1h. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL /A.
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 26, 1990
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. . The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler
and Councilman Johnson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Gary Warren, Paul Krauss, Todd
' Gerhardt, and Jim Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions to Council Presentations: Mayor
Chmiel wanted to discuss having a resolution from City Council sent to the Girls
and Boys Basketball teams; and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss the state of
legislative affairs. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
' recommendations:
a. Resolution #90 74_ Set Date to Reschedule Public Hearing, Modification to
Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment District No. 2.
b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for RSF District Standards Dealing with Lot
Frontage and Access by Private Driveways, Final Reading.
' d. Final Plat Approval, Ersbo Addition.
e. Final Plat Approval, Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 4th Addition.
g. Approval of Accounts.
h. City Council Minutes dated February 26, 1990
City Council Minutes dated March 12, 1990
Planning Commission Minutes dated March 7, 1990
' i. Approve Amended Professional Services Contract with RCM for Comprehensive
Plan Update.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried.
F. APPROVAL OF 1990 LIQUOR LICENSES.
' Don Ashworth: If I may Mr. Mayor, Tom had stopped in earlier questioning the
wine license as it appears in the Council's packet. We show the fee for that as
$2,000.00. We took that from State Statute and if you see by the handout I
distributed, it appears to be saying that the fee will be $2,000.00 or 1/2 of
the on-sale license. Since on sale licenses range from $8,000.00 to $13,000.00,
1/2 of that would be far more than the $2,000.00 we're showing. The key word
1
1
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
C however is, may not exceed so in fact the City Council may assess a fee less
than $2,000.00. On the back side are a list of other cities in the comparable
wine sale which includes beer, for those cities. As I noted to Councilman
II
1- Workman, you could make justification in saying that there's a number of them
that hit into the $200.00-$250.00-$300.00 range. You could also make
justification that there's a number of them in the $500.00 range. In any case,
I think that the $2,000.00 amount shown is probably could be a misreading by
other cities of this same statute or I don't think that they're as common as
some of the lower numbers. I don't know if the Council wishes to entertain
selecting a lower number this evening or tabling the item to another evening.
Councilman Workman: If I could explain. I talked to a proprietor in town who
does have a beer and wine license obviously and in looking at this I wasn't sure
II
what the justification was and that was it raised my questioning and I presented
it not knowing the statute actually but rather what was it based on. It seemed
rather out of whack with everything else. The gentleman doesn't sell hardly
$2,000.00 worth of beer and wine and would like to keep it but it seemed kind of
expensive and so that's why I question it. I'm not sure what it should be at .
Councilman Johnson: My gut feeling is at $250.00. Same as the other licenses
basically. We only have one place selling the beer and wine on this list?
Mayor Chmiel: It's the only one.
' Councilman Workman: I don't think there's a distinction between beer and wine
is there? I thought that if you had beer, then wine would come with it. Wasn't
that our discussion Don?
Don Ashworth: That 's correct.
Councilman Johnson: This has just a wine license in the State Statute.
Councilman Workman: Wine meaning if you could sell wine then beer would be with
' it.
Don Ashworth: That 's correct.
Councilman Johnson: In that case, since we with the beer license, on-sale non-
intoxicating, that's beer? Basically $250.00 or is that just 3.2 beer or
something?
Elliott Knetsch: Non-intoxicating is 3.2.
' Councilman Johnson: 3.2. So we're telling them wine and beer?
Councilman Workman: I think the State is moving towards getting rid of that 3.2
distinction.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I'm sure you can get intoxicated on 3.2. It takes a
lot of trips but.
2
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
I/
Mayor Chmiel: Some people would who have the, are not too intolerable for total II
amount of consumption.
Councilman Workman: Don, should I move to table this so we can put some logic
into it and look at it and research it?
Don Ashworth: It would appear as though $250.00-$500.00, either would be in the
ballpark. I don't know if it's really worth tabling recognizing you have one
license. You could really justify either so I think maybe if there's
concurrence with Council on one of those two numbers.
Councilman Johnson: $250.00. 1
Councilman Worman: Well I'd more $250.00 then.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. Are you moving the whole item with the
modification that this would be $250.00?
Councilman Workman: Right .
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? I guess I have
just one question. In approving these liquor licenses, take into consideration
any serving to minors before we issue these licenses. Have we looked at that?
Don Ashworth: Jim, would you like to respond? I
Jim Chaffee: Yes Mr. Mayor. When the applications come in, it's forwarded.
All the applications are forwarded to me and we do criminal history checks and
backgrounds. Every one of them came out clear. There were no indications of
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. 1
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the 1990 Liquor
Licenses as amended to change the requirement for the Anh Le Restaurant to
$250.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
J. AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATION FOR A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND LOT 1, BLOCK 2, 1
CHAN HAVEN PLAZA FOR PUBLIC UTILITY AND ROADWAY EASEMENTS; LAKE DRIVE EAST
PROJECT 89-6.
Councilman Johnson: I just notice that the City Attorney had an modified
resolution on this one so I figured somebody better pull it so he can give us
the modified resolution.
Elliott Knetsch: That's correct. I have copies if anyone on Council wants it.
The only change is to allow the City to proceed by the quick take provisions of
the eminent domain statute. The City Engineer and I today got the updated legal
descriptions for the permanent and temporary easements.
3 1
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
Resolution #90-35=_ Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman [limier seconded to
approve the modified resolution authorizing condemnation of property public
I utility and roadway purposes across a portin of Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block
2, Chan Haven Plaza. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO DALE GEVING FOR VOLUNTEER SERVICE TO THE SOUTHWEST
METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION.
Mayor Chmiel: Number two is a well deserved presentation of a plaque to Dale
Geving for volunteer service to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. I would
like to make a formal presentation to Dale. The City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, State of Minnesota, Resolution No. , and that's going to be added on
there. Whereas, Dale Geving has served for 3 years as a member of the Southwest
Metro Transit Commission representing the City of Chanhassen; and Whereas, Dale
Geving has been instrumental in fostering, encouraging and improving local
public transit service; and Whereas, Le Geving has demonstrated his ability to
' advise and work cooperatively with governmental agencies and the public, and
Whereas Dale Geving has voluntarily served the public interest in overseeing the
provision of an efficient and cost effective local public transit service; and
Whereas the Southwest Metro Transit Commission wishes to thank Dale Geving for
' his many contributions to the Commission which have demonstrated his commitment
to improving public mobility; Now Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council
of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota that the City Council recognize the
volunteer commitment that Dale Geving has made to the Southwest Metro Transit
Commission representing the City of Chanhassen. Adopted by the Chanhassen City
Council on the 26th day of March, 1990. Dale, congratulations. In addition to
' that resolution, we have here, if I can get it out .
Councilman Johnson: We should give him a bus pass too.
Mayor Chmiel: As it says here, in recoginition of Dale Geving for fostering and
encouraging improving local transit services on the Southwest Metro Transit
Commission from 1986 through 1989. In addition to that , we have. . . Thank you.
We appreciate all the contributions that you've done.
Dale Geving: I'd like to say thank you to each of the Council members for your
support . Appreciation of this plaque will be well deserved for a long, long
time. I'd like to say that I'm going to accept this plaque for all the
dedicated members that I served with on the commission from the cities of
Chanhassen, Chaska and Eden Prairie. In 1985 this City Council, Eden Prairie
1 and Chaska made a bold move. We decided to opt out and we opted out to create
our own transit authority which is now the Southwest Metro Transit Commission
and I want to thank Ursula and Jay for carrying on. I think we've built a very
good sound transit position for our communities and wish you the best. Thank
you very much. Thank you Don. Thank you council members.
' Councilman Workman: Dale, we have an extra chair tonight.
4
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990 I/
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS, CROSSROAD PLAZA SECOND
ADDITION.
Mayor Chmiel: As we move along with the agenda and believe me this is going 11
almost too fast. We have the next item is a public hearing and the public
hearing is covering the vacation of the right-of-way and easements of Crossroad
Plaza Second Addition. Being that Jo Ann is not here, Paul are you going to
cover that?
Paul Krauss: Yes Mr. Mayor. I'll try to keep up the pace here. Last February
you approved the final plat for Crossroads Plaza Addition. It's the subdivision
that's going to allow the construction of the Crossroads Bank. It also resulted
in the creation of three outlots which we are going to transfer over to MnOot
for TH 5 reconstruction. We need to vacate some underlying easements. The old II
West 79th Street and some adjacent easements before this plat can be filed and
we're requesting that you do that tonight . We no longer need the easements or
the right-of-way for any public purpose. We're recommending that you approve
it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval. I
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this? As I mentioned, this is
a public hearing. It 's your opportunity to come forward and voice an opinion.
Once again this is a public hearing.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Resolution #90-36: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve Vacation Request 89O-2 vacating old West 79th Street right-of-way and
all old public utility easements described on the Frontier Development Park plat
as shown on the plans dated March 20, 1990 with the following condition:
1. The vacation will not be recorded until after the final plat has been
recorded.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: UPGRADE OF AUDUBON ROAD SOUTH OF RAILROAD TO LYMAN BOULEVARD 1
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 89-18, AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Public Present: I
Name Address
David Stockdale 8301 Audubon Road
Harald Eriksen Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff
Architects, Engineers & Planners I
5
i
Gary Warren: This is a public hearing to review the feasibility study for the
upgrade of Audubon Road as was introduced by the Mayor. Audubon Road was
upgraded from TH 5 to the railroad tracks this past year as part of the
improvements that were done with the McGlynn Bakery site and as everybody is
' aware, we abut Prince's sound studio on the northeast corner here. This is a
continuation of the project scope. Segment 1 would be upgrading the road to an
urban section consistent with the segment just to the north of the railroad
' tracks. That being, would have a concrete curb and gutter and a 44 foot road
width with sanitary sewer, watermain and a small portion of storm sewer in it.
To the south we would basically upgrade the road with an overlay to do some
minor vertical alignment corrections to meet state standards in a couple or one
particular area near the south end of the project but for the most part it's an
overlay project and we would be staying with the same rural section which is
gravel shoulders and no other utility improvements along the road. The project
scope as shown in the feasibility study, to summarize the elements here. This
overhead shows the sanitary sewer which basically will serve two purposes. One
is to provide service to the abutting properties in this segment of Audubon Road
and also as a receptor for ultimate service coming from the northwest from a
pump station that is proposed for the Audubon Court area. The watermain
elements of the project include extension of the City's trunk watermain. We
have a casing underneath the railroad tracks from the northerly project. We
will be picking up the 12 inch watermain at that point and tying into the loop
on Huron Drive which exists today and also to the future connection of Lake
Drive West scheduled for construction this year with appropriate hydrants to be
constructed. The other element , basic element of the project is the sidewalk
trail system. Part of the key elements of the City's network call for
construction of a trail along Audubon Road to connect up with the piece that was
constructed north of the tracks and also to provide a receptor for the other
adjoining trail system which will be constructed for example on Lake Drive West.
This will include a structure crossing the Soo Line railroad tracks since the
current bridge width would not accommodate an on bridge of this trail. The
properties that are being proposed to be assessed as a part of the project ,
basically there are 3 property owners. I'll go back to the watermain and
sanitary sewer chart. Basically it's watermain and sanitary sewer elements
which are being proposed for assessment to those benefitting properties to abut
the utility. Stockdale property, the Redmond Products property and Charles
Mattson property which basically abuts Audubon Road on the west side. This
portion of Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition already has watermain service so
it is not included in the service area for assessment. Similarly, the sanitary
sewer assessment is a little bit more restricted because we're only taking
sanitary sewer down to the future Lake Drive West connection but both sides of
the road are proposed for inclusion of the assessment area and this graphic
shows the property owners. Again, preliminary assessments report assessments of
approximately $112,000.00 of the total project cost would be included in the
assessment so when ultimately we assess in probably 1991. That's basically the
overview of the project. We're looking for input on the public hearing and then
authorization of plans and specifications.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Gary. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone
wishing to address any specific issues regarding this proposal?
1 6
1
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
I/
Dave Stockdale: I'm Dave Stockdale. I own the property at 8301 Audubon. As
I'm reading through this, this is the first chance I've had to look at it ,
apparently there's consideration for acquisition of some of my property to make
this feasible. I was curious what the standard method of acquisition is.
Gary Warren: I believe Mr. Stockdale is referring to our 17 foot additional
right-of-way that we are interested in obtaining. There are several routes that II
can be gone. One is to outright negotiate with the property owner for the
parcel. If equitable arrangement cannot be arrived at through that method, then
the City could pursue condemnation of the easement similar to what was on the
earlier part of our agenda this evening in which case appraisers are involved
from both parties to appraise the value and it then goes through the formal
eminent domain process through the court system to establish an equitable
settlement using commisioners of the court to come some settlment after hearing II
both parties' cases or platting, if you happen to be platting a subdivision. If
it was to the City's interest and the interest of your plat, the City could
require you to dedicate the easements but in this case, at least to this point
in time, that's not proposed. So our first choice would be to sit down and
negotiate with the property owner.
Dave Stockdale: Who would I be negotiating with?
Gary Warren: Myself probably and a representative from the City Attorney's
office. I
Dave Stockdale: It was my understanding when I bought this property that one of
the main reasons for these improvements was to create a loop with the
development to the south. That that was considered advantageous for the sewer
system but you're stubbing it off before it gets to that property.
Gary Warren: Specifically on the sanitary sewer, we are showing with this 1
project extending the sanitary sewer to the future Lake Drive West and we
similarly have at this point a feasibility study being prepared for Lake Drive
West for construction this year also. That this will also connect into it so
when you put both projects together, the loops are complete.
Have Stockdale: Okay, but it wouldn't make sense to do that connection prior to II
upgrading the south segment too?
Gary Warren: I don't know if I understand your question.
Dave Stockdale: It's my understanding that part of the segment 2 you'd be
upgrading the road in a rural fashion?
Gary Warren: Basically an overlay, that's correct. 1
Dave Stockdale: Okay, but at some time in the near future you'd be tearing that
up and connecting the sewer in with Lake Drive? II
Gary Warren: No, maybe if I put a graphic up it'd be easier. The sanitary
7
1
I
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
sewer, this element we are proposing to only include sanitary sewer to what will
be ultimately the Lake Drive West project which we are currently doing the
feasibility study on. The southerly end of the project, segment 2 from Lake
Drive to the south, is intended to stay rural section. It's outside the City's
urban service area and therefore is not eligible for sanitary sewer service at
this time and it's a question I guess as far as Metropolitan Council's
concerned, as to what time we actually do bring that into the City's urban
service area if ever.
Dave Stockdale: On the page you had on before, it was my understanding that you
were going to try to create a loop from Huron Drive?
' Gary Warren: A loop to Huron Drive? With the watermain. The watermain we will
be extending the watermain to Huron Drive to complete that but it's not
necessary for sanitary sewer because sanitary sewer we're going to cross Lake
Drive West.
Dave Stockdale: Okay. When you put this up for bids, I assume you set time
limits for construction. . .if they don't get it done under a certain period of
time? As the property owner I'm concerned about disruption and how long that
will last .
Gary Warren: Yes. The construction is scheduled for this year and the
contractor's, our general specifications and contract documents control to see
that the contractor is proceeding expeditiously with the work consistent with
the weather conditions and everything else that he has to put up with but we
usually have liquidated damages in the contract to enforce those commitments.
Dave Stockdale: Okay, and during that time, accommodations will be made so I
can keep using the road?
Gary Warren: That's correct.
Dave Stockdale: Okay. That's all I had. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Dave. Is there anyone else? This is a public hearing
as I've mentioned before. Hearing none, is there a motion to close the public
hearing?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: I have some concerns on this particular project Gary. You know
we're talking roughly if we put in a trail system through that area, we're
talking roughly about another $50,000.00 to have a foot bridge on that existing
bridge. Is that correct?
Gary Warren: The engineer's estimate and I should acknowledge Harald Eriksen is
here from Howard Needles who's worked with us on this. The engineer's estimate
was approximately.
i 8
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
I/
Mayor Chmiel: About $52,000.00?
Gary Warren: Right . Just for the foot bridge was $52,000.00. Total trail cost II
is estimated with the 30% overhead at $88,000.00 round numbers.
Mayor Chmiel: So you have a total of $100,000.00 is what it's indicated in
the. . .
Gary Warren: $88,752.00 Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: The feasibility study on page 3 indicates. . .free standing, pre-
fabricated
corten steel. . .bridge over the railroad tracks is estimated to cost
about $100,000.00. '
Gary Warren: Yeah, that is if we were to do the corten tubular steel bridge.
We have actually looked at the concrete structure that's out there and a less
costly alternative, although not cheap but the $52,000.00 alternative is to
extend the bridge abutments and the pier caps and not have to do the corten
steel.
Mayor Chmiel: Corten steel would not be considered at this particular time?
Gary Warren: That's correct . '
Mayor Chmiel: We are looking at some corten steel with the street lighting?
Gary Warren: Our standard street light in the commercial area is, as we've I
affectionately called the shoe box and that is the corten steel that you see
throughout town here. On Lake Drive East in particular.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have some concerns about spending $52,000.00 on that
bridge. I guess you've got to cross it . Is there any other alternatives that
they've looked at?
Gary Warren: Well we've talked with MnDot and we're hopeful that we
can slip to
through the same road section out there but unfortunately the bridge is only 44
feet wide and our discussions with MnDot and I don't know Harald if you want to
relay any of your thoughts but basically MnDot has said that it would not be the
safe design or acceptable design to them to include that foot bridge or the foot
path on that road section or bridge section. 1
Harald Eriksen: I'm Harald Eriksen with HNTB and it's 44 foot face to face at
this time. It wouldn't be safe to let the people cross on that 44 foot roadway
so we did recommend that something was buit on the outside of that guardrail
that's in place right now. It's a continuous 44 foot from one side to the other
side.
Mayor Chmiel: I look at that existing bridge to what we had there previously
and you're lucky to get 2 cars across there at one time. And that's something
that we can discuss here but the other question that I had was the cost I
9
I
• City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
difference of overlaying the existing road and what about reconstructing of the
road with new reconstruction of the road with curb and gutter or has that even
been considered?
Gary Warren: This would be segment 2?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Gary Warren: The cost would increase proportionately if we would be addin curb
and gutter. At some point in the future that may be appropriate but we g
' basically looked at the road section. Did some borings and actually did a road
rater testing of it here 2 years ago and I guess we feel comfortable that that
segment of the road is acceptable for our design at this point in time. We may
have to go to a 3 inch overlay at the worse case but it's still reasonable.
1 There's adquate enough side slope drainage and such, drainage swales to
accommodate the runoff so we don't have a real driving need to go.
Mayor Chmiel: One or the other things too that I looked at was with the
proposed location of the trail. Of course you indicated on the west side,
because there's some existing sidewalk, but because of all that residential
development that we have beyond that area, everything would be on the east side
of that street and therefore we would be requiring those people to just cross
that road more so. Wouldn't it more advantageous to keep it on the east side
from a safety aspect?
' Gary Warren: I guess for the purposes of the feasibility study, we wanted
get the length and the cost in and we picked up based on the comprehensive map
that Park and Rec had, that that was the side basically where we were
going to
put the trail and matching it in with this segment on the north but it's
certainly something that we can look further on design and see what the
construction challenges are. I don't know, side slopes on the east side, I
thikn it's a horse apiece actually for slope easements and such, whether we go
on one side or the other with it.
Harald Eriksen: It 's pretty much the same on either side I think.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's the way it looks right now. Okay, any other
discussion?
' Councilman Johnson: The east side does make the more sense because the main
purpose of that is to get to Lake Ann. So if you cross the street, go down and
then cross the street again at even a busier section of the street, that doesn't
make a lot of sense. How much trails do we have on the west side now? I didn't
realize, are they already constructed or just. . .
Gary Warren: From TH 5 down to Park Road by public works.
Councilman Johnson: On the west side?
Gary Warren: On the west side.
10
I
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990 II
II
Councilman Johnson: I didn't even realize it was there.
Gary Warren: It was just built last year. That's a detail that we can I
certainly look at as a part of the plans and specs. It may make sense as you're
saying to have it on the east side because of the more dense development just in
that last phase of Lake Susan Hills but then it's pretty much the same as you go II
down further south there.
Councilman Johnson: This is getting kind of far away but on TH 5, is there any II
plans for crossings of TH 5? Pedestrian crossings?
Gary Warren: You mean like underpasses or overpasses?
Councilman Johnson: Over or underpasses in that area. II
Gary Warren: The only underpass that 's proposed with the TH 5 improvements II right now is in Eden Prairie just east of here by Mitchell Lake where you go
down.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I know some of the comments on the EIS was why
II
doesn't Chanhassen get some pedestrian crossings.
Gary Warren: Well MnDot would be very happy to include it if you were
II
interested in paying $110,000.00 to $150,000.00.
Councilman Workman: Could we extend the TIF district to pay something like
that?
II
Don Ashworth: Any improvements would have to be within the district itself.
Councilman Johnson: So if we did it at CR 17, that's within the district . II
Don Ashworth: That's correct. I
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Workman: Audubon won't? I
Don Ashworth: I haven't looked at the trail plan lately but my recollection is
that it was proposed to have a trail or sidewalk as it would run from CR 17,
il
this would be through the business park down to CR 17. There would also be a
leg going up on, is it Park Drive, Park Court.
Gary Warren: Road. 1
Don Ashworth: That is proposed as a signalized intersection and would be the
same location as the access into, new access into Lake Ann. It's logical that
II
any type of a sidewalk system as it would come from downtown, down CR 17,
through the business park and down CR 117 would be a primary means to get down
to the middle school, Chaska area. That's actually shorter or easier to II accomplish than extending any type of a trail on CR 17 down to Lyman. Once you
11 1
II
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
get down into the Lyman area, it 's going to be difficult. Going up that hill,
the severe slopes in there. We felt that if a bikeway trail could occur on
Audubon, it would make an easier connection back down to the Chaska area than
trying to keep something along the entire length of Lyman.
Gary Warren: One of the other factors is the right-of-way out there and I
believe that right now there's a jog in the road right about Huron Drive or to
the north of Lake Drive West proposed. That would also factor into this as far
as placement of that trail on one side or the other. I believe that one favors
on the west side if I remember correctly where the offset is so if we go on the
east side, we probably would need to acquire additional right-of-way for it. If
we stay on the west side, probably not .
Councilman Johnson: We're already having to acquire right-of-way on the east
side.
Gary Warren: Just to make up the difference. I don't know the history of it
but there's a jog in the right-of-way width that goes from 66 feet down or from
80 feet down to 63 I think. There's something goofy right in there and then it
balloons back out.
Councilman Johnson: Kind of like what we had out here?
Gary Warren: Yeah.
Councilman Johnson: There's some goofy right-of-way out here too.
Gary Warren: There's a lot of that stuff around.
Councilman Workman: So Don your concerns, one was the bridge? Whether or not
1 to expand it yet I'm not sure I understood what you wanted.
Mayor Chmiel: Just the additional cost of the foot bridge on the bridge. That
span would roughly run about $52,000.00.
1 Councilman Workman: And then our other concern is north as it heads up. The
bridge would be on the west side so then as it heads north, where is it going to
connect up to to the park?
Gary Warren: Well you've got 2 parks here. Maybe Jay I believe is talking
about the Lake Susan Park.
1 Councilman Johnson: Lake Ann.
Councilman Workman: I thought he was talking about Lake Ann.
Gary Warren: You were talking about Lake Ann?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah.
I
12
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990 I.
Gary Warren: Okay, because there is a park here in Lake Susan Hills West PUD
also that we're connecting it.
Councilman Johnson: Right and that would be off of Lake Drive East .
Gary Warren: That's off of Lake Drive West . 1
Councilman Johnson: Or West, yeah. Which again, if you have a sidewalk on the
west side of CR 17, it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense. Actually
they would go internal within their subdivision to get to that park anyway. I
Gary Warren: So the park will have frontage on Lake Drive West.
Councilman Johnson: Right but I think there's a trail access, if I remember ,
right. What 3 years ago we platted this thing, going from that park down into
the Lake Susan subdivision that connects with the trails within the Lake Susan
subdivision?
Gary Warren: Yeah, there is a trail network there.
Councilman Johnson: So the people within Lake Susan aren't going to go out to
CR 17, the opposite direction from the park to get to the park because they've
got their own trail system to get to the park. The Lake Susan Hills West park.
Councilman Workman: Are you talking about Audubon Road or CR 17?
Councilman Johnson: Audubon Road, I'm sorry. CR 117. Whatever it is. I
Councilman Workman: Because if people get on the west side of Audubon Road,
cross this expensive bridge and go past McGlynn, they're going to run into TH 5
and they're not going to have any way to get under or over the 4 lane and so
it's going to be kind of a dead end and so I question the use of that. We have
it there already right? I
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Workman: If they're going to be asked or directed through the park
and up Park Road where there's going to be an intersection.
Gary Warren: We have showed in the overall trail map that was included in the
packet the last time, there would be a trail proposed on Park Road, the
east/west and then up Park Drive which goes north up to TH 5 and that's where
the future one, when TH 5 improvements are out here, they're going to require us
to move the entrance to Lake Ann to the east and to this common intersection. 11
That in my opinion would be an excellent place for the crossing.
Councilman Johnson: So we would only need on the east side up to Park Road? Up ,
past public works. At public works we could go then through the industrial park
and up to Lake Ann? Is that what we're saying?
Gary Warren: Right. The piece that maybe you're questioning is already in. ,
13 1
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
What we would be doing under this project is completing, there's a small segment
south of McGlynn's and north of the railroad trails where the Audubon Court
area, we've been talking about that, has not been built. We have included the
costs in here to complete that connection along with the bridge. And at that
point they could take Park Road and get up through the business park.
Councilman Johnson: But they have to cross Audubon again to do it?
Gary Warren: They'd have to cross Audubon at that point.
Councilman Workman: Can we authorize preparation of plans and specifications
right now and look at in more detail the sidewalk again which is always our
worry, sidewalks? To figure out maybe if that makes sense and if we need to
connect up with an expensive bridge there and if we have other alternatives. I
don't know, there's going to be future housing needs maybe to the south and west
that we're not seeing right now that a sidewalk like that, but that's
potentially many years away and if maybe we don't have an expensive sidewalk
heading towards nowhere.
Gary Warren: I should have pointed out earlier also that that segment 2 element
of the sidewalk is actually a bituminous trail as we've been referring to it so
it's more meant to be the rural carry you off through the woods type of trail
versus our concrete standard which would be from Lake Drive West north to
connect to the concrete by McGlynn.
Councilman Johnson: What I'd like them to look at is putting the trail on the
east side up to Park Road and having, if there's going to be a crossing of this
trail across Audubon, it should be from the McGlynn's area, from the sidewalk
they have there, crossing to Park Road. If their employees want to walk down to
11 the park or whatever or walk between places but I can't see taking the
residential people and having them cross Audubon twice to get to Lake Ann Park.
I'd rather not have them cross at all and put the bridge on the east side, if
that's feasible.
Harald Eriksen: The consensus is to keep it on the east side then I believe?
Councilman Workman: In a rough idea, I don't know. Maybe I'm not seeing
something because they're not going to cross the 4 lane and then from McGlynn
they're going to cross TH 5 and then they're going to have to either take the
shoulder or go through that gully there and I think we're kind of pointing
people in a direction there that we don't want.
Councilman Johnson: We bring them up to Park Road where maintenance is. The
City's maintenance shop. They go east there.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, I'm aware of that. I'm just saying the rest of it up
11 to the north is probably not what we want to do. I don't know.
Gary Warren: That's already there.
1 Councilman Johnson: But it's on the wrong side of the road.
14
i
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990 1
I
Councilman Workman: . . .on the west side versus the east side would be adding
more to something than maybe we shouldn't be doing, that's all. i
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Just because a chunk of sidewalk's there, it may not
be in the right place. At the time we put it there, it sounded like a good idea
but now it may not be a good idea to connect to it . I don't even know what the
purpose of that sidewalk on the west side was.
Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe as Tom has mentioned, maybe we authorize the
preparation of plans and specs and exclude the sidewalk portion at this
particular time until we can come up with some specific cost factors. I'd like
to see something other than a total dollar investment of $52,000.00 for a foot
bridge across that bridge. I'm sure you probably looked at some of those but
I'd like you to relook at it to see if there are some other feasibilities in
cost.
Harald Eriksen: Other feasibilities of crossing the railroad?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. '
Harald Eriksen: Sure. That 's fine.
Councilwoman Dimler: Before we go on I would like, if I may go on to the tax
increment financing portion or did you have something else Gary?
Gary Warren: Just a comment as far as what I would suggest is that as a part
of, some of these are design elements that need to be worked out. If Howard
Needles needs to take a closer look, which is part of the design here, to see
the construction practicalities of one side versus the other of that roadway
so I think it would be appropriate to have them proceed with that preliminary
investigation as a part of the design. Not to do the full design but some of
their effort and time obviously is going to be involved here. That's beyond the
scope of the feasibility study so the resolution that 's entertained for
authorizing plans and specs I think should at least commission them to take this
preliminary investigation on. Where we want the sidewalk to go or if we're
going to do it at all. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Workman: I would so move then. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to ask one quick question of Don here. You
indicated that the tax increment financing money may not be available. I'm just ,
wondering what time frame here, we won't know that for a year and if we go ahead
and authorize this today, what time frame are you looking at here before
anything would occur? I
Don Ashworth: I think we'll be able to have the answers within 30 to 60 days at
this point in time. We have received an answer regarding the A versus 8 type of
district. We have not received information regarding taxes as they would be
15
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
11 generated off of the McGlynn site. You're aware with the legislature's delay of
action until way late into 1989, that slowed down the entire tax process this
year and so we're still waiting for a lot of those numbers to be generated.
' They should be coming out. We were hoping that we would have the information
for tonight. Assuredly we will have it by the time they bring back the plans
and specs.
Gary Warren: Councilwoman Dimler, we are anticipating a May 30th to bring these
plans and specs back to the Council for approval and authorize advertising for
bids so that would give us 2 months basically, as Don had mentioned.
Councilwoman (limier: So that will come in about the same time.
Don Ashworth: Hopefully. I mean people have to pay by what , April 15th? It'd
be nice if they got a statement to know what it is they're supposed to be
paying.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Resolution $90-37: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the Audubon Road South
Improvement Project No. 89-18. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: TURF/BALL DIAMOND/PARK MAINTENANCE VEHICLE.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to award the purchase of
one four-wheel truf/ball diamond/park maintenance vehicle to the firm of Cushman
Motor Company, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota in the amount of $8,458.40. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSIDER ANIMAL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING CLEANING UP AFTER ANIMALS ON
PUBLIC GROUNDS, FIRST READING.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, would you like to give a quick overview?
Jim Chaffee: Yes, I'll get my mind back on the meeting here. Mr. Mayor, you
may remember that this was brought up at the last council meeting concerning,
I for lack of a better term, a super duper pooper scooper ordinance. I think it
was well received by the Council at the time. There were some concerns
expressed during the meeting that possibly the two prototype ordinances that
were presented may be cleaned up a little bit and presented in a package to the
Council as an ordinance specific to our concerns here in Chanhassen. As such,
the City Attorney did draft one. It's been presented to you in this package and
11 if it is the Council's desire to proceed with this ordinance, then we would
recommend the passage of the ordinance that was drafted by our City Attorney.
Councilman Johnson: I have two questions on this, since I started this whole
thing.
16
i
I
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990 1
I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Jay.
Councilman Johnson: One of them is they continue to put in here that in your
own yard and your own dog, that you're required to immediately run out and clean
this up. That is not reasonable in my opinion. Especially if you put the dog
out on the leash at 12:00 at night because he's scratching at the back door.
You're not going to run out behind him in your pajamas and pick up after him.
I think we can handle a yard where somebody never cleans it up and has a bunch
of dogs under our regular nuisance ordinance. This is really, my focus of this
was when other people's dogs come to my yard and to the school yard and to
Meadow Green Park and wherever and leave behind their deposits and the people
merrily go along. So I'd like to know if the City Attorney here tonight knows
why we have this in here that you immediately clean up your own yard. You don't
know?
Elliott Knetsch: No, I can't answer that. '
Councilman Johnson: Then the other provision that, I'd like to see that somehow
changed. The other provision is that it does not apply to paved or traveled
portions at public streets or in the rural undeveloped areas and guide dog,
etc. . I don't have any problem with the guide dogs. I don't know why a police
dog is not covered in this. A guide dog I can see why a blind person having a
guide dog would have a little trouble with this provision but most policemen I
think can handle this. But I don't see any reason to exempt police dogs other
than it 's the police that's kind of doing the ordinance. The other thing is,
why are we excluding public streets? I mean if a dog does it on the street, I'd
want it cleaned up too. Does this mean we can just leave it?
Councilwoman Dimler: It's in the street where I walk.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That's where the kids ride their bicycles. With my
kid's luck, that's where he'd crash. So I'd like to see us eliminate the police
exemption. I mean if you're in hot pursuit of somebody and the dog takes a
rest , I mean you're not going to but the dog's probably not going to anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's just move on. i
Councilman Johnson: But anyway, I think it's fairly good throughout with those
exceptions of the private property and the exclusion of paved and traveled
portions of public streets. It may be a liability thing there on that. While
you're working to clean it up, you get run over or something but you should have
control of your dog to where he's not doing it on the paved part of the street
anyway. So those are my comments. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, if I may. I agree with Jay, I had that same thing
down. Why exclude the police dogs? I don't see any reason to that and
especially the paved portions of the public street. This is exactly what I
would like to see the removal if I'm going to go along with this at all. I do
think that perhaps, my feeling is that this goes along with the noise ordinance
and the snow removal on sidewalk ordinance. It's kind of unenforceable and
17
i
1
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
therefore I think I'm tending to lean towards not having this ordinance.
Councilman Workman: I guess I would agree with Councilwoman Dimler. It's tough
to defend a dog making a mess and having the right to do so anywhere it wants.
I think it's obvious that this issue hasn't got a lot of people worried because
there's not a lot of people here. I don't think all the suits out there are
worried about this. Has Larkin Hoffman been hired?
Jim Larkin: We're talking to a group of dogs tonight.
Councilman Workman: And I have a dog and we discussed that issue about, I'm
really comparing it to the issue that we have an ordinance on the books that
says animals are not, or pets are not allowed in parks and we are not enforcing
that and I hope we do not because, and maybe that's not ethical for me to say
that, because I'm in violation of it. I mean there's just not a lot of places
for you to really run a dog that wants to run. The one thing I've really got to
worry about is the, without having in his or her immediate possession a device
for removal of feces. Now when I lived down at Lake Harriet, I had to have a
baggy and a scoop kind of thing or a popsicle stick or something therein. I
don't know really what that means.
Councilman Johnson: Just a bag. That's all it is. All you need is a plastic
bag.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, and I think this kind of idea should be promoted.
I'm kind of on the fence because number one, if it passes, that's fine because I
don't really think it's going to be enforced.
11 Councilwoman Oimler: So why have it?
11 Councilman Workman: So yeah, on the other hand why have it and why have
something that's not going to, you know what I'm saying? I think it's going to
be very difficult and back to my original point, it's not my interest to defend
animals who are defecating on other people's road. So I don't know Jay,
convince me.
Councilman Johnson: Well I don't think that this is an ordinance where we're
going to be sending out our CSO's looking for dogs. If I asked them to go out
to the school at 6:00 in the morning because that's one place we have them. We
have a group of people who like to run their dogs out there every morning but
the only time this would be used and would be enforceable is when somebody
starts creating a problem. Right now we have to go after them under a nuisance
ordinance, or trespassing or something like this and that's impossible. It
really would be tough to go after somebody for their dog trespassing on your
front yard but if they came in and left something behind and whatever, you call
the CSO. They could get out there or even if they just saw it. It's also the
first step towards legalizing pets in parks. Many people believe that pets are
1 a part of the family. My dogs were a part of our family. We had them for 14
years. We had dogs before we had kids and unfortunately they've all died at
this point but we plan on getting more dogs. The kids all want new dogs now
that Lady is no longer with us and they're part of the family. They belong with
18
I
I
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990 1
the family when the family can go to the park but there are certain
restrictions. I would not want and it's responsibilities of the owner. Some
owners don't show the responsibility so we need something that the people
working in our parks, if we do change the ordinance which I'm for changing the
ordinance on parks but only if we have an ordinance like this where if people
bring their dog into the park, they're responsible for that dog. We have a
neighborhood problem right now with some dogs that is a responsibility problem
that's being worked out. A guy's got a leash long enough to go to 3 yards on
his dog and for some reason the dog never does it in his own yard. That's a
different problem. '
Councilman Workman: What I'm getting at is with this ordinance passing, will
that problem be rectified?
Councilman Johnson: No, but it would give our enforcement people
one
by which to work. They don't have the tools right now. Unless you give rthem
ol
the tools, you give them the handcuffs, you give them the citations. . . You know
go out and go after our nuisance ordinance but our nuisance ordinance's so
vague, it's tough to enforce. Give them something here that's not vague that is
enforceable to where when they are responding to a problem, they can write a
citation. Give our people the tools to work with. That's all this is.
Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I see an enforcement problem in the fact that,
even if some dog did it in my yard and I couldn't prove who's dog it was even if
I saw the dog do it and the dog ran away, you know the burden of proof would be
on me and I just. . .
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask Jim a question. Jim, with the other cities that have
this specific ordinances adopted, how much do they really use them? Have you
had discussions with them?
Jim Chaffee: I have not Mr. Mayor. I am not familiar with
that has an ordinance like this. I'm not saying there isn't aany cbut I'msnot
familiar with any. In the instance of Minneapolis and I think Councilmember
Workman can bear this out, they do have a full time park police program that
employs many full time police officers similar to what we have community service
officers and they can afford to go out and observe this. I would have to agree
that it would be very difficult to enforce. What it does do is it gives us a
tool and as Councilmember Oimler said, for a homeowner to call us and say I just
observed a dog did his duty in my yard and I'd like to press charges. Then the
burden of proof would be on that person, on that complaintant to prove who's dog
it was.
Councilman Workman: It wouldn't be enforceable? I
Jim Chaffee: It would be very difficult to enforce. There's a provision in
here that says you must have, while you are in possession of your dog, you must
also have possession of some sort of tool and device. That would be enforceable
but I don't think it would entirely practical for us to be going checking people
to see if they had these devices, whatever they may be.
19
I
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: I think as I mentioned a couple weeks ago, on Lake Lucy Road a
person had their dog out. They did happen to clean up behind their dog. They
did that automatically. That's great but oftentimes as you do take your dogs
out for a walk, they normally get that exercise and does present a problem but I
too, being I'm a dog lover and I only have 2 dogs. It 's rather hard to enforce
and rather hard to get out there and take care of those things just like you
mentioned before Jay. I guess what I'd like to do, at this particular time I'm
not sure whether this is really a needed kind of an ordinance within the City.
I think as we grow it may present more of a problem but right now I don't see it
that much of a problem. I don't know, any other discussion?
' Councilman Workman: I guess I can see the merits of it but again, without even
being able to enforce it or personally I haven't seen the need. I guess I'd
' like to defeat it but with maybe looking at getting more input down the road on
it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have one other comment and that is, I walk with
a friend that has a dog on a leash as we go and she carries just a plastic bag.
Whatever came in it, she went shopping and she has this little, anyway.
I appreciate her doing that and I'm sure everyone else does too. I think maybe
at this point I would like to see us put the Park and Rec to work on putting out
some literature to educate dog owners on how they can do this simply without any
expense. Put our efforts in that area.
rCouncilman Workman: Should we send this back to Park and Rec?
Mayor Chmiel: I think that might be a good idea.
Councilman Johnson: One thing you need if we're going to go to Park and Rec.
They're the people that probably put together the restriction no dogs in our
parks. This is one of the reasons for it of course. Like I said a few weeks
ago, my wife and son went out to the elementary school a few years ago after the
snow melted and they filled up I believe 2 bread sacks with what was left after
the snow melted there before the grade school kids got out into it. So I think
there is a problem out there. But if we're going to send this to Park and Rec,
we ought to also have them look at what restrictions we need to place on animals
within parks and if we are going to allow that. Right now like you say it's not
being, it 's being enforced I believe at Lake Ann. They're not allowing pets out
there because we've got a guard there. The rest of the parks, unless a CSO goes
by and sees a dog there, he can't tag anybody.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not real sure I would want to see us go in the
direction of allowing animals in parks and the reason being that I know your
animal's a part of your family and your animal's a part of your family but for
families that don't have animals, they don't necessarily like to have another
dog on their picnic and come up to them and bother them. I mean everybody uses
that park, animal owners and non-animal owners.
Mayor Chmiel: There's common sense that enters into it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I'm not only talking about the feces but I'm talking
20
1
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
about the animal coming up to you, begging for food. Jumping on your kids. I
This type of stuff so I don't think I want to see animals in parks. I don't
think that's the reason we should change. Adopt this to change that.
Councilman Johnson: Well the only way I'd like to see animals in parks is that r
they're on a leash. Voice control does not work, especially when they get
chasing a rabbit or a squirrel or your ham sandwich.
Councilwoman Dimler: Or a little baby.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I think we've probably discussed this enough. I
Councilman Workman: I'd like to move to pass this along to Park and Rec?
Councilwoman Dimler: No. I
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor.
Councilwoman Dimler: No.
Councilman Johnson: Nobody's motioned anything. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I do not second that. I don't see what good it would do.
What they would come up with. It 's really a public safety issue. 1
Mayor Chmiel: To me, I was looking at Jim before, I would think that is more of
a public safety issue rather than a park and rec issue.
Councilman Johnson: Rather than killing this tonight, why don't we give it back
to Jim to talk to other cities, Lakeville and whoever, Burnsville.
Councilwoman Dimler: Jim doesn't want it. 1
Jim Chaffee: It stinks.
Councilman Johnson: Have Deb talk to other cities. We have our CSO's. I mean
they're the ones that are going to have to be enforcing this and let them look
into it and see what the problems have been in other cities and whether it's a
useful tool or not.
Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned before, I was asking a question. I would suggest
that we table it at this particular time and have Jim look into it and find out
what the problems are, if any, within other cities or what the pros or cons of
the issue are.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I've only had one phone call on that.
Mayor Chmiel: I haven't had any. I
Councilman Johnson: It was somebody over by Meadow Green Park and she was
disturbed about the dogs in that park.
21
t
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
11 Councilman Workman: I
know that one.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is that a second or is that your motion?
Mayor Chmiel: I'll move it.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second it then.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table action on the Animal
Ordinance Amendment regarding cleaning up after animals on public grounds for
the Public Safety Department to gather additional information. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING THE SALE OF CIGARETTES FROM BEHIND THE
' COUNTER ONLY.
Don Ashworth: The City Council tabled action on this item at their February
26th meeting. The Council should not that if you act to approve this ordinance
this evening, that this would be the second and final reading of the ordinance.
There have been no changes since it was considered on February 26th.
Councilman Johnson: Was it tabled on the 26th?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: So that would be our first reading? We didn't approve the
first reading, we tabled it.
Mayor Chmiel: Good question. First reading said a month which is right at this
time.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think it had approval once.
Mayor Chmiel moved and Councilman Workman seconded to table action.
Councilman Johnson: But I think on February 12th we may have considered it and
we approved the first reading and February 26th was the second reading. So this
would be the second, second reading.
Oon Ashworth: Well you tabled it.
Councilwoman Dimler: We tabled the second reading but we did have approval of
the first reading.
Mayor Chmiel: I know that there's a lot of people sitting in the audience this
evening and who may want to address the particular issue and I wish you would
but if there's something different than what you had indicated previously from
the last meeting, step forward and state your name and your basic concerns on
the issue.
22
. II
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Do you think it'd be helpful if the members of
the Council who are here tonight, the four of us of course, said where they're
II
sitting at this point. If we've had any changes in thought or if we're in the
same position we were a month ago to help the speakers before they start?
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe that might not be a bad idea Jay. I think that probably II
would be an adviseable thing. Seeing that you started it, do you want to
continue?
Councilman Johnson: There you go. Second in a row after the pooper scoopers. I
Here we go for this one. I really haven't changed much in my opinion here. I'm
kind of in a minority I believe in that I started this and I still think that '
remotely controlled devices on the large displays of cartons is feasible and
enforceable and a useful device. I see the smaller displays as more of a
problem then the large displays but as the industry representative said last
meeting, there are those devices out there. They're not sure about what the
II
effectiveness are but I'd like to work this down to where those were allowed on
the displays such as at SuperAmerica that have a substantial investment in that
display. But otherwise, I don't see it as being very restrictive at all when
II
you look at the counter displays and requiring the counter displays to be
operated by the employees versus by the customer. A lexan or plexiglas shield
in front of the counter display. It's still there. It's still seen. The
II
person can say I want that and the employee grabs it and hands it to them. I
think it sends a good message to people that this is a controlled, more
controlled. It's not actually a controlled substance but it's being treated in
this town as a controlled substance. So that's where I sit which is pretty much II
the same as where I was before.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. You haven't changed your position. Okay. Thank you.
Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to go back a little bit to our vending
II
machine ban for cigarettes and why I was in favor of that and that was because
we were dealing with the sale of cigarettes to minors and our purpose there was
to help enforce the state law. What I see with this ordinance now that we are
dealing with a shoplifting of cigarettes and there's already a law against
II
shoplifting so I guess I do not see a need for this ordinance at this time. I
still think that our intent was good. I think that we may be going too far when
we try to legislate promotion and advertising and I believe that this should be
II
the choice of the individual retailer. I do have qualms about marketing
strategies that target our young people to get them to start smoking but again I
don't think this is an area that it is our jurisdiction to legislate. I don't
want to leave the impression that I believe that shoplifting of cigarettes is II
not a problem or is no longer a problem but as I said before, the shoplifting is
already against the law and I think we need to be more watchful and do some
enforcing. The Grocer's Association members that were here the last time
II
indicated that they would work with us in prohibiting the sale and the
shoplifting of cigarettes by minors. I have already seen some improvements in
some of the stores in town as far as signage is concerned and I believe there is II
other improvements that they've indicated that they want to help us make so I
hope that we will continue to work together to meet these objectives and that we
do not have to pass this ordinance.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Tom?
23 I
I
City Council Meeting March 26, 1990
II
Councilman Workman: I wonder if what Ursula isn't saying is being sugar coated
in a sense that if we try to pull this, we're ending up in court and we're going
to spend a lot of money. Get sued and lose and everything else. Ursula says
things better than I maybe. I believe in what Ursula says. I'm glad that we're
' speaking on this before the retailers are because for fear of nauseousness in
listening to the retailers defend the sale of cigarettes maybe we can cut them
off at the pass. I think the tobacco industry is hiding behind the retailers. I
had a meeting with Mr. Larkin and the attorney for the tobacco institute.
They're definitely in our midst and they definitely have an impact on this
situation and I think they'd be ready to hang our necks no matter what kind of
public good we're looking at here and on behalf of the citizens of Chanhassen
that's unfortunate but unfortenately the citizens of Chanhassen probably are not
interested in taking on the tobacco institute with their millions and billions
and everything else and so that's a difficult. It's not a difficult decision
' when you look at what the City's going to have to do to defend keeping this
product away from our minors against retailers and the tobacco industry who
choose to want to do that. I continue to urge the retailers to look carefully
at the way their marketing their cigarettes. As long as I'm alive and walking
' on this planet I'm going to be after that product. Call it a commitment. A
lifetime commitment if you will in my efforts to curb the legislature from pre-
empting our cigarette vending ordinance. I met an awful lot of like minded
people down there. I'm only half as anxious compared to some of these people so
the legacy of theft and dying creates new Tom Workmans to fight this product.
It's unfortunate that the people have 20%c to 30% of their retail sales tied up
in it because I believe there's a lot of people out there and units of
' government, city, state and federal that are going to be looking a lot closer at
this issue and are going to make ground steadily. I think Chanhassen, and Jay I
think your idea is an outstanding one. I've told you that. It 's like nuclear
power, it 's a little early. So I would like to pass this ordinance. I don't
think the tobacco industry's going to let us and that 's not fear. That's smart
and I don't think we can pass it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I too would like to see us pass the ordinance
and I pretty much feel like Tom does. There's no sense in throwing good money
after bad or vice versa. Although I would like to make a plea to the owners of
' businesses within our community that do sell cigarettes. Some way to get these
back in and off from those specific areas where that availability to these kids
who are stealing them and sure, keeping a watchful eye but you can't watch them
' all at all given times so I'd ask you to police yourselves and to work with the
City to eliminate a lot of the given problems. As we've said, we don't have
objections to people smoking. That's their perogative. I was a former smoker.
1 Our major concerns are the people that are of under age and there has been too
many within the City. I had a few more minutes this evening before coming to
the Council meeting. I saw two young kids walking along the road smoking
cigarettes. It disturbed me just to see that. I don't like it. We're teaching
them a habit. A habit that eventually is within the State of Minnesota 4,500
deaths have occurred because of smoking each year. Look at it over the nation.
Those kinds of happenings, what happened with accidents on highways, we'd all be
I walking rather than driving cars because they'd restrict our speed limits more
and more. So I guess I go back to you with that particular appeal is to help us
help ourselves and help the future of our nation and our community to eliminate
that accessibility for these kids to grab onto cigarettes. So with that I'd
like to throw it open for a motion.
II
Councilman Johnson: Do we want to hear from the public that's here?
Mayor Chmiel: I made that offer if anyone cared to address. Mr. Larkin. I
Jim Larkin: It will be less than 30 seconds I believe. I will only repeat the
offer of Mr. Hoiland that was made at the last meeting that the Minnesota
Grocer's Association and their members in the Chanhassen community will
cooperate with the City. They've offered to do everything in their power to
further prevent the possibility of minors stealing cigarettes from their
merchants. It's of course in their self interest and I think that we may not be
concerned that they will cooperate with you. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Seeing none. ,
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I would denial of ordinance amendment regarding
limiting the sale of tobacco to behind the counter only at this time. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded denial of Ordinance '
Amendment allowing the sale of cigarettes from behind the counter only at this
time. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RELOCATE THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA
(MUSA) LINE ON LAKE LUCY ROAD.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in January staff became aware of a failing on site
sewer off of Lake Lucy Road. The Public Safety Department investigated it . Gave
the owners some time to conform to it. . .resolution to the problem. The area in
question is located immediately adjacent to and outside of the current MUSA line
and is well within the area that we're considering bringing in with the major
guide plan amendment. The owner and staff agreed that it would be rather futile
to require the replacement of this on-site sewer system with another on-site
system since it's going to be relatively short lived. In addition, the location
of the current system sort of precludes the easy ability of replacing it since
it was positioned apparently according to the owner, for eventual hook-up to
sanitary sewer sometime in the mid-70's or in the 70's when it was originally
installed. That being the case, the owner and the person who was adjacent to
him to the east have petitioned the City to go through a guide plan amendment to
allow them to hook up to the sanitary sewer which is located a short distance to
the east. Staff supports the proposal. We believe that it's going to take care
of a problem that we have right now and can be done with very minor impact on
the MUSA system or on our comprehensive plan. It's recommended that the
Planning Commission approve this item and send it to you. The Planning
Commission reviewed it and has done so. They did ask however that in the past
the Metro Council has occasionally required the deletion of a comparable amount
of acreage, 10 acres in this case from the MUSA system if parcels such as this
were brought in under an emergency basis. Staff and the Planning Commission
agreed, felt that this was highly inappropriate given the fact that we don't
have 10 acres to give up and we are processing our major guide plan amendment.
So with that we are recommending it be approved. I
25 I
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
I .
Mayor Chmiel: I would make a motion that we approve this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second.
' Councilman Johnson: Third.
Resolution, #90-38: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve
Land Use Plan Amendment Request X90-i to include properties located at 1420 and
1430 Lake Lucy Road into the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and that the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area line be amended to include said parcels subject
to the following conditions:
1. Approval by the Metropolitan Council.
' 2. If the Metropolitan Council requires that comparable acreage be deleted from
the MUSA system, the request will be returned to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REQUIRING THAT RECYCLABLES BE TAKEN TO
RECYCLING CENTERS AND NOT TO LANDFILLS, FIRST AND SECOND READING.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'd move approval.
Councilman Workman: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel: Paul, did you want to say something?
Paul Krauss: We did hand out tonight a modification of that ordinance that
deals with the ability to suspend or revoke a licenses through the City Manager.
We would ask that that be considered as well or as part of this package.
Mayor Chmiel: Right . That is part of the package with those revisions to the
ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right .
Councilman Johnson: Do we need to waive our rules to do this or can we just do
it as one motion?
Mayor Chmiel: We have it listed as first and second reading. I don't know if
we have to waive our rules or not because it's indicated. Does our Attorney
agree?
Elliott Knetsch: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first and
second reading of Ordinance Amendment to Section 16-32 with the modification as
handed out by the Planning Director. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
26
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
•
. 1I
SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE, JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AND 11
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Don can address this real quick.
Don Ashworth: I was looking to a work session. You're aware of a number of II
development proposals and I know that Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
will not be at that meeting. I
Councilman Johnson: Could we do it a little earlier?
Don Ashworth: That's a possibility. I
Councilman Johnson: If it's 6:30 to 7:30, then Ursula and I can walk 20 feet to
our other meeting. I
Councilman Workman: Oh your meeting's here?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. This year the Transit Commission meets here. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I might even listen to it. What time does your meeting start?
IICouncilwoman Dimler: 7:30.
Mayor Chmiel: What about if we had it at 6:30? I think we can accomplish that
II
within the hour.
Councilman Johnson: Well Tom has some conflicts I believe. I
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have a conflict?
Councilman Workman: No. I'm just trying to get a handle on the nature of the
II
meeting. Now the paper's published that it would be done last Thursday I think
and now. The Sailor did?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, because Cliff was not available. II
Councilman Workman: The Sailor had big headlines. And let me re-emphasize that II this issue is one of, it's kind of getting confused with a couple of issues and
Don Ashworth and I talked about this today a little bit. Two issues being one,
HRA control and accountability and then there's the other one of TIF and people
want, I don't know if people are getting that confused or not with HRA and TIF
II
and are they separate or aren't they separate? And are we misspending money or
is there an accountability problem and that's what a lot of the confusion is
based on and so if the public is interested in this, they should be notified and !
given enough time to be notified perhaps. Who will that be up to and how will
this meeting get promoted? That's why I was wondering initially if maybe it
should be done at a City Council meeting when people are usually expecting us to
discuss these things. I don't know. I'm opening this for discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have a question of Don too. And does it require
a public hearing? If and when we make the motion that the Council become the
HRA, does that require a public hearing?
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
Don Ashworth: Not that I'm aware of.
Councilman Johnson: It requires all the HRA people to resign and provide the
' openings.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's part of it.
Councilwoman Dimler: But the public doesn't need to be present? But the public
can be present if they want to put some input.
' Don Ashworth: Your rules of procedure say that you're going to make sure the
newspaper is aware of meetings that are coming up. My intent for the meeting on
Thursday night was basically you talk about what's happening with the State
' legislature. What we're trying to accomplish here within the next 30 day period
of time. What major development activities are occurring within the community
and how is it that the Council and the HRA would see us moving forward with
those and potentially start to talk about some of the issues that Tom was
talking about.
Councilman Workman: So a work session more or less?
1 Don Ashworth: Right.
Councilman Workman: That's what I'm just trying to get a handle on the nature
because then eventually we should get that out a little bit more.
' Don Ashworth: And I was not looking to really any type of decisions. Simply to
make the Council and HRA aware of some of the issues that are in front of you.
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than, I don't think 6:30 would give us enough. Maybe we
' should be at 6:00.
Councilman Workman: 5:30-6:00?
' Councilman Johnson: Are we going to discuss the real issue that 's probably on
all of HRA's minds right now, Tom's idea. . .
Councilman Workman: That seems to be part of it, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: That would be part of it too but I think some of the work session
portion with what's happening in the legislature as to what's happening with the
projects that we've got going is another item that has to be discussed.
' Councilman Workman: Will there be HRA decisions to be made? Is there going to
be an HRA meeting?
Don Ashworth: I don't have any agenda items that are proposed to go to the HRA.
I just received the settlement agreement on the Pauly property. This is where
we were in court and we made agreement and what not. That has been placed in
writing. Whether or not I get that back in time to present it to the HRA or
not, I don't know.
Councilwoman Dimler: If it's a work session and the public wants to come and
address both the HRA and the Council, can they come?
28
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Oh sure. Why not? I
Councilman Johnson: It's an open meeting.
Don Ashworth: If you'd rather do this let's say a week from Thursday, that's
fine as well. I'm kind of concerned with again some of the legislation.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we have to address it from the legislative aspect right I
now.
Don Ashworth: If we simply put items out on the table. Here are some things
that need to be addressed within the next 30, 60 days and then set another
meeting where the issue as to is the HRA involved in this or is this City
Council or not, I would see that as being a part of the next agenda. Not really
the one for Thursday night but that's up to you.
Councilman Workman: I think this is a good step. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Let's do it this coming Thursday.
Councilman Workman: Is the earlier time going to be agreeable? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Is it at 6:00?
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to start at 5:30? 6:00? It doesn't matter to me. I
Councilman Workman: Me either.
Councilman Johnson: Get there at 5:30 and then it's tough to get any dinner.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's see if we can get the other members at 5:30 and tell them
that you're buying pizza or something.
Councilman Workman: Maybe 5:00? Whenever. 5:00, 5:30, 6:00. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: 5:30.
Councilman Workman: Maybe we can get a convenience store to bring over a carton
of cigarettes.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think it should be any later than 5:30-6:00. Whichever
is convenient and just let us know. ■
Councilwoman Dimler: Let's do it at 5:30. '
Don Ashworth: Whitehill will probably have the most problem getting here too
early.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that might be a problem but see what you can work out. We
don't need any specific action on that.
29 1
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I move Willard Johnson and Carol Watson to be
appointed to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the next 12 months.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Did you second it?
Councilman Workman: Yes sir.
' Mayor Chmiel: Oh great. I was going to second it but you got there a little
quicker than I did. I think we need somebody to be a back up for Jay.
' Councilman Johnson: We can vote on that too.
Councilman Workman: I move the Mayor.
' Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
' Mayor Chmiel: I was going to say and I've done it before and I think I probably
should do it again.
Councilman Johnson: Well you were it last year. I just kind of thought they'd
' continued.
Mayor Chmiel: That 's probably true but just make sure you're going to be there.
' Councilman Johnson: It's not just for me. It's for Carol or any of us.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I agree.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, with the Mayor as a back-up.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so we have a motion on the floor with a second to reappoint
Willard Johnson and Carol Watson and Mayor Chmiel as a back-up to Councilmember
Johnson.
' Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reappoint Willard
Johnson and Carol Watson and Mayor Chmiel as a back-up to Councilmember Johnson.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1990 BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST TO FUND ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER'S POSITION AND
' ENGINEERING FILE CLERK POSITION.
Gary Warren: At the workshop session last Monday we chatted a little bit about
' the engineering request here for funding the Assistant City Engineer's position
which is included in the pay comp plan. The position is, this year was not
funded because we were anticipating utilizing contract services, particularly
the Alan Larsen as we had last year to basically staff that position. My review
of the situation and from a continuity and just in-house handling of projects
and residence, I believe that the City can better spend it's money by
considering funding the Assistant City Engineer's position again as we had
' 30
•
funded here a couple years a g o Basic
conclusion is that I believewe can save opotentially some Idollars donhthe fees
that we spent last year which were approximately $50,000.00 in Alan's time and I
similarly have an in-house person here to get involved with some of the other
areas that we're trying to branch out in which are going to take continued
effort from our staff here. That being pavement management for one. Our storm
II
water plan effort for two. As some of you have seen Dave Hempel has been kind
enough and willing enough to support me here in Council meetings which actually
are somewhat outside of his real duties as a senior engineering technician and
II
Dave does a good job at that but really it should be the Assistant City Engineer
who's working with the developers and negotiating the plans and specifications
and making reports here to the Council. That'd be included as a part of his
II
salary. Whereas now we're paying Dave overtime for those situations.
Similarly, the engineering clerk/typist position as I've identified it. Kim
Meuwissen, our department secretary here is doing an excellent job in trying to
keep up with the raft of paper that we're generating here but it's just getting
II
overwhelming and she, I just left her office in fact this evening with, I mean
there's at least 2 feet of paperwork that the filing is the last thing to be
done and it's just not the way that I am comfortable with doing business here.
We have checked internally with our clerical pool to see if we can share people II
and it's the same in the other departments. So we took a look here at the
position to get her some support. At this point in time from a funding
standpoint Council had asked me to take a look at that . I believe that because I
we've been bringing the park maintenance worker and the utility worker here on
staff a little bit later than what was intended in the budgeting scenario, we
basically have some funds that have not been spent on those positions which
could fund this clerk typist position in the interim here until we can look at a II
readjustment as a part of the formal budget readjustment in August, or later
this year. So with that preliminary discussion, my recommendation and request
is that the Council consider funding the Assistant City Engineer's position and I
also funding and establishing the Engineering Clerk/Typist position as stated in
my memo.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? II
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I have a few questions of Gary. You're talking here
about establishing another position. We're not moving Dave Hempel? Dave is the I
Project engineer? Will remain a project engineer?
Gary Warren: Dave is a Senior Engineering Technician and has been filling the II
duties basically of the Assistant City Engineer. It turned out when we had
initially been hiring, well we initially hired the Assistant City Engineer 2
years ago I guess it was. Larry Brown was here. We had difficulty even at that
I
time finding good engineering graduates who had municipal experience for the pay
rate that we were advertising at. So we made an adjustment to naturally look to
hire Dave because of his good municipal background and having exposure to
II
engineering in his technical area. David is not a registered PE and does not
have the creditials of an engineer formally, so we fell back and I said,
alright. If you can't get your ultimate, at least we needed to get somebody in
here that could help with some of the work and Dave has done an admirable job in II
that regard. But we still have an underlying need for some more engineering
talent. It doesn't haven't to be a full registered PE at this time but
definitely an engineering training certified with a college degree to deal with
the storm water drainage issues and things that we're getting into at this time. II
31
11
II
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you've just described the qualifications of the
person. Do you have anyone in mind?
Gary Warren: No. I would propose that we advertise like we do for our City
positions.
Councilman Workman: Could it potentially be Alan?
Gary Warren: Alan is not a registered engineer either. Alan is a technician.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and Alan, we would no longer need his services then?
Gary Warren: That's correct. At this point in time, in fact I have requested
that a lower level inspector, I mean lower pay level inspector be responsible
' for filling the construction inspection duties. I haven't had any beefs so to
speak nor do I want to invite any from our developers but as you are aware, we
are billing that inspection time directly to them and Alan's rate is on the
upper end of the range. I believe that in fairness to the developers that we
can get a more construction oriented inspector who doesn't have all of the
background that Alan had with office work and such.
Mayor Chmiel: But you're saying we can almost get 2 for the price of 1?
Gary Warren: Two-thirds maybe.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but you are talking about along with this hiring a
clerk/typist at about $10,000.00.
' Gary Warren: That's correct.
' Councilwoman Dimler: So that really puts the price tag up to about $60,000.00
because when you take 40 plus the 10 for benefits, insurance and so forth and
then another 10 for the typist, you're talking 60 compared to 40.
' Gary Warren: I'm proposing that the Assistant Engineer's position would be
funded out of the Adminstrative Trust where we have the $60,000.00 that we
budgeted this year for engineering consultant services. The services for the
' clerk/typist would be funded out of the surplus, if you want to call it that,
that has existed from the various departments where we had slotted for example
the utility maintenance worker which is in the budget for hiring this year. We
haven't hired a person yet. We had estimated they would be on January 1 of this
' year. They're probably going to be on April 15th so there's basically 4 1/2
months that we haven't spent so I'm looking, not to fund the clerk/typist out of
the adminstrative trust fund but instead out of the other utility funds where we
had budgeted for these people starting earlier.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you anticipate asking for a car for this individual?
Gary Warren: No. There would be pool cars available to those.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay and being that we're so close to the budget process,
why wasn't this anticipated just 3 or 4 months ago?
1 32
I
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990 II
Gary Warren: Well, as I tried to explained earlier, in Alan's situation we had
thought that , we put it together and I didn't have the final tally for, because
we started the budget process earlier this year in light of the tax law changes.
I didn't have the total dollar impact of Alan for the year until after that and
it was at that time that I said well geez, does this make sense. Couldn't we do
better for our money by staffing a full year in-house position instead of a
partial year? Alan was very good and helpful but he's not a city employee that
was here all the time so that was basically that. And then as far as the clerk/
typist position, I guess it 's just my secretary Kim came to me and just , she's
just really, the stress that she's been putting up with and most of the
adminstrative staff up here, just is not appropriate to the position that she
has there. She just needs the help.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have office space available?
Gary Warren: Yeah we do. We don't have a luxury of space but we are looking at
moving the temporary partition that exists in engineering right now. There's a
corridor there that we've agreed isn't serving a useful purpose there so there's
some good space there that we would look to acquire plus we do have one space
right now that we're sharing with the Planning department that is open where
Alan used to occupy.
Councilwoman Circler: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have one specific question. Being that we haven't put
this in the budget and even though you're indicating there are some dollars,
what would be your opinion of hiring a temporary to come in and to assist with
the filing for a period of the balance of this year the 6 or 8 months or
whatever it might be?
Councilman Johnson: Part time?
Mayor Chmiel: Part time on benefit kind of individual.
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, that basically is what I am showing in the staff report
is that we would bring this person in with the understanding that it is a
temporary full time position during the next 6 months which is our peak
construction period and such and that we would look to justify it at the end of
that period as a part of the formal budget re-estimate in August or there abouts
when that is done so that it would come back for Council's review at that time
to see whether we can basically support the position or not.
Councilman Johnson: Do we still have somebody doing what Alan's been doing? I
mean I don't see the Assistant Engineer going out and doing construction
inspection. 1
Gary Warren: The Assistant Engineer really never did do construction inspection
per se except on a complaint type basis or spot check type basis. Alan
basically has filled that role for the most part. Dave is filling in on pre-
construction meetings as we speak right now and is serving in that role but we
will be brining on the inspector here. The projects are starting to fire up and
the private development work will probably be geared up here in the next month 1
or two, especially when the road restrictions come off here in late May.
33 1
city Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
Councilman Johnson: You say bringing on the inspector. What do you mean?
Gary Warren: That's the contract inspector that basically.
' Councilman Johnson: Like what Alan's been doing?
Gary Warren: Right. But at a lower rate.
Councilman Johnson: So those monies are still going to be there but less of
them. Those are passed directly along anyway.
Gary Warren: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: So this money is for, that they're using is for other
projects that we thought we would be using consultants for? I can see some
confusion there.
Gary Warren: Covering the same bases but we budgeted $60,000.00 for engineering
consultant services under 208 for various projects. Very much similar to the
work that Alan had done. State Aid tracking. Special study on Frontier Trail
for access.
Councilman Johnson: So Alan had done those also?
Gary Warren: The $50,000.00 that we spend on him, that was just one part of
what we spent on him and that was related strictly to engineering department
support. Not any inspection. His inspection services last year were a whole
' other, I don't have the total dollar amount but that was billed directly to the
developers.
Councilman Johnson: I know a PE out of work.
Gary Warren: Send me his resume.
Councilman Workman: So what's our net extra expenditure?
Gary Warren: I'm proposing under the current scenario that would be
accommodated within the existing budget, just pulling it out of different
' departments basically.
Councilman Workman: I mean getting rid of Alan and putting somebody else on.
' Gary Warren: That's correct.
' Councilman Johnson: Well Alan will no longer be doing these functions but the
other person will be coming on will be doing a different function that wasn't
part of this budget.
' Gary Warren: The Assistant City Engineer would be picking up the duties and
then some that Alan had done as far as engineering department stuff. Not
inspections.
' Councilman Johnson: You know when Larry was here, it was really helpful. Larry
Brown. I think this is really a needed position here, especially through the
34
11
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990 ~
high development months. I know there had been Sunday afternoons that Larry was
out with hay bales, moving hay bales around at Lake Susan trying to prevent
sediment into Lake Susan. Things like that. Up and beyond.
Councilman Workman: We're talking about a guy who's just graduated from ,
college?
Gary Warren: Actually no. Somebody that's got at least a few years of
municipal experience.
Councilman Workman: Is $40,000.00 reasonable?
Gary Warren: Too low?
Councilman Workman: No.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's too high.
Coucilman Workman: I may be going to engineering school at night .
Gary Warren: I think in looking at the Stanton Report and just I guess on the
street here with other and the experience we've had with hiring or trying to
hire the talent that we need here, I would say that something, I would hope to
be able to establish the position or the new hire at say the mid-thirties but
certainly in that range. I say 40 in the staff memo as if it took to 40, that
with the overhead and such, that comes out to the 50 so we're no worse off than
if we were using Alan for that same situation but we could go up to that point
and still be ahead of the game. I would be hoping to acquire somebody in the
mid-thirties.
Councilman Johnson: You better have a PE if you want to give him 40.
Gary Warren: Well believe me, it's difficult . Now maybe the timing is better
here with the fact that development is somewhat indefinite but to find the
talent. Experienced talent was really tough the last time. ,
Councilman Johnson: There's some real competition for engineering out there
right now. I know in my field, I was amazed at the salaries. I thought the
guys that worked for me were almost above what, when I came on they were already
working there and I was surprised at how much they were paid and then they got
hired away at bigger salaries by other consulting firms. So the money's out
there in engineering right now.
Councilman Workman: It's just one of those things that we think you've been
doing a great job in getting it done and now we're making kind of a move and I
don't have really any way of, other than your word which is good at fine
restaurants I'm sure and so that's why I just get a little nervous making a
decision of a permanent position and the long term commitment and everything
else like that. So I don't have a whole lot to say no, we don't need one so.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think you know how frugal I get with dollars and in
reviewing this, I know that as we're growing the need basically gets there. To
eliminate a certain portion of extra dollars, I was looking at getting 2 for the
price of 1 with a temporary to come in for the balance of the year and depending
35
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
upon how we continue, and we may have to have a secretary as an additional or
filing clerk I should say, to do that filing.
Councilman Workman: 2 for the price of 1 on engineers?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm talking getting the engineer and also the filing clerk
for the same prices that we're already paying. $50,000.00. . .
Councilman Workman: But he's looking for someone with a little more experience.
Are you talking for someone for maybe $30,000.00? $35,000.00 maybe?
11 Gary Warren: I think that before a final or an offer would be consummated to an
applicant , the question is raised obviously by people applying, what's the
salary range and that probably affects some of them as far as whether they apply
or not. But before we entertain an offer to those individuals, it's something
that certainly can be presented to the Council to show. I've got no personal
interest except my own sanity to get some help here as to what they're going to
make but I think there's an opportunity here to advertise for candidates
thinking along the mid-30 range and then to see what the qualifications and the
minimum salary requirements are of these people before we make the final
conclusion on it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would like to see you offer a lower salary
that's still legal to begin with and you can always move up. My concern is
' you're going to get a college graduate without any experience or very little
experience because anyone who's really good is not going to want to be the
assistant . They're going to go out and look for your position in another city.
Mayor Chmiel: They could be just a project engineer too and this would be a
move up for them.
' Councilman Johnson: For his position they're going to have to have the
engineering license so if you've got somebody who's near to having the
engineering license. They've got their engineering and training certification
and they are within a year of the license or maybe even somebody who's just
barely gotten their license. That would be the person that you're looking to
make 30.
' Councilwoman Dimler: So you're talking about somebody who's transient though
and is not going to want that as a permanent position.
Councilman Johnson: That's what all assistants are aren't they?
Gary Warren: Well it's certainly a way of life in not only public but in
' private sector the fact that people do come in and serve sort of an
apprenticeship and move on as opportunities and their skills develop and such
and that's not necessarily unhealthy I don't think.
' Councilwoman Oimler: No, I don't either but I'm just saying $40,000.00 is a
little high for an apprenticeship I think.
Gary Warren: Well again, I guess I put that number out as a comparable
evaluation point to say if we could spend up to $40,000.00 and still break even
with what we paid last year for Alan's time. I'm certainly agreeable and intend
' 36
I
ivu ILAA IreeLifg - narcn eb, 1VVU
II
to negotiate and to get the best talent for the dollar in the mid-30 range if it
has to be in that range. I'm not looking to have to spend $40,000.00 if we can
get the talent that we need below that rate.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion. I
Councilman Workman: I move approval of the Assistant City Engineer's position
and engineering file clerk position.
Mayor Chmiel: As a temporary?
Councilman Johnson: Second. I
Councilman Workman: As a what?
Mayor Chmiel: As a temporary? I
Councilman Johnson: Full time temporary position. That's what he's proposing.
Gary Warren: That's what's in this report .
Councilman Workman: Full time temporary meaning? I
Gary Warren: They're working 40 hours a week but it's a temporary position for
the next 6 months and we'll be re-evaluated with the City's budget re-estimate.
Mayor Chmiel: Temporary is always permanent or vice versa.
Councilman Johnson: A lot of times. I
Resolution #90-39 _ Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
adjust the 1990 budget to fund the Assistant City Engineer's position as a full
time permanent position with funding to be provided from the Adminstrative Trust
fund in the amount of $50,000.00; and to adjust the budget for an Engineering
Clerk/Typist position as temporary full time in the amount $9,500.00 until the
budget re-estimate is performed in August to establish the position as a full
time permanent position. All votedin favor and the motion carried.
FINALIZE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN.
Don Ashworth: The Mayor and I have been trading phone calls. I would suggest
tabling this item to our next meeting.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table finalizing the
position classification and pay compensation plan until the next meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to see us, the City take a position of having a
Council resolution commending the girls and the boys basketball teams and also
to include some of the other activities that have been taking place such as the
37
I
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
11
Jgymnasts and also the debaters.
Councilman Workman: What about Tonka hockey? Tonka Hockey team took 3rd place.
Councilwoman Dimler: Did you include the girl's volleyball team? They went to
State also.
Don Ashworth: I've got the names and I'll check them out and see who they are.
Mayor Chmiel: I just want to let you know that the past two Sundays I've been
' over at the high school representing the City and making awards to the girls
basketball teams as well as the debaters and gymnasts and the boys basketball
team this past Sunday. It was really sort of neat. Those kids were really
pumped. It was really nice to see that enthusiasm as they had and their sense
of humor. What I really thoroughly enjoyed about watching them, I didn't get an
opportunity to go to the games but I did watch it on TV. I thought their
sportsmanship was absolutely the tops. Both the girls and the boys. To me
11 that's worth something in itself.
Councilman Johnson: Didn't the Chan Elementary 5th graders do something?
11 Councilman Workman: Get 4th in the nation or something?
Councilman Johnson: Or 4th in the State or something. In science or something.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll let Oon check on that.
Councilman Workman: My mother-in-law lives and works in Owatonna. But let's
not forget the hockey team at Tonka because that's pretty exciting. They beat
Edina.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I think we should have some type of resolution on it .
Councilman Johnson: Check with the Minnetonka schools to see what groups. . .
Mayor Chmiel: I just gave Don something on that too to follow through.
Councilman Workman: Earlier in the fall we discussed what we had for the
process and if we're going out the resolutions, certainly positive ones. Now I
don't know. I'm just frustrated with the legislature down there. I know we're
going to discuss on Thursday with the HRA the predictament that's been created
by abusers of tax increment. I don't know if we're a part of that group or not
but the House and Senate and the Governor all trying to make a decision about.
' It's now come down to how much are they going to cut off of our budget and not
if or what so I don't know. I'm disappointed. I wanted to express in this
forum my disgust with the situation down there. It sounds like the situation's
only going to get worse down next year.
Councilman Johnson: It seems the most easy group for the legislature to pick on
' is the cities.
Councilman Workman: Well again. I don't know if we need to do. If a
resolution's even going to matter to them but it's something that if we don't
1 38
I
City Council Meeting - March 26, 1990
get our act straighten out down there, we're going to have problems here and
IL
it's frustrating me and I've said that and everybody can go home.
Councilman Johnson: Well I agree with you Tom. All the small cities have got
to get organized and work in unison and probably through the League of Cities
and whatever to tell them our predictament's just as bad as their predicatment .
They hurt us, that hurts them.
Councilman Workman: It 's just plain silliness I guess is the word down there.
If you have a reserve, they want to get the City for having a reserve.
Councilman Johnson: If you've got good fiscal management and they don't ,
they've got a problem, we do so they're going to penalize us for doing good. I
agree with you. I don't know what we can do about it. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION: USE OF RALPH FUNDS TO ACQUIRE PARCEL LOCATED AT
INTERSECTION OF BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND PIONEER TRAIL, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: We talked to you about this on several occasions in the past . We
have a large property owner or group of property owners that has about 110
acres, about 55 acres of which are impacted by the official alignment of TH 212.
They have asked us to proceed with an application for RALPH funding to allow the
City to acquire the property. As I've indicated before, I don't see RALPH
funding as the panacea for anything. There's quite a bit of staff time involved
in getting these applications together. The City may have to outlay some funds
which presumably we can recoup when we sell the land back to MnOot as long as we
keep a good accounting of it but I need a resolution from the City Council in
support of using or applying for the RALPH funding. I think in general it 's a
good program. It 's got some problems but it's a good program and is a public
benefit to locking up the right-of-way now when it's cheaper. Also it helps out
a property owner who would otherwise would presumably develop their property in
this case. We've talked to the Metro Council. We think this thing qualifies.
We're trying to minimize the City's exposure and we have recommended that the
applicant be required to escrow money that we would otherwise have to outlay for
the appraisal which should limit our exposure. Again, we are recommending that
you approve resolution endorsing the RALPH application. I
Councilman Workman: Is this a specific or general resolution?
Paul Krauss: It's a specific one to the 110 acre site. I
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to adopt a resolution to
use RALPH funds to acquire portions of 109.74 acre site which are required for
future right-of-way on TH 212. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth, City Manager ,
Prepared by Nann Opheim
39
I
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 21, 1990
Vice Chairman Erhart called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emr.ings, Annette Ellson, Tim Erhart , Jim Wildermuth
and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Brian Batzli
' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner and Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planning Intern
' PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE FILLING IN AND SODDING OF AN EXISTING
t WETLAND LOCATED AT 80 AND 100 SANDY HOOK ROAD, STEPHEN FROST AND BOB
PFANKUCH.
' Public Present:
Name Address
' Bob & Sandy Pfankuch 80 Sandy Hook Road
Steve Frost 100 Sandy Hook Road
Steve Christenson Attorney for Mr . Pfankuch
1
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Vice Chairman Erhart called the
public hearing to order .
Steve Christenson: Good evening . My name is Steve Christenson. I 'm with
the Dorsey and Whitney law firm in Minneapolis. Steve Frost and Bob and
Sandy Pfankuch have asked me to come tonight and represent them with your
permission. As your staff told you, this filling was all done in 1988. At
' that time the homeowners had retained a contractor who was familiar or
supposedly familiar with how these sorts of things worked around this lake.
At that time the City stopped construction because the contractor did not
have a permit to do that so the City was aware that construction was going
on. They stopped construction and gave the contractor an opportunity to go
get a permit which he promptly did. So based on that, the City was aware
or should have been aware that there were wetlands there and went ahead and
' granted a permit to construct it. Here's a copy of the application for the
excavation permit and I think this is in the materials that you have.
Under Minnesota law, a local government that grants a permit and allows
people to take an action like these homeowners , is estopped. What' s called
legally estopped from later changing it's position on that if the
homeowners act in reliance on that permit. Spend considerable amounts of
money which these homeowners have done. So basically our position is that
' the City knew about what was going on at the time in 1988. Had an
opportunity to stop it, which they did and then went ahead and granted the
permit to continue allowing what happened . Under these circumstances, it
' seems to us that the City shouldn't be allowed to change it's position. I
think the homeowners may or may not want to contribute to that. If you
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 2
.1
1 have any questions , I ' d be happy to answer. them.
Erhart: Yeah, if you'd stay there Steve. I guess I 'd like, could you
respond to that Jo Ann or Paul?
1 Olsen: Well the application was filled out and was not granted . Did not
go through the whole process for granted . They did come out and fill out
the application but that does not necessarily mean it was immediately
granted.
1 Erhart : Was it ever granted?
Olsen: It never went through. It was never finalized .
1 Erhart : Is that different?
Steve Christenson : I don ' t believe that' s correct . We have a letter from
1 the City indicating that that application was promptly granted and that the
contractor complied with everything required by the City.
1 Olsen: What that letter said is that they have come in. That you had made
the application. Where is it? Also you know, that still doesn' t mean that
the City cannot go out and find that there still is a wetland.
1 Emmings : Let me interrupt. Has Roger looked at this? Has Roger looked at
the point that he' s raising in terms of it being estopppal based on the
grading permit?
1 Olsen: No.
1 Emmings : I think we ought to table this until he does . I don' t think
there' s any point in going forward with the public hearing. I think the
City Attorney ought to take a look at it.
' Erhart: Yeah. I mean clearly, I guess if Steve is correct in that he
feels, and which I haven' t accepted that you' re correct but if you are
obviously then it ' s a different situation. If the issue is a contested
1 issue on one versus that , it may not be an apporpriate forum. Paul , what ' s
your opinion on this?
Krauss : Well , we'd be happy to get an opinion from Roger . I guess these
1 sorts of things have come up before and I 'm not an attorney and I don' t
wish to argue points of law but I ' ve been told by two separate City
Attorneys that I 've got a lot of respect for that city staff, if we made a
1 mistake which we don ' t think we did, but if we did, we can do that. I mean
the worlds not a perfect place. You can then try to rectify that error and
that' s a legitimate way of handling things . If you'd like, we'd be happy
to get an opinion from Roger specifically on this activity. We could do
that for you at the next meeting.
Erhart : Well yeah . I think the point Steve is making is this is not the
1 group that decides who' s right or wrong in an argument. I mean we ' re
essentially, I came into this understanding that it was a clear cut . You
1
r r II'
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 3
didn' t have a permit and I still believe that. '
Emmings: The other thing we could do is act on it tonight and get that
opinion between now and the time the City Council sees it.
Steve Christenson: If the Commission does make an decision tonight, I
think that you should consider as a matter of fairness that the homeowners
did try to do everything that they thought they were required to do and
indeed the City stopped them from filling and then allowed them to go
ahead.
Olsen: I 've got a copy of that letter and I 'm sorry. It had been in the I
other report but I don' t see it in this report but I ' ll read it to you if
you'd like. It does not say that the application was granted . It says.
Emmings: Are you sure you' re looking at the same letter he is? 11
Olsen: Yes . I 'm positive it is. '
Krauss: June 29th? Yes .
Olsen: Attached is a copy of the excavation permit for the grading work II
that was done adjacent to Lotus Lake in the early part of June on your
property. It' s addressed to both parties . As you are aware, the City
stopped work on the grading until the appropriate permit was obtained. The
contractor , Mr . Johnson, promptly complied with our request to submit plans
and the needed information for the issuance of the grading permit. However ,
it has come to our attention that the area in which you conducted the
grading may have contained wetland vegetation. The City has a wetland
ordinance which protects wetlands of all sizes . In order for the City to
determine whether or not a wetland alteration permit needs to be processed,
we need to determine the extent of the wetland on your property. In order '
for us to determine this information, please contact me and submit any
pictures which you would have of the shoreline so that we can resolve this
issue. you '
Emmings: Was the date of letter was what?
Olsen: June 29, 1988 . '
Erhart: Any other comment?
Steve Christenson: I would like to make the commission aware that the
filling was done before June 29, 1988.
Olsen: Right. They came in after the fact .
Erhart: Yeah, I understand. 1
Wildermuth: But the real point was the excavation permit granted?
Erhart: Yeah, it wasn't I don' t think. ,
II f 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 4
' Krauss : No , it was not granted.
Ahrens: It doesn' t sound like it .
'
Erhart : My feeling is Steve, I think we can do our job here tonight and
get is passed on one way or the other and let Roger_ take, let him take that
up afterwards so why don' t we proceed then. Did you have anymore Steve?
' Steve Christenson:why
would like to make one further point about what the
commission did a year ago. They postponed making a decision until the DNR
had made the determination. The DNR has now come in and concluded that
' they think the shoreline should be moved back and the homeowners are fully
willing to comply with that and improve the shorelines so that the erosion
is stopped to protect the environment and the erosion of water and soil
' into the lake in that way. Further than that , the DNR does support
granting the permit and I think you should consider that too given the
DNR' s expertise. you
' Erhart : Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak
on this matter?
you.
Steve Christenson: Can I make one more point?
Erhart: Yeah. You bet. The staff recommends that 45 feet of wetlands be,
or fill be removed.
Bob Pfankuch: She mentioned 78 .
Olsen: I 'm sorry that was the width.
Steve Christenson : 78 was the width. 45 feet is the depth. We wouldn' t
' agree that it ' s actually 45 feet deep. I was there looking at it tonight
and there ' s a substantial increase in the grade which seems to me, at least
it looks less than 45 feet away from the shoreline. Although we didn' t, I
' didn' t measure it with a tape so.
Erhart: Any other comment from the public on this?
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
' Emmings : I have a couple of questions . If you look on page 4 of the staff
report Jo Ann, and just as an example. There' s a little table there where
' it says , under what it says the DNR is asking to remove. For Frost it says
depth x width x depth. Depth is used twice and I imagine one for going up
and down and once for going into the property? What the hell does that
' mean?
Olsen : I knew you were going to ask that .
' Bob Pfankuch: Steve, I can answer that. In depth they don' t mean up and
down. They mean back from the wall on the lot line.they
11
II'
Plannin g Commission Meetin g
March 21, 1990 - Page 5
Emmings: The word depth is used twice and I 'm trying to figure out . 1
Bob Pfankuch: That's for each lot line.
Olsen: What I was doing, because of the graduating line. . . it would be 45, II
72. That might be just 45. 45. 72 across and 45. The other one it has
45 and 42. The 45, 78 and 42 because it ' s at an angle. So each side of II
the lot line, that's the depth back.
Emmings: Alright.
II
Olsen: We have those numbers . Sorry to interrupt but we also have those
numbers on the grading permit application that the contractor 's provided
showing us what they. . . I
Emmings: You at least understand what they mean and they seem to
understand what they mean so that ' s good enough for me. + Under the
II
recommendations , we ' ve got one down there for Lot 2, Block 1 which is
Pfankuch?
Olsen: That ' s Frost . I
Emmings: Where's the other one?
Olsen : It ' s supposed to be in there. I had two different. I had 1 and 2.'
Number 2 is missing . So 2 would read, Lot 1, Block 1.
Emmings: Okay, and it would be the same general format as that number 1? I
Olsen: Yeah. The numbers would be 45 x 78 x 42.
Emmings: Okay, and then 3, 4, 5 and 6 would apply to both? II
Olsen: Right. I
Emmings: Well as far as, the only comment I have is, we acted on Outlot A
in a specific way and I don't see why those reasons don' t control this
decision so I 'd go for the staff recommendation.
II
Erhart: Anything else Steve?
Emmings: No. II
Erhart: Okay, Annette.
I
Ellson : I would choose to go along with the staff recommendation too. I
think I had all may comments from the first time it came through it but I II
agree with Steve. We sort of have a precedence with asking the last
applicant to go beyond that and I believe something was discussed at that
time about DNR jurisdiction or something like that.
Olsen: They go up the ordinary high water mark. 1
II
' Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 6
.1
Ellson: Right , so they would usually never recommend anything beyond that
anyway so taking them as an expert still would only go to the one point so
I don' t think that that holds a whole lot more weight so I 'd go along with
the staff ' s recommendation. No other comments.
Ahrens : I go along with the staff ' s recommendation on this also. I have
no further comment.
Wildermuth : I guess I 'm not really satisfied that there is a need to go
' back the 45 feet. DNR is recommending considerably less and I guess Jo
Ann I 'd like to hear a good argument why we' re exceeding that by several
orders of magnitude. why
Olsen: Because the edge of the wetland was beyond that .
Wildermuth: But they must have known that when they made their
' recommendation .
Olsen : The DNR can' t go beyond . They can ' t make them remove beyond the
ordinary high water mark. That' s as far as their jurisdiction goes .
' Bob Pfankuch : The DNR last October had a core sampling tube out on the
property. They were pulling core samples back, roughly 10 or 15 feet from
' the rock wall which in itself is like 1 feet into the water I guess
according to the DNR which has to be moved back. Several occasions there
was no wet soil or wetland soil . In fact on the last occasion, he broke
the tube because the ground was too hard and it wasn' t frozen. I talked to
Pat Lynch of the DNR the day before yesterday. Unfortunately his notes
don' t indicate exactly where he pulled the core samples but I 'm sure that I
could get him to testify or get a letter from him to the best of his
recollection where he pulled the samples. Some of them clearly were not
wetland and I 'm talking like, you know 5 feet back from the ordinary high
water mark. So 45 feet back is just, has no relation to reality number
' one. Number two, the first issue that Steve discussed , you' re talking
about well if we did this to the Colonial Grove Association outlot, then
the same thing should apply. It doesn' t apply because of the issue of the
permit. The association did not receive a permit. The contractor
' apparently did not include that in his requestion for the grading permit.
Only Frost' s property and Pfankuch' s property were included so whatever you
did to the outlot has no bearing in terms of that issue regarding the Frost
' and Pfankuch property.
Erhart : Okay. Yeah , I think we' re assuming here tonight that the permit
doesn' t exist. I think that' s the position we' re taking there so Jim, go
ahead and proceed .
Wildermuth : Well I think a permit is required . I certainly agree with the
' staff recommendation in that regard but I guess I 'm not satisfied that we
have to exceed the DNR recommendation by several orders of magnitude.
Erhart: Is that it?
I
, ' ItPlanning Cor'rdission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 7
IF
Wildermuth: That ' s it.
II
Erhart : Remind me again so I 'm clear , the resolution to Outlot A was what?
Was that in the meeting here?
Olsen : Yes. II
Erhart: I won' t ask you if I was here because I 'm afraid of the answer . II
Olsen: Right. They had to remove a depth of 45 feet.
Erhart: And they agreed to that? 1
Olsen: They never came to the meeting.
Ellson: They didn' t contest it. 11
Olsen: And that went through the Council . 1
Erhart: Okay. Is there any possibility to mitigate this in terms of
moving, establish another area on the lot?
Olsen : I don' t know where you would do it. No . Typically, I mean this is
a Class A wetland. Adjacent to the lake. I don' t know where you could
replace that type of wetland on their property or on that site . I
Erhart: You could move it to the Eckankar property. I mean that' s one of
the recommendations we' re having tonight on another one. The real issue i
here, one way to look at this is that if it was just a 1 acre wetland and
they filled it without a permit , how would we react to that?
Olsen: We are right now I believe. I
Erhart: Yeah, except that in some cases now we have this new alternative
that we can move it to the other side of town. Not that I want to give
II
anybody any ideas but.
Krauss: The one you're quoting though Tim is due to an unavoidable public 11
action and we are in a position to control the acquisition of the new
wetland and it' s establishment elsewhere. It' s unavoidable and it was in
the public interest for that street construction that that be considered.
Erhart : Yeah, I understand that but it' s just that, and obviously we would'
prefer to have this discussion before the action was taken so we could deal
with this logically. I
Wildermuth: Tim, I just had a little question. If the lake lot removes
the fill 45 feet back from where they currently filled, is that what you've'
proposed there or is that what they' re charged to do?
Olsen: Well there is a cross section that the DNR has provided and what
that would do is allow the ordinary high water mark to come back to where II
it was. Then the remaining portion would come up at an angle and would
II
•I Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 8
11
have to be allowed to revegetate in a natural state .
Wildermuth: It 'd be an awfully gradual angle then. How does 45 feet blend
with the , or let' s see it would be 45 feet . How would that blend with the
lot adjacent to the Pfankuch lot? The next one.
Olsen: It starts at 45 and then as you go to the west or the southwest , it
goes down to 42 and the next lot over is left natural . Is that what you' re
asking?
Wildermuth : Yes . I 'm asking where the wetland ends on the adjacent
Iproperty to the Pfankuch property.
Olsen : These lines don' t really reflect or aren ' t to scale but it is,
wetland vegetation. . . from what we could tell .
Erhart : If we were to change the recommendation to provide some
flexibility and use the term restored to original condition and allow you
' some discussions with the applicant later on to actually determine where
this line really was, would that make it easier or harder for you to
resolve this going forward?
Olsen : There will always be discussions on where it was .
Emmings: I guess my suggestion on that would be this. Instead of, why
don' t we put in a condition that says that if they can , assuming that this
is passed in it ' s present form, that if they can show any evidence that the
wetland , did not extend that far into their property, that the City should
take that into account and these figures should be adjusted accordingly.
Erhart: Okay. Well , that would be my recommendation so if you would like
to make, I don' t know if any of the other commissioners would have any
comments , if you'd like to make that motion Steve .
Emmings: Yeah, I will . I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-3 with the following conditions .
Number 1 will read as is in the staff report. Number 2 will be reinserted
to include the other property. There will be 3, 4, 5 and 6. We ' ll have a
I new number 7 that will say that if the property owners can present proof to
the satisfaction of the City staff that the wetland did not extend into
their properties from the lake as far as they' re being required to remove
fill , then that should be taken into account and the amount of fill to be
removed should be adjusted accordingly.
Ellson: I ' ll second it.
Wildermuth: I have one little problem there. If you look at 4 and 5. 4
says the area of removed fill shall be allowed to restore to a natural
state and then 5 says any purple loosestrife that returns should be
immediately removed as recommended by Fish and Wildlife. How are you going
to destroy the purple loosestrife without destroying everything else?
IErhart: Pull it out.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 9
IL
Ellson: According to that manual you can do it. I
Erhart: Pull it out by hand.
Ahrens : You can' t do that. II
Bob Pfankuch: It' s never been demonstrated that it can be done. 1
Erhart: I know I 've tried it myself .
Ellson: Do people have this manual? I
Erhart: I think 5 is just reiterating. Actually I think there is an
ordinance for a lot that does require the removal of purple loosestrife I
already.
Olsen: Nuisance. Yeah , it' s a nuisance.
II
Erhart: So 5 is just repeating what is already a law so does that satisfy
you Jim? already satisfy
Wildermuth: No but. II
Bob Pfankuch: Also in conversation with Pat Lynch, I know there' s been
some articles in the papers about illegal sanding of the beaches so I aske�
him about that . You can sand the beach to a depth of 6 inches twice
without a permit from the DNR. If we move the wall back and I sand the II beach, what I 'm going to have is a water filled ditch if you ask me to
restore a wetland and eventually that will fill up with soil , vegetation up
against the rock so you' re just going to make me remove something that ' s
going to naturally fill in all by itself because the sand on the water sick"
of the rock is going to be higher than the so called restored wetland . It
just doesn' t make any sense. Besides being obviously punitive, you' re
asking me to restore something that never existed . I
Emnings: That' s an interesting point. Are you saying there never was a
wetland down there?
Bob Pfankuch: I 'm saying there never was a wetland as described by the
planning staff. by
Emmings: Do you have photographs of your property from that time before it'
was filled?
Bob Pfankuch: I have some photographs but they' re not of a nature that I II
think could be used to show that. Some of the photographs that I supplied
that were xeroxed copied with the construction equipment on it at the time
that it was stopped will show the extent of the loosestrife which is on the
water side of the front loader . Then on the other_ side you can see that
there' s a clearly delineated section of land that was sodded going down to
the dock and it would be the left side facing the lake , whatever direction"
that is, is where the hill was that actually was carved down to flatten ou
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 10
I
' the land . That was solid virgin earth . Shirley' s here tonight . Her
property is adjacent to mine. Opposite the Frost' s. The ordinary high
water stake is about 2 feet back from the water ' s edge currently. Her lot
is in natural condition. It certainly does not have 45 feet of wetland. I
' mean if it ' s more than 10 feet I 'd be surprised behind the ordinary high
water mark. Thank you.
' Erhart: Any comments Paul?
Krauss : Well you know as to the sand beach, the DNR may have regulations
' again about that. I 'm sure they do but you cannot throw a sand beach down
in a Class A wetland and no DNR official would tell you that you could .
Erhart: What is it? You can put a sand beach down in this city below the
' ordinary high water mark? That you can do?
Emmings : But you need to get a permit to do that. You can sand above the
' ordinary high water mark is my understanding without talking to the DNR but
you can ' t sand below the ordinary high water mark without talking to them.
He said something different tonight but I just don' t. . .
Bob Pfankuch : It' s not the way Pat Lynch explained it to me. He said you
can sand 50% of the lakeshore not to exceed 50 feet to a depth of 6 inches
each time. You can do it twice without a permit. You have to get a permit
for the 3rd and 4th and 5th and 6th time.
Emmings: Below the ordinary high water mark?
Bob Pfankuch: If I fill up the water area on the other side of the wall
with sand , what I 'm going to have is a triangular ditch.
' Erhart: But is it below the ordinary high water mark or above?
Bob Pfankuch : It ' s on the water side of the ordinary high water mark where
' you can sand . . .
Emmings : But not if there' s a wetland there you can ' t.
Bob Pfankuch: It' s filled with water. What do you call that?
Wildermuth : If he has to remove all the fill , then it will be covered with
water right.
Emmings: So what?
Erhart : But your feeling is it' s above the ordinary high water mark?
Well , anyway I guess what happened. Essentially if the applicant feels the
date is wrong that we dealt with, he has the option to do what?
Krauss: We'd be happy to receive any better data than we have. We made
our best guess recommendation after the fact which is difficult to do .
Planning Commission Meeting
II
March 21, 1990 - Page 11
Erhart: And so to get it reviewed again and we' re going to pass something 'll
here. To get it reviewed with better data, does he go back to Planning
Commission? Does he take it to Council or can you give him some. . .
Krauss: It would be helpful if it were clarified before it went to the
City Council . Otherwise we could try and do it at staff level .
Bob Pfankuch: I 'd say the burden of proof is on the City. '
Erhart : Okay, is there any other discussion?
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-3 with the following conditions :
1. Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake 2nd Addition, shall have
45 ' x 72 ' x 45 ' of fill removed measured from the property line
adjacent to Lotus Lake as shown on the final plat. The fill will be II
removed by June 15, 1990 using the typical cross section provided by
the DNR.
2. Lot 1, Block 2, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake 2nd Addition , shall have II
45 ' x 78 ' x 42 ' of fill removed measured from the property line
adjacent to Lotus Lake as shown on the final plat. The fill will be
removed by June 15, 1990 using the typical cross section provided by 11
the DNR.
3. The applicant shall be permitted one boardwalk through the restored
wetland to provide access to the dock.
4. The area of removed fill shall be allowed to restore to a natural
state.
5. Any purple loosestrife that returns shall be immediately removed as
recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service manual , "Spread, Impact II
and Control of Purple Loosestrife in North America Wetlands" .
6. Prior to any work being done on the site, the applicant shall submit II
for City staff approval a grading and erosion control plan.
7. If the property owners can present proof to the satisfaction of the II City staff that the wetland did not extend into their properties from
the lake as far as they' re being required to remove fill , then that
should be taken into account and the amount of fill to be removed
should be adjusted accordingly. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Emmings: I think Jim is voting no but I 'm not sure. Maybe he didn' t vote.
Wildermuth: I voted yes but you know. . . 1
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
March 21 , 1990 - Page 12
I
' Emming : The other thing is the City Attorney ought to look at. . .
Wildermuth: The other thing is, we ought to have some kind of a provision
in here that the city staff and DNR and the property owners get together to
establish how far back the excavation has to be. 45 feet is an awful long
way.
1 Erhart: Well I thought we did that. Effectively by adding the new point ,
I think we did leave it open for discussion.
' Ahrens : If they can come up with some proof.
Emmings: But the other thing is Jim, the DNR' s interest ends at the
ordinary high water mark. They have no interest above that. We have
stricter standards than they do and we' re entitled to have those.
Bob Pfankuch: Just one more thing . City sewer extends beyond the ordinary
' high water mark. The DNR, Pat Lynch doesn' t go with a straight line
between the two markers so I suggested a curving more natural shoreline
certainly at least to the extent of the city sewer . He said if you have to
pull it back to the ordinary high water mark, the City will have to remove
the soil . And incidentally, that 20 foot easement was put in by the City
and the wetlands were covered by the City so I 'm really not responsible for_
that. That ' s an existing condition. That ' s 10 feet on each side of the
sewer . 10 feet on Frost' s property. . .
Erhart : Okay, this will go to City Council , unless you have some further
discussion with staff, on April 9th .
PUBLIC HEARING:
' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR FILLING AND ALTERATION OF CLASS A AND B
WETLANDS LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE EAST, SOUTH OF HWY. 5 AND EAST OF DAKOTA
AVENUE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Vice Chairman Erhart called the
public hearing to order .
Ellson moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Wildermuth : It seems inconsistent that here we' re going to fill a wetland
and on the issue just preceeding this we' re going to make people restore a
wetland . This is all in the Lake Riley watershed right Jo Ann? So it' s
legitimate to do this trade-off as far as the DNR is concerned?
Olsen : What we' re doing is we' re not redirecting , there' s only a small
' portion of the area A wetland so the water that purpose is serving has not
been altered . The water runoff would still be maintained in the area B
wetland by putting in the storm sewer . It' s just not running above
ground , it' s running below ground .
Planning Commission Meeting II
March 21, 1990 - Page 13
II
Wildermuth: I support the staff recommendation on this issue .
Ahrens: I had a problem with this too for the sane reasons that Jim II
stated , although I can see that there is a different situation here. I
didn't hear much talk though when the last discussion about the type of
II
wetland that was located on these people' s property. Whether it was a
Class VII or whatever class it was and whether or not it was good or bad .
Olsen: It was Class A.
II
Ahrens: All the way up? All 45 feet up?
Olsen: Right, was a Class A. It wasn' t as far as the quality, it did have '
purple loosestrife in it and so that wasn' t the highest quality but the
wetlands adjacent to open waters are some of the most important so I do
strongly feel that there's a different between these two situations. II
Ahrens : And there' s no place on this property to relocate the wetland?
illOlsen: There are several different properties along here. And again, are
A really doesn' t have to be. They' re going to be developing . The
McDonalds site is coming in in the near future too so we don' t want to II replace it there.
Krauss: The expansion. '
Olsen: Or the expansion. Their site plan . The area B wetland , these
sites are going to be developed in the future so that's not really where we
would want to replace them. There is a wetland that was a an made pond oll
the DataSery site and we are looking. They are going to be coming in the
future too to replace that wetland and provide a larger one, almost double
the size and create a better wetland. So there was the opportunity to
possibly have, replace some of these areas on that site. It just didn' t , II
we weren' t verified that was going to actually happen and we still aren ' t.
Whereas with the Eckankar site we do know that that' s going ahead . We do
have that replacement there that we can use. il
Ahrens : Is that the only location where you' re relocating wetlands?
Olsen: Currently that' s the one site that the City is involved with as fail
as our mitigation bank this is going . We always prefer to replace them on
that site and we did discuss that with this situation and didn' t really II have a place within the alignment to do that.
Ahrens: So if McDonalds comes in with a proposal to. . . II Olsen: They' re not going to be, they' re just going to be going up to the
edge of that. That is one, that' s the type of wetland that we have allowed
to be filled and then replaced elsewhere on that site or to be improved
somehow. The McDonalds site plan, with their expansion doesn't impact that'
wetland so we don' t have the opportunity at that time to require them to,
if they' re going to be filling it or altering it to replace it with another"
wetland on that site . But possibly when that property inbetween those two
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21 , 1990 - Page 14
I
' wetlands , when that develops , then we would have that opportunity if they
impact those. But we just don' t have control of those properties . We
can ' t really say. It ' s a city project so we really can ' t say that they
have to replace the wetland and we would have to purchase the property.
Ahrens : I 'm just curious. How is the City able to keep expanding the
wetland on the Eckankar property?
Olsen: On the Eckankar property? We' re purchasing a portion of that for
storm water management. It ' s part of the downtown, the West 78th Street
' realignment .
Ahrens : It ' s just going to keep expanding? Keep purchasing?
' Olsen: No, we already have it designed and it was in excess of the acreage
over what we had to use to replace another wetland that we altered with
Lake Drive near Rosemount.
Krauss : Mr . Chairman, if I could expand on that just for a second . If it
seems like we fly by the seat of our pants with these sort of replacements ,
that ' s in effect what we do right now. Staff has been talking to the City
' Council for the last 4 or 5 months about the possibility of undertaking a
storm water management plan , a comprehensive storm water management plan
that would also embody a very heavy wetland protection effort and probably
a redrafting of our wetland ordinance. Those sorts of trade-offs would be
very clear and understandable under such a plan. I think the Council and
staff see the merit of that and now it' s a matter of bringing that about .
' We' re looking for some financing mechanisms for it. It' s rather an
expensive and lenghty process but that' s clearly the way to resolve these
things in a comprehensive manner. Until that time, we' re doing the best we
can with these replacement programs.
IAhrens : It does seem arbitrary to me and I don' t understand what standards
are being used to determine what wetland should stay and which one should
' go except for some are more valuable than others but I still don' t
understand those standards. That ' s why I have a hard time voting on this
to tell you the truth .
Erhart : Annette, do you have something there?
Elison: I saw this once before and I it confused me at the time and I was
t going to ask you if we were buying the land on Eckankar or if we just sort
of tell them to make it bigger and they' ll do it or whatever . What I was
wondering is if somebody else was developing and they couldn' t build their
wetland on their exact site like we'd prefer and yet they owned other land
within our property, would we allow them that same opportunity that we' re
giving ourselves is what I 'm saying? I mean for all fairness we should
' probably, I ' ve never been involved in one.
Olsen: That 's never occurred but yes .
' Ellson : I can just see someone coming up to us and say well , you guys just
moved yours when you wanted to take it out and I own a little patch of land
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 15
I
over here, what if I just turned it into wetlands. Would we allow that
sort of thing as a mitigation?
Olsen: That is something that we will be, that ' s kind of a new thing
that ' s happening with the mitigation banking. If they don ' t have other
land and the City does that we can develop and they can provide like a par
fee or wetland fee.
Ellson: Yeah , somehow buy it. '
Olsen: Right. The money that would go towards . . .
Ellson: Get it dedicated towards that .
Olsen: If it ' s a viable Class A wetland, even with the City we try to woril
around that because those you just can' t replace.
Ellson: The other question I have was the Eckankar property wetland is
going to be an improvement over the current one?
Olsen: Over these two?
Ellson: Right .
Olsen: Oh yeah.
Ellson: From what I remember . In other words, it' s going to be we' re
taking 2 okay ones and we' re replacing it in a totally different area with !'
a great one or something to this effect.
Olsen: We are.
Ellson : So that might be another precedence that it has to go to an
improvement or something like that?
Olsen: We've done that too. '
Ellson: Well I 'd vote to accept the staff proposal . Nothing further .
Emmings: There's Class A and B wetlands in each of these areas. When
other people come in and want to, just looking to the one to the west
there, when they want to alter wetlands like that. Would we feel it' s
necessary for them to alter it, then usually we have them improve the
balance of the wetland. Is there an opportunity to do that there?
Olsen: Again, it' s not on our property. I don' t know how we would , would ,
we have to acquire that property or whether we could do it with an
easement.
Emmings: Oh, I see. But we' re acquiring . . .
Olsen: It' s just where that dot is . '
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 16
I
' Emmings : Yeah , I can see it. We've acquired that property.
Olsen: Through an easement. Well and actually when McDonalds comes
through their platting , we will be acquiring this as right-of-way. . .
' Emmings: So really it' s not ours . We don't have the opportunity to go in
there and improve it.
Olsen : This one will return to it' s state. I mean it' s going to be
altered but it won' t have that water. The ditch running through will be,
the middle will return to it' s natural state.
Emmings: Well I guess I can see a rationale, although I think the City
should look for opportunities to improve wetlands that we affect . I guess
I it wouldn' t be appropriate here but I think we should look for those
opportunities . If we' re going to require it of everybody else , we ought to
be setting the tone but this I guess is not a place to do it. It seems to
' me to be distinguishable from the last one we were talking about when we
were talking about putting in public improvements that benefit everybody.
That' s quite a different thing than filling wetlands on your own land
simply because you prefer to so I don' t have too much trouble with that. I
' just hope we' re doing everything we can to look for alternatives for the
path of storm sewers and everything so we avoid these areas but I vote for
this assuming that all that' s already been taken into consideration.
' Erhart: Who owns the property?
'
Olsen : It ' s Chanhaven Plaza who actually owns it .
Erhart : I mean someone owns that whole piece?
Krauss : Yes . It ' s privately owned and McDonalds is buying a sliver of it.
Olsen: And then DataSery also.
' Erhart : In our ordinance, wetlands ordinance, do we have a minimum size of
wetland? How do you know when a wetland isn' t a horse making a hole in the
' dirt?
Krauss : Yeah , there' s a real dilemma there frankly Mr . Chairman. That' s
one of the other issues that we want to get at with this storm water
' management plan. Our ordinance basically says we know it when we see it.
And depending on who' s looking, it' s either there or it isn' t. We try to
be consistent but it' s difficult.
Erhart : Essentially I guess my feeling isn' t a whole lot different than
what appears to be the consensus on the commission here. I would add that
in reality I think we have to put a minimum size of what is a wetland
' because from the standpoint of people managing their land and trying to, a
practical approach to land development as much as I think most developers
that come in here want to work with us on our wetland ordinance, there is
' some point where a half acre wetland, although it may be valuable, it' s
value at some point where it just becomes such a small thing relative to
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 17
II
what the social function of the land is , that you have to draw a line
someplace. I know the DNR I think draws a line at 1 acre. II
Krauss : No, it ' s 10 acres or 2 1/2 in some .
Erhart: Isn't there something that' s 1? II
Olsen : If you fill more than 1 acre of a wetland . 1
Krauss: What we've been looking at is a system that doesn' t take size only
into account but it takes the value of the wetland . You can have a half
acre wetland that's pristine wildlife habitat and you have a 5 acre one II
that ' s somewhat worthless and there are ways now of getting those
gradiations down on a map and you can accept changes in one and not the
other . I
Erhart : Anyway, in my mind it' s something less than an acre and these are
both less than half an acre and so again, not to repeat but I agree with II
the statements here and with that, those comments, if we' re all ready,
entertain a motion on this .
Ellson: I move the Planning Commission approve the Wetland Alteration
Permit #90-1 as shown on plans dated March 12, 1990 with the two condition
outlined in the staff ' s report .
Erhart: Is there a second? II
Wildermuth : Second .
II
Erhart : Any discussion?
Ellson moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #90-1 as shown on the plans dated
March 12, 1990 with the following conditions: I
1. The type of wetlands that are being removed as part of the Lake Drive
East improvements including Types II , III , V, VI and VII will be II provided in any equal amount at the wetland site on the Eckankar
property which is being developed as part of the West 78th Street
Detachment Program.
2. Type III erosion control shall be provided to protect unaltered wetlanII
areas.
All voted in favor and the motion carried . I
II
II
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' March 21 , 1990 - Page 18
' PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LAKE RILEY WOODS 2ND ADDITION TO CORRECT A
PLATTING ERROR, GEORGE NELSON ASSOCIATES.
Public Present :
Name Address
Joel Cooper Pioneer Engineering
Jim Peterson George Nelson Associates
Mr . and Mrs. Fraser Lot 4, Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition
' Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Erhart called the
public hearing to order .
Joel Cooper : My name is Joel Cooper . I 'm with Pioneer. Engineering . We ' re
the engineering firm that was fortunate enough to have made this mistake.
I guess I take exception with Paul ' s statements . I guess our position is
obviously we've made a mistake and it ' s not a little mistake. It' s one
mistake that' s compounded to another mistake . We have in good faith tried
to resolve this situation in a manner in which we think is reasonable and
most prudent for all concerned . We've had several meetings with the
' homeowners on Lot 4 trying to resolve a lot line that would meet with their
satisfaction in this replat . Had met with that satisfaction. The line
that we have moved it over to is at a location where they previously
thought was their lot line and contains all the improvements that is on
' their lot. The net result of this of course is that the corner lot
requires 2. 2 acres , or is reduced to 2. 2 acres . We realize that this is
substandard but we feel that . 3 of an acre shortage in a 2 1/2 acre lot
doesn ' t make that lot deficient in the fact that it can still function as a
lot. You can still locate drainfields on it. You can still place a house
on it and can meet all the other needs and can support a house. Also , with
this replat is the net platted area remains the same. The only difference
here is that one lot is .3 short and I guess we feel like this is the best
solution for all concerned. I guess I don' t know what else I can say.
' Erhart : Thanks Mr . Cooper . Go ahead Steve. Do you have a question?
Emmings: I 'd just like to ask you a question while you' re up there. Has
' anybody estimated the cost of moving the road to where it ought to be?
Joel Cooper : Well , to construct the road where it is presently cost. . .
' Emmings: No, that' s not the question. I know that cost .
Joel Cooper : Well okay. To move it to where it would have to go would be
approximately the same cost. Basically what you'd have to do is you 'd have
to tear up the whole street. There was extensive earth correction work
done. That would have to be redone into the new location.
Emmings: So your best estimate is that it would be the same?
Planning II
Pla i g Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 19
II
Joel Cooper : You'd basically be building the street over again, yes . In
addition, there would be costs in locating the electric that ' s presently
there and I 'm not sure what that cost would be.
Erhart: Okay. Mr . Cooper , maybe if you'd just take this front seat there II
in case we have any other. questions. Is there any other comment from the
public on this?
Delores Fraser : My name is Delores Fraser and I 'm the owner on Lot 4. I 'di
like to express my opposition to the plat being replatted and a variance
given on Lot 5 because we feel that with the position of the way our house
is on the land, that it would seriously depreciate the value of our house. ,
The only way I can really show that is to show you how our house is sitting
on the land. You have the same map but I think I have it too. . . .the way
the house is oriented , the surveying company that surveyed the road and pu
the road in also staked our house. The ideal was with the road in straigh
that they have the house flush with the cul-de-sac and the back of our
house should be looking back into the road that comes here and here houses II
and here is the back of their 2 1/2 acres and our house should be looking
straight back into the 2 1/2 acres. Instead with the road coming in at an
angle and they staked the house, it was staked back into the development a
a results of the skew of this road. The only buildable place on Lot 5 is
on this ridge right behind our house so the house is pretty much on the lot
line very close to our house which could have. . .back yard literally. 50
feet away and it would be really close together . We feel that that is an II
unacceptable situation. Another point that wasn' t brought up by
engineering , when you' re looking at these maps , the way they use the center
line of the road it should have been. . .the lines that are on the ground all
not the lines that are on there now. This is the way that it looks now.
Emmings: Another thing you might do is we' ve got a new map from the
engineers and why don' t you tell us if this looks kind of accurate to you. II
Delores Fraser : It is.
Mr. Fraser : Do you have a red marker? II
Olsen : This might work.
II
Mr . Fraser : When we got this piece of property this is what we thought . . .
It was staked along that line there. That's what we thought. . .and in
reality the problem was found when another survey company came in because
somebody was going to buy Lot 5 and jumped the gun a little bit and had th
house surveyed and when he surveyed the house, he put it in the most
obvious spot. The stakes are still sitting there and that's where it is ill
our backyard because it happens it all low lying in the front and you can' ll
see the picture but it' s actually swampland almost. . . That first high
point is the most obvious place to put it but it ends up in our back yard. II
Then when they came in, they staked it. They put the corner stakes really
where the line is, 10 feet, 5 feet from our house. That' s how close it is
to our house, the corner stake. That' s really where the whole problem was
found by another surveying company coming in there and . . .the way that lot I
is existing, the two houses will be about 75-65 feet apart. We' ll look
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 20
out our back window and see this house and we bought a 2 1/2 acre lot. . .
Part of that location problem is when we put this house where we. . . and
they showed it on the map to us after they surveyed it and put it on there
which had to be wrong because they used the wrong lines so it couldn' t be
right. And then when my wife got the paper , she told them something ' s
wrong here. This looks terrible. It looks really. . .and it' s really wrong
so they brought somebody out to the back of our house. You' re looking at
lines on a piece of paper . In the field there is no line. It' s just like
this and we find out later , 2 months later that the person who came up
and . . .was a computer programmer and did not anybody of any knowledge and we
raised . . . Part of that is due to the fact that the survey company, when
they placed the house and we did bring up the point that my wife, when she
picked it up, something doesn' t look right . We didn' t know what because we
weren ' t knowledgeable enough .
Emmings : Do you know how far in fact your house is set back from the true
lot line that divides 4 and 5?
Mr . Fraser : Oh I know. It ' s about, the true lot line, I have less than 10
feet from the corner of my house because the stake ended up. . . That' s
where the stake ended up.
Emmings : That was the stake showing that lot line.
Mr . Fraser : That was the other survey.
Emmings : The platted lot line.
Mr . Fraser : The other survey showed the lot line there.
Delores Fraser : We feel the only way. . . is to go along with staff ' s
recommendation. . . so we' re hoping that you don' t approve the variance
because we think it' s going to . . .
Wildermuth : Would you lay your overhead back on there. You show 3
cul-de-sacs . Which is the actual cul-de-sac now?
Krauss : The actual one is where the solid line is.
Wildermuth: The most northerly one?
Krauss : Right. The right-of-way is the dashed line underneath .
Wildermuth: I guess there are only two. It seems to me I saw three.
Joel Cooper : Some of what the Frasers said is true here. However , I guess
I have to take exception to a couple of the comments they've made. First
of all the location of their house, they mey our survey crew out on the
site and they located on the site where they wanted their house and how
they wanted to orientate it . The lot line that we' re showing them right
now is the exact same lot line that they thought they had at the time they
orientated their house.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 23
get them to build down low but I can' t guarantee it because people have a I
way of changing their mind after I sell them the lot so I just didn' t want
to get involved in something I couldn' t personally guarantee but there are
other adjoining land owners that could use Lot 5 also and it may have some
residual value . Be it to the Fraser ' s . Be it to the other adjoining land
owner , I would still like to see that portion marketable even if it' s not
buildable. At least so there is some recovery cost and if that ' s the
solution that you come up with. I 'm available for any questions . Thank
you.
Erhart: Okay, thanks Mr . Peterson. Any other input from the public? If
not is there a motion to close the public hearing.
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Okay, let' s do something different this time. Let ' s start in the
middle. Annette, why don' t you start? I bet you weren' t ready for that. t
Ellson: That ' s why I choose the center . I can always hear at least one , �
opinion before me. This reminded me of a nightmare when I read it in the
first time . Then I kind of read it over a few times . I can certainly feel
for the people on Lot 4 and I know that mistakes can happen and yes, they
have consequences when they do. What I 'd like to see and maybe I should 3 �
ask the applicant if it' s possible, I agree with Mr . Nelson I guess that . . .
Jim Peterson : Peterson. : I
Ellson: Peterson. One of those common names you know. But is that I 'd
like to see some sort of compromise is possible. I don' t like the idea of
absolutely turning that one into dust balls because of this mistake yet I 'r. l
wondering if maybe the staff can answer , is it possible to put a
requirement that the house can only be built in this area and have it
marked. That this is a buildable lot only if the house is here and it 11
would be someplace toward the front and preferably on the right or
something like that. I don't know, do we have any jurisdiction over that
sort of thing?
Krauss : The City would not be in a position to do that. All they can do
is enforce our setback requirements which gives them a lot of latitude to
build wherever they wish. The owner could presumably put some covenants ox
restrictions on the property that we would not be in a position to enforce
that may in fact do that but we couldn't guarantee it.
Ellson: I 'm wondering, can we approve it asking that this covenant be
done? It sounds like yeah, you could ask it. It still doesn' t have to be
done. They' ll put it anywhere they want to and we have no. . .
Krauss: Theoretically you could I suppose but you' re depending on a third
party that we have no control over to carry out an action and they might
never record the covenant. They might void it out the next day or whatever
and we don' t have any recourse.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990
I 24
' Erhart : If I could follow on that point. I guess I find it hard to
believe that someone coming in for a variance request that we can' t ask for
that and get it.
' Krauss : Mr . Chairman, you can ask but we can' t enforce it.
' Erhart: We don' t have to provide the variance either so I mean it just
seems, just by practice that it could be.
Ellson: We'd get more for a variance because it ' s out of the ordinary
anyway.
Erhart : Yeah . Anyway, go ahead .
tEllson : I guess that' s my concern. I 'd like to see that it could be pulled
off or if necessary to people on both sides or at least a portion of it. I
' don' t want to see them build a house they way it ' s on that and for the same
reasons that they mentioned . I mean you don' t buy a 2 1/2 acre lot so that
you have somebody next to you like you ' re living downtown. Nor would I
think the person building there probably would want that so I think it
' would be hard to sell a house that' s going to next to it either so I guess
if we can' t control where the house would be, then what I would want to do
is. I don ' t know what is it that I 'd want to do? If I want it allowed to
be sold but I don' t want it allowed to be built. What do you do? If you
still plat it the way they want it but then you say unbuildable? you
' Krauss: Well what you would do in that case is plat it as an outlot which
we would have a problem with and our recommendation would be to you that
that not be done. The reason being is that it has no purpose. This is a
lot that' s not buildable under current and presumably future ordinances in
' the City. What typically happens to those is that they' re not maintained .
They become nuisances . They go tax forfeit . Frankly we don' t care and
really don' t have any authority to tell anybody how to dispose of that
piece fof land except to the extent that Lot 4 has to be made whole. They
shouldn' t have any setback variances of it' s own. If there was a way that
the lot to the north was going to pick up some property, I mean there' s
only 2 choices. There' s only 2 lots that border the site. If it was
' disposed in some manner that gave a share to each , we wouldn' t have a
problem with that either. I guess the fundamental issue here though is the
City accepted a plat that on the face of it met all our standards. We had
no comprehension of the fact that when it was actually built it wouldn' t.
We accept surveys and subdivision proposals on good faith that they' re
prepared accurately and that they' ll be developed accurately and in this
case it didn' t work.
Ellson: Well that ' s my comment. I 'm interested to see what the other
people have to say but I guess I 'm fishing for a middle ground. Not easy
to get though.
Emmings : Now the replat , would the replat push the line that divides Lot 4
and 5 further away from the house that ' s on Lot 4?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 25
Krauss : Yes . ,
Emmings: So in a way, I 'm not sure what ' s best for the folks in the house
on Lot 4. Nothing ' s real good but at least the replat gives them a bigger
side yard than you' d have if we deny the replat . My first reaction to thill
was that it ' s very simple, and I 'm not so sure it is but we never would
have approved this lot at 2. 2 acres . Ever . So I don' t know why we want to
accept it now unless it does something maybe good for the people on Lot 4
and as to what ought to be done , it' s easy. It ought to be fixed and the
folks who made the mistake ought to pay for it. That 's what I do everyday
as an attorney and when I screw up, I have malpractice insurance and peopl
don' t hesitate to come and get their money. And that ' s why I 've got my
insurance for and I invite them to come and get it because that ' s what it' s
there for. And that would certainly be my reaction to this if that house
wasn ' t sitting there on Lot 4. If it was just the road issue in there , I '�
say sorry Pioneer . Fix it. It's your fault. You' ve admitted fault. Fix
it at your own cost and get it done. But I don' t really know if that' s the
best thing for the house on Lot 4 and I could go with, I don' t like the
replat except that it gives them a bigger sideyard . I could vote for a
plan to eliminate Lot 5 as a lot. If we did the replat, I 'd just as soon
eliminate 5 as a lot but I do like, I kind of like the notion that Annette
brought up, I hadn' t thought of it, was conditioning approval of the replay
on the house being built to the front of the lot. Are you telling us that
that absolutely, that we don' t have the power to say. . .
Ellson : To enforce it . ,
Emmings: Put it on as a condition of the plat . That the house is built oll
Lot 5 will , the front of it will be at the setback line or something like
that .
Krauss : We have no authority to enforce private covenants , if that ' s the
mechanism that' s used.
Emmings : No. It ' s not a private covenant . That ' s a condition on the
plat. You see it' s interesting because on the map they gave us, that' s
where they put the house . They put the pad right where we' re saying we'd
like to see it.
Krauss : What they did there is they simply put conceptual pads at the
setback line.
Emmings: But they sure as hell meant us to think that that' s where it was II
going to be built and it was maybe a little misleading in that way but
I guess I 'd be interested to know if you think you could sell that lot to
somebody. If that would be a reasonable place to put a house on that lot. '
It would be attractive to a purchaser .
Jim Peterson: I don' t think it' s the first site. I 'm not always , whenevel
I look at a site, it' s not. . . The reason we put that house there was not
to mislead you but to lead the buyer and as I told the Fraser ' s , I ' ll do
everything in my power to get that person to build. . .but when I put a
covenant on the lot which I can do, enforcement still remains the problem. II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 26
' The. . .and let ' s say they say okay, we' ll buy the lot and the covenants
there. The ordinance says . . .
' Emmings : But maybe we could catch it when they come in for the permit.
Jim Peterson: . . .but I don't know that I can honestly guarantee.
' Enmings : Oh, no. I 'm not asking you to guarantee it . I guess I 'd like to
know. . .
Jim Peterson : . . . it' s really hard for me to guarantee that .
Emmings: Okay. We' re not asking you to guarantee anything. Can we put a
condition on the plat? I guess I 'd like a yes or no answer . Can we put a
condition on the plat as to where that pad will be?
Krauss : I don' t believe you can. You' re creating a condition that ' s
' applied to no other lot in the city.
Ellson: That ' s because of a variance. We can ask for all kinds of things
' on those can' t we?
Krauss : Well that' s true but getting in the mind set of exchanging
something for a variance is not necessarily an ideal place to be.
' Emmings : Well yeah and that ' s a good point because under our standards
right now there is no hardship here and we shouldn't be granting a
' variance.
Krauss : Now there is a possibility. Jo Ann and I were talking about it,
that you could do something like require the platting of a conservation
easement over part . You know over the back, north part of, the lot that
would prevent any construction and we have control over it. As you crowd
that lot through to the front , there is a drainage pond on the corner there
' that precludes building real close. It' s outside the setback line but
their yard , their front yard in essence would slope down into a pond that
had water in it when I was out there a couple days ago.
' Emmings: It seems to me if he thought that he could find a buyer for the
lot with the house to the front and the house to the front would satisfy
the people on Lot 4, then maybe I could swing with the replat. Otherwise
I 'm opposed to it.
Erhart: Okay, thanks Steve. Joan?
' Ahrens : I think that' s a sensible solution but Steve are you saying that
you would recommend approval of a lot size of 2. 2 acres then?
' Emmings : No , and there' s no grounds for a variance and I would never go
along with it except it might be the best thing for the people on Lot 4.
That' s the thing that really, like I say, to me this is simple. You make
' Pioneer fix it but that doesn' t really help the people on Lot 4 because it
winds up bringing their lot line in closer to their house. That I don' t
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 27
I
think is real fair to them so that' s my hang-up on this.
Ahrens: So in order to comply with a variance ordinance, we'd have to see
that there. . .
Emmings: We can ' t.
Ahrens : We can' t do it right . Well if we can' t do it because there' s no II
hardship, what' s the discussion about?
Emmings: That ' s a good literal application. The trouble is it hurts thos
folks.
Ahrens : You know it bothers me also but I mean somehow we do have
ordinances and we are supposed to be interrupting those and making
decisions based on our ordinance otherwise we can change the ordinance.
Emmings: It 's cold but true.
Erhart : Sometimes the human comes out on us . Paul?
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, one thing we did not look into that theoretically I 1
suppose could be investigated is the possibility of the developer stealing
a little bit of land if you will from the lot that' s to the north of Lot 5 .
Erhart : He stole my idea .
Krauss : If they have sufficient area and I 'm aware if they do or not.
Erhart : It would appear , if you look at it, it appears. . .
Wildermuth: That doesn ' t resolve the homeowner ' s problem. I
Krauss: You would still go through the replat so that Lot 4 would be in
compliance with the ordinance . It may not resolve the owner on Lot 4 ' s
concern about the placement of the house.
Wildermuth: There is an interesting option that does resolve the
homeowner ' s problem though. The question who would pay and that' s to move I
the house.
Ahrens : I thought of that too. I
Wildermuth: You'd still have to replat but you could replat without a
variance. Without the requirement for a variance. '
Ahrens : I mean even if there' s a variance and there' s a house built
towards the front of the lot on Lot 5, they' re still not happy with where
their house is because it faces the rest of the development . •
Emmings: That' s their claim against these folks. I don' t know, maybe we
shouldn' t be getting into this.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 28
Wildermuth: Yeah , but they' re not happy with the way their house is
situated in relationship to the lot line at the present and potentially in
the future is because the cul-de-sac got shifted to the extent that it did .
' But even if the cul-de-sac didn' t get shifted, their house is not in a very
good position any way you look at it. For whatever reason.
Erhart: Joan, do you have anything more?
' Ahrens : I guess I can' t go along with the staff recommendation on this . I
can' t go along with any of these. I would like to see a solution of the
' problem. I mean I think there is a big problem here. I 'd like to see the
Lot 5 sold so the developer can make some money off of it. I 'd like to see
the people, the Fraser ' s satisfied but I don ' t know how we can approve a
' variance when our ordinance doesn' t allow us to.
Emmings : So you agree with the staff recommendation?
Ahrens: Is that what?
Emmings: They' re saying to deny it .
Ahrens: Oh, okay. I agree with you. Brilliant.
Erhart : Are you done Joan? Jim?
Wildermuth : I think it ' s been said several times before . There ' s no basis
for a variance here but the one attractive resolution, maintaining 5 lots
' is still to move the existing house . Failing that, then the second
alternative discussed in the staff report is probably the way to go .
Costly for the developer because it would eliminate one lot but it would
' certainly eliminate the problem with the position of the house in
relationship to the lot lines .
Erhart : Okay, thanks Jim. I am not in favor of not making Lot 5 buildable
because it would be a waste of land. I think you know that I think 2 1/2
acre lots are already in my opinion a tremendous waste of land and to make
a 4.7 acre lot is even a bigger waste of land. It would prevent a
potential citizen of Chanhassen moving in. Prevent us for collecting taxes
on that lot which you pointed out Paul . Creating that lot has, the request
to replat has no adverse affect on the environment. It has only adverse
affect on the Fraser ' s as far as the way the subdivision would be laid out
' and certainly moving the street doesn' t make any sense at this point.
Regretful as the mistake is and I agree with Steve that quite frankly that
there is a substantial potential liability here that I don' t think that the
' City is in a position to try to reduce that liability. I think we' re
purely try to address the issues I just listed . I 'd like to see Lot 5
developed and to resolve it. My feeling then is , my recommendation would
' be to approve the replat with the condition and recommend the variance with
the condition and only recommend a variance and the condition that the
house on Lot 5 would have to be built so that none of it would extend any
further north than an east/west line from the northeast corner of the
' existing house or some other terminology that perhaps would be agreeable to
the Fraser ' s and to the staff to the same effect but I think that kind of
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 29
I
sums it up. I think that was what Annette and Steve were kind of looking I
at the same thing. Paul?
Krauss : Mr . Chairman, if that resolution were to be supported , I guess we
would ask that you consider continuing the item to let us get a reading
from our City Attorney as to what mechanism we might use to guarantee that
the home is where you expect it to be.
Erhart : Okay. '
Emmings: Tim, how do you justify granting a variance?
Erhart: Well I think if you look at my 3 years history on here, I think
I 've recommended variances in cases other than pure hardships . I think my
personal feeling is that sometimes and given precedent. Given that you' re II
dealing with precedence , still sometimes common sense prevails. That' s
all I can answer . I think the adverse affects. I think little is gained
to anybody to deny the variance and there ' s a lot of adverse affects I
think on the City to deny the variance. So if that's common sense, than II
that common sense prevails in my opinion.
Wildermuth: But we don' t meet the test for a variance though. '
Emmings : He' s not saying we do.
Erhart : I 'm not saying we do. That' s why I 'm not on the variance board . II
I think that Paul ' s request is reasonable. Can I get some input from the
other commissioners? I
Ellson : You say that in other words you'd like it tabled so you can look
at it or you'd like us to have more weeks between us and the Council to
take a look at it? '
Krauss : Well either table it or direct , if you approved it, direct pis to
get a reading from the City Attorney if (a) there is a mechanism that we '
can use to guarantee that that condition is enforceable, and (b) if there
isn' t, we can bring it back to you so you can take another look at it.
Erhart: I would prefer to have us vote on it and bring it back if you
can' t enforce it. That'd be my preference. Steve?
Emmings: The Fraser ' s . You understand what' s being proposed here is that"
we approve the replat but on the condition that any house going on Lot 5
would have to be built , could not be built rearward of your house. A line
drawn across the back of your house. What do you think of that? '
Mr . Fraser : . . .his lot is on the hill there.
Emmings: Well nothing can be guaranteed. Let's not talk about . . . '
Delores Fraser : I feel that Pioneer Engineering who made all this happen
is kind of getting away with. . .and we' re the ones paying the price. '
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 30
' Emmings : But you understand that if we deny it, that that lot. The road
may be moved and that lot will be sold and someone will still build back on
that hill . Do you understand that?
Mr . Fraser : At that point we'd be forced to literally sell our house
because our angle of our . . .
Ellson: Right , so this option might be better for you.
Emmings : Well now, that's up to them.
' Mr . Fraser : We would be so far off that road . . .
' Emmings: Alright. Thank you.
Krauss : If I could add too. This is a little bit, this is really unusual
and I really need to sit down with the City Attorney and find out what sort
' of legal recourse the City has because we did not get the subdivision we
bought. You normally expect a registered survey to be accurate. That' s
the whole point behind state registration. In this case, it was not . In
my opinion, this lot is not a buildable lot as it sits right now. We would
have to , I believe would take some action through our City Attorney to make
sure that that lot is not marketed in it' s present shape because it is not
' a legally conforming lot .
Erhart : But aren ' t they saying that? I mean aren' t they coming back in
with this application admitting that it' s not sellable unless . . .
Krauss : This is true but if we deny the application tonight, what happens
then? The situation could exist until possibly there' s some sort of a
' civil suit brought by one of the developer or the homeowner against the
engineer . I think the City has a stake in this too and our stake is that
we approved a lot that met all our standards and we did what we were
supposed to do. We didn' t get that lot.
Erhart : I understand but that' s one of the options that the Commission has
here tonight is to deny it in which case you' re exactly right. Then you
have another whole set of issues to deal with.
Krauss: We need to take some action, right.
Erhart : And if the potential exists that we could resolve it here tonight
given. The potential exists here we could maybe resolve it tonight and not
' be an issue .
Ahrens : Let me ask a question. There is , Paul just stated earlier that
there was a lot of standing water out on that lot during the last rain.
11 I 'd like to ask, whoever can answer this question, is this lot even
buildable in the front of the lot? I mean is that even an option? The
developer , I don' t know Paul?
' Krauss : There' s quite a bit of property there and what you have is you
have a storm water pond basically. It' s fairly well defined. It' s down
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 31
I
near the street intersection and the land rises rapidly above that . It' s
well defined pond. It may not be something ideally you 'd want in your
front yard , especially if the home were pushed towards it but you could
build around it.
Ahrens : So if we required that a house be placed in the front of this lot "
are we in essence creating a situation where there' s never going to be a
house built there anyway because nobody would want their house standing
above a pond?
Krauss : Well if you draw a line someplace through here. If you draw a
line across the back corner of the home that's being constructed, you still
have a fairly sizeable area . Just scaled it off and it' s somewhere around
100 to 150 feet depending on where it is . That should be large enough to
accommodate most any home. ,
Erhart: Anything else?
Elison: I have a question. You' re saying that if we approve anything
versus deny it, then the City doesn' t have as much ground to stand on if we
wanted to go into , you' re kind of talking along that line? Is that where
I 'm getting that? In other words, it might be better for us to deny it.
Pass it along to City Council with all our wonderful Minutes on what our
concerns were and then if indeed we chose later through our own city, we
could do something like that . Yet if on the City record there were city
leaders that said that' s fine. We' ll move it. Then we have less ground t
on ourselves if we wanted to look at something like that? Is that
what you ' re talking about? In other words, you didn' t get what we paid for
but if we' re accepting it , then you are getting what we paid for? You sort"
of confused me when you talk about that.
Krauss : We recommended denial because we didn' t see the hardship. It was I
self created and there was no neighborhood standard that supported it or
any of the other typical measures we use for a hardship. In thinking about
it this evening and talking with Jo Ann, it occurred to me that if the plat,
is denied and everybody leaves here tonight , the problem' s still not
resolved.
Emmings: You've got the drainfield for one thing . ,
Krauss: Well clearly you have that. Now presumably and this is a guess. I
mean there would be some civil action amongst some of the 3 parties that t"II
are out there tonight to rectify that but that doesn't deal with the City'
issues and I would assume that we would have to ask our City Attorney, or
the City Council would have to direct him to take some action. And I don'
know what that might be because I 've never seen this before. To revoke th
plat or to make this thing whole again because the plat that we approved is
not the plat that' s on the ground .
Erhart : This isn' t the first time that somebody' s come in and asked for a II
replat in the middle, after the fact.
Olsen : But not with variances . ,
IN
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 32
I
Krauss : Well in fact the Ersbo Addition is coming back to the City Council
next week.
' Ahrens : For variances?
Krauss : No . They found , remember there' s a cul-de-sac in the Ersbo
' subdivision and that we wanted that to align with I think it was Arlington
Court to the north. They tried to backtrack through the surveys and when
they were actually out there staking lot corners, they realized that
Arlington Court was 30 feet west of where they had shown it. Now in that
case they were able to rectify the situation without causing any new
variances which we' re recommending that the City Council approve, or going
to when it comes before them. If this didn't have any variances attached ,
we would do the same here but that' s not the case .
Erhart: Does anybody want to make a motion?
Ahrens : Me? Which one are we working on here now?
Erhart: Staff is recommending simply to deny it .
' Ahrens : Yes , I see it . I move that the Planning Commission approve the
staff recommendation here that states that the request to replat Lake Riley
' Woods 3rd Addition be denied due to the lot area variance that results
on Lot 5.
Erhart : Is there a second?
Wildermuth: I ' ll second it.
Ahrens moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of the request to replat Lake Woods 3rd Addition due to the
lot area variance that results on Lot 5.Riley fAll voted in favor except Ellson
and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Erhart : Annette, would you like to add anything already to the Minutes?
Ellson: I 'd just like to try to see a compromise.
' Erhart : Okay, thank you. I ' ll just basically refer to the points that
I mentioned earlier. Okay? Thank you for your comments.
Jim Peterson : I 'd just like to ask a question to make sure I understand
it. You recommend that the whole replat be denied right? Not just the
variance but the whole replat , street and all?
11 Emmings: Yes .
Jim Peterson : Okay, for me that' s major . I can move the street back. . .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 33
11
Erhart : Excuse me, I failed to explain what happens here. This will go to
the City Council on April 9th, unless you request that it be delayed at
which point I believe you can come up with alternatives and resubmit the
application. Is that right?
Krauss : That' s correct Mr . Chairman . The application could be resubmitted
again for your hearing. In fact , for example if this were resubmitted with
Lot 5 being parceled up somehow, without there being any variance , I 'm
pretty confident that staff would recommend approval of the street in the II
current location since it doesn' t seem to harm anything else.
Erhart: You' re suggesting finding another . 3 acres someplace and adding 11
it?
Krauss : Or lacking that , eliminate it and come in with a plat that has no ,
variances .
Erhart : I think with a 3-2 vote, I think what that says is that, if you
could do some more work on it perhaps and solve some of the problems that
some of the commissioners have, you could avoid going to the Council with
denial recommendation.
Emmings: And you understand our action isn' t final . It ' s only a '
recommendation to the City Council .
Jim Peterson : Yeah . No, I understand that but that' s the worse possible II
solution. . .not necessarily for me.
Emmings: Well what is? That ' s what he asked for so it may be the worse II
for him in your mind. It kind of is in my mind but he seems to be
satisfied .
Mr . Fraser : My point was , what I was looking for was what staff had
recommended.
Emmings: That is what the Staff recommended . '
Mr. Fraser : But then they said. . .
Ellson: No, option 3 is the one that we opted for . '
Mr . Fraser : . . .lots 4 and 5 together?
Krauss : We don' t have the authotity to order that. I am going to ask the
City Attorney though to tell us what our opportunities are to resolve this .
Now maybe there is a mechanism where we can force the replat and a
resolution somehow in that manner but I frankly don' t know. I 've never see
this before.
Wildermuth : Probably the least expensive way out is to move the existing II
house and replat without any variances and still retain the 5 lots. And
that would make Mr . Fraser happy.
Planning Commission Meeting
9
March 21, 1990 - Page 34
I
'
Erhart: Thank you very much for coming . I hope we can resolve that one.
That' s very unfortunate.
' PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO
REQUIRE THE POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
THE CITY.
Erhart: Is there anybody who would like the staff report on this?
Apparently not. Is there anybody in the audience that would like a
report? If not, then we will not have the report . Is there anybody in the
audience that would like to comment on the proposal to change the
ordinance? If not, I would request a motion to close the public hearing .
Ellson moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
' favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Wildermuth: And I move that the Planning Commission adopt the draft
ordinance.
Erhart: We have to have some discussion. Does anybody have any
discussion? Anybody on the Planning Commission?
' Emmings : I guess I 'd like to know, the only thing that concerned me about
this was the cost. The $100. 00 rental fee with a $100. 00 deposit and that
' really seems, it doesn ' t seem like a big deal to a developer . What is the
smallest development that this would apply to?
Krauss : The platting of 4 lots .
' Emmings : I guess then it doesn' t bother me too much. I know that in
Minneapolis I went through a variance proceeding when I lived there and
' they gave, I think they gave us the signs and they were kind of flimsy
cardboard signs that disappeared after the first rain but you didn' t need
to have them up very long and they were bright orange the whole idea was to
bring attention to the property in a quick and cheap way so that the
neighbors knew something was going on. But I didn' t think that was a bad
system. But as long as this doesn' t affect something that' s very small ,
I guess that doesn' t bother me.
Erhart : Any other comments from other commissioners? I have a question.
Why did Eden Prairie phase out their program?
' Krauss : It wasn' t clear . Sharmin talked to them. It sounded like some of
their signs disappeared and they just decided it wasn' t all that important.
I don' t know. In my experience, I worked in a community that had a sign
11
program and it was not only very effective but it was something that the
City Council was very supportive of because it did get the word out
effectively. Once you start something like that, it' s kind of hard to
' believe you could stop it but apparently Eden Prairie did.
Planning Commission Meeting
II
March 21, 1990 - Page 35
II
Ahrens : Notification of the public is a hard thing to be against .
II
Emmings: Yeah. I think we should try it .
Erhart: I think it' s good too. I think it is going to put a burden on the'
City that' s going to be such a detail in that they tend to fall in cracks
and I 'm sure that' s what happened in Eden Prairie but with that, would
someone like to make a motion? I
Wildermuth : I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the draft ordinance. I
Ahrens : I ' ll second it.
IIWildermuth moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments Pertainng to
Requiring the Posting of Development Notification Signs . All voted in
II
favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
II
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE II , SECTIONS 20-56 THROUGH
20-70 PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF VARIANCES.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Erhart II
called the public hearing to order .
II
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Erhart : Alright, Joan do you have any questions? II
Ahrens: Not right now. I
Emmings: I 've got one I 'd like to ask . Let' s say you' re in a place where ,
a neighborhood that' s got 70 foot lots with lake frontage or whatever and II
they are substandard lots. Not only for their width but for their area .
Let' s say somebody lived in there but had bought two lots and built a
house . Could they tear their house down, subdivide those lots and build
two houses? You see what I 'm saying? I
Krauss : Well what you want to avoid I think, and I think what you' re
getting at Steve is that you don't want to lower the standard in the
II
neighborhood . You don' t want the lowest common denominator be what is
enforced. The intent of this , and I hope the language does it, is to
establish the neighborhood average and then say, if you meet or beat that
average, we' ll probably recommend that it be approved. So there's a middle,
ground if you will .
Emmings: But would you be able to say no to someone who wanted to do what
I just. . .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 36
I
' Ahrens : That would be meeting the standard .
Wildermuth: Paul, I like your redraft of the ordinance criteria until you
' brought up the Carver Beach . It seems that somebody that wanted to create
an other 7,000 square foot lot, we ought to be in favor of that.
Emmings : Yeah, I don' t have any trouble with someone coming in to an area
where everything is substandard but there is a neighborhood standard and
doing something on their lot that everybody else has there. Somehow that
doesn' t seem that bad to me but the abuse in that , or the limit on that
I guess to me would be I don ' t want you creating more of it. I don' t want
you to take the house off the two substandard lots and build two houses on
two substandard lots .
Wildermuth : That' s what I 'd be concerned about .
' Ennings: And I wonder if this protects us or , I 'm not even sure if one of
those lots was even empty that I 'd want to see a house put on that lot
which is kind of what we had on that one lot on Riley lake that they tried
to make a beachlot out of and we wouldn' t let them. We say you can' t build
' a house on there because it' s too small and maybe I 'm confusing my facts
but it would seem to me that maybe even you wouldn' t want to have another
house built on that if it was real substandard. If you couldn' t fit it in
' with , so I don ' t know. I 'm generally in favor of what you' re doing . I
think that we should not send variances required by a site plan for example
to the Board . I think those should be dealt with here and at the City
Council . I 'm generally in favor of this. The only thing is I don' t want
' this to go too far to create more substandard stuff . Do you think that
that could be prevented under the language that you've got in this?
' Krauss : As we discuss it, I know the intent here is to do what I said
earlier that we would establish a neighborhood average and say if you meet
it or beat it you' re entitled basically.
' Emmmings: Is that expressed?
' Krauss : No it isn' t and I 'm looking at that . I mean that was the intent
when Roger came in and said reasonable use includes a majority of property
within 500 feet . Majority to me means average. Now we could further
clarify that to state that. . .
' Emmings: What about putting in an intent statement that says , it is not
the intent of this ordinance to allow a proliferation of substandard lots
' or development but rather to recognize that some neighborhoods have
standards and as long as the applicant for the variance, I don' t know.
Finish it. Meets that standard or exceeds it.
' Krauss: We can clarify that way I 'm sure.
Emntings : But an intent statement maybe at the beginning would put a bottom
' or put a floor on this thing so you' re not seeing all kinds of things here
that we don' t want to see.
Planning Commission Meeting II
9
March 21, 1990 - Page 37
II
Erhart : Sure. I think the term, the word district and the last word in A,,
that' s the one that's questionable to me. District can mean a big area. I
think what I hear you saying, you keep using the word neighborhood . To me
those are terms that mean two different things . ,
Krauss : Yeah, and that' s why we established a 500 foot criteria .
Erhart: Okay, I 'm missing that. II
Emmings : The ordinance . Don' t look at the staff notes . Look at the II ordinance itself. It may be in there but I don' t know where.
Ahrens : Not in the proposed ordinance.
Emmings: But look in the ordinance itself . The language is different tharI
what' s in the staff report than what' s in the ordinance .
Erhart: Oh, is that right? I
Emmings: Because I looked for some stuff too. . .
IIAhrens: Yes , 500 feet is in here. 20-58 (a) .
Krauss : I think it' s real important that you establish some sort of a
criteria like that. 500 may be arbitrary but you don' t, you know everybodil
comes to us when they want a variance and they say well I know Joe Schmoe 3
blocks away from here has got the identical situation so I 'm entitled to
it. Well no you' re not . I mean that' s a one off situation. If everybody
in the neighborhood had it , maybe you are but otherwise not.
Emmings: If you apply for a variance, do you have to present a property I
list?
Krauss : Yes . I
Emmings: Is that a 500 foot?
Krauss: Yes. That' s why it matches. I
Emmings: So that kind of fits .
Erhart : Okay, and so the only change, procedurally the only change you' re II
making is that, in the first place ultimate authority here on all variances
today is the Variance Board . That ' s not a recommendation to the City II Council . That' s final .
Krauss : Well there' s been a lot of discussion on that but by State law, II yes. The Board is a quasi-judicial body.
Erhart : Alright. So the only change here, you' re talking about
subdivisions? ,
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 38
I
Krauss : Subdivisions . Rezonings. Site plans and I think CUP' s when a
' variance becomes apparent during those that you would make a recommendation
on it and the Council would approve it .
' Emmings: Ultimately, now does the Board recommend to the City Council too?
Krauss : No .
IEmmings : They make the final decision?
Olsen: When there ' s a split vote.
Krauss : Right . And the City Council has taken to reviewing most of the
actions of the Board which. . .
Olsen : Right , that ' s been discussed . They bring it up for discussion that
same night.
Emmings: So you review your own decisions Jay? That' s kind of neat .
Krauss : I think it' s fair to say, I discussed a draft of this with the
' Board at their last meeting and Willard and Carol have copies of the
ordinance. I think they' re both concerned with the ordinance as currently
drafted . I will also in this process what we would plan on doing is
getting your recommendation. Taking it to them for their recommendation
and then giving the whole package to the City Council .
Emmings: Willard called me. He probably called everybody but, and I told
him I wished he could be here to tell us what he thought but he apparently
had a conflict. He said Carol was going to be here and she' s not but
they' ll have their input in the City Council .
' Krauss: Yes .
' Erhart : Well to me, conceptually it makes more sense on issues that we
deal with that there' s a gradual process of approval working towards the
City Council as opposed to a gradual process working towards the City
Council with this all of a sudden this exception that can come in at the
' end . That doesn' t seem to make good sense .
Emmings: Like it' s pointed out in the City Council Minutes too. This is
in fact is what we' re doing at the present time. It' s really, we've got a
defacto ordinance anyway. At least in terms of site plan variances and
things like that. We' ve been doing it all along ever since I 've been here .
' Erhart: Any other comments or questions? Jim anything?
Wildermuth: I think basically it' s good.
Erhart: Okay. If not, is there a motion?
' Emmings: I 'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council adopt the ordinance but I 'd like to see an intent section added
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 39
along the lines that we discussed . ,
Ellson: I ' ll second it.
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Article II, Sections 20-56
through 20-70 pertaining to procedures for the issuance of variances with I
the addition of an intent section. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
Krauss : Mr . Chairman, I know Commissioner Ahrens has a commitment to leave
at 10: 00. I wondered if I could ask a question of the commission prior to
that. We have tentatively scheduled another special work session meeting ,
for next Wednesday. I think there' s a massive case of burn out happening
both at staff and Planning Commission level . We've got a lot of work ahead
of us to do and very limited time to do it and we' re wondering how best to
resolve that . Now it occurred to me tonight , I mean we really have to get '
the work through. I 've got a very large packet to send out to you tomorrow
that has a lot of the sections being drafted up. The goals and policies ,
are in there and everything else. Rather than meet next Wednesday, would
you consider possibly meeting like for dinner before the next Planning
Commission meeting possibly so we can roll over from one to the other and
combine an evening? Is that an option? '
Emmings: Meet earlier in 2 weeks rather than meeting. . .
Krauss : Well meet on a regular Planning Commission night . Skip next week
Ahrens: I like that idea.
Ellson: I 'd rather do that.
Erhart: Much better . I
Wildermuth : I ' ll be gone next Wednesday.
Erhart: I will too. '
Krauss : Would 5: 30 be too early for everybody?
Emmings: Are you talking about meeting here for pizza? ,
Krauss : We' ll meet here for pizza, subs, whatever . ,
Emmings: What' s the menu?
Krauss : You want Chinese? '
Erhart: Let's get to the core of the issue here.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 40
I
Krauss : We could do Chinese in fact but that will give us 2 hours to work
prior to going into the meeting.
Ahrens : That sounds fine with me.
Olsen: It' s going to be kind of a long agenda though isn' t it?
Krauss : Well , they' re all getting longer now. That' s not that bad .
Emmings: Well don' t put anything more on it.
' Krauss : You' ve got the grading ordinance coming back. The mining .
Olsen: Can you meet as early as 5: 30?
Krauss : We need about 2 hours to really do anything legitimate .
' Erhart: It' s okay with me.
Emmings : I ' ll let you know tomorrow.
Ellson : I 'd say you could get a majority if not everybody. At least try
to.
' Ahrens : You'd probably get most people in here by quarter to 6: 00.
Emmings: Did you talk to Ladd about this? I mean he has a real problem
with early meetings.
' Krauss : No , I haven' t. This occurred to me tonight .
Olsen: And Brian too .
Krauss : It' s tough asking you to keep on meeting like that. We have to do
' something .
Erhart : The frequency of the meetings is not making it. It' s getting to
be very difficult.
Ellson : I think couldn' t we make them more efficient?
' Emmings: No.
Ellson : That last one where the public got all dragged out and those kinds
' of things.
Erhart : It' s hard .
Ellson: I know.
Krauss : I think that set the trend for what ' s going to be occurring more
and more.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 41
11
Emmings: Like the good old days with all those little subdivisions. All II
those big subdivisions .
Erhart: Well contact Ladd and basically indicate that we would prefer the
earlier meeting. basically I
Ellson: If he can get there fine. If he can ' t, we have lots . Maybe he
could send us his comments . . . Maybe ,
Erhart: Okay. Let ' s move along then.
(Joan Ahrens left the meeting at this point. )
PUBLIC HEARING:
ROBERTS AUTOMATIC PRODUCTS , INC. , 5. 725 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED IOP,
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED OFF OF LAKE DRIVE JUST EAST OF CR 17:
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 3, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS I
PARK 2ND ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 ,200 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/
MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
Public Present : '
Name Address
David Hunt Opus Corporation ,
Jay Johnson
Sharmin Al-Jaff and Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Vice Chairman"
Erhart called the public hearing to order.
David Hunt : Mr_ . Chairman, my name is David Hunt . I 'm the project manager"
with Opus Corporation. We concur with the staff report as was presented.
We'd like to make some clarifications . First one was as Paul has
indicated. The elevations that were shown by our architect do not indicat"
clearly that the entire building will be of a texture pre-cast. Either a
racked finish or of a random red. It will all be painted so hopefully that
will satisfy the concerns there. Secondly we would like to go on record oll
three items that were mentioned in the staff report. First of all ,
Robert's Automatic Products will require some sort of a trash enclosure in
the vicinity of the dock area. We do plan on screening that in accordance
with the City ordinances . We will work that out with the staff. The
landscape easement that ' s indicated with the church property. We propose
that to be a temporary type easement . We are putting the trees there II primarily for the benefit of the church to remedy some of their concerns
with the views of the building. We will obtain a landscape easement to
place the trees there. We' ll maintain the trees for the warranty period as
well as the period required for the landscape bond , whatever at which time"
we would propose that the church take over the responsibility for
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21 , 1990 - Page 42
1
maintaining those plants as it is on their property and I believe the
church has, in talking with Mr. Robert ' s, agreed to do this. The third
thing mentioned in the staff report concerning the 30 inch oak tree that ' s
on the site. We do not plan on disturbing that tree at this time. We are
providing sufficient landscape material such that if the tree was removed
at this time, we would be providing the sufficient caliper inches on the
project . What we would propose is that we would be credited with that
landscaping so in the future when the tree is removed, no additional
requirements be placed on us . The tree will stay in place until expansion,
which is anticipated 8 to 10 years down the road and then if the tree is
still living there, it would be removed. Those are all the clarifications
we have.
Erhart : Okay, thanks Mr . Hunt . Is there any other input from the
public? Questions?
Jay Johnson : Jay Johnson , semi-public. I 'd like to know about hazardous
waste at this site. It 's a question that sometimes gets asked but it' s not
in our ordinance that I just looked through but will a hazardous waste
permit be required? Will hazardous waste be stored and what type of toxic
or combustible , whatever materials are going to be used on the site? If
' you can put that information together, I 'd like to see it in the future.
I 'm on the City Council .
David Hunt: Okay, that' s no problem. . .
Jay Johnson : I always ask that question later so if I tell you now, you' ll
be ready for it.
' Erhart : Did you q
your et question answered?
g your
Ellson: He' s just saying be prepared because it will come up again.
Jay Johnson : Yeah , if I tell them now then in 2 weeks or whenever if I ask
' the question they' re already ready for it.
Erhart : Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Erhart: Who wants to start?
Wildermuth : I ' ll start. Is that provision that was discussed by Mr . Hunt
acceptable to the City regarding the oak tree? by
Krauss : Commissioner Wildermuth , we don' t have a mechanism in place to
forward credit the loss of a tree.
Wildermuth: Right. Isn' t that a point that has to be addressed at the
time?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 43
I
Krauss : Yeah . What would happen when the addition came in, we would
invariably require landscaping be placed around that. In any case I would "
more than likely exceed the 30 inches anyway and that would just be to
satisfy normal screening requirement. I don' t see it as a major issue.
Wildermuth : I 'd like to ask the applicant , are they planning on any
underground storage tanks for oil? How about above ground tanks for
cutting oil? Screw machine operations generally use cutting oil .
RAP Representative: Anything that we'd have would be inside.
Wildermuth : How about spent cutting oil disposal? Do you use a chip
ringer?
RAP Representative: Do we use a chip ringer , yes and we recover most of
the. . . I
Wildermuth : So you won' t have any disposal problems to speak of other than
chips? Did Opus build the Empak building? ,
Erhart: Anything else Jim?
Wildermuth: I really don' t have any reservations about these requirements
and apparently you don' t either . You didn' t seem to take issue with them.
I 'm a little bit concerned about what the building is going to look like
but I guess if the occupant is satisfied. 1
David Hunt : . . .elevation showing what we' re thinking of.
Wildermuth: Good. So the building ' s going to be located in a pretty ,
classy neighborhood as far as industrial buildings go.
David Hunt: It will be gray colored painted pre-cast with some red trim.
The windows and along the top. There will be additional , this wall will
not look like it' s shown here. There will be an entrance door as well as
several additional windows that we added along that elevation. I would
call it a moderate. . .
Wildermuth : How large will the windows be? '
David Hunt: These punch windows will be approximately 8 feet wide, 4 to 8
feet wide I believe by 4 to 6 feet high.
Wildermuth: And then the upper sketch.
David Hunt : This is two different renderings. Color renditions of what II
could happen. . .
Wildermuth : That is the front entrance.
David Hunt : This is the front entrance. This is the building steps back
by here by the office portion. This is the main office. This same
treatment will carry around onto the east elevation on there as well as the"
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 44
11
west elevation on this side and across the . . .
Emmings: Would the stuff on the rooftop be visible from this hill?
Wildermuth : It will probably be visible to the church but you have that
shrouded .
David Hunt: We' re adding additional shrubery. As far as from the street ,
the building sits up high enough that anything that is visible, it ' s
definitely going to be cut off . I mean you would see the . . . top 1 or 2 feet
of the screening . . .
1 Emmings: Yeah , and that' s screened with the same material .
' David Hunt: The pre-cast would probably be not appropriate. We' re
thinking of something that drives material and would appear from a distance
to be a concrete type product. Given the appearance of a flat concrete. . .
Emmings: I thought our report said it would be the same material .
David Hunt: Similar .
Krauss : It ' s similar .
Emmings: Is that alright with you or should we have a condition in here
' that it should be approved?
Krauss : Well no . We supported the use of that sort of compatible type of
' material . We think it' s an improvement over the fencing.
Emmings : Okay, you' re satisfied . Okay.
' Wildermuth: That' s all I have.
Erhart : Steve?
' Emmings : It looks fine to me.
Ellson: I like it. I like it when people tell you, even though we' re not
approving it, where the possible future expansion' s going to be so we get a
feel for the site as a whole and I appreciate that in a plan. This is just
for my own interest because I like to know what' s coming into Chanhassen
but you' re right next door to Empak who runs all week long 3 shifts . What
kind of work hours do you have?
' RAP Representative: The plant basically runs two 10 hour shifts 4 days a
week. Fridays are overtime and the office runs five 8 hour days.
' Ellson: No, I think it looks good . Welcome.
Erhart: Okay. Isn' t there some staff comment about landscaping on the
north side of the building?
Planning Commission Meeting ,
March 21, 1990 - Page 45
I
Krauss : What we made reference to is that we would have liked to be able
to have the flexibility to do some landscaping up there. However , there' s !'
utility easements that preclude that and as we looked at the site more in
depth, we looked at the site from difference vantage points. It' s not
right next to TH 5. The area with the easements is that basically blank
area north of the building. Sharmin if you have an overall map of the II area, it' s displaced by the railroad tracks and that embankment helps to
screen it further . What we really want to get away from is, I hope they
take no offense but the buildings where as you pass by on TH 5 all you see '
is a sea of rooftop equipment. I don' t think that ' s going to be the case
here and as you can see , what ' s happening is this traffic as it comes up
and over TH 5 is tailing away from the site. You've got the railway
embankment and this is quite a bit lower . I can' t tell you that you won' t "
see it all but it ' s going to be pretty obscure.
Erhart: But the ordinance requires that they have to plant a tree every 411
feet on that property line doesn' t it?
Krauss : But it doesn' t say where you have to plant it . What we do is we
take those trees and we distribute it to the areas that we feel are the
most appropriate .
Erhart : That ' s what you did here? 1
Krauss: Yeah. They meet that requirement.
Erhart: By distributing the trees they would have had up there? ,
Krauss: Yes. We would never recommend that we arbitrarily put a tree
every 40 feet . That ' s just one mechanism in getting enough trees to do thdl
job correctly.
Erhart : I never thought of the ordinance that way. Not that I disagree II with the concept. Anyway, and the applicant is acceptable to the idea of
requiring , did you say 10 foot spruce?
David Hunt: . . .some of the 6 to 8 foot . . .rather than adding additional '
trees?
Krauss : Well there were some additional trees requested as well . We
didn' t come up with a number . What we' re looking for is these trees to bell
increased and that these trees be increased in height and several more of
them placed back in here. '
RAP Representative: . . .the top of that berm. . .
Krauss : Well to the extent there is something here but it' s quite nominal .'
RAP Representative: 2 to 3 feet.
Krauss : There' s like 6 loading docks?
RAP Representative: There will be 3 loading docks with drive in doors .
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 46
11
Erhart : Well I just wanted to point out when you start getting into the 10
foot spruce trees, the price over a 6 foot tree is more than twice and it ' s
great . I just want to make sure that we try to treat everybody the same in
going forward. Obviously 10 is better than 6 and I think we have to have a
feel for consistency.
Krauss : We would be willing to look at a plan that mixes the sizes if it
' accomplishes the goal . Fundamentally we don' t think anybody should have to
look at truck loading dock from a public right-of-way and there are a lot
of situations in town where you do just that. There are more activist ways
of screening that . You can bring the building wall out beyond to screen
it. That ' s a relatively expensive proposition. I happen to think trees
look better but they needed some improvement for that screen to be
effective.
' Erhart : You feel that is our policy to try to screen all loading docks
from the public right-of-way?
Krauss : Yeah . No question.
Erhart : And you feel the 10 foot tree here is needed to do that?
David Hunt: . . .as you look at the elevations there, we are probably in the
neighborhood of 15 to 20 feet lower on the public right-of-way than you are
' on that loading dock so if you' re looking up from public right-of-way, a 6
foot tree , 6 to 8 foot as we' re proposing , it' s going to . . . I could agree
with the staff on that west side. . .
' Emmings: It may be a benefit to the City in having quantity and getting a
6 to 8 foot tree because presumably it won' t stay that tall .
Krauss : Of course the trailer you' re putting behind is quite a bit taller
than the tree. You know we' re not opposed to working this out. . .driving
down Lake Drive. When you' re right here, Lake Drive is dropping down. You
' do have that issue, well that view when you' re looking uphill and a 6 foot
tree may just do the trick there and if we could get a site perspective
that showed that .
Wildermuth : Is it just . . .and those trucks aren' t going to be there that
long anyway are they?
Erhart : Another thing here. What ordinance do we have that prevents
somebody from cutting down an oak tree?
Krauss : We do have regulations that say when you cut down a tree you have
to replace the caliper inches.
Erhart : For a subdivider or individual lot owner?
Krauss : That' s a site plan ordinance.
Wildermuth : I think it ' s for a developer .
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 21, 1990 - Page 47
II
Erhart: It' s a developer not a lot owner and I guess I 'd be opposed to and
tree ordinance that affected a lot owner.
Emmings: Me too.
Erhart : I mean you can' t tell people they can' t cut trees down. II
Krauss: Oh, you mean you as an individual homeowner? I
Erhart : Yeah.
Krauss : Well , actually that' s one of the things on our work list is tree II
ordinance.
Erhart : You haven' t got our comments yet either . But from a developer I
think we agree. Just to ask Brian' s question here. You' re confident that
the additional runoff and the contaminants from the roof and so forth are,
we' re adequately protecting the water that flows into the Lake Susan there ll
as well as we have on the roof on Empak? Essentially the same standards
are being applied?
Krauss : There ' s an overall drainage system that intercepts all that water
There' s a large wetland that' s in front of the Rosemount facility that
would serve to filter the water before it' s discharged into the lake.
That' s one of the few areas in town that we actually have a comprehensive
storm water plan for .
Erhart : Okay, I really have no other issues . I think it' s a reasonable II
plan for the site. And again, also welcome this company. If there' s no
other discussion, does someone want to attempt to make a motion here?
Wildermuth: I ' ll move that we recommend to approve Site Plan #90-3 and
II
Preliminary and Final Plat #90-2 as shown on the plat dated March 5, 1990
subject to the following conditions 1 thru 11.
Ellson: I ' ll second . I
Erhart : Okay. Now the agenda here states that there' s, essentially does II
this one motion cover both the Preliminary Plat and the Site Plan?
Enmings: Which is kind of unusual .
Krauss : Yeah, you should have both. We gave you one recommendation but II
yeah, it would be adviseable to have two separate motions.
Erhart : Would you prefer that? I
Krauss : Then we'd have to disegregate the conditions I suppose.
IIEmmings : We never combine two like this before but I don' t know that you
can ' t. The trouble is there are conditions in here that relate just to the
plat and conditions that relate just to the site plan.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 21, 1990 - Page 48
I
Krauss : Right . Can we have a compromise. If you could approve it this
way, we' ll disegregate it before it gets to the Council?
Erhart : If the attorney here is okay with that , it ' s fine with me.
N
Wildermuth moved, Elison seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve Site Plan #90-3 and Preliminary and Final Plat #90-2 as shown on
the plat dated March 5, 1990 subject to the following conditions :
1. Revise architectural plans so that exterior walls have textured
surfaces or exposed aggregate patterns. Provide information showing
location of trash storage on the site . Provide final details on
rooftop screening for approval by staff.
2. The applicant provide a detailed signage plan and apply for city
permits. Post stop signs on the driveway access to Lake Drive.
Provide details on site lighting for approval by city staff .
3. Revise the landscape plans as recommended in the report to improve
screening of the truck loading area . Provide staff with a detailed
cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required
financial guarantees . These guarantees must be posted prior to
building permit issuance.
' 4 . Revise the plat to designate Lot 3 as an outlot and provide an access
easement over the church driveway. An additional 25 foot wide drainage
and utility easement over the west side of Lot 1, Block 1 is required .
The Roberts Automatic site shall pay the required park dedication fee
at the time building permits are requested.
5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
I 6. The westerly driveway access shall be widened to 36 feet and the apron
area shall be concrete instead of bituminous. Revise internal
circulation as required to facilitate access by city fire equipment,
for approval by the City Fire Marshal . by
7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to
City allow
construction of the parking lot and landscaping within the City' s 25
foot drainage and utility easement on the west side of the property and
releasing the city from any restoration obligation for the parking lot
and landscaping in the event sewer repairs are necessary.
8. The applicant shall add additional catch basins to intercept storm
runoff before draining out onto Lake Drive and at the entrance to the
truck loading dock area. The storm sewer system shall be redesigned
for a 10 year storm frequency and revised drainage calculations
provided to the City. B-612 concrete curb and gutter shall be
constructed around all parking lots and driveways .
1
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 21, 1990 - Page 53
I
Emmings: I ' ll tell you. That was a hot and heavy time. We had meetings ,
every meeting was 12 : 30-1: 00 and we had subdivision after subdivision and , 1
it was just a nightmare . It seemed to go on for a long time.
Erhart: So yes. I agree with Steve that that' s one we should be moving
on. Particularly if someone can come in in a subdivision and now if they
can come in with a contractor ' s yard request. Although they still have to
have 5 acres but I think we' ve just got to do it. Anything else?
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 30 p.m. . I
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
i
I
I
I
; I
I
{
I
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION `i°`'; TAT '
REGULAR MEETING
' MARCH 27 , 1990
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p .m . .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady , Curt Robinson , Larry Schroers , Dawne Erhart ,
Wendy Pemrick and Jim Andrews
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Lash
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator ; Todd Hoffman ,
Recreation Supervisor ; Jerry Ruegemer , Program Specialist and Mark Koegler ,
' Consultant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved , Schroers seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated March 13 , 1990
as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
' Sietsema : Todd would like to make an introduction .
Hoffman: I 'd just like to introduce Jerry Ruegemer . This is Jerry . He 's
our full time 6 month person that will be here to help in the Park and
Recreation Department . The position that was budgeted for as a part of the
1990 budget .
ISietsema : So if you have any really ugly jobs , they go to Jerry .
Mady: The wood duck houses at Pond Park need to be cleaned out .
Sietsema : We 've already got someone taking care of it .
' Robinson: So it 's 6 months position is it?
Hoffman: It started Monday . Well it started last Thursday . Jerry
' attended the softball meetings and started Monday morning on a full time
basis through about the second week in September .
Robinson: What are some of the things he 'll be doing?
Hoffman: Be working with adult and youth sports. All the special events .
Just really giving us a break on some of the programming aspects so we can
start working on some of the other things going on in the department .
Robinson: Welcome .
Ruegemer : Nice to be here . Thank you .
Mady: We have fun . Usually anyway .
' DISCUSS RECREATION SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
' Sietsema: As you may recall in the past , two meetings ago we had
Paul Krauss and Mark in here to talk about the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and to go over what changes the Planning Commission are talking about
making . These revisions are still in a draft form but at that meeting we
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 2
' had talked about how those changes would affect the recreation section of
the Comprehensive Plan and Mark is here to go through how those changes do
indeed affect the Plan .
' Koegler : Let me start by just covering a couple things on the map . As
Lori said , the Planning Commission has been going through a lot of
discussion and been having some joint meetings with the City Council
' recently and have another meeting scheduled at the Planning Commission a
week from tomorrow night to focus on the Land Use Plan so what you see may
be subject to some change . However , I think the further we go , the more
comfortable generally the Commission is . I think the Council basically
concurred basically with most of the concepts they showed but there 's some
material on here related to Park and Recreation which does not show up
' graphically but I want to assure you will . It 's things we 've talked about .
We talked about Bluff Creek . It 's showing some of the corridors coming all
the way down . We will be doing that on the next regeneration of this map
which will probably occur prior to next Wednesday night 's meeting so those
' have been noted and taken into account . They 're simply not shown yet
graphically on the map . When we get that map revision done , we do have a
black and white version of this thing that we 're producing now and making
available and those will be sent over to Park Commission members as well .
It 's kind of hard to relate all the things we 're talking about with parks
when you 're wondering well what 's the land use in that area of town and so
forth . Just to refresh your memory , I think the land use map is very self
explanatory in terms of colors and types of development and so forth with
the exception of these two gray areas . This 1995 study area . Those are
just kind of areas that have been identified as sites that really it 's been
' determined to be premature right now that those should be commercial or
they should be residential or whatever . Given transportation improvements
that are planned and some questions about sewer capacity , those have been
' labeled as 1995 study areas . The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Section which
basically says right now we have insufficient information to identify
those . We will wo- k towards that prior to the year 1995 . Those are tied
in particularly on the northern one with sewer capacity issues . This one
' is tied in much more closely with the construction of TH 212 which is
scheduled to be out to Lyman I think in 1996 or so if I remember right . So
those have been put into that category accordingly and they will be updated
' within the next couple of years and that may , at that time , have some
further park ramifications that you will get involved in . Since we met
with you last , you did provide some general input which hopefully we will
' be putting into the text on some concerns you had . The river bluff area
was one of the comments that I recall off the top of my head and some other
things that we talked about . We also have gone through and updated the
text so it reflects some of the additions to the park system that have
' taken place in the last few years and what impact those have had upon some
of the programming and some of the recommendations that comes out of the
park chapter . This is not your last shot at this tonight . We 're not
' looking for a final recommendation from the Commission tonight because I
think it 's not fair to do that until we know we have a land use element
that is in place . As I said in my opening comments , we 're getting very
' close to that with the Planning Commission . We 're getting very close to
having a plan that 's ready to go through a public review process which will
involve informal public informational meetings at probably 3 or 4 sites
scattered throughout the community and then going into a more formalized
public hearing process . So we look for that to be happening probably in
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 3
May and June . I don't know Mr . Chairman how you want to handle this .
Whether you want to go through this page by page or if you just want to
identify any comments . What we 're looking for this evening is general
comments that you have on anything pertaining to the text that you
received . Topics that we missed . Things that are incorrectly stated .
things you want stated in another way . Things you want reinforced . It's
wide open . I guess I would emphasize this is your plan . That 's a general'
statement because it 's the City 's plan but the Park Commission is
specifically charged with creating and kind of keeping track of their
recreation and open space chapter of the Comp Plan . The Planning
Commission will be reviewing this but their review will only be to really!'
see how it fits in the context of the rest of the community . We do not
look for them to make changes to the section that you 're basically putting
together and that you put together in the past . So with that , however yo'
want to handle it . If you want to just go through generally?
Mady : I guess I wanted to check with the commissioners first how each of
they , what each of them went through it . If you 'd rather we go through i'
page by page . I know I 've made some notes from time to time in the thing
as I was going through it and there 's a couple areas I want to discuss th t
need to be emphasized or worked on . We can do that after we 've gone throu
maybe page by page . That might be easier that way , if that 's okay . I di
have , anybody can jump in if you 've got something early on . On page 12
under the Greenwood Shores Park . In the comment section it says , Greenwo
Shores Park abuts both Lake Ann and Lake Susan . That should be Lake Lucy
Otherwise it 's an awful big park . On that same page under Lake Ann Park ,
under facilities . Since we are budgeting and will be building a picnic '
shelter there this year , should we not just put that in right away?
Sietsema : Under which park?
Mady: Lake Ann Park . ,
Andrews: Are there any other future structures beyond that point at this
time?
Mady: Outside of play structures , there 's nothing else . '
Andrews: Okay . I noticed on the plan there was talk of boat rental with
no facility provided to store boats or rent boats . I 've been involved in
Lake Phelan and their rental program and it takes considerable amount of II
room to move boats back and forth and store them and maintain them .
Mady : I know we were discussing that previously with this structure . Is il
that anticipated in this structure Lori?
Sietsema: To store the boats in the structure? I don 't know that we
really have gotten to that level . We were talking about that specific it�n
later on the agenda . I don 't know that we have to address that in here . ■■
Andrews: Right now we 're looking at broad concepts rather than specific?,
Sietsema: As far as storage on land , I think there 's plenth of room there .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 7 , 1990 - Page 4
' Schroers: By looking at the floor plan , it didn 't really look as through
there was that type of storage space .
Sietsema: No indoor storage for the boats , no .
Mady: On the next page on 13 under Lake Susan Park I had .
Sietsema: You might want to add also volleyball at Lake Ann .
Hoffman : Soccer .
11 Mady: Those are on the back side on page 13 . But under Lake Susan ,
similar comments having to do with the update of this . We should reflect
the new items that we 'll be adding this year .
Schroers: I had a question Mark . I was wondering if the City of
Chanhassen has anything to do with input in regards to the boundary of the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge . Who decided where the boundary
lines were going to be for that?
Koegler : Lori and Todd probably have information on this also but to my
knowledge in the time that I 've been involved with the City , the City has
never been formally asked to supply any input at all . There have been
public informational meetings in the past to portray what the master plan
presents and what it hopes to achieve . I believe through the office down
there , they have a plan available that identifies not only what they
' include within the refuge itself but how they intend to acquire some of the
parcels . Some of them are by fees . Some are by easement . Some are just
by various types of controlling interests and then they correspondingly
have the facility plans too but I 'm not familiar that the City ever has
' been asked or has supplied any input on either the boundaries or the
facilities within that park or refuge .
' Schroers : So we would need to contact the Federal agency in order to get
information on that since it 's a national and the State really has not that
much to do with it either?
Koegler : That 's correct but they do have a local office down there on site
which certainly is the place to contact . That has been done in the past to
obtain information on what their latest thinking was but probably the last
time that occurred was a couple of years ago . But they do have staff here
that I 'm sure could respond very readily to any inquiries .
Schroers: Okay , thank you .
Mady : On page 30 in the trail section under the section along streets and
the advantages section . The second and third item are identical . Readily
' identifiable route twice .
Koegler : That 's why they 're so identifiable .
' Mady : You really stress that . On page 32 , park improvement bonds
paragraph . It says that Chanhassen has not had a park bond issue since
late 1960 's when Lake Ann was built . We 've had a couple since then . On
page 38 , existing park recommendation . Bluff Creek Park . You never really
I/
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 5
talk about an access to Bluff Creek Park in there for recommendation .
Since we haven 't funded it yet nor found it , either the access or the par
we should at least address it in here I think .
Koegler : By access are you talking about both pedestrian and vehicular? I
Mady: Yeah , getting there . Basically that . Page 48 . Zone 4 . We 're
discussing identifiable areas that need to be proposed new parks . The bu
of the paragraph talks about the new Curry Farms Park and we do say we ne
to locate something in Zone 4 . We have spent considerable amount of time
reviewing that area looking at Pheasant Hills and Lake Lucy Highlands area
If we could expand that somehow . I don 't have any specific ideas on it bit
I would like to see it expanded since we have given considerable amount of
thought to that area of the city . At least it should be reflected in the!'
plan I would hope .
Koegler : What are you latest thoughts in that regard? The last I knew y
were looking at the Carrico site .
Sietsema: Well Carrico is still a development that 's being proposed by the
developer and I think that they have a proposal in front of the Planning II
Commission right now. It will be coming to the Park and Recreation
Commission at the next meeting . However the piece of property that we were
looking at within their development . At one time we looked at the whole
piece . Now we 've scaled it back to a portion of the piece which includes
wetland area and if we can use additional . Engineering looks like they'r
going to be needing a bulk of that 4 1/2 to 5 acre piece for drainage and
there may be additional area again around it , the wet area that could be
used as parkland but it 's going to be minimal . Similar to what the outlo
are in Pheasant Hills so it 's not going to be a big piece .
Mady: If we could somehow give it a little more emphasis in there that II
we 're looking in that general area . I 'm not sure how to do that but .
Sietsema: The focus may have to be on the other side of , is it '
Galpin Blvd . over there?
Mady: Yeah . 117 . '
Sietsema: On the west side . 117 .
Schroers: We also looked at some private property over there also but I
decided that it we didn 't have sufficient funds to consider it .
Sietsema: Right . Because it 's already platted property and the water anil
sewer 's in . That brings the cost of the property up considerably for the
small acreage is what the determination has been .
Mady : On page 50 , under Lake Lucy . The first line states Lake Lucy is II
unsuitable for power boat useage because of it 's depth , shape and
associated aquatic vegetation . I 'm not sure stating that lake is
unsuitable is correct . There are about 5 power boats on the lake
currently . I don 't think any of us want to see that lake become a water
ski haven but I don 't think saying it 's unsuitable is correct .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 6
Schroers : I kind of like that terminology myself .
Sietsema: It depends on what your overall goal for the lake is . If you
' eventually want to phase out of the power boats , this would be one way to
do it is to continue to consider that unsuitable . We all are aware that
access and clean-up of the lake goes hand in hand with what the discussion
of what 's going to happen on the lake . The recreational uses .
Schroers: One of the problems with the lake was the sediment that floats
around in the water and because it is so shallow , that they use of power
boats on the lake definitely increased the amount of sediment that 's in the
water and contributes to poorer water quality .
' Mady : Oh yeah . I fully agree .
Robinson: What is a power boat? What 's classified as a power boat? A 5
horse?
Schroers: Anything that runs on a gasoline engine .
Mady : Yeah . I guess my personal opinion was that unsuitable was a pretty
strong word for the lake . It 's not ideal . It 's not a good lake but I 'm
sure that I was happy with the word unsuitable .
11 Robinson: I 'd agree with you . I think if there 's some on there , it 's not
the most desireable thing .
' Sietsema: You got a better word?
Koegler : Well this language I think was a hold over from the previous
' plan . Really the heart of this takes place in the second paragraph because
it goes on to say that this should be a natural environment lake and
prohibition of motorized watercraft should be considered as it has been
enacted on Lake Ann . So if unsuitable is a problem , that second paragraph
is probably even more of a problem .
Mady : I know that the neighborhood is working right now in that respect . I
don 't know what they 'll use . I guess I can live with it either way . It 's
just since it 's currently being used and I don 't know that a goal has been
set to make it a quiet lake . I know we discussed it a year , year and a
' half ago , whatever it was , with the Lake Lucy residents when we were
looking at the total water clean-up of the 5 lakes and some of them were
thinking of being able to prohibit power boats but there were a number of
other residents who literally did not want to give up their power boats .
Schroers : Basically it came down to the people that owned boats on the
lake wanted to keep their boats and the majority of the other people that
lived in the area favored the quiet lake aspect .
Mady: I don 't have I guess a feeling one way or the other . If staff or
' Mark has some ideas on that before the next time around , that 'd be great .
It 's just something to look at . Next one on that page was on Rice Marsh
Lake . Just a word that I didn 't like in there . It just says Rice Marsh
Lake is another water body which is suited for passive uses . I just don 't
like the word another in there . It 's kind of , these are so chopped up in
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 -- Page 7
speaking, I 'm not sure where , another right after it talked about Lotus II
Lake . Lotus Lake is a lake that 's suitable for . Christmas Lake is fine so
another doesn 't belong in there I didn 't think . It doesn 't refer to the
previous paragraphs so it probably shouldn 't be there . Some general
comments I had on the Comp Plan . Just things that either weren 't in then
or need to be discussed maybe . First off , considerable effort has been pur
forth in this City for a community center over the past 10 years . This
a recreation section of a Comp Plan for the City yet we don 't spend one
word on it . I don 't think anyone would say that the City will not
ultimately have one and probably with a time period shorter than 5 years
I think it should be addressed in the Comp Plan somehow . It doesn 't need
to be a large section but I think it should be mentioned that it 's going
happen in the City . The other item I had was . . .
Schroers: What would you classify that under Jim? Where would you put II
that?
Mady: Indoor recreation facilities I would guess . I 'm not sure how othe'
cities .
Schroers: Just under recreational facilities? Just add it there? I
Mady: Yeah . I would assume larger cities that already have them or are
building or planning them have discussed it in their comp plans . I 'm surf
there 's some boiler plate that can be stolen and massaged to fit into our
situation . The last thing I had had to do with we 're talking about
standards . Number of acres per person . Per city . Per neighborhood park"
Community parks . What have you . By reading through this thing you can
draw the conclusion that Chanhassen has too many parks already and we ' ll II
have too many parks in the year 2000 . We 'll have too much parkland in the
year 2010 because some of the standards that are being utilized . The pia"
does state that the standards may not be correct or do not reflect the
actual needs of the City as we 're experiencing them . I don 't know if
there 's a way of doing it . I guess I don 't feel I gave enough time and
effort into this thing to really come up with something but somehow we ha
�
to maximize the idea that proper planning will include many , many , many
more pieces of parkland of all different types and minimize the idea that
acre for 75 people , whatever it was , does not necessarily reflect what 's
actually taking place in this city . It 's a standard that 's out there may
but I mean we 're right now , according to the standard , we have too much
parkland yet we can 't put everybody where we want to put them . So the
standard is obviously incorrect and somehow if we can downplay that I guelb
I 'd be happier .
Schroers: I think the 90 's being the decade of the environment will lends
itself towards people being more receptive to additional parkland and open
space .
Mady: Anybody else have anything to go in . We can go through the whole I
thing again easily .
Andrews: Most of my observations were more detailed and you 're kind of I
talking real broad strokes here . In the broad observations I guess I 'm
interested in acquisition or preservation of forested properties which is
as we all talked about , are once in a lifetime opportunities and I didn 't`
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 8
see much in there about any specifics about what we 're doing in that area .
I think to assume that the nature preserve is going to present that
opportunity , it is a parkland that 's beyond our control and beyond our
jurisdiction and perhaps we should , I don 't know . I 'm not aware of what
you specifically have done on that in the past but maybe you could bring me
up to speed on that but I think it 's important . The other thing I looked
at was a lot of this plan , and it 's just by the nature of the plan , deals
with the active nature of the facilities and maybe there should be a little
more discussion about the passive nature of the facilities as well as how
our aging population will more than likely increase demands for passive
facilities and simultaneously more than likely decrease active uses so do
we have multiple use possibilities? Do we have conversion possibilities
for our parklands? The last comment was , and this is on some particulars
and this is just by observations while I was looking at some plans . A lot
of these park plans are short of parking space for cars . When you look at
softball fields . I looked at some of these drawings here and there were 6
parking spaces for a ballfield . Well if you 've got an industrial league ,
' you 're going to have 26 cars there , not 6 and I don 't know if that 's
something that 's been addressed before or not .
' Erhart : Are those just neighborhood parks though where most people walk or
will they be used for . . .
Andrews: I was just looking at the plans that were attached to the
Comprehensive Plan here and the parking was very minimal and not
necessarily that close to a ballfield . I 'm not sure if these park fields
are intended to be used in leagues or not . That I don 't know .
Sietsema : The parking that you see in the neighborhood parks , i .e . the
parks other than Lake Ann Park and Lake Susan Park , the rest of them are
11 pretty much neighborhood parks . Again Lake Ann , Lake Susan and the south
park that we just acquired will be considered community parks . The rest of
these , it 's assumed that the bulk of the useage will come from walk-in
traffic and we 've provided some parking for people from outside of the
neighborhoods . These ballfields and these facilities are not intended to
be used for league . Organized leagues use , in many cases they 're way too
small . They 're for pick-up games and family games .
' Andrews : That 's why I asked the question .
' Sietsema : Yep . That 's the reason behind the fewer parking spaces in those
areas .
Mady: That brings up a thought and you mentioned Bandimere . The south
park . In the Comp Plan it 's called Bandimere/Lake Riley Park . Is that the
name we 're going to use for it?
Sietsema : The general consensus at the meeting when we talked about land
names was to call it Bandimere Farm Park or Bandimere Park .
' Mady : Okay . Just so we can distinguish between that and what we 've always
known as Bandimere , I guess we called it Bandimere Heights Park . The
little neighborhood park . I 'd like to be able to really continue to be
able to distinguish between the two parks because they do serve two
11 different uses I think ultimately .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 9 il
II
Sietsema: We discussed that and that point was brought up . It was
generally , I think unless my memory is wrong but I think the decision was
to go with the Bandimere name . I
Andrews: Are they adjoining properties? -
Mady: Yes . 1
Sietsema: They 're adjacent . And that may become just all one , known as 11
one park . If we want to change that , we can certainly do that in the
future .
Schroers: That 's the impression that I had . That it was all going to bell
incorporated into the one park .
Mady: My concern there is just that we were trying to stay away from the"
neighborhood park . The neighborhood itself .
Sietsema: Right but we didn 't want to take the neighborhood uses away fr
the existing Bandimere Heights Park .
Mady: Right . Exactly . And ultimately there 's going to be some overlap .
We 're going to have totlot equipment completely separately up in the soul'
community park from the neighborhood park . Maybe that 's not such a bad
idea calling it the Bandimere Farm Park because it does reflect Bandimere 's
and their efforts there .
II
Sietsema: Bandimere Field and Bandimere Heights .
Mady : It was just a comment . It 's just something I noticed reading
II
through it .
Koegler : Do you want to keep those separate or do you want to roll them II
together and then identify on the text that there is a neighborhood
component of that park?
Mady: I 'd like to keep them separate if we can . That way the neighborholl
still has a section that 's really their own . I 'd hate to see us do too
much to the neighborhood park and make it into all of a sudden into the
community park facility . I
Erhart: There 's a good natural break there too to allow it to remain .
Mady: Yeah , the way it drops . I
Andrews: I 'd like to also concur with what you said earlier about the
standards that were used should not be considered necessarily standards II
that we feel are adequate for the City of Chanhassen .
Mady : Any other comments for Mark and Lori? I
Erhart : I have one comment . Just to say that it 's really exciting to see
II
it on the map . The one area that I think is really unique to Chanhassen
the green area that we are going to extend down and I 'd really like . . .whe
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 10
we are looking at so many active parks , that would really be a unique space
for a passive area . Very beautiful along there . And that probably is most
exciting to me . That area right there .
Andrews: Which one are you referring to?
Pemrick: The very bottom one?
' Erhart : Right above where it says 1995 study area . Where TH 212 runs
along . There is a green strip there and Mark did say we were going to
continue that on down .
Andrews : Along the Bluff Creek area?
Erhart : Right .
Koegler : The other thing we hope to have in the final plan will be a land
use map like this that not only will show all the parks but will have the
trail network superimposed over the top of that and that would be a smaller
scaled version . It will be in the recreation chapter so that anybody picks
that up , it 's very readily apparent that they may be looking at a piece of
property out in the west end or the southwest end and that has a trail
through it .
1 Mady: One last thing that just came to me here . When we were discussing
community park needs 3 or 4 months ago , what have you , we were talking
about doing something in the western part of the City . Somewhere near the
1 41/5 interchange area . Maybe I missed it in here but I didn 't think it was
really brought out too well . I didn 't spend a lot of time on this
unfortunately but since that 's a large amount of land we 're going to be
1 talking about , we might not be able to site it specifically but we should
certainly have some good verbage .
Sietsema: Strong recommendation in there .
Andrews : That will be the likely development path . There 's a large void
there so .
Mady: Yeah . That 's why we want to make sure it 's in there before the
development happens so the developers coming in , they 're going to see oh
large park here . We have to plan around this . We can 't just put houses
all over the place or commercial sites or what have you .
Andrews: That doesn 't put much of a requirement on sewage or water . It
could fit in the study area .
Koegler : Those are the kind of lands that are easy to deal with because
Metropolitan Council in their calculation of growth area and sewer units
excludes parkland so you 're absolutely right . Lake Ann for example . That
land area does not count technically as Chanhassen 's MUSA land . The MUSA
being the Metropolitan Urban Service Area that defines rural versus
sewered .
Schroers: Even when there are facilities in the park?
11
I/
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 11
Koegler : Yeah , because they 're , compared to normal residential flow for
that amount of units on that property or an industrial flow situation , it
a drop in the bucket so to speak . One comment on standards . I first of
all would agree . I think given the conclusions that you always come to li
that I think are reasonable . We probably need to de-emphasize that secti
a little bit because it 's not all that supportive . We can 't deviate too
far though because there 's a certain relationship between the standards t
City has in this plan and the park dedication ordinances that dictate the
amount of land that 's required . There 's some magic formulas there that
probably Lori 's the only person in the world that understands so there is
some relationship there but I think we certainly can downplay some of the ll
language .
Sietsema : And I 'm not going to share my wealth of information . ,
Mady: Nor do we wish you to share it .
Andrews: Maybe the point that can be made was instead of maintaining the,
ratio through dedication by developers , to look also at acquisition of
sites that are more , of higher quality that as a commission could select
rather than provide it through development . That 'd be a way to work aroul
that problem . ■■
Mady: Any other comments? Mark , do you have anything further you need II
from us?
Koegler : No . The only other note that came to mind when you started
talking about parklands . It 's our intent that as an appendix to this ,
there will be a copy of every park plan that 's been prepared so that that
part of the plans . So if somebody comes in who 's thinking of moving into a
neighborhood and they want to see what 's in the Comp Plan , they also can II
see what 's planned for the neighborhood parks that they 're looking at
moving next to . So that will be a component of that too and I just threw
in a couple of representative examples because I happen to have reduction
of those handy so that will be part of the final also .
Mady: Otherwise , there 's a lot of work into this thing .
Robinson: Boy there really is . It is comprehensive .
Schroers: What I was thinking the whole time going through it was , I was
pretty impressed with it .
Erhart: I was too Larry .
Koegler : Well we 'll bring some revisions back to you and if there are an
changes in land use that have an impact on anything that we 've discussed ,
those will come back to you obviously as well . I
Mady : Thanks Mark .
DISCUSS PLANS FOR LAKE ANN PARK COMMUNITY SHELTER.
Mady: We 've only been talking about this for 5 plus years and now it 's
going to happen .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 12
Andrews: I 've got questions on this one too . Maybe they 're obvious
questions but since I 'm new , you 're going to have to answer them .
' Mady : We 'll let Lori give her staff report and jump in .
' Sietsema : Well as you indicated , this has been a dream of the commission
since I think before I even started with the City 6 years ago . And we have
applied for a LAWCON grant funds to fund a park shelter that would be built
into the hill down by the turn around area of the park that would include a
community room , picnic area in the upper level with a fireplace with a
concession stand and restrooms in the lower area that could also be a
concession area but also be the place where you go to pay your money to
' rent boats if we were over to have boat rental out there . The plans are
shown are what we have done to date are shown in your packet and there
aren 't any boat storage areas . There are some general storage for
concession and that type of thing . Again changing rooms , bathrooms and
then the upper area , picnic area . Because this item was never really
competitive under the LAWCON grant standards , last year Sue Gunderson
informed me that it was a waste of our time and effort to keep submitting
LAWCON grant application to fund this because it just was never going to be
funded . And so the last year the Park and Recreation Commission
recommended and the City Council approved a budget that would have
$100 ,000 .00 which 2 years ago time was the cost estimate for the structure .
So we are ready to go forward to fund this . What we need to do is say is
this indeed what we want? Do we want to make changes? Do we want to make
it bigger? Do we want to make it smaller? Now we need to get down to
brass tacks . I ' ll open it up for your comments .
Koegler : If I could Lori , just a couple other comments . This was put
'
together as part of the packet to try and secure the money to do it and
when you undertake that effort , you kind of treat the front end fairly
casually sometimes and I think it 's probably what 's happened here . If
I recall correctly , the Park Commission did supply some general input on
these are the kinds of things we should have . Nobody probably ever though
really has looked , and that 's what we need tonight I think are some of the
programming details . We 've got a picnic area identified . What kind of
groups are we talking about? How is that going to be used? That will
obviously have some impact on the size and the type of space . Same thing
with the lower levels . It 's been envisioned that there 'd be some
' concessions . Some rental area maybe in the future . The changing areas and
so forth . How do you see those being used? How many people do you want to
accommodate there? What 's minimum amount of facilities that will be
needed? Those are the kind of issues I think we need to get at tonight .
It 's our intent then to bring back to you some revisions starting in sketch
form with some cost estimates which may obviously cause you to change a few
more things . Normally that 's making them a little smaller but who knows ,
this may be the exception . So it 's that kind of thing .
Sietsema : I think that Todd will have a lot of input on this . He 's our
' facility scheduler at this point in time . He schedules the big group
picnics out at Lake Ann . He knows what is requested most often out there
and what the needs are I think as well as anyone so I 'm sure that Todd 's
going to have some ideas . Bigger . Bigger . Bigger . I don 't know if you
want to do that now or later .
I/
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 13
I
Hoffman: Later .
Andrews: My comments would be . I 've been active with the Red Cross ,
sailing program at Lake Phelan for about 3 years , 3-4 years and my only
observation is boy , you end up needing a lot more space than you think you
do because your programs expand and new things are added . They do have all
boat rental operation operating out of a lower level of a similar structu
that 's shared with the Red Cross and with the city parks of St . Paul . I
think if you 're envisioning any kind of a boat operation , it would requir
doubling of the size of this building which would probably be cost
prohibitive to consider building it at this time . It 's also a problem wit
logistics of the boats . You 'd like to have them at water level to use bu
in order to deliver the boats to the site on a property with a grade then
you need to have a delivery ramp or a road to get them down to the water
level too so I guess if you 're , I think it 's a good use of a lake to have a
program like they have on Lake Phelan . It attracts a lot of people and III
think sailing programs or swimming programs or canoeing programs are
attractive programs that I think are good for community involvement so I 'm
not saying that I don 't like the plan . I guess I 'm saying that perhaps i
those are things that you 'd like to do , that would require a separate
structure or a structure that 's not affordable at this time .
Mady: One of the things we could do is , if we find that we need more , is ll
in the design of the structure . You just simply build it so that it 's
easily added onto in the future .
Andrews: I think I 'd rather see something like this built than having a II
wish list that we could never achieve . This is a nice facility but
literally the boat storage area at Lake Phelan is larger than the entire
ground area of this building and it 's not big enough . They 've got several
aluminum fishing boats that are used as chase boats . They 've got canoes .
They 've got sailboats . They 've got sailboards and it 's literally crawling
over each other to get these things in and out of the water for various II
programs and it 's a fairly well laid out building so I guess I agree that
think that that would be something that should be considered as a future
construction need rather than current . My other question would be
concerning the dock . We 're looking at a concrete pier or something that 'll
taken out over the winter or what sort of thing is envisioned there?
Mady: I think initially the way it looks Todd , this is the dock that the l
Jaycees donated that 's on here?
Hoffman: That would go to this site? I
Mady : Yeah .
Sietsema: This dock was never defined as much more than a regular T dock"
I don 't think anybody really got to that point .
Andrews: Obviously with water levels changing like they have been lately
that 's a good guess as to where you should build the dock . It doesn 't do
you much good if it 's 100 feet from water but , that 's the way it 's been
lately . The only other thing I noticed on the plan was , if we are II providing a lakeside facility , there is virtually no storage space noted
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 14
here for supplies as well as no first aid area which if you 're going to
provide a lakeside facility , I think you 're responsible , you ought to have
at least a small area where first aid supplies could be stored or kept .
Schroers : Do you have some specifics in mind already as to what types of
programs you 're going to run out of there? Is it going to be a basic
fishing boat/canoe type thing or do you envision expanding into sailboards ,
' smaller sailboats and that sort of thing?
Hoffman : Again , any of those types of in depth studies or calculations of
what would be operated out of there are premature at this time . I think
Larry , you could probably give some insight to the commission here this
evening on operations that are taking place at Hennepin Parks which I also
have limited exposure to in the past . As far as a boat rental or canoe
rental operation out of a facility like this , if you had the space
available to store the paddles , the life jackets , that type of thing and
check out the paddle boats or the canoe through the front desk operation
' and then stored the canoes or the paddleboats in another maintenance
building during the winter , that would be a very feasible operation so you
could enter into that type of use with this building by not having to
' include that extra space for all the storage of those paddleboats or all
that equipment . I think that use would be very popular on Lake Ann because
of the non-motorized use that is there . I think we 'd be selling ourselves
somewhat short if we didn 't enter into this first phase without some kind
of provision for both the boat rental and as noted the lifeguard station or
first aid station in this facility .
Andrews: One comment I 'd make about the sailing program because that 's the
one I 'm heavily involved with , they put through about 450 people a year on
Lake Phelan in that program . It 's a super good program . It gets people
' involved into a new sport that 's low impact on the environment and a very
rewarding and you don 't need a large lake for that . We run 10 sunfishes at
a time and 1 chase boat and run about 10 sections , or more than that .
About. I forget the number but about 400 people a year which is a nice
program but it does take a lot of storage space and you can 't , you need
secure storage space on the lake that 's very convenient in order to make it
work because so many programs are after work programs where you 're only
dealing with limited sunlight . In June there 's no problem but when you 're
' getting into late August and you have to be in the water by 6:00 and be out
of the water by 8:30 , you have to have a good facility to make it work .
That 's important to really consider that .
Schroers: I agree with what Jim is saying that storage and security is
very important when you get into the sailboats , sailboards , that type of
' thing . However , my experience tells me that most park operations feel that
storage for boats and canoes and rental property is for the most part cost
prohibitive . Therefore , they opt to have programs with fishing boats ,
canoes , and aluminum type paddleboats that can be in the off season stored
in a compound area . Somewhere that is secure but does not have to be
inside a building . The aluminum products weather very well . It really
doesn 't hurt them at all being in the out of doors and I know for a fact
that we store a lot of our boats and canoes outside .
Andrews: There 's not the vandalism potential with canoes and aluminum
boats like there is with the sailboats which is a definite problem .
I/
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 15
Schroers: Right . But that is one way of making a smaller park system like
we have here in the municipal situation . We can make a facility a little
bit more affordable by limiting ourself to what we get into but perhaps II
leaving an option for expansion at a time that we could justify it .
Koegler : If anything , I guess we need to end up with a plan that has
flexibility because when this was originally penned and I think probably II
going back to the time that the 1980 Comp Plan was put together , at that
time Leech 's Resort was still in existence on Minnewashta and there were
number of people that from time to time would say , the City should acquir
Leech 's if that ever becomes available because you could have a little boa
rental deal there and supply boats for people to use the lake . Obviously
that never happened and I think to a certain degree that carried over her
and said well maybe someday we 'll want to rent some kind of boats . I thi
at that time it was envisioned to be canoes . It would probably be on racks
outside or the paddlewheel type boats just for people to enjoy for half all
hour or whatever . But you 're bringing up some good points . The sailing
and the sailboarding and those kind of things that are real popular , maybe
we need to be able to do some kind of a mirror image construction in the
future that would allow cheaper storage space but storage space nonethele
for seasonal use if not off season use .
Mady : I 'm going to switch gears a little bit on this item and ask Todd all
couple questions on the structure itself with respect to picnics because
think that 's , at least early on , one of the main focuses of this building
was covered space for group picnics . And Todd , what kind of numbers are I
talking about? Should we be looking at?
Hoffman: For a number?
Mady : People .
Hoffman: People? Participants? Generally we 've split the picnic
locations at Lake Ann into two sites . Calling them parkview which would II
the upper hill portion or the walkout portion to the top side of this
building , and then lakeside which would be directly in front of it .
Parkview we take registrations up to groups of 400 people and the normal
size for a picnic up there is anywhere from 150 to probably right around
300 people per group in that area currently . The number of picnics per
summer in that size group would probably range from approximately to 20 t
25 groups in that particular location . Lakeside , we book anywhere from 4
to 150 people in that location . We book somewhat fewer groups there . 15
to 20 groups per year probably and those are beginning to book up . We 've,
probably received 15 reservations already for this year starting May 5th
and going all the way through the month of September .
Schroers : Is this entire top level enclosed? ,
Koegler : Yes .
Schroers: And will it lend itself to other things besides picnicing? I
Would groups rent this for meetings? For renunions?
Koegler : Yes . ,
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 16
Schroers : For seminars?
Andrews: Is it a heated building? It 's not a heated building is it?
Mady : That 's a question I had . It 'd be wise to construct it so that in
the future it could accommodate sledding parties . Things of that nature .
It doesn 't necessarily need to be heated immediately . One of the things we
need to maybe look at is , in the initial go around , is making sure we
construct enough covered space and then in the future work at putting in
glass in the front . Maybe we just put screen in the first , or not even
screen . It 's just open with a railing . In the future you work towards
solid walls and glass and heat and things of that nature but just simply
having a roof over your head on those days when the weather is kind of iffy
and you get your picnic 3/4 of the way started and then all of a sudden it
starts to drip , you want to be able to at least do something on the inside .
Schroers: I think it 's kind of important to really try to designate or
pinpoint the use . If you want it to be strictly a picnic facility or if
you want it to be an all around general rental facility because there are
other things in the area that you 're going to be competing with and people
are used to a standard and they 're going to be looking for certain things
when they come to rent the space . I see this on almost a daily basis .
People come into our- facilities and they look around and they say , how many
I coffee pots can we plug n? How much audio visual can we set up? Do you
have any built in speak- systems? I mean they 're looking for a lot of
things so I think it 's read important that we decide exactly how we would
' like to use this facility and then it has to be set up accordingly in order
to compete with what else is available in the area . And also maintenance
should be a big consideration . You would like to provide the facilities
' that people would want and yet try to keep it simple and uncomplicated in
terms of maintenance because that can really kill you . The cost of upkeep .
People come in with large groups . Carpeting is going to last like no time
and are you going to plan ahead and budget for carpeting or is there even
1 going to be any carpeting? Is there a more practical type of floor cover
to use and there 's really a lot to consider .
Koegler : When this particular drawing was put together , the use of the
facility at that time was envisioned to be obviously for picnics . It was
billed as being kind of a seasonal community room . That if a neighborhood
1 wanted to meet or somebody wanted to meet and couldn 't find space
available , this could be used for that purpose . It had conceptually at
least a large fireplace in the middle of it that was meant to be used in
the wintertime as a kind of stop over for cross country skiing . That was
kind of the limited range of the way it was envisioned being used . You
raise a lot of good points Larry in terms of where will you go from there .
If you have community activities , you need certain levels of lighting . You
need some electrical service available and so forth and do you need heat?
Those are I guess some of the issues that we need to get at the heart of .
How do you think this building or how do you want this building to be used?
' Schroers: We get 3 phone calls a day . It 's too hot . It 's too cold . The
people upstairs are roasting . The people downstairs have their coats on .
I 'm telling you . It can really get to be something so that 's what we had
envisioned in the beginning too was that we were going to have an outdoor
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 17
recreation center and kind of keep it pretty simple . The kind of place 1
that people could come in with muddy boots on and that sort of thing but
then you sort of get into the construction phase . I think what happened
with us was that we had formed a kind of a mental image that this was .jus
going to be kind of , that our facility was going to be something that 's n
real well defined but when the planners and the architects and everybody
got a hold of it , it turned into a showplace . Now we have people coming II
with mud and stickers and things all over them into a nice fancy facility
and to try to keep it looking that way is really a lot of work .
Erhart : I don 't think ours is going to be too fancy at $100 ,000 .00 . I
Andrews: I think my ideas and . . .about the boating and so forth , I think
you look at the existing assets that are already there and how could we
spend money that could provide the most value added to those assets that
already have , then I think the picnic facility probably would . Not a boat
rental facility at this time . The question about the heat would be if
we 're , I guess to go a little further on that , if we 're going to have a
fireplace to provide heat upstairs , does that provide enough heat to keep
the pipes from freezing downstairs? At this point , all I can say is froz
pipes could be a very expensive maintenance item on a reoccurring basis.
Schroers : Generally you drain the system at the end of the season . You
just shut it down and you drain everything so that there is nothing to II
freeze .
Koegler : That was the intent here . That the system would be drained II during the winter months . Bear in mind this building was titled , and I
think appropriately at that time , a picnic/recreation shelter . It was
basically a glorified picnic shelter . It was not meant to be a community".
center by any means . So I think Larry 's comments are very appropriate .
it 's intended for people to be able to comfortably come in there and use
the space and not have to worry that they were in their own living room or
something . Didn 't want to track into the carpet . I
Schroers: You can lean your skis up against the wall and not leave smudge
marks . 1
Robinson: Would there be any revenue producing from this facility?
Hoffman : The upstairs picnic area , yeah would be reserved on a fee basis"
Robinson: Concessions possibly?
Schroers: Well how extensive are you thinking in terms of the concession'
Sietsema : Nobody has defined any of those program levels . It 's such a
conceptual thing that they said , well you know it 'd be nice if it could
accommodate cross country skiers in the winter and picnicers could get ou
of the rain in the summer and it 'd be nice to have bathrooms and it 'd be
nice to have a concession area . Well maybe we might want to have boat II
rental there too . So we stuck it all in a plan and we really need to
define whether we need to go through a brainstorming session or whatever ,
define what programming levels you want to see out of this building and II
then go back to the drawing board. Figure out how we 're going to best pu
I
Park and Rec Commission Mee± ' ng
March 27 , 1990 - Page 18
' that building together and then figure out what the cost is . Right now , on
just the sketch that you have , we figure it would cost rougly $100 ,000 .00
but the area isn 't big and the concession area isn 't big and it 's just some
small bathrooms with room for changing into your bathing suit and a little
bit of storage space . As far as the level of programming , it was never
defined so that 's really up to you what you want to see in there .
Schroers: Depending on what you offer in the concession stand , the health
department has some regulations that are absolutely unbelieveable . Saying
the things that you have to do . Things that have to be stainless steel .
Things that have to be 6 inches or 12 inches up off the floor and if you
don 't know this ahead of time , prior to construction , it can bust you .
Koegler : The concession was looked at as being packaged food products in
order to not deal with specifically health department requirements for
hitches and ventilation and the whole bit . The typical range of snack
foods plus maybe some of the microwave convenience kinds of items . Those
kinds of things can be handled fairly easily without getting into elaborate
kitchen facilities . So it 's basically a packaged concession similar to
what YOU find around some of the Minneapolis lakes .
' Erhart : What kind of a fee do you charge for renting out the space
upstairs?
1 Hoffman: Again , depending on what the facility would end up being . . .
Andrews : Obviously with a budget of $100 ,000 .00 we can 't provide all
things to all people . . . .facility with some conveniences I think is about
all you can ask for $100 ,000 .00 . I think the whole key again is low
maintenance and low impact of users . I think the comment made about would
you want to come in to a carpeted facility with muddy feet is right on the
money . You want a facility that gets you out of the rain but it doesn 't
have to be a motel . I think this is pretty much on target I guess but to
keep those ideas in mind .
Robinson: And like was mentioned earlier , designed so that it could be
added on if we wanted to get fancy with it when we 've got some more money .
Schroers: Is it your intention during the operating season to have this
building staffed during operating hours? Would there be someone in there?
' Hoffman: Yes .
Sietsema: The concession area but not necessarily upstairs .
Andrews : I guess the only comment I 'd want to make is with the picnic
shelter idea in mind and with this being a lake front facility , I again
feel that a first aid/lifeguard area should be drawn into the plan .
Mady : A question for Mark . Are there any standards Mark for the number of
square footage you should available for people in a picnic area? Should we
be looking at , I 'm thinking about sizing of the building . How much space
does a 1 ,200 foot facility , how many people can we adequately accommodate
in there and my gut feeling is , you get much more than 100 people in there
and you 're going to be real tight .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 19
Koegler : Yeah . I think you get half that number in there and that 's
probably going to be as many as you 'd want to comfortably mingle with . I
am unaware of any specific standards that for picnic purposes you need you
know 8 square feet per person . It more is a subject of floor plan layout"
What kind of seating arrangement you can get and then how much other open
space you leave just for people to stand around so I think you can go at it
from two directions . You can say we need to accommodate groups of 50 to
or you can say we want to build as much as we can with our budget and we '
get in as many as fit within that framework . That was kind of the way this
was approached to say this is a reasonable amount of money . This is the
space we can get for that amount of money . Correspondingly , we can get 5
people in there or whatever and that 's where I think Todd 's input comes i
that if there 's a target number that you consistently are going to be
booking groups of 40 people or 50 people or whatever in here , we 'd want 11
try to accommodate that number if at all possible .
Andrews: The one thing I 've noted on Lake Phelan , which is my experience
area , is that they , instead of building one structure to serve all needs ,
have constructed a series of structures along the lake , each specialized
for it 's function and at one time they used to have one building . Now
obviously they 've decided that they were unable to serve the needs by
having one building do all things and I think maybe we could learn that II
lesson without making the same mistake .
Schroers: I agree with you on that Jim and that brings me to the you mad1
about the first aid station/lifeguard station . I would agree with a first
aid area in the building but not necessarily lifeguard because of where
it 's located in relation to the beach . The guards may tend to want to
congregate in their guard station .
Andrews : I wasn 't envisioning it as a station . More as an area for theill
supplies and equipment . Obviously you can 't guard the lake from that
distance away so mainly just a first aid room with supplies and that 's
really all you can ask for with this location .
Schroers: We have a similiar situation and it seems like if the guards
aren 't continuously monitored or supervised , that little utility area tha
they have is where their radio is . It 's where their snack is . It 's when
their coat is and they all tend to find a reason to get there and pretty
soon it 's a congregation area for the guards and they 're not really doing
other things that they should be doing . 1
Hoffman: Back to the group picnics for a moment . Of the larger groups
that are there , a number of them currently rent from A to Z Rental ,
whatever , big tents to provide that shelter in case of that rain factor a
we can meet that need by straying from this type of shelter and adding jus
a large concrete slab with a large picnic shelter type roof facility either
on this part of the park or on the other half of the park . The new
addition of the park and meet a large need and then scale this down to
groups of 75 or less . 60 or less and just meet those two different needs
in two different ways within Lake Ann Park . I
Mady: Mark , staff , do you need any further comment? Any further direction
or do you have enough stuff here to work at it?
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 -- Page 20
' Koegler : Yeah . I think we 've got a better feel for where your interest
lie . We obviously need to bring back to you something that 's a little bit
more detailed without getting too far down the road that we can put some
' costs to and make sure that what we 're trying to achieve is attainable
within budget . Generally it is but to be refined .
Mady : The way it sounds , we 're not looking for a Taj Mahal . We 're looking
for basically covered space that you can put something below it and be
used , basically two different levels with two different useages . It looks
' pretty good . Anybody else have any further comment?
REVIEW STATUS OF ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL
PLAN.
' Sietsema : The next item on the agenda is discussion of the Comprehensive
Trail Plan . At the last meeting you talked about prioritization of trail
segments and potential scaling back the whole trail plan . With that
discussion it was obviously important to know what the status of different
road alignments , upgrading different road segments was going to be . I
tried to do a brief synopsis of what was happening . Minnewashta , TH 5 ,
' North and South TH 101 , Lyman Blvd . and Pioneer Trail . Some of them are
nct scheduled for upgrading or any improvements at all on any schedule .
Others obviously , like Minnewashta Parkway , TH 5 , sections of TH 101 are
scheduled for improvements . Do you want me to go through this or are you
familiar with it?
' Andrews : Can you direct me to where Lyman Blvd . is? That 's the only one I
don 't know where it is .
Sietsema : Lyman Blvd . is , I ' ll show you on the map . It 's south of the
' Lake Susan Hills West .
Andrews : I know where it is . I just didn 't know that 's what it was
called .
Sietsema : And what 's important about Lyman is that that potentially it
' goes straight through Chaska and eventually will be a major connection to
the western cities . We 're anticipating quite a bit of traffic to
accumulate on that road as an alternative to TH 5 .
Robinson: This was really helpful Lori based on our discussions of the
trails .
Sietsema : I hope that it 's helpful in determining your prioritization
process and what not . I don 't know how you want to handle this Jim . Do
you want to go with this background information , go into discussion of the
trail plan or do you want me to go more into detail with what 's happening
on each road?
Mady : I don 't know if we need any more detail on each specific road . I
didn 't see any surprises in here .
Robinson : Do we want to change our priorities though? I think a lot of us
said TH 101 north was a top priority to us yet there 's nothing being done
there .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
March 27 , 1990 - Page 21
Andrews: I think that 's what we initially talked about and then I think IL
kind of reverted back to Minnewashta knowing that that 's going to worked on
next year . That was our opportunity . First opportunity .
Robinson : But it 's still got to be right up there , that TH 101 north . I m
not sure what we would do now .
Mady : We 're just not going to be able to do anything with somebody else I
footing the bill . That 's what you 're saying right?
Robinson : I guess so . I didn 't want to say it . ,
Mady : It 's not going to be cheap . I drove on it tonight again . I 've be
looking at it for 5 years as a place for a trail . I have yet to figure ou
how they 're going to do it in some places .
Andrews: On TH 101? I
Mady: Yeah . How many skyhooks have you got Mark?
Koegler : It 's going to take a few . Just some candalever elements along
that area .
Mady : I don 't know how people want to proceed on it . I know I 've made m,
comments known on . The top three are Minnewashta Parkway , TH 101 , north
and south . I guess south to me can maybe wait a little while until the
park starts getting close to coming on line and some of the things
happening with development in there as TH 101 gets straighten . We
definitely want to be putting it in along the straighten area there . The
northern part of TH 101 , everybody knows it needs to have work done on it il
but nobody 's got any money to do it . I don 't foresee anything happening
with it outside of right around the downtown area in my lifetime . It 's
iust too much of a problem . Minnewashta Parkway 's going to happen next
year . I know we 've got the money to do the study on it so I guess to me II
that 's number one . Number two becomes north TH 101 . We need to get a
study done on it . We need to find out what we 're talking about there .
Getting some informed opinion on it and we don 't have to necessarily do II
that with . . .
Andrews: What 's the prospect of any coordination with Eden Prairie on TH,
101? Slim and none?
Mady: I don 't know .
Sietsema: I believe that they 're involved in the Met study that 's study"
TH 101 at this time .
Andrews: Obviously we have a common interest . 1
Mady : Eden Prairie did though put a fairly extensive trail plan together.
and pretty much avoided TH 101 . They did their sections inside . I
Andrews: I 'm sure they 're hoping that we ' ll do it and I 'm sure we 're
hoping that they 'll do it . Between the two of us , nothing 's going to get
done .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 22
Mady : Their side of the road is probably easier to build on unfortunately .
I guess those are my comments on it .
' Sietsema: What do we want to do with the trail plan?
Mady : I don 't really see us changing the whole trail concept . I don 't see
' a reason to . We don 't necessarily have to build right now but that whole
trail plan came together as a result of the survey done 3 years ago . Until
we get solid informatin that shows that the interest is no longer there
for trails , I don 't see a •-ason to change the plan . We just don 't need to
' build them right now .
Sietsema : So we 're just noting that these are priority areas on the plan?
Mady : Yeah .
Andrews : As opportunity for funding arises .
Mady : It 's just like a road plan . You don 't necessarily build every road
you 're going to have in the City but you still reflect that at some point
' in time there 's going to be roads going here and there and everywhere and
they may start out to be dirt roads and then maybe asphalt and maybe even
ultimately freeways but the progression can be there . You just don 't need
to have to build everything at once .
Schroers : I agree with what Jim says . I don 't really see that we have
much of an alternative other than putting in trails along with highway
reconstruction or improvement and other than that , the major sections like
we 're speaking of , north TH 101 is just cost prohibitive . I don 't see how
we could ever fund that . So we just have to designate it as a nice to .
Andrews : Would it be possible to make a contact with Eden Prairie?
Sietsema : Sure .
Andrews: I 'm sure it 's been done before but I would assume they 're urgency
is and anxiousness of the danger of that road has got to be increasing at
' the same levels that we are experiencing . Misery loves company and maybe
we could find some alternate methods of funding . The other problem you
have is Hennepin County and Carver County line . I mean we 've got all the
' .jurisdictional problems where our problem is greatest . I agree with Jim .
It won 't happen in my lifetime unless it 's funded outside of a project , a
construction project . I just don 't see that happening any time in a 5 year
period at least and the problem is extremely dangerous area of travel for
anything but a car . Even there it 's dangerous so .
Erhart: Say Jim , maybe you know about this . Was there any talk about ,
1 remember when Eden Prairie had that big bond that they wanted to raise
money . That got defeated didn 't it?
Mady : Yeah , both times by less than . One time it was less than 5 votes
and the other time it was less than 20 votes or something .
Erhart : So I 'm sure TH 101 was probably in that plan .
It
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 23
Mady : I think we 've seen their plan once upon a time . I
Sietsema: I don 't think it was .
Erhart : Okay . That was what I was wondering .
Sietsema: So many of their neighborhoods feed out into other ways to get'
into the heart of their city other than going on TH 101 . They don 't have
the lake barrier that we do . You can 't go through Lotus Lake to get to
downtown . You have to go out to TH 101 and many of the neighborhoods tha
are along TH 101 on the Eden Prairie side have another alternate way for
pedestrian to get to their city than to go out on TH 101 . So that 's not a
big priority for them . Dell Road is their . . .
Erhart : I was just wondering if that was part of the trail plan that had
been voted down by the residents . I didn 't know because I 've never seen
the plan .
Sietsema: I don 't know that the trails were a big part , was that a big
part of their referendum?
Mady: It had some part of it but it wasn 't a large dollar amounts . They
had that big addition to the community center and a lot of parks and the
golf course and the golf course is I guess what ultimately killed it . I 'll
trying to remember because it 's been at least 3 years since we saw that ,
maybe even longer . If I 'm not mistaken , there was some plans of extending
what they had on Pioneer Trail out but only if we were going to be doing
something . They weren 't going to extend out to us if we weren 't going to,
be doing something so it 's been at least 3 years since we looked at that . I
know that so Jim 's point is very good . We should contact Eden Prairie an
see what their thoughts are . It 'd be great if two cities can work togeth
on doing something . Maybe it 's going to cost only half as much to get to
the same way .
Andrews: Even if we had a 20o participation . That 's 20% less than what I
have to produce .
Mady: Exactly .
Andrews: Is there specific action that we 're going to be taking on
Minnewashta Parkway or is it just to say that yes , we recognize it 's a
priority?
Sietsema: The next step in the whole process with Minnewashta is that thll
feasibility study is scheduled to be done later , in late summer or early
fall so that can be approved and all the public hearings can be held on the
draft plan so they can go ahead and start construction next year . So we I
don 't have to do anything right now until that feasibility study .
Andrews : Are we going on the assumption of off street trails or along the
side? ,
Sietsema: I think the feasibility study will come back with a lot of
information about that . Most of it I think will have to be , I think it
will be a combination just given the topography and the width of the
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 24
' right-of-way out there .
Mady: We talk about , one of the things when we 're talking about
Minnewashta Parkway or TH 101 on the north side , we 're talking about
budgets and money . In going through the City budget , now I can 't find the
page I was looking at previously . I was looking through this but we were
' talking , the projections of revenue for trail fees to me look fairly big .
Fairly sort of optimistic . I was curious because at $125 .00 a pop , and we
usually have about 300 to 400 new home starts a year and not all of them ,
' but a lot of those don 't even pay the fee , and recognizing that commercial
development does pay us a larger fee but , I wish I could find it in here
now . I just thought the budget numbers were a little too optimistic .
' Eietsema : I 'll take a look at it .
Mady: Okay . I thought I was seeing $40 ,000 .00-$50 ,000 .00-$60 ,000 .00 a
year being put in there and it just didn 't look , I was thinking we 'd be
lucky to get 10 to 15 so .
IRobinson : 300 to 400 at $125 .00 .
Sietsema : It 's $170 .00 .
Mady : It 's $170 .00 now?
Sietsema.: $167 .00 actually is what the trail fee is per unit and I 'd say
we have 500 housing starts or more . 400?
Mady : 400 . Recognizing that a lot of the new developments where sidewalk
' and trails are going in , they don 't pay them so I don 't know what the
number is .
Sietsema: More often than not though they are paid . They are paying the
fee .
Mady : I guess I 'm looking for staff to look at the number because we need
' to . when we 're talking about Minnewashta Parkway later this year , when the
feasibility study 's done , where the money 's going to come from is going to
be a very large part of that because we know going in that 's probably
$100 ,000 .00 to $150 ,000 .00 trail . Just from citizen comment and everything
' else . It 's not going to be a cheap one so we need to start thinking about
that and how that money , if we 're not going to have the money in the sock
next year , maybe there 's an opportunity with assessment to the homeowners .
We 've never done it in the past and I don 't know if that 's the best way of
getting it done . Because if you do it out there , you 're going to have to
do it every time because they definitely wouldn 't be happy with saying well
' we paid for ours , you 're asking them to pay for theirs too specifically so .
We need to take a look at that I guess . Any other comments? Staff need
any direction?
' Tom Workman , 7233 Pontiac Circle: I always wanted to do that . Last night
we ran into a dilemma . We were discussing the Audubon Road improvements
south of McGlynn and that area over there . Sewer and everything else .
There 's a sidewalk on the west side currently and north of the tracks . Now
we 're talking about south of the tracks . The dilemma started with the fact
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
March 27 , 1990 - Page 25
that MnDot isn 't interested in us putting the trail on the bridge and wit"
strip down versions of expanded walkway bridge , I think it was going to
come to about $52 ,000 .00? For bikers to get across that . The concern wall
of course cost and the next concern was that it was on the west side and
that didn 't seem to make sense at this point in that the new neighborhood
is on the east side and the connection to the industrial park on Park Roa
and everything else and the new entrance to Lake Ann is going to be lined
up with Park Road and moved to the east and that 's going to be kind of pa
of the trail system . That what people would be doing , or kids , what they 'd
be doing is they 'd be getting on , going Audubon Road which can get fast , II
and going up and then over the bridge and then back over again . Or not
using it at all or going up past the McGlynn and then not having any
options once they got to TH 5 . Obviously Gary Warren hasn 't discussed a
lot of this . You should have been home early . We got out of there at 9 :
last night . But it 's something that you maybe want to think about . I
don 't know what the future plan could possibly be west of McGlynns and
everything else and maybe that sidewalk is needed but before we put a
bridge on either side of the deck that 's there , it 's something that
the Park and Rec I think is going to have to seriously look at and start
thinking about because where is it going to connect up to . We 're assumin
that the ultimate destination is the park . People are hopscotching over
the road . I don 't know . I just thought I 'd bring it up . I thought maybe
Lori might h.a,,e caught wind of that .
Sietsema : No I haven 't talked to Gary about that at all but I will and
bring it back to the Park and Recreation Commission .
Math : It 's a valid point because I know we don 't like to make crossings I
unless it 's a controlled crossing like a signal .
Tom Workman: It could potentially be a bridge that nobody would use then"
Mady: Yeah , it 's definitely going to have to have options looked at .
I guess Lori , talk to Gary . ,
Sietsema : I will and I 'll bring it back to you . Thank you .
Mady : Where are we? Do you need any further recommendations? ,
Sietsema: No .
AUTHORIZE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PURCHASE FOR LAKE SUSAN PARK, CHANHASSEN
HILLS AND SOUTH LOTUS LAKE PARK.
Sietsema: Last year we went through quite an extensive look at what othel
cities are doing in neighborhood parks with playground equipment and we
discussed it at a number of meetings what we thought was a good program f
equipment out in the parks . We came up with a plan for Lake Ann Park and
the rest of the parks were put on hold for this year . Specifically funde
for 1990 are equipment for Chanhassen Hills Park , which is south of Lake
Susan, South Lotus Lake and Lake Susan Park . What I need to know from yoll
is would you like me to take the comments that you made last year and put
together what you like and what you didn 't like or do you want to go out
there and look at it all again? I didn 't know if you wanted to reinvent II
the wheel or not .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 26
' Mady : I don 't know . We spend an awful lot of time looking at play
structures in the last couple years .
' Schroers: I feel the same way . I think we 've put a lot of effort and
energy into it last year and it would be nice to put some of that effort to
work for us and not have to redo it all .
Sietsema : Okay . I won 't do then , if that 's the direction that 's given , I
wouldn 't do identical facilities at each park or have everything the same
as what 's up at the ball fields at Lake Ann just for variety sake but I ' ll
' keep in mind that there were definitely , for instance Jan really didn 't
like the ring , what do you call them , monkey bars . She liked the straight
across ones because she felt they were too difficult for the kids to use
' and they just didn 't get used so we can stay away from those types of
things . I ' ll make the notes , take the notes from the Minutes . If there 's
anything else you 'd like to add or you 'd like to see that wasn 't mentioned
before , then I 'd like to know about that now .
' Schroers : At South Lotus Lake I think that , I don 't recall exactly what
the plan is there but I know that . . .
Sietsema : We don 't have one . South Lotus is one that I 'm hesitant to even
do anything because we don 't know what the shape of the property is going
to be yet or what other facilities that you want to see out there so I
think I 'm going to put South Lotus on hold just until the TH 101 issue is
settled and that 's expected to be settled later this year . Early summer .
l Schroers : The only thing I wanted to say in regards to South Lotus is that
whatever we do there , I think we want to consider room for a skating area
in the winter too .
' Mady : And Curt 's tennis court .
Sietsema : I 'm sure it can all fit there . All I 'm saying is that the
' boundaries , especially in the area of where the wellhouse is , are not
currently defined and I really don't know . It looks right now like that
will be expanded if the left over right-of-way is turned over to the City .
Then that would become parkland . If the State doesn 't turn that over to
the City , then it 's no man 's land or it 's something different than that so
if for some reason the alignment changes and they take more of that piece
than we originally thought , the piece may become smaller so we don 't want
to go out there with totlot equipment that 's as big as what we have going
in at Lake Ann Park if that means that then we can 't have a tennis court
anymore because there 's not room for anything , or something else that has
more priority for you . So I 'm not going to order anything unless you feel
strongly that I should . I 'm not going to order anything right now for
South Lotus until we can get that park plan done because it just , I think
that it 's going to. . .
Andrews : I have one comment about , I don 't know has North Lotus Lake
considered playground equipment? There 's some very limited .
Sietsema : That 's phase 1 . There 's a phase 2 that was planned .
I/
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 27 II
Andrews: I have an 8 year old son that he 's outgrown that already and aril
there larger scaled things planned?
Erhart : We have that problem at the Bandimere Park too . That 's a real II
pre-school type .
Sietsema: And that was also phase 1 and now with the other south park , i
we take that soccer field out , we 've got room to expand that area also .
Andrews: So you 've got larger scale equipment planned?
Sietsema : For older kids . Although it doesn 't get much more II
sophisticated .
Andrews: Just the size is the main thing . Just higher up and bigger . I,
suppose by age 10 they probably don 't use it much more .
Sietsema : Yeah , exactly . 1
Erhart : Lori , do you have a list of what we said for Lake Susan? Does
anybody remember Lake Susan Park? I
Sietsema : You didn 't talk about what would go there . It was only
discussion of what would go at Lake Ann last year . It was just general II
discussion of what you liked in playground equipment and what you didn 't
like .
Robinson: What 's the timing for a plan for South Lotus? I
Sietsema : We had originally scheduled that for tonight 's meeting but in
discussions with Gary , it 's not a final alignment . They haven 't decided II
for sure . It 's not written in stone yet what that alignment of TH 101 is
going to be so until we know what that is going to be for sure , anything ,
any money that we spend on park design plans or equipment it could have til
be revised a number of times before it actually happens but TH 101 is
scheduled to be realigned later this year or early next year so those plans
have to gel pretty soon and he was anticipating that we would be able to
ahead with plans , design plans for the park by mid-summer . And that
shouldn 't take too long because you guys have a general idea of what you
want to see there so we could actually get some stuff in .
Erhart: So we 're going to authorize playground equipment tonight for the1
parks?
Sietsema: With the exception of South Lotus Lake . I
Erhart : . . . know what we 're going to put in there yet? You 're just going
to come back to us with something?
I
Sietsema : Well last year you went around and you looked at different
playground equipment and you went and you told me . We don 't like this an
we don 't like this but we really like this and we came up with what we ha
at Lake Ann Park up by the ballfields . We came up with a phase 1 and a
phase 2 so what I 'm saying is , I can do that , come back with a plan that '
similar to that for these parks because I know from last year what you
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 28
' liked and didn 't like unless you have something else in mind .
Erhart : Okay , I 've got one comment now and I hope it 's not too late . The
chute slide . I 'd like to see one of those out at Lake Susan if there is a
way we can get it in because my daughter 's at the age right now where she
likes it so it 's kind of something I 'd like to see , kind of a selfish thing
and the bigger the better . She 's kind of suicidal . No , seriously . You
should have seen her at the fair . They wouldn 't let her go up without an
adult . Two stories up so I know you 'r€ not going to do something that big
Lori but just if we could see if that would work in there . A lot of small
children like that .
Mady: We 'll rename the park suicide hill . Lori , comment on play
equipment . I 'm trying to remember and I think I know where we headed last
year when we talked about wood structures versus metal structures . The
flavur of the city , what we 've done in the past has always been with the
wood structures . Kind of trying to keep it in more of the passive , natural
setting . Now at the school we went with a metal structure and there 's been
a lot of favorable opinion on that because it 's bright and it 's cheerful
' and it 's real neat . We 're still thinking on the wood structures aren 't we
in our parks keeping more in line with the passive nature of our parks?
Sietsema : Yes . That 's what you had tended to go for last year . Some of
the more colorful things that come off of it like .
Erhart : The slide .
1 Mady : That 's great but .
' Sietsema : But the basic structure is the timber form .
Schroers: When we were on tour we noticed that a lot of the metal things
c . to look bad after a short period of time because the paint and the
' coating and various things come off and they get looking worse as time goes
on where actually some wood structures , weathering take on a nicer look
after a period of time .
Sietsema : So unless you want to change that mode , I was going to go with
the timber .
Mady: Do we need a motion?
Sietsema : Yes , I need a motion . Do you want to see plans before I go
ahead and order something or do you base my . . .
Mady : Would you be able to have it by the next meeting?
Sietsema : Maybe .
Erhart: It 'd be nice to look at plans if we could .
Sietsema : I probably could , yes .
Mady : I make a motion to direct staff to prepare plans for park playground
equipment at Lake Susan Park and Chanhassen Hills Park and present it back
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 29
to us at our first meeting in April . 1
Robinson: Second .
Mady moved, Robinson seconded to direct staff to prepare plans for
playground equipment at Lake Susan Park and Chanhassen Hills Park and
present it to the Park and Recreation Commission at the first meeting in II
April . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
Mady: Does anybody have any? I 've got one .
Schroers: I 've got an idea . I
Mady: Go ahead .
Schroers: And I don 't know if this is a park and rec . If it 's in our
jurisdiction area of responsibility or whatever but just my observation ,
looking around the City is that there are some both active and passive us
areas in our neighborhoods that have just become collection points for
debris that have been blown around by the wind . That 's been dragged in b
the younger children that aren 't focused into neat and tidy mode at the
stage where they currently are and I 'm wondering if the Park and Rec can II
initiate or sponsor neighborhood clean-up program . Designate a day as
neighborhood clean-up day . Something like that and have the City provide a
truck to haul the refuse away . 1
Mady: We talked about that last year did we not?
Robinson: That 's exactly what I was going to bring up . Sue Boyt brought"
it up that we have park clean-up day some Saturday in April .
Sietsema : He 's on it . It 's in the brochure . I
Schroers: I 'm not talking just about parks . I 'm talking about designated
wetlands . Neighborhood , passive\active . Wherever . The whole city is fu
of litter and trash everywhere you look . It 's pretty disgusting and it 's
real noticeable now because everything 's so brown and bare but it 's also
the optimum time to get it .
Robinson: And it would be so easy I think . On a Saturday morning if we II
just got out and it 's just a matter of picking it up . We 've got to have a
truck to put it in and maybe get the Boy Scouts involved or some other
community organization .
Mady: I think it 's real reflective of what happened this last weekend wi
the recycling bins and all the Girl Scouts , the Boy Scouts , the Cub Scout
the Brownies , they were all out there . I don 't know what other community
groups . I know those groups were up there and they did a heck of a job .
They covered the city and I know talking with Mike Lynch in the past , he II
said the Boy Scouts would always be more than willing to help and I know
the Girl Scouts would be more than willing to do things of that nature so
gosh , that 's a great idea .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 30
Robinson: I walk down the hedge by Barne 's buildng behind Pauly 's down
there this afternoon . I walked down there . It is a mess . I mean there 's
' a truckload in that hedge of garbage .
Andrews : The question is , if we pick up the garbage , can we legally throw
it away?
Schroers: That is the biggest problem . Where do you go with this stuff?
I mean right out in front of my house there 's a wetland and it just looks
' absolutely terrible . It just looks like it 's an open , like for anybody
that doesn 't want something , throw it there .
Robinson : I think it was the fact that we didn 't have any snow and the
wind must have blown a lot of it because it 's really bad this year .
Erhart : A lot of people just dump though too .
Robinson : Yeah , I guess you 're right .
' Mady : And with all the construction , you just get. everything .
Schroers : So Todd , you already have a program in the works? Tell us about
it .
Hoffman: In the winter brochure , taking off of what we talked about last
year and being a very firm believer in a clean environment and respect for
our environment and cleaning up after ourselves , we initiated in the winter
brochure a city wide clean-up idea and it was in the winter brochure . Call
the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Department if you 're interested in
getting all this kind of idea . In the brochure , the 5 ,000 brochures
generated one phone call . Spring brochure it was listed again and that
generated another phone call and then the person from the winter brochure
called back to reaffirm that she was interested in being involved in her
' neighborhood so that is 2 .
Erhart : And 7 here .
Hoffman: However , conversations in the past with the Boy Scouts , the Girl
Scouts organizations , we 've got reactions anywhere from positive to
negative . In particular a conversation with one leader in the scouting
organization was quite disturbing that they have kind of fallen away from
that . Kids don 't like to pick up litter anymore .
' Andrews : I think you hit an unusual situation . Based on Cub Scouts , they
literally are looking for projects to do because they have to do one to get
their little check marks or whatever and most of them would be excited to
take an hour or a half or whatever to pick up a neighborhood park .
Hoffman : I think you 're right there . The logistics of organizing an event
like that , the logistics of organizing the distribution of the recycling
' bins is a major undertaking . It 's something that sounds very simply but to
incorporate it , get the publicity out there . The cost of publicity . The
time lag between the initial , really get some ground work and getting the
actual day planned and trying to get the whole community involved will take
some time so we really need to make that commitment here fairly soon .
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
March 27 , 1990 - Page 31
We 've advertised it . I 've had several discussions with Jo Ann Olsen from
the Planning department who also investigated this type of thing , a city
wide clean-up . The cost of looking into getting cost estimates .
Investigating other cities . The City of Shakopee , cities throughout the II
metropolitan area and what it costs to have those types of things .
Providing the dumpsters . Providing the trucks . The cost of getting rid of
that waste . What do you limit it to? Trash in the bushes and the ditchell
or do you take on backyard or refrigerators and appliances and those type
of things?
Erhart : No . Just paper trash . I
Sietsema: But some cities do . I mean they do have one day a year that y
can put your old washing machine and stuff like that .
Robinson: That 's not a bad idea .
Schroers : That is a good idea because what do you do with that stuff? II
Robinson : That 's right , and tires . Larry brought it up but I was going
bring up the same thing . What I had in mind is hell , just go out with
plastic bags and put them someplace and if the City would come along and
pick them up . I mean it could be as simple as that I think .
Sietsema : And we had some people in here from the Carver Beach area , whe II
they were here talking about the park , they had volunteered to do a
neighborhood pick-up and clean up the steep slopes in that park over they'
We 'll be contacting them when we get this all put together .
Schroers: If we ran a major ad on the front page of the Villager , would
that do anything as far as stimulating interest? '
Robinson: It should almost happen in the month of April sometime shouldn 't
it? l"ou get beyond that and then the grass is up and it 's covered up . II
Andrews: There are other activities too .
Mady: Fishing 's open . The water 's out . You 've got this new guy . 1
Hoffman: Give it to the new guy .
Andrews : You said give him the garbage . Literally there it is . Give hi
the garbage .
Mady: Okay . It 's a great idea . Just don 't let it drop . I had a couple
minor things . On the trail going out to Lake Ann along TH 101 , right at
the corner of TH 5 . Someone did some utility work it looks like there an
ditched it out and then laid some cable . Well right at the trail there w
what looks like from the road, it looks like it 's a hole about 18 inches
deep and about a foot to 2 feet wide right through the trail . I know the
kids in school at some point in time will be walking out to Lake Ann . Thll
should get filled . I don 't know who did it and why it wasn 't filled
because all the rest of it , it looks like it 's been cleaned up but that one
spot there looks like about 20 feet long . A trench about 18 inches deep II
and it 's right across the trail . I saw a couple walking out to Lake
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 32
Ann Park tonight when I drove out that way and it needs to be fixed . I
don 't know if we go out there with a half a yard of dirt or somebody but
fill it . The tennis screen up on , that faces Laredo where it looks like I
think it 's corning down .
Sietsema : Well we need to decide on a tennis screen is if you want to have
tennis screens . It 's very expensive . That court up there cost well over
$1 ,000 .00 and we 've replaced it , portions of it every year . It 's in
tatters right now and it 's in bad shape and we need to determine if we want
' to invest in some tall shrubs and vines or something to grown on the fence
or if we want to continue to put tennis nets up there . It 's a windy area .
Or maybe we just want to do it on a couple of sides . I need your direction
' on how we should handle that because it is a major expense . I mean not
major major but it 's costly .
ISchroers : How much use do the courts get?
Andrews: The North Lotus is the same problem . That 's blowing in the wind ,
what 's still left of it .
' Erhart : How often are they used?
' Mady : They get a lot of use .
Erhart : Even though it is windy?
Mady : Yeah .
Robinson: Is it $1 ,000 .00 for the whole , to screen the whole thing?
Sietsema : The one with four courts up here , it 's well over $1 ,000 .00 . I 'd
say it 's closer to $1 ,500 .00 for those . It 's about almost $1 ,000 .00 for
the two each for the two at North Lotus and the two at . . .
Andrews : The problem with greenery , planting greenery is it takes several
years before it 's effective . You 're going to have complaints that well
what good is it so I don 't think there is an easy solution .
Schroers : Would you expect a lot of negative input from the tennis players
' if we did away with the screens?
Sietsema : I 'd expect , if we totally did away with it , yeah . I think that
we went with the half screens on some of the courts and I haven 't heard any
complaints on those .
Erhart: It makes a difference .
Mady : What 's the predominant wind in the summer . Is it still out of the
north/northwest or are we getting . . .
Andrews : High pressure 's northwest and low is southwest . But I know at
North Lotus it 's a very exposed tennis court . There 's a half a mile of
open , or quarter mile at least of open space and if there 's any wind , it 's
just a problem . But at $1 ,500 .00 a pop per year . . .
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 33 II
Erhart : Why are they tearing?
II
Sietsema: Because it is so open . The wind is just ripping them .
Erhart: There isn 't a better material out? II
Sietsema: We 've looked and that 's the best he could find .
II
Mady : Would we better off taking them down in late October , November?
Sietsema: They would be a lot better off but the amount of time it takes
to do that , especially with the number of courts that we have now . I mea
they could spend a week on tennis .
Andrews: What would be the concept of kind of a neighborhood adopt a par'
kind of a thing? I mean in North Lotus , I play tennis down there probably
twice a week at least and if you had , if the choice to me was either take'
it down and store it and bring it back in the spring and put it back up
versus not have it , I think the choice would be take it down and store it
and put it back up in the spring .
Sietsema : Boy , I 'm sure we 'd take volunteers . I 'm sure Dale would be opII
for that because it 's very time consuming for him .
Andrews: Would the City be willing to store it? I
Sietsema: Oh sure . I 'll ask him about it .
Andrews: I think most of the wind damage occurs in the winter , from what
could see so when the plastic 's more brittle plus the wind is much stronger
in the winter . I
Robinson: So are you saying that you really have to have . . .
Erhart : I think you need one . I
Andrews: Otherwise you 're going to eliminate probably 30% of the sunny
days that you could play . I
Pemrick: It 'd be worth a try to see if you 'd get neighborhood cooperation .
Erhart: Especially if you tell them what it costs to replace it . I
Andrews: I think the whole concept of adopt a park , which sort of goes
along with this clean-up thing , maybe you could sort of say , this is your II
neighborhood property . It 's provided to you by the City and if you get
people to invest their time , they ' ll take care of the park , they ' ll use i
more as well . I know it 's a difficult thing to organize , I realize .
Erhart: Could we tell them they have to take care of it and take it down
or we 're not going to replace it with a new one? I
Sietsema : I can write letters to homeowner 's associations and that kind of
il
thing and ask them if they have some volunteers that would be willing to
it because it 's becoming cost prohibitive for us to continue to supply
I
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 34
' tennis screens .
Erhart : That 's a lot of money .
Mady : The last thing I had on commission presentations . I spoke with a
resident that lives near Chan Pond Park and they indicated that it appeared
that someone had done some tree trimming on the south side of the Pond Park
to help their views of the p nd . Trimmed some trees on the park property .
Obviously we probably can 't 3 a whole lot about it but it 'd be nice if our
code enforcement officer could visit the site and if we can indeed , being
' that someone has done it , maybe they could get a letter from the City
instructing them that that 's ark property and they can 't be doing those
kinds of things on park property .
' Sietsema : It was one park property or was it on the conservation easement?
' Mady : Not positive either way . Either way it 'd be against city policy .
Sietsema : If you could advise this person that if he sees that type of
activity , he should call the Public Safety Department and submit a report .
' Do You have the address?
Mady: I don 't have the address . All I know is somebody saw it .
' Sietsema : I can report it now but I need the address of where it 's
occurring .
' Hoffman : The south side .
Mady: Yeah , it 's the south side . That 's all I know . I can get you
probably within 4 houses of it probably . I guess they were all fresh cuts .
Any other commission presentations?
' ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS .
Mady: I had a question on the Adminstrative packet . Conrad Fiskness '
letter . Reading the updates that appear in the paper on the Lake Lucy
' clean-up that the neighborhood 's undertaking and then reading what Conrad
put in his letter , or rather skimming it . I didn 't read it real verbatim .
I almost got the impression from Conrad 's letter that the Watershed
' District is still going to go full charge and go with the whole project ,
yet kind of listening to what I 'm hearing on the Lake Lucy residents ,
they 're going to do more of a , so I don 't really know where we 're heading
with this thing anymore . I just wanted to find out if we do know where
we 're heading .
Sietsema : It 's chicken and egg situation . The City doesn 't really want to
provide access , go to the expense of putting access on Lake Lucy if there 's
not going to be a project funded and the feds don 't want to fund a project
without access on all the lakes . So the Watershed is part of the reason
' that they 're going ahead with all this is because they need to finish their
work plan phase to get the funding that was allocated for the work plan .
And they 've expended quite a bit of money and they want to be refunded so
they need to finish that . Once that work plan is in place , then we have
the opportunity to or they have the opportunity to continue to apply for a
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 35
fund to do the project and at that time I think that they would put more
pressure on the City to commit to an access or not . Right now they 're ju
interested in completing the work plan so they can get be refunded for the
monies that they 've already expended . In a nutshell , that 's the way I rel
it .
Mady: Basically right now no one really knows where it 's going to head? I
Sietsema : No .
Mady: Any futher items?
Hoffman: One more thing . Great news . Two years ago the Park and
Recreation Department made an application for approximately a $30 ,000 .00 II
fishing pier at Lake Ann Park . That was not funded last year . This year
it was number two on the priority list . However , the number one has
dropped out so I 've received notification that we should be receiving our!'
fishing pier sometime this summer . Have not received that in a written
contract form which we have signed as of yet but it 's just about a signed
and sealed deal . It will be a 100 foot fishing pier , 8 feet wide . Fully
railed . It 's got about a 30 or 40 foot T on the end and it will be
installed to the east of the boat access there in the approximate locatio
of where the smaller miniscule dock compared to this thing was installed .
Mady : Can Larry cast the first plug off it? ,
Hoffman: We 'll have a grand opening ceremony I 'm sure .
Sietsema : The value of this fishing pier is roughly?
Hoffman: $30 ,000 .00 and it 's not a matching grant . It 's a fully funded II
Grant to the City of Chanhassen .
Mady : What happens to the $3 ,500 .00 fishing pier we were going to put oull
there?
Hoffman: We 're going to put it somewhere else .
Robinson: Well gee , that was worth waiting for .
Mady: That 's wonderful . I
Erhart: We 'll have to go out there and have the paper come out and take a
big picture of it . We 'll bring our fishing poles .
Hoffman: It may or may not be in place for the youth fishing program .
Mady : Fishing contest?
Hoffman: The fishing contest should be on July 4th but the new fishing ,
what do you call , intergenerational programming with seniors and youth
program . . . I still have to hear word back from the trails and waterways
division of the DNR and when that timeline for installation will be .
Andrews: It 's a permanent pier? I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 27 , 1990 - Page 36
Hoffman: It stays in year round .
' Mady: But it 's not covered by insurance guys?
Sietsema : Sure it is .
' Mady: No it 's not .
Robinson moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. .
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
t
1
i