has a plastic. We have also an alarm system and I
can say that that works very well. We also try to position that carton rack so
it's accessible to our checkers so they can keep an eye on it. We want to know
what happens to that carton of cigarettes after it's pulled out of there and the
alarm goes off. So we've got somebody watching it because it is a $20.00 sale
in most cases. But the City Manager had read some of the suggestions that were
put together and I can't see where a supermarket would have really a lot of
fault with any one of those with the exception of the cartons. The cartons we
would certainly have a problem with if we had to go and put them behind the
carton because we'd have to build a counter that would be pretty large and take
up a lot of selling space that we normally could utilize some other way. The
gentleman also mentioned in the case of supermarkets they have to go and get
salads from behind the counter. If you shop Rainbow and Festival stores, you
have a choice. You can either get them from behind the counter or you can get
them self service. With that I'd like to thank the Council members here and.
thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? We still have two more members present that have
availability if no one else wishes to come forward and address the issue. Okay.
Tom.
Councilman Workman: Well thank you for the honor Mr. Mayor. And thank you Alan '
for your, is it Alex?
Alex Wagenaar: Alex. ,
39
I
11
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
' Councilman Workman: You have a long last name too. I'm sure I don't have it
correct. It was very insightful your poignant comment on the deli goods and the
sardines and everything else behind the counter. I wish that the sellers of
this product would be as creative in trying to figure out a way truthfully to
keep it out of the hands of kids as they are at trying to promote it. And I
don't put that burden on the retailer so much as the promoter as the tobacco
companies behind the promotion and I think we're all aware of that. I was
' startled to see this at length memo by our cigarette smoking City Manager who
must be on Nicarrest. And Don, you couldn't have, I don't think we could have
done the tobacco industry any better than this. This is exactly what they
wanted. And that's who my beef is with. It's with the tobacco industry. It's
not with retailers. However, retailers are the middle people in all this and
that's why they're here tonight. The retailers are here defending the sale of
tobacco for profits because it is very profitable. We know that. A member of
' the Minnesota Grocers Association, he threw the figures out at us, 40% to 50% of
a smaller convenience store's profits are based on cigarettes. And I suppose
the premiums paid to display them, etc. . I hear it weekly because people know
' that I'm not fond of this issue, that kids are buying cigarettes. And they're
buying them all over the place. How do you catch it? How do you place your
finger on it? You don't. You do what we're doing tonight and try to restrict
it as best you can and keep putting your thumb in the dam until you can solve
the problem. I don't consider the city and retailers to be at odds or gotten
off on a wrong foot. Because just about every speaker, retailer tonight spoke
in agreement of Alex, that retailers don't want tobacco in the hands of minors.
' The tobacco companies could care less. So to go at the report a little bit.
When we first started the issue of tobacco vending, and again we discussed the
whole issue of beepers and buzzers and switches and everything else and I guess
' we don't have to rehash that. Maybe for the new Council members. It was seen
as a very big loophole that like a lot of this stuff in here puts the burden of
proof all on the city and our administration to keep track of employees, some of
these stores in town, committees, etc. . I believe I see in here the onous to
' catch let 's say the teenager or the younger person who's working at the store
and have us find that person, or prosecute or other when that's not, I don't
believe that 's our place. Our place and our permit for the sale of these
products is with store owners and it's their job to take care of their employees
and for us to come in and treat that it just, we're going to hire more people is
what we're going to have to do. When we first started out the vending issue and
' a lot of the cigarette issue, I know that I saw an awful lot of warning signs go
up, almost incredible. It was almost redundant. But they fall off and they
fall down and they go away and apparently it's though that the City Council
members do too. I am not in favor of keeping cartons out. We've had the
' discussion that for whatever reason cartons are very, very easy to get into. I
think there's ways to get the cartons behind the counter. Brooks is proving it.
We have a grocery store maybe that's coming into town. Maybe. Emphasize on
' maybe. Cub, I've spoken of Cub. The huge grocery store who has the wall of
cigarettes. They also have a person that is a customer service person. Why
that person couldn't be situated in front of the wall of cigarettes and sell
them, I don't know. There's all sorts of ways around this problem. And so
I think the ordinance is very short and very sweet the way it is and I think it
takes care of the problems and concerns for now that we're zeroing in on. I'm
not adverse to lengthening the suspensions for some reason or the other if we
' see that as something but I think we need to keep hitting this issue because I
think we all know personally that it is not being addressed and it is not being
' yC
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
taken seriously, and we are. That's what we've been hired to do. Take these
issues seriously. I think we all know the ill and the people who've died and
people who are sick and I'd urge us all to vote on this. For it. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Tom. I noticed that one of the things that I sort
of brought to the table and indicating that I'm not condoning anything here but
I was thinking from working from the standpoint of working between the retailers
and ourselves and maybe some kind of a committee trying to set something up. I
thought too of the new supermarket coming into town. Just as you have on Hwy
12, you have a designated lane. Maybe make designated lanes within their
portions for acquiring cigarettes. Have 4, 5 or 6 with the availability there.
I don't know what that makes either but it's one of the things I thought of. One
of the things that a few of the corporations had is an agreement of
understanding that their employees sign. Also in addition to that, they were
even agreeing to, correct me if I'm wrong, they were also talking about
termination of employment because of selling to under aged people. That's
putting it back on that individual who's going to be selling to these kids. But
if they do have specific things that they say they can and can't do and they
must know that they can't sell lottery tickets to anyone under 21 years of age
and alcoholic beverages, that they must ask for ID's and knowingly sell any
product to any adult. I will not knowingly sell any of these products to any
adult or use by individuals under the legal age. If I believe this is
happening, I'll not make the sale. As they say with the other thing with ,
termination of employment. They're looking at, I say how often do you do
this? How often do you go back to your employees and make reminders. A couple
of them said they do that on a 60 to 90 day basis. That they bring this back
out. Have them relook at it and resign it again which I thought was going in
the right direction to making those people more aware as to the concerns those
individuals had. I was thinking that possibly if there was some solution that
we could come up with that could still be a way. We can't stop everybody from
smoking. We can teenagers. Adults we can't tell them what to smoke or what to
drink. I'm thinking we can come up with something to resolve those issues and
maybe they may buy that part of it. I don't know. But in order to sit down to
come up with some conclusions I thought maybe this would work out.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't understand where that would go. If an
employee, if we directed the retailers that if a first violation of a sale of I
cigarettes to a minor is a 10 day suspension, and they choose to keep that
employee on, that's their perrogative I guess. I'm not going to promote that
policy for them. I think we're all, we've all been, take a convenience store.
Convenience store and the nature of a convenience store is convenience. Quick.
Fast. We've all been in line at 5:00 or 5:30 at the end of the day and there's
about 7 people in line. Whether it's a gas station, convenience store or other
and we're all waiting and we've got things going and we want to get through
fast. That's why we're there. It's fast. We've all seen the look on the
cashier's face that says I'm over loaded and I've got to get these people
through here as fast as I can. Because people are complaining. Mumbling. And
that's when I've seen somebody who's very underaged purchase cigarettes. No
questions asked. Maybe the person was. Maybe I'm getting so old that I think
28 year olds look like they're 15. Maybe that cashier already knew the person
but it happens over and over and over and I've been given the wrong change in
those situations. I've given it back for the record. You know what I mean
though? And so there's a pressure there and there's keeping an eye on a wall of
41
•
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
tobacco with a beeper on it, trying to help 7 tcustomers, bagging things, taking
change, keeping track of the pumps. Clearing the pumps for gas. Worrying about
cigarettes? I don't think so. I don't think they're taking it that serious.
And so it 's just a bottom line thing. Dollar thing and I think a few cigarettes
stolen here and there, you know. But I just don't see what we're going to work
out. I don't see how that can really be worked out.
' Alex Wagenaar: Just a quick comment. I think your perceptions are very
accurate. I've just recently completed a study in which we had focus groups of
youth talk about how they acquired alcohol, which is very similar to this
situation, and they said exactly those things. The way they got easy access to
alcohol was to go to outlets when they were very busy. They would not get
carded. They had a very easy time of purchasing alcohol. The counter
balancing, if you want to get complicated about it, is they also would go to
outlets that were very quiet and in isolated areas and nobody was around to
observe. So apparently the sellers in those occasions felt more free to sell to
under aged but your perception if exactly right in terms of what young people
' are telling us about how they acquired these drugs.
Keith Carlson: If I could just address a couple of those issues. When we were
talking about the affidavit Mr. Workman. We aren't asking the City necessarily
' to come together. with a comprehensive file to monitor our employees and our
business. During the meeting, I think that's my affidavit you're reading off
of. The ones we use in our stores. I suggested that we do have those on file
and we do in our stores. . .police department letterhead so there's more than just
Keith Carlson asking an employee. It's the police department saying yes. This
is the law. Pure and simple. If the police department did want a copy of that,
' we'd certainly be willing to do that but those are some alternate options we
talked about. We're not trying to put the City in a position where they have to
hire a lot of people to go about these things. As far as the prosecution thing,
again at some point in time I think individuals have to be responsible for their
11 actions. Too busy, that's not a good excuse. Not a good excuse at all but
somewhere along in society we've taken responsibility away from an individual
and said it's somebody else's problem. It's the corporation's problem. It's
the government's problem. It's somebody else's and that's not the issue. It's
our employee. By the way our policy is, if somebody gets caught selling to a
minor, they're gone first offense. Period and that's the way we do it. That's
the way we handle it and there's no excuses beyond that. But still it happens.
The cashier being too busy, no. That's not a good excuse. If people are
trained properly and by God, I don't know what else we can do but at some point
we've got to look at that individual. Not just the one selling but the one
buying. I think it was suggested at one point that maybe community awareness.
If a customer sees these actions taking place, bring it to the forefront. Let's
talk about it. Maybe we don't need the clandestine type activities that we're
II all talking about. If we have the total awareness, maybe we can get this thing
done and get it done properly. There was one other issue, and I'm not here to
speak for supermarket and I know that at the meeting with Ashworth we talked
about the 16 and 17 year old's ability to sell cigarettes. In our stores we
I don't hire anybody under the age of 18 but I know that some operations do and
there were a couple at the meeting that did. They had a lot of concern about
that. Again I think the supermarket coming to town with the vast amount of
cashiers, you're going to see a lot of 16, 17 year olds in the work force. I
think that's something that the City ought to take a look at. If you're in a
' 42
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
position at the supermarket where you can't have any of those young folks
working, I don't think it's good for the city nor certainly good for the store.
But I can't emphasize enough that I think we've got to get the responsibilities
where they belong and to just yank the license when we've got all the procedures
in place to insure that that employee knows what the law is, then again some of
this may be coming on a police deparment letterhead would be very helpful to us.
That's the kind of thing we're asking for. Not necessarily the city do all that
policing. And maybe there's some other suggestions where we would do awareness.
We're certainly willing to look at it. Certainly willing to try to pull
something together for you. I
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my comments were that I'm still in support of the I
ordinance as it is currently written which still includes the cartons and the
ban of self merchandising. I think that tobacco products are addictive and
deadly, whether they're sold in single packs or in cartons. And with me this
still remains a youth issue and I think it's important that we protect our youth
from easy access to a controlled substance. And I agree that with free creative
marketing, which is an approach by business except when the product is a
controlled substance. I don't go into a pharmacy and see a creative display of
controlled drugs and it takes a pharmacist behind the counter to sell those
drugs to me. That's why I also support that an 18 year old or older person
should be only allowed to sell a controlled substance like tobacco and alcohol.
I think that a 16 year old or a 17 year old can still work in that drug store.
Can still work in that convenience store. But they simply cannot sell that one
product. So I don't think that you know, as far as the issue with the youth not
being able to work there and I don't think we're taking any jobs away from the
youth. Also, I do not favor the TAS committee that was proposed for the simple
reason that I think it's Council's responsibility and I think it's public
safety's responsibility to enforce what we pass as an ordinance. I don't think
we need more people here to dilute and cloud the issue. I also think that it's
kind of difficult to ask retailers to be on this committee in the fact that
although I believe they're making every effort to keep the products out of the
hands of minors as far as they can go but it's also no secret that the tobacco
companies vie for shelf space that is conducive to impulse buying and that they
pay slotting fees to retailers to encourage the use of unimposing, self service
wire racks. I think these slotting bonuses are a substantial to the
contribution of the profits for the retailer and I think therefore it is unfair
to ask them to be a part of the committee. I don't thin that we can get the
type of ordinance or enforcement that we're looking for with that kind of a mix.
Also I don't see that the approach of selling cartons that is short of having
them behind the counter that was proposed in the report is anything but a band
•aid approach and I don't think it's going to do anything. Also the cooperative
involvement program that suggests that the general public report illegal sales
and theft of tobacco products. I think that's a fine idea if we lived in an
ideal world but we do not. I don't see that the general public would be willing
to snitch on anybody unless there would be a substantial financial reward as
there would be poachers program. But I would see that this money could be
better spent by the retailers and the tobacco industry in just simply redoing
their counters so we can provide for cartons behind them.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike. I
43
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Mason: Also being an educator I concur 100% with what Professor
Wagenaar said. I understand the retailer's need to sell things the way they see
fit. However, I read the statistics and I tell my third graders how many people
die each year from Lung Cancer, etc. , etc. . It seems to me the bottom line is
health for kids and hopefully at some point the next generation coming up. It
was mentioned that we need, that the people that sell the cigarettes- need to
accept responsibility for their actions. I agree with that. I think City
Council needs to accept responsibility for their actions and I think retailers
need to do the same thing. I'm not denying the right for retailers to sell
cigarettes. I do think we need to make it next to impossible for people under
18 to buy a carton of cigarettes and I think that the retailers, instead of
viewing this as a negative thing perhaps could view it as a positive thing and
say hey, look at what we're doing to try to do away with this problem. I
support the ordinance as it stands including the cartons.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I think it's all been said and we've batted this
around for 2 nights now and the arguments are kind of sound so I'd just like to
address the ordinance real quick but this is one issue I don't agree with.
We're not banning cigarettes. We're just trying to put some very, very basic
' controls on them and I think with just a little bit of innovation and very
little hardship, the retailers can help City Council deal with, assist us with
dealing a very major National problem. And I think if we're going to make some
' restrictions, I think we ought to do just that. Restrict it as hard as we can.
Suspension of license on the ordinance. I support the issue of termination of
an employee that violates that. I see that as a corporate decision so I don't
want to get involved with that. I think our responsibility is to the license
and the managing of the license itself. The one issue of the ordinance that I
have trouble with is Section D on the second page and that's the sale by anyone
under 18. Having younger children that may be out looking for a job at 16 and
11 be very hirable by one of these corporations and a good employee, I'm not sure
that I'm not seeing some discrimination against my daughter or someone else's
child at this point. I think that the issue is training and that the
•responsibility be made clear to that employee, whether that person is 16, 18, 21
or 30. I think the issue remains the same so the sale is the issue to minors.
It's legal currently in the city not only to sell cigarettes for also for 16
year olds to sell alcohol products. Non-intoxicating alcohol so perhaps we'll
address that issue in the future but my daughter may want to go out at 16 years
of age and find a job with one of these companies and this I feel is
discriminating slightly. I would rather drop the age limit here in lieu of
training and education for the employees which would resolve that age
discrimination that I see. That's the only comment I had. I question the age.
Mayor Chmiel: The only reason I brought this up is so we'd have more
' discussion. Sitting down with those people I thought it might be something we
would look at by getting more people involved in still trying to resolve the
issues. One other thing I think probably would enter into this if we see with
11 this in adopting this there's going to have to be some major rennovations in
each of the stores. It's going to cost the money. I don't have the slightest
idea as to total dollars to accommodate those items. So I would suggest that we
allow them a certain amount of time in adoption of this ordinance. Have this
effective by the first of the year, A consideration we should look at.
' 44
•
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Mark Fornier: Mark Fornier from 507 Highland Drive. I was at
g the original
hearing on this ordinance. I'm not sure exactly on the correct procedure but I
just wanted to address one of the issues that Councilman Wing brought up and
that was on the age of the person who is selling the products. I think that
that's an essential part to this ordinance because as a youth, as a high school
student, as a person who's in that 16 to 17 year old age bracket, I think that a
person like that, when they're in a store setting and their friends and their
peer group comes in to that setting, it's sort of a pressure that isn't easily
overcome. You know just working in a store like Burger King and knowing when a
friend comes up and give me a glass of pop you know. That kind of pressure is ,
the same sort of pressure that is going to be exerted on someone who is behind
the counter selling tobacco products and I think it's essential that those
people aren't able to be in that situation. I think there is no problem you
know, the issue of discrimination. Of having the ability to be hired. There
are so many openings. So many opportunities to be hired. There's a shortage of
workers in that age group that there is no trouble with people my age getting
jobs and there certainly is a problem with those people getting a job in a
situation where they could be selling tobacco products and having the pressure
of people their own age exerting the sort of peer pressure.
Councilman Wing: I don't want to disagree with you at all except if my daughter
was here tonight, she would say as a responsible 17 year old, she disagrees with
you. It's a point well taken though, thank you. '
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Not very long. I do want to address the one point that
I missed and that was that somewhere it said that it should be illegal for kids
to buy cigarettes and that we should make them responsible for their actions as
well. Although that sounds like a reasonable approach, you know let's teach
them a lesson. I think that we need to consider that making it illegal for
children to buy cigarettes does kind of take the focus of the responsibility
away from the adults and puts it on the children and I don't think that that's
what we need to be doing. . Plus prosecuting children by one basis as we're
proposing at then would be an enforcement nightmare and nobody would ever get it
done. It's much easier to police licenses rather than large number of children.
And already we see that cities are relunctant to prosecute even the clerks that
sell to minors so how much more would they be reluctant to prosecute children
that are 13 and 14 years old. I just don't see it as a viable option to
penalize the youth. I think we should keep the responsibility with the adults. I
Councilman Workman: If I could bring up one point in attitudes about this
habit. I was in a fast food restaurant in the area. Not in Chanhassen but it
was in a surrounding community and in the middle of this room we're eating our
hamburgers at lunchtime, were clearly a group of high schoolers, 4 of them
smoking heavily. Heavily. And surrounding this middle group were business
people dining at lunchtime. I confronted the manager of the store about the
individuals doing the smoking and I was laughed at. And so it was brought up
that well let's bring this up. If there's a problem and I see somebody that's
got a problem, let's bring it up. You do. It's not taken seriously and I've
been laughed at. I was chosen, those kids were chosen. Their one order of
fries and a glass of water each were chosen over my $5.00 order and sometimes
$7.00 and so, and I will say. I do not frequent that restaurant anymore because
45
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
of the smokin g policy they seem to have and that's why I don't think these
stores are taking it that seriously. That's my final comment.
Councilman Wing: If the majority of the country is non-smoking at this point?
Northwest Airlines got incredible publicity when they went non-smoking and it
increased their passenger load at that point.- I can't believe that the non-
smokers
aren't going to support the stores that choose to make these moves.
I think it's just another plus move. Mr. Mayor, I didn't bring this up but I
think there's enough of us concerned that I'd like to move passage of the second
reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by
adding provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman: And if we could maybe make that effective January 1, 1992.
Councilman Wing: Effective January 1st. Mr. Mayor, you've met with the
retailers. Is that an appropriate date or is that a fair date?
Mayor Chmiel: It 's the date I'm throwing up thinking that gives them time.
Councilman Wing: So I'll take the friendly amendment as such.
' Councilman Mason: Second.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Third.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the second reading
of an Ordinance Amendment Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding
provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products to become effective January
1, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
LUNDGREN/ORTENBLAT/ERSBO SUBDIVISION REQUEST, WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH
OF LAKE LUCY ROAD:
A. REZONING REQUEST FROM RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND RSF (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY) TO.PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 30+ ACRES INTO 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALTER A CLASS A AND B WETLANDS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros.
Rick Sathre Sathre & Berquist Engineers
Frank Svoboda Wetland Consultant for Lundgren Bros.
II Joan Ahrens 6601 Charing Bend
Gary & Ann O'Neill 6830 Utica Circle
Brian Nokleby 6800 Utica Circle
Ken Earhart 6880 Utica Lane
' 46
I
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Name Address
Ed Jannusch 6831 Utica Terrace I
Joe Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road
Ted Coey 1381 Lake Lucy Road
Brian Humphrey I
Paul Krauss: In view of the late hour and my rapidly failing health I'll be
brief. You last discussed this on September 9th and there was a variety of I
issues that were raised. A lot of them were discussed and I think largely in
view of the fact that you ran out of time, it was continued. Staff wasn't given
a tremendous amount of direction for new things to be done at that time but we
did hopefully resolve a couple of things. Councilwoman Dimler asked what, you
know sometimes a trade off viewed for PUD and we had that way back in an earlier
report but there's so much paper in here it's kind of hard to find. So I
updated that and tried to put into perspective I think what the City gets out of
this being a PUO. Again I stress that this is not a small lot residential
development and those are the ones we've had the problems with in the past where
the city basically got nothing but a roomfull of headaches on variances and what
not. All these lots are far in excess of normal ordinance standards. Just to
touch on the items we thought were part of the trade-off, we've got greatly
improved pre-treatment of storm water. We're going, this is kind of our test
case. We're doing a job on this that we've never done before and going in with
a lot of new techniques and improvements that we think may become the norm but
are not an ordinance yet. We've got a significantly improved package for
existing wetlands. Some are being, there's some trade-offs in there but we
think the net result is more wetland acreage. Better wetland quality. We
created a buffer strip around the wetlands. Another new concept that we hadn't
done before but we think gives a lot better result than just a simple setback.
We've increased landscaping standards. There's very good protection for mature
trees. Again, being somewhat innovative on this project, the larger stands of
mature trees will be protected by permanent easement. That should avoid the
problems we've had in the past where we ask a builder to come in with a tree
protection plan and when they come in for their building permit, what they tell
us is I have to take down all these trees because that's the kind of house that
may client wants. When it's protected by an easement, they can't touch them.
You've got control over the easement. Permanently locked up. We've gotten some
improvement in architectural standards. One of the important things about this
PUD is it's used reductions in some internal lot setbacks. Not where they're
going to be visible from Lake Lucy Road but from internal streets and street
widths themselves to basically promote clustering. The houses are clustered to
the pavement on the street freeing up more greenspace and bringing them further
away from the wetlands. So we think that's a benefit and that's really one of
the primary uses of a PUD. To allow you more flexibility in how you lay
projects out on a land mass. Councilman Wing asked us to look into alternative
development. What could happen here if this didn't come in as a PUD. We didn't
spend the time to do a whole separate subdivision like that but we took some
attempt, we made some attempts at defining what the differences might be. There
probably would be slightly fewer lots if it came in as a straight subdivision.
But you've got to weigh that against the impact and the quality. We think that
the impact would be greater because you have a more difficult time managing
impact reduction on wetlands and tree protection under straight subdivisions.
47
i
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Lake Susan Hills is a straight subdivision. I mean you plat out a cornfield
9 Y P and
lay it out and it works pretty good on flat ground. It doesn't work very well
' on difficult sites. Impact on tree cover. I think clearly we're doing a better
job with the PUD than we would have with straight zoning. We've used for
example flexibility in the PUD to reduce road widths and acquire easements that
' we couldn't have done under the straight zoning. Quality of development.
That's a little difficult to get a handle on. However, we have an existing plat
that's being consumed in this, the Ersbo Addition. The Ersbo Addition has never
' been one of our favorite plats. It's legitimate. It met the guidelines of a
straight subdivision in the City. It was approved twice but frankly it's a
fairly low quality subdivision would result, because of the way the lots are
laid out and. . .next to Lake Lucy Road, would probably result in less desireable
' homes because they're less desireable homesites. This project results in a lot
of higher quality lots. Clearly we have an advantage of knowing what Lundgren
wants to do here which we think is pretty good but we think this is a much
' better quality project than we would have had with many little Ersbo's occurring
in that area, if that's what were to occur. We've got a street loop coming
through there which we think is advantageous from a public safety standpoint. If
' we didn't use a PUD, we couldn't get that street loop. We could get it but we'd
be running the street through the wetland so that'd be the trade-off and clearly
I think it's an advantage not to do it that way. The last commentary was on the
impact on wetlands with a straight subdivision. This site is extraordinarily
difficult to develop because it has many small scattered wetlands. It's
difficult to guess but I've got to believe that anybody coming in to plat this,
whether PUD or subdivision, straight subdivision is going to have the same
' problems. I think the bottom line for us is what are the solutions and under
the PUD we were able to develop a pretty good package of solutions here that we
think make for better wetlands and better. . . There were a couple other issues l
that we worked on resolving in the meantime and Charles can throw his two cents 1
' in if he wishes. One of the concerns that we had was information seemed to
indicate that, well information clearly indicated that the main pond, the DNR
pond that we all see from Lake Lucy Road had been damaged before any development
had been done on this_property. It was damaged because of old farm activity. It
was damaged because of what 's running off of Lake Lucy Road into it. And a lot
of people, including us asked the basic question, well if we're doing our best
' to improve water quality from this project but we don't respond to the stuff
flowing into it, we're not going to fix the problem. So what we wanted to do is
intercept the water or as much water as we can from Lake Lucy Road and run it
through the storm water, the water quality improvement ponds. The applicant
initially objected to the cost for doing that and the cost originally, if you
could flip on that graphic. The cost originally stemmed from the fact that
there are two catch basins over here and the cost to run a pipe from here over
' to this pond was fairly significant but probably more important to us, it
probably would have damaged the wetland. What we came up with was a way of
intercepting the water. There's a hill coming down this way. A hill coming
' down that way. What we did is we're going to play around with these catch
basins here and here and intercept the rain water that's running down the street
before it ever gets down to there and pick it up and run it into those catch
basins. It's almost a. . .at that point. It really doesn't cost much additional
' at all and it's really resolving the problem for us. What we're going to be
doing is treating all the water that falls on the south side of Lake Lucy Road.
You may recall that there's a question with Lake Lucy Road is the division
between two watershed districts and the only reasonable way we could think of
48
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
doing this and we've bounced it off the watershed districts, is to split the
flow at the crown of the road. So basically what we'd be doing is intercepting
all the water on the south side. All the water on the north side would continue
to flow out to the north through Curry Farms. We also had a gentleman here on
another matter, drainage matter who's name escapes me Mayor but he lives in your
subdivision who raised some questions on drainage last time. We met with him.
He came into the office. We pulled out all our maps and explained the policies
to him and the information that we had and how we regulate development. I hope
that put his mind at ease. I haven't heard from him since but basically we
explained that we do regulate the flow coming out of projects and we always do
insure that flood impacts are never made any worse downstream. Charles, was
there anything else you wanted to add on that?
Charles Folch: No, I think we just made it clear that the pre-developed runoff '
rate would be maintained and he had expressed that his property had survived the
storm of '87 and we basically told him if it's operated, functioned correctly
during that storm, all he would experience possibly in the future with 1
development is just having a longer period of time that you'd have flow through
that area. But no more increase volume per se. Actually not volume. It's
actually the rate. 1
Paul Krauss: So with that Mr. Mayor I hope we've responded to the questions
that were raised. We're continuing to recommend approval. lde've revised some
of the conditions to reflect the current planning and current plans we had. We
did receive a new landscaping plan from the applicant. It does a better job.
We still have a couple of revisions to make. I also noticed that we had an
omission under the Preliminary Plat, condition 2(e) relative to a landscape berm
off site. We wanted to make sure that, it's right up in here, where it will
protect an existing home from headlight glare. We wanted to make sure that this
plan is acceptable to those homeowners so if we could have some language in
there that the applicant work with staff and the property owners to gain final
concurrence on that. If I could sketch that in. The landscape berm will be
right over here. There's a home right there. Or there abouts.
Mayor Chmiel: That's coming from the east going west out onto Lake Lucy Road?
Paul Krauss: Right. That does it for me. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Terry, is there anything you'd like to say in
addition to what Paul has said?
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council.' My name is Terry
Forbord. 935 East Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, Minnesota. I'm with Lundgren Bros. .
At the September 9th meeting, because of the lateness, we didn't have an '
opportunity to really respond to many of the concerns that the City Council had.
• I'm not even sure if at that meeting the Council had an opportunity to even
state what all of their concerns were. However, at that time I did present on
the overhead to the City Council some items that we were concerned with with a
resolution and since that time we have met with staff. Corresponded with staff
and many of those items we have come to some agreement on. There are just a few
other items that, the resolution has been changed since the September 9th
meeting. The first opportunity we had to see it was today and so there's just a
couple items we would like clarification on. And again there will probably be
49
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
a couple items we'd ask you to reconsider. However, because of
Y this late time,
again I can talk for 3 hours when we have our consultants here but I'm sure
you'd rather not do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Terry Forbord: Maybe it would be better if I was able to respond to some of
your questions. But before I do that I would like to say just a couple things.
Lundgren Bros. is close to not developing this site because the costs that we
keep incurring because what we're trying to do and trying to do a good job are
almost to the point where it's no longer worth it. Now I know you may think
that economics aren't important but I know each you just enough, and I've
learned a little bit about each of you from watching you at meetings that I
think you all really care about how the city develops. Well, in order the city
to develop in the way that I have perceived it, that this Council wants it
developed, things have to make some kind of economic feasibility. This project
is very close to not making any sense because of what we have had to do to get
to this point. So I would ask you to consider this evening this item on the
agenda and we would hope that you wouldn't get into things like removing lots
because the proposal isn't going to work that way. I wanted to tell you that up
front because I haven't had a chance to talk to any of you and I don't know what
anybody's thinking. There's been a lot of discussion that one, this project is
too dense. This project is not dense. Just compare it with any city anywhere
around here or even this city. There's been questions that the lot sizes are
too small. The lot sizes are not too small. They meet the guiding in the
comprehensive plan. There's been a lot of discussion that it's not sensitive to
wetlands. We've done everything that can be possibly done to answer those
questions. In fact we're doing things that have never been done in the city of 1
Chanhassen. At this time maybe it'd be best if I just would respond to the
questions of the City Council. We do have our wetland consultant Mr. Frank
Svoboda and our consulting engineer, Mr. Rick Sathre here if there are any
questions. If there aren't going to be any questions, I would like to just
discuss the items on the resolution that we would hope to clarify and maybe gain
some reconsideration.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we could come back to that. We have some residents who
live within the area to state their issues. I'd like to ask them to limit your
time because of time fleeting. We know what was said last time because they are
in the Minutes and we have reviewed those. If there's something new and
additional that you may have, we'd be more than happy to listen to that. So at
this time I'd like to take people who have some concerns with the project and
we'll go with that first.
Terry Forbord: Is this the public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: No, but I have open meetings. Is there anyone who really wanted
to restate something differently, and if so, please come forward.
Gary O'Neill: Mayor and City Council. Gary O'Neill. I live at 6830 Utica
Circle. My property adjoins the wetlands that we're talking about here. I
tried to digest a little bit of what was in the reports before and I'm just
wondering if somebody with some expertise in the area could tell me, help me
understand it. Do I understand that there will be the same amount of water
50
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
flowing through the wetlands behind my property that currently exists or will
there be actually more water but spaced out over a longer period of time? Here's
my concern. It 's pretty saturated in my back yard right now. If more water
comes in, it will be saturated longer and my fear is worse than it is now. So
somebody please alleve my fear that it's going to be worse.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Rick, the engineer can actually explain the amount. I
would anticipate that the volume would certainly be more than what you have now
but the actual discharge rate would not increase. Correct me if I'm wrong on
that Rick.
Rick Sathre: That's correct. I'm Rick Sathre from Sathre-Berquist, the project
engineer. I think in that the DNR wetland is such a large area, we may have
potential to actually decrease the rate of flow off the property. We certainly
wouldn't increase it. We would control it at the current rate but anytime you
get more homes with roofs and more driveways, you always get an increase of
runoff volume and we can't get around that. There's going to be increasing
volume but we can control rate. So Mr. O'Neill would see water run for a longer
period of time but not any faster than it has in the past. '
Mayor Chmiel: Or come up any higher than is existing?
Rick Sathre: Correct. • '
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Ken Earhart : Ken Earhart. I live at 6880 Utica Lane. I'm also with this
wetland any my question is to the engineer. Is how are they going to take the
water out of this wetlands that does lie behind us?
Rick Sathre: Mr. Earhart, I'm not sure which street is Utica Lane and which is
Utica Circle. Are you on the east side?
Mayor Chmiel: As you come directly off of CR 17, that's Utica Lane. Utica
Circle goes back in.
Rick Sathre: Alright. So that's the east/west street. The water from the I
wetland that's between your home and the Ortenblat property, the water that runs
out of there goes out pretty much the southwest portion of the wetland under I
think it's Utica Circle and into the lake. If there are isolated low spots that
are. too low for the water to get out the existing ditch, nothing would change
with that.
Ken Earhart: Nothing would change?
Rick Sathre: I mean the elevations of the basin of the wetland down behind you
home, there's nothing proposed in that wetland area. If there's standing water
there now, there would continue to be. There wouldn't be a change in the
condition of the wetland basin.
Ken Earhart: Well, where I'm at I have a corner, I'm right at the corner that
goes into my neighbors property, the pond and then underneath the road. I'm
okay except on a 10 inch rain and then it comes up to my storage shed. I'm '
51 '
•
1
Llly Luuncil neeting - UCTODer 14, 1771
okay. The people behind me, the other neighbors, they are going to have even
more water end up in there because the land is lower on that end. . .and unless
you do something in that wetland, they are definitely going to have more water
and that is my concern.
Rick Sathre: All I can say again is that we can control the rate of runoff so
it doesn't increase. Specific concerns over specific areas and how they'll
work, I think what would make the most sense is if we can find out what exactly
the concern is and maybe meet and talk about it and figure out if there's
' anything to do.
Ken Earhart: The whole upper end of Greenwood Shores, the water all comes down
through it because you've already got Greenwood Shores two drainage that come on
' through and on into the area and down south on the north end of that pond. . .
until it finally seeks it's way out. Now we're going to put more in. That's my
concern is. . .
Rick Sathre: Your honor, members of the Council. I think we engineers benefit
very greatly from people telling us what they perceive is wrong. I think any
complaints that you get from the citizens about things that don't work well now,
I know from my standpoint I'd try to solve their problems. I don't know, if
they're not on our site or we can't really relate to them, it's hard for us but
I think it's real important that we understand what the problems are and be sure
not to make them worse.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that basically would be the Council's concern too. At
' least not making it worse because I've been in a predictament like that as well
where, not in this community but in another community where I had water come !
back into my back yard and right up to the back door. Never was that way before
until another home was built. Because of a swale not being there, it just
filled in. And here of course, this is restriction of water flowing back from
there through the culverts and back into Lake Lucy. Now the size of that-
culvert that's existing, will that accommodate those additional flows and will
' that accommodate a 100 year flood or 1,000 year flood as we had in the State
just not too long ago. I guess that would be some of the concerns.
'
-Rick Sathre: Indeed. In the past the improvements that have, or the hard
surfacing that happened in cities, there wasn't nearly as much concern over
downstream volumes. I think Mr. Folch and the rest of the engineers out there,
myself included are all much more sensitive these days to making sure that we
' preserve drainage rates. We're doing a much better job these days. And again,
all I can say is that we're committed to the idea that we will not increase the
rate so there should not be a perceptible change in downstream drainage
conditions other than the increased volume of water which will help to flush the
' wetlands out for a longer period of time but would help to increase the clarity
of the water perhaps. You know increased flow is good. Stagnation is bad. So
' volume can be a help. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Did you want to say something Paul?
' Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, it's not by way of providing an answer but the
city, you know we've developed up until now without having a comprehensive storm
water plan and as you're all aware, that's one of the products that we're
1
52
•
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
working on `right now. In lieu of that, we've had a policy whereby every
project's required to design in retention so they discharge at pre-development
rate. So we're assured that we're not making anything any worse. We're not
sure that we're resolving any problems that may already exist downstream. We
don't know that. We probably won't know how the system functions until that
plan is completed in it's entirety. If there's an existing problem with that
discharge from there into Lake Lucy, there's going to continue to be a problem
and that's probably something that we should address. I'm not sure that we can
ask the developer somewhat further removed to address it but I think the City
Council can direct staff to take that into account.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess all it's doing is potentially could create a
problem for those existing property owners and that I look at from a concern for
that. That's why I bring that up. Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want me to start?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I don't know if there's someone else that wants? Ed.
Ed Jannusch: My name is Ed Jannusch. I live at 6831 Utica Terrace. I'm the
person that spoke with Paul Krauss after the meeting last month. In talking
with Paul he stated that the watershed had been dictated. That the line be on
Lake Lucy Road. All I'm asking I guess is that you would, or with this project
we would continue to drain some of that water to the north. Mr. Sathre had said
that we could, or that they could calculate the amount of water that is
collected on that northern area and what presently drains south I have no
problem with any of that. But the water that is currently draining to the north
I wish that we could continue that to drain to the north and that would
alleviate any problems that might arise because of this development. I don't
think that would be that difficult to do since the culvert's already in place.
Perhaps it needs to be cleaned out. However, the gauging of the sizing of the
culvert that would run in that direction I think could be calculated as was said
earlier.
Rick Sathre: I guess Ed, I can design things to work in any way. Or not any
way but I can make water run downhill. You just have to decide which way is
downhill or which downhill is better.
Ed Jannusch: Well after the meeting I went to that area and I walked through
that area that was the hand dug ditch and it has filled in with sediment and
vegetation. So currently there is no water running through that from that area
draining to the south except what naturally flows from the elevations further to
the east. Southeast. However, I guess since that water now is flowing to the
north, I just ask that it continue to flow that way. So if the Planning
Commission could look into that, I would certainly appreciate that. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? ,
Joe Morin: Hi. I'm Joe Morin, 1441 Lake Lucy Road. My basic concerns are
outlined in the letter July 18th to the Planning Commission. I'm not going to
talk about that. I am going to say however that I don't believe that .these
concerns have been adequate addressed with the concept that's being proposed. I
would hope that with the PUD concept that some of the concepts, some of the
53
•
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
points that I addressed in this letter could have better addressed. I think
' there's been attempts to do it. I think previous concepts have come a little
closer than where we're at now. I guess the main points that I have are concern
with the blending of this concept with existing neighborhoods, both to the south
and to the west. The concern about the oak trees on the knoll on the northwest
' corner. They're 150 year oak trees there and I still believe that some effort
should be made to move that road further to the east. Work with the DNR. Impact
the Class A wetlands and save that beautiful knoll and some of those trees. I
' really believe that more work could be done in that area. The trees that are to
the east, Paul pointed out there are trees there but they're scurb. They're pop
ups. They're trees that aren't nearly as valuable as the trees on the knoll.
' And the last point I'd like to make is, I really think a lot of good work has
been done in controlling the flow from Lake Lucy Road into the holding pond
areas. That I think is a benefit to the wetland area. I wish that we could
more in terms of the flow that's going to run off from all of the developed lots
I that are going to be around that Class A wetlands and what I had hoped and kind
of saw as a promise for what we could do here is perhaps put a holding pond at
the south end of that Class A wetland so that those nutrients could settle out
' before they flowed into the drainage system into Lake Lucy. And that these
nutrients then could be periodically removed from all of the holding ponds on an
as required basis. Those are the three points I'd like to make. Thank you.
IIMayor Chmiel: Thanks Joe. Anyone else?
Ted Coey: Ted Coey, 1381 Lake Lucy Road. Besides all the comments I made at
I the last meeting and the ones that were made this meeting, the major thing I
wanted to get across was I'm the one most effected because I'm right next door.
I've got 18 to 20 acres and I want to make sure that the project, at least for
' the comments I made last time, is going to be done tastefully so it blends in
with what I've got now and what I may want to develop 20 years from now. 10
years from now. Whatever. I think with me being obviously the most affected, I
think the points I made, also the points Joe made who lives right next door to
I me, are taken with some heavy thought because of the fact that the people that
are closest to this project are the ones who are going to have to work with this
as far as if they subdivide of sell down the road. Besides the fact the
' wetland, you have a problem with runoff and I haven't looked at the proposal
that closely to see how it impacts me but I've got a pond right next to the pond
now that drains from the north and it goes from there into the lake and I don't
know how that's going to be affected as far as if more water goes into there.
IIThat issue was never even brought up with all the flow of water and whatever.
I'm right next door and obviously being, there's going to be lots along the
line. I don't know if there's going to be more water at all running into the
IIwest of the project. None at all?
Rick Sathre: No. We're not directing any overland flow towards that.
Ted Coey: That's good. Also the other thing was, what kind of impact or what
kind of look I would have as far as with all the houses that are going to be
backing up to my property. If there's going to be trees left or any berms there
II or that type of thing too would be a factor as far as if I could look at all
these roofs. I'm on a hill so thank you.
1
' 54
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Okay. If not, maybe we can pursue with some
questions. Who would like to start with this? I will start with Mike. ,
Councilman Mason: Oh thanks. On the one hand this has been going on for a long
time but on the other hand, all the questions keep getting answered and things I
think keep getting closer and closer. What's going on with the total drainine
of that wetland and revegetating it? I mean really making an attempt to get the
phospherous out of that. Where are we at with that?
Paul Krauss: A couple things. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that
we've asked everybody in the State of Minnesota with any interest in wetlands
about this project . I
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Paul Krauss: There appears to be, the information that we have is that there is ,
some nutrient saturated muck at the bottom of the thing. The DNR will not
consider going in and dredging it out. They don't think that's a particular
good idea. The proposal here is to increase the depth of the water. Make sure
that the water running into that wetland is of much higher quality than it is
today and that what will come out will be better quality than there is today.
I don't know if that gets, I think it gets it as much of that question as we
possibly can. Where the urbanized, most of the urbanized area of this project.
As Joe Morin points out, there's back yards that fall down to that wetland that
we can't intercept that water. But virtually everything else, all the streets,
most of the front yards and a lot of the lots are going to be .run through these
trevin ponds. We're pretty convinced that plus raising the elevation 1 foot,
I mean we keep bickering whether it should be 1 foot or 2 foot, to provide more
open water should do the trick. Again, we don't know who else to ask about
this. The latest revision that we had with this when we flipped around the
drainage on Lake Lucy Road, we had them go from 3 small Walker Ponds to 2 bigger
ones at the recommendation of Bonestroo Engineering who's our consultant on the
surface water plan. We did give them a copy of the final version of this plan
and they thought it was pretty good.
Councilman Mason: I'm just going to ask one more question for now and maybe ,
I'll try again later. No? This is my one shot? Oh geez. Paul, what's your
opinion of what we're doing by, if we rezone this to PUD, I believe it was Joe's
letter raised the issue about if this goes to a PUD and other people looked at
this and said this is a way for us to get out of wetland enforcement. I mean
we're not , I'm not saying that the changes we're making are bad or that are
proposed but there are some pretty drastic things going on in that area. Is
•this a way down the road for developers not as reputable as Lundgren Bros. to
think ooh, we've got an out here? We can really go to town on this one.
Paul Krauss: If any less reputable developer wants to take on the cost that 1
Lundgren's taken on to do all the studies, develop all the plans for all the
mitigation and come up with a package like they did, we'd probably be supportive
of that. If that's a new policy, well we're looking at policies for the
wetlands now with our surface water task force anyway. We're relunctant to
change them kind of willy nilly but we think that this is one the things PUD is
designed to do. It's designed to be a little innovative. Be a little creative
55
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
and get yourself a better package for everybody than you would have otherwise.
We think this meets the goal. You know, they're not getting away with anything.
Councilman Mason: I guess my concern is whether they're getting away with
' anything or not. . .
•
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. Mr. Mason, maybe I
can just follow up with that a little bit more. The PUD is not for our benefit.
The PUD is as much for the city's benefit as anybody. If the city was smart,
every project would be a PUD because there's no other zoning tool that gives the
City as much control. Period. That's a fact. If this proposal, this site was
' designed under the standard subdivision regulations, you wouldn't see any of the
things that we're proposing. You wouldn't have to because I could say, here's
the Code. Here's the ordinance. I'm meeting everything that's in it and that
11 would be it . So the PUD is a benefit to the City. It ends up that we can
benefit from it too and we end up with a better product for the community.
I think Paul already mentioned that often times, certainly not always but often
' times a developer will come to a city with a proposal for a planned unit
development and remember it's just a zoning tool. It's nothing really hocus
pocus about PUD's. Just a zoning tool but often times they'll be asking for
smaller lots, which I do not think is a bad thing by the way, but I think it's
' important to look at this proposal of what we're not asking for because really
what the City is getting here is they're having a site that is probably one of
the more delicate sites within the city. That's within your urban service area.
' There's a few more over by CR 117 and TH 41. This is one of the more delicate
sites in the city. Because of the PUD, the City's going to be able to do a
balancing act and allow development to occur in a way they'd never be able to
' without it. So it's a real advantage to the community. I would encourage the
City to do more of it.
Councilman Workman: Well it doesn't appear as though as we are as far off maybe
' as I think we all thought. Ursula looks really tired. I think, and I always
tell Mike, we're always taking about where's the dang water going and that's our
job. Where's the water going and if we figure that out for everybody, then
' •usually we don't have any problems. I think as part of the record there was a
gentleman and I'm sorry, it was a Mr. Earhart? And everybody who's comments are
in the record, hopefully that's good enough for us to come back and say we have
' a water problem now and Mr. Earhart or Mr. Coey or whoever and his concern about
his problem and come back and say, or make it part of our motion that there
shall not be a noticeable problem. And if there is, then we'll have to address
it and that rightfully so. So I don't think we have a problem. I don't know if
' we have a problem or Paul if we're going to set ourselves up or maybe this has
been answered and I dosed off. Whether we're setting ourselves up for setback
problems with the wetlands. Are we setting ourselves up for problems with
that? Are we knock a metal sign in the back yard of every home so they know
that putting this white rock up to the shore is not permitted?
Paul Krauss: Actually we're going to do something like that. That's in the
' package. There is going to be some sort, and we haven't agreed on what sort yet
but some sort of above ground signage or visible marker where your buffer yard
is which is 10 to 25 feet. It's variable, back from the wetland and what the
buffer yard is supposed to be is an area that's supposed to grow wild so you're
not supposed to sod on the water side of that at all. So it will be visible.
' 56
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Everybody will know where it is. The easements are clearly laid out in all
titles and we shouldn't have the kinds of problems that we've had in the past.
I'm not going to say somebody's not going to be creative and wind up coming
before the Board of Adjustments. I continue to be amazed at what people will
come up with but we think we've got as many bases covered as we can. ,
Councilman Mason: Can I just ask a quick question? Aren't you doing something
about that in the packet that you develop too? I mean about the buffer strip
and all that? With homeowners. I thought you mentioned something and I might
be way off. If I am, I'm sorry.
Terry Forbord: Forgive me. Let me just try to clarify that. You said in the ,
packet that we would?
Paul Krauss: The sales packet. ,
Councilman Mason: Yeah, in your sales packet you talked about things that you
do for people that buy into your area. '
Terry Forbord: I think at some point in time, whether it was at the Planning
Commission. I don't believe it was on September 9th but maybe on the Planning
Commission, maybe you were here for one of those meetings. Maybe you and Mr.
Wing and the Mayor came to a couple of those. I'm not sure if they were for our
item but you were here. Let me back up a little bit. For some reason the
ordinance in Chanhassen states that no structure can be any closer than 75 feet
to what is designated as a wetland. There's no other city in the State of
Minnesota to my knowledge that has that requirement. Probably the closest would
be Minnetonka which is 30 feet or 35 feet. How the 70 foot number was developed
is a mystery to me and every other wetland specialist, scientist, limnologist
we've been able to talk to. Was there something magic about the 70 feet? We've
discovered that there is nothing. There is no set number that if you pace off
70 feet , for sure that wetland won't be contaminated if a building's built over
there. There is no such scientific data that supports that. However, what is
important, what we have discovered is that a wetland is only a product of the
watershed that's around it. And a lot of it would be put between that
structure and the wetland. And so in working with staff we discovered that what
was important to the City or to the Council, the Planning Commission, whatever,
was to find a way to mitigate whatever impact development may have on the
wetland so we came up with the idea of a preservation zone that could be
untouched. Couldn't be mowed. That had a conservation easement with it that
gave the City powers that they never had before. To go in and tell the
homeowners no. You can't do this. It's not only in a sales brochure. It's
recorded on the deed as a deed restriction on the sale of every property so it's
entered into the title of the property. So then we were thinking well geez,
that's really neat and it sounds real wonderful but how about the guy then that
sells his house 4 years down the road and how many people really read the Title
and all that other stuff. I mean most people don't. Let's face it. It's kind
of boring stuff and that guy comes in unknowingly and says, gee. First week out
that he's in his new home he gets out the cycle and goes and just hacks off
everything that we've worked so hard to protect. Then I think it was either
Paul or Jo Ann said maybe there's a way we can monument this. And you know that
wasn't such a bad idea. At first it kind of, well geez. I've never done that.
I've never heard of it. Then we thought, well maybe that's not a bad idea
57 ,
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
because every now and then you drive around the Regional Park and you see those
1 signs that say Hennepin County Regional Park. It's just a small little thing so
we're thinking maybe there's a way we can develop an inconspicuous. When I say
inconspicuous, I don't want it to be a 4 x 8 foot orange sign but something that
' would just be marked at the boundaries along the lot lines that would delineate
that says preservation zone and maybe in small print that it says something if
you have any questions you can call the City at 937-1900. Whatever. At least
then people can see it. It's not just something that's lost in the Title
' somewhere. And then we started thinking about it. Well one thing that we
always do, if we're in an area where there's something controversial, what we
typically do is create a disclaimer or something because we don't want our
' clients ever coming back, well you never told us this. So what we would more
than likely do, and we haven't gotten to that stage because we're not even at
preliminary plat approval. Is we would have something on the sales plat and for
11 those of you who have worked in our Near Mountain or seen the marking materials
we have in Near Mountain, we have a sales plat that depicts a certain area and
certain things you can and can't do and there's disclaimers on there and they're
part of every item that gets handed perspective clients. So to answer your
question in a long answer, I think that's a good idea and we will be doing that
because it's something that we do in every project.
' Mayor Chmiel: Anything more Tom?
Councilman Workman: I don't know how to address Joe's concern about the knoll
I and trees. By having it encroach on the wetland or other, I don't know how to
address or place value on one or the other. So I guess I don't know how that
would.
II Paul Krauss: If I could very briefly. We did a very lengthy investigation of
the alternatives for that and in fact counted up the caliper inches of trees
that would trade off and contacted the DNR to see if they would let us impact
' the wetland. They said they've never done that kind of a filling, approved that
kind of filling before but they would if, they'd consider it if we showed a very
substantial tree preservation that resulted. I don't have the exact number in
front of me but I think when we tallied up the caliper inches that are lost
II under each alternative, there was a 40 inch difference. You save 40 more inches
by shifting the road into the wetland. And really that doesn't sound like it's
substantial enough to be allowed to do the filling that the ONR talked to us
' about.
Joe Morin: I think my point Paul was the quality of trees. You can have 40
' caliper inches of. . .
Paul Krauss: Well, if we get that up. There's some, I don't know how you
compare quality trees but we did have some quality trees on both. There is a
IIlist in the packet someplace that breaks that out.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor?
IIMayor Chmiel: Yes.
Terry Forbord: If I may. I need to take issue. I'm
going to take this time to
II
take issue with some of the allegations that we have not been sensitive to trees
' 58
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
or road alignments. I have not taken issue to this point in time because I've
attempted to be very patient. But within this packet of probably 100 some pages
there's an answer to each one of these questions. There's been at least a half
a dozen road alternatives in just that one corner of the site. Trees have been
measured per caliper inch. We've surveyed every tree. Measured how many
calipers are there. Put the roadway in that spot on paper. Looked at the
topography map. Determined what the grading limits of that road would be and
how many trees it would wipe out and we've done that for at least 5 or 6 road
alternatives. Additionally, in each instance because you can't, when you make
the decision on a site, whether it be trees or a pond or a hill, you can't just
look at the hill and make a decision because it might impact the wetland. You
can't just look at the wetland and make a decision because it might impact the
tree. You have to look at each one of those natrual resources when you make '.
your decision and just determine what the balancing act, what's the least impact
that decision will have. So then we had to go to the DNR with each one of the
road alignments and say, what do you think? Well obviously the ONR is trying to
protect their wetland and they don't want us to go into the wetland no matter
what and they're not going to give us the permit to fill it. To put that road
in when they say you can move it over here. So the juggling act that we had I
then, we had these constraints. We were trying to satisfy the residents who
both lived across the street and 300, . 400, 600, 800 feet to the west. We are
trying to build a road that we know would meet city standards. We're trying to
meet staff's requests and so working with staff, not against them, we finally
found a road alignment that had the least impact on all these things. But it's
almost been suggested that nobody has taken any time to look into this. An
immense amount of time has gone. More than any project that I've ever been
involved with in 22 years. I don't mean to sound at this time that I'm
impatient but all these questions have been answered and they're all in this if
somebody would take the time to read it. '
Councilman Wing: Terry, the question of the trees. It's been discussed in every
Planning Commission meeting that I've been at but the gentleman brought the
point up again and I will bring it up again. You've done work. I don't deny
that at all. You've put an enormous amount of time into this. We've discussed
this with the ONR. It doesn't change the issue that to him and to myself the
saving of these trees and that clump of trees on the knoll to me aesthetically
and environmentally has a much greater impact than, is much more important to me
than filling a little bit of a wetland that's going to be altered anyway. The
minor impact on that wetland is a minimal concern to me considering what we're
losing environmentally on that clump of trees on that knoll. I mean that's a
major resource of the city. That crazy little question of wetland. I mean this
is just, wetlands are so over played in Chanhassen, I have to be very careful
because I support it but having a daughter doing graduate work in soil
management and wetland conservation, she's sort of been prodding me saying gee,
how did this thing ever get going. Somebody must have a lobby on wetlands. I
don't want to diminish their importance but that wetland minor alteration. Minor '
alteration that will occur versus the trees we're going to lose, I don't see any
comparison. It's not my turn to talk. I just commented. I appreciate your
work but this map you provided shows we're losing a lot. An awful lot. '
Terry Forbord: Counciler Wing? You cannot have development without affecting
the site. And I wish, what I prefer to do is I'll bring a cul-de-sac in from
the Ersbo property all the way around and I won't even enter onto Lake Lucy ,
59
I
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Road. That's what I'll propose becuase what can I do. If the DNR looks at me
and says we're not going to let you have a permit to fill the wetland to put the
road there, what am I suppose to do?
Councilman Wing: I understand.
Terry Forbord: That's what happens in development and I wish that I would not
have to cut one tree on this site. That would be my ultimate goal but I'm also
rational enough to know that it can't happen without doing it.
Councilman Wing: But I want the DNR to tell me to my face that those trees are
less important that a slight motion to that wetland. That concerns me a lot
that that's their reasoning.
11 Terry Forbord: Well they have done that. They've responded to us and say you
just can't.
Councilman Wing: I won't belabor that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I just piggyback onto that? I wanted to ask Paul, are
' those trees really over a 100 years old? And if they are, aren't they protected
under an ordinance that we passed? A tree protection ordinance if they're 100
yeras old. And if that's the case then we could not be violating our own city
ordinance.
11 Paul Krauss: Boy, that one throws a new one at me. I'm not sure that we do.
I'd have to check.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I know we have one.
Paul Krauss: I know there's been talk about a significant tree or whatever the
r terminology was but I don't think it's ever been put.
Councilwoman Dimler: Trees that are over 100 years old. Do you remember
that? We passed that when Bill Boyt was on the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Long time ago. 100 years.
Councilwoman Dimler: Look it up because if that's the case, we cannot do it .
Or we'd be violating our own ordinance.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor. We have no idea how old those trees are. That's
pure speculation. -
Councilman Wing: We could count the rings Terry.
Terry Forbord: That's true but there's been a number thrown around this evening
' and there's no verification.
Councilman Workman: Let me wrap up my comments and then maybe Richard Lumberman
Wing. I'm going to wrap my comments up very quickly. I think that we're
dealing with some very reputable developers here. I think we have a very
difficult piece of land here and the points about you're going to lose a few
' 60
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
trees and move a little water and things to get these in I think holds true. At
least over in my experience and so I don't tend to like to get too much into the
details of every bush and you know we got into some of the things that staff was
working DNR Forester to verify the appropriate landscaping. It doesn't seem to
be appropriate. We're kind of getting nit picky and I get back to my thing
about the requirement from 1 tree now going to 3 trees. We're going to talk
about that tomorrow might but somewhere we've got to allow these people to kind
of.
Councilwoman Dimler: But a 100 year old tree is protected.
Paul Krauss: No, Ursula. Roger and I were just talking about that. Both he
and I recall Bill Boyt talking about doing that but we're pretty convinced it's
not in the ordinance. I look up 20-1179 which is tree removal regulations and
that's not in there. That's the Code that we go by.
Councilwoman Dimler: Don, do you remember that?
Don Ashworth: I recall the discussion but I do not remember the passage of that
ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: The adoption of it? '
Roger Knutson: We'll double check. . .but we'll double check it for you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well check the Minutes too to get back there because I'm 1
pretty sure it passed.
Roger Knutson: I recall the discussion. 1
Councilman Workman: So I tend to and mabye that's to my disadvantage but I know
that, I know staff and everybody has tried to do as sound, ecological job with
this thing as we can and I don't know where to pull 2 lots out of. I don't know
what that will fix. But I have confidence in this process being able to work
out. Like I said, the wetland issue is, the water drainage issues will have to
be addressed as stated for the record and I know that we can get that fixed.
We've done that in the past. We've had a problem. So I don't know, I guess I
don't know what we're getting at except we're getting down to some very nit
picky. Well I don't know if it's nit picky for a 100 year old tree but it seems
like we're getting into some detail that we're rehashing an awful lot. I move
my discussion.
Councilman Wing: Well real quickly. We sit underneath this emblem all the time
and almost 100% of the color in the city right now, fall foliage is the sugar
maple because there's densities of them. Why are we going with ash, honey
locust, linden. ..and there's no broad leafed, very aesthetically pleasing sugar
maples going into the landscaping? Terry, was there any reason to avoid those?
Terry Forbord: Excuse me. Just to make sure I understand the question. You're
asking about the type of tree species that the landscape architect is proposing?
Is that correct?
I
61 '
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Wing: Yeah. I'm just very partial to the shape and color and what
11 the maples give the city.
Terry Forbord: Sure. I think trees, colors, materials, textures are all
subjective things. You can talk to 100 people and 100 people will have
different opinions of what they like. We use three different landscape
architects.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I'm the only one that's going to answer this question. I
get your drift.
Terry Forbord: I mean each one has a different theme. Let me just tell you the
theme we adopted with this proposed site. It's a very natural looking site. If
you drive by it and you look at it, you see a wetland. There's types of
landscaping that look real manicured and formal. We've specifically designed
the landscaping for this site so it does not look formal_ That's why we use
quaking aspen along Lake Lucy Road. If you've ever been up north, especially at
this time. Well a lot of them may be up but the quaking aspens are in clumps
' and they kind of look like birch trees and they're typically around marshy areas
and real natural. They don't look formal at all. And so each species that
we've selected was specifically for that. We're trying to make it blend in. We
' don't want somebody to go by and go, geez. Look at all the nice landscaping
they did there. We don't want that. We want people to say God, that's a nice
site. We don't want it to stand out. That's why.
Councilman Wing: See I like trees but I'm flexible. I have no more questions.
But my big issue here, I have no trouble with the PUD, which is item (a).
I have no trouble with the wetland alteration which is item (c). The only one
that I want to offer as a Council member for discussion is one specific item and
that's the natural aspects of the land plus Lundgren Bros. , Paul to me says
parkland. And I am not willing to accept park fees in lieu of parkland. It is
my recommendation, my intent to support the taking of the parkland versus park
fees for this development. I would like to see a lot available for the
community. Picnic table, play area. Whatever the case is. Left natural, I
don't know but I would tend to oppose park fees in lieu of parkland. That's the
only comment I have.
Councilwoman Dimler: Due to the lateness of the hour, I guess I just have a few
concerns. I'm still a little bit concerned about the density. I'm not sure yet
that we're getting, the City is benefitting as much as is being said here. Also
I'm in agreement with the neighbors on their concerns about the increase in
' water in their back yards and possibly in their basements. This reminds me of
the case of Mr. Borchardt and his neighbor and they came to every meeting and
they expressed their concerns and when the development was started, there was a
definite increase and it was not properly addressed and there's a lawsuit that
' resulted. I don't want to see that pattern repeated. Therefore I suggest that
we document what the water is right now so that an increase can be detected and
that there will be no argument about it. And that then the developer would then
take responsibility for causing that and improving the drainage. Also, I agree
that this housing development, if there's 37 homes there, would stand to have at
least that many kids and maybe 2 per household. I know what Curry Farms went
through in not having, they didn't have the neighborhood park although it was
proposed. They didn't have it for a while. They couldn't get it fast enough
' 62
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
because they had so many children in the development. I cannot see putting in
this development without putting in a park for those neighbors. For that
neighborhood. They have no other place to go. They're going to go to Greenwood
Shores or they're going to cross the street and go to Curry Farms. I don't
think that's a safe situation. I think they have to have a park. I think they
will demand a park. I
Councilman Wing: Do you want a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Those are the basic concerns right now. I guess I I
want to say I don't want to be rushed into this and I think if you were to
threaten that the development will go away if I don't approve this tonight, I'll
say good-bye.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess in listening to what everyone has said here tonight, I
think some of my comments are said there with each of the suggestions. One of
the concerns I have is for those neighbors to the south in making sure that that
flow is not going to affect them. I'm not sure whether in reading the reports
that I saw that that would definitely indicate that that would not affect them.
I guess some of the other things that were said, rather than reiterate them I
would yield to those discussions previously mentioned. Other than just one.
Correspondence. . .agreed to that portion of it. I guess that was answered before
so I guess I'll just drop mine right now. Is there anything else you wanted to
say? Oh, I know. You mentioned the fact about some of the conditions and I'd
be concerned as to the conditions that you had mentioned that you'd like to
discuss.. Maybe we can discuss those.. I
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. If you could refer to
page 16 of your most recent staff report. Under the section of recommendations
referring to preliminary plat. If you recall at the last meeting, I just asked
you to reconsider the issue of street width. It doesn't make or break the deal
for Lundgren Bros. if you have a variable street width but I'm just asking you
to reconsider. I'm sure you thought about it because it was brought up before.
We think it would make a nicer development 'if it had a 26 foot street throughout
the entire development. We think that that's what the City's going to be doing
in the future is reducing the road right-of-way of city streets. I think for
sure it will happen. There's no doubt in my mind. It's happening all over the
country. You may not be ready for it now but you may want to look at this as
just a test project and try it here and see it. I'd ask you just to consider
it.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I just respond to that? I have some concerns with 26 foot
roads. I've seen problems existing within our community right now and I think 1
I'd like an opinion from our engineer regarding a 26 foot road because there are
parking problems, accessibility of getting onto that street and can cause a lot
of congestion.
Terry Forbord: I agree. I think that if parking is a normal feature on a
street that's 26 feet wide, that it would pose a problem. However, most homes
today and lots and driveway sizes have stacking features. Obviously there's room
for at least 3 cars or 2 cars in every garage and there's typically the
capability to stack at least another 4 of them in the driveway, if people would
have that many cars. Rarely in a local suburban streetscape, if you drive 1
63 '
•
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
through many of the newer developments in town do you see cars parked on the
1 street. The only occasion you may see them is if somebody was entertaining or
holidays. So it certainly isn't uncommon. I don't think that it's uncommon to
see streets of 26 foot widths. I mean other cities have been doing it for a
Ilong time and I'm just suggesting from a streetscape standpoint, you'll see less j
blacktop and more green and I think that's in step or in spirit with what I hear
the Council doing on many other things from an environmental standpoint within
the city. And I realize, totally understand this is a new thing. It's a tough
Ithing to accept because you're not used to it. We think it would make a bigger
project. I don't want to make a big issue. Excuse me a better project. I
don't want to make a big issue about it because it's not going to make or break
Ithe deal but I would say that if you had a chance to get into your car or get
out of your car and walk down that street when it was done, you'd say boy, this
really feels a lot better than if it was the other way. So again, I just ask
Ifor your consideration on it.
Councilman Wing: That would be my preference. This is as you said, a delicate
piece of land and it gives it a little more of a closed effect than wide streets
Iso I guess I'd, in deference to the Mayor's concern.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to get Charles' opinion.
ICharles Folch: I touched upon this issue in a staff report prepared for the
first Planning Commission meeting that this issue came up. In my opinion, you
have a street such as this, typically you are going to have people parking on a
Istreet. Oftentimes there may be guests, entertaining people. It may be cars,
older cars that drop oil and they don't want the oil dripping in their driveway
so they park their car on the street. But the thing that concerns me is you do
Ihave a lot of beautiful environmental aesthetics associated with this
subdivision. I think it's likely that you could expect people to be walking and
biking around that neighborhood. There's not a trail for them to walk on so
Ithey're going to have to walk on the street. And when you have a 26 foot wide
street and you may have cars parked, it does take away any remaining room that
you have with these pedestrians and bikers competing with cars on the roads.
Additional I could go on and on as far as snowplowing and sight lines on curves
Iand things like that but you know, I could belabor the point but in my opinion,
from a safety standpoint, 31 feet, going with the city standard would be my
recommendation.
IIDon Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, may I?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: I guess I would prefer the 31 feet and I think it's a compromise
that, the way it 's already been presented that half of the time you can't get up
Imy street. Many of the streets in Western Hills area I really wonder if we can
get a fire truck through many of them just with the vehicles on the street. You
start getting into that 26 foot area and especially wintertime. Cars don't
Ireally know where curbs are and they get further out in the street and it just
really becomes difficult trying to get through in some of these areas. 2 feet
makes a lot of difference. I wish we had 2 more feet downtown. l
' 64
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Mason: For what it's worth, the roads are a whole lot narrower in
Carver Beach than 26 feet. And we have.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's a wonderful area though.
Councilman Mason: It is. It's a very nice area. I like the narrower streets
and we also have no parking on one side of the street now. On Yuma and
Woodhill. I understand the safety issue. I guess I'd kind of like to explore
the 26 feet a little bit more. I think that's an interesting concept for, I
mean that's essential. I mean it's not a closed loop but my guess is there
won't be a whole lot of traffic in there except for people who live there.
I mean it 's not like a Kerber Blvd. or even a Nez Perce in Carver Beach that
gets a lot of traffic now. I'll look at it some more.
Councilman Workman: I agree.
Councilman Wing: let's move on. '
Terry Forbord: Your Honor. Page 17. I'm going to be very brief on this and
this is item (d) and I hate to talk about it because I support Richard's quest,
excuse me. Councilman Wing's quest so much for the tree ordinance but I believe
that the proposed tree ordinance is prohibitive and not in the best interest of
housing in America because it puts a burden at the closing of extra cost on '
somebody trying to buy a home. I think if you ask an individual who's closing
on their home what their priorities are. The first one is to be able to close
the loan. The second one may be to be able to put food on the table. Make
their house payment. Somewhere down that priority list comes landscaping of
their lot. And you will find that most people who buy new homes today all want
to landscape their lot but they want to do it sometime within the next couple of
years. The cost of 2 additional trees, bagged and burlapped, guaranteed from a
nursery is $500.00. And $500.00 may seem like a small amount but it's a lot to
somebody's who trying to get into a new home. And so if, I don't know what the
Council's going to be doing tomorrow night and I realize this is a PUD and it's
not subject to some of the same things but we would like you to reconsider that.
The next item, item 4. This part of the resolution was changed from the
resolution on September 9th. You probably will see on your packet the changed
items are darkened or bolder type. All I'm asking for is a clarification
because we are not exactly sure what it means. That would be the first
sentence and then we'd like a clarification on the last sentence. We also would
like you to reconsider once again in that paragraph allowing us to raise the
level of that pond to 976.5 like we had requested. I'm going to let Rick Sathre
tell you what it is that we don't understand about the items in bold print. And
it may not be a big deal but we're not sure what it entirely means. .
Rick Sathre: I should apologize. I haven't had a chance to ask Charles about
it and I'm not sure if more information is needed or not. The second sentence
of number 4 is calculations shall be provided demonstrating that the revised
Walker Ponds are sufficiently sized to provide acceptable nutrient removal.
We've submitted calculations. Are there more required?
Paul Krauss: Since we drafted that we did have opportunity to bounce this off
of Bonestroo and they were satisfied with it so we think that's been taken care
of. '
65 ,
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
1
Mayor Chmiel: What's the other?
Rick Sathre: Then the other one, other than what Terry said about, we think
it's important that the DNR pond or DNR wetland elevation be allowed to go up to
976.5 and so we can get diversity of depths or variation or a good range of
depth in the wetland so we don't have the whole wetland fill in with vegetation.
Anyway, then the sentence that's been added at the end, the bold one. The
developer shall modify existing storm sewer outlet/inlet to become a flood
control structure. Really the question is, which way does the city want the
water to run? You know into the pond, off of the street or out of the wetland
to the north. Maybe we can't answer that now but I'm just not sure which way
' the engineering staff was going with their thoughts. Whether we would continue
to have the water run into the wetland off the road or we wouldn't allow that to
happen.
Charles Folch: I believe the intent on that was to basically follow watershed
lines as far as determining the direction of drainage. However, we felt that it
probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have basically a relief valve in that
' structure which would allow under a 100 year flood condition, if that pond would
rise, that there'd be a release valve if you will so that the flow could go to
the north under those extreme circumstances.
' Paul Krauss: I .think we came up with that in part in response to Mr. Jannusch's
concerns.
' Rick Sathre: And we'd have to talk about how we could make that work. But oky,
I understand. Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: As we keep progressing with time, hopefully you can sort of move
this a little quicker. Maybe for every 10 more minutes that you talk we'll have
to knock off one lot.
' Councilman Workman: I think Terry's fillibustering anyway.
Terry Forbord: The issue on the elevation of the pond, if you recall, there was
' some concern about the stability of the roadbed of Lake Lucy Road. Just to
refresh memory. There's a reason why we were hoping to have a certain water
level there. And Frank Svoboda can elaborate more on that but rather than bring
' him up here after what the Mayor just said, I think I'll just try to summarize
it. But we're trying to increase the volume of water that's in the pond because
it will provide a greater habitat for the wildlife and because it will allow for
different types of aquatic plants type to grow there than what is there now. And
' the more volume of water moving through there helps cleanse it out as well. It
will look better and we feel that it will function better and the other wildlife
specialists, other than our own, concur with that. We share the concern that
' the engineering staff has. We don't want to disrupts the road bed of Lake Lucy
either so we went to another soil scientist, GME Consultants in Plymouth. Gave
them as the as-builts from the city. When the City did the project, we went to
' the City's consultant's engineer at the time. Got the as-builts. Sent them out
to a soil scientist and the opinion of the soil scientist was that the road ha
already settled. It's been settling for oh, I can't remember how many years
it's been there but it's probably already settled as much as we thought that it
would and that no continued settling would occur and it was in his opinion that
66
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
the additional foot of water wouldn't impact it. So we would ask you
P y u to
consider that. Page 18, number 14. I'd just like to.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a quick response.
Charles Folch: If I could just respond to that quickly. The information that
they had, as Terry mentioned was basically going off of plan information. There
is no actual official soil borings taken out there to verify that the granular
backfill for the road base was put in at certain depths and such. The key thing
to remember here is they were working with basically I would call limited
information in order to make the recommendation and they also, as a part of
their conclusion basically provide a disclaimer as to their recommendation based
on limited information. I'm not going to disagree with what Terry's trying to
do. I think that would be a benefit to the pond but my first priority is to
protect the facility infrastructure that we have with the roadway. We certainly
would be amenable to having some sort of a security or a guarantee provided over
maybe a 3 to 5 year period that no damaging effect has occurred on the roadway.
Terry Forbord: Maybe that's something we can research with the engineering
staff. On the next page, the bottom of the page. Municipal sanitary sewer and
water service should be extended easterly to the west line of the Ravis parcel
and sanitary sewer shall be extended to the Coey property. We do not have a
problem with that. However, we think the expense of extending those should be
born by the people who receive the benefit and that would be Mr. Ravis and Mr.
Coey. In discussing this with staff, we've been told it's a city policy. That
the developer paid for the extending of services that benefit the other property
owners adjacent to. I don't know if that's a written policy or not. I've not
been able to find that out. I question the legality of that policy if so but we
are opposed to it. We don't think that it's right for somebody who has a
platted piece of property asking us to extend services to them so they can
develop their site but require me to pay for it. There's many analogies that I
could give you as examples but in other cities we're not faced with this so we
think that it's only fair that those benefitting property owners, that they pay
for the extension of services to their property so they can develop.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, do you have anything? ,
Charles Folch: I guess in short, this is not uncommon that development extends
utilities to their borders to provide for future extension. If the sewer wasn't
along, constructed along Lake Lucy Road they wouldn't have a facility to tie
into either. In short.
-Mayor Chmiel: Alright. ,
Terry Forbord: I could talk eloquently on that for a long time but I'll move
on.
Councilwoman Dimler: You've already lost one lot.
Terry Forbord: Our position remains the same. On page 19. Item 3, under
wetland alteration permit. I think it's important for us to define this because
the way this is written, there's no time that we could develop the property.
And we want to be as sensitive to, we understand what the concerns are. Totally
67 '
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
1
but the way this was written, we couldn't go in and do it so what I would
I propose would be that the alteration to the wetlands must not occur between
April 1st and June 15th because then we've allowed for the water fowl migratory
and nesting things to occur. But at least, remember there's only 6 months
during the year in which we can do anything in Minnesota because the rest of
II
it's winter so we would ask to modify that so we would protect the water fowl
during the times when it's most important. That's the only items we have.
IIMayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion?
Terry Forbord: Thank you.
IIMayor Chmiel: In relationship to the concerns of those specific items. And if
not, what's your pleasure?
ICouncilman Workman: Are you ready for a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Well.
IIBrian Humphrey: I'd like to say one thing. My name is Brian Humphrey. I live
at 6800 Utica Circle. I guess my concern is the wildlife. We're talking about
I the wetlands but the runoff, the water could end up coming into my back yard. . .
but what's going to happen along with that is we're going to take away some of
the dry land for the wildlife that's there at this time. The pheasants and the
deer. Take away the trees. Put in houses. You're going to take away homes
Ifrom wildlife. That's my biggest concern. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: I think the issues that Lundgren Bros. have raised certainly
II need some discussion and my guess is it's not going to happen tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right.
Y 9
' Councilman Mason: I mean sharp. Sharp as a tack. But they sound on the
surface of it, I think they're legitimate concerns. I think we need to get
'moving on this and I wonder if, can we approve some things without other things
Itonight?
Councilman Wing: Carry it over to tomorrow night Don?
IIMayor Chmiel: We're going to be pretty well.
Councilman Mason: Originally we were going to be done at 6:00 and now we're
Igoing to 8:00 or 9:00 tomorrow.
Councilman Wing: I would be available for an extra meeting to get this off the
IIagenda. Of course I have a more flexible schedule than yours.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, are there any of the items that we, these are the
exact same items that we raised on September 9th so if there's any of those
I
items that I could clarify to make it easier.
Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll take a shot at this. What the heck. Okay?
I68
II
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Well the park issue. I'm still not happy with the park
issue anyway.
11 Councilman Mason: Okay. How about if we see if we can take care of everything
else but. Possible or not?
Councilwoman Dimler: I think it's too much. I
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't think so.
Councilwoman Dimler: At this hour we may make decisions we wish we hadn't.
Councilman Wing: We've got the 26 foot road to discuss. Level of the pond.
Trees.
Councilwoman Dimler: There's too much there.
Councilman Mason: Well the trees, hopefully we're going to take care of
tomorrow night.
Councilman Wing: Not necessarily to the PUD. This is irrelevant. I'm assuming
we'll go with the same direction.
Mayor Chmiel: What's it going to be? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I make a motion to table and send the park issue back to
Park and Rec and then we'll consider the remainder on our next meeting and put
it first on the agenda.
•
Mayor Chmiel: First item on the 28th.
Councilman Wing: I don't feel comfortable sending it back to Park and Rec. I
was there for the discussion. I think we should make the discussion if we want
a park.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't think they would probably object to that.. Todd's
here now. '
Todd Hoffman: In taking it back to the Park Commission, their recommendation
was to accept fees in lieu of parkland. '
Councilwoman Dimler: That's correct but I talked to two of the park
commissioners who said they were uncomfortable with how they voted. '
Councilman Wing: We'll vote for them then. -
Todd Hoffman: Correct. It would be going above the comprehensive plan which 1
identifies the park service areas. This area just happens to lie within the
service area for 4 different parks and that is somewhat unusual. Typically a
development lies only within 1 or 2. The site would only allow us to take an
area of 1.5 acres which would be a very minimal neighborhood park. In fact the
smallest that was ever developed within the city so those are additional things
to consider. '
69
•
•
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Mason: Quick question. How far does somebody have to walk to get to
a park?
Councilwoman Dimler: And how safe is it?
Todd Hoffman: Curry Farms Park is across the street which would be'a block and
1
a half.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't know. I've got to walk 4 blocks to get to a
park for my kids to play in. I mean at some point.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Do they have to cross a busy road?
Councilman Mason: Well, they've got to go down Nez Perce which is getting
' busier and busier every day. I don't let them go by themselves but we walk down
there together. I mean Lake Lucy and it's advantages is a very open and wide
road which Carver Beach and a lot of others aren't.
' Councilman Wing: This is a very delicate piece of property which I think is
best served by keeping the land open as much as possible.
I Mayor Chmiel: I might make a suggestion that all these items be addressed by
staff and to come up with a conclusion and then finally leave those things again
as a recommendation and discussions that we've had this evening. Got it Paul?
Paul Krauss: No, but I'll read the Minutes.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd move to table.
Councilman Wing: Second.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Third.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Lundgren/
' - Ortenblat/Ersbo Subdivision request until the October 28, 1991 City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A 3 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH, 410 WEST 76TH STREET, ADELINE SKLUZACEK.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, you were there and Paul, do you have something to add to
that?
Councilman Workman: On number 9 under New Business, the Minutes have been
' amended. I was in favor of the variance and it was reported that I was not.
Mayor Chmiel: They're looking for strictly a 3 foot variance on this from the
front yard setback and give me your decision as to why you thought.
' Councilman Workman: Staff said no because, and the other two members said no
because the issue simple of nobody else was doing it. I found in this
' neighborhood to I think for what Mrs. Skluzacek was going to get and be able to
do for what I considered a minimal amount of footage for various problems that
' 70
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
she has. Water problems, etc. that it was really not stepping out of bounds.
And if everybody in the neighborhood did this, I don't know that it would set a
precedence that we couldn't live with. It just didn't seem blatant at all.
Mayor Chmiel: And according to the plat or the survey that they show,
technically 3 feet is what we go to because we round it off. Technically it's I
2.7.
Councilman Workman: It just seemed minor and for something that they want to
do, I know we have 18 and 20 and 50 foot variances and this just didn't seem to
rock any boats for me.
Mayor Chmiel: Is this where I read too that they were afraid that it might ,
create a precedent within that neighborhood as well?
Councilman Workman: And I weighed that with the rest of the neighborhood.
Taking what if. What if it did? I don't know that that would make a
difference. That's why I didn't feel adverse.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? ,
Councilman Wing: I looked at it at length today and during the summer it would
be irrelevant. The trees are so heavy with foliage that they really hide the
project but I did feel the project is going to be large. Prominent. Major
project to the home. It is going to impact neighbors in that the houses all
have similar frontage and I thought this would be an unusual appearance. Not
compatible to the other homes. The precedent didn't bother me. I agree with
Tom. Wintertime, I think it's not going to have an overly attractive appearance
in my opinion. That troubled me and my feeling after having looked at it this
afternoon was to deny it because of it's size. Not deny the overall project.
Just size of the project as I saw it presented. I think there was a more
conservative solution.
Mayor Chmiel: How do you say that it will distract from it?
Councilman Wing: It's coming out almost 9 feet there as I read this so you have
your homes generally are just a standard rambler and suddenly you're going to
have this 9 foot addition coming out to cover that stoop and then go over to the
garage. I just felt it just didn't look right to me for that neighborhood.
Like I said, during the summer it would be irrelevant. I was trying to picture
it during the winter. I just saw it as a very prominent, large structure. Just
like some of these decks came in with these double doors. Come in with these
major projects that really require a pretty hefty variance. I agree with you
Mayor that 3 feet is maybe irrelevant. That's not the issue. It's the overall
size of the structure in it's total that troubles me. To put up a porch or a
cover over the front door I could have accepted but, it was almost like putting,
I felt like we'd almost be putting a mobile home out in front and attaching it
to the house. It's kind of the.. .
Councilman Workman: You're maybe considering the width of it and maybe what it 1
looks like. I'm taking that into consideration. 2.7 or 2.3 feet is all that
we're concerned about and if in fact they didn't need a variance to this, what
people, hopefully what people do to the front of their homes is going to be '
71 1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
aesthetically pleasing. We can't legislate that. If he chooses to paint this
pink and the rest of the house is blue, I guess that's the way it's going to be.
So I was simply looking at , this is what I think I feel is an improvement to the
home. 2.3 or .7 feet, that is what I was looking at. If it's expanding across
the front of the home, and that wasn't something that I took into consideration.
So I would make a motion for discussion purposes to approve the 3 foot front
yard setback variance to construct a porch for Adeline Skluzacek.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and would you like to state the size?
Councilman Workman: Size? I said the 3 foot front yard. 3 foot or less.
Mayor Chmiel: 27.3 of the eastern half.
' Councilman Workman: Oh, I'm sorry.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, a motion's on the floor and a second.
Councilman Mason: It looks like, from reading the reports we have, it looks
like there are other ways of solving the problem and that's my concern in
' granting this variance. It appears that what the building official says, this
can be solved without having to put that three season porch up and then we don't
even need to be concerned about the variance.
Mayor Chmiel: What's that suggestion then? On a way of doing it.
Councilman Mason: Not being a building official, I can't answer that.
' Mayor Chmiel: All he's have to do is cut it back another 2 more feet in order
to make that much difference.
Councilman Mason: Well, it even sounds, according to this. It sounds like the
building official isn't convinced that this will necessarily solve the problem.
' If that's the case, why are we granting it?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess to piggyback on what Mike just said. I thought
about that too but then it doesn't say what other alternatives. It doesn't say
what the expense is. And will that solve the problem? I guess I would be in
favor since I don't see that •it hurts the neighbors. The neighbors agree. I
think that we could give them this and also solve, maybe solve their water
' problem. Hopefully so and then also give them some enjoyable living area. I
have no problem with it whatsoever.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I see this as really it's not any congestion for the
' street or any increase danger of fire or public safety is substantially
diminished or impairs the property values within the neighborhood. I just
don't, I guess to me that minor amount of what they're proposing to put in is a
' three season porch. The fact if anything it should enhance the property I
think. So I'll call a question.
I
' 72
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve Variance
Request $91-15 for Adeline Skluzacek at 410 West 76th Street. All voted in f
favor except Councilman Wing and Councilman Mason who opposed. The motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Mason: I'd just like to state the reason I voted for denial is I
don't know that all the options were looked into. That's all.
Councilman Wing: The options concerned me and also we don't have any 1
information on the appearance or the intent or the dollars to be spent.. .
DISCUSSION OF CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO TROENDLE ADDITION. 1
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we're really not sure where to take this at this point .
I think yourself and Councilwoman Dimler were in attendance when the meeting was
held I believe at Instant Webb with the applicant's attorney and designer and
the neighborhood folks. That meeting was held at your suggestion after we
concluded, and I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth but that the
Troendle Addition had been approved. There were conditions attached to it to
ultimately insure that the road could go through but there wasn't much else we
could do with the Troendle Addition at this point. The developer of Troendle
Addition has made attempts to bring their construction equipment in from the '
north. We did look at some alternatives. There was some mention made of three
lots in the Vineland Forest Addition that had been acquired by Mr. Beddor. We
did confirm that yes, he had acquired that but our engineering department is
telling us that since new utilities had been run through those lots, that we
couldn't even put a temporary road over that. They're not very deep and we did
probably wreck the utilities that were put in. At this point we don't have much
else to offer. It seems as though things on the Owen's property are continuing
to move along at some kind of pace. I was out at the site with Dave Hempel from
our engineer department on Friday and we were told by Daryl Fortier that Beddor
has an offer in to buy the north half of the property. I made it clear that Mr.
Beddor could buy whatever he wants to buy but as long as, you know if they're
going to come in with a subdivision, we're going to take the right-of-way at
that point. And then it will be up to the City Council to order the project in.
So we're still in a holding pattern. We have every reason to believe that this
is going to happen in relatively short order. If it doesn't, you've already
established a condition for staff to bring this back to you, and I forget, 12 or
18 months so you can see what sort of options you want to exercise at that time
if nothing's happened.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the major concerns of the people within the area is the
traffic flow coming to and fro, in and out with the construction as well.
Unfortunately I didn't stay for the entirety of the meeting because I had
another meeting to go to so I don't know what the bottom line was. Ursula was
there.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my main feeling was I appreciate the efforts that
Mr. Fortier and legal counsel, Mr. Smith made to answer the concerns of. the I
neighborhood but I think that they really over shot the scope of what we were
getting at and I'm not sure they really answered the main concern which was the
safety of the young children that are on that end of Lake Lucy Road. I don't
think the neighbors really wanted to influence the subdivision or the changes
73 1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
that are coming about or all the talk about Mr. Owen's property and so forth. I
don't think that was their main concern. I guess the way that I see that we can
maybe handle it would be through our public safety department because
construction is indeed happening now and I understand that they are using Mr.
Troendle's driveway to some extent. I would think that the public safety could
requisition the Sheriff's Department that they would check that area frequently
during the construction. That they would make sure that the speed limit is
absolutely observed and maybe lower the speed limit during the time of
construction. I want to make sure that the road remains passable to two way
traffic. If it does not, if trucks are parked on both sides and only one way
can get through or nothing can get through, I think the people should be
ticketed and maybe a couple of tickets will get the message across to them.
Also with mud on the road and that type of thing, I think that should be
carefully observed. I would hope that that would address some the concerns and
maybe the neighbors would like to address, have a few other ideas.
11 Terry Barke: My name is Terry Barke. I live at 960 Lake Lucy Road and I'd like
to say that first off I appreciate the Mayor and Councilwoman Dimler attending
' our meeting. That was very nice of you and I also appreciate Mr. Fortier and
Mr. Smith coming. Also I echo, I think they did a, it was nice of them to come
and explain what they knew. They answered the questions that they could do. I
think there's really a good effort on everyone's part to try and resolve this.
' In the vein of trying to come up or help to propose some solutions in a
constructive manner, some things that we're thinking about. We still are really
strongly of the mind set that we want to share the construction traffic and I do
agree also from what I've seen that the developers are trying to come in on the
north side instead of running all their traffic through us. We appreciate that .
I understand the problem with the utilities of bringing in heavy equipment. One
of the ideas that we kicked around and we proposed possibly is defintely bring
the heavy equipment or whatever, down Lake Lucy Road, if it can be brought down
in a safe and orderly manner. Possibly some of the lighter equipment, pick up
trucks and vans and whatever, they can get through Mr. Troendle's driveway
' without disturbing him too much. We'd appreciate it if they could do that. I
know at our meeting there was some concern that the developers just don't have
control over all the vehicles coming in and out and pick-up trucks and that
would likely go down the paved road unless told to do otherwise. I'm not sure
that someone can't ask them to do otherwise and help us out there. I'd propose
that. Secondly, possibly doing something with the speed limit on the road on
Lake Lucy Road. I don't know that we shouldn't really be doing something with
it on more of a permanent basis other than just during construction. The speed
limit's 30 mph now. Karen Green was mentioning that in School Zones where there
are lots of children, typically speed limits are like 20 mph. There are lots of
children in our area. I don't know if there's a criteria on how many children
before it makes sense to try to cut the speed down but we certainly propose
taking the speed down a little bit. It's 25 mph on Pleasant View and that's
supposedly a very major road also. So I put that forth as maybe another option.
I guess thirdly, there was some discussion at the meeting about at one point in
time another road or an extension of that Nez Perce Road coming south and
hooking back up with Lake Lucy Road. And I understand that that concept was
rejected some time ago over issues of grade. It would have been a difficult
connection to make although it seems to us that if someone wanted to do that,
that grade could be fixed up. We wanted to make sure that it was clear from our
standpoint anyway that we view that as very undesireable for us. We hope that
74
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
in the future if you hold firm on that and not let that extension somehow creep
back in exiting onto Lake Lucy Road. That's basically what I have to say. I
Mayor Chmiel: I was just looking at some of the things that were done by the
Sheriff's Department on special patrol. Traffic assessments we asked them to do
on different days that they had done at different given hours. Looking at the
average speeds on locations it looks like it was 28, 32, 29.4 and those that
were exceeding that speed limit were addressed. There was one that was reported
at 39 mph. Another one at 38 mph. And another day that they had the average
speed was 28.6. Highest reported speed that was there was 43 mph so they are
driving a little fast. Average speed on this one was 30 on another day so they
have been taking checks there and been talking to people driving through those
areas as well. Unfortunately it's probably people within the area themselves.
Terry Barke: I think you're right. I
Mayor Chmiel: And here again the average speed was 32. The highest speed was
35. Average speed 30. 35. 28 average. 33. So we've been doing quite a bit
of checking. '
Terry Barke: And I'd like to say also, I really do appreciate that. We have
all noticed the presence of the officers on the street much more since the last
time we were here and I'm sure that's in a large part due to your
recommendations. We do appreciate that a lot.
Mayor Chmiel: I just thought I'd mention that.
Terry Barke: Yeah, I don't know what the average in terms of, that to me seems
like people going very close to the speed limit. I don't know if that's typical I
when you clock people on other roads that they tend to drive the speed limit but
I personally, when I drive through our neighborhood, and maybe it's just
because I'm sensitive to the kids, 30 mph is going to me anyway, quite fast
through that neighborhood.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I was part of one of those that 17 mph because I was just
watching. 1
Terry Barke: Yeah, at that range, 20 mph is about what I drive through there at
and that's what I feel comfortable myself at. I
Mayor Chmiel: If you can only impress that on the rest of the people that live
in the area, you could probably resolve that problem. I
Councilman Workman: I guess to maybe answer that one question. We -have
discussed that issue of lowering in certain areas and certainly every Council
member wants his down but that is State mandated and it almost takes an act of
God to.
Mayor Chmiel: Well God is starting to look at it. It isn't me, it's the State.
They're reviewing some of these things within areas and looking potentially at
30 mph and seeing what.
Councilman Wing: We know what you intended Don. '
75
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Workman: Yeah, yeah. But I mean just to say, why don't we lower
' everything to 25 in the city, we can't do that. It has to be so justified and I
don't think we've ever seen anything happen like that.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd make a suggestion that maybe we should talk with Bill
Crawford myself from MnDot and he said he'd be willing to sit down and listen to
more of what we had to say. Maybe if I had another Council person we could go
over there and maybe plead our case a little bit better. So we'll set something
up for that.
Karen Green: I'm Karen Green and I really appreciate all the time that
' everybody's put into this. The other thing that I wanted to mention was that I
believe there was a numbers, or what do I want to say. They took the number of
cars that were going along our street and I felt that during the time they took
I that, there was no construction being done either on the Troendle Addition or in
our neighborhood so I felt that the number was really insignificant to the
amount of cars that were maybe being brought on. And I had talked to the Safety
' Director and asked him if there would be a possibility of maybe redoing it in
spring to summer when the construction is being brought back up again. To just
show exactly how much cars are being, I mean the type of traffic that's being
used on our road.
1 Mayor Chmiel: They did show the total numbers. 13 on one. 12 on another. 17
on another for the period of time they were there. 11. SO it looks like the
Iflows were pretty. ,
Councilman Wing: Those were the radar runs?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Wing: Further back on the traffic counts, we're talking 300, 400,
I 500 cars. Well between 200 and 300 cars in a 24 hour section that were actually
going through there. I see the construction traffic is just such an
insignificant issue here that I almost question what we're doing other than
I possible road damage but the number of construction vehicles, what's that going
to add to a daily traffic count of 300? In this case, here's a 24 hour section.
On the 26th of September, 387 cars when down that road in 24 hours. You're
saying that Troendle is going to make a bit of difference?
IIMayor Chmiel: It may make a 10% difference I don't think.
' Councilman Wing: And it's such a short term issue.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that was the point. I think safety was the issue
' and the speeds that they're going is their concern.
Councilman Wing: One comment. One say, as a matter of fact I was looking for
your house and it's a wide straight away street. It's a collector street and
I it's unfortunate. And when Nez Perce is improved it's going to be worse. I
don't see any way to avoid it so issues are stop signs and speed and enforcement
and so on. I think you need that protection. But the day I was driving down
I there going eastbound, about mid-point in your neighborhood, doing under 20 mph
because I was looking for a name and an address because I wanted to try and
t76
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
contact you. Two kids with total disregard for the street, young kids. One on
a tric, one on a bike came straight down northbound from the south side, head on
into the road. I stopped. They went right in front of me and said, aah!
Scrambled back up the driveway and I said holy cow. Grim. Very grim so I think
parents are going to have to get serious about keeping kids out of the front of
their house too. I saw your problem no question. I
Mayor Chmiel: So I think from here.
Terry Barke: Just to follow up on that. I think that's not untypical on our 1
street and Karen can probably talk about it better than I can being she's an at
home mom and has to deal with trying to keep those kids corraled all day long.
Just behind our house it's heavily wooded and so our kids tend to play in the
front yard as opposed to the back yard. And it is difficult to, you know you
feel like you have to watch them every minute or something like that's going to
happen. And it is stressful for everyone. '
Karen Green: I just want to make a comment too that at the speed of 30 mph,
having to go up around Nez Perce with the speed limit at that and we're trying
to bring our kids up to the park and I don't feel that it's a full width road
right around Nez Perce. It becomes a very difficult issue. I'm very scared to
bring my kids up around there to go to the only park that's close to us and
that's why I thought maybe reducing the speed limit or at least making people
aware that there's a lot more kids around than what maybe people are aware of.
Mayor Chmiel: And I think signs in that specific area could be put up, Children
at Play or something of that nature. That's something we discussed previously.
Councilman Wing: What 's Public Safety have to say Con? Have you talked to
Scott? What's been his position? ,
Councilwoman Cimler: Scott's still here.
Mayor Chmiel: He's sleeping right there. Regarding the signs.
Councilman Wing: Well regarding safety and regarding options. What might we
do? Scott I see the Troendle situation is irrelevant to the traffic count and
speeds on that road as whole.
Scott Harr: We ran traffic checks and traffic surveys up until yesterday. '
Charles and I have not had a chance to review all the figures. I've given some
of the information out but we clocked 141 cars and the average speed was under,
30 mph. 28.93 mph to be exact. The numbers, according to engineering, have not
come back as being unusual for the number of vehicles using that area: So
Charles and I intend this week to take a look at signage and the deputies did
recommend additional speed signs just for air tight prosecution. But the speeds
are not terribly high. We do have a few flyers but it's apparently balanced to
reach that 28 mph average.
Mayor Chmiel: So I guess what I basically see here is that staff should really
possibly consider this matter closed-until we have an application submitted by
Art Owens and once Art presents this, the property owner or until 18 months has
passed and City Council has directed you once again to bring this item back
77
City Council Meeting ;- October 14, 1991
before us. I think basically what you have here is what it should go to. Other
' than the fact of looking to additional signage.
Scott Harr: And I did tell Karen that. We'll work on it again in the spring
' time when the construction starts again and I talked to the Building Inspectors
to keep an eye out for construction.
Karen Green: I just have a question. What makes the difference of like our
' road at 30 mph and Pleasant View down to 25? Where that seems to be, the
curves?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Karen Green: But the curve at Nez Perce and Lake Lucy wouldn't change?
I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the minimal amount and that is looked at too by Public
Safety.
' Karen Green: So it isn't necessarily the amount of traffic that's going by?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think it's the State. The State dictates those speeds and
I it's hard for us to get it changed but there are some thoughts of looking at
changing that. Lowering that to lower speeds within residential areas. Or at
least they're considering it and thinking about it but they need more input from
other cities. That's where we're going to try to get it as well.
IIKaren Green: Okay. Also, kind of getting back to the construction. Would
there be a possibility of ever putting a construction speed limit down to 10 or 1
' 15 mph? Trying to enforce that?
Mayor Chmiel: That would probably be rather difficult to try to enforce. At
least I think so.
Scott Harr: Councilman Wing and I are working on some creative ways to respond
to traffic concerns which we'll talk about at the budget meeting tomorrow night.
' I think one of the ways is simply enforcement. It's so difficult to define what
a construction vehicle is. I think the sheer numbers here show that the
Sheriff's office is going to be responsive and our CSO's can work too. So I
' think given the opportunity we can make a good dent in the problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Fine. Thank you. Thanks for coming in and staying here
until 1:00. Appreciate it. We're going to let staff come in tomorrow morning
Ia little later. Take another 15 minutes.
Councilman Mason: Can I tell my boss that too?
IMayor Chmiel: Sure. I have a meeting at 7:00 tomorrow morning.
' Councilman Mason: 6:30.
•
' 78
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991 1
RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR WATERMAIN AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN
SECTION 24 AND LAKE RILEY HILLS, CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, PROJECT 90-10.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of item 12. '
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a receive feasibility study for watermain and sanitary ,
sewer improvements in Section 24, Lake Riley Hills, call for public hearing,
Project 90-10. I think that has been pretty well reviewed. And I have a motion
on the floor. And there is a time restriction on this that they want to get
going this November with it. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second. '
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. I guess I just have one quick question. How does
this affect everyone else along the way. .to this and the connection? Is there
any affect on anyone else? '
Charles Folch: Oh absolutely. The service area is rather large and thus staff
has scheduled basically a neighborhood workshop or area workshop if you will one
week prior to the public hearing.
Mayor Chmiel: Good.
Resolution #91-99: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
receive the feasibility study for watermain and sanitary sewer improvements in
Section 24, Lake Riley Hills Project No. 90-10 and call a public hearing for
November 11, 1991 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
REQUEST FOR STAFF DIRECTION, MERZ/JOHNSON VS. TROLLS-GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION '
BEACHLOT ISSUE.
Mayor Chmiel: Quickly Jo Ann. '
Paul Krauss: Okay. In May we received a request from some attorneys
representing John Merz and Terry Johnson to respond to issues concerning the
Trolls Glen Beachlot with regards to there being an increase in the number of
watercraft that were docked there. We received some information that seemed to
be fairly accurate. At least something to look into. We did follow up on it.
We had a meeting with the Homeowners Association. We did tell them we thought
there was a problem. We asked them to respond to us within 30 days over the
summer. They did not do so. What we're being asked to do is to, what you're
being asked to do is direct us to take action on this now. What we have done on
this is basically punted. This is not an isolated issue. I think as Councilman
Wing is certainly aware and we've talked to the Council about it, there's a lot
of issues concerning non-conforming beachlots. Grandfathered beachlots. And
as a result we've gone through a whole packaged program wherein a new ordinance
has been drafted to require that the old beachlots get a permit. We'll be
meeting with all of them and trying to come up with some agreement as to what
was there. What actually is grandfathered and then give them a permit for that
amount so it's something we can regulate in the future. In fact, the first
79 '
IICity Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
' organizational meeting for it was held here yesterday at 5:00-6:00.
Councilman Wing: Today?
' Paul Krauss: Well it's yesterday now.
•
Councilman Wing: I've been here since yesterday?
' Councilman Mason: You're going to be here tomorrow too.
' Paul Krauss: I guess it was our preference not to take any one beachlot out of
context as we've been going through this whole program over the Fall and early
Winter until we get it all resolved. We've declined to take any further
specific action. You're being asked by Mr. Merz and Mr. Johnson to direct us to
change our minds and have us go ahead and prosecute.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Somebody care to say something?
IIJohn Merz: Lucky number 13. Mr. Mayor, Council members. I will make this
very, very brief.
IIMayor Chmiel: Just state your name.
John Merz: I'm John Merz. I live at 3900 Lone Cedar Lane and I've lived there
I since 1977. The reason I state that is this issue has been going on since the
inception of Trolls Glen Homeowners Association and the inception of the concept
of this beachlot and the boats on it. There's been many, many discussions in
' previous years with Barb Dacy and people have probably preceeded some of you.
The reason that I'm asking for this to be considered to be prosecuted by your
own City Attorney's admission, this case is right for prosecution. This
situation started long before I knew anything about a new ordinance being
I adopted and the permit process but let me just briefly tell you a couple of the
things that are very important from my perspective that you understand. The
packets that you have contain some portions of depositions from previous
II litigation that was gone on but the most important portion in that to my way of
thinking is a letter from my Attorney, Mr. Beisel to Mr. Ashworth which pretty
much states in detail that there is really no conflict with law to the
' ordinance. I mean the ordinance certainly supercedes the covenants and that's
well documented by law. The litigation that I was involved in with the other
members of the association was dismissed without prejudice by a Judge in Carver
County for the reason that we have not exhausted all of our options. I took
I that to mean that I would have to come to the City, which I have done. I'd also
take it to mean that we had to go back to the association and try to settle this
thing which was done on several attempts to no avail. We have now exhausted all
I my options. I have nothing left to be able to accomplish by anything except for
further litigation and I can't, that's the last thing in the world I want. Got
a very acrimonious situation in our neighborhood. I'd certainly like to see
I that resolved as quickly as possible and to my way of thinking, probably
litigation of this case or prosecution of the case is really more accurately
stated, enforcement of the City's own existing ordinance that was passed in
these chambers several years ago in 1982 and some of you remember that
I discussion that went on in here. That was a long, drawn out fight. People,
there were many, many, many hours of discussion on it. The end result of it is
' 80
•
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
that to my way of thinking it was a very good ordinance passed in the lake use
ordinance. I believe the number's 49AD. The issues that are involved in this
thing are three fold. There's the economic issues. Some of the members in our
association believe that the right to moor the boats down there, the number of
boats depending on the number of property owners in the association which is 12
at this point, is their legitimate right to do so. I disagree whole heartedly.
They believe that it has economic impact on the resale value of their homes.
I disagree with that. I believe that the use that that confined lot is, and
here's the most important and I'm embarrassed that I've forgotten the plat map
of it and I'm not going to ask you to look it up but you can trust me. That
it's 69.3 feet wide. From the high water mark to the rear property boundary
that adjoins Mr. Johnson's property was 30 feet. This property does not in any
way even come close to conforming to the city ordinance. So from what the
confines of the property are, the property owners are entitled to no boats. But
because of the ordinance of '82 and because of the grandfathering clause, it was
long ago decided by myself and my wife that we would agree to the two boats that
were there from 1982 and that's all well documented. The other thing, one of
the second issues is the aesthetic issue of that low down there with the two
boats, two boat lifts, 64 foot lot on a very confined piece of property. It's
quite truthfully an eye sore. It's also a safety hazard, which I'll touch on
just briefly in a second. But it precludes the use of that particular piece of
property by other association members to any other activity except to that which
relates to boating. In the summertime you can't swim down there because the
boat lifts obstruct the swimming area. In the wintertime with the boat lifts
and the docks stored on the piece of property, you can't go down and have a
picnic down there with a picnic table to put your skates on and skate. It's
impossible. The confines of the property as in it's storage configuration at
this present time, which is limited, borders right up to my piece of property.
Borders right up to Mr. Johnson's piece of property and there's very little room
for any type of activity to go on down there. Lastly, and most importantly is
the safety issue of this piece of property. In the summertime with the two boat
configuration that we've had in the years past and this is no inference to the
unsafe boating practices of the operaters down there. I'm talking about the
unsafe situation created by the confined space of this piece of property. On
many occasions I've called my children in from swimming in front of own piece of
property because of the boat traffic in and out. Agreed, it's not very often
that you'd have two speed boats simultaneously operating in and out of there but
it has happened and it has caused, from my perspective, several occasions where
I've observed unsafe practices. Not necessarily unsafe operation by the
individual owners. I'm not claiming that. I'm just saying because of the space
and because of the way it's configured, it creates an unsafe situation. I have
a lot of other things I could say here but I'm not going to. I really ask the
Council to consider prosecuting this case or at least enacting it's own
ordinance without lumping me in to the other situation that you're going to be
coming in and drafting of the new ordinance or the amended ordinance or this
piece of property becoming involved in the permitting process. This case stands '
on it's down merit. There's been, and I'm not going to get involved in the
ecnomic issues on both sides of it. There's been thousands of dollars spent
from myself in defense of what I believe is the City's ordinance should be
enacted. On the other side of the story, the people believe that they have an
inherent right to put a boat down there. Quite truthfully it's important that
this acrimony that's created in our neighborhood has to come to an end. To my
way of thinking, the best way to end this is for this Council to act and enforce
81 '
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
' it's own ordinance and let it stand on it's own two legs and the merits of this
documentation that's been provided, even though it's only a very partial piece
of it should be sufficient for you to understand why I'm standing here and
asking you to act. I thank you and I'll answer any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions?
' Councilman Wing: Just to verify John. The issue here is that the two boats
were grandfathered and that's not at issue here. The issue is the expansion
from those two boats to four, is that correct?
John Merz: That 's correct in part. The safety issue will still supersede that
in my mind but the expansion beyond 2 boats is totally unacceptable to me and
would cause me to take further action which I do not want to do.
Councilman Wing: I believe their covenants as I read them today at the meeting
was that their covenants, if agreed on, four boats.
John Merz: The covenants don't agree to any boats.
Councilman Wing: That's a significant issue to them. They believe that they
' do, just for your information.
John Merz: It 's not documented anywhere.
' Councilman Workman: Roger, can that association's covenants outweigh, they
can't outweigh our ordinance in this situation?
' Roger Knutson: They can be more restrictive but not less. We don't enforce �
covenants. We have nothing to do with them.
' Councilman Workman: So they couldn't have 4 boats?
Roger Knutson: If our ordinance says 2 and they are grandfathered in, that's
' correct.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I was at the meeting today and of course I've been
' involved in several of these now throughout the city and the entire, I think all
the associations with maybe one exception. No, they came in there. All of
Minnewashta, Riley and Lotus were at the meetings today with Jo Ann and Kate. I
found that surprisingly there was support and cooperation between the
' Associations and the permit system and the argument would be what was
grandfathered. In this case the grandfathering is quite clear. I think that
we're going to be able to resolve this and I think your recommendation to ask
Mr. Merz and Terry to hold off might be appropriate and I think I would tend to
support that to see how the ordinance goes. How the permit process goes. The
determination though and the issue that's still going to have to be resolved is
Mr. Merz' insistance that he won't expand beyond the 2 boats and if the City
' allows a compromise and gives 3 or 4, I'm hearing you say we're going to wind up
back in Court then?
' John Merz: Yes sir.
' 82
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Wing: You're going to prosecute that then?
John Herz: That is correct. ,
Councilman Wing: I hear the associations today very cooperative and willing to
go along with the City's attempts to permit and get rid of this grandfathering.
Just establish some guidelines and I would like to see this situation put into
that process and hopefully resolve this and Mr. Merz I would just hope that
maybe there would be some compromise that you might be able to help us resolve
this issue also. You certainly have the option to insist on your rights but
maybe the permit process will solve the problem and I'd suggest that you table
your concerns until this process is able to work and it will probably be next
spring before this whole thing is resolved I'm anticipating. ,
John Merz: I don't want you to take Council members that that was a threat. I'm
not a threatening type of person. Quite truthfully I just want this resolved
more than anything to resolve the disharmony that's in our neighborhood right
now. It's disasterous and some of it may never be repaired. Hopefully that
can. That's the most important thing. But I don't want you to forget about the
safety issue here. I really raise that and stand here in front of you in
earnest in my heart believe that there is a potential dangerous situation down
there with the dockage of more than 2 boats. I prefer no boats and I also need
to let you understand that I am a member of the Trolls-Glen Homeowners
Association. My positions have not been represented by the leadership of our
association. I do not stand alone in my position. There are other people who
support me but we are not the majority so that's important. Also it's important
to understand that what I propose here, the dockage of no more than 2 boats, I'm
( imposing on myself as well as the other members of the Association and it's
really not my imposition whatsoever. It's the City imposition. It's your
position. It was adopted and it should be enforced. I see no reason not to
enforce it. I understand your reasoning but it's a long time issue. This issue
supersedes all this new stuff that's come up in the last 3 or 4 months by years
and the documentation is there. I've got a file very, very thick because I've
tried to maintain a very businesslike approach to this sad situation and it
should be resolved. Again.I ask before I leave in my last comment, please do
consider enacting enforcement of this ordinance that is currently in effect and
should have nothing to do with what's coming up before you in the future days.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks John. '
Terry Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name's Terry Johnson as John had
mentioned and I'm his neighbor and border the other side of this property. In
fact John said we didn't bring a picture of this property today but I thought
that Paul might be able to pull one out. Is that possible Paul?
Paul Krauss: I don't have the file. Oh, you mean just an overview? ,
Terry Johnson: Yeah. That might show lots.
Paul Krauss: I'm afraid we don't have one. '
83
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Terry Johnson: The reason I ask that is because I thought it might give you a
' better idea of what we're up against. I think this property is a little bit
unique in comparison to some of the other association properties that are out
there in that it is only 69 feet across the lake and is only 30 feet deep. It's
hard to tell from the pictures from the pamphlet that I know that you all have •
' but the back of the association property is my property. How they ever drew up
these lots I don't know but like John said, right now they're taken their docks
out and their docks cover the whole property. The wheel of the dock is right on
' my property on one side and all the other three sides, not on the lake side.
The other three sides have got boat lifts and docks all over the place. And to
accompanying the people that want to have the boats down there and their docks,
really my feeling is, and I'm an association member also, taking away the rights
of the other members to go down there and let their children play there in the
wintertime. Let the kids go down and like John said, have a fire down there.
We do that occasionally on my property and skate and that type of thing. The
' other thing that I have a little bit of an issue with as far as with the way
this letter was written is if you look at about the third sentence it starts
out, if I may read it. On June 3, 1991 staff wrote the Homeowners Association a
' letter stating they were in violation of the City Code and that they must reduce
the use to the recreational beachlot to what existed at the time the ordinance
was adopted. That may lead you to believe that letters were just recently
written from the City and the City Attorney to the Homeowners Association that
' they needed to limit the useage of that lot to 2 boats which is what we believe
is grandfathered in at 1982 when the ordinance was changed. Up to this point
they pretty much have done whatever they wanted with that lot. But if you were
' to look into the records you would see explicitedly that there has been a number
of letters written from Barb Dacy, I believe also the City Planner from back to
3 or 4 years ago and I personally know of about 3 letters that have been written
' asking these people to adhere to the ordinance. Since that time we have talked
to them at Association meetings. Have had numerous discussions and basically
nothing has happened. We decided to go to a lawyer and have some counsel and
ask them what we should do and they've written letters back and forth and
corresponded with the City and since that time, as we've mentioned, your City
lawyer wrote the association and told them that they should adhere to the 2
boats which would adhere to the City Ordinance and that hasn't been done.
They've declined to do that and basically we're sitting at the same place we
were 3 years ago. That's why we feel our situation is a little bit unique to
the other associations there and we ask you tonight to act on this. To ask your
lawyer to continue to pursue it and to not throw us in with the rest of the
' associations that may only take 2 or 3 months to decide and again the issue may
go on for 2 or 3 years. It's my feeling that when it does come up, as much as
Councilmember Wing said that they seemed to cooperate, all I've seen in the
past, and I've had discussions with you on this I thought Dick, that they've
said that there's been very little cooperation. At least I know that's been the
situation with us and I know I've had discussions with you about it.
Councilman Wing: But Terry one comment on your problem being unique. Your
problem as I see it addressed several other ones on Lake Minnewashta are minor.
We're talking about associations having taken over other lots. Moored boats in
front of other people's houses, etc. , etc. .
Terry Johnson: That doesn't sound like cooperation to me.
84
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
1
Councilman Wing: But because of these problems and staff has not taken it upon
themselves to try and create a new direction and to solve the problem. I guess
my recommendation, being in the middle of this and having attended the meeting
today and having talked with Paul, that request for staff direction simply be to
pursue the new ordinance. The new permit system and see if that will resolve
your problem. In fact the only permit they'll be allowed will be the 2 boats if
we go by what the intent is here which is what you're asking for anyway. It
will take a little time but by this spring everybody, if this permit is in fact
enacted, everybody will have to have a permit that has a recreational beachlot
and the number of boats, docks, everything they can do will be spelled out. And
I do correct Paul, it should resolve the problem as I see it.
Paul Krauss: We hope it does. I guess it's tough for me to sit here and tell I
you definitively that 2 boats would be the final answer there. I don't know
what will. Roger may wish to comment too. I suspect that if we took this to a
Judge right now who knew we were in the process of revising an ordinance that
the case is based upon, that we may have some difficulty getting.. .to give us a
reading on that. I don't know Roger, would that be a problem with him.. .
Roger Knutson: Potentially could be. Judges do everything to get people to '
resolve these things between themselves. If they can find a good reason to go
back and work it out ourselves, they usually do.
Terry Johnson: Roger, can I ask you were you the one that wrote the letter?
Roger Knutson: No. '
Terry Johnson: As the City's attorney, are you familiar with it?
Roger Knutson: Yes I am. 1
Terry Johnson: It sounded to me like there was some pretty strong language that
was used in the letter from your office to the Association and it gave me the '
feeling that you believe that we were correct in thinking that there should be
only 2 boats there and I feel like this has been tabled so many times since
like I said, it's been at least 3 years that I know of and with the letter that
your office put out, my feeling was that let's get this thing done. It's been
tabled many times before. I'm here to ask that you make a decision and we get
this thing resolved. Only that you ask the Association to adhere again to the
ordinance. 1
Mayor Chmiel: The only problem I see with that right now Terry is that as Roger
just stated it, we don't have our things pulled together before we go in there.
He's going to tell us to go back and just try to get it resolved.
Terry Johnson: You mean if you use a Judge? 1
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. And I think what they're basically saying right
now, we feel we're taking the appropriate action by pulling things together
within the ordinance in itself and that we pursue that particular part.. Once
that's done in indicating that there are 2 boats going to be there and that's
it, should resolve the issue of making the other 2 boats out of there. So it's
just going to take a little bit more time. I think you've been patient for 3 ,
85 '
I
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
years and I understand that. I think it's just going to take a little more time
' for us to pull these things together to get them effected so we can really
enforce that part.
Roger Knutson: Just to make up one little short point. Criminal prosecution
does not enjoin someone from doing something. Frankly we often use it as a tool •
to get problems solved but traditionally what the Judge would say for example
if he found that the 2 boats are all that should be there, he's going to ask
' what's out there now. By the time I can get this thing to trial, I know what
the answer's going to be. There aren't going to be any boats there.
Terry Johnson: In fact today there are no boats there. But my problem is
Mr. Mayor that the safety issue, which has been a problem in the past and John
had mentioned a couple issues. The problems that he's had down there.
Myself, I've got young children and what happens with this 69 foot lot is and I
understand. People come in and they want to drop their kids off when they're
skiing right in front of their lot. It's 69 feet which the rest of the lots
around there, most of them are 100 feet or more and with 69 feet coming in at 30
or 35 mph in a speed boat, trying to drop a skier off and everybody wants to get
off right in front of their dock, they buzz by my place. I've had numerous
incidents of, a couple of them where they came within 10 feet of my wife laying
' on a mattress and it's scares me about my wife. It scares me about my children
out there now. They could walk out to the end of the dock, a boat could come
buzzing by at 30 mph or 2 of them or 3 of them or 4 of them speedboats which is
what I think they've had there the last couple years and what the Association
thinks they can have now is 4 or more speed boats on this 69 foot lot. It's
totally unsafe in my opinion and it scares me that by the time something happens
with this new ordinance, that there could be an accident prior to that
' happening. That's why I'm pressing.
Mayor Chmiel: And I understand that. But I think what we're saying right now
' that the time frame for something like that to happen most likely won't right
now because no one's going to be out there skiing anymore. By the time spring
comes, hopefully this can get resolved through the ordinance somehow. And
that's I think the approach we're trying to take right now because of the
' concerns that Roger has indicated before as to the position that the Judge would
take. We have to go the route that we're going before we do much more.
1 Terry Johnson: I appreciate that. Appreciate all your time tonight. I know
it's almost 2. I have to get up with my 2 1/2 year old daughter here in about 2
hours also but I appreciate your time. Appreciate your listening to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
John Merz: One more question. Assuming that there's going to be no action
' taken on this and I assume that that's the way it's going, will the 2 boat issue
be a part of the new. Will the 2 boat issue with the existing ordinance, will
that be considered in the permitting process coming this spring? If I could get
an affirmative response from that question, then I would at least have something
to go on and say yes. I will indeed endure the more patient route here and I
would like to see that. If it's not going to be a part of this process; and
I know that I'm asking something that's very difficult for you to answer, but an
indication one way or the other would be beneficial to me.
' 86
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Roger Knutson: If the ordinance is passed and I assume it's going to pass. I
think it will. . .almost 2:00 in the morning. They're going to have to come in
and get a permit and that permit process will be they have to come in and we're
going to ask them what do you think your grandfather rights are. You can come
in and say based on something, we have a right to 100 boats or 4 boats, whatever
they say. They come in here and say they only have a right to 2 and here's our
evidence. That you only have a right to 2 boats. This Council will then issue
a permit. Agrees with you and says it's 2 boats, it's 2 boats. If we go out
there and find 3, we prosecute them. ,
John Merz: Thank you very much sir. Thank you very much for your time. I
really appreciate it. I
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay, we'll move along with the last item 14.
APPROVE SPECIFICATIONS FOR MEDICAL INSURANCE/HMO COVERAGE, ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER.
Councilman Workman: So moved. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I would second that. This is the first time this is going to
happen that we're going to go out for bids and I think that's the way to do it. 1
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, on the Frontier assessment, what's our method of
reaching a decision with the problems we had tonight? We sent this back to
staff. We still haven't done the Frontier assessment. What is our methodology
going to be here?
Mayor Chmiel: All those things they're going to pull together. All the
discussions that we had today.
Councilman Wing: What's the timeframe? By the 28th again?
Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Also, on the Notermann update, I'd like to have that at
the_ next meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. We have a motion on the floor with a second. I
Councilwoman Dimler: To do what? l
Mayor Chmiel: To approve the specs for the medical insurance/HMO coverage. 1
Councilman Mason: I think it 's too bad this is coming up at a quarter to 2:00.
Councilman Workman: We could probably pass it off to tomorrow night.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to table it if I might. I
{ Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have some concerns?
Councilman Workman: I withdraw my motion. I
87 '
I
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll withdraw my second if you have some concerns.
Councilman Mason: Todd's real happy now.
Todd Gerhardt: I'm not going to be there tomorrow.
Councilwoman Dimler: Also, I would ask that the update on the Notermann, Lake
Ann Interceptor assessment because they wre taken out of the project and I just
want to make sure. Staff was going to follow up on that and work with them.
That doesn't have to be by tomorrow though.
1 Mayor Chmiel: We are going to then take the HMO tomorrow night. Tonight .
That's right. This evening. Can I have a motion for adjournment?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 a.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
1 City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
1 _ 88
1
M
ro two&r n
r CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION �' b
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 2, 1991
Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m . .
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Annette Ellson , Steve Emmings ,
Brian Batzli . Jeff Farmakes arrived after the first item .
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens
' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Kathy Aanenson , Planner II
PUBLIC HEARING:
REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1 , CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION INTO
TWO PARCELS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,000 SQUARE
' FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK PLACE AND PARK ROAD INTERSECTION, MAIL SOURCE,
INC. , R.J. RYAN CONSTRUCTION.
Kathy Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
Emmings: Is there someone here representing the applicant? Have you had a
chance to review the staff report and the conditions that they 've suggested
for approval?
Tom Ryan: Yes . I 'm Tom Ryan . I represent R .J . Ryan Construction . I met
yesterday with the engineering department and I believe we resolved any
' issues regarding the grading and drainage and parking concerns . We will be
submitting revised grading plan but as much as anything there were some
misinterpretations of our plan . I 'm confident the new plan will meet the
engineering department's request . We would like to ask you to consider not
requiring us to screen our rooftop equipment . These will be 3 and 4 ton
rooftop equipment . We have very small office areas we 're going to develop .
Maximum height on these units would be 42 inches high . We would certainly
paint them either to blend with the building or to blend with the roof if
the City would request but we found that we would certainly be the
exception in that area rather than the rule if we did have screened rooftop
equipment . We also agreed yesterday with Paul Krauss that we would submit
a letter saying that we intend to have inside trash storage only . The
owner 's operation doesn 't generate trash and he doesn 't want any outside
trash enclosures .
Emmings: What business is it going to be? All it says in the packet was
they 're going to sort mail .
' Tom Ryan: That 's really it . They 're bulk mail processors. They get bulk
mail in . They put labels on it and they ship it out the door . Although
not a formal request I guess from the Planning Department , we would not
' like to install any more windows on the east or west side of the building
as they would interfere with the owner 's operation as he 's got mailbags
stacked near the ceiling on the perimeter walls of the building . We feel
we 've aesthetically designed the building that fits in with the other
buildings in the area and would hope that you understand that it would just
take wall space away from him in his warehouse operation . Our final
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 2
request would be that you consider levying the park and trail fees only on
the developed portion of the property as money 's a little tight and collect
1
the rest of it if and when we develop it but that parcel. may be sold .
Emmings: Now let me understand . You only want to do it on Parcel A?
Tom Ryan: We 'd like you to consider that we 're only developing slightly
over half of our parcel . Take half of it now and take half of it later .
Aanenson: Parcel A , a portion of Parcel A . Is that what you 're saying?
Tom Ryan: A portion of Parcel A .
' Emmings: Anything else?
Tom Ryan: That 's it .
Emmings: Okay . This is a public hearing . Is there anybody else here who
' would like to comment on this?
Conrad moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: He said that they 'd be the exception if they have to screen the
rooftop equipment . My understanding is we require screening of rooftop
equipment on every building in town . There 's a gap here between what I
thought and what I 'm hearing .
Krauss: It is an ordinance requirement to screen rooftop equipment . Now
there have been instances where if a rooftop is not visible because of
parapet walls on because of surrounding topography , in the use of low
profile units we 've allowed them to go on and just paint them a flat color
' and you can 't see them . The reference to having a number of buildings with
unscreened equipment in the park , it 's true . There is some but I think
it 's more due to the fact that the park 's developed over the last 10 or 12
years and as the standards have been improved , we have required that . I
think you 've required it consistently on every building I can recall .
There is a small parapet . I talked to Tom about this yesterday . There is
a small parapet on the front of the building but there 's nothing on the
sides . This site is somewhat lower than surrounding sites and I 'm pretty
sure would be visible . I 'm relunctant to recommend that you delete the
requirement . It is in the ordinance .
11 Emmings: Alright . What about their request that we don 't add windows
because it will interfere with their operation of the building internally?
Krauss: Well , to philosophize for a moment . We 've been edging slowly into
expanding our architectural review of buildings and what kind of criteria
we want to establish . The adding of windows is something that I know I 've
11 encountered before when you have blank walls that face public right-of-way .
You do run into a problem when it does hinder the applicant 's use of the
property . Now we didn 't have an internal floorplan to know . If we have an
elevation of that side . We are concerned that it 's a pretty spare side of
the building but I guess .
U
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 3 1
Emmings: Could they do something with landscaping that would help break ill
up if they can 't do something with windows?
•
Krauss: That 's a possible alternative . Sort of like McGlynn 's approach o
a smaller +scale .
Emmings: Yeah .
Aanenson: Something to break up the look .
Emmings: Okay , so the goal is anyway to break up that expanse . Whether ,
it 's windows or landscaping we don 't care that much as long as it 's
something .
Aanenson: Right . I
Emmings: Okay . As far as his request on the park and trail fees , we don 't
get into that here .
Krauss: That 's going to be the purview of the City Council .
Emmings: Yeah , okay . Back to comments . Tim . I
Erhart: What is the lot split that we 're doing here? Metes and bounds lot
split . Is that Parcel A from B? I
Aanenson: The parcel that he 's going to build on is 2 .653 acres . There 's
another piece behind it right in here . Another 1 .3 . He 's building on thill
first portion .
Erhart: So that lot is all one lot today?
Aanenson: Yes .
Erhart : 3 . , almost 4 acres? I
Aanenson: Yes .
Erhart: Okay I thought we didn 't allow metes and bounds lot splits in the l
City here .
Krauss: Oh yeah we do . If it 's a very simple division that can be
described easily we can do that .
Erhart: How come when I had to go get a mortgage for my house I had to doll
a plat?
Krauss: Your property probably couldn 't be metes and bounds . Was it a
verbal description . You 've got what , a 100 some odd acres . I don 't know . "
We have some properties though .
Erhart : I was told that we don 't do metes and bounds in the city . That 'll
why you have to plat it . Came up here before the Planning Commission .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 4
Emmings : You were lied to by staff .
1 Krauss: To be honest we don 't do it very often . In fact usually in
Chanhassen I can unilaterally approve chipping off chunks of a residential
1 lot and merging it with the adjoining property . As long as you 're not
creating a new parcel , you know if you 're shifting 10 feet to your neighbor
and you 're not creating a variance , I can authorize that .
1 Erhart : Do you know if our building has rooftop screening?
Krauss: I don 't know . I 'm pretty certain , we have somebody here from PMT .
I 'm pretty sure we made PMT do it on their new building .
Erhart : But that 's what we 're making people do and we have to stick with
1 that . I think our building has a big flat wall like this too and if it 's
properly landscaped it doesn 't look so bad . So I would say the choice
would be , looking at the landscaping plan here , is that adequate or are you
going to go back and look at that some more?
' Aanenson : It 's adequate .
1 Erhart : It breaks up the wall?
Krauss : If that 's your option , we 'd probably ask for it to be refined a
little bit .
1 Erhart : What happened to the Rome building?
1 Krauss : Roman was unable to secure tenants for it and he never got it
built .
1 Erhart : Is there anything , the entrance on that one . There was a west
entrance on that one wasn 't there that we approved .
Krauss : If you recall his original site plan , he had two buildings
1 proposed . One initial one and one future one . There was a curb cut to the
south on Park Road ." In fact he originally had two curb cuts on the south .
One on the corner and we recommended that that be deleted and it ultimately
1 was .
Erhart : Okay . Well there 's no parking on this side so that doesn 't .
Another mail company in our business park .
1
Ellson: They 're clean . They don 't make a lot of noise .
' Conrad: The rooftop , I think we need the screening unless the applicant
can prove to staff that it 's not obtrusive like it 's neighbor . Windows , we
don 't need more windows but we do need something to break up that wall .
1 That 's absolutely critical so if the applicant doesn 't need windows for the
work , then landscaping to break that wall up . Guaranteed . Those are my
only two comments .
1 Emmings : Annette .
1
III
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 5 II '
Ellson: Nothing new . I agree with everybody so far .
II
Emmings: Brian .
Batzli : On the right hand turn out onto Park Place , is that a steep turn il
for semis?
Tom Ryan: Yes it is . It 's going to be revised . I
Aanenson: I don 't think it meets the radius requirements so that will be
revised . There was a mention of the radius so that needs to be required i'
the report ,
Batzli : Is it one of the conditions?
IIErhart : The applicant should supply a revised parking plan consistent wit
staff 's .
Batzli : Is that part of the parking plan provisions? II
Aanenson : Yeah . I think it 's mentioned what the radius needs to be .
II
Krauss: Yes it is . It 's spoken of in the engineer 's report .
Batzli : Okay . As long as everybody catches that . The exterior trash .
They 've said that they 're not going to have any external trash . Do you II
agree with something like that? What do they do on trash day?
Krauss: That 's fine with us . II
. Ellson: They lift up a garage door .
IIKrauss: In the past though we did ask Tom for , or for the applicant to
provide a letter on this . In the past we 've had people make ascertains
that there would be no trash and then lo and behold there is . We 're
comfortable that if we have a letter of understanding that the trash is toll
be stored inside and that will be in the file , then if we do find a problem
later on , we have the ability to go back and enforce the approval .
II
Batzli : Two questions though . Should it be a condition of approval and
two , is it something that the fire inspector should be considering that
they 're going to be storing additional trash inside? Since they 're going II
to have a lot of paper in there to start with .
Krauss: Well you raise a good point . Now the fire marshall reviews all II
the building permits and stamps off on them . If there is a trash storage
area to be labeled on the building print , he 'll come across that . Now it
may be appropriate to put a condition in there that the fire marshall
approve the internal storage just so everybody , if we don 't this is the
II
kind of thing that might be overlooked .
Batzli : Okay . Previously did we do a , when we approved the old site plan
89-9 for the Rome Building , did we do some sort of subdivision for that or
was that on the entire parcel?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 6
Krauss : It was platted but he never filed it .
Batzli : It was platted and not filed . Okay . •
Krauss : I don 't know if we metes and bounds it then . I know we published
it as a subdivision but I think we ultimately did it the same way .
Batzli : Okay . That 's all I have .
Emmings: Okay . I don 't have anything additional . I think we need another
condition that would state that the applicant shall provide plans for
windows on the east and west side . A plan for additional windows on the
east or west side or additional landscaping to help break up the facade .
To be submitted to the staff for their approval .
' Batzli : That reminds me . Is that , didn 't they say something in here in
the elevation that they were going to put a different kind of brick or
block .
Emmings : That 's in here .
Batzli : Is that one of the conditions?
' Krauss : Yes .
I/ Aanenson : Which one?
Batzli : The glazed block .
Emmings : Is that in the conditions?
Batzli : No .
11 Aanenson: Do you want to just add it as part of 1?
Ellson : We don 't have the window in here either .
Conrad: Yeah , the window wasn 't there either .
Emmings : Okay , so we 've got to have that . That should be added also .
Tom Ryan: Can I speak again?
Emmings : Sure .
Tom Ryan: I 'd like to address two things . Both the glazed block and once
' again the rooftop equipment . We ' ll take the rooftop equipment first . I am
not aware of another building in this community that has 3 and 5 ton
rooftop units that are screened with materials that are compatible with
masonry . I 've had two buildings approved in this town in the last year .
Neither -one of which have screened rooftop equipment . These are 42 inch
high units . On the east side of the building I 've got a 16 inch high
11 parapet wall . Why are we building $2 ,000 .00 screens around them?
U
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 7
Emmings: Just to understand your point of view and to end the argument ,
we 've got a requirement in our ordinances that requires that rooftop
equipment be screened . I guess if you can talk staff , what we 're saying i
we 're going to enforce that . If you can talk staff out of it between now
and City Council , more power to you . I
Krauss: If I can answer that a little bit . One building that I know that
we worked with Tom is the Dexter Magnetic building which is up high and se
off in the trees and they used low profile units and you couldn 't see it
from off site . Also the terminology , materials compatible with the
building , we would probably consider accepting metal panels . We would
probably consider accepting dry , I mean there 's a lot of ways of addressinil
that . We certainly know we don 't want wood slats but apart from that ,
anything that 's durable- ,.rid fits in with the design of the building we 'd be
.r-
E n, - ; h h , . ' the i . Maybe: ,_ ou r '
longP>'i : Okay . Let 's take the glazed block . I guess I have an architec
who designed this building who was a graduate of Harvard Architecture
School . He didn 't design the building with glazed block and he doesn 't II
feel that glazed block is warranted on this band . Why? How can you tell
me I have to have glazed block on this building? I don 't even know that it
goes with the color scheme that we 're going to pick out .
Emrnings : Do you want to comment on that? I know you didn 't go to Harvard
but maybe you can bring us up to . _
Krauss: I only went to Syracuse . They were kicked out of the Ivy League .
Tom Ryan: I mean I don 't know that a glazed block band would enhance the II
appearance of this building and it isn 't even necessarily a cost
consideration .
Krauss: If I could address why we did it . Paint doesn 't last . It become!'
a maintenance issue . The colors change . It 's just not a durable material .
In fact in some place in the ordinance I know we discussed at one time we
will not accept painted highlights on buildings . Now this is not an
unadorned block . It meets the criteria for building materials and I grant
you that we probably need to do some better definition in our ordinance but
our ordinance does give us architectural review . That doesn 't mean just
look at it and say okay , it 's a building . It means that you have some
ability to influence it and I would not recommend going with a painted
stripe . It 's just not durable .
Tom Ryan: 12 years ago I was making brown buildings . Every building that
was built was brown . This year you don 't find anybody who wants to build a
brown building . Everybody wants to build a gray building . Times change .
Tastes change . We would have a dated building with a 1990 color on it 10
years from now . If you allow when the paint fades and we have to repaint
the building , maybe we paint it a different color . You don 't paint glazed"
block .
M Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 8
Emmings : Okay , thank you . Anybody want to comment on the glazed blocks?
Erhart : I agree with the argument that painting a stripe is not an
acceptable way to do a trim . Maybe it 's not glaze . Maybe it 's metal or
something . Are there other painted trim in the industrial park? Are you
' talking about painting on concrete blocks? Is that what you 're proposing?
I know but are these painted or are these colors actually put into the
block?
11 Tom Ryan: Painted . It 's a painted building .
Erhart : Is that how they make it? Concrete block exterior .
Krauss: Sure there are . There are painted buildings . Although I do know
that , you know you can pick and choose your examples . You know when you
have an industrial park that 's been built over a decade , you can do
anything .
Erhart : Our park . We 've got a lot of conrete . Painted block buildings .
' Krauss : There are . I 'm pretty sure there are but I know the Roberts
Automatic building , which was approved by you about a year ago , year and a
half ago , originally came in with some painted highlights and we
recommended that , at that time the City was not so as attuned to
architectural stuff and we got our point across that we didn 't think it
was , I mean it was a functional building but it wasn 't too hot . The City
Council , in fact Ursula Dimler came down very strongly on this building
does not meet their image of what this city should be and they made them go
back and they added I think metal detailing to the building . Metal
highlights .
Erhart : How did they do that? They built the conrete block and then they
1 just spra yod the whole building? Or are the blocks that color when you put
them up?
Tom Ryan: No . You paint concrete block buildings and once again I have
two buildings here approved in the last year which are both two toned ,
painted decorative block buildings .
' Erhart : Where are they?
Tom Ryan: Dexter Magnetic . . .and Industrial Information Controls .
Krauss : Well IIC is an old building and that was an addition to an old
building but Dexter does have painted trim . And to be honest , when it came
up that way , you know 20/20 hindsight , I had some doubts about it but the
building was approved that way and we didn 't make an issue of it at that
time .
Erhart: The IIC building is what , 10 years old? No . Not quite . 8? 5?
Tom Ryan: Merit Heating right on the highway . That 's 2-3 years old .
Erhart: What is the feeling on that?
Planning Commission Meeting
U
October 2 , 1991 - Page 9
Emmings: Well you know this is one of those issues where I don 't have any
way to judge . I don 't know anything about painting concrete block and how
long it lasts and I don 't know anything about comparative costs between
doing that and having glazed block . Glazed block I take it the color is
more permanent . Somehow it 's made right in there . The color 's right in
there . It sounds like a reasonable thing to do but I don 't really have an
way to evaluate it . As far as I 'm concerned, I 'm going to go with the
staff .
Batzli : But see I agree with the rationale that why staff wants it . I
mean some sort of building accent . Breaking up that side with windows . I
think their goal is what we 're looking at and whether they do it with pain"
or something else , I think that 's something that they have to work out
because as Steve said , I can 't judge . I don 't know what the cost
differential is in doing the two . I don 't know what . You may achieve the"
same thing with something else .
Ellson: Well the concern is something like Ursula 's that it 's good to pas
it along anyway . I agree with her that I don 't want us to be just the run
of the mill painted stuff . People who occupy those things change over and
the first one might be real good about keeping that landscaping for example
and the next one might now and some might paint it and some might not . I II
think that 's why we had talked about having some sort of a trial and I
don 't know that it worked the greatest but trying to get some sort of an
architectural upgrade when it comes into Chanhassen . We don 't necessarily"
want the Hardee 's to be what it always is . Because we 're Chanhassen we
want it to be better than everywhere else because we want it to look and
reflect better than the average and I think that 's the idea behind being
better than the average painted block and I think we 'd serve it better tooll
so I like the idea but I don 't believe it has to be the material of choice
right now but just something that 's agreed to . Maybe that should be
Council 's decision . i
Emmings: Is there a motion?
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site II
Plan Review #91-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 16th , even
though mine wasn 't dated . Was there a date on this?
Aanenson : It should be September 16th . ,
Batzli : Okay . Well that were dated and that we 're looking at tonight
subject to the following conditions . Conditions 1 thru 10 as set forth in
the staff report . Condition 1 woule be amended so there would be a comma
at the end of the word building at the end of the paragraph and add the
phrase., alternatively the applicant may submit plans for internal trash
storage to City staff for approval , in which event no exterior trash
storage shall be allowed . A new condition 11 . The applicant shall include
windows and glazed block as set forth in the staff report or shall provide"
alternatives acceptable to city staff such as landscaping and other
building accents respectively .
Erhart : I 'll second it . I
I
M
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 10
Emmings: Any discussion?
Conrad: Yeah . Where you tied the two together .
Batzli : Well I didn 't mean to .
Conrad: You tied landscaping and architecture together .
' Batzli : Well they were in the same condition .
Erhart: Yeah , that staff has to approve .
Conrad : Do you believe that the landscaping on the west should be the same
as on the east? The east is where you 've got the exposure . The west , I 'm
1 not sure that we care about the west . That 's where another building goes .
It faces a neighbor . The east faces an exterior road . The motion just
said additional landscaping period . So it 's back. in staff 's lap and I just
' wanted to know if we want to provide some direction on that . If we feel
comfortable .
' Batzli : I was assuming that actually what would kind of happen is they 'd
talk between now and City Council and City Council would see it because
otherwise , in my opinion it should come back and we should see what they 're
going to do . Because really the only thing that 's totally settled on this
is apparently the , well not even the landscaping now . They need revised
everything .
Conrad: Well there seems to be a lot of things missing in this . Really
are . We 're not looking at anything that staff feels comfortable with , to
tell you the truth . I surely would have like to have seen the applicant
' and staff have all the things , rather than discussing it yesterday or the
day before and agreeing with the engineering department and again we 're
looking at stuff that we really don 't know what it is . We 're trusting that
you 've worked it out with staff . We don 't have the expertise to evaluate
' that anyway but again we want staff to review it to say it 's a good plan .
We agree and then all of a sudden it 's in never , never land between us and
the City Council and that makes me real uncomfortable . I don 't like how
this was really handled . I really don 't . It 's not a big deal but again
it 's another plan that things are missing and they should be tight . It 's a
simple plan . Maybe we 're trying to get this in before the ground freezes
but it bothers me . So again my points and we 're in discussion item here .
My points are , landscaping on the east is very important . It 's really ugly
to have that , I 'm surprised you presented that to us to tell you the truth .
To have that an exterior wall facing a road? One window and no
landscaping , at least from what I saw . That 's just and then we 're
bickering about screening a few rooftop deals . You know , I don 't know .
That 's a little bit of a bother to me . I don 't care how the accent block
is handled . I don 't care if it 's paint . I think a good landlord or a good
owner will take care of the paint . I agree with the applicant that putting
in a particular color dates it so again , the issue is the building has a
little bit of character . All we 're asking for is a little bit of character
I in this and Brian , if you think your motion covers a little bit of
character between and one , I ' ll ride with you on that . But again , I 'm just
not real pleased with what I perceive a very simple plan is missing some
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 11
II ]
parts where I would have liked to have seen the staff and the applicant in
more agreement before you got in here on some simple stuff that is easy .
Tom Ryan: Our differences are very minor . I think it 's very minor .
Conrad: Well I would have liked to have you both together on the rooftop .
Seems like we 're talking about a couple thousand dollars which doesn 't see
like a big deal to me but that 's an issue .
Batzli : Well Ladd , if they put the windows in on that side , are you still,
Conrad: I don 't want windows . I agree with the applicant . The business
drives the building . The business doesn 't need windows . I don 't need
windows . That 's the owner of the businesses ' problem but on the exterior ,
we don 't want just a concrete wall facing . We don 't want a warehouse wall
facing the street and that 's what we 've got . So again , my concern is
fixing that with landscaping . It can be done real simply . This is simple
stuff . So that 's my point under discussion . If everybody feels that
that 's covered under Brian 's motion , then I 'll vote along with Brian .
Batzli : I can certainly redo , revisit my condition 11 . Would you rather
see that the applicant will provide additional landscaping in lieu of
windows?
Conrad: I think I got my point across . Staff heard my comments and the
applicant heard my comments . I don 't care if we revise it to tell you thell
truth .
Emmings: I think we should leave the motion the way it is and just adopt I
Ladd 's intent statement .
Batzli : Okay , that sounds good .
Emmings : Because I agree with most of what Ladd said except I think the
differences are minor enough so I don 't see any reason for it to come back .
Conrad : I don 't want it back , no .
Emmings: Alright . Should we call the question? Does anybody else want 1
say anything else about this?
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #91-6 as shown on the site plan dated
September 16, 1991 subject to the following conditions:
1 . The applicant must provide detailed drawings of material to be used 1
for screening rooftop equipment . This material must be compatible to
the building material . The applicant must also submit a detailed
drawing for the location of the trash enclosure , screened with
materials compatible with the building , alternatively the applicant
may submit plans for internal trash storage to City staff for
approval , in which event no exterior trash storage shall be allowed. II
i
a
- 11 Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 12
2 . The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of the proposed sign . A
separate sign permit is required .
' 3 . The applicant shall provide a revised parking plan consistent with
staff 's recommendation .
4 . The applicant will provide detailed drawings of the proposed lighting
plan .
5 . The applicant shall submit a revised grading and utility plan
including size , type and elevation of storm sewer and obtain and
comply with all conditions of the Watershed District Permit .
' 6 . Provide B--612 concrete curb and gutter around parking lots and
driveway . Increase parking lot pavement to standards outlined in the
report and incorporate city 's typical industrial/commercial driveway
' detail . Add catch basins in driveway access to catch runoff before
draining into Park Place . Fill existing ditch along Park Place with
storm sewer extensions .
' 7 . Install hay bales around catch basins until the bituminous is
installed .
' 8 . Seed or sod all disturbed areas .
9 . Install fire hydrant north of the driveway on Park Place .
10 . Rescind approval for Site Plan #89-9 Rome Office Building .
11 . The applicant shall include windows and glazed block as set forth in
the staff report or shall provide alternatives acceptable to city
staff such as landscaping and other building accents respectively.
1 All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: This goes to the City Council on October 28th . You can follow it
there .
1
PUBLIC HEARING:
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING ACCESSORY DWELLINGS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Willard Johnson Chairman , Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
Willard Johnson: I guess I was discussing something with Paul . I 'm the
Chairman of the Board . I wasn 't there that night . I was out of town so I
guess I 've got a feeling I can find a million holes in the darn thing .
Planning Commission Meeting III
October 2 , 1991 - Page 13
Erhart : In what , the ordinance?
IF
Willard Johnson: In this proposed . I was just telling Paul , I 'm going toll
come up next year when I want to put my motorhome up for the summer for my
kids . He said you can 't do it . I 've lived in the city since 1958 . I 've
got a motorhome that 's 1964 so I qualify in that 10 year bracket . I know II
farmers around here that have . . .particular case is in Watertown . Watertow
township where they 've got a chicken house made into a home and a grainery
and I guess there 's a number of farmers in the city . I 'm just looking for
loopholes . I had a 40 acre parcel here last year . I was on the other sid�
of the table at the County . In order to qualify for selling the land , we
had a couple that wanted to buy 5 acres off the property and then the other
35 they 'd take Contract for Deed . Well we had to dismantle the existing 11
home on there so they could have it and if they had defaulted , well the
deal fell through but if they had defaulted on 35 acres I would have been
out of a home . So I guess there the County said no , you can 't do it and II
I had 40 acres . I guess this is a little different situation but I just
feel now , hey I can bring my motorhome and I can request it . Paul says
it 's kind of an iffy situation but I 'm just throwing loopholes at you . Or'
if you own a piece of property and you 've got an old shed sitting back
there for 15 years and say gee , I 'd like my kids that are coming from out
of state to spend the summer there . I 'm totally against it . I don 't konw
how my comrades feel on the Board but I wasn 't there that night and
I
I haven 't discussed it with them but I 'm heartedly against it .
Batzli : Why are you against it? What 's wrong with having a little bunk '
house?
Willard Johnson: I 've been on this board a couple of years .and , long
years . Probably longer than most of you people have been in the city , and
I 've seen so much stuff we 've fought through the city . We 've tried to kee
a fairly decent standard . Maybe we failed someplace in our variances but
in granting a variance but this is leaving this wide open .
II
Batzli : Wide open for what? What 's wrong with it? What 's going to happen
that 's bad?
Willard Johnson: You 're going to come up and ask me a year from now I wan
a variance to add . . .and make that into a summer home .
Batzli : No because I live in a PUD . I can 't put anything on it but that '
another story .
Willard Johnson: Yeah , but say you 're living in , I hope some of you peopl1
understand this . You 're living in not a planned development . One of the
older parts . We have trouble with Lake Riley . We have trouble with Red ,
Cedar Point and trouble at Carver Beach . Some guy 's going to develop one
of them lots down there and say gee I want to keep this old cabin for
memory .
Batzli : I think of my in-laws place up in Annandale and everybody up and II
down the lake has a little old cabin from one of the resorts that went out
of business . I don 't see anything wrong with it .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 14
Willard Johnson: You haven 't been on this Board as long as I have and you
haven 't fought the conditions . They ' ll haunt you .
Batzli : I know they 'll haunt . I 'm trying to get something that 's actually
bad . I hear the horror story but I don 't hear the horror . I mean what
happens that 's bad? Do people actually , they convert chicken coups and
that 's bad and we 're trying to avoid that?
Willard Johnson: . . . I can show you two ?farms right now where they 've got
multiple dwellings on it .
' Batzli : Is there something inherently bad with multiple dwellings? Is
that what 's bad?
' Ellson : Well one of the things they were talking about here is like people
will start renting it out and things like that .
' Batzli. : Alright , so we 've got a carriage house in Minneapolis that 's being
rented out . Is that bad? I 'm trying to find out what 's bad about having
rental property on your land .
' Krauss: Well Mr . Batzli , I think you 're raising a point , which is one of
the points that I have with this ordinance . This ordinance isn 't dealing
with all those things that you 're talking about . It 's dealing with one
lot .
Batzli : I agree . I 'm just trying to find out what 's wrong with it in
' principle .
Ellson: Why do we say one house per lot? We have all kinds of good
- reasons for saying that .
Batzli : But we 're not asking for a house . We 're not asking for , I mean
this is accessory . This is a bunk house . I could picture examples where
this would be fine .
Krauss: Yeah , I could too if all properties were regulated equitably .
' Emmings : This is getting real loose . Willard , we want to give you a
chance to make your comments on this and I think we 've got them . Is there
' anything you 'd like to add to that?
Willard Johnson: I ' ll just give you a for instance . . . .there 's about , they
were grandfathered in . There was about 4 or 5 illegal duplexes and
triplexes . We fought the City when we were young , the neighbors and I .
Let 's cut it down . The City didn 't do nothing about it and now it 's
getting better and they 're getting better clientele but in the years we
used to have drug bunches in there and everything else and it got to be a
son of a gun to clean it up . We had the Sheriff up there all the time .
I mean there 's things that just slip through the cracks that the City Hall
and them can 't control . I don 't know why you people can 't see it . I 've
I grown up with this city . I was in the township growing up and I guess I 'm
trying to get my point across that you 're going to cause a problem .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 15
Emmings: Thank you . Now we 've got public hearing open and there 's nobody
else here . Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in 11
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: I think there 's two issues here . One is the issue of using an
ordinance to be directed at one individual and I think there 's a name for
that called spot ordinance . Spot zoning or spot ordinance . To me that is"
outrageous that we have spent city money in creating an ordinance at one
particular individual . I think it 's ridiculous and I think it 's
outrageous . Okay , so that really upsets me because that 's not what we 're
all about here . That 's the first time that I can remember in what , I guest
it 's almost 6 years I 've been out here , I 've seen us attempt to do that .
The second issue is , the whole subject of accessory dwellings and I , like
Brian , don 't know the merits or dismerits of that . Now if we want to turn"
this around , if we 're really serious about creating an ordinance to allow
people to have accessory dwellings , then we should make it a well thought
through ordinance and let 's determine what the bad things and the good
things and horror stories are because I could certainly envision , I have a
farm Willard and I can certainly envision . I thought it 'd be pretty neat •
couple times to have a guest house when family comes over and someplace
outside the house . In fact I just visited one in Eden Prairie this week II
where they had a guest house . I don 't know what the problems are and if w
want to take that on as an ordinance , then let 's take that on as an
ordinance but this to me I think is terrible that we 're looking at one
little place and then we 're creating around that particular site .
Emmings: Without considering the range of problems .
Erhart : That 's right . If we 're going to take about an ordinance , then
let 's set our goals and our intentions . Let 's do it right .
Emmings: Ladd . 1
Conrad: I agree .
Emmings: You 're saving your comments again .
Conrad: No , no . I think that 's real valid . This is not acceptable and II
we 'd have to turn that down and we couldn 't give it a positive . If we
think there is some merit to allowing a secondary living quarters on a
parcel , then I think we should review it and give it more merit . Yet on I
the other , more time . The question is that the way we want to prioritize
staff time . This is the first time I 've seen such a request . I don 't know
if we have a lot of needs like that in the City so my gut feel is not to
address it .
Emmings: Okay . Annette .
Ellson: I don 't like it . I don 't think we should address it .
Emmings : I think we know how Brian feels . Should we ask him anyway?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 16
1
Conrad : Yeah , let 's ask him .
Emmings: Brian , how do you feel about it?
Batzli : I agree with Tim .
Emmings: Jeff?
I Farmakes: I 'd agree with what 's been said but the one reservations I 'd
have is that in issues of lake homes and how they were developed . Many of
the lakes here have had cabins on them or small dwellings . Much smaller
' than would be sellable now and the question comes , if those are habitable
and they 've been in existence since World War II or there abouts where
things were a little looser out here . You see a lot of property say in
Minnetonka that they 're 90 feet wide . Very small type cabin type
' dwellings . I 'd like to address that as a separate issue and get into
breaking out these dwellings because I think you may get into a situation
where we allow for that dwelling now for the person to develop their
' property in a modern way that is sellable or makes sense under the present
realty type situation . If they 're going to have to tear those type of
structures down , they may be suffering a severe financial loss . I can see
Iwhere this person wants to do this .
Emmings: What these people want to do this property , given their
individual history on this property seems like kind of a reasonable thing
to do . I 'm just kind of trying to weigh the fairness of this thing . It
seems like kind of a reasonable thing for here but on the other hand , a
deal 's a deal and they said we won 't use it and now they 've got their house
' that they wanted and now they want to use it so that 's real unfair . So on
the fairness side I think it 's kind of a wash . I think this is a totally
improper way to accomplish what might be a reasonable goal for this family
' on this property . And I agree with Tim . We either look at it in general .
I think the horror or the danger here is I thought about having , liking to
have a second structure on my lot . I 've got a lakeshore lot . I 'm 250 feet
back from the shore . It 'd be fun to have a little summer cabin type thing
11 down there to spend some summer nights in . Maybe have people stay over in .
And we 're in a single family residential area . We 're going to wind up with
potentially , you know having two houses on every lot and is that what you
' want? You 're really asking what is our single family residential area? Is
it two? Now we 've got a garage . I 've got a separate garage . I 've got a
house . Now I 've got a separate building that I can let guests stay in or I
can rent out . That 's really a change of character for the single family
' area I think but those are part of the issues I think Tim 's talking about
to look at in a broader kind of way . I don 't like this at all . You had
something else to add Willard?
' Willard Johnson: I was talking to the gentleman up on the end there , Jeff?
We 've got people on Lake Riley coming in with cabins and they want to tear
them down . I 'll go to bat for them to get a decent home on there . I 've
fought many a times . In fact we 've got one now that can 't get under
construction with the pollution . The State and the City stopped them but
I went to bat for the guy so he could build a good value home on there and
11 get rid of the cabin . I feel comfortable , even though I fight the
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 17
ordinance , city ordinances , to say you 're bending them a little bit to get"
a decent home if they do away with the cabin .
Emmings: On Minnetonka they 're tearing down relatively new homes to build
bigger , newer homes . I just don 't think the financial , I think the
marketplace will take care of that stuff .
Farmakes: I think that 's something though that 's something valid to look II
at when somebody 's considering that .
Emmings: And that clearly didn 't happen here . I
Erhart: Well then the real question is , does anybody want us to look to
making an ordinance for accessory dwellings? I
Emmings: No The first issue is right here . Does someone want to make a
motion on this?
Erhart : I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment allowing accessory dwellings as written in the
staff report .
Batzli : Second .
Emmings: Any discussion?
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial!
of Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Accessory Structures as written i
the staff report . All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: Now , does anybody want to look at this issue? The issue of
accessory dwellings .
Erhart: How many requests have we had for these kinds of things? How
often do we get these requests? Does anybody even ask?
Krauss: Well , see they 're illegal in Chanhassen so when we find out about!'
them we make them come in for some building .
Erhart: Most people what? They start building and then we catch them?
Krauss: Yes .
Erhart: How often? ,
Krauss: Well no You know I went through this in Minnetonka where we were
convinced that in a city of 45 ,000 we had hundreds of illegal accessory
apartments . Now that could be somebody in the garage . It could be
somebody in the walkout basement .
Emmings: Well now you can do that here . That 's not illegal in Chanhassen"
Krauss : Yes it is .
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 18
Erhart : Mother-in-law apartments are not legal?
Emmings : As long as you have the same , as long as you don 't have a
separate entrance .
Krauss: And a separate kitchen .
Emmings: And separate utilities .
' Krauss: Right . It functions as a single . We don 't want to get involved
in people 's living situations but if you want to have a separate entrance .
If you want to have , even combined utilities . The main problem with these
accessory dwellings is a couple things . Sometimes they cause neighborhood
problems because you find out , even look in the Sunday paper and I 'm sure
you ' ll find some in your neighborhood . But these were built without
permits normally . A lot of them . Most of them . Well it had to be because
we wouldn 't authorize a permit and you find that you have basement
dwellings without egress windows and no smoke alarms and no fire breaks and
things like that . Now Minnetonka is an aging community at this point and
' we had a lot of , and Minneapolis went through this too . We had a lot of
people who moved in , had their kids and became empty nesters but didn 't
want to move from their homes . One of the ways you can make a home more
' affordable is to be able to rent out a portion of it . For that and for
some other reasons , public safety mainly , the City adopted standards for
accessory dwellings and they regulated things like the amount of cars that
could be parked . The size of the lot . The fact that a home couldn 't be
built this way because then it 's built as a defacto duplex . But that the
home had to be a few years old before you could apply for this and it was
done as a conditional use permit so it was open for public review .
' Emmings: Let me ask of Tim or Jeff seem to be maybe interested in looking
at this . Are we only talking first of all about the single family zoning
' area as far as accessory structures are concerned or more broadly?
Erhart : Yeah , I would think if we 're going to do this , you go RR .
' Emmings: But just looking at the single family for a minute , why would you
want to spend any time looking at an ordinance that would allow you either
to construct a duplex or a defacto duplex or two dwellings on the same lot
' in the single family area? We have never allowed that . Why would we even
want to bring it up?
' Erhart : If there was a frequent desire to do that .
Emmings: Well we 've never seen one .
Erhart : Well no . That 's not what I 'm hearing . We haven 't seen one
because it 's illegal here . It wouldn 't come to us .
' Krauss : We haven 't seen very many situations that they 're not legal that
you have two free standing buildings which is the case here . We know we
have guarantee you we have dozens and dozens of illegal ones built into an
' existing house .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 19
Emmings: To me I don 't know if it 's compatible with the notion of the
single family residential area but maybe that 's an issue and that 's what 11
we have to talk about .
Erhart : My feeling is if we were to do something like this , one of the
conditions I would set is a minimum lot size of 30 ,000 feet on a separate II
one . In that case it would not be compatible in a neighborhood . In a
typical subdision that we 've seen in the last 10 years and that is a 20 ,000
square feet and under house . But let 's say a guy , and I 'm not suggesting II
that we do this but I 'm just talking here . You know maybe if a guy had
these 2 1/2 acre lots , maybe 1 acre .
Batzli : Are we inviting trouble? ,
Ellson: Yes . I think so .
Farmakes: I saw that if there 's an existing structure of a little
structure that 's already in existence and there 's something peculiar about
that piece of property . We 're not talking about a chicken coop here , or I,
wouldn 't he Making it habitable . We 're talking about something in
existence that you basically would have to tear down to utilize the rest of
the property . It may be an issue where that 's not desireable .
Emmings : You could see making exceptions . What if somebody had a piece o
property with a real old log cabin that had been there forever and now the
want to come in and build a house but they want to keep the log cabin .
Krauss : But it 's not habitable .
Emmings : That 's right . You don 't care as long as it doesn 't have '
electricity or sewer .
Aanenson: Exactly . It can 't become a rental property or something . ,
Krauss : Now the situations that Jeff is referring to , the Board has been
very flexible in working with people who are trying to use grandfathered i�
non-conforming structures on lake cabins on Lake Riley . In fact we change
the ordinance for variances because of it . To enable them to build upon
these relics and make them current state-of-the-art homes . But most of
the time these are non-conforming as to location and if you are truly goin
to build a completely separate new home , in this case we have a house
sitting 4 feet off the traveled right-of-way . In other cases you may have
it sitting off the beach or off the street or whatever . There 's a reason
why non-conformities are supposed to ultimately , through the life cycle , b
replaced and not perpetuated . I don 't know that you 'd really want to
undermind that . ,
Emmings: Let 's do this . Let 's go down the line here and tell us whether
or not you think that we ought to spend time looking at an ordinance or
staff ought to spend time looking at an ordinance on accessory dwellings .
Tim?
Erhart: No . I
MPlanning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 20
Emmings : Ladd .
Conrad: No .
•
Emmings : Annette .
Ellson : No way .
Emmings : Brian .
Batzli : It should go somewhere way down the list .
Emmings: Okay , Jeff .
Farmakes: Somewhere down the list .
Emmings : Okay , and I 'd say no . Why don 't you run that straw vote by the
City Council and see if they want us to spend time or if they want you to
spend time on it . Then we ' ll go from there .
' Willard Johnson: Some gentleman mentioned 2 1/2 acres .
' Erhart : That was no gentleman . That was me .
Willard Johnson: . . .when we were granting variances to the southern part
of the city there for building . . .we pushed them to one side of the lot .
Erhart : Not anymore . It used to be that way .
' Willard Johnson : We encouraged them to push to one side of the lot because
some day you 're going to develop and can 't afford to keep the property .
Well this guy can decide to put another place behind him and then he sells
off the other and it could perpetuate a number of homes . Just a small
development on 2 1/2 acres . . .so I just thought I 'd throw that at you
people . I 've seen so much . Thank you .
Emmings : Yeah , thank you .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report .
' Ellson: I have a question . What 's an over story tree?
Krauss: It 's a deciduous tree with a crown on it .
'
Ellson : Oh! I thought it was big enough to reach the top story of the
house or something .
•
' Krauss : Hopefully it will be .
Erhart : Just throw these terms in once in a while to keep us jumping .
Emmings: Yeah . What did we call those trees in our landscape ordinance?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 21
Krauss : Trees .
Batzli : Trees from Category A? I
Erhart : Canopy trees . It used to be canopy trees .
Emmings : I wondered about that .
Krauss : You can call them deciduous . I think we did call them deciduous .,
Although there are deciduous trees that are , I mean a birch tree is a
deciduous tree .
Ellson: Those little poplars that are narrow and tall and skinny and stuff
wouldn 't be considered an over story one .
Emmings : Alright . I 'd like to ask you , in your Section 1 in A and also II
again in another place . On page 3 at the bottom there and then in
paragraph D . It says in no instance shall project density exceed
comprehensive plan guidelines . I know the answer to this but I just want II
to see if you do . What does that incorporate here? It incorporates
obviously the comprehensive plan guidelines for density but what are we
saying when we say that here?
Krauss : For example the comprehensive plan designates the low density
designation as 0 to 4 units per acre . Maximum 4 units an acre . If you
used 9 ,000 square foot lots , and let me see if my math is 18 , you can
theoretically get more homes on a site than , you could have more than 4
units per acre .
Emmings: Right , but you 're not going to let them do that is what it 's
saying here .
Krauss : Right . I
Ellson: Is that the answer you wanted to hear?
Emmings : Yeah . ,
Ellson: You passed .
Conrad: I don 't know . So the plan says 0 to 4 units .
Emmings: Is low density . '
Conrad: I guess my problem with A , as soon as you say 9 ,000 square feet ,
that 's your standard .
Emmings: No . Down to a minimum of .
Conrad: I know . '
Ellson: You say we 're just going to get a bunch of 9 ,000 's .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 22
11 Conrad: Well and they can 't do it but it says to a developer that 's the
potential . That 's our standard . Whereas there 's a difference . Really our
standard is bigger than that . So my problem , our standard is typically lot
sizes in a subdivision or whatever are coming in at 17 ,000-18 ,000 square
feet . That 's really what we 're comfortable with in Chanhassen based on
history .
Batzli : You mean in a regular subdivision?
Conrad : Yeah .
' Emmings: In our subdivision ordinance .
' Conrad: Yeah . But even a PUD . You 're coming in at , and I don 't know that
for sure but most of them are above the 15 ,000 on an average . My problem
is the way this is worded . It says our standard is 9 ,000 . It says a
minimum and I understand that but I see no reason , you know I feel real
comfortable allowing . I feel not real comfortable . I feel comfortable
allowing us to go down to 9 ,000 square foot lot sizes but that is not our
standard .
Batzli : Whereas I would agree with everything you said except I 'm not
comfortable with 9 ,000 .
Conrad : Yeah , you don 't like the 9 because that seems pretty small . See
and again it becomes a mix and I want to give developers the opportunity to
' build down to that 9 ,000 and have some open space but still the way , you
know you leave in with PUD and maybe you say minimum lot size 9 ,000 and
that becomes what they 'll come in at 10 or 11 , although Paul is saying
comprehensive plan guidelines says 0 to 4 . I guess I 'm still a little
' uncomfortable with that one .
Ellson : I think that thing is what 's going to make sure we don 't get too
' many of those .
Conrad: But 0 to 4 , we 're getting what , 1 .8 units per acre?
' Krauss : 1 .7 gross ,
Emmings: That 's gross?
' Conrad: That 's kind of what we like and I don 't see changing that .
Ellson : Unless you know you could leave that huge area of wooded and push
a little more over here .
Conrad: Right . So that 's where I 'm still comfortable with in that mix and
if somebody wants to free up open space with that gross density , then I 'm
comfortable going down to that 9 ,000 .
' Emmings: Well is that part of what 's being incorporated by the saying
comprehensive plan guidelines?
1
Planning Commission Meeting 16
October 2 , 1991 - Page 23
I
Krauss: Well it is but I don 't think it 's achieving what Ladd wants it to
achieve . The comprehensive plan theoretically allows up to 4 units an
acre . What Ladd is saying is right . Our average single family project is
1 .7 . We 're giving them additional latitude here to increase density .
That 's true . It could . On the other hand, the penalty or what you need t
do to achieve it increases with the increase in density in terms of the
amount of open space you have to reserve and our expectations of what kind
of a project we 're going to get out of it . PUD's also incorporate slightly
greater setbacks around the perimeter of the PUD to help buffer it from I
adjoining properties .
Conrad: Well I don 't understand that Paul . I guess I don't mind where
we 're going but I don 't know how we 're going to get there with this . So
the penalty for being in a PUD, and you come in with the 15 ,000 square foo
lot size , you 've got to dedicate 1 ,500 feet to open space . So in other
words , if this is the same as having a 16 ,500 square foot lot , which we
already have bigger lot sizes in our PUD 's and subdivisions already . So
there 's not much of a , what we 're doing , instead of having a 16 ,500 square
foot lot coming in , we 're going to say no . 15 ,000 over here and then let '
start a little kitty over here of 1 ,500 .
Emmings: Where 'd you get the 1 ,500?
Conrad: 10% of 15 ,000 square feet .
Emmings: That 's 15 ,000 though . That 's not the 9,000 . '
Erhart: Right . But that 's my question too .
Conrad: 1 ,500 . 10% of 15 ,000 is 1 ,500 . 1
Erhart: But ask the same question of the bottom one . Why isn 't it , if
it 's 9 ,000 square feet average , why isn 't for every lot , why isn 't there , II
6 ,000 feet set aside for open space?
Conrad: Yeah , that 's where .
Erhart: I mean that 's the big discrepancy . Why isn't it 40% which would
be 6 ,000? Actually it 's not the 15,000 . It 's the bottom one . 25% . Why I
isn 't it 40%? So if you take , you 've got a 15,000 square foot .
Krauss: You want to carry the same ratio throughout .
Erhart: No, no, no. I 'm just saying what are we trying to accomplish? Ill
it 's 9 ,000 square foot average . Isn't there a goal if we have 15 ,000
square foot lots . The guy wants to make a 9,000 square foot lot . Then II
doesn 't 6 ,000 go to some kind of open space?
Conrad: See that rationale works for me.
Emmings: Everybody here kind of likes the idea of clustering but every
time something comes in that will allow to do it , everybody gets scared.
Conrad: Because we 're trying to make sure we know . 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 24
IEmmings: Because it 's scarey .
Conrad: Well yeah but you 've got to know how this looks .
Ellson: But don 't forget , we always get to approve these things . You 're
thinking once it 's written .
Conrad: Well you can change it but boy . But you kind of have a sense for
what this is going to feel like or look like once it comes in . And on the
' other hand , do you want to encourage developers to do this? That 's what
our last PUD ordinance didn 't do . It was not encouraging . You 've got to
give them something to get something that we want , yet most people here in
town really aren 't crazy about smaller lot sizes . If you went out and
' polled , you 're going to find very few that want to go down smaller . Very
few . You 're talking .
' Batzli : Then raise our minimum lot size to a half acre . Keep the PUD
15 ,000 and you 're set . You want them to use PUD , everybody will use PUD .
' Erhart : Average net lot size , is that net of the open space?
Krauss : Excluding designated wetland .
Erhart : And open space?
Krauss : No .
' Erhart : It includes the open space?
Krauss : Yes . Keep in mind what qualifies as open space here is listed
in E I think . The idea with the PUD , I mean I went through what was it ,
the Saddlebrook subdivision today . We had people from Moody 's Investors
Service here today .
' Erhart : The guy 's got to have 25% open space . How can he possibly get to
9 ,000 square feet?
Krauss: It 's not the lot that has it . It 's the project .
Erhart : I know but if you 've got 100% and 25% of it 's open space , you 've
got 75% less . If your minimum lot size is 9 ,000 and you 've got to add
another 25% , you can 't possibly get to an average net lot size of 9 ,000 .
' Krauss: Yeah you could . You 're assuming that everything 's going to be
split up as it is in Saddlebrook in individual lots and there is no public
or private open space in outlot designations or some other non-residential
lot .
Erhart : No , I 'm saying you can 't get down to 9 ,000 .
Krauss : Sure you could . If you have 100 acres , you can have 49 ,000 square
foot lots and the rest of it open space .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 25
II
Erhart: But I thought you said that open space was included in the
acreage , included in the net . That 's net of the open space? I
Krauss: No . The open space percentage , maybe we could clarify that . The
average net lot size is , after we exclude wetlands , what is the average loll
size they 're giving us .
Erhart : Oh okay . That 's average lot size . Okay . Alright . I was
thinking that was the density figure . Okay .
Krauss: And the open space percentage applies on the entire project area .
Erhart: So then you have 9 ,000 . Why aren 't we just taking 6 ,000 and
putting that in open space which would be 40%?
Krauss: Well , I approached it differently I guess . i
Erhart : You 're saying to go to a PUD there 's going to be an inefficiency . '
That inefficiency is that 15% . So in fact what we 're getting is 9 ,000
times 1 .3 so we 're really getting 12 ,000 . If you took then all 9 ,000
square foot lots , you add the 33% which yeilds 25% open space , then your
average lot size , including the open space , is 12 ,000 square feet . That 's'
what you 've got .
Krauss: That 's if you , so you 're going back and you 're aggregating the
entire area?
Erhart: Yeah , I 'm just trying to see what our average lot size is .
Krauss : I think another way to get at this same issue and I think the one l
that maybe Ladd was leading to , was when you go back into A where we say
the cap on this thing is the comp plan . What I 'm hearing you say is that
the comp plan cap which , you know the comp plan just talks about density .
mean if you have a 100 acre tract , you can build Cedar Riverside on there
and still have the same density . Density that 's consistent with that .
Maybe you want to look at lowering the allowable densities in single familli
residential PUD 's .
Erhart: No , but do you understand what I came up with? Brian? '
Batzli : No ,
Erhart : I 'm just trying to rationalize the 25% . If you take 9 ,000 square'
feet and have a whole development and your average lot size was 9 ,000
square feet , you 'd be required to set aside 25% of the good space . Now
that 's 25% of the whole development though isn 't it?
Conrad: No .
Erhart : It 's 25% of the net . '
Conrad: Of the average lot size .
Emmings: No . 25% of the whole development .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 26
Erhart : Of the whole or net? Net of wetlands?
Krauss: Of the whole .
Erhart : That 25% can mean a lot from one parcel to the next because one
' parcel might be 50% wetland yet he has to provide , he gets a few lots and
still has to provide 25% of the whole parcel where the next guy may have
100% developable land and he has to provide 25% .
Emmings: Well wait . It says wetlands and other water bodies protected by
city ,ordinance and permanent easement . It can also be used to satisfy up
to 25% of the standard . 25% of the 25% if we 're looking at the 9 ,000 line?
IErhart: It gets very complicated .
Krauss: The idea is to crank out additional open space out of this thing .
Emmings : So we should be winding up with more than the 25% .
' Krauss : Well I think you did in the Lundgren/Lake Lucy when you went with
41% .
Erhart: Yeah but some of that , anyway .
Conrad : But how do you administer that Paul? You know the PUD comes in
' and it 's got some 9 ,000 . Some 11 ,000 . Some 12 ,000 . Some 15 ,000 and how
do you end up with an overall project open space amount? You 've got to
apply a percentage times each parcel .
Eilson : No , the average .
Krauss: You come in with 100 acres . You 've got 33 lots . The average lot
size is 10 ,000 square feet . You owe us 22 .5 acres of open space .
Batzli : So if he doesn 't have that built into his lot already when he
comes in . He may have to reduce lots and then that number changes again .
Erhart: I think maybe I can explain what I was trying to get to . Take the
ideal situation where 100% of the land is developable .
Emmings: No wetlands .
' Erhart : No wetlands . The guy just comes in with a bunch of 9 ,000 square
foot lots .
' Emmings: Only 9 ,000 square foot lots?
Erhart : Only 9 ,000 .
Krauss : The ordinance says you can 't .
Erhart : We can 't . Then how can you get to the average? How can you get
the average net lot size to 9 ,000?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 27
II
Krauss : I supposed it could be thereotically .
Ellson: It could be one . You never know . ,
Emmings : It can 't because on an acre we can only have , what is the comp
plan going to limit it to?
Krauss: Well the comp plan limits you to 4 so on an acre , that 's 36 .
Emmings : Thousand out of 45 ,000 square feet . 1
Erhart: You could be a medium density area which allows what , 6 per acre?
Emmings : Let 's talk about .
Erhart: Now you bring up a good point . Can 't you get to the average of II
9 ,000?
Krauss: I don 't know . I don 't know that you theoretically can .
Erhart : Then why even have this in the table?
Ellson: We had that thing with the church over here and they wanted to pull
something in there and it was just one . It 's a possibility .
Erhart: Where does it say you can 't get to 9 ,000 . What 's the role I 'm
missing here?
Krauss : A requires that you give us a mix of lot sizes so even if you comp
in with 9 ,000 , they 're going to have to come in with something else . I
Emmings: They can 't just come in with 9 ,000 .
Ellson : It says right there . There are a mix of lot sizes . ,
Erhart : Which line?
Ellson : A . The third line down .
Erhart: Okay , but we don 't really define mix so if they came in with one II
9 ,500 then .
Krauss: But you can throw it out . You can do whatever you want to in a
PUD .
Erhart: Okay , let 's assume they are all 9 ,000 100% developable . Then wha
you get is on an average over that 100% developable area a 12 ,000 square
foot average lot size when you add back in the 25% open space . Then the
question is , does that seem right? That goes back to our old ordinance . I
guess maybe the number where we got that number was the old ordinance
allowed us to go to 12 ,000 square foot minimum lot size right?
Krauss: I could lie and say that . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 28
II
Erhart : That you figured that all out right?
Krauss : That 's a lucky one there .
11 Erhart : Well that 's a . . .does that seem right to us? I don 't know .
Emmings: That doesn 't talk about roads or anything else . That doesn 't
seem like you 're accomplishing any one thing to me . But I don 't think
' that 's what 's going on here either .
Erhart : Well what 's going on here is you 're not going to have 9 ,000 and
maybe you 're going to have 11 ,000 average but then you 're only going to
yeild 20% . So when you take 11 ,000 times 1 .25 and your average lot size
now is 13 ,750 when you add that back in .
Krauss : But I think one point we keep overlooking is the one that you
touched on about the advantages of clustering . In a straight subdivision
that 's all roped off and fenced off into people 's backyards . There 's no
' public good ." There was no ability to preserve stands of trees . There 's no
ability to preserve promontory . " This gives you flexibilty to rope off 22%
of the site or whatever ratio it is and do good things with it . And still
keep the densities relatively low .
Conrad: But higher overall than what we 've been used to .
t Ellson : And that 's the carrot that you get them to use . We talked about
it before .
' Conrad: So you don 't mind Annette , instead of coming in at .2 units per
acre , which has been our standard . You don 't mind coming in at 2 1/2 units
or 3 units per acre?
' Ellson: Well number one I ' ll be able to see it . Although probably not me
but the idea behind a PUD is they don 't tell you I 've met everything . You
have to take it no matter what we choose which is the problem with .
' Conrad: They 're going to come in and say I met your standards .
Ellson: But at the PUD , we 're the ones who decide if we like it or not .
We don 't have that choice in some other things .
' Batzli : But then they 'll say fine . We 'll do it under your regular
ordinance and tough luck .
Emmings: Then we say fine .
Ellson: Then we 'll say fine . Then we 'll get what we wanted possibly
instead but we have a chance to deny it if we think they 're trying to rape
the system or use it in a way we don 't like it . We get that shot .
Conrad: I tell you Annette . I ' ll play the record . They ' ll look at the
ordinance and say the ordinance allows it and you 're within the guidelines
of the ordinance and we ' ll say go ahead .
i
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 29
Ii
Ellson: But Paul will be looking at it and he 'll say , this isn 't what we
want out PUD 's . We wanted that nice wetland and that nice view . Why don '
you clear up that space and do whatever . He 'll see it first and make that
recommendation .
Batzli : Let me make a general point here as a person who lives in a PUD . II
We 're talking about very lofty , fine goals here .
Conrad: It doesn 't give you any more credibility . '
Batzli : It doesn 't but just let me express .
Conrad: You 're an outcast in that group anyway . I 've talked to your
neighbors .
Emmings : I don 't even want to sit next to him .
Batzli : Let me just express , we have very lofty goals here and we think
we 're doing public good but I think if you wandered into a PUD and asked
the people in the PUD what do you want . They 'd look at you and say , I want
bigger lots so I can do the regular stuff that everybody else in the whole ,
pardon my french , damn city can do on their lot .
Erhart : What don 't you buy a different lot then?
Batzli : Well but they don 't know .
Ellson: What about the people who say I want a 5 minute front lawn?
Batzli : They don 't know . People moving in to these lots are typically , I
and I 'll gross over generalization and simplification . These lots are
typically cheaper . Maybe Lundgren Bros . builds high priced lots but the
other people can come in here and they build starter homes on some of thes
things . In a lot of cases . They don 't know any better . Even somebody
such as myself who probably should have known better didn 't know any
better . I didn 't realize what the difference between a PUD and a regular
lot size was . They don 't recognize the fact . You know you 're looking at t
9 ,000 square foot lot and if that 's a corner lot , you 've got about 2 ,000
square feet to do something on and that includes putting your house and
driveway and everything else on there which leaves barely any room on it a
And before you start talking about global good and wonderful open
spaces and everything else , consider that the people that move in don 't
give a rip if there 's a park there because they expect a park there whethe
they 've got a regular lot size or a small lot size . They don 't care . The
don 't want to hear that well we 've got a park for you . They 're going to
say yeah , and you gave me this dinky lot that I can 't do anything on and
you should have given me a park anyway . If we keep on saying Chanhassen it
supposed to be good and wonderful , make them put in normal sized lots and
get the park in addition . That 's my final and only comment on this . I II can 't believe we 're thinking of going down to any 9 ,000 square foot lots .
Erhart: Do you have 9 ,000 square foot lots in your PUD Brian?
Batzli : I don 't know how big they are .
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 30
Emmings : Just his .
Batzli : Just mine . I got the corner lot . I got the corner lot and I 'm
stuck with it . No but seriously . I do think that if we do this , and you
know something 's going to happen and I can see it coming down the tracks
like a train just about to run me over here . But I would like to propose
that at least we require the developers that are putting these in to tell
' people what they 're getting . They have to tell them what the square
footage of the lot is and what the setbacks are on the sides of the homes .
Give them a sheet . I don 't care . Informed consent . I think we should do
that much for some of these people .
' Erhart : Let me ask you . Let me clarify what you said . Are you saying we
should never allow 9 ,000 square foot lots or an average of 9 ,000 square
foot lots?
Batzli : I wouldn 't allow any .
Erhart : Any at all .
Conrad: What 's your minimum? What lot size would you go down to?
Ellson : He just said the half acre .
' Batzli : Whatever the smallest lot size is in the city now , there 's a
reason for that .
' Emmings : Yeah , there 's a reason .
Batzli : Whatever the reason is that we 've chosen that .
Erhart : Throw a dart at a board .
Batzli : Okay , then we should throw the same dart at the board for the PUD ,
' My recommendation is , if you want control over developments , you increase
the minimum lot size and you put the minimum on that you would otherwise
have expected as the minimum in the PUD . Don 't be compromising your
standards to get a little bit of clustering and a park that you should have
gotten anyway . That irritates me .
Emmings: If we did what Brian is proposing and raised this to our
' subdivision standards of 15 ,000 square feet , would we ever see a PUD?
Krauss : You just did .
' Emmings: Right . That 's right . Lundgren Bros . Well maybe Brian 's . I was
kind of liking this until Brian .
' Erhart : We were sold on the 9 ,000 square foot lots because we got a few of
them up there in Near Mountain and I don 't know . I guess I haven 't
personally gone and looked at them . You 've got a few slides and you can 't
tell much from that but staff seemed to think they were okay .
Ellson: And I really believe that the market is going to . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
I
October 2 , 1991 - Page 31
I
Erhart : There 's a big difference between having a few 9 ,000 square foot
lots and having a development where the average lot size is 11 ,000 square I
foot in my mind .
Emmings: But if you say I 've got 100 acres and I 'm going to put 10 lots,
ten 9 ,000 square foot lots and leave the rest empty , I take if you have no
objection to that .
Erhart : No , but that 's not what you 're saying . 1
Emmings: No , I know it 's not but it isn 't the lot size . It 's the ratio to
open space per lot size . I can see , we all like clustering . At least we I
all talk about it . We don 't really know what it is but .
Erhart : I 'm not sure if you get 100 9 ,000 square foot lots all together
and then you 've got another 25 acres sitting or 50 acres sitting someplace I
off to the side .
Emmings: We 'd never approve that though . Now you 're painting a picture . I
Ellson : A worst case scenario .
Emmings: No , not even a worst case scenario . It can 't happen because it II
would run afoul of our comprehensive plan and it would run afoul of the
intent that we have in having a PUD ordinance . II Batzli : Okay , so make them all 11 ,000 square feet .
Erhart : I just wonder if we shouldn 't delete some of those lines down
II
there like 9 and 10 and maybe even 11 and give us another , raise our
basement line a little bit here . In other words , yeah you can have some
9 ,000 square foot lots but don 't even think about coming in here with a
9 ,000 average . Maybe we set a 12 ,000 average . See what I 'm saying? We 'r
kind of inviting a lot of 9 ,000 square foot lots the way we have this table
here .
Conrad: I 'd sure try to do . II
Emmings: You 'd never have an average 9 ,000 though . We keep coming back I
around to that . It can 't happen . Only if they came in with only 9 ,000
square foot lots could you ever have that .
Conrad : So let 's take that worst case scenario because we will see it .
I
Emmings: It isn't possible .
Conrad: Why not? Okay , let 's take it . Let 's take the 10 ,000 .
Emmings: Do you agree?
II
Krauss : I agree that it 's not possible .
Conrad: Then we shouldn 't have it there . I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 32
Krauss: But you know I keep going back to the fact that we had an
' ordinance on the books for years that said there 's an average lot size of
12 ,500 square feet . Nobody used it because .
Conrad: That was a minimum . That was a minimum lot size .
Krauss: No it was an average wasn 't it?
UConrad: No , minimum .
Emmings: That was a minimum .
' Conrad: We 're talking here now . I get real concerned when we talk average
versus minimum . I am real comfortable allowing some smaller lot sizes but
boy that 's not the average . That 's the average , I really don 't want to
' compromise the average .
Emmings: But again , maybe we 're getting too specific here . Shouldn 't we
be saying to people look . Here 's our subdivision ordinance . Here 's what
you can do . An option you 've got is the PUD ordinance . Under the PUD
ordinance you 've can do a whole bunch of things . One of the things you can
do is have lots that are smaller than what is required under the
subdivision ordinance but if you come in under that , expect to have open
space requirements that are going to go up as fast as your lot sizes go
down and don 't really expect to have a smaller or a greater gross density .
' Batzli : Well you wouldn 't be able to have a larger gross density because
of the comp plan right?
' Emmings: Right . Well tell them right up front . Don 't expect to get a
larger gross density . And if you 're going to come in below what our
. subdivision ordinance allows for lot sizes , then as that goes down , the
open space requirement 's going to go up . And don 't put the numbers in
there . Then let them figure out how they 're going to cluster and bring us
a plan to look at .
' Krauss: So now put in new criteria?
' Emmings: Yeah . Then if they want to go with zero lot line or if they want
to go with a small lots with detached houses or whatever they want to do ,
let them figure that out .
' Batzli : We 're going to be arbitrary and capricious..
Emmings : Yeah but within the PUD I think you can .
' Erhart : It sure helps the process to have some guidelines .
Ellson : Yeah , I like Paul 's thing . Plus people come and go reading this .
' Emmings : You don 't really like it because you want to erase a lot of
things .
Planning Commission Meeting ,
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 33
Erhart : I just don 't think we should think about less than 12 . I don 't I
know why I 'm picking 12 . I guess because it 's the old number . I would
never think about having average lot size of less than 12 ,000 .
Emmings : But this really stiffles . These charts to me kind of stiffle the
creativity that you might allow somebody to have . Why not let them figure
it out? I
Conrad: Let 's just remember . I 'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth
but that 12 ,500 minimum didn 't encourage anything in our old PUD ordinance"
It did not motivate anybody so I think Paul 's putting out a carrot here to
say hey , let 's motivate them to do this . I 'm just wanting to make sure
that we motivate them but we 're not giving away the integrity of the
community . And I can 't understand what we are getting . I guess what I 'd
like to see is some sketches of what this does . I 'd like to see somebody
lay out how this would be applied and that doesn 't mean we hire a designer
but I need to see what this might look like if somebody came in . And we II
haven 't , you know Tim 's point is still on the table . It 's still valid .
He 's saying to go down to 9 ,000 square feet , we 're giving up 6 ,000 square
feet below a standard that we 've set for a subdivision but we 're only
getting 2 ,250 feet out of it in open space . Is that the lure? Is that
3 ,500 foot , the developer has a net gain on that one of 3 ,500 square feet .
Is that what it takes to get a PUD? And then the question is have we
gained anything with that PUD? What have we really gotten . I 'm throwing I
those things out but I guess I still have a tough time visualizing what
this formula does for us . I don 't want to kick it out yet . I 'd rather
have it in there because it might be a good guideline but on the other hani
I want to know what it does before I approve it . I want to know how it ,
I 've got to, see it and feel it and I can 't right here .
Krauss : Well we can sure take a crack at doing that . I guess a couple
things have happened too . I think we 're talking about a couple different
goals for the use of the PUD . I think in the Lundgren proposal we saw that
there was a rationale and a benefit to coming to using the PUD ordinance II
for a subdivision whose lots averaged 31 ,000 square feet .
Erhart : Hold it there . 31 ,000 square feet included a lot of water .
Krauss: Yeah . Well and that 's why I threw in the language here excluding
designated wetlands because there was an issue with that in the average lo
size .
Erhart: Average real lot size is dinky .
Krauss: But that 's normal . You look at subdivisions around Chanhassen , II
they 're all like that .
Batzla : Yeah , I know . That 's what I was saying earlier . I don 't like it'
Krauss: I think one of the things I 've been tossing over is maybe we need
a minimum net buildable standard for all lots in the city . I mean you
could have a. 100 ,000 square foot lot if you can 't accommodate a 5 ,000 foot
square foot building area , it 's no good . We might want to consider that as
an ordinance amendment in the bigger picture . I think it 's certainly
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 34
warranted . That 's why we started giving you tables and we can 't do
' anything about it except give it to you but giving you tables now where we
say here , it 's a 18 ,000 square foot lot . 5 ,000 square foot of it is
wetlands . In fact it was one of the things you requested in Lundgren but
we 're starting to do that in everything .
Farmakes: If you did that though , wouldn 't you eliminate about 3 of those
lots that they were proposing there?
' Krauss: Well again , against what standards Jeff because the lots that are
in there are bigger than we normally get and everywhere you go in
Chanhassen we have wetlands . That 's a very common situation .
' Farmakes: But what Tim said though , a majority of those lots , at least
some of those lots were wetland . Standing water and he made a point when
' he was here arguing that you had to look at the lot all the way out to the
lot point in the middle of the skunk pond which I didn 't understand . Why?
' Krauss: Because you 've done it in every other subdivision in the city .
Batzli : So Paul says develop a new one that says you need at least a
certain minimum area where you can put some building on it or something .
' Krauss: And not come back , doesn 't say it needs variances because you
can 't put a house on it . Now we 've tried to do that . We 've gone through
' in the last couple years and we 've tried to figure out what we think a
buildable size is and tell the builder that that 's not legitimate but we
have no guidelines to do it . If it doesn 't look right , we try to make them
' fix it . But I think it 's appropriate to , I mean we can do some research if
you like and come back to you but I think an ordinance amendment and it
would apply to any lots created in the RSF , RR or A-2 and PUD have to
contain a minimum buildable area regardless of how big they are .
Farmakes: I think you would avoid what a person is designing that out .
There would always be 2 or 3 lots and that many homes that you 're going to
have to force just as a matter of economics that you 're going to try to get
in there on whatever 's left over . When I look at that Lundgren , you can
almost pick them out with looking at it for 10 minutes as to which ones
were , what they had left over and what they were going to try to make a lot
out of .
Krauss: Yeah I know what you 're speaking to but every lot in there has a
' legitimate building site to the extent that we know what legitimate
building sites are and we don 't have a criteria . I know that the building
sites that are on those lots , even though some of them have quite extensive
wetlands , are bigger than we find on a lot of other lots in regular RSF
subdivisions .
Farmakes: Most of them did . There were a few that seemed to me as far as
' useable space were on the bottom end of this list here .
Krauss: They were tighter and will probably require designed home to fit .
So as far as this , I mean I have now become a believer that there 's some
Planning Commission Meeting 111 October 2 , 1991 - Page 35
use for PUD 's , residential PUD 's that don 't lower our average lot size at I
all .
Erhart: That was the question I had , Why , if a guy has a 15 ,000 square II
foot average , why are we making him set aside any open space? The only
reason would be if , yeah I mean why?
Conrad : That 's true . A subdivision we 're penalizing so anything 15 ,000 II
and under however I think we should be getting something in return . That 's
where we 're bending our standards .
Erhart : Yeah , I always thought that we were taking 15 ,000 square foot
let 's say , this idealized lot and if a guy wanted to make it 9 , the city
gets 6 for open space and there 's no inefficiency . Right now we 've got a
lot of inefficiency .
Batzli : What 's the developer 's advantage to doing that rather than they II
might have shorter stubs?
Conrad: Clustering utilities .
Erhart : Clustering . Make them more creative . You might want to get rid
of , like up here we let them use less than the standard setbacks . That was
a major thing for that . I remember that presentation . That was a big dea ll
that he wanted those houses 20 feet from the street . And so he got that .
Emmings : Another flexibility .
Krauss: Well and we 're working with Lundgren now on that Johnson-Delache
piece between TH 41 and Galpin . There you 're talking 90 or 100 acres . I •
don 't know what it is and if we look to that .
Emmings : Would you donit as a PUD?
Krauss: Yeah . Now maybe as a PUD in there , it 's big enough that Lundgren,
will probably try to market to different prices of homes . Maybe they will
have a bunch of 11 ,000 square foot lots . Further on where the land gets a
little nicer and more rolling , they may have a bunch of 30 ,000 square foot'
lots . And your average lot size will probably still come out to be better
than 15 ,000 . At that point you don 't look at varying your standard at all
You maintain your average lot size .
Emmings: So then you don 't get any .
Erhart : So that 's why you 're saying at 15 we should still take 10 because .
there 's going to be bigger lots that 's going to offset smaller . Okay , now
I understand that .
Batzli : Would all the open space may be on the larger sized lot end of th
development too and then you 've clustered , for the sake of clustering the
smaller homes . ,
Emmings: Yeah, do we want to do that? Should they have to have open . If
they 're going to have 11 ,000 square foot lots , even though they 've got a 11
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 36
bunch of 30 ,000 to offset it , bring the average to 16 or 17 . If they 're
g they re
going to have those 11 's , do you want to have to create open space that
isn 't owned by another lot .
Krauss: Well we said they were willing to accept . Keep in mind when we 're
' saying open space , the way this ordinance is structured , that 's not soccer
fields . I mean if the city wants a park , a percentage of that area can be
used to qualify .
' Emmings : What are we talking about when we say open space?
Krauss : You may be talking about .
Emmings : Places where there aren 't houses .
' Krauss : Yeah but it could be portions of somebody 's lot . On the Lundgren
deal that 's going to Council in 2 weeks , the tree preservation areas where
we 've said there 's no cutting and we 're going to take a conservation
easement , that 's all on what will be private property but it 's protected by
a permanent easement . We said that qualifies .
Emmings : Yeah , and you 're going to have that same opportunity on the new
' one because that all butts up against a wetland too on the south side .
Batzli : I just think it 's small comfort for a person on an 11 ,000 square
' foot lot to know that a quarter of a mile away they preserved a stand of
trees on somebody elses private property . Now that person may walk into
that knowing full well what they 're purchasing . Maybe they do , maybe they
don 't . Maybe as a city we don 't care . I 'd like to take a little bit more
' paternalistic attitude .
Krauss: I don 't know where you want to draw the line . I mean somebody
' walks into a Chevy dealer , they don 't expect to walk out with an Oldsmobile
you know . Someplace people have to understand what the limitations are .
Clearly in the past .
' Batzli : We 're looking at the ordinance and we don 't understand it . Do you
expect somebody to come into the city buying a lot and say well , I 'm
purchasing a PUD . Explain to me all the rules and rags . Would you have
the time and effort to explain it .
Emmings : No , but I think Paul is saying if you 're buying a lot you ought
' to know the size of it .
Batzli : I understand that but .
Krauss: Also in the past I think there 's been almost total , I mean these
things haven 't been done . Nobody 's done a residential PUD here in 5 years .
We still have one building built out but you have a very comprehensive
' PUD ordinance now where a lot of things have to be demonstrated and filed
with property and made clear and we 're going the extra step like in the
Lundgren thing where we 're requiring monumentation of the wetland setback
areas and things like that . We can do a lot that puts the owner on notice .
Now if the owner chooses not to read anything or not to call , then we have
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 37
a concern . Now I know the issue Brian that you gave us the letter on the I
deck . Under the ordinance now as this is written , that wouldn 't have
happened .
Batzli : Yeah , I understand that . I still have a problem with corner lots"
their ability to be 9 ,000 square feet and then you 're looking at , like I
said , you 're looking at 2 ,000 square feet potentially of space on the lot
other than the setback . I guess I understand buyer beware but after havinil
lived in the community now of 100 homes in my little PUD and talking to
most of them and it 's their fault . They don 't read the local paper . They
don 't care . They don 't know . They don 't want to know but the minute they
want to do something with their property , then suddenly they get into it
and the question is , do you want to protect these people or not . Is the
City getting something and is what the City 's getting worth raising the
eyre of a lot of people moving into the community . Maybe they should have'
known better but I guarantee you less than 1% will find out that they 're
living on a substandard lot that the City things they got a tree preserved
a quarter of a mile away in exchange for their substandard lot . That 's my'
point .
Conrad: Those people are happy to move into a 10 ,000 square foot lot .
Ellson : Who are we to tell them?
Erhart : I think if they don 't like it they can always sell it and move to'
a bigger lot .
Ellson: They 've got the choice going in .
Erhart : It 's not like they don 't have options and I realize it 's
inefficient . '
Ellson: If something has to be marked off for them or some sort of
notification that a lot of people don 't realize they 're within the setback
of the wetland and all these other kinds of things and too many come forth,
and say oh , I didn 't know . That 's why I filled it all in . That kind of
thing . They 'll ignore that anyway even though they 'll still say they never
heard about it . If they want to do it , they 're going to do it . And you '
having easements on those protected things is mightly strong now versus a
convenant in the past which were worthless in protecting .
Krauss: That happens on 2 acre lots too . I think you 're going to have toll
answer the fundamental question , because I 'm not sure . Do you want , I mean
I think we 've demonstrated that the PUD has some validity beyond allowing
undersized lots . Now you may well want to allow some freedome for
undersized lots instead of minimum but require that the average is
consistent with other city neighborhoods . Is there a desire to grant
flexibility below the 15 ,000 square foot average or should we structure
this so that doesn 't happen?
Conrad: When you say average , the 15 ,000 square foot average . That 's the!'
minimum so I 'm not sure what you 're saying Paul .
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 38
' Krauss : What I 'm saying is you could change this around so that you might
have a 9 ,000 or a 10 ,000 or 11 ,000 . Whatever you want to set as the
minimum lot area that you allow in a PUD . That will give a developer
flexibility to put in some smaller lots where those are appropriate . But
require that the average lot size meet or exceed 15 ,000 square feet .
' Erhart : That 's our old ordinance .
Krauss: Yeah and before we had the Lundgren thing come down , I wasn 't too
' sure that anybody , nobody had used the old ordinance . Now the old
ordinance was a bad deal for everybody . It was a bad deal for the buyers .
It was a bad deal for the city and the city never got what the developers
promised which was more affordable housing . There were no guidelines and
no standards . But in an area like this Johnson-Delache piece the
flexibility that the PUD may give a developer to take like the open
cornfield area and do the smaller lots and preserve the larger wooded
' hilltops for the larger lots and average it out , maybe that 's a worthwhile
exchange . I don 't know .
Conrad: Let me interrupt you . I know you 've got a thought maybe .
Batzli : Which is new .
Conrad: But it 's real easy to agree with Tim 's comment . I can understand
what Tim is saying because it makes real good mathematical sense . If we
have a 15 ,000 square foot subdivision minimum , now we 're going to break
' that rule for a PUD . You can go underneath that down to a minimum lot size
of what we ever agree . Whatever Brian feels comfortable with but then you
take the difference between the 15 ,000 minimum and what they just went down
Ito and you plop that into open space .
Emmings : Not on somebody else 's lot .
' Conrad: No . See all of a sudden , now I 've solved my density . My concern
about increased density for the overall deal because I 've allocated that
same 15 ,000 . It 's either going to be there in a subdivision or a PUD but
' I 've allowed the developer to go down and cluster some utilities and save
some money but the difference is I 've taken what he 's saved landwise and
I 've put it in our little bank over to the side called open space . Now
' that one I can visualize and feel comfortable with . But I can 't , I still
have a tough time with our formula that we 've got because I can 't tell
what 's going to happen . I don 't know if it 's , I just don 't know . Now
Paul 's comment could be , hey that 's not going to motivate the developer to
' do it and that 's a valid . That would be a real valid .
Erhart : Yeah , because I think the incentive is still there because he gets
to put some 9 ,000 square foot lots .
Conrad : See I would too but I don 't know that .
' Erhart : I think it 's very hard to get the average down below 14 ,000 or
13 ,000 . I think it 's more likely you 're going to see the averages above
15 ,000 , even despite the fact that you may have some 9 's and 12 's in there .
Planning Commission Meeting ,
October 2 , 1991 - Page 39
Conrad: See the word average bothers me . Again I 'm talking about minimum'
and going below a minimum . We 're not talking about , well .
Emmings: That is a problem because if your average gets over 15 ,000 , now II
there 's no requirement to set aside any open space .
Erhart : Well that 's the question I 've got . Now hang on . That 's not the
way I read this . I read this as any time you go in a PUD you 've got to pu
10% open space period . Is that what I 'm reading?
Krauss : Well , we just changed that to 15 ,000 square feet or above . ,
Erhart : So then anytime you have a PUD you have to put aside 10% open
space . Is that what you 're saying? Is that what we want?
Ellson: No . I want a lot more than that .
Erhart : I mean if a guy comes in at 16 ,000 or 17 ,000 square foot , should II
we require them to set aside 10%?
Krauss : What are you requiring of the individual who does a straight ,
subdivision?
Ellson: You 're getting at least . I
Krauss : No , unless the city wants a park there which is the 10% , they give
nothing . '
Erhart : You don 't have to have park fees or parks with the PUD?
Krauss : Yes you do . ,
Erhart : Maybe I misunderstand your question . If a guy comes in with a PU
because he wants to have some setbacks , special setbacks for something . Wh
knows what but yet his average lot size is 20 ,000 square feet , we 're still
going to make hint provide 10% open space? Is that what we want?
Krauss: I think that 's the theory that we 're getting to here but you 've
got to ask yourselves , what if Orrin Thompson wants to do a 1950
subdivision here and the city doesn 't want a park on the property? He 's
not giving you a square inch .
Batzli : Giving you pretty good fees but you 're right , no square inch of
open space . ,
Erhart : Do a 1950 's what?
Ellson: Cracker box , cracker box . ,
Krauss: Yeah , your usual suburban subdivision . Straight subdivision .
Straight platting . Unless the park board says they need park space there , ,
you don 't have a single foot of open space .
Erhart : No , but they 've got to pay a fee .
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 40
' Krauss : Right . Well so these people are paying fees too . They 're paying
identical fees .
' Batzli : You know how these problems are solved? We just move the minimum
lot size in RSF to 20 ,000 square feet . Done deal . Everybody just smirks
when I say that . I don 't understand why it 's such a sacred cow .
' Emmings : Well , it isn 't .
Conrad: It costs a lot of money .
Batzli : People will come in and do PUD 's then . If you want PUD 's , that 's
the way to get them to do PUD 's . But we can 't even decide what we want the
' PUD to be .
Conrad: This is not easy .
' Ellson : Where do we go from here?
Erhart : I 'm still trying to understand why , if a guy comes in with an
18 ,000 foot average . The big question is , why might he want a PUD?
Krauss : For the reason we found on the Lundgren proposal is that if you
' throw 30 foot front yards and 75 foot rear yards and 50 foot or 60 foot
rights-of-way at them , you have a very difficult time making a legitimate
development out of that thing . He got the flexibility .
Erhart : The price you pay then for that is a 10% of it goes to open space .
Krauss: And in his case it 's 40% of open space .
' Batzli : Not under the new formula .
' Krauss : No , I haven 't applied the formula . Of the 12 . something acres of
open space , 8 of it 's wetland . So you would give them 2 acres of that .
Batzli : Get 2 acres , yeah .
Emmings: I tell you , well . You guys are always arguing for specifics in
ordinances and I 'm always arguing to keep them vague but all the problems
are created by trying to come up with a formula and I don 't know why we
can 't just avoid it . I don 't know why you would want to .
Ellson: You 're saying spell the intent out clear enough .
Batzli : But if we can 't decide on what 's fair now , how are we ever going
to decide the minute a developer walks in unless you have at least an
"acceptable range" . You will be expected to provide within this range for
open space . 10% to 20% .
' Emmings : I could go along with that .
Batzli : Yeah , I could go along with that .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 41
Emmings : A statement in a range I could live with very easily .
Batzli : The developer will be expected to provide between 10% and 20% ope
space . End of it .
Emmings: Another statement . If you go below 15 ,000 feet , expect to have
greater requirement . To the extent you have lots below 15 ,000 square feet
expect to have greater requirements for open space .
Krauss: For individual lots or average density below that? 1
Emmings: See I tend to go to the individual lots .
Conrad: Individual lots .
Emmings: Because otherwise I don 't want to see , you know he 's got prime I
land over here and he 's got 1 acre lots and he 's got a whole bunch of
little houses down here where Brian lives . Those are 10 ,000 square feet .
Those ,people are getting screwed . To me . I agree with Brian . It 's no
comfort . There may be a certain market for people who want to live in
those houses .
Krauss: Well but face it . These people probably paid $30 ,000 .00 for the
lot when the guy up on the hill paid $80 ,000 .00 . I mean you 're getting
something different for a difference in price .
Emmings: Yeah , I don 't know . I guess I don 't find comfort in that but
I guess I could be persuaded if there 's a market . Maybe there are empty
nesters who want a small place and don 't want to spend their time taking
care of a yard . We have people starting out who want to get into a house
like that .
Batzli : See but most people , and I 'll say this and you don 't have to give"
me sympathy but this is the reason . Most people move in and they expect
the community to have minimum standards . Most people don 't understand what
PUD is . They don 't understand that what they 're getting is below the
minimum community standards in other parts of the city . They don 't
understand that .
Conrad: But they know what they 're getting . I
Emmings : They know what they 're getting .
Batzli : No they don 't . Okay they know they 're getting a 12 ,000 square
foot lot . They don 't know that the minimum throughout the rest of the
entire city is 15 ,000 .
Emmings: Why do they care?
Batzli : Well the question is , why should the city relax the standard? '
Emmings: To provide that person with something that he wants and can
afford . 1
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 42
Batzli : I don 't buy that that house is any cheaper than the 15 ,000 square
foot lot . I don 't buy that the PUD is necessarily providing that but
that 's just me .
Emmings : I think that 's the reason the person bought it . I mean they 're
dissatisfied with their house because they moved into a 12 ,000 square foot
I lot and find out most other people in regular subdivisions have 15 ,000
square foot lots?
Batzli : No , they are . Well , I don 't know how to say this but they move
in . It 's a substandard size lot . It 's not necessarily , and under this new
subdivision things are changed a little bit but they still have setbacks
and things applied against them and they don 't understand the nuances of
the PUD . That 's my only point that they 're getting a smaller sized lot and
they 're not necessarily gaining any benefits from it and I 'm not convinced
necessarily that the city got anything so I 'm looking at it from a lose
' lose perspective . The people that are moving in . They don 't understand
that they 're going to have a strike against them the minute they try to do
something on the lot . The City 's really not gaining anything . My question
' is , who 's getting something other than the developer who had relaxed the
standards to do the development . Now if you can convince me that we 're
providing a different housing market and people are getting cheaper houses
and that 's why we 're doing that , then that 's a good enough rationale but I
don 't know that that 's why we 're doing it here tonight .
Emmings : Now presumably a builder won 't build a house unless he can sell
it . There 's got to be a market or he 's not going to sell the house .
Batzli : Right , but the question is , who 's winning with this ordinance? Is
the City winning? Are the people moving into the city winning , which is ,
you know when we 're looking at it I think we have to look at it from two
points of view . Is the City getting something like open space or a park or
helping to preserve additional wetlands other than what our ordinance
' already does . It does comfort me at all that Lundgren preserved wetlands
that were already preserved . I mean that just really irritated me . That
yeah , we get to count the whole wetlands here as open space . Well you had
to do that anyway . I don 't give a rip . You know , so the City doesn 't
really win under that scenario . The people if it 's a , and again don 't feel
sympathy but people moving in I don 't think feel they win . So you 've got
the people moving in . They 're unhappy usually with the city because they
go to the city . The city says you can 't do anything with your lot so
they 're unhappy . The city didn 't get anything . Who won? The developer .
My question is , let 's build an ordinance . Make sure we have an ordinance
where the people moving in win . The City wins and the developer gets a
fair shake and I don 't think that 's happening under this one .
Emmings: You know one way maybe to avoid this problem of a developer
putting up , having a bunch of big lots in one area and a bunch of little
ones in another area which scares me about this . Would be to put something
in here that they 're going to have to mix their lots to some extent . And
what are you going to do , set up a formula for that? I don 't even know how
you do it .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 43
Conrad: I all . Just back to the over don 't
I go ust real simply , I don t have a
problem . Let 's take a 100 acre parcel . Based on today 's development
pattern , on a 100 acres . Somebody could probably put in 200 units on 100
acres . I don 't have any problem taking those 200 units and putting on hal
of the property and leaving the other half open . Taking the minimum lot
size down to 4 units , you know putting it up to 4 units per acre . That 's
fine because what I 've done there is we 've got open space and we 've kept
the standard that we 've been kind of floating along with . 2 units per
acre , even though comprehensive plan says 0 to 4 , practicality has dictate
we 're coming in around 2 .
Emmings: Or 1 .7 .
Conrad: Or 1 .7 so that 's why I want to be able to get .
Emmings : I think everybody here would agree with that .
Conrad: But I 'm not sure I know how to get there .
Emmings : Paul won 't . He flexed his eyebrows .
Krauss: No , I see . . .45 minutes ago .
Conrad : Well we 're missing things . I
Emmings : But what 's the difference between what Ladd 's saying and what
we 're doing here?
Krauss: Because what we 're doing here would allow densities in excess of •
what we normally experience .
Emmings: Does anybody want that?
Ellson: I think I could be won over if I looked at it .
Erhart : In excess of what?
Emmings : In excess of the 1 .7 . What we 've historically done with
subdivisions . That 's why I asked right off the bat , it says in no instanc
shall the project density exceed comprehensive plan guidelines . I wonder
if we were incorporating that 1 .7 right there .
Krauss : No . '
Emmings : Well I wonder if we want to .
Krauss : Well you might . 1
Conrad: That would make me feel comfortable . That one , and Paul mentioned
it before , average consistent with other subdivisions . That one statement
gives me the leverage to talk to a developer and then I can throw
everything else out . But that one statement gives me something to say , hey
I don 't like it because it 's not meeting what we 've seen in 'the past in thll
overall design of the subdivision .
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 44
Emmings: And then could you throw out this open space table? Couldn 't you
get rid of all that?
Krauss : You could , well .
Conrad: I 'd like to give them a way to .
Emmings: To what?
Conrad : I 'd like to force the open space .
Emmings: But if you 've got your gross density set . If he wants to
cluster , you 're going to wind up with open space . You 've set the gross
density for the whole project .
Conrad : Yeah . It could still end up looking like a PUD . Or like a
subdivision . End up looking like a subdivision though .
Emmings : But then if it is a subdivision , he goes under the subdivision
' ordinance . We don 't care if he does because we think we have one that 's
okay .
Erhart : You can cluster . You can still cluster and use the 9 ,000 square
foot lots . Overall density is .
Emmings: Is 1 .7 .
Erhart : For the low density is one number . Medium density is another
number and high density is another number .
' Emmings : Right . Here 's the framework . You 're stuck with .
- Erhart : That would really serve the same purpose as this .
Emmings: Do what you want . Bring it in and we 'll take a look at it .
' Batzli : But they wouldn 't have to necessarily provide open space . They
could just make bigger lots .
Emmings : But if they want that approach Brian , why wouldn 't they do a
subdivision?
Batzli : No , if they could put a couple 9 ,000 square foot lots in there and
' just put 37 ,000 and end up with the right density . They wouldn 't have
provided any open space that isn 't privately owned .
Emmings : Okay , would that bother anybody?
Erhart: That 's what you 've got here too . I mean this open space is based
' on average .
Batzli : That 's right .
' Erhart : So you can do the same thing with this .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 45
Batzli : Right . I understand that . Well I don 't like that aspect of this
either . I mean that 's why I 'm viewing this as the developer wins . The
city loses . The people that move in lose except for the people on the
37 ,000 square foot lots and they didn 't have to move into a PUD anyway if II
they didn 't want to .
Conrad: I don 't perceive it that way . 11
Ellson: I don 't either .
Batzli : I know but I 'm just , somebody 's got to argue against it because
otherwise this whole commission . . .
Ellson: Were you here the night they gave that presentation of all the
different ones? There were a lot of win situations there .
Batzli : I gave you Tootsie Pops to soften you up but it didn 't work . 1
Emmings : Order in the court . Jeff , you haven 't said anything .
Farmakes : I think it should be 1 .7 and I think that that point was made II
quite a while ago .
Conrad: The rest of us missed it . 1
Farmakes : It 's still going to become quite cloudy whether or not it 's in ,
it seems to me that the advantage of a PUD is financial anyway . One way o�
the other for the developer . Why would a developer develop a piece of
property if it wasn 't in their financial interest?
Emmings : They wouldn 't unless they 're stupid .
Farmakes : Going on that basis , I think if 1 .7 is the average size , if
that 's what it works out to , I think that still gives them the leverage . II
That still gives them the leverage to utilize pieces of property . Because
of the terrain , will develop otherwise .
Emmings: What would be the gross density on the Lundgren one that we just
went through here?
Krauss: 1 .4 units an acre .
Erhart : Why don 't we just ask them to go back and look at that . We 've
spent a lot of time discussing this . We 're obviously not going to pass
anything tonight . Look at that approach versus this approach .
Krauss : Would you like me to get , you only heard from one developer . I
There 's a lot of them out there who have worked in this community . Should
we get a panel of them together? I mean we can get real assenteric and dig
this thing real deep and come up with an ordinance that makes absolutely n
sense to somebody working out in the field . If they 're not going to do it
we ought to know about it and just drop it .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -w Page 46
' Emmings: But wouldn 't they want , you know if I 'm a developer and I come to
you and I say , how can I develop and you show me a subdivision ordinance .
I say okay , I don 't like it . What alternatives do I have? You say okay
well you can develop it the same density but we can give you lots of
' flexibility in your road construction and your setbacks and your ability to
cluster , you can develop your property any way you want to as long as you
don 't exceed this number and as long as we like your plan . It makes sense
' for the property and we can protect some trees and things like that .
Wouldn 't a developer be interested in that?
' Ellson : How 's that different than our own?
Emmings: If it was that vague?
' Krauss : A developer like Lundgren that 's fairly perceptive and understands
that and is design oriented , yeah they will . But you 've got to realize
when you 're going through a PUD you 're asking a guy to go through a
' rezoning which they really wouldn 't have to do . It exposes them to any
3/5ths . They need a super majority to approve the rezoning . They only
need a simple majority to approve a plat . It 's a lot more work for them to
come up with all this stuff . I don 't know if it 's worth it for them .
I honestly don 't .
Emmings : Why don 't you ask? Rather than getting a panel of them together ,
' why don 't you just run the ideas past them some and tell us what they say .
I think . I don 't know , what do you think? You 're talking about another
presentation here otherwise?
' Krauss: No . You 've had the presentation . I think come up with a version
of this ordinance or leave it the way it is and tell them what other things
you 're thinking about and say the Planning Commission would -like to hear
from you . Your reaction to this . I mean clearly if the idea is just to
motivate , is the motivation that we had with the earlier PUD 's which was
crank out more lots . People get less building space . The City gets
' absolutely nothing out of it and with a vague promise that it 's going to
lower the price of housing when obviously it didn 't , who cares . We don 't
reed to do anything . But I found going through that one with the Lake Lucy
Road one , a rather unique experience because it really proved where the PUD
was completely valid when it didn 't in any way encourage undersized lots .
Emmings : Okay . We 're going to table this .
' Erhart : There 's some other things here though . I 've got a question here ,
moving right along here . Your computer printed out some double sentences .
' Did you notice that? Bottom of the page . ( e ) , bottom of page 1 . You 've
got some repeats of sentences and lines . Okay , then on ( f ) . We go to 1 ,
boulevard plantings . Is this on top of our new ordinance for landscaping?
I mean all of a sudden I 'm reading this and all of a sudden we 're required .
' Krauss: No , it 's not on top of it . Your new ordinance for landscaping
applies in subdivisions . It doesn 't apply in PUD 's .
Erhart : It doesn 't apply in PUD 's . So we 're requiring .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 47
Krauss: Well I guess maybe it is redundant because you have to come
through with a plat with the PUD .
Emmings: Well shouldn 't it apply?
Krauss : Well definitely it should . I put it in here to make sure , I
wasn 't double hitting . It was to make sure it applied .
Erhart : You 've got a lot of requirements here . Your rear yard shall
contain at least 2 over story trees . That 's not even in our landscaping .
Emmings : Foundation plantings . I don 't remember there being requirements
for foundation plantings .
Erhart : Where 's this landscaping?
Krauss: That 's new . '
Batzli : We talked about this .
Ellson : We talked about this though . I remember .
Batzli : Us PUD dwellers talked about it at , well it was meetings and
meetings ago now but it seems like yesterday .
Ellson : I remember too a budget or something was going to come out but
yeah , we wanted it to apply to that sort of thing .
Batzli : These were some of the things that we were going to get from
having a PUD in there . It wasn 't going to be a one to one transference of'
open space to 15 ,000 square feet . The kind of a deal like you were saying .
We were talking about amenities in the PUD .
Emmings : Maybe this section Paul , the overall landscaping plan . Maybe yo1
ought to incorporate our other landscaping plan and then add anything we 're
going to add like foundation plantings .
Krauss: Yeah , keep in mind too that this was originally drafted in the
spring and we 've since gone on and the landscaping stuff has jumped ahead
of this and we 've finally got that figured out so there 's a lack of
consistency for that .
Erhart : I guess the whole thing hits me here is that the whole idea of till
PUD was to allow creativity and now all of a sudden , bam . We 're going to
have 2 over story trees in the rear yard and we 're going to have boom .
We 're going to have foundation plantings . We 're going to have boulevard
plantings . All of a sudden we 're getting real specific .
Batzli : But we didn 't get any creativity . We haven 't got any .
Erhart : Well we haven 't done any . I don 't know .
Batzli : Yeah. but nobody wants to do them .
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 48
Erhart : I 'm just surprised . I was surprised when I read this .
1 Batzli : I agree . I think it should be creative . I mean I think this
should be win for people who move in . Win for the city . The developer . It
should be attractive to them and I don 't see that we 're doing that yet .
1 Erhart : And then beyond that .
Batzli : The only people that ever do them are Lundgren . I mean you know
and they do it for a different reason .
Erhart : Maybe I missed the meeting on this . I was just really surprised .
1 Gee we get the architectural standards . I don 't remember talking about . I
must have missed that meeting . Is that what we said at a meeting we want
architectural standards , and again we don 't even , we 're talking about lots
' here . We 're not talking about site plans .
Ellson : These are the things that . . .remember this exactly . For this
reason they could have the street signs could be a tad different and all
1 these . . .They were going to get bushes when they moved in . Just a bare
minimum .
' Erhart : Let me go on here for a minute . Again , if this goes as a PUD
we 're going to put guidelines on placement of air conditioners? Do you see
the contrast of how it jumps from what concept of creativity to all of a
sudden man we 're dictating specifics . The whole thing just hit me like
what are we doing?
Krauss : Yeah , but are we talking about 9 ,000 square foot lots or are we
1 talking about 30 ,000 square foot lots?
Emmings: Right . And we 're also talking about maybe some zero lot lines or
1 some , or even some 5 ,000 square foot lots .
Erhart : But that 's in another section which that also confused me . Now
all of a sudden we go to Section 20-507 . Now we 're back to the minimum 25%
1 gross area . Am I reading this right? Plus those two pages don 't , page 3
doesn 't go to page , let 's see . Bottom of page 2 does not fit with the top
of page 3 . There 's something . There 's at least 6 inches at 4 feet in ,
' height can of the PUD , the plan should be developed . There 's something
wrong here . A typo . Am I the only guy who saw this?
' Conrad : Yeah , you 're the only one . I read it and it sounded right .
Erhart : Well anyway , it 's confusing to me .
1 Ellson : Brian 's usually the one that finds those .
Batzli : I didn 't get past A .
' Erhart : In Section 20-507 relates to these zero lot line things? Is that
it?
1 (Krauss: Yes .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 49
Erhart : Okay . And those you 're suggesting that we maintain just this 250'
gross area of the PUD to be set aside in these protected areas . Am I
reading that?
Krauss: Yes . We 're talking about fairly intensive . . .
Erhart : Oh , I understand . Well because the pages didn 't meet , maybe I
thought there was an extra page in there . I 'm just checking . Okay , I 'll II
stop .
Emmings: Are we kind of worn out on this for tonight? '
Conrad: Yeah .
Emmings: What can we do?
Ellson : I like his idea . Ask some of the developers .
Emmings: Do you think you can make anything out of the pages and pages of
comments you 're going to have in the Minutes?
Krauss : I can make a lot out of it . The question is , will that bring it
to resolution the next time . I still don 't understand if there 's a desire'
to allow individually or collectively lots below 15 ,000 square feet .
Emmings : Yeah .
Conrad: Yes .
Emmings : I have no problem with that . '
Krauss: Brian you still do?
Batzli : I don 't if that 's average . '
Erhart : If 15 's average? -
Batzli : Yeah . '
Emmings: Alright , if I have 100 acres and I 'm putting on four 9 ,000 squad
foot lots , you 're against that?
Batzli : That 's it? That 's all you 're doing on 100 acres? What else , the
rest an outlot?
Emming: My average lot size is 9 ,000 square feet so I don 't think you mean
what you say is what I 'm saying . '
Batzli : Well that 'd be wonderful I suppose if they did that .
Emmings : It 's silly obviously but I don 't think you mean that you 're
against an average of 9 ,000 . Under certain circumstances it could be
alright . It 's not what we want . It 's not what 's going to happen but it 's
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 50
not , we shouldn 't just throw it out I don 't think . I think we should leave
it up to the developer . I really do .
' Ellson: Yep , I do too . Let us see it . We know what we- like when we see
it .
' Batzli : But under this current one .
Conrad : But that 's unfair to the developer .
Emmings: No it 's not .
Conrad : Yeah it is . If we say we like an average 9 ,000 square foot lot
size .
' Batzli : He 'll bring it in .
Conrad : Nobody here would really like to see that .
Emmings: Don 't say it .
Batzli : If for example they did a single road in . They had a little
cul-de-sac in the middle , which would probably be against our rules because
it 'd be over 1 ,500 feet or something , but they have a little cul-de-sac .
They 've got four 9 ,000 square foot lots and the rest of it is an outlot all
the way around it , would any of us really be that against it?
' Emmings : No .
' Ellson: Nice secluded little thing .
Emmings : That 's clustering .
Batzli : That 'd be great . But who in the world is going to do that? Well
Lundgren could because each one of those 9 ,000 square foot lots would be
worth about $100K and they 'd just say , well it 's all fair .
Ellson : The deer farm that 's behind here .
' Farmakes : Centex did that in Eden Prairie . They call them Village Homes .
Emmings : How did it work out?
Farmakes: Just what you described . They offered a variation in price of
about 25% from the smaller lot single family homes . Basically they 're a
retirement house . You wouldn 't have to mow more than about 5 feet around
the house .
Ellson: Yeah , and I think that 's a viable option . . .Brian that there are
' people that don 't want the bigger lot .
Emmings: Sounds great to me . Alright , now you asked a question .
Planning Commission Meeting
II
October 2 , 1991 - Page 51
Krauss: I think you 're saying that you are willing to consider lots below I
15 ,000 .
Emmings: We 'll consider anything . We 'll consider zero lot lines . We ' ll II
consider 5 ,000 . 9 ,000 .
Krauss: But do you still want to put a ceiling in what you could see?
I
Emmings: Yeah .
Erhart : In terms of density? II
Krauss : Yeah .
II
Emmings: That 's what I want to do .
Conrad : Yeah . I
Batzli : I would say , if you put density limitations on there , I would also
like to see open space that isn 't privately owned . I would like to see
that which I don 't think is part of your density scenario .
Emmings : Who owns it? If it 's not privately owned , who owns it?
II
Batzli : Outlot .
Krauss: But who 's going to take care of . . .? I
Emmings : Who 's going to take care of it? Who 's responsible for it?
Batzli : Well that 's never bothered us before . Why are you going to start ,
now? Do you really think these people in the Lundgren lots are going to be
out there fixing their monuments? Get real . Grow up . Come on .
Emmings: Brian , I want you to put both feet back on the floor . You jumpe
from outlot to monuments somehow and that was quite a leap .
Batzli : That 's what they used to do . I mean basically my development has "
an outlot with a monument on it that 's owned by some guy that lives in Cuba
or something . It 's not going to be taken care of . So Lundgren comes in
and says we 'll fix that . We ' ll make it part of this guy 's lot and he 's got'
a covenant to fix the monument . Come on . We 've done it in the past . Why
are we worried about it all of a sudden right now?
Emmings: Let 's please not talk about monuments . That 's a different II
problem .
Batzli : It 's part of their open space . I
Krauss : But if there 's a need for public open space , shouldn 't that have
been . . . I
Emmings: That 's park . That 's got nothing to do with what we 're talking
about here . That 's separate . I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 52
Batzli : Okay , then make all the open space park . Then I 'd be happy with
that .
Emmings: And now it 's the citizens responsibility to take care of it . Then
we 're not going to like that .
' Batzli : Why?
Ellson: What about that same . . .that was behind the people?
Batzli : Well all they do is , then don 't grow any grass . Put some trees on
it and let it grow .
Krauss : That's not the way it works .
Batzli : Why?
Krauss: You get demands for totlots . You get demands to cut the weeds .
You get demands to pick up the garbage .
' Emmings: Right . No , I don 't think we want . If it 's not parkland and it 's
not privately owned in part of the lots , what then?
' Conrad: I think it 's the Emmings Foundation .
Batzli : Then make it a requirement that there 's a neighborhood association
' and it 's owned to all the units in the lots . Commonly owned . Let them
take care of it . But give them a vehicle to take care of it by requiring
the association .
' Erhart : I think the problem is when you 've got this privately owned wooded
area that you 're preserving , if it 's privately owned the guy can post
things and nobody can walk in it .
Batzli : That 's right . I mean what 's the good of , well open space is good
visually . Preserve it but it would be better I think if it was useable
because they 're basically and again you guys don 't like this but they 're
giving up lot size to get it .
' Emmings: They 're not .
Batzli : Well I view it differently because I live in one . You view it as
a detached commissioner not living in one of them . I 'm saying this is what
' the people in them view it as , and you can accept it or reject it . You
guys all clearly reject it but that 's how they view it .
' Emmings: It sounds like a detached retina .
Conrad : I like the detached chairman .
' Ellson: I think another night with the Planning .
Batzli : I 'd simmer down by then .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 53 '
Emmings: Yeah , can we talk about this another night when Brian 's not here
Ellson: Yeah , special meeting . Don 't let him know .
Emmings: Well . I don 't know . I
Conrad: They 're really good comments .
Emmings: No , I think we 're talking about a lot of important stuff but I II
think we 've worn ourselves out for tonight .
Batzli : Thanks for making me feel good . ,
Emmings: Brian , you 're responsible for bringing up all of the most
important things that we talked about . Not let 's see . Minutes . Oh , we 'rl
going to table this and you 're going to figure out .
Krauss: Exactly what you said . '
Emmings: Do it . Just do it .
Erhart: This is your commission . 1
Krauss: Well Steve , isn 't this one of the places where you jump in and
volunteer? ,
Emmings: I 'll rewrite the ordinance tomorrow afternoon .
Conrad: You could make it pretty vague I have a feeling . But I think this'
would be a case where the Planning Director and the Chairman of the
Planning Commission might just get together .
Emmings: You never did .
Conrad: I know . ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
September 4 , 1991 were so noted as presented . I
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Emmings: Let 's see now . Lundgren they put off deciding it . Surface Watel
Management . Is there any of these anybody wants to talk about? I 'm glad
they 're going on the grandfathered recreational beachlots . And you see ,
Comrade Farmakes has been appointed to the sign ordinance task force . Thall
actually exists at this point in time?
Krauss: It will , yes . It does .
Emmings: They will be starting to meet . That 's going to be tough .
Farmakes : New signs are going up I noticed .
Krauss: Oh , on the building? Yeah , they are .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 54
Batzli : They were putting them up today .
Emmings: Seven Forty One , there 's a liquor store going in there?
Krauss : Yes there is . That was on a split vote . The original developer
lost it and the bank 's got it now .
Batzli : They 've got some nice cement in the windows though right there . It
looks nice .
Emmings: Say I 'll tell you , I 'm happy to Happy Garden II .
' Batzli : Is that the Chinese Restaurant?
Emmings: Yeah .
Ellson: You know it 's more expensive than the one in Mound .
Emmings : Okay . Thanks Paul for the report . I guess we 're done on that .
We 've got our ongoing items here . What , besides now working on the PUD
residential component which looks like it will take quite a while , what 's
the next thing we 're going to take on here?
IKrauss : Well we went through this stuff at a staff level today . By the
way , we 're coming into a new year and I think I really need you all to
' think of what you want us to tackle coming up . I mean we 've been making a
lot of headway on things that have been on this list . Some of them are
going to take a while to resolve but are there areas that you want us to
get involved in that aren 't on here now? You don 't have to answer that
' now . I can give you a quick rundown of what 's happening on a couple
things . The Highway 5 Corridor Study is something I needed to raise
tonight because there 's , the Council wanted to set up a task force , a work
' group , whatever to work with staff and the University and possibility a
consultant . Figure out where are we right now . Set some goals . Parameters
for this program and figure out how to get there . I guess I frequently
expressed a concern that what we 've done instead of going through the
' process that gave us the comprehensive plan , for several reasons the
University was contracted with the Urban Design Center there to do some
visioning studies and that 's fine . It 's an interesting exercise but that 's
' not going to result in the corridor study . It 's going to result in a lot
of ideas as not way to bring it to fruition . So I 've been concern that
it 's kind of a leg but it 's not the rest of the torso . And plus there 's
been some questions about how the University 's been working so far . The
University 's charging ahead with some things and I have no idea what
they 're working on but we came away , Don Ashworth and I went to the
University on Friday and met with them and they 're doing some interesting
stuff and we want to bring them back into the fold here . So what it
amounts to is we need a couple of folks from the Planning Commission to
work with the HRA and City Council and become this nucleus of a work group
' to figure out how best to get a handle on this TH 5 thing . There 's a lot
of ideas kicking around . Council 's talked about moratoriums . Design
standards . All sorts of things and this effort really needs to be
organized . We 'd like to have a meeting in the next couple of weeks .
Planning Commission Meeting ,
October 2 , 1991 - Page 55
Emmings: What kind of a time commitment are people that are interested ill
it going to have to be asked?
Krauss : Don 't know honestly . I mean initially we 're talking about 1 or 2 ,
meetings to get our act together in effect but it 's my guess that as we
proceed , these people will probably be the nucleus of the group that 's
working on it , if not the group .
Emmings: Alright , who 's interested in that? In doing that? I am . Was
that Jeff? ,
Farmakes: Yes .
Emmings: Okay .
Krauss: Let me quickly run you on down the list of things that we 're
doing . TH 5 we 're doing something . That doesn 't , you know we have the
south study area that we 've never talked about but we have to do .
Emmings: What are you looking at? Are you looking at an item on here?
Krauss: Yeah .
Erhart : 2 . He started with 1 and now he 's on 2 . '
Krauss : I do that sometimes .
Conrad: If he 's going too fast Steve .
Emmings : Wake me up when he gets to 3 .
Krauss: We 're talking about going through , using just the in house with
you , the Planning Commission . Doing kind of a microcomprehensive plan
effort on that south study area so we 're tracking along with the north
area . That 's something we can do during the year . Blending ordinance , ca
I take that off?
Ellson : Take it off . No can do .
Erhart: Study area south , you actually want to work on that this next
year?
Krauss: Well , we had a commitment . If you recall a lot of people were
saying well what do you mean by this? What does this mean to me as a
property owner out here? Your recommendation , the City Council 's
recommendation was to proceed and lay out both study areas as soon as we 're
done with the comprehensive plan . Now all our focus has been on TH 5 II because the Council and the HRA jumped on the TH 5 bandwagon as something
they wanted to confront early on . But the south study area 's been left in
the dust .
Emmings: But there 's another pressure out there too . You 've got , I can 't
think of the name of the business that owns the corner .
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 56
' Conrad : Fleet Farm .
' Emmings: You 've got Fleet Farm saying you 're tying our hands . You 're
putting restrictions on our property and they were rattling those kinds of
sabers . I think it 's another thing that kind of got our attention .
Krauss : Right , but when we had that meeting for the south neighborhood , we
had people who lived in Sun Ridge Court on Audubon and Gale Degler , the
farmer , saying what does this mean? You 're leaving us in the dark and all
that . So I think it was something that we should do to complete our task .
Rezoning BF to A-2 . That 's almost done . Bluff protection ordinance .
You 've got a lot of crudoes from the Council for that . Sign ordinance .
' Kate 's going to be working , she 's got some issue papers that she 's doing
right now and is going to organize the first meeting . We have Tom Workman ,
the two of you and two people from the Chamber of Commerce on that . Tree
' protection ordinance , Jo Ann 's trying to light a fire under the DNR .
Hopefully that will succeed . Rezoning 2 1/2 acre lots to RR . That 's
almost done . Surface Water Management Plan . We 've got our kick off meeting
on Monday with the Task Force .
' Emmings : Now why is that on our chart?
' Krauss : Because there 's a lot of this that 's going to be coming back to
you .
' Emmings : There 's nothing , well okay .
Krauss : You enforce the wetlands ordinance and you 're going to get a new
one out of this .
Emmings: Yeah , yeah okay .
' Krauss : Shoreland ordinance . Jo Ann 's got a meeting in two weeks to get
going on that . The State built a new ordinance and we have an obligation
to change ours . Group home ordinance . I 'm asking Jo Ann to get involved
with this . I have a concern and I 've spoken to Roger about it . I might
have mentioned it to you . First of all some Statute has changed relative
to the regulations on groups homes . What you can and can 't do . The
premise I approach a lot of these things from is , I believe in the need to
spread the wealth with group homes . That group homes should be located in
all communities . Everybody should take their share . We can 't just pawn
our problems off on South Minneapolis or whatever but I 'm concerned that
our ordinance doesn 't give us a good handle on making sure that group homes
are done right . And there 's been a lot of work on this . There was some
task force set up on this through Hennepin County a few years ago . The
State law changed relative to group homes because of that . That 's the one
that mandates that you can 't regulate them if they 're licensed group homes
under 12 people . But I think we need to have Roger sit down and tell us
what you can and can 't do . Have Jo Ann give you some ideas about what 's
' some good ways of dealing with this are and then look at amending our
ordinance so we got a better. handle on it . You really want to do this now
when nobody 's banging on your door . Rural area policies . Boy , the Metro
' Council should have approved this already . I 'll check on that . Well
that 's the one where we had the contract . . . Landscaping standards , the
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 -- Page 57
Council really likes that one too . That 's up for second reading . There 's
still some question I think on the number of trees . We have Richard Wing
on one side pushing very heavily for it . We have Tom Workman on the other,
who translates that into a dollar issue to the homeowner and it just gets
passed along . So we 're going to bring back some information to them at the
second reading just so we have an analysis of what other communities are
doing . I 'm pretty sure we 're requiring more than any other community I
know of . PUD ordinance . Well , you know where we 're at on that . Your
input in the downtown planning study . That 's meandering along . We 're
working with Strgar-Roscoe on that . Things are starting to happen . Numbell
14 is something that Kate and Sharmin are going to be working on . I think
tonight you had a perfect example of we have an ordinance that says we
should be doing something but it doesn 't say what we should be doing in
terms of architectural standards . This is something again that Councilman
Wing and other people in the Council have really been pushing heavily .
It 's really kind of an interesting phenomena . When we approved Market
Square . When that came through here 2 years ago , Jo Ann and I were
insisting that we wanted things like pitched roofs and we wanted things
like design parapet walls in the back and all the screening and everything
else . And we were able to do a lot . I think for the standard 2 years ago
we did a lot . Now the Council , some people on the Council look at that an
they said , oh my God . What did we do? How can we change it? The
mentality , the understanding has moved so radically that they 're now on th
other side of the issue . I think we have to address that in our ordinance
Bluff Creek corridor greenway . I don 't know where to go with that . You
approved the ordinance . I think the Park Board needs to get involved now . '
I 've talked with Todd Hoffman about that . There may be a role for
coordination with the Planning Commission . I guess I 'd need to flush that
out . I mean the Park Board may want you to work with them on that .
Batzli : From my talking with just one of the Park and Rec people , they
started out very negatively on the whole concept and they 're warming to it
slowly but there 's no money to for example purchase the corridor or
something . Unless other people get excited about it , I don 't know that
they will .
Emmings: But if you 've got a long term plan though , as properties develop
along there you will be able to pick it up .
Krauss: That 's the thing . The Park Board I think has kind of tunnel
vision .
Emmings: It 's called corridor vision .
Erhart : I 'll tell you , you 're exactly right . They view everything in
terms of doing it today with some dollars from the taxpayers . In terms of
long term planning and park . I
Krauss: But what is there getting some grants going with the Arboretum and
the Nature Conservancy . All those kinds of things .
Erhart : I never have , when we discuss this thing , I never conceive that
we 're talking about spending any dollars here . We 're talking about the
long term plan when those properties develop . That we have identified thill
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 58
corridor so when they come in there 's no question that that 's going to be
public property .
' Krauss : Well the Watershed District also wants to work with us on a Bluff
Creek plan that 's more focused than our Surface Water Utility , or a lot of
emphasis . And one of the things , I went on a tour of Nine Mile Creek
' through Bloomington where they had some similar problems in terms of
significant erosion and stuff and they went in and fixed it but they worked
with the city to fix it as a recreational amenity and there 's a beautiful
trail system and bridges . That makes sense in South Bloomington that as
heavily a designed a trail as that doesn 't make sense here but something
like that .
' Erhart : If you go on a field trip like that , give me a holler . I would
like to go along .
' Krauss : Okay . So I ' ll keep you informed on that because I think some
things are starting to materialize . Modifications to beachlots , we 're
working on that now .
Emmings: I would like to have notice of meetings on that because I 'm real
interested in that issue .
' Krauss: We 're going to notify the Planning Commission , City Council .
Ordinance amendment for non-conforming uses . This is something we 're
trying to work out with Roger . We don 't deal with these things real well .
I guess I ' ll have to bring you the ordinance to see what we 're talking
about .
' Emmings: Yeah , don 't give us details now . Let 's get done .
Krauss: Liquor stores . That 's something the Council asked for . A couple
other things , I have some administrative items I 'm going to work on . One
thing too that 's been kicking around that I 've tried to stay clear of but
I don 't know how much longer I can is this golf course deal .
IErhart : Joan was .
Krauss: Tom wanted me to set up a meeting amongst everybody . I tried to
do that . . .but it didn 't pan out . To really see what to do and how to do it
so I guess we 're going to do that whenever we can .
Erhart : I thought we had a work item to eliminate BH district and then it
' evolved into . . .
Ellson : When you were gone .
Erhart : To me that 's two different things .
' Batzli : We did a lot of that at the 19th meeting . That was the day you
were gone .
Krauss: Which , the BF?
Planning Commission Meeting ,
October 2 , 1991 - Page 59
Erhart : No , the one down on 212 .
Krauss: Yeah , the BF district . Number 2 . I 've got Jo Ann working on
that . We 're going to be bringing that back to you again .
Erhart : Yeah , that 's it .
Emmings: Some administrative items here . Annette has retired . Or is
quitting I guess . However you want to put it .
Ellson : I 've had enough of you guys .
Emmings : And we also have Ladd , Tim , Steve and Joan , their terms are up all
the end of the year . So basically we 've got 5 potential spots turning
over .
Erhart : Who? Ladd , Tim and who? 1
Emmings : Ladd , Tim , Steve and Joan .
Erhart : Oh you Steve .
Emmings: Good Tim . So do you want to know anything? Do you want to know
from the people who are up this year whether or not they 're planning to
submit an application?
Krauss : That would be good to know . People often ask when they apply what
kind of openings there are .
Emmings: Are you going to advertise five spots now and we 'll interview
people?
Krauss: If the ad went out , we 're going to put in an ad for Annette and
then I realized we were close to the end of the year anyway . I asked my
secretary to advertise for them all .
Emmings : So there are 5 spots advertised? 1
Krauss : Should be .
Emmings: Is the pay going to stay the same? ,
Batzli : Wait a minute .
Emmings : Oh , that 's right . You 're not getting any .
Ellson: It seems weird that they all come in two groups . Why aren 't they "
staggered more?
Krauss: Vicky tells me she thought they were at one time and something goll
jumbled up and I think she 's right . There 's probably .
Emmings: I know what happened I think . I think they reinterviewed
everybody . When it turned over from Tom Hamilton and that crew to our
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 60
present illustrious City Council , they reinterviewed everybody . Didn 't
they?
Ellson: I wasn 't interviewed until last year .
11 Emmings : Either a whole bunch of people were up at that time or they kind
of reinterviewed everybody .
rConrad: I thought we had three different times . I didn 't know it was just
two different dates .
Krauss: Well it 's evolved into two .
Ellson : With seven people that 's a big chunk .
Krauss: Well the 3 year terms , and maybe the fairest way to do it is when
we get these 5 positions refilled .
' Ellson: Some are 2 and some are 3?
Krauss : Yeah . Two people draw out of a hat and they get one year terms .
' Erhart: Well I 'd volunteer for that . 1 or 2 year terms .
11 Emmings : I would too .
Erhart : I 'd like to do one more year . Max two .
Krauss : Yeah but that doesn 't , oh yeah your term is up . Actually that
would for both of you .
' Emmings: Okay . What do you need from us? Anything on this issue?
Krauss : No . We ' ll bring you back the names . We ' ll do the usual deal .
' We 'll set up some interviews .
Emmings : We 've got our attendance record here .
Ellson: Jeff , have you really been here every time?
Farmakes : Well I was late today but I 'll stay after school .
Ellson : You and Steve .
Emmings: He gets a little 1 . I was surprised . There are fewer absences
on here than I had expected to see .
Conrad: I 've had quite a few .
' Batzli : Little bit of favortism here on the attendance sheet? Is that
what we 're saying?
' Emmings : You 've got 2 .
Planning Commission Meeting I
October 2 , 1991 - Page 61
Conrad: I know I missed 2 in a row .
Emmings: Well that 's all that 's on here . It 's not really as bad as I
thought . You know we 've been having trouble with forums here and I
thought we were going to see something that was kind of different than
that .
Krauss: Well the July 17th and there were 3 that occurred .
Emmings : What 's the standard? What 's the percentage? I
Krauss : There 's something in the enabling stuff .
Erhart : How come you guys got that . . . I
Ellson: You got it in your packet .
Emmings : It wasn 't in the packet . It was laying on the table .
Erhart : Because this stuff you 're supposed to take home and read and not II
interfere with your duties here .
Ellson : You 're supposed to come early enough to catch up on any letters
people have given since the packet was given out .
Emmings : What is the standard? What is the percentage that you 're
supposed to have? I
Batzli : 75% .
Emmings : Is it?
Batzli : Yep .
Emmings : Well it looks like almost everybody is there except maybe Joan .
don 't know . Moon Valley , there 's a big .
Krauss: Moon Valley applied for a permit . I rejected it .
Batzli : But did you meet with him? When did you send this letter? Oh
October .
Krauss : Yesterday .
Emmings: And how is it going?
Krauss: Not well . I think we have a court date for October 18th . I
Emmings: You 're going to enforce whatever .
Krauss : Well to insist that they apply for the permit and give us all thell
information the ordinance requires .
Emmings : And they haven 't done that? 1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 62
Krauss : I don 't think so .
Emmings: This is everything you 've gotten so far? Or everything they 've
failed to give you?
Krauss : Yeah .
11 Batzli : So the two grading plans you 've gotten . One is the crater and the
other one is the 2 1/2 acre lots?
Krauss : Right .
Batzli : And they 're both submitted as part of the same plan? Kind of a
Plan A and Plan B?
Krauss: Exactly that and they won 't tell us which one it is . Now in
meetings with them they tell us if we 're nice to them we can earn Plan B .
I 'm depending a lot on the City Attorney 's advice on how to handle this one
because I see it 's fairly inevitable it 's going to be litigated . It 's
unfortunate because clearly the City , I think . You and the Council bent
over backwards to draft an ordinance that didn 't attempt to shut them down
or make their life to difficult . That 's not the way they 're dealing with
it .
iEllson: Who is on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the Council?
Krauss : Tom Workman .
Ellson: Just one?
' Krauss: Yeah . And it 's on an annual basis so that will end soon .
Batzli : Who 's on the Board of Adjustments? Who 's everybody?
Krauss: It 's Willard , Carol Watson and Tom Workman . Now that night the
Mayor was sitting in for Willard . The Mayor 's the alternate .
Emmings: Willard will probably quit after the way he was treated by Brian
tonight .
Krauss: One last thing . Again we remain very convinced that because of
the way people are talking to us we 're going to be getting a lot of
applications as we get into the winter . Developers all know they 're not
going to get anything into the ground this year and they 're shooting for
' spring . And we 're working on some bigger projects to bring back to you and
a lot of you are going to be in meetings with us in the next few weeks . We
don 't have any applications submitted for the next October meeting and I 've
got tickets for the World Series .
Elison: Oh are you kidding . Let 's have a lottery for those .
' Farmakes : Now tell me , is it true you had to send in $800 .00 for each
ticket then as a deposit?
11
Planning Commission Meeting I
October 2 , 1991 - Page 63
Krauss: $640 .00 for two . It 's for everything though . That 's the play I
offs .
Farmakes . Are those good seats? I
Krauss : Yeah . Right behind home plate .
Ellson moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor I
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m .
Submitted by Paul Krauss I
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 27, 1991
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Dave Koubsky, Larry Schroers, Curt Robinson,
Wendy Pemrick , Jim Andrews and Dawne Erhart
' STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; and Jerry Ruegemer ,
Recreation Supervisor
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 23, 1991 as
amended by Jan Lash on page 42 to clarify a statement to read, "Thanks for
' taking that on. " . All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SHADOWMERE SUBDIVISION.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Don Mehl 490 Bighorn Drive
Mary Kay Schmitt 521 Shadowmere
' Hoffman: This item was brough to the Commission at the July 21 , 1991 Park
and Recreation Commission meeting. At that tiifle the commission directed
staff to get the history of this development. Mrs . Schmitt's inquiry , Mary
' Kay Schmitt is in the audience this evening, relates to the possibility of
acquiring Lot 11 , Shadowmere for park purposes. Development Contract for
Shadowmere was executed in September of 1987 . The reason at that time for
1 not acquiring parkland which remains valid today is that Shadowmere lies
within the service areas of Carver Beach Park , Chanhassen Pond Park and
Meadow Green Park. One of the larger questions that evening was in regard
to the present situation surrounding Lot 11 . In inquiring about that I
Contacted Mr . Jim Fenning, the developer of the subdivision. Mr . Fenning
stated he originally sold the lot for $90,000.00. The party purchasing the
lot from Mr . Fenning then sold it to a third party who is not in litigation
1 with the seller concerning that sell of property. As stated in Mrs.
Schmitt's letter , the City does maintain a large drainage easement over the
lots. Over part of Lot 11 for the purposes of retaining and filtering
' runoff prior to it's discharge into Lotus Lake as noted on your map which
you have. The City does not own this property however . Again, it is
recommended that the City not pursue acquisition of Lot 11 , Shadowmere for
park purposes.
Schroers: Okay, thanks Todd. Is there anyone in the audience tonight who
would like to address the Commission in regards to staff's proposal?
Mary Kay Schmitt: I don't know if this is premature or what but because
the lot is going through litigation, someone had mentioned August 14th so I
don't know the results on it but it was said to be unbuildable. As a
' service area , Shadowmere is a development that seems to have had some great
ideas. It looked good a few years ago and somehow it 's turned into
somewhat of a bad dream in some respects because of the, I guess the
recession and bigger houses and trying to have an executive area coming off
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 2
of a different area . But being a homeowner in the area and living there
over 2 years I have seen homes with the builders thinking they were going
' to sell . Being taken over by the banks and finally sold so with great
decrease in value . There are homes , there are three homes on the lake and
one of the other people here, Don Mehl 's is a landowner on the lake and he
might want to say something after me . Todd had written a nice response and
everything. The questions I have I guess I 'll bring them up and see what
you can do to help me out . On the service area part, I guess I can see
that the Carver Beach Park is accessible through, there's a very poor
pathway that needs to be developed that I didn't even know about . I drove
to it on occasion and canoed to it. But I guess I 'm looking at a different
perspective . I 'm like taking a pro tractor and putting the point down and
making a circle of a half mile. From Shadowmere it doesn't include the
Chanhassen Pond Park or the other , Meadow Green Park and the Carver Beach
Park is just on the edge then. I mean that's my perspective of looking at
1 the same thing . Everybody looks at things differently. So that's a
question . I don't know if it's valid or not . It 's the way I look at
things versus the way other people look at things . So maybe you can
address that . It is unfortunately because of these great ideas with the
1 development and the developer actually not doing , the first developer not
doing much of a job and really kind of with recession too but there 's only
5 dwellings occupied that are not on the lake in that development . There's
II 27 lots. I know Todd had also mentioned that each lot could have a
swingset or whatever . I think we 're still thinking of this park as not ,
well maybe a recreation park but maybe more of just an area that has some
benches. Nothing more than that and I have pictures of the lot and if you
II want to pass them around. Also , he has some pictures too. There is , I
don't know who owns the drainage area . I was told the City was by the
person that I purchased the house from. He said the City will take care of
II that and do a good job . At one point he was trying to sell us that lot and
that 's what the selling point was so maybe you can inform me on who, if the
City does take care of it , what's happened to it. It 's kind of like maybe
' something lose in the shuffle but that's why I 'm here because I do pay
taxes and I like Lotus Lake . I like where I live but I 'd like to see some
things as a taxpayer and a resident that I feel could happen. So that 's
why I 'm here .
ISchroers: Before you leave , could I ask you to state your name and address
for the record?
1 Mary Kay Schmitt: Oh okay. Mary Kay Schmitt and it's 521 Shadowmere.
There 's no road. It 's on the cul-de-sac . -
1 Schroers: Okay, Mary what we 'll do is we will hear everyone's concerns and
then we 'll address the concerns that you 've raised after everyone 's
finished.
IMary Kay Schmitt: Okay. Yes, I 'm done.
' Schroers: Thanks a lot .
Don Mehl : I 'm Don Mehl and I live at 490 Bighorn. Our lot is immediately
adjacent to the lot we're talking about and I feel we have a lot of concern
as to what 's happening over there. Right now there is tremendous erosion
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 3
problems . The water level is very close to the surface. Every time it
rains you get ankle keep in mud if you walk through there . There's about
600 square feet of my backyard that I haven't developed yet because it
would just take too much fill to bring it up to something that could be
developed and I 've been waiting to see what's going to happen. Whether or
not the lot will be built on or is going to be a park.
Schroers: Sir , is the erosion you're talking about, now is that on Lot 11
or is that on your' property?
Don Mehl : No, it 's on Lot 11 . There's an entrance, kind of a driveway I
that somebody brought a Cat in and excavated it down so that you could
actually drive a vehicle down there. Since that was done, it became
eroding very badly and I 've got some pictures here also. It started to
encroach on my yard so I took some timbers and built a little bit of a
retaining wall along the lot line there just to keep my yard intact . And
we took some of the excess dirt that we had and filled in the gullies that
you see on the pictures so right now to day it doesn't look like those but
it will with a few more rains.
Lash: Could I ask you one more question just in regards to 11? 1
Don Mehl : Yes .
Lash: On the map 11 , it runs across the top of your?
Don Mehl : Right . It's sort of an L shape . ,
Lash: Okay , so it includes the other jog that goes all the way down to the
lake? i
Don Mehl : Right. It 's actually two lines there that are adjacent to my
property . There's about 165 feet on one side and about 130 feet on the
other side .
Lash: So is the question that 's in Court now that the whole part of it is
unbuildable or just the L part that goes down? '
Don Mehl : Well the portion of the L nearest to the street has this big
drainage pit from the storm sewer and that's another problem. That has , II you wouldn't believe what's been there. I mean people have dumped rocks .
They 've dumped broken cement in there. I 've seen cement trucks back up and
wash out their big units and chutes into that pit. I assume it's getting
washed into the lake . I don't know. It 's just overgrown with weeds and
all kinds of erosion. The pit is getting wider of course because the
erosion is eating away at the sides.
Schroers: But that developer originally sold that lot to a private party I
for the purpose of building a home there?
Don Mehl : I assume he's trying to, yeah. It's in Court right now I guess. I
But I have some concerns as to what is going to be done with that .
I personally would support a park back there as opposed to leaving it you
know . I don 't think it's buildable because of the ground conditions and
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 4
' actually the location isn't great . But to have a park back there we
naturally have some concerns . How's it going to be constructed into a
II park? There would have to be a lot of fill brought in . We 'd like to see
some landscaping and see it done right . Then who maintains it . What kind
of hours are put on it . We don't feel like we should have to chase down
beer cans and McDonald 's wrappers and cigarette butts that will find their
II way in our yard you know . Our bedroom, master bedroom goes off the back
and it 's about 35 feet from the lot line so noise would be a problem . Those
things have to be addressed but we would support a park in that area . Any
Iquestions at all?
Pemrick: Have you had any feedback on what a going price would be? At one
time it sold for $90 ,000 .00. Is that still?
Don Mehl : I have no feel for that at all . I just live next door .
ISchroers: Okay , thank you very much sir .
Mary Kay Schmitt: I forgot to add. This is from. . .house next door . . .
ISchroers: I have one other question of either one of you . Did the
developer at any point in time indicate that there was going to be a park
in that area provided with a portion of the development?
IDon Mehl : Not to me . In fact they tried to spll me that lot . It did have
potential assuming it was buildable . It had potential to be a nice lot . It
Iwould take a lot of maintenance and. . .we chose the one next door .
Schroers: Okay , I guess we can open it up for discussion among the
commission members now. Is there anyone who would like to start with any
particular thoughts on this?
Andrews: I 'll be brave. I 'll go first . I sense more of a request here to
' correct the erosion and the shabbiness of this property than I do a real
request here for a park . That 's kind of what I 'm hearing a bit if you want
an eyesore fixed and if a park will fix an eyesore , then we 're in favor of
a park. But if some other way would fix this eysore, that would be okay
too. That 's what I 'm hearing . The other thing I have to comment back to
you would be , as a commission and as a part of the city we obviously have
funding constraints and believe me they're quite acute and there are many
II areas in town that have no park . No useable park within their half mile
distance so we have that to weigh as well . I guess being that you 're
within a fairly reasonable distance of 3 existing parks and the cost and
I the apparent inferior nature of this property, I don't think I could
recommend that we acquire that property.
ISchroers: Jan, do you have anything?
Lash: My initial feeling is that I think it seems like it 's kind of a long
distance for children in your area to get to a park , personally. If I
I lived there I think I would be feeling the same as you . And there are
some barriers to get to them . I think as far as Meadow Green they have to
cross Kerber and I don't think any of them are really very easy for kids to
IIget to . The problem that we have is that we just don't have the funding to
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
August 27 , 1991 - Page 5
spend $90 ,000.00 or maybe even more than that . Whoever has it. I don 't
know what they would want for it . We just do not have that kind of money
to buy one lot for a neighborhood park for one small neighborhood.
Schroers: We have a total budget for 1992 of $150,000.00. So if we were
to acquire that one parcel for $90,000.00, we wouldn't even be able to
justify that because we wouldn't be able to operate the rest of the parks
in the city.
Lash: Now if something were to happen where out of this court case where II
the person who has it , wants to just give it to us, that'd be great. We'd
be willing to take it and even then who knows when we'd have the money to
do anything with it but it 's got lakeshore . I see that it could be a
potential of a nice spot and if we ever have an opportunity for lakeshore , II
I think we should jump on it if we can. Unfortunately we just do not have
the money and I feel bad that we're in that situation but that's just the
situation that we're in and there's really nothing that we can do about it . II
I certainly would be in favor of if there would be a way of us getting it
donated , that we would jump on that or even if we could get it at a very
reasonable price . If it 's an unbuildable lot, I don't know what they're
going to do with it anyway so we'll have to wait and see .
Don Mehl : Is there someway they can be forced to at least clean up the
front half of it so it 's not an eyesore? It 's really bad.
Lash: I think there is ordinances . It really doesn't fall under the Park
and Rec jurisdiction to do that but the City does have ordinances for
people to maintain vacant lots.
Schroers: I think what you would have to do would be to file an individual
complaint and file the complaint with the city and pursue it that way.
Hoffman: I 'll go ahead and pick that up for the property owners out there
and be in contact with engineering and public works department. Get those II
people in contact with Mr . Mehl and Mrs. Schmitt to follow up on that
condition because we really don't want to confuse the other issue of a lot
which is in disarray with the issue of whether or not it should be a park .
Just so we keep those separate.
Andrews: I just wanted to make one comment . I was quite alarmed to hear II the comment made about the cement trucks being cleaned and pollution being
put into this holding pond which is really the holding pond prior to
discharging into Lotus Lake. I think that more than likely will be a
blatant violation of what those people ought to be doing. So appreciate '
you telling us that.
Don Mehl : You'll find a lot of stuff in that pit . ,
Lash: Is it people just dumping fill?
Mary Kay Schmitt: It 's more like builders . '
Don Mehl : Yeah, it 's builders.
•
1
1
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 6
Lash: Do you know who?
Mary Kay Schmitt: Just show up there .
' Don Mehl : I don't know who the cement truck company but I 've seen it
twice.
1 Schroers: I 'm sure that information can be found out .
I Koubsky: Is the builder , either Todd or Don, had any comment or input on
his intentions other than he sold this property so I 'm assuming he 's really
not making any comment at this time .
IIHoffman: No, the property is certainly out of the city's hands. It 's a
privately held piece of property and obviously in a bit of confusion right
now. It could be a buildable lot. It 's going to take some money to create
a buildable lot and that I believe is where the problem comes in . In the
litigation the driveway would go down along side of that holding pond.
Retention pond and then the house would be set somewhat facing the lake but
I the soils and the grade in that area is going to take some work to create a
buildable location .
Koubsky: Is the current owner local?
IIHoffman: I do not know .
1 Lash: Do you even know if the condition of it would even be conducive if
we had the opportunity of acquiring it somehow or another , would we even
want it?
IHoffman: It 's not conducive for very much. No, it's very limited.
Schroers: Probably for passive use but not active .
IHoffman: Passive use and the pricetag and the subsequent cost to develop
that piece of property would be pretty unsurmountable for the use that we
Iwould receive .
Schroers: Okay , Dawne or Wendy any comments? Curt?
II Robinson: You've pretty much covered it . I was on the Park and Rec
Commission I see in 1987 when we said we would take fees instead of
parkland and I think that still holds true today. I think that's still
Ivalid.
Schroers: I guess that I feel pretty good speaking for everyone in regards
I to , we would like to acquire every parcel that we possibly could that would
make a good active or passive use park provided that it was economically
feasible and reasonable . But you've heard several times our budget
situation just really makes that impossible. It would be nice if everyone
I had a park that was easily accessible and you didn't have to cross major
roads to get to it but that's something that very few people have that
luxury . I think in regards to the erosion problem, being that the parcel
IIor the negotiation over the parcel is in court , I 'm sure that's why nothing
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 7
is being done with the erosion. No one actually knows probably who's goign II
to end up with the responsibility or who the owner is if it's in
litigation. So I 'm sure at the time that they decide to develop it, that
that certainly would be corrected and that the lot and the structure on it II
would have to be up to Code. So I think that in time that problem will
probably work itself out. I wish we could be a little bit more positive
about that particular parcel for a park but I just don't see that it's
reasonable to pursue at this point.
Mary Kay Schmitt: What is a reasonable amount of money for a lakeshore lot
for the park . . .to buy?
Schroers: I think that that 's a pretty difficult question. There's a lot
of factors to come into play. First of all we have to really determine II that there is a use and what kind of use and activity we are going to have
in the park and we have different types of park . We have a city park like
Lake Ann that draws from the entire city and we have the neighborhood parks
which are generally used just by the neighborhood . In this instance if we
were to have what we would term a passive use park . If we would say that
this site isn't suitable for bailfields and a lot of activity, if we were
just going to clear an area and have a little picnic like area down by the II
beach and a few tables or benches or something like that, the amount of
dollars that it would cost to purchase the property and develop that in
relation to the amount of use that it 's likely to get and the benefit to
the entire community was actually paying for it because everyone in all
parts of town could be paying for that property , it'd be hard to swing it .
I wouldn't even put a dollar figure on it myself but you know, reasonably
speaking you're not going to get that for it . If it's already sold for
$90,000.00, you 're not going to get it for much less than that and it would
be very hard to justify that kind of expenditure. There are other
developments all over town that say here is, we have our parcel already
here . When are you going to put some playground equipment in it and if we II
can't equip the existing.property that we have so we can get use out of it,
we 'd be looking pretty foolish to spend that kind of money on another piece II
of property that we wouldn't be getting utilized that much. Any other
comments ,Ar input?
Andrews: Do you need a motion here? I
Hoffman: Yeah, I need a motion.
Andrews: I don't think anybody wants to make the motion but I will move I
that we accept staff recommendation and do not proceed with any acquisition
at this time . '
Erhart: I 'll second it .
Andrews moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission 1
recommend that the City not pursue acquisition of Lot 11 , Shadowmere for
park purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Andrews: Todd, you're going to look into the erosion problem? '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 8
' Hoffman: Either that or I 'll talk to the engineering department and have
somebody contact you both by phone to update you on the situation with the
' holding pond and the condition of the lot .
Mary Kay Schmitt: So if we see anything now that is wrong , should we
report it?
' Hoffman: Give us a call .
' Pemrick: Could there be some no dumping signs posted?
Mary Kay Schmitt: That would be nice .
' Pemrick: Would you be in favor of something like that?
Schroers: I don't think we can sign private property though .
' Hoffman: No. If you see a builder dumping that type of trash, call the
Building Department , Public Safety and ask for the Building Inspector .
I Something to do with the condition of the erosion or the holding pond would
be the engineering department so we'll get back to you on those issues .
Schroers: Thanks very much for coming in and sharing your information with
I us .
Lash: Don't forget your pictures .
' DISCUSS POTENTIAL OF AERATING LAKE SUSAN.
' Public Present:
Name Address
' David Zappetillo DNR Fisheries
Jerry Johnson DNR Fisheries
Al & Mary Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd .
Gene & Tylor Klein 8412 Great Plains Blvd.
Hoffman: Lake Susan , as it stands in Chanhassen is a 93 acre lake with a
II
maximum depth of 17 feet as shown on that overhead . Department of Natural
Resources management classification of the lake really is a regular winter
kill . Records of the past 20 years show that partial winter kills have
111 occurred in '74 , '75 , '76 , '77 , '78 , '79, '85, '86, '88 , '89 and '90. The
ecological classification of the lake is centrarchid which means fish of
the sunfish family which are the predominant species present in the lake .
Meaning sunfish, crappie, bass. Northern pike are also present and a
substantial population of bullhead and carp. The frequent winter kill
associated with Lake Susan have prompted many informal discussions in the
past concerning the possibility of stocking and providing an aeration
II system for the lake. Historically the circumstance which prevented moving
forward in this direction was the lack of the public access . However , with
the installation of the access now eminent, the DNR will provide lake
management which would include scheduled stocking . In fact the DNR has
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
August 27 , 1991 - Page 9
provided initial stocking of bass and walleye fry which are very small fish I
stocked shortly after hatching in the fall of 1990. To provide the
knowledge and experience needed to guide this discussion this evening ,
I invited Mr . Dave Zappetillo, Metro West Area Fisheries Supervisor and
Jerry Johnson , Regional Project Coordinator for the DNR. They are here
this evening and will discuss with you very shortly some of their ideas and
experience in this area . I have asked Dave and Jerry to discuss the I
various type of aeration systems available and to make a recommendation as
to the system which they feel would best suit Lake Susan. Again, there are
some concerns which the general public has in regards to the aeration
system. If we move forward in that direction, we have to address those
sufficiently and if the Commission wishes to pursue this activity, it would
be recommended that a public meeting be scheduled to gain input on the
proposed project and then pending a favorable outcome of this meeting, make
a recommendation to apply for a CORE Grant with the City Council . So with
that I 'd like to invite both Dave and Jerry to come on up. You can go
ahead and have a seat there. Larry, I think we 'll let either Dave and/or II
Jerry both just give you some brief overview comments on their position
with the DNR. Their experience in this area and then we'll open up for
public comment . We do have some people here from the Lake Susan area and
then take some comment from commissioners.
Dave Zappetillo: I 'm Dave Zappetillo , West Metro Area Supervisor . That
encompasses Hennepin, Scott and Carver Counties. I 'm basically responsible I
for the management of the lakes in those areas.. -.Lake Susan not only was
stocked with walleye fry and bass in 1990 but it was also stocked this past
spring with an additional stocking of walleye fry. I was invited by Todd
to come here and speak to you regarding the aeration. Aeration will solve, ,
it's been our experience it will solve the problem of the periodic winter
kill that occurs as you can hear almost yearly, if not partially. Just to
give you an example of winter kill type situation , if you're not familiar
with it , we look at approximately of 2 parts per million as a critical
standard in the winter time type conditions. What that means is that
critical period is if it drops slowly throughout the ice covered condition II
on the lake . Then it will 2 parts per million is kind of where the game
fish start dropping out.
Schroers: And what you 're speaking of is oxygen content in the water? ,
Dave Zappetillo: Correct sir . That's absolutely correct. Just to give
you an example , Lake Susan last winter , the winter of '90-'91 , in December II
when we took it the first time, it was 8 .3 parts per million a foot below
the surface and approximately 1 part per million on the bottom. A foot off
the bottom . In February, approximately the middle of February. I didn't II
write down the exact date but it was approximately the middle of February ,
we went out there and it was 1 part per million on the surface and about .4
of a part per million so we knew that unless the fish could find a refuge , ,
the game fish, any of the species of -fish out there, then they were in a
very stressful condition and more than likely were winter kill . That 's why
we made the additional stocking of walleye fry in this past spring . Any
other specific questions I can address and I 'll turn it over to Jerry here.
Jerry Johnson: Hi . I 'm Jerry Johnson and I 'm the Regional Project
Coordinator for the Department of Natural Resources in the seven county
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
•
August 27 , 1991 - Page 10
I metro area . Part of my job responsibilities is to coordinate aeration
systems for various communities . Todd asked me to describe a couple
different types of aeration systems we work with. The first one is the
' oxygen diffuser type and there 's one over at Round Lake in Eden Prairie .
That system would be similar to an aquariam where you 've got a pump
injecting oxygen into the water column. The drawback to this type of
I system is that it keeps, it erodes the ice so you 're looking at a lot of
open water . Now the system at Round Lake is operated prior to ice up in
hopes that it will turn the lake over and inject enough oxygen into the
water column so it ,will make it through the winter months . Unfortunately
II the last fall it was operated for such a short time due to some maintenance
problems that there wasn 't enough available oxygen to make it through the
winter so we had to supplement that system with a portable pump and baffle
type system . Now that type of system is the one I would recommend for Lake
Susan and that is basically a pump on floats which pumps water from a
certain point in the lake to an artificial cascade or baffle system and it
cascades down this ladder of baffles and oxygen is mixed with the water at
that point . It enters the waters it is fairly highly oxygenated water .
That again creates a refuge area which will keep fish from experiencing
winter kill conditions . There is a third type of aeration system and this
I type is used down at Cedar Lake and Scott County. Compare it to a bait
store aggitator in the minnow tank where the device actually aggitates
water , churns water and is directed in a specific direction and sets up
' currents but again this creates a large open area of water which is fairly
undesireable.
Schroers: From the standpoint of safety?
IJerry Johnson: Correct . There's several types . A portable pump and
baffle type aeration system can be installed . One is where we have these
I at various locations around the Twin Cities . I mentioned that we used the
one at Round Lake last winter . The baffle system sits right on shore and
the water cascades and just enters the lake from shore and it keeps a small
I area of water open . Another application of this system and we're working
on right now with the Minneapolis Park Board is that you bury the
artificial cascade so it 's not even seen. Thus reducing some of the
maintenance problems of icing up , etc . . But then the water is directed
' farther out into the lake and there is no open water problem associated
with that type . Unfortunately that's very expensive and it sounds like
your budget wouldn't allow such an application. On the other hand the
' portable pump and baffle type, we would be able to pick up the majority of
the purchase price . You would be responsible for running power to the
system and taking care of minor maintenance . Of course you need to apply
I for the permit and mark the system properly.
Schroers: Is the portable pump and baffle system as efficient in aerating
the lake? Will it do the job?
IJerry Johnson: Yeah, a lake this size it would be no problem. I 've
already done some calculations. For a lake this size it would require a 10
' hp motor with an 8 inch pump . About 150 feet of 8 foot hose and a baffle
chute . The dimensions are 24 inch x 24 inch x 144 inches. That system is
approximately $30 ,000 .00 and that 's a good round number for the systems we
issue through our CORE .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27, 1991 - Page 11
Schroers: And your department or the Department of Natural Resources will I
pick up some of the cost or the majority of it? All of the cost for
putting that into Lake Susan?
Jerry Johnson: Right .
Schroers: Then what would your recommendation be to safeguard the area?
Just fencing it and then putting thin ice signs?
Jerry Johnson: Right . Exactly. That 's all spelled out in the application
documentation.
Schroers: There 's actual standards and stuff?
Jerry Johnson: Yeah. And a lot of communities have actually gotten the I
blaze orange fencing.
Schroers: Yeah, construction fencing . ,
Jerry Johnson: Sure . To tell you a little bit about the CORE program and
how it works . We accept applications and then write them in a priority II
order for the seven county metro region. At budget time we sit down and
see how much money we have available to us and then go through the priority
for funding these projects. I
Lash: So are you saying we 'd just be on the list?
Jerry Johnson: Right . ,
Lash: So you're not saying that we would not .
Jerry Johnson: I can't guarantee that you would get one.
Robinson: And there was . '
Jerry Johnson: There was 4 applications last year and 3 of the 4 were
funded .
Robinson: And what would be the responsibility of the City of Chanhassen?
The maintenance?
Jerry Johnson: Right . And the liability insurance. 1
Schroers: And supplying the power?
Jerry Johnson: Right.
Schroers: And that 10 horse power motor is an electric motor? ,
Jerry Johnson: Right . It's a three phase electric motor but with the unit
comes a three phase power converter . I 'm not an electrician. I don't
quite understand this but as long as you have single phase coming to the
power pole , the systems come with about 150 foot of cord. The three phase
converter can be put right on the power pole.
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 12
IRobinson: What else would maintenance entail? The electricity .
Jerry Johnson: Sometimes these units have a tendency to ice up so daily
I inspections to make sure that water is flowing . The pump 's running .
Everything's intact .
II Schroers: And it would be the City 's responsibility I 'm pretty sure to put
up the fencing and signs in regard to safety?
Jerry Johnson: Correct.
IIPemrick: Is that all removed when the ice is out?
IJerry Johnson: Definitely.
Lash: And the City does that or you do that?
IIJerry Johnson: The City does that . We purchase it and then it's your
responsibility to house , maintain it and equip it.
IAndrews: Who owns it then? The City or do you still own it?
Jerry Johnson: We do .
IAndrews: You do? Alright. __
Schroers: Do you have to apply for that permit on a yearly basis or once
Iyou're granted a permit can you aerate from that point on?
Jerry Johnson: It 's an annual renewal .
ILash: What is the life expectancy of one of these things?
IJerry Johnson: 20 years .
Schroers: When you get a permit, say the first time it gets approved, we
get the system and the second year , if we already have the system here and
IIwe apply for it , is that basically just a formality to renew the permit?
Jerry Johnson: Right . I want to go back to your question. The system
Idoesn't have to run every year .
Lash: How do you know which years you have to run it?
IJerry Johnson: We have an oxygen monitoring program where we check area
lakes on a periodic basis and we don't or we will recommend to various
communities when it 's time to turn the machine on. When it gets
Idangerously close to winter kill conditions .
Lash: You 'll set it up each time or the City has to set it up?
IJerry Johnson: No . The manufacturer , the successful bidder is required to
give a seminar and set up demonstrations for the equipment and from then on
it 's the responsibility of the city or community to set up the equipment .
II
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 13
Andrews: Is this something where like at mid-winter we might be notified I
that it 's time to turn it on?
Jerry Johnson: We give you plenty of advance notice. I
Andrews: So you keep cutting holes in ice or is this something where?
Jerry Johnson: Yeah, the pump needs to be set in an open water space . I
That's usually done by cutting a hole 3 feet by 3 feet with a chainsaw .
It's really not that big of undertaking.
Andrews: I just kept imaging these 20 guys out there cutting this giant II
hole .
Schroers: Probably 2 guys and half a day could activate the system don't t
you think?
Jerry Johnson: I worked with the City of Eden Prairie last winter and the 1
three of us who had never put one together and you know worked on one
before had no problem setting it up ourselves.
Lash: So if the thing breaks down or wears out or in 20 years when it's
all been used , then do you just replace it or do we have to apply for a new
grant again? I
Jerry Johnson: I suspect in 20 years, in 10 years we'll have a whole new
type of aeration system .
Koubsky: Jerry, what 's the pump capacity on that? How much water are you
turning over?
Jerry Johnson: Our formula is that the system needs to produce 10 gallons 1
per minute per acre and Susan is almost 100 acres so we need to produce
1 ,000 gallons per minute . And the pump of 10 horsepower would be to
provide 1 ,500 gallons per minute . It 's nice to go high than low .
Koubsky: So then as your fish populations increase, which this is designed
to do correct . Do any of the communities kind of face then an over
population problem where they're becoming more and more dependent on this
as they get more fish?
Dave Zappetillo: Well yes it is but it's also you have a space in other I
environmental conditions that will maintain your fish population out there .
You have a space, critical carrying capacities of the lake. Things like
that are self limiting. You can't put two fish in one space you know.
That 's one thing that you can't do so as you establish a good population,
you'll have some big one , medium ones and smalls and as that sets up, then
what you're trying to do then is just maintain a refuge for those fish to I
survive in . That's the one thing you've got to keep in mind. It's not
going to create where it's going to make the lake or ice disappear . It 's
creating refuge of 2 parts per million or better so that fish are under a II
less stressful condition. -
Andrews: Do you typically close that kind of lake to ice fishing?
I
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 14
Dave Zappetillo: No. Absolutely not . Especially with a pump and baffle ,
that's the positive side of it . The safety factor is limited . If you do
for some reason, some child or inquisitive adolescent goes over the fence ,
' I mean if they drop through thin ice , they're going to drop up to their
waste max . So the area is a real shallow area that you 're physically
dropping into and that 's why the Department is to get a grant is almost
going exclusively pump and baffle because of that simple safety factor .
Andrews: I guess what I 'm envisioning here is ice fishermen being what
they are , they would tend to get as close to this thing as they possibly
could because that 's where the fish are going to be .
Dave Zappetillo: Well , there is that possibility but the thing about the
1 pump and baffle is it shoots it under the ice so you have a current of ,
well at the beginning it's about 7 or 8 parts per million. I 've heard
numbers thrown out and as it goes further and further out into the lake
obviously the volume is such that it's going to be reduced but you still
have better than 2 parts per million so the fish will seek out the best
area . But it 's still limited to volume of the lake. You 're not going to
find them right up at the pump and baffle . They can't handle the current
IIso they're going to be further out .
Andrews: This is kind of a question out of left field here but reading
I about milfoil being , prefers lakes of 20 feet or less as ideal growing
conditions . Is this going to any way .
IDave Zappetillo: Promote that?
Andrews: Pardon me?
IIDave Zappetillo: Are you saying promoting that?
Andrews: Promote milfoil for growth.
1 Dave Zappetillo: The milfoil when it shows up will seek it 's own and what
you 're trying to do has no bearing whatsoever on the fish population . What
I you 've just got to keep in mind now, what you're trying to do is maintain
the , allow the fish to survive a critical period in Minnesota . So the
other environmental conditions that would impact that body of water is not
a factor here . That's what you're trying to resolve and maintain a quality
II fishery throughout the year . If you know the, if you 've ever seen the hour
glass , you 're trying to open that neck of that hour glass as wide as you
can to allow another year to continue.
IKoubsky: Jerry or Dave , does trepidity become an issue?
I Dave Zappetillo: Generally not because what happens, what you generally do
is you put a solid area below where the initial force of the water hits .
I 've seen hoods of cars and things like that. Something that can
physically be removed so it will disipate that energy and move it out . I
IIdon't know what is Eden Prairie .
Jerry Johnson: I guess I don't understand .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
August 27 , 1991 - Page 15
Koubsky: Well your shooting water down. Obviously you're not shooting it I
up towards the ice because that would melt the ice and create a weak point
so I see a 1 ,000 gallons a minute being injected into the water and if it 's I
hitting the sediment , I see a silt problem .
Jerry Johnson: Yeah, there 's a plate on the base of the baffle system and
it directs the flow out and not down. There is no problem. We did have a II
problem over at Round Lake last winter in the bottom plate wasn't set up
properly and scoured a small hole that was soon corrected. It's really not
an issue . i
Dave Zappetillo: May I suggest if you were truly interested and obviously
we're talking a couple years . Maybe a year . Maybe a couple. It depends
on what funding. I can never predict, just like you can't predict what the
legislature 's going to do . In funding various programs like this but the
City of Eden Prairie which is one of your neighbors here do have two pump
and baffles . Brand new systems within the last year . One is on Red Rock
Lake and one is for Mitchell Lake . I would approach them and any problems
that they would have I would suggest talking . If you want to see a system
in operation, I know one will be on both of those lakes probably this
winter , assuming we have a severe winter . You can 't predict something else I
like that and that 's the other advantage of this pump and baffle system
that you should be aware of . Unlike a helexer system where you 've got to
start that before or during an early part of the winter because if you
don't you literally can cause a winter kill because you take a certain
amount of the energy of the force coming up to melt the ice to create the
open water . A pump and baffle system, you start it when you need to do it I
and you want to hit it before you hit that critical period but to give
yourself enough leeway. Therefore the 0 & M is reduced because you may not
start it until January 15th maybe and run it for 3 weeks because by
February 30th the lakes are starting to break up anyway . So those are the
other positive things that come into play here.
Schroers: I 'm wondering about maybe some other positive aspects in your
fisheries program. Are your people more eager to do more fish management
on a lake that is aerated because you think the rate of success is better?
And would you possibly be interested in doing something to remove some of
the rough fish out of the lake to give a healthier game fish population?
Dave Zappetillo: Well , a couple things that come into mind here. We 're
eager in the sense that we know the work that we're going to do has a
relative success potential . This is one of the things that I can honestly
say that when I put right in my proposal when I established to stock Susan
Lake. I said right after that we would stock it if a winter kill occurs. 1
This is one of the things that we understand these problems occur and we
will try to maintain it as best we can. Those yes. I would be more than,
I wouldn't say more than eager but I 'd be more favorably look upon
something like that that I know that what we're doing has some relative
means of success . I will hesitate if I know that next year I know it 's
going to have a strong potential of dying because why waste the time and
energy . It doesn't make any sense . As for removing under utilized
species , usually that 's self limiting too because as your gate fish
population rises, the other population will start to reduce because your
lake is only going to carry so many pounds of fish total . Whether they're I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 16
all carp, bullheads, walleyes or whatever . That 's self limiting in just
the volume of the water and other environmental conditions . So as you
start managing for game fish, your other population, you will not , we have
found that removing bullheads or carp physically doesn't really pay because
the repopulation comes in very quickly. -
Schroers: If the lake is healthy then it has kind of a self regulating?
Dave Zappetillo: You bet. You bet and that's our goal . I mean these
creatures have been on this earth longer than we have in most cases and my
goal is to make sure they take care of themselves because they'll do a lot
better job than I could ever do it .
Robinson: If Lake Susan is a maximum depth of 17 feet, do you happen to
know what Lake Ann is or Lake Lucy?
Dave Zappetillo: Not off the top of my head. I don't.
Hoffman: Lake Ann is about 36 feet and Lake Lucy 's about the same as
Susan. 16 or 17 .
Robinson: Okay . Does Lucy have the public access at this time?
IIDave Zappetillo: Lucy does not have a public access .
Lash: Who 's the supplier for the system?
1 Jerry Johnson: There is three different vendors that have gotten bids in
the past . One is Persone and Company . Excuse me , Persone Pump Company. . .
I out of North St . Paul . The other successful vendor was Tri State Pump and
Control of Minnetonka and Edina . There was another one but they're
insignificant at this point. They either disbanded.
IILash: Isn 't there a company right in Chaska?
Hoffman: They make the aeration. They make the impeller type which shoots
the air .
Lash:
So , not this type of system?
1 Hoffman: No .
Schroers: I have some personal experience on Hyland Lake in Bloomington
I and when I first began to work there that was a bad lake. It was filthy .
It didn't produce much other than bullheads and carp. It had a severe
algae problem. The lake smelled terribly in the summertime from the algae
' and from the dead fish. I was involved in a restoration program there by
which we drained the water out of the lake . Cleaned up the lake bottom.
Old farm machinery and barrels and all sorts of things that were in there
and also treated for algae and then an aeration system , the cascading type
II was installed there and that is now a very healthy lake with lots of nice
bass and sunfish in it and people enjoy it a lot and it's a definite
attribute to the community rather than an eyesore and a pain. From what
II 'm hearing here , if the DNR is gracious enough to provide this equipment
•
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 17
to us without charge to the City, it seems like a reasonable thing. I
think there are other people in the audience that would like to comment .
Al Klingelhutz: Well I haven't been before you people very often but I 've II
been before the City Council a few times and Planning Commission. I live
on Lake Susan. I 've lived by Lake Susan all my life which entails about 70
years now. I
Hoffman: Al Klingelhutz for the record.
Al Klingelhutz: And I 'm Al Klingelhutz. Address 8600 Great Plains Blvd. . II
I 've known the lake for a long time. I 've fished the lake for a long time .
Years ago when we were kids you didn't have much opportunity to go to any
other lakes unless you walked there and occasionally I did that down to
Riley or Lotus but as I can recall and my mother was born raised in the
same area and so was Gene Klein's dad who's sitting back here in the
audience . The first time the lake actually, what I call froze out was
when I was in the 7th grade at school . Before that time I would say that II
Lake Susan was one of the best fishing lakes in this whole area. In the
winter time you see lots of fish houses for northerns and a lot of people
out there crappie fishing and they 're always good sized crappie. After
that time the lake took a while to restore itself . Because we did not have
a public access we did not get any fish deposited in the lake. It was
dependent on the creeks running in and out of the lake to get' restocked and II
we didn 't have a lot of rain that the creeks run . It took a few years for
the lake to rejuvenate . Some of the things that have happened to Lake
Susan in the last 10 years as far as quite a few erosion problems from
development in the city I don't think has helped the situation too much. I II
give the people on Lake Susan a lot of respect for not opposing public
access on the lake like some other people possibly in the city have done so
that some of these things can be done in the future . This year I 've been II
out fishing and I like to take my grandchildren out and the neighbor boys
have been fishing and I just talked to Gene Klein here and his son was out
on the dock the other night and caught a walleye about 7 or 8 inches long. II
The one night I was out there trying to fish for sunfish and I caught 5
walleye . I was really surprised when they told me the oxygen count was
down to 1 . per thousand and these fish were stocked in 1990 and they lived
through that low oxygen thing . So did the sunfish, so did the bass. We've
caught several bass down there that weigh approximately a pound and a half .
Earlier in the year when the sunfish were biting better we did catch some
fairly good sized sunfish. But you can go down there and catch any
amount of sunfish just a little bit too small to take home and put in a pan II
at this time . There was even one northern pike caught and 1-understand
that , I talked to the DNR people here that they did not stock any northern I
pike and I just feel being we had heavy rains and the creek run between
Susan and Rice and Riley, we did get some northern pike back up into Lake
Susan . . .they've got inside their stomach . Here about 3 weeks ago my son
and I went out there and we caught 3 of these bass weighed an average of
about a pound and a half and did a little disecting into their intestines
and we found 2 of these small bullheads in and another small bullhead in
another one and the other one had a minnow in him so what they were saying II
about the fish equalizing themselves in the lake . When you get some of
these predator fish in the lake will take care of some of these unsavory
fish like a bullhead and small carp as they hatch and things like that . I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 18
feel grateful and I talked to Todd about an aerator for Lake Susan I think
for the last 2 years now . It just seems being we 're going to have a public
approach on the lake , the city 's planning on putting a dock out there , a
lot of the young people , children will be using that dock, it would be a
shame to let the supply of fish that are in there today die out if we have
another bad winter . What's great about the new public approach is the
' DNR's going to manage this area and if they feel that the fish population
is inbalanced, they will put in a new stock of fish that would bring this
balance in the proper order again . I 'm sure and I talked to, we had a
neighborhood party a week ago last Sunday and talked to most of the
' neighbors about this. I 'm sure if you have a public hearing that you 're
going to get a lot of support for an aerator in Lake Susan. One other
thing I 'm going to mention. Remember , I don't know if too many of you
remember when they were going to put a landfill just south of Chanhassen
here and I kind of headed up a force to avoid getting that landfill there .
We had a lot of people donate dollars to fight this and after we were all
through and got the landfill defeated, I deposited $300.00 in the State
' Bank of Chanhassen which is still in there and I think it was most of the
people in that area that would get a lot of benefit from this and if you
feel that you 're going to need this $300 .00, I think it would pay for the
' electricity for at least the first year or so. Thank you . And you 'll get
that check immediately when you get the aerator .
I Schroers: Thanks a lot . I don't see this as a real problem issue . I
don 't know actually how much more time we need to spend on this issue . If
any of the commission members have any particular questions in regard to
' what effects it would have on the lake or the fish , we could address that .
Otherwise I guess I would be ready to entertain a motion in favor .
Robinson: Just one more question . Is this a typical process where the DNR
I would purchase the equipment and the local community would maintain it such
as we 're talking about here?
IJerry Johnson: Right . If something major would go wrong with the system,
and at that point it 'd be up to the manufacturer or the DNR.
Schroers: Generally speaking an aerated lake , the fish grow to a larger
Isize in a shorter amount of time . Is that correct?
Dave Zappetillo: Well no, that 's not correct as such. There's a lot of
I variables that come into that equation but generally speaking, usually the
bodies of water that require aeration are usually very fertile for whatever
reason . Surface runoff . Usually hard surface runoffs are a lot more
' fertile than if it ran over grass or something but generally they 're very
fertile basins . That 's one of the reasons they freeze out is because the
wintertime they use more in decomposition than is produced in the
wintertime or the volume has so the factors that would allow for fast
growing fish is there . So therefore , what you want to do is you reach a
larger sized fish quicker than you would in someplace like the northeastern
part of the State because the fertility isn't there. You still have the
I limiting factor of the number of fish that can reach the larger size. You
still have the volume consideration. The size of the lake is only 100
acres so those things are just like your aquarium at home . You put in a
small fish in there , it 's still only going to reach a size relative to the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,
August 27 , 1991 - Page 19
space that's available to it . So I mean those are the things that you as a I
manager , when you do that you look at those things . But you've got to
start and if you know that you're not even going to reach a growth
potential in 2-3 years because you know that the winter kill 's going to
occur , or partial winter kill and that means that the most susceptible will
go and the ones that aren't so susceptible will stay around. I think this
is what happened here is that you 're catching some of the fish that are a I
little bit more hardy. Or they found a small refuge but the population is
not there . So I mean those are the things , and then when you have a real
hard winter , real thick ice , lots of snow , then the whole thing will go.
You just don't know when that 's going to occur .
Schroers: Even with an aerator in it may totally freeze out in an
extremely bad winter?
Dave Za'ppetillo: I have never experienced that except for one time and
that was on Hyland Lake . What happened there is the aerator broke down
so I mean it really wasn't , they had problems with it mechanically and they
didn't run it for a period of time and we had a partial winter kill , but
that 's the exception rather than the rule. I have not heard, when an
aeration system is put in properly , and I emphasize that because it has
some design limitations. Size of lakes that you can put these in and
things like that . But as long as it 's put in properly, I 've never had one
experience a winter kill no matter what kind of winter we had. '
Jerry Johnson: It 's more an issue of the fish finding the refuge area if
the winter kill conditions are severe . We have a lake on the east side of I
St . Paul that's a very shallow basin and we seem to get a fish kill every
year and it 's just a small percentage of the population. It looks
significant when they 're up on shore in the spring but it really isn't . I
And these fish just have not found the refuge area or they're blocked from
the refuge area because of the shallow water and the lack of oxygen. Water
count .
Andrews: One last question of Todd . Would the electricity and maintenance II
of this come directly out of Park Board funding or would that come out of
city funding after installation. We would go ahead and budget for it in
one of the park functions , correct .
Jerry Johnson: A system of this size requires about $7.00 a day in
electricity cost.
Lash: And typically it would start in December sometime do you think or
not until January? '
Jerry Johnson: It varies with the winter . I would say the average time is
the middle of January . '
Lash: Two months maybe tops?
Jerry Johnson: Two or three depending on the winter . '
Schroers: So it 'd be like $240.00 for an entire season operating cost?
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 20
' Dave Zappetillo: If you really want hard figures , and I re-emphasize , look
and if you 're interested in seeing a system work, I would go look at Red
Rock or Mitchell which I say is your neighbor here and ask them
1 specifically any unique questions for the area . So it's fairly close and
it 's in a similar type situation. They're bigger , well no. Red Rock 's
about the same size come to think of it so it gives you , if you really want
II to see , to correlate something for budget purposes. We can give you
ballpark figures for what we've experienced and everything but if you
really want to talk to someone who's physically running one, check with
' them.
Hoffman: I have been in contact with the City of Eden Prairie .for some
preliminary information and they'd be glad to provide any additional . I
II
think one clarification for the benefit of the audience who do not have the
report . The one down side to all of this is that we're not eligible for a
cycle 1991 grant or for this upcoming year so we have really no mechanism
to go ahead and install this this coming year . We would have to take a
look at a 1992 grant application and make it through one more year out at
Lake Susan without an aeration system . Then again we would, as they
I stressed, we would only be eligible for that grant application. The CORE
or the Cooperative Opportunity for Resource Enhancement program is the same
program which we acquired the fishing pier at Lake Ann which Jerry works
with . And again at this time I 'd like to take a moment just to thank both
I Jerry and Dave for coming out . The time they took is very appreciated .
I know Dave at least was at the State Fair all- day and working the crowds
so it tacked an extra addition onto his day at least .
IAndrews: Do you need a motion for a public hearing?
I Hoffman: If you want to pursue that , yes and then I would lay out some
type of timeline to take a look . Again , unfortunately we 're not in a hurry
so that would probably take place sometime after the first of the year and
then look into a schedule .
IJerry Johnson: Can I stop you there?
Hoffman: Sure .
Jerry Johnson: I require a CORE application by the end of the year so
' you're in line for the next budget cycle .
Hoffman: Great. We 'll move that up.
Jerry Johnson: So we'd want it at the latest December 1st .
Schroers: Of 1991?
IJerry Johnson: Of 1991 . And I require resolution from the Board because
we have a number of projects out there that were funded and the city
official who submitted the application didn't bother asking the rest of the
Icity officials .
Pemrick: Is there a noise nuisance for nearby neighbors if this runs 24
Ihours a day?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 21
Lash: If we want to have the public hearing, maybe we want to talk about II
it if you think that's even necessary or whatever but if we decide we don't
want to take the time to do that , I would certainly want a letter or maybe
there could be a neighborhood meeting that you could explain to them what's II
happening. Some way for them to be kept up to date on what's happening.
Schroers: Could we simplify this process this evening by just making a
motion to direct staff to go ahead with the necessary proceedings in
regards to applying for the grant?
Hoffman: Sure . '
Robinson: I 'd second that .
Schroers moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission II
direct staff to take appropriate action in coordinating procedures
necessary to pursue acqusition of an aerator for Lake Susan. All voted in I
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Al Klingelhutz: I 'd just like to ask the DNR people one question. What I
other thing could be done to. . .in the winter of 1991-92? To save the fish
that we have there now.
Dave Zappetillo: Well this is something that I would suggest. I 've heard I
it presented on a couple of occasions if you're looking at a very short
timeframe . The simplest thing that I would do to save a body of water like
this for a one year period is shovel the snow off . Make sure the ice is '
safe of course but just remove the snow . Remove the snow on a portion of
the lake . You wouldn't have to remove it all I wouldn't think but remove
as much as, you know one of the basins somewhere . That was one of the
things that I would suggest or if the homeowners wanted to do it or the
Asociation wanted to do it. That 's probably the simplest and easiest .
What you want to do is allow the light to penetrate through for any plants
that may be still alive , they can photosynthesize. That 's probably one of I
the simplest things you can do short of digging . Opening holes or
something because the inherent problem with that . There's no guarantees
that that will work but I 've seen it experienced in other bodies of water '
and usually that associated with kids doing hockey rinks. They create a
hockey rink out of the pond and they keep it open and generally that's
enough.
Schroers: Ice fishermen drilling holes into the lake really doens't do
anything as far as oxygenation?
Dave Zappetillo: Not enough unless you get a lot of them out there . There I
is something if you really want to see what we call in the business a boom
and bust fisheries. If you look at the lake survey that we have that was
done in 1988. By the way , this will be rescheduled for 1983 to be done .
We try to do a one in every 5 year cycle. That's usually our routine .
Look , you can almost see it because we fly over designated areas for fish
house counts and generally these are permanent houses that we fly over I
and Lake Susan , we put this as part of the lake survey. Lake Susan, just
interesting . I was just looking at that because it's a classic example of
it . Anglers will go out there when there's fish available to catch . But
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 22
in 1985, '86 and '87 they had 5 fish house counts. Now that was before the
public access went in so you know they were local people . But in '88 and
'89 there were zero . In 1990 I believe there was zero also. Now we try to
11 do this the same time of the year every year and we schedule it so it gives
you a good idea when there was a fisheries out there that was worth angling
for and when there wasn't. And I 'll almost bet a nominal sum of money that
' once an aeration system goes in there and fisheries is established you 'll
see that number jump dramatically.
' Schroers: Interesting. Thank you very much for your time . We appreciate
it .
PARK AND TRAIL FEE REVENUE REPORT.
' Hoffman: Item 4 is brought to the Commission as a point of interest to
keep you up to date with how the park and trail fees are coming in. As of
July 31 , 58% of the year expired, we had just about $57 ,000.00 in park fees
collected and $20,300.00 in trail fees collected. Again, those fees
represent in park fees , 51 .6% of our budget which is then slightly below
that 58% and 40.5% of the budgeted amount for trail fees which is
II
considerably more or less than the 51 .6. However with a good portion of
the busy construction season ahead of us, it 's no cause for alarm at this
time . Park and trail revenues this year account for $60 ,000.00 of the
' $175,000 .00 budgeted for improvements in the fund 410, Park Acquisition and
Development . The remaining $15 ,000.00 is budgeted under donations of which
only $1 ,700.00 or 11 .33% have been collected to date . The explanation
I given there I believe we've discussed before . Chaska Lion's have pulled
out of Filly 's and currently only operate at Pauly's. I can't predict what
the total amount of donations will be but it certainly will be less than
$15 ,000.00 . Point of interest. The reason or one of the reasons we 're so
I far behind or further behind in trail fees is that a major portion of those
homes being developed this year are in the Lake Susan Hills West and with
the sidewalks which they 're constructing in that area , there's no trail fee
I collected from those building permits so that's a high percentage of the
building permits in the city this year . So that's why that 's shown as
slightly behind. Again, not a big concern at this time . With the
I construction of the grocery store , mall area pending , if that comes
through, that will more than heal our deficit here in short order . For
your interest again , an itemization of park and trail fees collected to
date is shown. You also have a map of the revenue zones which been created
following natural instructional boundaries for our finance department and
Park and Recreation Department to be able to track where those revenues are
coming from . At this time I will take any questions from the commission
' members on the revenue report.
Schroers: Looks to me like it 's well prepared and pretty self explanatory .
' Robinson: And you expect the trend to continue and we can expect a
shortfall at year end?
IHoffman: A shortfall?
Robinson: Yeah.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,
August 27 , 1991 - Page 23
Hoffman: Again , if the pending grocery store comes through, we should make I
up that difference in that one building permit coming through. That's a
large piece of property. It 's commercial . It will be charged $2,500.00
per acre . I don't recall the total acreage off the top of my head but it's II
approximately 15-20 acres .
Schroers: What's the hold up on that? I thought that was already going to
be built . Where's the problem?
Hoffman: The word right now sounds like ground breaking in September for I
the grocery store. But again that's .
Schroers: That must be just about as difficult as an archery range .
Hoffman: Pretty close .
Lash: And a South Lotus tennis court.
Schroers: Okay , do we need to spend anymore time on item 4? Anything else
on that?
SITE PLAN REVIEW: CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER PUD.
Schroers: We 're going to omit item 5 tonight . The person involved wished
to extend for sometime down the road because they have some more work to do
on that .
Hoffman: Can I just have a moment to make some brief comments Larry? '
Schroers: Sure .
Hoffman: It was pulled at the request of Ryan Construction, the company
who owns the property and then RLK Associates , the people working with them
on that . Initial reactions from Ryan upon discussing this recommendation
with Kent Carlson , the property development manager , was fairly passive .
He wasn't too worried about the report recommendations. However , after
Ryan and RLK had time to discuss the matter they asked that it be pulled
from tonight 's agenda . Presumably that's to give them an opportunity to
develop a rebuttal to my recommendation which was prepared for tonight . So
that gives them a month's timeframe until our next meeting. So again this
item will be scheduled again for September 24th. I believe that the basis
of that report presented by the applicant will be their belief that Outlot
A should be accepted in lieu of park fees. We'll prepare an updated report
on this item in response to additional information provided by the
applicant over the next few weeks. I believe they are going to come in
with a revised development plan which then we 'll have to work off of . If
in reviewing this item between now and the upcoming meeting commission
members have any questions, either give me a call or stop in the office and I
we'll go through it. It's a big chunk of property and as stated in my
report in your packet, they wish to dedicate Outlot A and then to construct
a trail in lieu of full park and trail dedication fees. It is staff 's
belief falling back on city ordinances that Outlot A does not meet the
requirements of land which is eligible for parkland dedication credit. As
stated, we can visualize what these people are going to be wanting that are II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 24
' working in that location. They 're going to want to be involved in youth
athletic associations and in adult softball leagues and active type of
pursuits . That Outlot A contains the creek which is already protected by
the setback . The 75 foot setback . Contains their holding pond which is as
we 've heard tonight . . .undesireable . It 's in the Watershed District . They
pose very stringent restrictions on it so it's not as if we don't accept it
I they can develop that piece of property but they certainly would like to
get out from beneath the approximately $160,000.00 in park fees that this
would generate if we did accept it .
Lash: Have we in any of the other industrial areas like this taken park
property?
Hoffman: Rosemount we accepted additional park property for Lake Susan for
the construction of the boat access . So definitely that was a trade-off
but we also , that was just a portion of their park fees.
Andrews: We got a piece of quality property .
Hoffman: Correct .
IILash: But that was for an overall kind of scheme of things for a community
park . I mean in a typical industrial complex like this , do we want to
Iplunk a park in the middle of the whole thing?
Hoffman: Not necessarily , no . As I stated , if they were willing to give
' us one of their lots to construct ballfields on for the leagues which that
area is going to generate , it's a large industrial development. Upwards of
thousands of employees . If they would want to do that we would certainly
consider that but short of that , I recommend that we go after the park
I fees .
Schroers: Well the location of this really doesn't lend itself very well
IIfor park property anyway .
Koubsky: The one problem though is everybody with the softball , everybody
would be over at the Sunset Ridge balifield which is a neighborhood park .
IIThat 's the closest thing. It 's right across the street .
Hoffman: Hopefully they're involved in some type of industrial softball
Ileague which would then take place at Lake Ann.
1991 MINNESOTA RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE.
' Hoffman: The 1991 MRPA conference is scheduled for Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday this November 20th thru 22nd at the Radisson Hotel in Bloomington,
Minnesota . Same location which it was held last year . There's an
II
opportunity for any commission who would like to partake in this conference
if you choose . The daily conference package as well as full conference
packages are available to board and commission members of MRP which this
I commission is. The budget for commission member participation in our 1991
budget totals $500 .00. The conference includes keynote speakers ,
educational sessions , general sessions , the Hall of Ideas and Exhibit Hall ,
professional meetings , socials and awards banquet . Some of you may have ,
• Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
August 27 , 1991 Page 25
are more familiar than others withe the conference but it is our
professional conference within the State of Minnesota for professionals
within the field of recreation and parks. We should see registration
materials coming out in your Keeping Up. If you don't receive that let me
know and I 'll get you a copy of those materials . And if you are interested
in at all attending , please contact me or let your intentions be known
tonight and I 'll kind of act as a booking registration agent for any
commission members who would like to become involved on either a limited or II
more extensive basis .
Schroers: Can you obtain a schedule or calendar of events. I 've been to '
this in the past and there are some things that go on at certain times that
people may be more interested in rather than not interested. If you have a
schedule you can look at what day might be a better day to attend because
different things are scheduled on different days.
Hoffman: Sure . I happen to be on the conference work committee and have a I
fairly concise schedule of events . I 'll make sure that is up to date and
then I can mail that to you so we have some time inbetween when the actual
final registration material will come out to take a look at that and see if I
you are indeed interested.
Schroers: What days of the week did you say that was?
Hoffman: Wednesday , Thursday , Friday.
Lash: Is that the week before Thanksgiving? '
Hoffman: Thanksgiving?
Ruegemer: Thanksgiving's the 27th I think . ,
Hoffman: Just a show of' hands of anybody who may be interested . Okay .
Again, once you see the schedule of events, then you can get into a
particular topic . Perhaps something jumps out at you of special interest
on a personal basis.
Schroers: Having attended this in the past, I can tell you that there are I
a few very interesting speakers. You're likely to pick up some good
information and be kind of entertained at the same time .
Lash: So people. . .and this is just a personal questions . Do you take a
vacation day or since you work for Hennepin Parks are they like happy for
you to take off work to go to this? '
Schroers: That depends on how things are going and how I 'm getting along
with my supervisor at that point in time. They might say that that would
be.
Andrews: It depends if he gets caught .
Schroers: If they feel that it would be beneficial to Hennepin Parks for
me to attend, they would probably , we have a deal where we can be paid for
education that will benefit the parks so I would have to work that out .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 26
Otherwise , a vacation day .
Andrews: Todd , if there 's anything in that conference about a municipal
golf courses I would be interested in knowing when that might be scheduled .
Hoffman: I believe I saw something . I 'll mail a schedule of events and
then just to take your own action in getting back to me on that. Either
before the next meeting.
' ESTABLISH 1992 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET.
Hoffman: As discussed at the last meeting I was going to bring this back
either at this commission meeting or the following and then lo and behold ,
plop comes the budget material from the finance department on my desk so I
have to have that into them by the 9th so I went ahead and scheduled it on
this agenda . Again, the budget discussions were held the past 2
commission meetings . The June 25th and July 23rd meeting . The results of
those work sessions is tabulated in the attached proposed 1992 park
acqusition and development CIP. A budget cap of $150 ,000 .00 was utilized
I in preparing this recommendation. This includes anticipated revenues of
$145 ,000 .00 in park and trail fees and $5 ,000 .00 in donations from the
Chaska Lion's. Park and trail fee revenues for 1992 are estimated taking
' into account past revenue totals . Performance in this area this year and
the forecasted building activity in Chanhassen for 1992 and beyond. The
figure of $145 ,000 .00 is $30 ,000 .00 less than the estimated revenue for
1991 and is slightly below the re-estimated actual revenue for that same
I year . Consulting with the City Manager , staff is confident this budget
request will match closely with the actual conditions in 1992 . As the
commission can see from the itemized 410 Park Acquisition and Development
budget , it accomplishes all items discussed at the last meeting.
Commissioners have the opportunity to comment on the proposed budgets
allowing changes to be made prior to the submission to the finance
department and eventually onto City Council . Again I 'm also aware that the
II commission has a desire to take a broader look at the department 's
activities by making use of a detailed 5 year capital improvement program .
This particular discussion was not . . .for a series of work sessions starting
later this year . With that staff recommends approval of the 1992 capital
improvement budget as shown. Minor changes and detailed expenditures
requested by the commission can be accommodated.
ISchroers: Does anyone have questions in regards to the information Todd
has provided us with?
I Koubsky: I think it all looked pretty good. I guess I would ask for a
couple of trees at Sunset Ridge Park. It's all pretty flat. There isn 't a
lot of building on the west side . That gets pretty hot and you will be
I putting in a play area . I know you re-arranged that a little bit but if
some trees could go on the west side of the play structure to create some
shade in the future .
1 Hoffman: To bring you up to date . The .park maintenance division is having
a strong replanting effort this fall and will be taking trees out of the
nursery to do that . Again, we have to exactly where the locations of all
IIthe facilities and these will be prior to that occurring . Budgeted amounts
I •
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
August 27 , 1991 - Page 27
which are shown in here . 4 trees would augment that tree farm plantings
and would then allow us to buy balled and burlap or spaded trees from a
local vendor . The larger size that we can handle out at the nursery to
supplement some of those areas, especially around play equipment and around II
areas where we hold programs. Summer discovery playground at parks and
that type of thing .
Lash: That kind of answers my question because I thought that the trees
were free from the tree farm and when I saw the $800.00 and those amounts
budgeted in a couple of places, I was kind of confused. But I think at the II
last meeting Jim didn 't you say you didn't think that North Lotus really
needed any trees? Maybe we could take the money from that and switch it to
Sunset .
Andrews: Yeah, the trees that are there are small but I think there are
enough there that given time they get a little bigger will provide the
shade that you 'd really want. And if you put too many more there I think II
you'd have a situation where 5-6 years from now you 'd be removing a tree
which doesn't make a lot of sense to me .
Lash: So do you think we could just switch that? i
Andrews: I think we could take that out of there yeah.
Hoffman: The intent with that again as stated at the last discussion was
for boulevard trees along the roadways to create a boulevard type of
presence along the ballfield and then along Pleasant View.
Lash: Well you know, if that 's an aesthetic thing and there 's already some
trees there and the other park doesn't have any trees , then it seems like 11
the need is to have some more where we have none and then later on go back
and do that . Just to make it better . Another thing that I had a question
on was the park signs . They're listed individually for each park and then
at the back there 's $3 ,500 .00 for 50 signs . 1
Andrews: That 's for the rule signs. The other one was for the entry signs
that identify each park . I
Lash: Oh, those aren't the rule signs?
Andrews: No . I
Lash: Oh, okay. Then another question I had was on City Center Park play
equipment expansion and then 50% share? 1
Hoffman: The next phase of playground equipment for the south playground
would be $20 ,000 .00 and we discussed at the last meeting that we would go
50/50 split with the school district . So if we go ahead and pass this
through final budget , we'll begin some preliminary discussions with the
school district so they know our intent .
Lash: But you don't have any kind of a commitment from them at this point
for any money right?
I
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 28
Hoffman: No .
Lash: I am going to try talking to Kitty Sitter from the APT of
Chanhassen . She's the President of the APT and I know that they already
donated a substantial amount last year . It will probably be tough for us
to try to get them to donate any more . But in doing some fundraising at
East Union Elementary a few years ago, I became aware of a funding program
through Lutheran Brotherhood Insurance Company . That if you do fund
raising on your own for something like for your school or some organization
' but it has to be a concrete type thing . It can't be for paper goods or
things like that, they will match your fund raising efforts up to $1 ,500.00
so I thought maybe if I mentioned that to here we could get a commitment
from APT for $1 ,500.00 with Lutheran Brotherhood matching it and that would
be another $3 ,000 .00 from them.
Hoffman: Again, that $10,000 .00 can float around in there and if the
' commitment does not come through , we can either allow it to stay in reserve
and gain interest or reallocate it at some point in the year .
' Schroers: Okay. Any other particular concerns on the proposed budget?
Hoffman: Just to back up to Jan's comment . A note on the signs . The wood
park identification signs are the large wood roistered signs. Traditionally
to purchase those was in excess of $500.00 so in talking with our park
maintenance people they will construct those signs over the winter
routering themselves and $250.00 is included for materials cost .
I Materials , tooling , that type of thing for those signs so we 'll go ahead
and begin making those ourselves.
' Schroers: Okay . Anything else? If not , we need a motion to recommend
approval of the Capital Improvement budget as shown for 1992.
Hoffman: With the noted change . $800 .00 trees going to Sunset Ridge .
IAndrews: I move that we approve Capital Improvement Budget as amended .
' Pemrick: I 'll second .
Lash: I 'm sorry , I had another question. It's not going to change
anything but what are the , you have under Lake Susan aeration system ,
' installation $4 ,000 .00.
Hoffman: Again, in talking to the folks at Eden Prairie , it's just a rough
I estimate on the cost of the initial hook-up of electrical service and those
types of things for trenching that in. The purchase is obviously quite a
bit more than that . Maybe $30 ,000 .00 so $4 ,000 .00 presumably would take
' care of the hook up and initial costs associated with that first year
connection . That does not include an allocation for electricity.
Electricity would not be coming out of the 410 budget . It would be taken
out of a 145 recreation budget .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 29
Andrews moved, Pemrick seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend approval of the 1992 Capital Improvement Budget amended to change
the $800.00 installation of trees from North Lotus Lake Park to Sunset
Ridge Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATES:
LAKE SUSAN PARK. 1
Hoffman: This is brought to the Commission's attention. Just to keep you
up to date . We have a lot of capital improvement projects taking place
within the city. Some are just beginning and some are in their completion
stages. Lake Susan , as stated. Work was to commence on that today. Monday
the contractor did miss , through some miscommunications amongst themselves,
did miss a locate meeting for utilities. That was rescheduled for tomorrow 1
morning and they tell me the excavator will be back in there sometime
tomorrow morning to begin excavation work on the parking area and the boat 1
ramp. The general contractor has been in there and installed the silt
fence down around the lake for construction activity and floating silt
curtain within the lake for the dredging out of the boat access area . So
we are moving foward . I know Larry had a question tonight about the archery 1
range and if we can speed things up there to attempt to get that into place
for this year 's prime season for tuning up for the bow season . All through
the year I had no worries about that because completion date was set for
June 15th on this project . Obviously that has not occurred so .
Schroers: Has that been given to the contractor? Is the contractor
actually supposed to be putting in the archery range?
Hoffman: They 're doing some work associated with that archery range ,
correct . 1
Schroers: The grading or berming?
Hoffman: Grading , berming and then restoration of the area . 1
Schroers: So we have to wait for that? We can't go ahead and acquire
bales and put bales out there just so people have a place to get ready for 1
the season?
Hoffman: The contractor would push them over and do his work and would
have to go in there and install it. Unfortunately .
Lash: Are they giving you a completion date now?
Hoffman: Exact completion date is about a month, month and a half. Again
that's just from the time that they start. I 've frazzled myself in trying in
to nail these people down and attempted to do so for this evening was
disappointed with them that I had to come back and say work had not started II
today. Hopefully it will start tomorrow. Again to back up, that resulted
from the spring rains and then we also had the Watershed District imposed
stiffer restrictions on us than they originally had done so we had to go
back to the Watershed District which is a timely commitment to get their
approval on plan changes in the park development so as a result of those
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 30
two delays , here we are . Two months , two and a half months later .
SOUTH LOTUS LAKE PARK.
Hoffman: Again just an update of the update . The work has -been completed
on there . The repair work and the bituminous patching which they
II originally installed was completed today . That job has been finaled. We
will do a final walk thru on it in the very near future and will go ahead
and take over the upkeep and maintenance of that area . A side note, as
' part of their project or in conjunction with their project , the City public
works and park maintenance people will go ahead and reconstruct. As you
drive down the boat access the hill off to the right hand side was very
' difficult to maintain because of the grade so they've deposited additional
fill in that area . Regraded it with the involvement of the two adjoins
property owners . Keeping them involved in the process and it looks much
nicer . They 've restored the area and reseeded it so now the boat access in
' it 's present state should be very maintainable . The heavy rains which we
have seen , the new retention areas and holding pond in the lower area has
performed very well so in my opinion, hopefully this lake should no longer
Ibe a pain in our side .
Koubsky: Was that all within budget Todd?
IHoffman: Correct . All within budget . `
Koubsky: They did a nice job.
IRobinson: Yeah , it does look nice .
ICITY CENTER PARK.
Hoffman: City Center Park has progressed very smoothly. We had a final
walk through last Friday . They needed to reconstruct a portion of one
I retaining wall which was in a leaning condition and take care of some
sodding problems and soil compaction . Those types of things. Minor
instances but the north playground, Judd Fehrma.n , the Eagle Scout project ,
I when he initially got into it he thought he took on something bigger than
he could handle but after a couple of days he saw that he could accomplish
it . He performed very well in doing so . Excavation of the excess soils
I allowing installation of the pea gravel did occur . That was in the
contract which we approved there . City crews will begin installation of
the first phase of the handicapped accessible play equipment which was
purchased last year and then delivery of the main structure is anticipated
I the first week of September with completion by either late September or
early October of that piece. And if you recall , the conflicts which
occurred there would be Community Development Block Grant people . We did
I not include installation of that piece of handicapped equipment into that
contract or we would have to abide by very stringent wage controls and to
tack that onto our package , bid package would have been very difficult so
I we went ahead and took the installation on ourselves. Tennis courts have
been repaired . They're complete . They're being practiced on by the Middle
School JV tennis group for the last two days . The public has been calling
daily to get back on the courts . They're in excellent condition and should
IIservice this area well for a number of years. And then the south area ,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 31
again I went over that somewhat . They're nearly complete . The change in I
appearance of that area , if you haven't been up there is just dramatic .
The play value and the lack of the mess and the mud and those types of
things is quite remarkable. That is the area which they are repairing that
portion of retaining wall which we required them to do.
HERMAN FIELD PARK.
Hoffman: The clearing and grubbing stage is now complete. Grading will
commence very shortly. I have not heard back from the resident , the Lang's
who are quite concerned about the initial shock of seeing that much
vegetation taken out of that area for the installation of that access road. II
In walking the area with them, they are reassured that we are not outside
of our boundaries and all the things that are being done up there are what
they understood through their involvement in the public hearings and those
types of things so I 've not heard from them since those initial reactions .
LAKE ANN PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER. '
Hoffman: Last night at the City Council meeting, City Council approved
site A as shown in the attachments which were mistakenly put in here twice. II
They were installed in the. . .section as well . Are there any questions on
that? We can address those after my report.
CURRY FARMS PARK. 1
Hoffman: Scheduled improvements to Curry Farms included a play area
expansion , installation of ballfield backstop and an aggregate infield and
installation of bituminous walkway. As stated, all those work functions
are in progress . They had an earth mover in there to strip out the trail
and apply the aggregate and will be doing the bituminous in short order
when they do some other work within the city .
SUNSET RIDGE PARK. I
Hoffman: It's in the evolution stages. The grading. The major portion of
the finished grading is completed using city crews and rented equipment .
The diagram which I showed you on some of those changes may take on a
slightly different look as a result of the recent grading activity out
there which showed a whole new view of that park from which we initially
had when we first walked that and advocated these changes. In fact, one of
those play items, either the volleyball court, play area or the tennis
court will potentially move down into the lower portion of the park where
the play area was initially shown. The play area does fit very nicely in
the relocated area shown. It sits up on top of the hill which is visible
from all areas of the park and visible from a majority of the adjoining
property owners . That low area would be very conducive to possibly the
sand volleyball court. . .being the case of a severe rain in that area , it II becomes somewhat saturated . That particular facility will not be hindered
in that regard. So I 'll keep you up to date on the park master plan.
Again we want to keep Mark Koegler and the people at Van Doren-Hazard
informed so we can bounce those ideas and changes off of them. The park is
really in an exciting stage. It's evolving daily and once the finished
grade is in , there will be restoration work , installation of infield
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 32
' aggregate , staking out of the play areas and then final restoration
including seeding and potentially mulching of the area . Any questions on
any of the updates or any of the particular park activity which is
I occurring?
Robinson: This is a nice little summary . A nice little update. I
appreciate that .
Hoffman: You 're welcome.
' Andrews: It 's exciting to see all this stuff going on. It's very
rewarding to see results of all these meetings.
Schroers: Maybe since we 're on this subject , it may be an appropriate time
to mention the $1 ,200 .00 that we allocated to the city of Victoria for the
completion of that section of trail which borders Chanhassen as it goes
from Excelsior to Victoria has been completed. I rode my bike on it on
Sunday and it was wonderful . I think anyone that is interested in a nice
little bike ride or a walk or whatever should try it .
' Pemrick: Where do you pick it up?
Schroers: You can pick it up on the west end of Excelsior at one point .
There 's one parcel missing in this trail now and that is through the city
of Excelsior so if we have somehow an opportunity, some kind of leverage or
some kind of opportunity to work with the city- of Excelsior to get them to
finish the portion that runs through town , you can go all the way from east
' of 494 on a trail with no traffic all the way out to Carver Park and
there's a sput that adjoins Carver Park's 7 mile paved trail . You can make
an all day trip with that or just do short portions. It 's really nice and
' I think we should feel good about our part in completing that section .
Hoffman: Thank you for bringing that up Larry. I also received one call
from a landowner up there who is somewhat distressed that the city of
' Victoria was placing signs saying no horses . Obviously he wanted to use it
for a horse trail and he was questioning why they were posting that on the
city of Chanhassen property. As we've gone through, that is not the case .
' So he was happy to receive a clarification on that but that is just a taste
of what we 'll deal with on the south trail alignment as you see in the
Adminstrative Packet the correspondence going back and forth to the city of
Eden Prairie . We could get into this cat and mouse situation where we're
' going to wait until what they see right now. They're saying they're going
to wait until they see what we do so we're going to face that issue and
whether or not we end up with pedestrians and bikes on top of the hard
I surface and then take the extra expense to accommodate horses alongside
through clearing and the necessary grading to make that area accessible or
if we mix the whole use or if we exclude horses, that 's a debate which is
Iyet to be tackled later this year .
Lash: On the south playground Todd, is all of the equipment that 's coming,
is that there and in? I was up yesterday and just drove through the
Iparking lot . That 's it?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 F Page 33
Hoffman: The $10,000.00 bought that green and tan piece which is there
installed .
Lash: Then I had a question on, you said that the Council approved Site A. 11
What was the , it says there was a hold up because Mayor Chmiel had some
concerns?
Hoffman: The major question I believe he had was the building serves two II
different uses . One is to service the beach but then you have to balance
it with the group picnic reservation site . It's just a matter of
circumstance and then the layout of the park. If you had the best of both
worlds , you'd like to have it close to parking yet close to the beach.
Obviously that cannot occur so what it came down to is we cannot sacrifice
accessibility for the mere convenience of not having to walk that extra 150
200 feet from the beach to get to a restroom. You still will pass by the
building both on your travel to the beach and then on your exit .
Lash: So his main concern was that it was too far from the beach? '
Hoffman: Correct .
Schroers: Anything else on Capital Improvement updates? ,
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS.
Andrews: I 've got two real tiny little minor points. North Lotus Lake
Park, I noticed now that both volleyball nets are gone. I don't know if
they were both stolen, I assume. ,
Ruegemer : Earlier this summer one was stolen .
Andrews: That 's last week because they were up there playing over the ,
weekend and then it was gone . The other point and this was just again a
minor point . The tennis courts are just now in the early stages of
cracking . I don't know if this is something where it would be easier to
fix it now before it gets. I know they 're pretty new and they are still in
very good shape but there are a few cracks developing near the playing
surface of the court that perhaps some pretty minor maintenance could stop II
it before the water gets in there and freezes and really rips it apart .
Hoffman: Jerry brought up the nets today and we discussed it . We'll
probably try to limp along and make it through the rest of the year .
Andrews: I think if they're being stolen as it is , I think we had one
stolen last year if I remember correctly. Maybe we have to put up a sign , II
if you want a net call City Hall and reserve one but I don't think we
should provide nets for people to take .
Hoffman: We 're going to attempt to mark them sufficiently and see if that I
deters them. If it does not .
Schroers: How are they installed? Are they just tied up with the normal I
strings that come with them? We have entwined plastic coated cable around
along the top of the net . Looped it through the eyebolt and bolted it with
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 34
' U bolts. Clamped it and it 's like , if they want to steal that net they've
got to have at least a heavy duty wire cutter .
Andrews: That would not detract from the level of play that goes on either
' so .
Schroers: As a matter of fact it actually reinforces the net and keeps it
stiffer and straighter across the top so it 's not a bad idea .
Andrews: It 's real disappointing living in a neighborhood to see those
stolen . It 's not from the people in our area but I think it 's people who
drive in , use it and then decide that'd be a nice net to take home .
Pemrick: What is going on on Bandimere? They dug up the whole grass . Are
they planting new or seeding?
Hoffman: Giving the field a better crown so it drains much better . We had
' requests from mainly the soccer folks to try and fix some low lying areas
which held quite a bit of water . They attempted to do that in just a patch
work fashion and it did not work very favorably so we had excess fill
' material . Aquatic soil so this fall when the field was not being used they
went ahead and tore it up and put that material in there and redistributed
it and put a better crown on the Bandimere Park.
' Lash: I have a question , down at Greenwood Shores on Sunday I saw a
suspect looking survey stake in the ground. Kind of in the middle of
everything . Do you have any idea?
' Hoffman: Was there a location stake and then a flag stake with orange?
Lash: Yeah , with orange flag and then there was another one next to it .
' Hoffman: I believe Dale has staked out the location for relocating trees .
I will confirm that and if it was something different .
Lash: Just made me nervous.
' Schroers: Thought it may be a tether stake for my dog .
Lash: And then I just have a comment on last month's meeting. This is one
of those after you leave and you think about what happened and you wish you
' had said something that you hadn't thought of at the time. When I reread
it in the Minutes my frustration was that it came back again. and I guess it
was the comments from the gentleman from Lundgren Bros. . What was his
name?
Hoffman: Terry Forbord.
II Lash: Okay . And although I did vote to go along with the recommendation in
that situation , it really gets to me when developers come in here and say
to us, well if you make us give park property it 's going to pull a plug on
I the whole thing and we're not going to be able to do it and we can't
develop the property and like it's a threat to us.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 35
Pemrick: Jan , I struggled with that for a whole week after that meeting
too . I was bothered all week about that.
Lash: That just frustrates me no end because our end is to do what 's best
for the people and to make sure we get what we need and I feel intimidated
myself . When developers say those kind of things right away I go , oh goll
we must be asking for the moon and we 'd better just back off or he 's going
to pull the plug. Well we shouldn't really care if he pulls the plug on
this .
Schroers: No , that's his problem. ,
Lash: Right and I 've heard that before and it just really gets to me and I
buy into it almost every time and I get angry with myself and then I go
home and I whip myself for it and I just want to make the point that I
think we need to be careful when they come in and they do that that we
don't feel intimidated to sell out just because it may make their life
miserable . '
Andrews: I didn't get that reaction at all . Just the opposite . I sensed
that was more like he was saying it , telling us like it is for our
informaiton but it didn't hit me the way it hit you .
Hoffman: Obviously they're making more money on the deal than that lot or
those two lots would cost so it's not like it's breaking their bank but
it's lowering their profitability on the deal -so they're going to argue
hard for it .
Lash: And I was glad that you made the comment that you did and that 's 1
what kind of got my will 's going a little bit too . You know that at least
I got the impression that you don't feel the intimidation when they say
those kinds of things to you . You don't buy into it.
Hoffman: Excellent pep talk for next meeting on the next site plan review.
Do your homework .
•
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
OKTOBERFEST. ,
Ruegemer : Okay, just an Oktoberfest update here. Oktoberfest is scheduled
for Saturday, September 28th. That will take place from 4:00 until 11 :00 .
We changed the dates this year versus being on Friday night and bring that
back from 12:00 midnight to 11:00. The participating people this year will
be basically the same as last year . The Lion's operating the concession
area . As far as all the typical German style foods . The potato salad,
polish brats, sauerkraut. And they will also be serving pop and beer .
Also the Rotary this year will be operating the Rotary Bingo again. We'll II
get a tent for them down along Coulter Drive again. And the Snowmobile
Club will also be displaying snowmobiles as well as their groomer this year
again. Also they will be providing the games again which seemed to be real I
popular last year . Adventure Balloons were still hoping that they can get
their display off the ground this year versus 4th of July when they had
most favorable weather for a demonstration so hopefully that will get
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 36
' underway this year for Oktoberfest . Also a new addition will be the
Chanhassen city staff selling sliced caramel apples . . .
' Andrews: Will you be selling 4th of July shirts too?
•
( There was a tape at this point in the discussion . )
Robinson: But we had a Lion's Club meeting last night and Gary Boyle is
Chairman of this Oktoberfest and he specifically said 5:00 .
' Ruegemer : I was in to talk to Gary about that .
Robinson: Oh , do you talk to him periodically? Otherwise I can give him a
' call .
Ruegemer : I 'll contact Gary just to clarify the misunderstanding on that .
Robinson: Okay, thanks.
Rugemer : Are there any commission questions about Oktoberfest?
SUMMER DISCOVERY PLAYGROUND EVALUATION.
Rugemer : Okay with that we 'll move on to item b on the agenda . This is
' the annual summer discovery playground evaluation. As you can see it 's a
very informational tool as far as looking at the Wing program, the Super
Event program and the summer story playground program as a whole and -gather
' information to improve on the program. . .quality program for next year . As
you can see , they go into all the types of arts and craft projects . Games
that were used this summer . You can see it 's a long list of games. Then
there 's the registration and it 's broken down by park site . By tot-lot
which is age 3 , 4 and 5. Dyna-Mites which is ages 6 thru 12 and that 's
broken down . You can see the numbers in the report . It has numbers for
Wednesday Wing Dings is a program that 's offered on Wednesday afternoons
' from 1 :00 to 2:00 . Kind of the special event for the community to come in .
There 's no charge or any cost associated with the Wednesday Wing Dings.
Just a special feature that we do offer for the community to come in and
I enjoy some quality programming. And you can see the numbers associated
with that . Also the super events . With the different trips that we did
offer and with these numbers they may appear to be low but we did
II co-sponsor with Chaska so we did really max out at every trip . We set our
maximum amount of people at 35 and Chaska also did 35 and typically we drew
60 to 70 kids every trip so that proved to be successful this year . And
just as you go through the evaluations for next year . There are different
I numbers here and I don't know if you have any questions on those but those
are certainly recommendations that we will take into account . As far as
developing the program for next year and also I 'd like to mention the
possible format change of the program. Instead of keeping it an hour for
the younger kids and an hour and a half for the older , for the Dyna-Mites,
the format will possibly be changed to 2 hour , 2 1/2 hour . That kind of
format and have quality time for both the Dyne-Mites and the Tot-lot
I program all at one site at the same time . So that will be , certainly take
a look at it . We did have evaluation to every person that was registered
for the Tot-lot and Dyna-Mite program's. That number is back on the back
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 111 August 27 , 1991 - Page 37
portion of this report . You can see the 137 evaluations were sent out and
47 were returned for a 34% return rate which is a pretty decent percentage
of being returned so we get kind of a true sense of what people are
thinking about the program and what types of comments they did have and we
can certainly take a look at that to improve the program for next year . So
basically it looks like people were very much in favor of the format
changes as far as convenience of having both children in the same. If they
do have multiple children, having people at the same location at the same
timeframe. They think that 's more convenient . Even with the format
change , even with the cost associated with that, it seems that it will
still be fair if the cost of the program did go up slightly. People would 1
be in favor of that . So are there any questions of people looking or
commission members looking through the annual report, are there any
specific questions or comments?
Lash: Well I think these are great. That we provide this and I know it 's
a lot of work for you guys but in the summer it's great to have activities
for these kids to do . I know a lot of them get pretty bored. I would go
along with your suggestions of changing it for next year . Combining the
times . I think for people, I mean most people have kids that fall into
both brackets and then you 've got to haul one up and drop that off and then
go home and then when you come back you drop the other one off and go home
and they 're not there together so you're not really free to do anything
anyway . I guess I 'm kind of curious as to if you have any ideas on ages. I
Like how many 3 year olds you get and how many 12 year olds you get . My
daughter is 12 and she lost interest in Dyna-Mites several years ago and so
I 'm thinking maybe we could.
Ruegemer : Break those down in like ages maybe 6 thru 8. 10 thru something I
like that?
Lash: Yeah. And 3 seems kind of young but if people are coming with 3
year olds , I don't care but I had thought maybe if we broke it down 3 to 5 ,
6 to 8 and 9 to 12 or something like that . You could have your activities
and crafts more age appropriate . When I read in here 3 hours or something ,
it just kind of made me shiver because kindergarten's only 2 1/2 hours and
those kids are maxed out . 5 and 6 year olds at 2 1/2 hours. I think 2
hours for any of them is plenty. I
Ruegemer : That was a pretty well the consensus as these evaluations came
back . The younger , the Tot-lot age group, that would be more than the
maximum time . They would like to see that cut down . This is just
basically used as an informational tool .
Lash: And I know I mentioned this to you privately Jerry but I would
really appreciate it and I know how much my children enjoyed the super
events and I really appreciated them having the opportunity to do those
things and I would like to see possibly maybe an age split on some of those I
too . Where Chutes and Ladders is more appropriate for the younger kids and
then have things that are more interesting and appealing to Middle School
kids . I think kids 6 thru 8 , grades 6 thru 8 a lot of times just sort of
fall through the cracks . They're not old enough to drive to do anything
yet but they're not interested " in going to Chutes and Ladders and some of
those kinds of things but there are things that they like to do so let 's
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IAugust 27 , 1991 - Page 38
see if we can get some things going for them . You said you were going to
check into it didn 't you?
Ruegemer : Yeah and I 'll get to that item in the next report here . We are
trying to , the Park and Rec Department is trying to direct more , I guess
more time to that age category. We are developing a teen night out during
the school year and we're working with other agencies in the area to make
' that a possibility so I 'll discuss that when we get to the next report . So
just with the other information that did come back with the evaluations , a
lot of people would like to see the playground program extended from 6
weeks which it currently is to possibly 8 weeks or 9 weeks . Somewhere in
there to just kind of get into, take up more of the summer . Get the kids
more of an opportunity to I guess enjoy a better summer and have more
1 activities to so that 's something we will be looking at for next year too
is making that program longer and also adding more Wing Dings . Do you have
any additional questions on that?
' Hoffman: The staff we had was very excellent. We had all three new staff
members this year so it was not a returning staff and both playground
leaders and the playground director performed very well and we do have the
opportunity to, the potential of having our playground director back next
year which would help .
RECREATION PROGRAM UPDATE.
Ruegemer : Item c is just a fall program update. - What we will currently be
having here coming up . The Rocking and Rolling program was very popular -
1 last fall with the tumbling and balancing and somersaulting exercises we
did have . We will be moving that from the Old Village Hall to the
Chanhassen Elementary School which will provide more space and accommodate
more people . And basically we have a lot of the same programs we had last
summer with additions to like the Karate/Tae Kwon Do class that we offered
this summer . We will continue that on into the school year to try to
attract more increased class participation. We have the annual Halloween
' party coming up here and I just want to touch on what we had mentioned in
the last item here about the Teen Night Out . That 's currently an item that
we 're working with Galen Madsen down at Community Education and Wendy
Shitzel with Chaska Park and Recreation. We did have a meeting prior to
this date here to discuss a type of Teen Night Out . What kind of
activities it would. . . We 're targeting these Teen Nights Out for Middle
' School kids , grades 6 thru 8 . We already have two dates already and
already have earmarked for these types of activities and one would be
Friday , October 25th and the second would be Friday, November 2nd. With
these two Teen Night Outs it 's kind of a trial period just to see what type
' of response we can get with this type of offering and just kind of see what
we can build on . What types activities these kids would like to do. So
it's kind of a trial period here . If they go well then we will continue
I them throughout the school year . If not once a month, every other month so
it 's just going to kind of, we'll advertise . It will be in the Midpoint .
The letter that goes out to the Middle School . It 's going to be in there .
It 's going to be in our City newsletter . It will be advertised in the
I Chaska Community Center and so it will be a really good advertisement
program for this . Here's the activities that would be listed we would have
at the Middle School so we'd have access to the gym area and swimming area.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 39 ,
We 'd bring in videos and just have contact local merchants as far as
donating prizes and things like that so that's always quite popular is
prize giveaways and things like that . And we will have music and DJ 's and
things like that . . .so just an opportunity to give the teens who are trying
to give them an opportunity to enjoy some activities also. . . Annual
Halloween Party, that will October 31st and that's always a very popular
activity.
Hoffman: Start planning your costume today.
Ruegemer : It just goes down the line here. We have activities for the
youth planned out here and also the adults. Kellogg's Hot Shoes aerobic
classes and things like that. Chaska's offering volleyball in their agency
will also be having the 5 on 5 basketball program. Offering a
co-sponsership between the Chaska Park and Recreation and Chanhassen Park
and Recreation so we've had meetings on that already so we will be using
the new community center for meetings and also Middle School on Wednesday
night so if anybody 's interested in getting on the draft list or getting a
team together , you can contact me. So with the fall program update here , I III
guess it appeals to a wide variety of age groups and hopefully people will ,
the residents of Chanhassen will have an outlet to perform activities .
Schroers: I have a question Jerry . What's the difference between the
Monday Night 's open gym and the Men's 5 on 5 basketball? Is that a league?
Ruegemer : Yes. The Men's Open Gym would be on Monday nights starting in. II
Schroers: And that 's just pick-up?
Ruegemer : Yeah. Just pick-up Monday nights and all the way through March
and the 5 on 5 , the regular structured league with games being played on
Wednesday nights .
Hoffman: Team registrations and registration fees and officials and that
type of thing . Monday night is strictly pick-up. One of the new programs II
which Jerry just skipped over is the spin-off of one of Curt 's requests.
Past requests and that the grades 9 thru 12 be addressed in an open gym
format . So we looked at a Friday night there for those high school aged
people . They can play basketball , volleyball , socialize at a charge of
$1 .50 per night. With some foreplanning we'll go ahead and select a very
qualified candidate for the guardian or the attendant of that particular
evening since we will be dealing with very active and energetic group .
Lash: That was my parental type question that I was going to ask because
what are we providing for supervision for some of these things? ,
Hoffman: Very minimal access to the building and a person of college
and/or adult as supervisor . ,
Lash: How about Teen Night Out? Are you getting volunteer chaperones?
Ruegemer : For that we're trying to target more for the parents of the
Middle School kids to come out and help supervise and we 've also come up
with the ideas of possibly contacting the Honors Society or the School
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 27 , 1991 - Page 40
' Council , things like that . In talking with. . .we 're trying to gather more
information on that . . . Really anybody , we're going to try to keep with
more the parents. It seems like if you 're having high school supervision
it can get out of hand sometimes too but that remains to be seen . We are
trying to get this initial Teen Night Out to be a very successful . . .so we
can build a successful program throughout the school year .
Schroers: Very good. Any comments on anything that Jerry's gone through
here?
Robinson: What was the question?
Lash: I was interested in one of them for my daughter .
Hoffman: It may be a good time just to go ahead and bounce that off .
We 're somewhat unique in all the Park and Recreation registrations are
handled through our front desk and then we make use of that pool for our
' support staff and many Park and Recreation agencies have their own
registration clerk type secretary and we just feel our current arrangement
serves very well for our department and foresee continuing to use that type
' of style .
Schrores: Well thank you for all your information Jerry.
I Andrews: I 've got one more thing for Jerry I guess , if you're interested
in doing something . If you 're interested in trying to coordinate a ski
trip for your teen night out , I could help you do that at Hyland Hills .
II I 've worked there and can help you make the arrangements there if you want
to do that . It 's a good time .
' Lash: That was successful last year wasn 't it?
Ruegemer : Yeah . We made two trips last year . Not to Hyland but to .
IIHoffman: Afton and Mt . Kato.
Ruegemer : And the buses were pretty much maxed each time so we had roughly
70-75 people each trip.
Pemrick: I 'll be a chaperone.
II Rugemer : Okay, we'll put you down . And they were quite successful . We
were looking at at least one or two more trips onto. . .
Schroers: Anything else?
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION.
ISchroers: Any things of particular interest in the Administrative Section?
Lash: I think we all just need to be prepared .
IAndrews: On the horse trail?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
August 27 , 1991 - Page 41
Lash: Yes . '
Andrews: From reading Eden Prairie's letter about their lack of success of
having a horse trail in the vicinity of other trails , it sounds like it's II
something that everybody 's going to push for but it will be real tough to
make it work .
Schroers: I guess I have some experience on that from building and using II
trails a great deal . Horses are not all that compatible with other uses of
trails . I, guess if there's enough respect and use to warrant it, I would
sure opt for a small trail on the side for horses rather than, if you go to I
plan a day for a bike ride or a run or walk or whatever and you're tripping
over those horse prints all the time.
Andrews: And other horse, what horses do too. t
Schroers: But actually the worst thing is what the horses do to the
surface of the trail . They really muck it up and tear it up and loosen it 1
up and it makes an undesireable surface for other things .
Lash: It was the horse people that brought this whole thing to our
attention you know so I know this is going to be .
Schroers: A controversial issue for sure .
Hoffman: We were informed of it prior to their bringing it to our
attention but they were the first group in the door to rally support .
Schroers: I think along a portion of the Luce Line they address that issue II
but the railroad right-of-way is wide enough to allow both a decent like. 8
or 10 foot wide aggregate type path for walking , running, bicycling,
whatever with enough room adjacent to that for a horse trail . We may check II
with the City of Orono or Minnetrista in regards to their process leading
up to the decision because at one point in time it was just everyone use I/the trail and then all of a sudden there was a separate horse trail . So
there were controversies and problems with having everything on the same
trail .
Andrews moved, Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor I
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m. .
Submitted by Todd Hoffman ,
Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim I
•
1
1