Loading...
1m. Minutes /Z17 *y4') x SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ TING - April 30, 1990 I! A worksession of the City Coun 1 was held on April 30, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. The following memb rs were present: Mayor Chmiel, Councilmembers Johnson, Workman nd Dimler. CetwellitteadvezW abst. Staff present included: Don Ashworth, City Manager; Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator; Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director; Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager; and Gary Warren, City Engineer. The Council generally discussed the following items: I. Engineering: I a. Storm Water Utility District - Short/Elliott Presentation b. North Parking Lot, Bernie Hanson c. Highway 5 Update II. Park and Recreation: a. Park Property at the Northwest corner of Lake Lucy Road ' and Lake Lucy Lane b. Community Garden Plots I! III. Planning: a. MUSA Update: ' 1. Other Government Meetings, Update (212, MWCC, Eden Prairie) 2. Utility Element 1 3. Public Hearing Process b. Private Drives on Public Property c. Traffic Study for CBD IV. Administration: 1 a. State Legislation b. HRA Special Meeting, Discuss Agenda ' c. Personnel Policy d. Vehicle Purchases e. League of Cities Legislative Wrap-up and Annual Conference (Poll Council) The worksession ended at 9:00 p.m. The City Council convened at this time to take action on the following two items: Fire Chief's Vehicle: Motion by Johnson, seconded by Chmiel to authorize Jim Chaffee to negotiate the purchase of a vehicle available from the University of Minnesota which would meet the needs of the Fire Chief. The maximum amount allocated for this purchase is $14,500.00. Motion unanimously approved. 1 City Council Worksession/Special Meeting - April 30, 1990 Park Property at the Northwest corner of Lake Lucv Road and Lake Lucy Lane: The City Manager presented a proposed option/purchase agreement for the property on the northwest corner of Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane for park purposes. Monies have been included in the 1990 budget for a park in this area. If the owner agrees with the terms of this contract, the City Manager is requesting City Council authorization to have the Mayor and Manager sign the purchase agreement. The seller would agree to be paid the remaining balance ($60,000 to $70,000) over several years at a rate not to exceed treasury bill notes at time of closing. The City would enter into an option agreement with the idea that the Council/Park Commission could conduct public hearings before locking the City into purchasing such. Motion by Workman, seconded by Johnson to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign an option/purchase agreement for the property located on the northwest corner of Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane. The purchase price shall not exceed $150,000.00. Motion unanimously approved. Motion by Dimler, seconded by Johnson to adjourn the meeting. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager 1 1 1 i r CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 14, 1990 IIMayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. . COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler IIand Councilman Johnson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt IISTAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Gary Warren and Todd Gerhardt ' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda amended as follows: Councilman Workman wanted to move item 13 and item 1(k) to item 4. Under Council Presentations, Councilwoman Dimler II wanted to discuss the trees on Kerber Blvd. and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss street signs. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. IPer Councilman Johnson's request, Mayor Chmiel read off the items which had been deleted from the May 14, 1990 agenda. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Chmiel read a Proclamation establishing May 19, 1990 as St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Day and a Proclamation establishing May 20-26, 1990 as National Public Works Week. Don Ashworth stated that the City of Chanhassen was having an Open House for the Public Works Building on Sunday, May 20, 1990 Ifrom noon until 4:00 p.m. . CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's IIrecommendations: a. Adminstrative Subdivision to Divide an Existing Double Bungalow, 7611 IIroquois, Anita Thompson. b. Approve Agreement for Soutwest Mutual Aid Association. IIc. Approve Development Contract for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 6th Addition. II d. Accept Proposal from Barton-Aschman for Trunk Highway 5 Crossroad Entry Monuments, Project 88-280. I g. Resolution 190-53: Accept Feasibility Study, Waive Public Hearing, Order Plans and Specifications and Adopt Connection Charge Policy for Harvey/ O'Brien Sewer Extension Project 90-5. li h. Resolution $90-53A: Approve Petition for MnDot to Enter into a Cooperative Agreement for Frontage Road Improvements at Trunk Highway 5 and Lone Cedar Lane, Joseph Mitlyng. 1 1 !__________ _ City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 i. Approval of Accounts. j. City Council Minutes dated April 23, 1990 ' Planning Commission Minutes dated April 18, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 2, 1990 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 24, 1990 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated April 12, 1990 All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1(0 APPROVE AMENDMENT TO 1990 BUDGET TO PURCHASE A NEW CSO VEHICLE. Councilman Workman: I wasn't a part of the majority on this item to approve ' this. I wasn't interested in providing animal control services for all of our neighbors and so I'm not in favor of buying a new vehicle to do it. Councilman Johnson: I move approval. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Don't you think we should discuss it a little? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There should be some discussion. Councilman Johnson: We've got a commitment to our neighbors. We've already committed...approved it. We've told our neighbors to do this. We've entered into contract agreements to do this and I think it's good that Tom continues to let his opinion be known but we have to approve that. So I move approval. That's my discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Don, maybe you'd just like to clarify what this is about so the public is aware? Don Ashworth: The budget as it was established in working out a cost system • back with the neighboring communities, included a cost figure of $10,000.00 for ' a vehicle which at that point in time Public Safety was looking to a used vehicle. That has really concerned me because with the number of miles we put on and recognizing that the newer the vehicle we can get the better gas mileage, etc. you're going to get with that type of vehicle. The other part was that in that contract we have outlined a cost of $.25 per mile back against each of those communities. Typically the $.25 per mile includes, a portion of that $.25 in fact is depreciation or replacement of a vehicle. So in fact we really have an additional, I can't remember what it was at, $3,200.00 per year so almost $9,000.00 built into the budget in addition to the $10,000.00 for a vehicle. If we would be looking to a pick-up type vehicle very similar to the existing one. ' One that we could put a camper top over the back end and have that serve for the contract system, we're estimating that that would be about $15,000.00- $16,000.00. Again, in comparison to looking for a used vehicle, hoping that it would meet the specs and everything that we would hope for, it just seems that as long as we have the money why not go for the new vehicle. Mayor Chmiel: Do you know what the existing mileage, I think that was one of II the things I had requested before? Indicating as to total miles on the vehicle that you're proposing to making replacement on. Do we know what that is? I2 Im City Council Meeting - hay 14, 1990 I/ Don Ashworth: I do recall that you asked for that information and I do not have I it for you. Do you know Todd? What, are you going to run and look? Councilwoman Dimler: Don, while you're looking can I ask, what is the length of II this contract with our neighboring communities? How many years? Don Ashworth: It's a 3 year contract but we put in there a provision that I basically would allow the City to get out of it before that length of time. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So we're saying here for 3 years we're going to buy a vehicle for approximately $16,000.00. If we decide not to contract after that I 3 year period or pull the contract before that time, what could that vehicle be used for? Councilman Johnson: It's still the CSO vehicle. I Councilwoman Dimler: Well you're using it for animal control and is it going to II have a problem with odors or? Mayor Chmiel: They utilize the same existing truck presently for their normal CSO duties as well as with the. . . I Councilman Johnson: Animal control is a big portion that they have now. Councilwoman Dimler: So they don't have a special thing to put the animals in? Mayor Chmiel: No. It's existing. IICouncilman Johnson: Aren't there cages in the back of that thing? I've never looked in the back. Don Ashworth: They have cages. I don't know if they keep them in there all the II time. I would suspect that they do. Todd Gerhardt: 67,000. I Councilman Johnson: How long have we had that? 2 to 3 years? Don Ashworth: I'd say 3 to 4. I Councilman Johnson: It wasn't before I came on Council because it's been since II I was on Council. Todd Gerhardt: I think around February of 1987? II Don Ashworth: That's a much lighter pick-up than you use with associated with public works. Any of those type of functions. It really is more of a road type of a vehicle. I Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I have one other question. Was the vehicle specifically included in the contract as part of the deal? II 3 1 II City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: I think at that specific time, if I remember, it was discussed but I don't know if it was part of the contract. 1 I Don Ashworth: If we did not furnish another vehicle and somehow simply used any other vehicles available, I'm sure we'd still be in compliance with the contract. I mean what we're saying is we're estimating the, we put dollars in there to insure that we would properly be reimbursing ourself. However we were II to be able to accomplish that. If you had to use a street sweeper. I'm being facetious but I mean that would meet the intent of the contract. iCouncilwoman Dimler: Okay. Councilman Johnson: But in our discussions with them did we not indicate that we planned on buying a new vehicle? That is why our cost is as high as our cost IIwas for that? Don Ashworth: Yes. IIMayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? ICouncilman Johnson: Now can I move approval? Mayor Chmiel: You're anxious to move it Jay. II Don Ashworth: I'd also like to mention that when we did meet, we had looked at again that Fire Chief vehicle and we were looking at that point in time were looking at a cost factor of about $23,000.00 to $24,000.00. We were able to II purchase a used piece at that point. In fact the Council authorized $14,500.00 and the following day we were able to negotiate that down to $13,500.00 so again, I think the staff has continued to show that we're trying to save 1 dollars. I think in this particular instance you're going to get a better bang for your buck buying a newer vehicle that will meet the specs of what we're looking for than a used vehicle. II Mayor Chmiel: We're not going to find another one like we found for the Fire Chief? II Don Ashworth: We could look and if we found that, we would surely come back to you with it. ICouncilman Johnson: This doesn't preclude that. Don Ashworth: This doesn't preclude it. I Councilwoman Dimler: In other words you'll spend less'than $16,000.00 if you can? IDon Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Workman: Well my reason for bringing this up isn't to drag this out II all night. My purpose isn't the vehicle. A new vehicle or a used vehicle. My ` purpose is. .. II 4 V City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 I/ I IICouncilman Johnson: We shouldn't be in the business at all. Councilman Workman: We shouldn't be in the business of catching neighboring city's dogs. They're in the business of inspections and fire and providing their own police and everything else but all of a sudden you get down to this II one thing and they want us to do it and it's the dirtiest of them all. And we're doing it for them. You know my comments so it doesn't have anything to do II with the vehicle. I think we're working towards the City Council members all getting their own vehicles. time will be a BMW so it has nothing to do with the vehicle per se as it does with the principle of a private business that perhaps these cities should be obtaining their services and not from us because it just II means further growth and somehow down the road a further cost to us somehow, and that's what. We've indicated by doing this that we don't have enough of an animal control problem ourselves so we've expanded it to take care of everybody II elses in 5 other communities. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think some of the discussion was at the time as to the II additional hours that we would have for our CSO's to work was one of the reasons . behind it as well. But also to provide a better service for ourselves too. I guess the vehicles are not the issue in itself but yes, there are dollars that are going to be spend and there are some concerns about those dollars. Any II other discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Councilman Johnson: Gee, I think I might have one. I ( Councilwoman Dimler: He's never been seconded. 1 Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I've never been seconded before so it might be a I first to get seconded. I move approval of having staff prepare specifications for a new CSO vehicle and modifying the 1990 budget for such as recommended. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe as a friendly amendment to that indicating, unless there's 1 availability to find another vehicle such as we had found in a good used one with low mileage. II Councilman Johnson: That meets the specifications, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: At a better price. At a better cost I should say. Okay, there's I a motion on the floor. And you accept the friendly amendment. Is there a second? Oh Jay, you're dead. ' Councilman Workman: You're not going to second it Don? 1 Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm not. Dying for lack of a second. As it appears it's II dead. I would like this to be reviewed a little closer and possibly to hunt around to see what we can get. AWARD OF BIOS: II COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL SITE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 89-25. Gary Warren: Briefly Mr. Mayor, we received bids for the Country Suites Hotel I site improvements recently and we, as anticipated, have very competitive bid 5 1 • City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 II climate. Receiving 6 bids with the low bidder was Alber Construction Company at $288,937.95. We are recommending award of the project for the Country Suites Hotel site improvements to Alber Construction in that amount. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone wishing to address this? If not, any discussion by Council? Councilman Johnson: Just interesting how everybody was really, there were a lot real close there at $300,000.00 and $12,000.00 less. Alber found something in the bid where he could cut $12,000.00 out but he has to meet the performance. What were the minor tabulation errors? Do you know in Albers? ' Gary Warren: I don't recall exactly. Usually they're just an extension when they multiply the units times the quantities they drop a decimil point sometimes. I don't know exactly which ones they were. Mayor Chmiel: Have we used this contractor before Gary? Gary Warren: I personally have not but we do have experience with them through BRW's experience and such. They're a reputable contractor, yes. Councilman Johnson: Some of the other bidders are their subs on it. Gary Warren: Well yeah, in that regard. Northdale Construction is one of the subcontractors. They are our Lake Drive general contractor for the Rosemount project. We've had acceptable work from them. That's a major part of the effort here is the sewer and water work. Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion? Resolution $90-54: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded that ' the construction project for Country Suites Hotel Site Improvements, Project No. 89-25 be awarded to the firm of Alber Construction in the amount of $288,937.95. All voted in favor and the motion carried. WELL NO. 5 PRODUCTION WELL, PROJECT 89-4A. Gary Warren: Once again Mr. Mayor we advertised for bids for the production well now based on the good results we've had from our observation wells at Well No. 2. This is for the new well, pumping facilities and expansion to the chlorine dosing system to accommodate the additional flow. Low bids again were ' very favorable. The low bid of $88,243.00 was provided by Bergeson-Caswell of Maple Plain. A reputable firm. Has done a lot of work in the area and it's my recommendation that we award production well for Well No. 5 to Bergeson-Caswell ' in that amount. Mayor Chmiel: I just have one question. In our contracts that we have, do we have penalty clauses contained in there if the contractor does not complete it ' by the specific date? Gary Warren: Yes. We typically have liquidated damage clause in the contract. Off the top of my head I don't recall the dollar amount on this one but it's typically $200.00 to $500.00 per day. I 6 _11_ T • City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 I/ Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Resolution 090-55: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded that Improvement Project No. 89-4A, Well No. 5 Production Well, be awarded to the firs of Bergeson-Caswell, Inc. of Maple Plain, Minnesota in the amount of 088,243.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1(K). ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING, FINAL READING. ' AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PLATTING APPROVAL FOR 2 1/2 ACRE LOTS BY GIL LAURENT, I BRUCE JEURISSEN AND SEVER PETERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Paul Krauss: Item (k), the second reading to the ordinance for grading, mining, 1 filling and excavation. On April 23rd the City Council approved the first draft of the ordinance with some proposed modifications that have since been incorporated by the City Attorney. We've also asked that I meet with anybody who's interested, in particular Mr. Beauchane, he and I met on this several weeks ago. One thing I would like to point out though however is, at the last meeting I was absent at, the administrative review procedure came into some question. The original proposal was that staff be allowed when they're comfortable to do so for these guidelines to authorize grading, removing enough .. .up to 1,000 yards. The Council, or several people on the Council were concerned with that and proposed a lower total amount to 500 yards. I guess I would ask that you reconsider that 1,000 yard cap. Speaking in favor of it, I guess I have a few points. I drafted an ordinance similar to this in another community and had an opportunity to work with it for about 4 years and found that the 1,000 yard total was a reasonable one. It covered a lot of items that you really would not want to be bothered with frankly. If there were any items that I think that the Council or Planning Commission be concerned about, it'd be our obligation to bring it to you and we of course would have that option to do that. I'd also like to point out that we're working with two parties right now to take care of some dirt that's been contaminated by gasoline leakages. We're going to be bringing one to you at your next Council meeting because we want you to see how this will be handled because I think it's going to be occurring more and more. It's obvious it's something. . .to clean these things up. Interestingly enough, both requests that we're looking at, one's a city request and one's a private party are 600 to 800 yards. In the future if we can do this, we'd like to be in a position to expedite the removal and treatment of black dirt if we can. Right now, one final question kind of sitting out in front of the Manus site where...so again we'd like you to reconsider that 1,000 yard total if you're comfortable doing that. Otherwise the ordinance is drafted right now with the 500 yard cap. Councilman Johnson: In support of the 1,000 yard total, I calculated since I've been working with soccer so much lately, what the minimum size youth soccer field for an under 12 game is 70 yards by 110 yards. That's what's recommended. We're putting in a smaller one herein our town for older youth but that's a different question. If you took just that area, 70 yards by 110 yards, 500 7 1 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 cubic yards is 2 1/3 inches of dirt over that area. So you know you're only talking about yea much dirt over a soccer field and if they did anything more than that. If they wanted to put 6 inches of dirt or move 6 inches of dirt for the soccer field, they'd have to come before us. 1,000 will be a little less ' than 5 inches as a matter of fact so to build a soccer field where you have to, on the average move 5 inches of dirt, it'd have to come before the City Council at 1,000 cubic yards. So while 1,000 cubic yards sounds like a lot, it's not really that much when you look at earth moving. Mayor Chmiel: How many truck loads would that be Paul? Gary Warren: How many truck loads to 1,000 yards? Resident: About 100. 10 yards a load. Gary Warren: If you've got a 10 yard truck. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to amend that right now? I would second that we go to 1,000. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well that would be something after once everyone has a little more discussion. ' Councilman Workman: Is that number 7-35(A)? Councilman Johnson: It's in a couple actual places. It is in A. Roger Knutson: 7-30. The first two sections. Councilwoman Dimler: Wherever it's 500, we change it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, increase that to 1,000. rCouncilman Johnson: Something way in the back too has it too. Mayor Chmiel: There's a couple different locations. In the front page it's 500 also. Councilman Johnson: I'm sure they can find all the locations and change it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, if there's no other discussion, can I have a motion to make the change rather than being 500 cubic yards, putting it to 1,000 cubic yards. ' Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading to change the 500 cubic yards to 1,000 cubic yards. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Paul Krauss: On item 13, staff received a request for the extension of preliminary plat approval for Gil Laurent, Bruce Jeurissen and Sever Peterson. You may recall that these individuals received conceptual approval for 2 1/2 i8 City Council Meeting - flay 14, 1990 1 acre lots prior to the date of adoption of the ordinance which eliminated that from the ordinance which was 1987. Since that time you have to have 1 per 10 acre zoning. They have been given several time extensions. Most recently I believe in January, to bring in a plat with the concern being that until the location of TH 212 was defined with some certainty, that it was difficult for them to design around it. Highway 212 has been officially mapped and the individuals are asking for further extension. I understand their concern in wanting to establish the fact that they credibly do have the ability to subdivide into 2 1/2 acre lots. With a further understanding that there's a continued difficulty with TH 212 placement, we discussed the RALF funding program with them. However, we had a similar request by Gil Laurent in February where we indicated that we were concerend with extending these things ad infinitum. We did sign a contract with the Metro Council and did change our ordinance as a result of that telling them that we would no longer plat these lots in the future. We are of course in the process of working on a major comprehensive plan amendment and frankly we'd be concerned with alienating the Metro Council. . .letting these things continue on. We do however want to have some documentation by way of official Minutes and letters to the individuals saying that at this point in time that we are in fact. . .for 2 1/2 acre subdivisions and we understand that the reason you did not proceed is that TH 212 is a pending roadway improvement and that they could use that official record when MnOot goes to acquire the property to show evidence of what they could have achieved on that. So we're recommending against the extension of the preliminary plat for those reasons. There's a somewhat related matter that you're aware of concerning one of the properties and I might defer to Roger to explain a little further. There has been grading activity occurring on the Jeurissen property. We became aware of this, well we've been aware of it for some time but last fall we were very actively involved with it relative to what was going on on that property relative to how we interacted with the Moon Valley issue. Mr. Jeurissen had received the permits to grade his property some period of time ago. We understood what we tried to honor this permit. We understood last fall that the amount of materials...had been removed. We became aware that operations were starting up again this spring. - -We went and posted the site with a stop work order which was ignored and we have since been trying to contact Mr. Jeurissen's attorney and the contractor to get some compliance with that. If you have additional questions with that, we'd be happy to field them. Fill you in with what we understand now. , Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Jay. 1 Councilman Johnson: You know we changed one part of 1(k). Are we going to come back and finish the rest of 1(k)? We had a +notion to change it from S00 to 1,000. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. ' Councilman Johnson: But we haven't approved the whole thing. Mayor Chmiel: No we haven't. 9 1 1 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 Councilman Workman: Jay, I requested that they be looked at together because as Paul mentioned, one of the properties is excavating and in discussions with the property owner and the excavator and everybody else, continued interest in item (k) was brought up and that's where, since that is a second reading and final reading, I'm sure they wanted to make some comments. Mayor Chmiel: So that means we'll be going back to (k). Councilman Johnson: We'll be going back to it? Councilman Workman: And I figured we'd be bleeding over into either and each of them somehow or the other and that we might as well... Councilman Johnson: But 13 is only for extending preliminary plat. It doesn't talk about excavating anyplace in 13. Councilman Workman: Right but I just figured we'd be talking about them in that light. Mayor Chmiel: As discussion is going. Councilman Johnson: It may be but it has, so what are we discussing now? Are we discussing platting or are we discussing excavating or? Mayor Chmiel: We're discussing both those issues. Councilman Johnson: Simultaneously? Mayor Chmiel: Platting as well as the excavation. Councilman Johnson: Well I'm against extending the plat any more. It made sense to continue extending it as long as TH 212 was available and once it got to that point when they found out what TH 212 would do to their property, they had the choice of either going in for the RALF funds to plat or plat it or ' whatever. To continue to hold out to say in the future we can plat 2 1/2 acres is against the contract that we have and really has no basis I don't think. We've extended it for over 2 years now. The ability to do something that Met ' Council has been trying to get us not to do for equally long period of time. Councilman Workman: Paul, does the incomplete draft EIS have any bearing on their ability at this point to peg whether or not, where TH 212 will be or should be? Is the TH 212 laid pretty well? Paul Krauss: TH 212 has been officially mapped. Theoretically the EIS could ' come up with, there are several alterantives of the EIS and it could be changed but realistically it's been officially mapped. I guess to answer your question Tom, I don't think it's going to change anything substantially from our point of ' view but I don't think it changes it either from the applicant's point of view. They'd like this continued until the highway's actually under construction. Whenever that point is. The EIS is not going to firm it up in any way that satisfies them because they still want to know, they have a difficult time thinking about how to develop with a pending highway somewhere on the horizon. Even though you know where the center line of the highway is going to be, what's I10 I . City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 I/ the impacts of.. . How do you build access roads? There are a number of issues that won't be resolved until it's actually under construction. Councilman Workman: So is what you're saying their ability to hang onto their window of opportunity for 2 1/2 acre lots, can they hang that request on the uncertainty of TH 212? Councilman Johnson: Into the next century. , Councilman Workman: In 95. Paul Krauss: I think that's a matter that you really need to decide. I think , that the City's gone the extra mile on this one. Frankly I don't believe that Metro Council's aware that we've been doing this and it's not something we want to make a lot of waves about. The City's trying to be cooperative with individuals for quite some time. It's been my opinion and I guess I'd like to defer to Roger on this possibly but if we can demonstrate that at this point in time they were eligible to do this, that that's documentation that will be considered by MnOot when they actually go for condemnation for purchase of right-of-way. So that value that they could have had, had they platted it into 2 1/2 acre lots, will be a consideration. , Councilman Johnson: Or they could just plat it right now. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to hear from the applicants that are here I but before we do that, Paul you mentioned something about putting it in the permanent record regarding the current ability of these properties to develop into 2 1/2 acre lots. What did you mean? What's the permanent record there? ' Paul Krauss: The permanent record is the Minutes of this meeting and possibly a letter of the resolution that you authorize to give to the applicant. Mr. Laurent. ..out of this thing in February and at that time I scheduled an agenda item with a letter to Mr. Laurent stating that we understand that you're withdrawing your potential subdivision application but for the record we understand that you were eligible to do that and the reason you didn't go ahead was because of pending TH 212 construction. So that he would have something official to go sit down and talk with appraisers with. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but he still has the ability to go with the 2 1/2 acres right now? Councilman Johnson: No. 1 Paul Krauss: Well technically not. Technically Mr. Laurent opted out of this in February. We're not standing on a technicality. He's aparty to this request. Councilwoman Dimler: The other two applicants still have the ability for 2 1/2? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we should do is hear from the two applicants. Would either one like to or both come up and indicate their position? 11 ' City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 Sever Peterson: Mr. Mayor, Councilpersons and staff, my name is Sever Peterson and I have one of the properties that you're discussing here in question. I appreciate very much Paul's comments. I'd say that they're accurate in many ways. The Council has been patient with us as landowners here and has been ' supportive. Staff has been particularly supportive of our landowner concerns here related to Highway 212. I do feel that there are some cicumstances here and I believe that Paul is attempting to take them into consideration. I'm confident of that but maybe as a landowner and taxpayer I might be a little more sensitized to them personally. And to express those specifically, that I have a real strong concern that Highway 212 may never be built and that's a real ' concern and number two is that the roads that would be necessary. Yes we could subdivide as I understand, my -property and my neighbor's property there, if they desired. Speaking for my own property, I could subdivide it into 2 1/2 acres at this time because of the extension that the city of Chanhassen has offered me ' and availed to me but a concern I'd have in doing that would be that the roads that I'd be putting in. For example my property has 3 proposed corridors going through it. It has the TH 212 proposed corridor. It has the proposed relocation of Pioneer Trail and has the proposed relocation of Bluff Creek Road. I'm not certain where those are going but that may be my own ignorance and maybe those have been literally established. As I understand, there is an issue of the Environmental Impact Statement. I don't even know how that affects me. I'm speaking now from a practical point of view of these 3 roads and then to put in the roads necessary to service the subdivision would seem to me, and now I'm not a subdivider. I'm a farmer. Introducing myself as a farmer for those of you that don't know but it would seem to me to have a subdivision one needs roads into that subdivision and to have 3 proposed corridors cutting through it at some time in the future, I would think would be very difficult for a reasonable subdivision. And in the past, the City of Chanhassen has granted me, I believe 1 it was in 1986 or there abouts, if my understanding is correct of this, that they had given me preliminary plat approval on a piece of ground of this farm that I have that lies south of Pioneer Trail. And I had preliminary plat ' approval on 5 acres there and I believe that was in 1987 and this property, we cannot find interested people in those lots because people say, well where is the Highway 212 going to be? And ethically you know of course you tell them and they say well, how's it going to lay? I mean I have no idea how it's going to lay but they aren't interested and I'm saying that to relate if it is applicable, that the corridors are a hardship to the development there. I might say in closing that if TH 212 came through, that it might be you know in the better interest of the City in order to serve the City as well here. I mean I consider it my property as the landowner but I consider it within the City of Chanhassen and their interest come to bear as well but that the best use of that ' property may not be 2 1/2 acre lots at that time. It may well be but if a highway's not built, it very well may be. But as a farmer right now, I would like to request an extension because of the hardships that I've mentioned. If the Council would feel that they are applicable, I would like to have them ' considered. Thank you may very much Mr. Mayor. Councilmembers. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Peterson, how long do you want the extension? Sever Peterson: Well I have not specified a time but I would like to have it until the highway is actually being built so that we knew where these roads were and that we could act accordingly in some reason to the best use of the property in terms of not only myself but also the City. If that could be possible. I12 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 II Loren Habbeger: My name is Loren Habbeger and I'm representing Mr. Jeurissen. What my situation is, I had talked to Tom here earlier today, is the Environmental Impact Statement from the State standpoint will not go to the Feds until June 6th and at that time it may take time before it's fully accepted. The highway, you may have endorsed the corridor but the highway is no certainty until the federal level approves the Environmental Impact Statement. So what Mr. Severson, what he's talking about. Mr. Peterson, I'm sorry. But what the situation is here, you're looking at something here that it may not happen. I mean it's not a certainty that the highway's going to be funded. I'm working on TH 169 by-pass right now on a couple development situations. The second phase of 169 has not been funded. And it may never happen. 212, in it's situation right now, has been approved to a certain point but what I think here is, I think there should be an extension here on the time element here until an environmental impact statement is done. There's nothing that there's a certainty. I mean you people may have endorsed this but it's not for sure. And the appropriations have not been granted totally for the funding of the highway. Mayor Chmiel: Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought there was 54 million dollars I allocated for 212 corridor, isn't that right? Councilman Workman: That's to Lyman and they're looking to appropriate '96-'97 for the rest of it. And there is a request for construction financing in Congress right now for 12 million which would finance it TH 41 in Chaska. Loren Habbeger: But I guess what I'm looking at here is, you know until the , appropriations are met, you know you don't have a sure thing here. I guess the thing is, from the corridor standpoint, you may have endorsed it but it's not a definite situation. ' Mayor Chmiel: 212 is definitely a corridor that's going to be needed for the additional flow thru the city and it's in the best city's interest to of course see that go as well as our expansions that we're doing on TH 5. 212 is, I sort of understand some of the positions that you're taking but hopefully you can see the same position as what the City is here. We sort of get put into a bind as well. Loren Habbeger: Well the thing is, what we're looking at here with Mr. Peterson's property and with the Jeurissen property, to basically lay out frontage roads or anything that's right now, it's a tough situation. I mean I think if the property can be developed in an orderly fashion, until the Environmental Impact Statement is done and you've got a concrete situation, that you've actually got a commitment, we've got a pig in a poke here is`what we've basically got. I guess what I'm saying is here, we're asking to extend that permit for 2 1/2 acre tracts and I think it's a very feasible situation. You can build some good homes in that area and make it worth while because I do not feel that utilities are going to be out there for some time. So it's not an immediate situation as far as service. Councilman Johnson: Do you understand RALF funds? , Loren Habbeger: Right but what I'm saying to you right now, until you've got the, the RALF funding situation will not transpire until the Environmental Impact Statement is done. You don't have a commitment totally. You may have 13 ' City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 II/ endorsed it. It will go to the Feds June 6th. I've talked to Mr. Evan Green. - ) Councilman Johnson: Later than that. tLoren Habbeger: June 6th is when they're. . . Councilman -Johnson: That's the public hearing here at the grade school. Loren Habbeger: The public hearing and then the Feds take it from there. The Feds can say, hey we're not going to give the money. So as a result, there is ' not assurance that you've got the funds. Councilman Johnson: Okay, Paul could I ask you.on RALF funding? Paul Krauss: Yes. Councilman Johnson: At what point can we purchase his property? Paul Krauss: We could process an application today. It would have to be approved by the Metro Council but the funding is there and we could handle that ' today. Councilman Johnson: So he's got a preliminary plat that's approved before the Council. He can go into final plat at which time you would apply for RALF funds to purchase the property at a fair market value for 2 1/2 acres, therefore keeping his value of his property. And that's what he's concerned about doing. Paul Krauss: Right. Councilman Workman: But the road doesn't go through the Jeurissen property. Loren Habegger: No it doesn't. The situation, it goes through Mr. Peterson's property but to run a frontage road or anything that you come into the highway situation at this point there's nothing concrete. You could put a road in to come out to TH 212 but until it's established, you don't know where it's going to go. ' Councilman Johnson: So what you're saying is that Jeurissen wouldn't be, your client would not be eligible for RALF funding because he's not affected directly by the highway? Loren Habegger: What I'm basically saying is that we're ready to go ahead and work on developing the property but the 2 1/2 acre situation, what I'm saying is to give an extension until you know where you're going to take your road and where TH 212 is going to be placed so that you can make a plan for the whole situation. I Councilman Johnson: We've got a map. The map shows the entrances. The exits. The access roads. Loren Habegger: But it's not, is not concrete at this point. The Highway Department cannot give me an answer because there may be some changes until the Environmental Impact Statement is done. 14 7 City Council fleeting - May 14, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Paul? I Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the original time extension was granted until the thing was officially mapped which was done last fall. Then a time extension was given because there wasn't enough notice to do that. Frankly, if there's a date certain and the date certain was whatever date the EIS gets approved by the Feds, I don't have a real objection to that. That's a finite point in time. I guess what concerns me is keeping the foot in the door from now until 1997 or whenever, open ended as has been requested. That's something that I really think contravenes the intent of the ordinance. We think the EIS is probably going to be approved late this summer or early fall and if it was tied into that, we wouldn't have an objection. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ' Councilman Johnson: And say at that time they're going to come back and say let's now tie it into funding. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I was just going to ask. When the EIS is approved, does that mean how much.. . Councilman Johnson: It's not funded yet. , Councilwoman Dimler: How long before the funding is approved? Councilman Johnson: The phase that goes through this area. The EIS has nothing to do with the funding. It's already funded. Loren Habegger: But it revolves on the Environmental Impact Statement. The , corridor can change. It's not a definite situation. Councilman Johnson: The primary environmental impacts are east of your I property. The main change it would happen would probably be east of all those properties rather than that area that we're talking about with the Environmental Impact Statement. The wetlands. There's some historical areas west of you. 1 Councilman Workman: Either the North Mitchell or the Riley. Gary Warren: Yeah, I don't think the alternatives, I'd have to look, that they impact this property. Councilman Johnson: They don't even get to this point. , Paul Krauss: When you get to this point there's only the one. Gary Warren: They've only shown one concept through this. Councilman Johnson: That's what I'm saying is the EIS should not change anything here. Councilman Workman: Gary, I think it's plate 16A on the EIS on the aerial. The reason I brought this up was because of the excavating that's going on in the Jeurissen property so they're kind of intertwined because they'd like to 15 I 11 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 continue to prep property and excavate on the property which conincidentally is related to the need for clay, etc. over in Eden Prairie and whether or not they have the capability to go ahead with 2 1/2 acre lots or not probably has a lot to do or something to do with continued excavating although I believe the ' landfill is what is driving the excavating at this point but ultimately for preparation for development on that parcel. ' Councilman Johnson: As I read our packet, the excavating is in our City Attorney's hand. They've been given a stop work order and they're refusing to follow it and that's going onto the Courts. I don't see the permit or anything to even discuss the excavating tonight that's going on there because it's not even on our agenda or in our packet. In the adminstrative section of the packet there was a letter telling them to stop work again and again. But before I decide anything on the excavating, I'd like to see excavating on our agenda in 11 the future or in the courts in the future. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's I think a separate issue. Loren Habbeger: I think what you should look at here though is from a development standpoint. You take France Avenue off of 494. The Hedberg ' property was a mining operation for years and leveled off and put to it's best use for development. To shape a piece you know it takes time and money and it's the same thing with Mr. Peterson. He's going to have a considerable amount of excavating but if you can remove material in an orderly fashion and shape the parcel so that you put in proper roads and level it off, I think you people as from a tax standpoint should be looking at a 2 1/2 acre tact with a substantial amount of investment as far as what the housing would come in from a tax standpoint and work with people that are trying to develop rather than. What we're doing is we're taking a hill out that's completely useless as far as leveling off the site. It has to be taken out. I mean it's, the elevations are ' a problem so I mean as a result what I'm saying here is, if you can see the future development as far as to benefit the property and put it on the tax rolls from an agricultural standpoint back into a residential development, I think you people should be looking at it. And it can be done in an orderly fashion. I guess that's what I'm saying. Councilman Workman: Is this directly related to what happened with the Halla situation? Mayor Chmiel: Sort of, yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Except Halla was not impacted by 212. Councilman Workman: But he requested the window and we said develop or don't. And he's not or is he? He wanted it all the outlot. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. ' Councilman Johnson: This is pretty much the same I see it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 16 Pr City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 Sever Peterson: Mr. Mayor, Councilpersons, Sever Peterson again. As I recall, I Mr. Laurent's property and my own property and my Jeurissen's property were 3 of the properties at the time that we had extensions that were either damaged or intersected or cut or whatever the word is by TM 212 was the reason for the consideration originally. I might say that I have spent considerably money on the lots that I mentioned. I'm not sure that Mr. Jeurissen, although I do know that they have spent money but speaking for myself, just how much I've spent that I know that I have spent and not that it's relevent but just for your point of information, that I have spent I would absolutely believe more than $15,000.00 and I'm quite certain it's less than $20,000.00 in surveys and so on that it takes to do the things that we've done just to this point. I'm only saying that to let you know that I am serious and I would appreciate Councilwoman Dimler's question about how long, you asked me how long I thought maybe I should be allowed to continue if you will in a grandfather type position and I certainly respect Mr. Krauss', what I understood to be a comment Mr. Krauss made about that and I would defer to that. As a property owner I would defer to that. Referring to Councilman Johnson's comment that well, then it depends on the funding and that may be. I'm not saying that I wouldn't come in and say yeah but now I don't have the funding. I wouldn't come in and this will bring up another issue. I would hope that it wouldn't be that but if there 11 is a hardship case that. I believe would make sense in a specific situation, I would hope that I would not be renascent about raising it to the Council. I mean if it were a unique situation, I believe that that's a priviledge that I have as a citizen in the community to raise that to the Council and to then depend on their decision related to that. I'm only saying that at this point I do feel that there are really some real problems with our properties there being intersected by even more than one area and Councilwoman Dimler, I didn't mean to say just open ended with my foot in the door. I mean that sounds to me to be unreasonable. I'm not demanding that or expecting that. It sounds like. . . Let's take it one step at a time and if we feel there's a step in the future that has merit, bring it before us. We'll consider that as a step at that time but at this time this is how we see it and so on. And I want you to know that I'm not asking just for an open ended foot in the door here because I certainly respect Mr. Krauss, staff's comment on that and I think it bears merit. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Most of these areas are in the 1995 study area. There's all kinds of possibilities that 2 1/2 acres may not be the appropriate use for this property long term. That this may be commercial. It may be industrial. It may be whatever is branded by having this major highway cut through the town. They start building homes on 2 1/2 acres here, we could be cutting our own throats. Councilwoman Dimler: One of my concerns is that we don't create another situation like we did at Timberwood. -We've got a mess there now because we allowed residential development and now we want to make it go commercial/ industrial along the highway and those residents are upset. ' Councilman Johnson: We had no choice. Councilwoman Dimler: So I think in an effort to preclude another situation like that, I would like to see us work with the landowners in a fashion that would really benefit the City and the landowners in the •long run. If that's right 17 , II City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 now, all we can go for is to wait until the EIS is completed and you know, I would go for that. Give them the 2 1/2 until then. Councilman Johnson: About the 1995 study area. When will that study be done? Paul Krauss: Well the intent of that label on the Comprehensive Plan is that 1995 seemed to be an appropriate date to look at that area. You could conclude in 1995 that it's not appropriate to do it for another 5 years. The reason for that time is highway construction. Also, Councilwoman Dimler, if there's going to be a motion to extend this until the EIS is approved, I would ask you to do I it until 60 days after the EIS is approved because we had that same problem with the official map the first time. We need to give them some time to turn it around and submit an application. ICouncilwoman Dimler: That's fine. My feeling is that we've got two issues going here. One with the excavating and one with the 2 1/2 acres so is it possible to move the 2 1/2 acres with this proposal and then take up the Iexcavating. Mayor Chmiel: I think we can move on 13 accordingly. What I had written down I here that we propose to extend the period of time of completion of the EIS with 60 days thereafter. ICouncilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Johnson: Approval of the EIS. I Councilman Workman: So sometime in the winter? You're saying we're going to keep the door open. Mayor Chmiel: Leave the door open for that period of time. Councilman Johnson: It will probably be next spring by the time the 60 days. The draft EIS gets public hearing, gets rewritten as a final EIS. The EIS gets submitted and approved by Met Council. Federal Highways. There's a whole bunch of people yet to see that thing. We're probably talking a December timeframe for final approval of the final EIS rather than the draft EIS. Councilwoman Dimler: Then you have 2 months. Councilman Johnson: Then 2 months after that. So we'd be looking at February- March timeframe of next year. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the request for extension of Preliminary Plat for 2 1/2 acre lots by Gil Laurent, Bruce Jeurissen and Sever Peterson until 60 days after approval of the final EIS. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Let's go back to item (k). Me discussed the full completion now pertaining to the excavating, mining, filling and grading which is basically on I the final reading. Any further discussion? Paul, did you want to bring something up yet? 18 I r City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 1 • Paul Krauss: No sir. I'm through. I'd just point out though that there's also I a synopsis of the ordinance for publication purposes. Mayor Chmiel: Right. , Councilman Johnson: Is that included? Paul Krauss: Yes. , Mayor Chmiel: The only thing we've done thus far is the moving of it from 500 cubic yards of material to 1,000 in a 12 month period. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, do you want to address how does that fit into this? Councilman Workman: I guess it doesn't. We've been saying it doesn't. Discussing this with the other one? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. I Councilman Workman: I guess we've proven without a shadow of a doubt that it doesn't so. Jay's words, not mine. Councilman Johnson: I didn't say shadow of a doubt. That's a lawyer's word. I'm an engineer. I Mayor Chmiel: We have before us zoning ordinance amendment and this is of course as it is pertaining to excavating, mining, filling and grading. The final reading. Is there any discussion? Any further discussion? Changes that we've got. Councilman Johnson: I think the synopsis should be expanded somewhat. It's, I you know we're talking a 10 page ordinance synopsed down to 10 lines. I don't know exactly what salient points to be put in there but I can see where we are saving a lot of money in publishing costs. I don't know, a couple of bullets about what some of the major changes are. Permit are required or this or that. The 1,000 yards exempt. Lanscaping. Fencing. Conditional Use Permits. Some of the main bullets of what the ordinance does. , Mayor Chmiel: I think what we're really trying to do is see that the Council adopt the second and final reading amending Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to excavating, mining, filling and grading and approval of the ordinance synopsis for publication purposes. Right Paul? Councilwoman Dimler: Second. ' Councilman Johnson: Was that a motion? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes that was a motion. 1 Councilman Johnson: Okay, would you include revising the synopsis to provide a little more detail. You've seen the synopsis here. That's it. It's page 3. I So you'll accept that? 19 , I • City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: I would accept that as a friendly amendment, yes. Does the second accept that? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Roger Knutson: Point in question. Are you talking about Section 7-30 of the ordinance? Oh, the summary. Councilman Johnson: The summary of the ordinance. This little thing. Somehow it's got to say a little more. 11 Roger Knutson: The Council has to approve the exact wording. Mayor Chmiel: And I assume that you'll probably pull that together? Roger Knutson: Yes, and I'll have to bring it back to you for your next ' meeting. Mayor Chmiel: We have that motion on the floor with a second, all those in favor. Paul? Paul Krauss: I don't have a problem with bringing it back to you for that revised summary but if we have to do that, that delays implementation of the ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay with staff direction to make sure Jay? Would that satisfy you? With staff to grab onto that to make those changes accordingly and maybe you can work with them if you feel.. . Councilman Johnson: The City Attorney just said that we have to approve the exact wording. Roger Knutson: If you'd like, I will sit here while you're working on your other items tonight and I will write it for you and believe you will have something you can read. Councilman Johnson: Then we can approve it tonight? Roger Knutson: Yeah. Gary laughed because he couldn't read my writing. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman 0imler seconded to adopt the second and final reading amending Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading with approval of an amended Ordinance Synopsis for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Somewhere along the line, we've been jumping around, I did go past Visitor Presentation and I'd like to back up. Don Atkins: Mayor and Council, I'm Don Atkins. I live at 9580 Eden Prairie Road. We are basically erosion control contractors. Explain a few things. I 20 r City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 talked to Don Ashworth the other day. We got involved in this Lake Ann Park and 11 we did the work on it. Now we have to redo it all basically to erosion problems. I want to just discuss erosion problems for a little bit. I think Chanhassen does a terrible job of erosion and I will explain why. I belong to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek. I'm on the Advisory Board for that. I'm also II President of the Minnesota Erosion Control Association. I've been in this business longer than anybody in this area so we see a lot of faulty things that are coming around. One of the things from Lake Ann Park, there should have been II a lot of erosion preventative measures put in, there was not so it's going to cost me pretty good money to redo it again. I've got about 5 questions i want to ask the Council. Does anybody know the proper methods of silt fence II installation? What's recommended. The other question is, why do we put hay bales in front of silt fence? Wood fiber blanket and the property useage. I see it all over Chanhassen. It's not used properly. Why, when you get, let's say Rosemount Engineering down here for example. Didn't you have the contractor II like you go from Rosemount to the Church to Empak building to the Opus Park, whatever you want to call it back there, why wasn't there not rye seeded rye itself? Grain rye put in so that a quick means to hold the soil so it wouldn't II all erode away. Waiting for a year for somebody to come along and do it. The cost of that is very minimal and some of the things that I see that have. happened and I'll go on to just name a few. Powers building in Lake Susan Hill. II The Powers Blvd. . The erosion on the south end of that even yesterday, today it eroded clear down into the opposite field. There's probably a foot to 2 foot wash out there so there's nothing been done in that job. Lyman Blvd. west of TH II 101. Two years that has not been seeded or mulched. Opus Lake, erosion of the dirt into the pond. Why wasn't there a silt fence or bales put in the bottom on it? Woodwere in front at the very southeast corner of it. They dug and put the woodwere in but they left all the dirt in front of the woodwere so the principles are completely destroyed. Rosemount Engineering. Do they pay a II little bit extra? No hay bales in front of silt fence. All the other places have got it but why not Rosemount? Stakes, 7 to 8 foot centers. Every plan that you pick up it says the stakes should be on 4 foot centers. Empak, wood II fiber blanket on the north hill, it's not overlapped. It's laid the wrong way. Hay bales staked with lath and I think the City did that themselves when they II had a problem early this spring. The City crew. So there's a couple of recommendations and then I'll go back just a little bit. Use the heavy duty silt fence if anybody knows what that is. The heavy duty silt fence, rather than putting hay bales in front of silt fence, I would love to sell. I bale II 40,000 bales a year so I'd love to sell Chanhassen all my hay because I'd make more money off it than I do silt fence but looking at it in the right perspective, if you put the heavy duty silt fence in which has a nylon backing with squares in it. It has a small rope put in the top of it. Use steel posts. 11 1 foot of silt fence, if it's the proper silt fence and again I see all kinds of, it says in any spec, merify 100 or recommended use of it. There's a lot of cheap stuff out that is absolutely you might as well just leave it at home as to II use it because it does not meet specifications. So if you went to the steel posts, the nylon backing with the rope in top on 10 foot posts would be probably the best solution you could have. Okay, we had an education program. I've been II to the City Engineer probably 3 times and talked to him. We had on March 16th we had a meeting of there were 2 inspectors for example from the City of Eden Prairie. We had about 4.0 people there. I had RSVP on it and about 2 days ilprevious, 3 days previous to the meeting I was in the inspector's office in the City of Chanhassen and he said he might be there. Well he didn't make it. I 21 I 1 ' City' Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 • think that we are trying to educate the people. Sever Peterson was up here a few minutes ago talking. Sever's on the, what are you on? One of the boards anyway. The farmers basically have got their stuff pretty well together but the developers are raping your land without you knowing it. I'm not after the developers. I'm just after it's what I believe in because I've done it for many years. I spent a lot of money on my own place doing it. So if anybody wants any questions and what I guess is about all the information I need. Any questions? Mayor Chmiel: No. Thank you Don for providing that information. I think that's something that maybe we will look at within the City. Don Atkins: Okay. Councilman Johnson: You talked about Lake Ann Park and how you're going to have to.. . Don Atkins: Well we have to redo it because I took Bob Obermeyer who probably everybody pretty well knows from Barr Engineering. He went out there and he said most of the problem is erosion. 75% to 80% of the problem was from erosion so we are redoing the park but with the recommendations that Bob Obermeyer comes in and puts, say this is where we have to have all types of whatever it might be to stop the soil erosion. But the city has to, I'm just saying, then we're doing that. It's going to cost us quite a bit of money but in the due respect, I'd like to see it done to everybody elses too and some more things that go on you know that could be curtailed in this thing. Thank you. 1; Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address Council at this time? Loren Habbeger: My name is Loren Habbeger again. I guess what we're looking at here is where do we stand on this permit here? We're trying to level the site off and get it ready for future development. Mayor Chmiel: Let me refer that to our Attorney. Roger Knutson: There's been a lot of discussion but, was it you? I thought it was someone else. Loren Habbeger: You've probably talked to our attorney is who you've talked to. I guess what we're trying to do here. Roger Knutson: I've called him once and I've called him for the last 3 days and I've not got a response to my phone calls. 11 Loren Habbeger: I guess what we're trying to do here is we're trying to level off a site and make it practical for future development. I don't think the 11 issue, if you can improve the site and make it work with the 2 1/2 acre situation for future, I don't think you should hold back progress on that. I just feel that we're not doing something that's going to be detrimental. It's going to improve the overall development. Roger Knutson: I don't think anyone on the City Council and the City is holding back progress. I think the City wants you to go through the proper procedures ' 22 I 7 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 to get a permit. I Loren Habbeger: I guess what it amounts to is what permit was issued here? This goes back to early 1988. I went to the Department of Natural Resources. I went through all channels as far as Watershed and so on and so forth. Mr. Brown I started out with and what we're basically the understanding was we were going to level the property off and take it in segments of an acre at a time and that's what we're looking at. We want to take and take that hill which is, it's got a bad elevation. Tom was out there today. We went over the whole situation. What we're trying to do is pancake the hill so that we can run our roads in there for future development and make it work. So I guess, Tom you know looking at the thing, there's excruciating circumstances because you've got some elevations there that, all we're trying to do is make something work. We're not out here to hurt anybody or cause any problems. I Roger Knutson: And the City is just trying to get compliance with it's ordinances. I don't know if this is the best forum to resolve this tonight. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think it's a point that we should resolve it. We can't resolve it anyway under Visitor Presentations. Loren Habbeger: I guess the whole thing is what I'm looking at. Mr. Waingren 11 who did quite a bit of work for Naegele along 494. There were a lot of hills there that were leveled off which is all highway business now and residential areas. I think the thing is, what we're looking at here. It's definitely suitable for housing rather than commercial or anything like that. It's definitely a residential area. I don't see a value there as far as commercial because of the I would say the view situation and so on. It would be more adapt to housing and I think the same thing with Mr. Peterson's property. It definitely should be a residential aspect that you people should be looking at . I guess that's what we're trying to do and we may as well go into Mr. Peterson's later on and develop that also. I guess what I'm asking here right now. . . Mayor Chmiel: I guess we're at a position where we can't resolve the particular question that you're asking right now. I think the resolvement will come from further discussion with staff and 2 attorneys with that final determination being made then. Loren Habbeger: Well I appreciate, what we're trying to do here is we're just trying to accomplish something here in an orderly fashion and we're not out here to cause a problem. We're trying to improve the overall situation. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Loren. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else? VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A MOTHER-IN-LAW APARTMENT, 8628 CHANHASSEN HILLS DRIVE I NORTH, ARLETTA BRAGG. Paul Krauss: Earlier tonight the Board of Adjustments reviewed a variance I request to establish a mother-in-law apartment in a new home that's currently under construction for the Bragg's. The ordinance provides for a variance procedure'for these types of situations. Staff reviewed the request and felt that it met the 4 standards that are located in the ordinance right now which basically demonstrates that there's a need based on disability. That the 23 , I I/ City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 building externally looks like a single family home and that separate utility 1, services are not being provided and relative to the variance's impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff had recommended that the variance be approved. The Board of Adjustment unanimously did that but there was some neighborhood interaction. I think Mr. Mayor maybe you were here to hear that and there's some reason to think that that decision would be appealed to the City Council tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address Council at this 1 particular time? Councilman Johnson: Paul, the rights to appeal is what time length? 14 days I believe? Paul Krauss: Within 10 days? Roger Knutson: 10 days is my recollection. Councilman Johnson: 10 days? No Council action is required on this at this I time. Paul Krauss: Not unless it 's appealed. Councilman Johnson: Unless it is appealed and it can be appealed within 10 days and at our next Council meeting it will come up again. What is the procedure for appealing it? Paul Krauss: We simply need a letter from anybody that's agrieved by the decision. 11 Robert Long: Can I ask a question? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Robert Long: My name is Robert Long and I live in Chanhassen Hills, what is the address? I don't know the address. Wherever. I've only lived there 9 months. I don't know where it is. I guess what I wanted to understand is what is the appeal procedure. It's a new one on me so I don't know. Councilman Johnson: It's what we were just going through. Paul Krauss: In the past we've allowed appeals to come directly right now to the City Council where you would state that you're agrieved by the decision of the Board of Adjustments and ask the City Council to reconsider. If you don't do that tonight, you have 10 days to do that but you can do that right now. Robert Long: Okay, let's try it right now while we're here. I think most of you heard the arguments we brought up or maybe you didn't. I don't know. Mayor Chmiel: Some did. Some did not. rRobert Long: Again the problem that I have with the duplex going in is that I don't feel it's a mother-in-law apartment. I feel it's a duplex. It's set up 24 I Y City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 1 as a duplex. It looks like a duplex. If it's a duck, call it a duck. You know the old argument for that. I do not want my neighborhood a duplex when it is zoned single family dwelling. I've got roughly $200,000.00 invested in my home. I bought that home there and I built the home there with the idea that there would not be a duplex in the neighborhood. It's single family dwelling. My objection, maybe to clarify it a little more, given the fact that it is a mother-in-law situation it is a fact that the building is set up precisely as I understand a duplex to be set up. Carry the argument a little further, I know what a duplex is because I had a couple of them. I know exactly what they look like. I know how they're set up and I have one set up similar which was the grandfather clause in and there was a lot of, this was before I purchased it but it was grandfather claused in and it is single utility going in. It is a side by side unit but it is a duplex. This particular unit happens to be an up and down unit but I can't understand how you can turn around and call it a mother- in-law apartment by fine tuning a definition. My objection of course is that not the fact that it's going to be a mother-in-law apartment or mother-in-law's living there or a family. That's fine with me. I'm comfortable with that but the way the building is set up, when that building is sold, and it will be because the average length of time that people own a home is roughly 7 years I think, it is set up as a duplex. I've heard the Planning Commission's argument 11 that well at that time this is set up for mother-in-law apartment for one individual. Named individual, on and on and on and that part of it is comfortable but my objection is the way the building is set up. I would urge the Council to take a look at it and maybe requesting that the building be set up as a private, single family residence. Mother-in-laws live there, fine. That's very comfortable. I guess that pretty much outlines what I have to say. Chew on that for a while is my favorite comment. Thank you. I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Hearing none, I'll just bring it back to the Council. Jay. You sat in on the specific hearing on it. I Councilman Johnson: This is a case where the applicant meets all of our laws and all of our ordinances. If you're driving 55 mph down the road in a 55 mph speed limit and you're in the right lane and you're going the right direction, there's not much we can do about it. As long as you're still in a car. In this case they're still in a car and they're doing everything by the law and we can't, in my opinion, we can't make up our own laws and ignore what's written in front of us here in the zoning ordinance. They have met the specifications. Whether these ordinances need to be modified or not, I don't know. I don't see that the mother-in-law houses are that bad of a problem. I have no reason to , reverse my earlier vote. Gail Aneson: My name is Gail Aneson and we live at 8625 Chanhassen Hills Drive and I just have a question. This house is already is well started. It's enclosed. Windows and doors are in and we're just now hearing about the variance. What if one of the criteria was not met? What if it does have separate utilities coming into it at this point? I Councilman Johnson: It's already been checked. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we review the plans when they're submitted. In fact i the original plans did have a kitchen downstairs and we made them take it out 25 1 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 and get a variance which is what they're doing now, before we would allow them to build that. Gail Aneson: Okay, so my biggest concern then is, in the future, since we let this come in and it's a masked duplex, what happens because there's a lot of vacant lots that haven't been built on yet. When someone comes in and starts building a duplex with double entrance and a garage on each side and it gets to the point that this house is at and they say, oh we just noticed that this is a duplex and this is single family zoned? What happens then? Paul Krauss: If it got to that point, we're not doing our job. We review it. The building inspection department reviews it. A lot of departments in the City review it before ground is even broken and we would not allow a duplex to be built in a single family neighborhood. Councilman Johnson: Paul, what you're saying is that the building plans that were approved, you've removed the kitchen and stuff from the building plans. Paul Krauss: Well when the building plans came in it was apparent to us that there was an apartment in the basement and we made that an issue and said look, if you want to go ahead and start construction, you're going to have to take that out of the plans and if you want to go ahead, and apply for a variance and that's in fact what they did. Councilman Johnson: So the current building plans do not include the kitchen in the basement that are approved and they are building with? 11 Paul Krauss: That's my understanding of how the permit got issued, yes. Councilman Johnson: So currently we're building a single family residence. Once the variance is approved, they can then resubmit changes to their building plans and put the kitchen back in. Paul Krauss: They clearly have the intent to do that and the plans are adaptable to it but that's the way we handled it. Councilman Johnson: And a duplex would be a totally different issue. If they 11 came in with 2 garages and 2 entrances and everything, that would never get through. . . ' Paul Krauss: . ..and one set of utilities. And frankly, there's no law against somebody putting an extra kitchen in the basement if they wanted to. A lot of people do that for entertaining. That by itself does not constitute a duplex. 1 Gail Aneson: Well thank you. Like I say, our biggest concern is that no, in the future because you know when you open the door a little bit, it can be pushed wide open and in the future we do not want duplexes or multiple family dwellings built in that development. Mayor Chmiel: Within a residential area, it's a single family unit that can only be built within that specific area. 1 26 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 1 Councilman Johnson: You are in a PUD that has multiples attached to it. Apartment buildings planned for right next to you. As part of the PUD approval there are some R-12 I believe. Councilman Workman: Not right across. Councilman Johnson: But it's all tied up with the TH 212 corridor but it was originally approved with some. I don't see it on the map but. Robert Long: We've got a big objection to 212 being stuck in there after we purchased our property too but that's 'a different thing. 1/ Councilman Johnson: Well 212 was there before it was platted but I sat and listened to a real estate agent tell a guy that the land next to the house that he was buying was zoned single family residential when it was zoned for apartments so real estate agents don't always tell exactly the truth. Mrs. Long: Well now this was something that I got from the City Council that showed 212 way over by Lake Riley. Now you've got it going closer to us. Originally it was not where you have it. Councilman Johnson: They may have shown you one of the alternatives. Robert Long: Before we moved into the area we requested all the information. . . I Councilman Johnson: A couple years ago I couldn't say that because the Mayor was a realtor. That was the previous mayor. This guy only sell electricity. I Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Workman: I believe why Chan Hills and Lake Susan Hills, that 212 is going to be reassessed. Robert Long: Is there a way we can get some more information on what people are , thinking on that? Councilman Workman: Sure, give me a call. I Councilman Johnson: There's a public information meeting, public hearing on TH 212 June 6th at the grade school. That one's for the draft EIS. The draft EIS is in the library right next door and you can go look at it at any time. Mayor Chmiel: 7:30? Paul Krauss: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? If not hearing any, I'll entertain a motion. • Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Johnson: What did you move? I move denial of the appeal of the decision of the Board. 27 City Council fleeting - May 14, 1990 ICouncilman Workman: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to deny the appeal of the 1 I decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a variance request for a Mother-in-Law apartment at 8628 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I ACCEPT CONCEPT PLAN FOR STORM WATER UTILITY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FINAL ISTORM WATER UTILITY REPORT. Gary Warren= The majority of the document should be somewhat familiar to Council. This was reviewed at the April 30th work session. Basically based on I input received that evening, we've had our consultant Short-Elliott take a look at establishing a $.50 per acre cost for the undeveloped and agricultural property and we've pared down, and I should caution I guess that all these I numbers are just kind of concepts at this time but we pared down the capital improvement program to 1.5 million versus 2 that we had originally put in there. So the report basically reflects that input and modifications accordingly. Mark I Lobermeier is here and I'd like to ask Mark if he'd come up and just kind of briefly run through the rest of the details that are pertinent here for this evening. II Mark Lobermeier: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. As you recall, I was at the work session about 2 weeks ago and we went through this, some overheads on the utility. I guess I'd just like to go through a few of those again tonight to I just kind of bring you back up to speed to maybe generate some questions and then cover some of the revised numbers in the draft report. Mayor Chmiel: All within 10 minutes? IMark Lobermeier: I'll do it as fast as I can. What we're talking about tonight is financing storm water projects using a storm water utility concept. As Gary I mentioned, the report that we're talking about is a concept report. It's kind of like a feasibility study to give you an idea that this is the way we want to go or not. It's not a binding type thing. More information and provide you I with some direction. Storm water utility used to cover expenses such as planning and engineering, routine maintenance and also operating the storm water utility or things relating. ..and water quality in the city. Most of the expenses that we've shown are in planning and engineering and they cover things I like erosion and sediment control that were eluded to earlier. Local water management planning. Water quality in lakes and wetlands and also capital improvements such as new construction and reconstruction of a facility. Storm II water utility has several advantages. First of all the contributers of runoff from property who are causing the needs for improvement are the ones who pay. Secondly, the charges are proportional to the amount of runoff or the pollution 1 that runs off of these properties. Third is a self financing method. That is it doesn't compete with the general fund with other government concerns. The utility doesn't cause an increase in the property tax levy. The revenues that the utility generates are kept in a separate designated fund just for storm 1 water type improvements and it's legally defendable. By that I mean, you don't need to show benefit to properties in order to operate and chart properties with the utilities. How will the utility benefit Chanhassen? As we mentioned, it 1 28 11 V City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 1 balance of the property developed or undeveloped? Mark Lobermeier: It can be treated a couple different ways. I guess for the sake of the report we treated it just as a large parcel and gave it a runoff index that would relate it to a 2 acre lot so that accounts for some of that. If the charge is still deemed too high when we go through some of the public information program, we could try to make it an overall determination say for lots that are 2 1/2 acres and above will assume the residential lot cost of so much and undeveloped property. We try to take that into account when we establish what runoff factors. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussions? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I guess I'd like to add some other comments. I see this as a tax so it somehow here we are increasing taxes. I would guess that in order for me to vote for this I would go to what page 4 has to say about reducing the tax levy which supports the general fund at that so we aren't increasing the taxes. But I'm asking by what amount. What's the formula here? Mark Lobermeier: I can't tell you that until we finalize it. I Councilwoman Dimler: What about the other cities that have done that? What have they used? Mark Lobermeier: I can't give you an exact figures although Roseville did note a substantial decrease in their overall levy. Some communities say, fine we can take that money out of general taxes. We aren't going to lower the taxes but now we have that money to use in other places when we put that together so it may not necessarily mean lowering. It may mean a reallocation of some of your funds but now. . . I Councilwoman Dimler: Well I would like to see it as a lowering, that's what I'm saying. Also, I would be willing to study it more carefully but I would have to see that we address water quality and not just dealing with water runoff. That means that this money would be able to be used to restore our lakes. It would be able to be used to educate the public on use of fertilizers and washing detergents which pollute our lakes and also anything new that comes down the pike here that we can do to protect the quality and quantity of our water. I don't want to see it just being used to create new construction on storm sewer. My other question is, is the developer still going to be paying? I Gary Warren: . Yeah, if I could maybe address a couple of your comments Councilwoman Dimler. The developers would still pay as they do at our current situation, to have the actual utilities constructed storm sewers that are a pertinance to development. That would not change. That would go consistent with the developments. What we're looking at I think really is the big picture to be able to address as you say, water quality issues as well as the storm water rate issue and runoff issue. We will be faced as we've reviewed in the past with possibly over $100,000.00 study just to meet the watershed requirements here for this, it's called Chapter 509 requirements for putting together the City's total comprehensive plan. It was partly with that funding commitment or obligation in the future that we were starting to look at this utility district to see where can we fund this from because we don't have that 33 I City, Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 !I/ II storm water fund anyplace now. It would have to come out of streets or utility or someplace. The other issue is, as the article from Eagan was pretty timely here on the water quality management plan that they have in place now and my II impression is we deal with Eurasian Water Milfoil and Purple Loosestrife and the other challenges that we've been recently up against here on water quality is that it is a plan of that nature that needs to be an offspring of this as well and as a part of our 509 plan so that we have the tools in place to be able to 11 address and control the use and the development of these lakes. To equate it to strictly if we implement the utility district, then we will have a comparable savings in taxes I don't think is realistic. There could be some savings II because we use the street department for example to clean storm sewers. To sweep the streets. Around the lakes. To do retention pond cleaning, ,some things of those nature that are happening now, we would not be doing out of the street II sweeping. We'd be doing it out of this fund but there are a lot of things that aren't being done now because we don't have the ability, the staff or the time to keep up with that that will lead to not a savings in the general fund but would be funded directly out of this commitment. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Which brings me to a few of my other things. Do we need to increase our personnel for this program? IIGary Warren: Well part of the capital improvement plan that Mark references here that I have not had a chance to sit down and say alright, this is what we I want to do but the typical plans that other cities have impletented show several things. One is increasing equipment. Do you buy another street sweeper so you can more religiously sweep the runoff areas closest to your more important lakes. Increase staff to deal with that . The City doesn't even have a good j II storm sewer map right now of our drainage improvements and we maintain storm sewer culverts for example on a hazard basis. So if we get a storm and somebody calls us up and says that this one is plugged and their yard is getting washed II out, then we're out there but it's kind of an out of sight, out of mind issue for us right now and so I could envision as a part of honing the capital improvement program that staffing, equipment and these two studies that I I/ mentioned earlier would be important parts that we would want to take a look at and see where our commitment is. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have any idea what the initial costs are likely to IIbe? Gary Warren: In the plan right now that you have in front of you is a 5 year 1 program which would be generated 1.5 million dollars worth of revenues. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but what's the cost to the City to get started? Are there any? IMayor Chmiel: There has to be. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Start up costs. Gary Warren: To initiate the CIP so to speak? Well let me give you a scenario II I guess. If we did not establish the district in time to get revenue in here for doing the Chapter 509 comprehensive watershed plan which is about $100,000. _ i II34 II City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 $100,000.00 study, we would have to fund that from some interim source until the revenues would catch up. Councilwoman Dimler: So the study is what you're talking about as being the i initial cost? Gary Warren: That's one area. It depends how active we want to get as a city. I If we want to go out and abate Eurasian Water tinfoil on a very proactive measure, anything that you want to pick up before the utility district receives the revenues would have to be funded on an interim basis. I Councilwoman Dimler: And one final question. Does having this utility in place enhance the City's chances of getting grants or decrease them? Will they say they have the money? I mean if we were to apply for a grant and they see that we have this in place, they'll say well they don't need it. They've got the money stored away. I/Gary Warren: The grants that I'm familiar with and Mark may want to, he's a little bit closer to the grants that I'm familiar with, no. There's no ability to pay type criteria that falls into the grant program. A clean water program for the Riley chain of lakes for example, they just wanted to make sure that the City was able to pay their fair share under their criteria. I don't know Mark? Mark Lobermeier: Most of the grants that are available. ..50-50 basis and there I is no criteria. Councilwoman Dimler: They're not going to look and see that we have this in I place? Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Mayor Chmiel: I had some of the same questions unfortunately. Councilwoman Dimler: Fortunately you mean. We can get out of here. Mayor Chmiel: No, unfortunately. I didn't get a chance to ask them. I Councilman Johnson: I've been in favor of storm water utility for a long time. I've gone to several classes at the National League of Cities convention on them and I've seen their effect. I see it as a way of in the future we're going to have to pay, if we don't have a storm water utility, we're going to have to take from the general funds money to address non point source pollution. To address further erosion rules that will be coming down from EPA and the State and those moneies are going to have to be brought someplace and it's either raise our tax rates, which the legislature is trying very hard to keep us from having the ability to do or create this fund. The cities that I have talked to through these conferences and whatever, have all had a very positive reaction to the fund. When you're talking $16.00 per residential household per year, we're not talking a terrible amount. The other big thing about it is that I think this is a fairer way to do it because my house pays $16.00. The house at Near Mountain or Trapper's Pass that's a half million dollar house does not contribute to the problem significantly more than mine does and they pay $16.00. So I think it's fairer than using property taxes for this purpose. So in that case I think this is a fair way to do it. 35 ' I City. Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with you Jay but I still think that the only way we'll make sure, you know the non point source pollution that you addressed will only be addressed by this if we make sure that water quality is addressed and not just quantity. Councilman Johnson: Oh it's got to be and I'm in total agreement with you there. I think quality, we've addressed quantity for years and now we really have to address quality and that I think is already in here isn't it? Paul Krauss: Gary and I have talked about this for quite some time. This is 1 the mechanism that we would use to do water quality and wetland rolled into the same package because they're all co-mingled. I think we should give it a little more play in the text because it increases the obvious merits of going ahead 11 with this or the awareness of what we're going to be doing but it's always been involved with that yes. Councilman Johnson: At this point the text seems to be pretty mechanical. You know here's the cost to this citizen and this. You know the benefits aren't as well laid out but I agree that up front the people, a lot of the people who moved to this city moved to it because of the amenities of the city and they want to protect it and most the people I know, $16.00 a year is not going to be, they would contribute for environmental purposes. And this I think we can't play this, if this thing gets billed as the City's way of building storm sewers, that's a wrong concept. It's a water quality and the overall planning for our water here that has to be billed as to what this is all about. Protecting our waters and our waterways. Mayor Chmiel: Okay good. Anything else? Tom. Councilman Workman: I'd like to back up in a general sense of what Ursula said 11 and that it is a tax and it is another cost. We always say well $16.00 isn't going to hurt us and $108.00 isn't going to hurt us for a community center and on and on and on so you get a lot of them and we should always be cautious that I way. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, that's why I suggest reducing the tax levy for the general fund. 11 Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, I think the capital improvement program that we'll draft up here in a little bit more finite fashion, will be helpful to us and to ' the Council as far as giving us your impressions on what are the key issues that we need to address with the funding that would come out of this utility. Mayor Chmiel: Just so there's no surprises for everybody else, what's the cost of this study going to be? Gary Warren: Of which study is that? Mayor Chmiel: What you're doing right now? Gary Warren: This study has already been funded. Mark what are we? Mark Lobermeier: $4,500.00. 36 r City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 1 I Gary Warren: $4,500.00 is what we had contracted with Short-Elliott to do this f phase of the work. Mayor Chmiel: Upon finalization of it, what's the bottom dollar? I Gary Warren: Well this takes us through the adoption of the ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: The $4,500.00 does? Okay. II Councilwoman Dimler: I would also like to suggest that we do a community II questionnaire. Councilman Johnson: What? Councilwoman Dimler: I would like to suggest that we do the community questionnaire. Would that be included in the cost of the study? Gary Warren: Well Council had budgeted $50,000.00 this year to take on this II issue so I mean there's money there. By a community questionnaire, would that be, do you have some specifics? I Councilwoman Dimler: Well it was suggested in the study. Can you address that Mark? Mark Lobermeier: There are different ways of getting public input. One would ii be to have some newspaper articles or send a flyer out on that issue. There's a number of different ways that it can be done and an overall questionnaire would II be another way. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would rather have the community tell us what they want than us put an article in the paper telling them this side of it. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we have to tell them what we're proposing and be open to any suggestions to that would be recognized. I Councilwoman Dimler: Right. But they could back. I think a questionnaire would be more revealing of what the public is thinking. I Gary Warren: Let us take a shot at drafting something up here. We are looking to try to get something in mid-June for you, a public information meeting and if II we could get that questionnaire out and back so we would be prepared from that, I think that would probably work out well to put it all together. Councilman Johnson: I don't know about so much a questionnaire as a simple fact II sheet or a mailing that provides and it has to be brief. I've found that something like this, if you send something like this out, 1 in 20 people might read it. I Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but I'm a little leery when we send out a fact sheet it doesn't leave any room for their input. Gary Warren: We can do a combination I think. Give a fact sheet because we II 37 II II 11 • City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 have to explain what a utility district is if we're going to ask questions about it. Councilman Johnson: It's an pretty interesting new concept for a lot of people. Councilwoman Dimler: Right but they should also be able to feed back to us what they think. Councilman Johnson: I think there would be an announcement of public meetings too where they can come and talk about it. Mayor Chmiel: I think what we should do is get a motion on this to accept the concept plan for the storm water utility. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to accept the Concept Plan for Storm Water Utility, Authorize preparation of final storm water utility report and call for a public information meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Gary Warren: . Did that motion include scheduling the public information meeting for mid-June? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Well it doesn't that here. 1 Councilman Johnson: And there's a work session you want June 18th? Gary Warren: At Council discretion I guess we could have a work session June 18th after we get a little bit better definition on the CIP_ 11 Councilman Johnson: I will be in Omaha that day. Councilwoman Dimler: I won't be here either. Gary Warren: Well if there's a better date. I'll have Kim try to coordinate schedules. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-30 AND 20-903 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO RECORDING OF PERMITS AND ZONING LOTS, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we have two housecleaning items for want of a better description here. The first one is pertaining to the filing of permit ' approvals, conditional use permits and what not against the property's title. In the past we've had a requirement, in fact I think it was a State law that some of these things be recorded but the City's had some difficulty in recording some of these things that property owners will give certificate of titles after the fact it's very difficult to oftentimes to get these things done. We think that it's imperative that we clear this up a little bit because this is our best mechanism of putting the conditions in the chain of title and future buyers are made aware of it. So the City Attorney drafted an ordinance that stipulates the recording of permits as a requirement and that whatever we are permitting does not take place until the permit's recorded and we have some evidence of that. ' 38 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 _ 1 The second housecleaning item has to do with a situation that occurs when a ,' building parcel is comprised of several underlying lots that have been combined for tax purposes. Technically we still have to apply setback standards to those individual interior lot lines. Carver Beach is the most notorious example of II these where you might have eight 20 foot lots making up a parcel. The City Attorney's come up with a concept of a zoning lot which is a lot that's combined for tax purposes which allows us to only consider the perimeter of the lot for setback requirements. I think it clears up a little bit of an anomaly that we II have right now. It's not a major problem but we've had a number of these things come up and this really gives us guidance as to how to handle them. Again, I think both of these things are relatively minor and they'll facilitate our work II in the future. Councilman Johnson: If you have a house on 8 of these 20 foot lots and you have II a 10 foot sideyard setback on a 20 foot wide lot. Councilwoman Dimler: You're in trouble. I , Councilman Johnson: A 20 foot setback on a 20 foot lot, you've got to do something reasonable. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question. I guess when I first read this I thought that sounds great but I was wondering, is there a cost? I'm sure you have to record this at the County. What's the cost? Is there a cost? I Paul Krauss: Yes. There is a cost but I don't know what it's really. Roger Knutson: It's so much a page depending on how long the document is and frankly my secretary writes out the checks so I don't know what it is. I think it's $2.00 a page or $10.00 a document or something like that. Councilwoman Dimler: So it's liable to cost up to $20.00? II Roger Knutson: Well your average variance usually run two pages. Or conditional use, usually 2 pages. II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and also are you telling me that if I need a permit to replace my deck, that that would have to be recorded? II Paul Krauss: No. We're talking conditional use permits. Roger Knutson: Not a building permit. II Councilman Johnson: Mining permits. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Because on the second page here it says all permits so that's why I was wondering. Paul Krauss: No, it applies to variances, conditional use permit, interim use permits and site plan approvals, wetland permits and mining permits. Councilwoman Dimler: But I read somewhere where it says all permits so I wanted II to clarify that. 39 I/ II City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 IIMayor Chmiel: That wouldn't necessarily necess a building permit. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I was hoping that was the case. Thank you. I liMayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Councilman Johnson: Is this a first reading? IPaul Krauss: Yes. I Councilman Johnson: I move approval of the first reading of Ordinance amending Section 20-30 and 20-903. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending Section 20-30, Recording Permits IIand Section 20-903, Zoning Lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IAPPOINTMENT TO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, this item was placed on the agenda to get feedback II from the Mayor and Council regarding the appointment of a new commissioner to the HRA. As stated in my memo, Chairman Cliff Whitehill's term expires at the end of May 31st and Cliff has requested that he be reappointed for a 1 year period of time that he may assist in the transition of the new chairman. Or in I the past the Council has looked at advertising in the paper and requesting advertising of a new commissioner's position. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Why does he only want to serve one year? Todd Gerhardt: To help in the transition. IIMayor Chmiel: To train the chair. Councilwoman Dimler: Who's going to be the new Chair? IIMayor Chmiel: Well that would be something that would be appointed. II Councilwoman Dimler: So then next year we'll have to reappoint someone else to take his place? Mayor Chmiel: Yes is what he's saying. Don, did you want to say something? 1 Todd Gerhardt: Well 2 people. 11 Don Ashworth: Yeah, I wanted to note that the HRA appointments are different than really any of the other appointments you have with the city in that the nomination can only occur by the Mayor and the Council's role is one of agreeing II or not agreeing to the nomination made by the Mayor. So again I hadn't anticipated this item being on the agenda. Instead potentially just working with the Mayor to see how he would like to proceed. II40 II City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 II Councilman Johnson: It should have been on the agenda about 2 months ago. 1' Mayor Chmiel: Right. Don Ashworth: Well I think we had our joint meeting between Council and HRA and I think there were some things that the Mayor was looking at as well but anyway, the question by Cliff. They are 5 year appointments so there would have to be someway in which he literally would be giving you notification of his intent to resign 1 year from today. I don't know of any provision other than the 5 year because right now they are on a 5 year appointments and each one comes up one per year. Mayor Chmiel: That was my question. How does this deviate from the norm? How do we go through this particular procedure as such? 1 Councilman Johnson: Is the 5 year state law? Roger Knutson: Yes. And if someone resigns in mid-term, you appoint to fill 1 thre remainder of that term. Councilman Johnson: So the Minneapolis City Council has appointed themselves 1 the HRA there but their terms aren't 5 year terms on the City Council. Roger Knutson: Excuse me, there is one exception. The exception is that if you _ appoint only Council members as HRA commissioners, you can make the terms of the 1 HRA commissioners coincide with the terms of the Council members. 1 Councilman Johnson: If you have a mix of council members and regular members, can you take the positions that our council members and have them run with their council terms? • Roger Knutson: I don't believe so. Todd Gerhardt: No, Clark would have fallen into that position. I Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but see at that time we weren't even considering that. I've said that we need members of the Council on the HRA and I see because of now, I see why what has happened did happen. Of course and then we reappointed Clark and Clark has said that he would step down too if asked. Several people got reappointed just as their terms were ending on the Council. Roger Knutson: If you wanted it mixed that way and guaranteed it, I'd have to check to be sure. • Councilman Johnson: Yeah, because see that's what I'd like to almost see. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Whether they be on the Council or they're not, I would assume that the 5 years would just an automatic. If a Council person no longer was a council person and his term still continues in my estimation. For instance if he's on for 4 years as a City Council okay and he has it for 5 years. Councilman Johnson: Tom's is going to extend beyond that. , 41 1 1 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 i II II Mayor Chmiel: Right. Then I think that that's just an automatic extension to l that fifth year whether they be on the Council or not. If they then become i citizens or they're not part of the Council. j IITodd Gerhardt: It would be up to that mayor who would be running at that point because they would make that nomination. Now the term ends and you've got to send in certification of both. IICouncilman Johnson: What Don is saying is that when Tom's term ends in 2 1/2 years, he'll still have a year and a half on the HRA that he will continue I serving until that's over with and that's how we got in the HRA with no council members on it because we used to have, we almost always had at least 2 council members on it up until 2 years ago when the 2 vacancies got reappointed to lame duck council members, one of which I believe has one resigned. Pat Swenson. Todd Gerhardt: Tom was appointed rather than Pat. IICouncilwoman Dimler: I have a question. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe rather than to keep running with this. . . IICouncilwoman Dimler: But I just want to ask a question. Mayor Chmiel: But let me state what I'd like to first. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Go ahead. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. What I'd like to do is table this item. I would like to then ask the newspapers to put an article in the paper asking anyone who is interested in serving on the HRA to contact me directly. IICouncilman Johnson: Don't we usually pay for that? Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can get some free press. I don't know, maybe it would II have to be an ad. Councilman Workman: Which direction are you heading in then? IIMayor Chmiel: What I'm saying is, is to then get those people in who are interested. 1 Todd Gerhardt: You want us to advertise the vacancy? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1 Councilman Workman: What about the proposal that we have? 1 Mayor Chmiel: That's why I said to table it. Councilwoman Dimler: Are we saying that Cliff cannot just do it for one year? I He has to do it for 5? _1 Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. I42 7 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 II Roger Knutson: Yeah. That's correct. I Mayor Chmiel: And he can tender his resignation if he so chooses after that 1 first year. Councilwoman Dimler: But he doesn't have to. 1 Roger Knutson: I suppose if you wanted him to bring a resignation in hand when you appointed him and say give us your resignation in hand effective. Councilwoman Dimler: One year from now. Councilman Johnson: Could we appoint Cliff as a special advisor to the HRA? I Roger Knutson: Sure. It has no official status. Councilman Johnson: It has no official status but it says hey, we still want ' your advice. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't understand why, I mean the chairman usually takes over without being. Did you get special training from Tom when you took over? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I Councilwoman Dimler: I mean I don't understand the reasoning. I mean a chair can just be taken over. , Councilman Workman: Yeah, are we moving ahead towards that councilmember? Councilwoman Dimler: I would like to see that. ' Councilman Workman: If we are, then advertising isn't. . . Councilman Johnson: See I'd like to see the second council member on there ' which means either Bill or Don in that Ursula and I are both on Southwest Metro Transit which meets at the same time. So we're pretty well. ' Councilwoman Dimler: And Bill's up for re-election so it has to be Don. Councilman Johnson: Don's up for re-election too. They're both up for , re-election. Councilwoman Dimler: Don't you have a 4 year term? 1 Councilman Johnson: No. Mayor Chmiel: So we come to a changing of the minds see. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I really would like to see another council member on there. , Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's probably very true. 43 ' City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 _I Councilman Johnson: I like Roger also in that the interim if we table this, to look at the possibility of having two seats designated as Council members running concurrent with their terms, whatever their terms may be. Councilman Workman: But you can't force one of those persons Co also take HRA when they're elected. ' Councilman Johnson: No, but whoever comes on the Council in January, if we appoint Don and Don doesn't get re-elected, he serves until January and then on January the new Council appoints one of their members to take Don's place. If that's legal. ' Councilman Workman: What if nobody wants to be on the HRA that's on the Council? Councilman Johnson: I didn't want to be on Southwest Metro Transit and I was appointed to Southwest Metro Transit. I've appreciated it. I like it now. ' Councilwoman Dimler: What's that term there? Is that a 2 year term? Councilman Johnson: It's 3 years. I've got one more year. I've been 1 reappointed. I'll have one more year after I'm off the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Let's just table this. Roger can look into that and then get back to us and let us know. Okay? Todd Gerhardt: Advertising? No advertising? Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think we'll do that until once we find out where we're at with it. ' Councilman Johnson: How about this Don? If Roger gets back to us real quickly saying that my idea can't work, that you've got to go 5 years, you can't have a hybrid, that we then advertise. ' Mayor Chmiel: I don't have a problem with that. Councilman Johnson: That way we don't waste as much time waiting for another Council meeting to tell. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. ' Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. We're tabling it right now though. We can't take action on a table. Councilwoman Dimler: We tabled it. Todd Gerhardt: There was no vote on tabling it. You just said, we didn't have to do anything. Mayor Chmiel: Right. So I don't think we have to vote on it. Just proceed with what we're doing. With your suggestions. ' 44 City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 II ti Councilwoman Dimler: We tabled it with your suggestions. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, trees. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I had a call from a Mr. Hoffman from Saddlebrook. He's concerned about the trees on Kerber Blvd. and they all look dead to me. The evergreens there. And I know it's been going on for a while. I don't know why nothing has been done. Also he says they are infested with some sort of a bug. Councilman Johnson: Pine beetle. Councilwoman Dimler: Pine beetle. He wants to plant some in his yard but he's relunctant to do so while this pine beetle is there. I've already called Dale Gregory on it and I didn't hear anything back so I'm bringing this up so that, I would like a report and would like Council to have a report. Councilman Johnson: I talked to Paul on it also. Or Jo Ann. Gary Warren: Those are not city trees. Mayor Chmiel: No, that's the developers. I Gary Warren: Rick Murray, I've talked to him about a year ago about the trees. They are not a part of his approved landscaping plan either. He just got the trees at a deal or whatever and installed them to try to dress the area up. Unfortunately they didn't make it. Councilwoman Dimler: Can we make him take them down? ' Gary Warren: I would imagine if they're infected or have some problem of that nature. ' Councilman Johnson: I talked to you or Jo Ann or somebody on this. Paul Krauss: It's the first I've heard of it but I would assume that if it's a hazard, if it's infected, under the nuisance ordinance we can order that it be abated. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, it will affect the other trees in the area. Councilman Johnson: That's Todd Hoffman's cousin and he works for Minnesota Valley Nursery as a nurseryman .and so he's experienced. He says it's the pine bark beetle. It affects diseased trees that are already weakened such as winter kill or winter weakened trees so if you have a real good healthy tree, the pine bark beetle can't hurt you. But right now if you look at the pines in this town from all the winter damage we have, a lot of our trees are very susceptible to this type of deal. And newly planted trees are also weakened and susceptible. Councilwoman Dimler: I would like the City to do something. Either make the developer take them down or if the City has to do something because they are 45 ' City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 infested with this pine beetle, you know we should go ahead and do something. It's been long enough. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, the forester may be able to force it to be taken down too. I'm not sure what the State laws on the pine beetle is. Mayor Chmiel: Tom? ' Councilman Workman: In relationship to that neighborhood, there's a light pole that's been struck or something. ' Mayor Chmiel: Just leaning a tad. Councilman Workman: Well it's about like that. You can probably like a cigar from it or something. But if you go down and what I want to bring up is kind of a redundancy and I'm kind of wondering about our street signs. We have kind of two motifs now. We have the old brown metal one and we have the wood posted ones. The beveled. On West 79th Street we have both. We have a beveled one on one side of the road and a metal one on the other. It's redundant and you'd figure when they put that beveled one because I think that's the last one they put out, that they'd take that other one across the street and sell it or something but I don't know. We have situations like that and it just seems like it doesn't belong there and somebody's just overlooked it. But we've got it on ' either corner and we've probably got other situations like that. One other thing. As I come off of Kerber Blvd. and Pontiac Lane, there's a street sign there but it just says Pontiac. Now I live on Pontiac Circle and it just says Pontiac there so people kind of look for Pontiac Lane and it just says Pontiac. Can we get a Pontiac Lane sign? Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying that people can't find your home? Gary Warren: We'll take a look. It may have been platted as just Pontiac in which case technically it should have a name change. I'll take a look at it. 1 Councilman Workman: I think all the other street signs down the road there are Pontiac Lane. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is that it? I just wanted to take a little time for a letter on Frontier Trail. The owner says, a good letter that you've written to all the residents within Frontier Trail to make them aware as to the pre- construction meeting that's going to take place and also when the construction is going to take place which would be about May 15th. That is tomorrow. With all this rain I don't think they're going to be doing much of anything. Who knows but I thought it was a good letter that you sent out making them fully ' aware as to what was happening and who to call if there are problems and how to alleviate the given concerns that might be there. Other than that, that concludes what we have and I'll make a motion for adjournment. Roger Knutson: One moment. Ordinance Summary. An ordinance amending Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to excavating, mining, filling and grading. An ordinance amendment establishing the revised and comprehensive standards and procedures for regulating all grading, mining, excavating, and filling activities from the City. Such activity involving more 46 r City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990 1 than 50 cubic yards of material but less 1,000 cubic yards may be approved adminstratively. Such activity involving 1,000 cubic yards or more requires an interim use permit. Certain exceptions for permit requirements are specified. All existing operations occurring without a permit are required to obtain one within 6 months from the date of the adoption. Operations are currently. ..to permit must come into compliance at the time their permits are renewed. This ordinance is in full effect commencing on date of publication of this summary. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Good. It's good we're only going to be charged for about 15 minutes. 1 Councilman Johnson: I move approval of the ordinance. Councilman Workman: I second it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Ordinance Synopsis for publication purposes of the Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 as written by Roger Knutson. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to adjourn the meeting. All 1 voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.. Submitted by Con Ashworth 1 City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 . 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 47 1 1 I! CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW ' MAY 30, 1990 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. . ' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Johnson and Councilman Workman arrived during Larry Zamor's presentation. COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, City Manager; and Orlin Schafer and Scott Winter ' from the County Assessor's Office APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Equalization and Review meeting dated May 15, 1990 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' The following Chanhassen residents were present at the meeting and the Board of Equalization heard their comments and then voted on each parcel individually. 12. Ron Nielsen Lot 5, Block 1 Bought property in 1989 for 3980 Stratford Ridge Stratford Ridge $166,000. Assessed in 1990 for $264,000. It's a new house which isn't finished as of yet so would would like a second look. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $59,700. from $264,000. to $204,300. Board's Action: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to reduce the 1990 Assessment from $264,000.00 to $204,300.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' 6. Larry Zamor R25.890030 Chanhassen Inn Motel: Paid $60,000 Chanhassen Inn Motel in taxes. Over last 2 years, the ' above taxes were based on a valua- tion of $1,110,000. That's an increase of $162,000. in one year with no improvements made to the property. Assessment for 1990 went up another $20,000. Would like reduction in value of $150,000. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. Board's Action: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to reduce the 1990 assessment from $1,130,500.00 to $1,110,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 .Board.of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 REF. NAME AND N0. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS 140. Ed & Gay Newinski Submitted letter requesting that 6930 Utica Lane assessment be reduced from $153,000. to $120,000. to be more in line with comparable properties ' in the neighborhood. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $33,000.00 from . $153,000.00 to $120,000.00. Board's Action: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to reduce the 1990 Assessments from $153,000.00 to $120,000.00. All voted in favor ' and the motion carried unanimously. 84. Richard H. Comer R25.4100020 Assessment increased from $74,000. ' 3800 Red Cedar Point Dr. in 1989 to $101,700. in 1990. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. ' Board's Action: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chiniel seconded to reduce the 1990 Assessment from $101,700.00 to $90,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. :1 43. George Hoff 221 Frontier Court 825.2450030 *Feels assessment is too high compared to neighboring properties. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $39,300.00 from $224,300.00 to $185,000.00. Board's Action: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to reduce the 1990 Assessment from $224,300.00 to $185,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott Gavin 825.4070130 a not s of present at the first 851 Lake Lucy Lane meeting but would like the ' Assessor to look at his classifi- cation of Non-Homestead versus Homestead. ' The County Assessor said they were aware of Mr. Gavin's situation and had already been in contact with him. The Board took no formal action on this item. • 3 Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS 'PIN =COMMENTS - 90. Jerry/Wanda Barber R25.4450080 Assessment too high. 3850 Maple Shores Dr. County Assessor's Recommendation: Mr. Barber was not present at the meeting but the Assessor wanted to bring this parcel to their attention because it is their recommendation to increase the 1990 EMV $18,300.00 from $276,300.00 to $294,600. , Board's Action: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to keep the 1990 Assessment as originally assessed at $276,300.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The Board then made the following motion 'to change the status of some lots which ' were assessed as building and then found to be unbuildable lots. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reduce the 1990 assessment on the following lots which were deemed by the City to be unbuildable: All voted in favor and the notion carried. 25.6600330 25.6600162 25.6600540 25.6600550 25.6600560 ' 25.6600500 25.1600950 25.1600960 25.1600320 25.1600310 25.1600450 25.1600281 25.1600350 25.1601090 25.1601100 25.1601080 25.1600410 25.1600630 25.1601840 25.1601980 25.1601900 25.1601520 25.1600860 The Board then made a motion that the following parcels would be approved per the recommendation of the County•Assessor's Office. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following items per the County Assessor's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1. Paul/Mary Calvin R25.4450100 *Originally appraised when built in 3890 Maple Shores Dr. 1988 at $166,000. Assessed in 1990 470-5248 (H) at $226,000., up 36k. Compared with 339-4811 (W) surrounding properties, assessment should be $173,250.00 based on $77. per sq. ft. for 2,250 sq. feet. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $48,000.00 from $226,000.00 to $178,000.00. 2. Al Klingelhutz R25.1600250 Concerned about value of Carver 8600 Great Plains Blvd. R25.1600260 Beach lots which you can't get R25.1600270 building permits for. 1989 one were assessed for $7,500. and 1990 assessed at $12,400. Another one was $1,000. for 1989 and $3,900. for 1990. Another was for 1989 it 4 1 IIBoard of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 REF. NAME AND I! NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - Al Klingelhutz (can't) was $2,500. and was raised in 1990 '1 to $8,000. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II 3. Mark Williams R25.4070140 *Assessment increased from $182,800 1655 Lake Lucy Road in 1989 to $285,800. in 1990 with 470-0060 (H) no improvements done. House was I835-2414 (W) built in 1987. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $11,900.00 from I $285,900.00 to $274,000.00. 4. Greg Borer R25.6600080 Lakeshore home whose assessment 3706 Hickory Road went up $78,000. House has been I appraised twice in last 3 years and highest appraisal was $181,000. 1,100 sq. ft. with no improvements Iand assessed at $234,000 for 1990. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $32,900.00 from $234,800.00 to $201,900.00. 5. Tom/Kathy Paradise R25.6600231 Lots 16 & 17, Block 3, Red Cedar 3755 Red Cedar Pt. Rd. Point. Area designated as wetland by the City and therefore unbuild- able. 1989 assessed at $4,800. and 1990 assessed at $20,000. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. I 7. Paul R. Gessner R25.2020520 Bought property 10 years ago. There 7035 Pima Lane 108 units, 3 different types. Lives in duplex and other half sold within the last 3 years for $72,000 II and his assessment was $91,500. No other units have sold for anywhere near $90,000. $80,000. is much Icloser to a selling price. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV *6,700.00 from II $91,500.00 to $84,800.00. 8. David Grant and R25.3300170 Two properties: Vacant land which Eileen Carlson R25.3300010 was valued at $26,900. with a 1990 II 1679 Chatham Ave. value of $54,900. Eileen Carlson's Arden Hills lot was assessed at $28,000 with a 1990 value of $60,000. When taxes increase, and there's also a special assessment for road improvements, you decrease the II 5 \I! Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 IIREF. NAME AND N0. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS value of the land and he doesn't think that was taken into consider- ation when values were raised. II Doesn't think it's fair to increase value all at one time. Should be phased in. I County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV on Parcel 0010 $6,600.00 from 60,300. to $54,300. II Reduce 1990 EMV on Parcel 0170 $5,500. from $54,900. to $49,400. 9. David/Sharon Gath R25.4080340 Owns vacant lot in Lake Riley Woods II 3900 Upton No. and can't build because taxes are Minneapolis, Mn too high. Increased 33%. $6,000. taxes on 1990 value of $20,300 and II was valued at $15,000. in 1989. Bought property for $38,500. but with tax increase can't Afford to build a house. II County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 10. Troy Anderson 25.8500860 *Wants to clarify the classifica- 1600 Koehnen Circle tion on the 474-5059 (H) property. Should be 492-6960 (W) Homestead. II County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 11. Michael Schultz 25.7960020 Subdivided I 2150 Crestview Drive 25.7960010 1990 for Property in January of mortgage purposes. Feels property was assessed differently II because of subdivision. Purchased home for $235,000 in February, 1990. Assessed home on 1.5 acres at $222,000. and the outlot, which II is unbuildable land at this time, is valued at $31,600. for total of $254,600. II County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 14. Burt Ackerman Lot 9, Block 1, *Lived in home for 29 II Utica Lane Greenwood Shores lot with a lot of wetland. No6i9 improvements to 1,300 sq. ft. home II other than normal upkeep. Assess- ment went up $26,000. in one year. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $14,200.00 from $124,200.00 to $110,000.00. 6 1 1 Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 _II REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - il ' 15. Joe Mitlyng 825.1700030 35% increase on assessment. Feels 3800 Arboretum Blvd. value has decreased with TH 5 I traffic in front of home located on southern Lake Minnewashta with access directly onto TH 5. ICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $20,500.00 from $191,500.00 to $171,000.00. I 16. Lawrence Klein R25.0242900 Assessment increased $33,400 on 10 9170 Great Plains Blvd. acres in 1989. Increased another $53,000. in 1990. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. Ii?. Gary Sauber 1735 Highwood Drive R25.4080280 *Lake Riley Woods lot. Was assessed at $15,000. to Chaska, MN 55318 $20,000. to $40,700. in 1990 with no improvements to lot. I Asked if the alignment of the new TH 212 has been taken into consideration: Feels the assessment is fairly accurate but is questioning the imple- mentation. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 18. Robert/Kirsten Rojina R25.1601520 *Vacant lot which is unbuildable 1 751 Carver Beach Road in Carver Beach. Assessment went from $2,000. to $20,000 in 1990 with no improvements, sewer or Iwater. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $18,000.00 from $20,000.00 to $2,000.00. II19. Keith Volk 825.1600970 Purchased 660 sq. ft. house in 790 Carver Beach Road Carver Beach in 1989. Have made 1 improvements i.e. siding, 216 sq. ft. living addition 2 car garage and deck. 1989 assessment II increased by $11,900. and in 1990 increased by another $24,200. Can't justify $36,000. increase in assessment for a 2 car garage and II200 sq. ft. living addition. ii County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $12,500.00 from $73,200.00 to $60,700.00. I7 Board of Equalization and Review - nay 30, 1990 t II REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN -COMMENTS - l 20. Philip Hanson R25.1600970 *Feels age and condition of home . ; 35 Nathan Lane #122 were not taken into consideration Plymouth, MN 55441 on assessment.. I County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $4,400.00 from $77,700.00 to $73,300.00. I 21. Selma R. Hermann R25.1601200 Is a 30 year old home with 800 c/o Melvin Hermann sq. ft. of living space with no II 795 Carver Beach Road improvements in 30 years except a 474-5583 gas furnace. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $8,000.00 from II $62,000.00. to $54,000.00. 22. Susan Albee R25.1601320 Would like Scott Winter to call I 6871 Nez Perce Dr. her at 474-6491 (H) or 546-9500 (W) County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 23. David M. Thaler R25.4450070 *Purchased home Sept. , 1988 at • II 3830 Maple Shores Dr. which time assessed value was 206,000. In 1990 assessed for $335,000. Compared to neighbors' properties, assessment too high. Questioned the validity of study If used to arrive at assessments. Purchased home for $350,000. in • 1988. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $61,800.00 from II $335,500.00 to $273,700.00. 24. Thomas L. Giesen R25.4450130 *Home is still under construction I 3930 Maple Shores Dr. and feels he's being assessed for 474-7499 a completed home. II County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 25. Charles/Ada Anding R25.6600360 *Home is 76 years old with no II 3631 So. Cedar Drive R25.6600500 improvements being done since 1955 and assessments went up 69% in one year. The vacant lot is an unbuildable lot and the assessment II should be lowered to it's previous assessment of $500. II County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV on Parcel 0500 $18,000.00 from $20,000. to $2,000. li 8 II 1 r 1 ' Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 REF. NAME AND :: NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - Reduce 1990 EMV on Parcel 0360 $20,000.00 from $173,000.00 to $153,000.00. 1 26. Felix• Thompson 6899 Yuma Drive 825.1602440 *No improvements have been done to home in 10 years. 474-1426 (Evenings) ICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 28. Leander Kerber R25.0101O00 *Assessment went up from $71,200. II 1620 Arboretum Blvd. to $103,300. in 1990. Feels the surrounding properties are devalu- ating his property rather than IIincreasing it. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $13,700.00 from $103,300.00 to $89,600.00. I 29. Clarence/Florence Keefer R25.1602220 Did not give an oral or written 690 Carver Beach Road statement. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. li 30. Wendy Pollock 825.0123300 *Assessment rose $25,000. from a 7603 Great Plains Blvd. remodeling of the basement changing 1 bedroom to 2 which could have not raised value $25,000. II County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II 31. Mary/Michael Koester R25.6O7022 Just built home in Pheasant Hills 1641 Wood Duck Lane and was assessed higher than any comparable neighboring houses. I Don't have a paved road in front of home. Can't sell house for what it's assessed at. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990. EMV $25,000.00 from $180,000.00 to $155,000.00. I 33. Guy M. Rustad 6820 Redwing Lane R25.2000540 *Taxes paid in 1989 were fair. Purchased house for about $600. over the assessed price in 1989. IThe 1990 assessment rose $21,000. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II 1 9 II , Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 II REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - 34. Andrew Borash R25.1600880 Did not give an oral or written 6725 Nez Perce statement. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II 35. Jeff Kamrath R25.5250180 Did not give an oral or written II 2731 Orchard Lane statement. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 36. Devon Eklund R25.2000080 *Built home in 1986 at which time II 920 Pleasant Court it was assessed at $129,000. but after talking to the County II Assessor, were lowered to $110,400. 1990 assessment was $141,800. with finishing the base- II went which only cost $4,200. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II 37. Sam Potts R25.6600050 *Would like assessment re-evaluated 3628 Hickory Road by the Assessor. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $8,500.00 from - :: $131,500.00 to $123,000.00. 38. Bill Larson R25.2700450 *Purchased the home 5/12/89 for 890 Fox Court $176,550. and 1990 assessment is valued $49,400. higher. Believe II assessment should be around $165,000. to $176,600. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduced 1990 EMV $29,100.00 from II $214,000.00 to $185,300.00. 39. Alfred W. Smith R25.6600090 Did not give an oral or written II 3714 Hickory Road statement. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 40. Blair 8. Bury R25.8520120 *Vacant lot value went from II 19595 Tonkawood Dr. $20,500. in 1989 to $41,000. in Minnetonka, MN 55345 1990. I County Assessor's .Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $4,500.00 from $41,000.00 to $36,500.00. I 41. David/Paula Whittier R25.2000824 Feels assessment is too high 6820 Chaparral Lane compared to neighboring properties. II 10 1 11 r tBoard, of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 REF. NAME AND ill : NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $6,000.00 from I $90,500.00 to $84,500.00. 42. G.A. VanderVorste R25.,8520300 Did not give oral or written 8141_ Maple Wood Terrace statement. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. I 44. William Loomis 7252 Pontiac Circle 825.2430820 Townhouse property. HUD property. Purchased in 1989 for $56,000. 1990 assessment was $68,000. Feels 1 there's no way he can sell it for that price. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. I45. Richard Wermerstkirchen R25.00306 Value increased $28,000 from an 1930 Stoughton Avenue addition on the house. Permit I Chaska, MN value was approximately $10,000. Assessed at $110,000 for 1990 which is probably correct. Only complaint :1 is it's right next to Gedney Pickles, mini-storage, trailer court which generate a lot of traffic and cemetary. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $13,500.00 from $110,600.00 to $97,100.00. II46. Henry C. Dimler R25.1600680 Did not give an oral or written 961 Western Drive statement. ICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 47. Orrin B. West •R25.0032100 Purchased home in 1988 with a VA 1 1730 West 63rd loan appraised at $85,000. Paid more than that. 1989 assessment f' was $79,100. and 1990 assessment I is $93,600 with no improvements made to the property. Purchased for $94,000. in 1988. ICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $7,100.00 from $93,600.00 to $86,500.00. II 48. Frank Kurvers R25.3920200 825.3920180 Did not give an oral or written statement. R25.3920250 County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV for parcel 0200 $4,600.00 from $46,300.00 to I . 11 \' , ii Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 II REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - $41,700.00. No Change on Parcels 0180 and 0250. I 49. James/Darcy Loffler R25.4080260 *Purchased home in Lake Riley Woods 9471 Foxford Road for $302,500. in May, 1990 with an assessed value of $333,300. I County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $30,800.00 from $333,300.00 to $302,500.00. I 50. Lisa Notermann R25.0110300 Assessment increased $25,000. 1450 Arboretum Blvd. no additions in 8 years. Home' is II 60 years old and in need of major repairs. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $14,300.00 from I $109,300.00 to $95,000.00. 51. James P. Gulstrand R25.8770010 *Non-lakeshore home with an assess- I 3831 Red Cedar Pt. Rd. went in 1989 of $51,000. and in 1990 of $68,600. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 11 52. Ernest Herrmann R25.1600730 *1989 assessment was $73,500. and 1 991 Western Drive 1990 assessment is $111,500. with no improvements for 30 years. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $9,700.00 from II$111,500.00 to $101,800.00. 53. Carol Watson R25.3000940 *Feels assessment is too high and 7131 Utica Lane would like to discuss it. I County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $5,800.00 from $99,600.00 to $93,800.00. II 54. Helen Anding R25.6600370 *Value increased from $42,800. in c/o David Bangasser 1989 to $70,300. in 1990 with no II 1708 E. 57th St. improvements in 20 years. The property is just a seasonal cabin on Red Cedar Point and would be an unbuildable lot. II County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $20,000.00 from $70,300.00 to $50,300.00. I 55. Jacquelyn Keefe R25.2020020 *Feels $78,000. is too high of an 6950 Pima Lane assessment fora townhouse. 12 I II Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 I , . . REF. NAME AND ill ' NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $2,200.00 from $78,000.00 to $75,800.00. I56. Gordon Tock R25.1600590 Assessment rose from $33,800. in 6640 Lotus Trail 1989 to $57,000. in 1990 with no improvements done to the cabin. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $10,000.00 from II $57,000.00 to $47,000.00. 57. Michael A. Jurewicz R25.860001O *Assessment increased 88.6% from 3890 Lone Cedar Circle 1989. Feels assessed value should I increase incrementally the same as market values increase. ICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 58. Peggy Reilly R25.1730010 *Colonial Center assessments for II Chanhassen Realty, Inc. land only went from $1.90 per sq. ft. in 1989 to $5.50 per sq. ft. in 1990. Neighboring property that abuts this property pays $2.20 per sq. ft. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 59. Peter Beck 825.6890020 Assessed value for 1989 was Re: Eckankar property $641,000. and for 1990 was assessed I 7.900 Xerxes Avenue at $3,977,900. Wanted to point out Minneapolis, MN the inconsistency with this assess- ment and the City's appraisal of the 23 acre parcel which is in I condemnation proceedings. The 23 acre parcel calculates out at $9,200.00 an acre and the assess- ' went value is up around $22,000. to $23,000. an acre. Would like the City and County to get together on their values. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: 1990 EMV of $3,977,900.00 is based on $22,000.00 per acre which is I similar to other development in the area. 11 60. James J. Moore 3630 Hickory Road R25.6600060 Assessed value in 1989 was $80,800. and rose to $133,000. in 1990, a 64% increase with only a li little remodeling, which is higher than neighboring properties. He feels the lakeshore is driving this I13 J. Board 4f Equalization and Review - May .30, 1990 4 # ,_ REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS -PIN -COMMENTS - increase in assessment. ml County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. I 61. Don Chmiel Assessment has increased $23,000. 7100 Tecumseh Lane ' from 1989. 100% increase from when II ' the home was purchased 14 years ago. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. ' 62. Jim Landkammer 825.3000440 Feels assessment didn't take into 6901 Utica Lane account structural damage to the I garage. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $6,100.00 from II$103,200.00 to $97,100.00. 63. Lowell/Audrey Swenson R25.6040210 Purchased property in December, 11 1890 Partridge Circle 1989 for $150,000. and is assessed for 1990 at $156,500. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $6,500.00 from $156,500.00 to $150,000.00. 1! 64. Douglas Volkmeier R25.2700070 The assessed value is significantly f II Sandra Blair higher than purchase price. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $25,500.00 from II$250,500.00 to $225,000.00. 65. Robert G. Wolf R25.8010250 Requesting that assessment be 7636 So. Shore Dr. lowered to $243,100. consistent II with the Tax Court of Carver County's Findings. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. I 66. James Schluck R25.3000120 Assessment increased from $127,000. in 1989 to $176,100. in 1990 when I neighboring properties are assessed less. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. I. 67. Barbara Martini R25.6300050 Assessment went up from $75,000. II 491 Indian Hill Rd. to $107,000. in 1990 with the addition of a 3 seasons porch and a swimming pool. Can understand some increase for the porch but a II 14 I II Board of Equalization and Review - May 30,1990 z REF. NAME AND il ' NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - swimming pool does not increase value. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $12,100.00 from $107,100.00 to $95,000.00. II69. Mark A. Ouiner R25.1602020 Purchased property 2 years ago and 6889 Yuma Drive and property value rose $7,700. II from last year without any improve- ments. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II70. Abraham C. Abbariao 825.1700020 Assessment rose from $192,800. to 3750 Arboretum Blvd. $281,100. with no improvements. 1 County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $17,100.00 from $281,100.00 to $264,000.00. II71. Wilmer/Marilyn Larson R25.0082800 Would like their assessment look 7380 Minnewash#a Parkway at. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 72. Rodney/Diane Beach 825.0260200 Assessment increased $30,000. in 1180 Pioneer Trail last year with no improvements. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II 73. LuAnn Falenczykowski R25.4810120 Assessments increased with no 3501 Zenium Lane No. 825.4810110 improvements to the property or Plymouth, MN 55441 surrounding properties. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change on both parcels. II 74. Robert/Diane Martinka 825.2030460 Purchased the property in November, 7207 Pontiac Circle 1989 for $61,500. and would like assessment adjusted to that' amount. ICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. . 75. Scott E. Nelson R25.1601240 Assessment increased $14,400. in II767 Carver Beach Rd. 1990 with no improvements made. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $1,000.00 from I $67,900.00 to $66,900.00. 76. Tom/Randi Folsom R25.3000210 Assessment increased $50,000. in li7050 Utica Lane 1990 with no improvements made. I15 Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - 1111 County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $13,800.00 from$171,000.00 to $157,200.00. -' 77. Keith/Patricia Gunderson R25.1600620 Property assessment rose from 6660 Lotus Trail $29,500. in 1989 to $37,000. in 1990 with no improvements made. I County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 78. David G. Holub R25.1600490 Property was assessed at $54,000. 1 6670 Mohawk Drive in 1989 and $93,900. in 1990. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $13,300.00 from , $93,300.00 to $80,000.00. 79. Kip L. Messer R25.2000800 Assessment rose $13,000. in one Guy H. Nelson year with no improvements made. 6790 Chaparral Lane County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. , 80. Denis Schmitz R25.2021190 Assessment increased more than 7010 Redwing Lane neighboring properties. I County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 81. Robert Evangelista R25.2030660 Assessed property for $12,000. 7290 Pontiac Circle more than purchased property for on Hay 4, 1990. ' County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $5,000.00 from $74,000.00 to $69,000.00. 82. Nancy Raddohl R25.1620120 Vacant lot in Carver Beach Estates 2674 Nightingale Court assessed at $20,000. Would like Chaska, MN assessment to be $3,000. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $29,700.00 from $33,000.00 to $3,300.00. 83. Edward V. Oathout R25.3800030 Assessment increased from 1989 at 3940 Hawthorne Circle $115,400 to $147,000. in 1990 with no improvements made on the home. ' County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $13,600.00 from $147,000.00 to $133,400.00. I 16 ' Board of Equalization and Review' - May 30, 1990 REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN -COMMENTS - 85. Bruce J. Schurmann 825.1600450 Assessment increased 300% with no 116 Elm St. North city services available. ILester Prairie, MN 55354 County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $22,300.00 from I $24,800.00 to $2,500.00. 86. Eric/Barb Nerness R25.8010210 Feel assessment is too high when 7652 South Shore Dr. compared to neighboring properties. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $25,700.00 from $205,700.00 to $180,000.00. II87. Richard B. Anding R25.6600450 Feel an increase of 40% in value on property is excessive. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $11,400.00 from $173,900.00 to $162,500.00. R25.6600530 No Change. I . R25.6600440 Reduce 1990 EMV $9,000.00 from $120,700.00 to $111,700.00. :1 88. Raymond M. Lewis 825.7470010 Feels assessment is taking into 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. account an unfinished basement as finished and is assessed too high compared to neighboring properties. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $9,600.00 from $215,900.00 to $206,300.00. II89. Carl Kristufek R25.2620280 Tax statement shows property as Wini Blume non-homestead for 1990 when it I6490 Devonshire Dr. should have been a vacant lot. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. I91. Tony/Patti Ferguson 825.4060440 Would like to know how the market 1380 Lake Susan Hills Dr. value was determined. ICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 92. Donald W. Johnson R25.0012700 House is 16 years old and sitting I 335 Pleasant View Rd. on an unbuildable lot of 3/4 of an acre, not 1 acre as noted on the statement. Too much of an increase II for one year. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. li II17 111 Board of Equalization and Review - flay 30, 1990 REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN _ COMMENTS - 93. Steven C. Willette 825.1900180 New in 1989, the building and lot 7851 Park Drive cost under $280,000. and in 1990 is assessed for $316,000. I County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 94. Steven/Mary Willette R25.2000660 Neighboring properties that are I 6901 Chaparral Lane comparable sold in 1989 for under $90,000. and their 1990 assessment is $100,400. I County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 95. Thomas/Martha Heiley R25.6600470 Had comments for the State Legis- I 3725 So. Cedar Dr. lature and Carver County Board Excelsior, MN regarding assessments. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 96. Kevin/Michelle Clark R25.7920020 Being assessed $2,900. for a fire- II 3841 Red Cedar Pt. Dr. place they don't have. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $5,500.00 from $82,000.00 to $76,500.00. II . 97. Dale Gregory R25.3000750 40% increase in assessment. Would 7091 Redman Lane like it reviewed. II County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 98. George/Claudette Way R25.8770020 Not lakeshore. Unrealistic raise I 3605 Red Cedar Pt. Rd. in value. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II 99. Eric Rivkin R25.4070180 Insists that he be present the next 1695 Steller Court time the assessor comes to evaluate II his property. Included sets of plans of the property to show the discrepancies. I County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $15,600.00 from $220,600.00 to $205,000.00. 100. Harold/Virginia Sievers R25.4080270 Assessment increased 100% for a II. . 4805 Asposia Lane lot with no improvements. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II Ili 18 I II Board of Equalization and Review - :May 30, 1990 U . . REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS • PIN COMMENTS - 101. Steve Evangelista R25.7550530 1989 assessment was $15,000. 1990 • - 861 Saddlebrook Pass statement showed improvements of $82,600. with an assessment of $112,600. Also shows special assessments unpaid for 1989 and I 1990 when developer was supposed to pay for those. ICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 102. Mel Kurvers (The same as *48.) I 103. Gentry Stanley R25.8610020 Assessment increased 27% or Rt. 1, Box 142A $45,000. in one year which is Trimont, MN 56176 higher than comparable properties. ICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $7,100.00 from $212,100.00 to $205,000.00. I104. (The same as #64) 105. Gary/Shelley Devaan R25.0040400 Purchased property in 1987 for 6840 Hazeltine Blvd. $78,000. 1989 assessment was $71,000 and 1990 assessment was $82,300. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $5,700.00 from $82,300.00 to $76,600.00. I106. Harlan/Eleanor Johnson R25.5450270 1980 taxes were $518. and 1990 are 6340 Hummingbird Rd. 1,800. That's more than 10• per year for a house built in 1929. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $13,200.00 from $92,700.00 to $79,500.00. I107. Francis Trinka R25.1600950 Value increased on unimproved lots. 10670 No. Shore Rd. R25.1600960 Waconia, MN R25.1600860 II County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV on Parcel 0950 $13,600.00 from $15,100. to $1,500. II Reduce 1990 EMV on Parcel 0960 • $5,300.00 from $5,900. to $600. Reduce 1990 EMV on Parcel 0860 11 $18,000. from $20,000. to $2,000. 108. Terry Vogt R25.2700160 1990 assessment is $420,000. and II '732 Lake Point compared to neighboring properties and purchase price of home, feels assessment should be $351,976. 1 19 Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 - REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN __-- IMENTS - County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $42,000.00 from 1111 $420,500.00 to $378,500.00. ' 109. William Gabler R25.02300900 Feels classification of vacant 78 East Stevens St. lot is incorrect. Should be agri- St. Paul, MN 55107 cultural. Assessment of $32,500. is too high. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. I 110. Douglas 8. Anderson R25.6600290 Purhcased home in fall, 1988 and 3607 Red Cedar Pt. Rd. 1990 assessments show a $26,200. increase with no improvements. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 111. Constance Cervilla 650 Carver Beach Rd. Assessment increased from 1989 c/o Gene Hoff at $209,900 to 1990 value of 6436 City West Pkwy. $418,500. with no improvements. Minneapolis, MN 55344 County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 112. William/Sharon Predovich R25.7420060 Purchased the home in April, 1989 9611 Meadowlark Lane for $329,000 with $11,000. worth of improvements made. Do not believe an assessment of $395,700. is fair. Should be more in the range of $340,000. ' County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $46,600.00 from 395,700.00 to $349,100.00. 113. Oral M. Fystrom R25.2020510 Assessment increased $11,900. in 7031 Pima Lane one year. Purchased the property in August, 1988 for $73,500. and assessed in 1990 for $83,000. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $5,900.00 from $83,000.00 to $77,100.00. Owner still does not accept value. Still too high. 114. Kenneth Potts R25.4080240 Purchased home in 1989 for $230,000 9431 Foxford Rd. and assessed in 1990 for $232,800. with no improvements done. ' County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 20 ' Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 _.I REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - 115. Tim Klouda R25.2700350 Compared to neighboring properties, 6401 Fox Path assessment of $245,700. is too IIhigh. Should be $205,000. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II116. John Przymus 825.7610080 Lived here for past 17 months. Sharon Przymus 825.7600010 Lived here for past 12 years. IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 117. Mark/Martha Norman R25.1601270 Assessment increased $17,000. from II820 Imperial Dr. 1989. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $1,000.00 from I $50,700.00 to $49,700.00. 118. Jean Jarrett R25.300082 Assessment increased from $77,000. I 7140 Utica Lane to 95,100. which is higher than fair market value. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $8,800.00 from $95,100.00 to $86,300.00. 119. James Jacobsen 180 No. LaSalle St. 825.1904190 Total cost for the property was R25.1900200 $103,330., with a 1990 assessment of Chicago, IL 60601 $229,000. I County Assessor's Recommendation: Recommend that the Board not change any values and defer to the County Board to allow the Assessor's office time to deal with problem. II120. Donald C. Sennes R25.1600510 Assessment increased from $30,300. to $43,800.. I R25.1600500 Assessment of $110,000. is too high compared to neighboring properties. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV on Parcel 0510 II $3,800. from $43,800. to $40,000. No Change on Parcel 0500. II 121. Edwin/Livia Seim R25.660001O Assessment increased $37,400. in 292 Charles Dr. one year with no improvements made. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. ii . I21 . Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 II REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - 122. Douglas Kraushaar R25.8890030 -Purchased home fall, 1989 for I 767 Woodhill Drive $140,000. and is assessed in 1990 for $156,400. I County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $11,400.00 from $156,400.00 to $145,000.00. I 123. Kathleen Lockhart R25.6600330 This is a vacant, unbuildable lot. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $43,000.00 from II $48,000.00 to $5,000.00. 124. Mrs. Kelly Ward 825.6600540 - Vacant lot assessment increased I 2801 Flag Ave. No. from $200. to $20,000. in one year. Plymouth, MN 55427 County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $18,000.00 from I $20,000.00 to $2,000.00. 125. Bernard/Helen Leach R25.0081100 Feel surrounding properties have I decreased property value rather than increased it. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. :: 126. Joseph Notermann R25.0351300 Would like assessment reviewed. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $4,000.00 from $72,500.00 to $68,500.00. II127. Nicholas Dennis R25.2610050 Property is currently listed for Daniel Herbst, Pemtom Company $499,000. and believes it will sell for between $450,000.-$475,000. II Assessed for $510,000. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $70,000.00 from II$510,000.00 to $440,000.00. 128. Mark Senn R25.6950010 Property recently sold in the lower 7160 Willow View Cove $400,000.'s which is considerably I lower than the assessed value of - $570,500. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $165,300.00 from I $571,300.00 to $406,000.00. 129. Michael/Anne Wise R25.2000600 1989 assessment was $83,600. 1990 I 6890 Redwing Lane assessment is $104,200. with an improvement of finishing off the basement in 1989. 22 I 1 r II .Board- of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 REF. NAME AND NO. ' ADDRESS PIN COMMENTS - County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 130. Al Iverson R25.1930040 Feel values on both properties are Box 610 R25.1930010 excessive in relation to purchase 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 prices. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. I 131. Ron Dahlen R25.4060690 Lots sold in spring of 1990 for Argus Development R25.4060700 $49,900. and $51,900. and are assessed at $82,000. and $77,000. ICounty Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $25,100.00 from $77,000.00 to $51,900.00. I132. Ann Sevey R25.2020620 See attached letter. County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $6,600.00 from II $90,700.00 to $84,100.00. ' 133. Mike/Kathy Korth R25.2020790 Comparable neighbors house assessed 6991 Chaparral Lane at $69,000 and their's at $71,000. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 134. Steven Burke R25.7420050 Believes assessment of around 9591 Meadowlark Lane $400,000. is more accurate. tCounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 135. Robert C. Johnson R25.1602090 Assessment increased from $8,000. II 725 Ponderosa Lane to $21,500. in one year for vacant land. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II136. Mrs. James Connor R25.0081600 Assessment increased from $49,500. 3901 Red Cedar Pt. Dr. to $72,000. in one year with no Iimprovements. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. II137. Allan Whiteford R25.1600640 Vacant Lot valued at $20,000.00. 7861 Yucca Lane Maple Grove, MN 55369 IICounty Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. If II I . . 23 • \' Board of Equalization and Review - May 30, 1990 REF. NAME AND NO. ADDRESS PIN ZOMMENTS - I 137. Gary/Karen Peterson R25.66000700 Feel assessment should be decreased 3632 Hickory Drive from $119,000. to between $65,000.- $75,000. because buildings on the lot are 90 years old and detrimental to the property and Hickory Drive runs through the 1 middle of the buildable portion of the lot. County Assessor's Recommendation: No Change. 1 139. David Hempel R25.6600420 Submitted written request. 3707 South Cedar Excelsior, MN 55331 County Assessor's Recommendation: Reduce 1990 EMV $27,700.00 from $220,200.00 to $192,500.00. Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.. -1 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 24 1 1 II PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 21 , 1990 IChairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p .m . . I MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers , Jim Mady , Jan Lash , Curt Robinson , Dawne Erhart , Jim Andrews and Wendy Pemrick STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sitesema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman , IIRecreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: IMady: Page 14 , my last comment . It 'd be the second paragraph from the bottom . In the third line it has three dots , . . . and then it says but I we 've got to change it . I think it 's not what I said . Well that 's part of what I said but because the first part was mangled somehow in the tape , it makes it sounds like I want to make sure it gets changed and that 's not my intention with that statement . I believe the first , the comments prior to I that had to do with discussion of that some people feel we have to change it . I just wanted to make sure that gets in there because otherwise it takes away from the nature of my comment . ISietsema : You want to just strike the last part of that sentence? ' Mady: I think what I 'd say is yeah . Take the but we 've got to change it and then say , if we 've got to change it , well let 's get some specific proposals . That way we 'd at least get the flavor of what I was saying . Just add an if in there . IIRobinson moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated May 8 , 1990 as amended by Jim Mady on IIpage 14 . All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' SITE PLAN REVIEW - LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST. Public Present: ' Name Address Carolyn Barensky 8731 Audubon Road I Wilmer Malmar 8541 Audubon Road Marc & Pam Synder 8470 Ibis Court Duane Eischens 8460 Ibis Court IISietsema: This is a PUD amendment proposal . If you will recall a couple years back the Lake Susan Hills West planned unit development was approved I with a number of phases and an agreement at that time was signed as to what was supposed to be contained within that . It 's a 300 acre overall development with I think when it 's all done it will have about 1 ,000 units within it . This just represents one section of that PUD . For this area there was one big park that was to be dedicated by the developer . It 's an 18 acre parcel . It 's one of 4 pieces within the overall PUD . I 've included in the staff report the PUD agreement so you can see what was • II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 2 1 proposed and what kind of credits . The PUD agreement requires a 50% ' dedication towards the park dedication fee . The amendment that 's being proposed is to reconfigure the layout of the lots and to provide additional' park property . The property owner is interested in relaying out the lots and there 's an area that is unbuildable because of poor soils and they 'd like to dedicate that as parkland and as a part of that dedication , they would like the remaining 50% of the park dedication fees to be waived . Mady: Lori before you go any further , since we have 4 members on here who weren 't here when this was previously reviewed and it is a PUD , I don 't II think we reviewed a PUD before or since those 4 people have come up here . A PUD is a very unique animal . I guess in easy terms it allows the developer to do some things that he couldn 't do in our normal development and it would do those things which in some respects , depending on your point of view , makes it easier for the developer to do some things . Smaller lot sizes . Higher densities but to get those things the City expects to get more out of the developer . The developer to do more for the, City and that can be in a number of different things . We always look at I guess get more park . More parkland . Better parkland . More things done with the parkland , what have you but there is a requirement , we kind of make a requirement for the developer to give more to get a PUD . I don 't know if that 's a good explanation or not but I guess that 's the explanation I use in my head . Sietsema: That 's very true . Because of the concessions that are made towards , like you said , towards lot sizes and what not and higher density , the developer 's expected to dedicate above and beyond what is normally required in a typical subdivision . And keeping that in mind , that 's why well have a dedication of like , I think it 's 37 acres within this PUD and they were given 50% credit . That gives us the property and gives us 50% of the funds to develop the property . They also dedicated some wetland areas that" are not useable for active parkland so the total is somewhere in the neighborhood of 65 acres of what is dedicated for park property within this area . So given that , it 's obviously that this is not a park deficient area' meaning the needs should be able to be met by what is required by that PUD agreement . When it was originally requested in the PUD agreement , the park property within this area that we 're talking about being amended is this II area here and then this block attaches down here . So it 's 18 acres . It 's rolling . There 's a steep grade in it and there 's some flatter area in the lower parts and there 's some limited use but it 's not the best piece of park property but it 's a big chunk . What is being proposed is that this area be also dedicated . It represents 3 .8 acres of additional park property upon which they need to drain , most of the water that comes off of this area will be draining to that piece and this would be the holding II pond . In a 100 year storm situation , this entire area would be wet for a matter of days after a large rain or 100 year storm . There 's also pipes coming in on each one of the corners coming in with water so that is a drainageway . Staff feels that with the amount of water that needs to be stored and where the streets are with pedestrian access . There 's pedestrian access off of this street here , one here and then the main access to the larger two chunks of property is off of here . If this whole I entire area is wet , it leaves the people stranded up here without being able to get through there if there 's any amount of rain . Right now that r II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 3 would be very wet until it dried out for a few days . So what staff is proposing is that that whole wet area be moved up into this area and leaving the rest of it at least a berm or something that would be high and dry so that a trail could be built in there that would provide pedestrian access to this area of the subdivision through this area over to the remainder of the park . Again , if parkland is available to the be given , ' staff would recommend that we accept it . However , given the amount of development that needs to be done to all of these park sites , it 's not recommended that we allow any further credit simply because otherwise ' they 're going to have to wait a long time . It 's like buying a house and not having any money left over to furnish it and we 've been stuck in that type of a situation and are continually frustrated . This PUD was designed to take care of itself . We 've got the property and we 've got 50p of the ' funds coming in to develop the parkland . Brian Olson is here with Argus . He 's got some comments also and I think he 's got a nice pretty drawing too . ' Mady: One comment first . The pedestrian access on the north that comes into the north off that cul-de-sac , are you proposing that a berm be constructed along the edge of there so that that . . . Sietsema : I 'm proposing that the pond be something of banana shaped , something along here so we can still get pedestrian access in through this area and have some kind of a berm coming in . Brian is going to probably go ' over this but they feel that if they have the major bulk of the water up here , they 're still going to need some ponding down in this area so it 's important that the grading plan of the park include or of this area include ' some kind of a berm so that we can get the people into the park without getting their feet wet . Mady: Okay , one last question . None of those homes exist yet . This whole ' thing here is part of what 's coming in front of us so none of those people have already bought lots and border that? ' Sietsema : I don 't know if any lots have been sold . I don 't think so , no . Mady: Okay . Just as long as we 're not infringing on somebody who already thought they were getting something that 's high and dry . Schroers: This is the area that we walked . We went out there and walked that . Mady: This is the big park . Sietsema: We came in right down at this point and looked down that hill and down this hill . ' Lash: I have a question too Lori . So this whole thing is now what they want to add? Sietsema: They want to add this whole piece . ' Lash: Okay . Alright . And then the rest of it is all down here? The original park was down here? I Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 4 ' Sietsema: This is parkland here and this is proposed parkland here . ' Andrews: It 's unbuildable? The new portion is unbuildable? Sietsema: This is unbuildable . Poor soils . Now what they could do is bring the lot lines in and make those bigger lots . If that 's what they want to do , I would say go for it because I don 't see how we can really use the property without . . . Andrews: What kind of money are we talking about with the 50% dedication . What 's that going to get us? Sietsema: How many lots would this be? Brian Olsen : Our portion is going to be 154 lots and so it 'd be $38 ,500 .00 . Mady: Is that relatively flat? ' Sietsema: This is flat , yep . It 's all slope going down to it and this is ' relatively flat . So if you can consider the 3 pieces , it would be considered the flatter piece . Schroers: But it 's too low to do anything with it as far as active park is' concerned? Sietsema: Well I think if they had the whole pond , the whole pond in the I lower area , this would be quite useable but then you 've got you can 't really get through to get to the rest of the park and it 's the smallest area . I mean it would be tough to get a ballfield in there . I don 't think' you could get 200 foot lines , sidelines out there on a ballfield but you could put other facilities in there . Playground equipment or something like that . Resident: Would you put the other map on there please? We 'd like to know I where Huron Drive is? Sietsema: It 's not on here . It 's way north of here . ' Resident: What do you mean way north? Sietsema: Well it 's about right here . Resident: Well where is this pocket? We don 't understand what you 're talking about . It comes here and it goes out to Audubon Road right? Is this Huron Drive here? Mady : It 's hard to look at those sometimes and figure out where in the world you 're at . Sietsema: Especially right now it 's just a field . A plowed field . II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 5 Robinson: It is . There 's no trees on any of that . Up where we were standing . Mady: On top there wasn 't . On the east side there on the bottom there was . Resident: Where 's the second? Sietsema: I don 't have a map of the whole PUD . This just represents the ' area south of Huron Drive but right now it . . . This road along the north , you see the road along the north , that is Huron Drive so it 's all south of Huron Drive . ( The commissioners were talking amongst themselves at this point . ) Schroers: Lori , they want to save $250 .00 per lot . How many lots? Sietsema : 159 . Robinson : $38 ,000 .00 . Sietsema : Yeah , it represents , it 's 159 lots so we 're talking . . . It 's almost $40 ,000 .00 . Mady : Why don 't we go further with this . Sietsema : Do you have some things to add? Schroers : No . Sietsema : Do you want Brian to speak? Mady: Yeah . I think that 'd be the best at this point . Brian Olson: I 'm Brian Olson with Argus Development . We were not the original developers on this property . Argus ' Development is owned by Joe Miller and he also owns Joe Miller Homes and we 're the exclusive builder in the whole west side here and we also did a couple additions on the east side of CR 17 here . The location here , here is CR 17 . Here is Huron Drive and our 3rd Addition and this if the first addition that we put in a couple ' years ago or a year ago so and this just went in last fall . Now we 've got two streets coming down from the south . This is the perimeter of the original PUD which like Lori mentioned comes down and comes back up . There ' are about 2 1/2 acre plotted sites along this location and there 's some large lot subdivisions directly to the south of the park . Then there 's a couple existing small acre farms on the west and then you hit Audubon ' Trail . When we first took a look at purchasing the balance of this property , we decided to change the approach that we 'd come in to the City . Typically we 've been kind of coming in at the preliminary plat just on a phase at a time and we're ending up with quite a bit of dowling costs based ' on the soil types out there . I think when they approved the original PUD , the original developer 's engineer didn 't really take a close look at the soil types out there and plan around that instead of just looking at the I/ Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 6 topography . So we 've taken a new approach on the balance here and the original PUD basically said that you could have x amount of lots in this area and so we looked at a design and how can we best utilize the property with the number of lots that we're allowed to have and still we 're I subtracting some access points and connections here . . .connection to the property along the west side here . That wasn 't even a part of the original approval also . 1 Resident: May I interrupt on that? Why the connection to the west property there? Brian Olson: The City 's requiring that . Resident: But that west property is agriculturally zoned at present . It also contains historical Chaska brick houses . ' Brian Olson: Right . That won 't change the zoning at all . That street . It 's outside the MUSA line . ' Resident: Then I 'm wondering why you 're building it . Brian Olson: Well if I . . .I wouldn 't want it either . ' Resident: That 's kind of just the end there? Brian Olson: Right . So in the future someday , eventually the City 's going " to develop . Over the year , 20 years or whatever and you want to have street connections inbetween neighborhoods for safety reasons , police II access , all these various things . Then underneath the street is also the utility hook-ups for the sanitary and water . So those are part of the staff review and then we 've got to provide the street stub to the west there . That doesn 't mean it 's going to change any of the zoning . It just II means you 're going to provide access for the future someday . Resident: It 's my understand the City requires you to? ' Brian Olson: Yeah , we don 't really benefit by putting that street in . All these lots run out onto an existing street so we actually have to . . .so that !' would be the only reason for it . Resident: You mentioned like that large lots on the pond on the south side of that . What . . .access to that? ' Mady: They access off of Sunset Trail currently . Those houses exist and have for a number of years . ' Sietsema: They 're off of Lyman . Resident: I guess you were talking about putting four houses? ' Sietsema: No , they 're already there . Brian Olson: I don 't know how many houses there are right there . Another I thing the property has is a pipeline easement running through right . . .to II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 7 the northern border and it 's proposed park area here . . . The orange lines in here kind of represent the proposed phasing here over the next year or possibly 3 years here . Since we 're the only builder there , we 've really got to watch how the economy goes here as far as on phasing . Our first phase would be going in in this location and would be approximately 45 lots . Lori and I have a difference of opinion about what to have in here . ' We had to buy this area . We paid x amount per acre for this whole area . However , we did not pay for the park area proposed as part of the original PUD . . .at final platting would be dedicated to the City . So roughly when 1 we 're looking at this area in here , we 're looking at approximately a $50 ,000 .00 gift to the City . That 's us as a developer . The pond right here that 's shown . . . ' Resident: Excuse me , why would that be a $50 ,000 .00 gift? Brian Olson: Because we paid x amount of dollars per acre . Resident: Did you know what the soil conditions were when you bought it? I would assume you knew you couldn 't develop it . ' Brian Olson: It can be developed but . . . It 's got a high water table . It 's . . .silty clay and we 've developed over this property up in this area ' already . The only difficulty is you 've got more grading costs to make it developable . It 's developable . It 's not peat . It 's nothing like that . As a matter of fact it 's the exact same soils down here as it is down in this location . That is the only difference on this project . This has all been farmed . You 've got to go across on it . . . Resident : Then why don 't you want to develop it? Brian Olson: Well there 's a couple reasons . One , we already have the amount of lots that we can already do here . Resident : They need more lots? Brian Olson: And I 'd like to explain this storm sewer situation here . We have some storm from the overflow from that pond that 's laying in the 3rd Addition up here flowing through and it comes down into and comes off of this location . We 've got other storm sewer coming into here and we 've got another one in this location . We cannot move this pond . This is a siltation pond where this whole area has to drain in to so that the sediments and all that will settle to the ground before it goes off the property and downstream . So it 's very important that we have to have this pond here and that 's the location of the original PUD approval also . The original PUD approval for a park area basically kind of came up approximately like this and the pond was shown in this location . Now when you originally approved the PUD you never figured out your storm sewer calculations so the exact extent of the pond was not known at that time and we weren 't even involved at that time either . The dark blue here represents the area approximately where it will be a pond at all times . The outline here in blue which it 's kind of cross hatched would be a storm of a 100 year flood which might mean 4 times a year or you might not have any for 20 years . You know how that 100 year flood works right? But we . ' I/ Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 8 1 can make provisions in here to redesign the configuration of this pond and II make sure any kind of trail system would be out of that . That can be handled quite readily. Also , when we were dealing with the engineering department and the storm sewer coming in here , we are proposing to bring the storm along the back property line down here and go into this pond . Right now the engineering department is , I 'm not sure whether there even needs to be another plan at all whatsoever and there has been some talk II about instead of having an over land swale along here , now that the developer may have to put it all underground in place so that 's going to be another additional cost for us . And again , these are not bad soils , it 's II just a higher water table . And so this whole area is very suitable for a ballfield . It 's probably one of your few areas in this whole lower part . This whole area here and the lower , you 've got more than , you 've got a 10% grade there . You 've got a 1 foot drop in 10 feet . You 've got some flat II areas along here not big enough for any kind of field activities and then you 've got a very steep slope that really separates the park and then you 've got a very small low area in here which the configurations to here II doesn 't really fit in for a park or a ballfield either . And again , these are the same soils . One problem with this pond design , by trying to move it further to the south , I am impeded by this gas pipeline . So I think we II can handle this all very well and also when we look at a PUD , typically it is and the City gets a little more but what the whole intent of the PUD . . . how can you better design a project without necessarily meeting the full intent of the ordinance requirements . That 's what it 's really all about . II I think we 've come up with a lot better design out here . We have fewer cul-de-sacs than the original PUD . We were able to , oh another thing . We eliminated a lift station . . . On the original they had to have a lift station down in here to serve the sanitary sewer so by us not having to put " that in , well we save the cost of that but we also save the city the maintenance of having to deal with a lift station over the years . So I guess again here , this area is not bad soils . There are some trees down ill here and we can get that storm water down to this pond here and reconfigure this so that all these trails will not be . . . Resident: What 's the size of the pond? I Brian Olson: It 's basically an acre . It 's going to be at the deepest point about 4 feet . 1 Resident: That 's another thing , why aren 't they any deeper? Brian Olson: Well we don 't need them to be any deeper . II Resident: Well like the one on the northwest corner now on the phase 3 , II that 's only 3 feet deep at the deepest part too . If you cut a hole there , enough for 15 feet of water , why then you fill it up . We could have had a private little fishing area down there . Really what good is it? IIBrian Olson: Well it 's not . . .city engineering department who gets involved with the design on that pond when it becomes city property . Schroers: There are also safety concerns involved with such a high density of people there and deep water . People are afraid of having that deep II Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11 May 21 , 1990 - Page 9 IIwater with little kids . Resident : You can drown in 2 feet of water as well as 10 . IISchroers: Yeah , but most people don 't believe that . They think if it 's shallow it 's safer . IIResident: A little kid will drown in that 2 feet just as well as a 10 footer . IISchroers: I agree with you but most people think that deeper water is more dangerous . I Robinson: Is it less attractive to you as a developer to have that water up further in the finger there? . II Brian Olson: Well we 'd have to have 2 ponds . We have to have them at the lowest elevation point to drain all the storm sewer to that point . The watershed district is going to require that . We 've already dealt with it II so if we have one here , we 're going to have to have another one here and I 'm still going to have to have an overflow from this pond over to here . So what we 're proposing to do is just to have the water go along the perimeter which is also then serve as a boundary for the park you know so I you 're not going to have people that are going to go into there . . . They could go on either side you know . Those are some of the details we can still work out and we can be building some berms and things just like . . . Iand a trail can be on top and out of the water . Robinson : Is that what that would be is just a little swale then around the boundary are you saying? IIBrian Olson: Yeah , we 've got to get enough slope here so it 's not going to be stagnant water . So that the water will have to come down here and then I flow down . It 's not the intent to have an open ditch system where it 's going to be wet . That 's not our intent and the engineering department 's already told us that 's not what they want us to do . But we 're proposing 2 II trail access points down in this location and there 's going to be some , there 's some conflicts there but it can be worked out with a culvert and berming up and over the culvert . IIResident: Is this figure feet? 506 .96? Brian Olson: That 's correct . IIResident: That 's feet . . . I Brian Olson: . . .we are giving almost 4 more acres of parkland to the City . There is a benefit to the city for that and it is not bad soil here . Again , as far as PUD agreement , us as the developer have to grade these parks . Well we can grade this how you guys want to have it . The only I thing that we 're asking is we 'd like to see if we can get some break on the park . Again , if the engineering department requires that we 've got to put all this storm sewer underground , that 's going to be quite a bit of cost II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 10 1 because it is somewhat flat and the flatter that you have the ground , the II bigger diameter of pipe . . . Resident: I 'm confused on how you 're giving 4 more acres of parkland? ' Brian Olson: On the original PUD approval was for 18 .1 acres . Resident: And so many lots . ' Brian Olson: Right and we 're adding another 3 .8 acres to the 18 .1 acres . Resident: But you 've still got the lots so you couldn 't put any more lots on whether you gave the park or 3 acres or not . Brian Olson: That 's correct but we can also make all these lots a lot bigger too . Here 's what it really comes down to . We are giving up this area and if we made the lots bigger , we could sell them for a lot more but if you don 't want to have the land or if we don 't get any breaks or things ,' we 'll just make the lots bigger but we 're coming here . We 're proposing to give that . That 's going to be your most flat area for ballfields in this whole area and we saw that as a win-win thing . The City would get something and we were hoping to get something back . Lash: But you 're not proposing to give it to us . You want us basically to give you $38 ,500 .00? Brian Olson: Or something . Lash: What kind of thing? ' Brian Olson: Well really , we are going to proceed the way it is . Okay? Even if you didn 't give us . . . However , I guess , I 'm here to try and see if' we can get something done . Mady: Why don 't we open it up for commission discussion . Get the thoughts!' out so if there 's any other audience discussion , the questions that need to be answered or things , that we can get it moving . Schroers: Brian , I think that you did a good job explaining your position 1 there and your 'intentions are very good . The problem that I have with it is when I look at that 3 .8 acre parcel , I have a hard time seeing $38 ,000 .00 there . Where we are sitting right now with the parks in I Chanhassen , we desperately need funds to develop our parks throughout the city and to me the trade-off for that piece of property versus $38 ,000 .00 would not be good business on the point of the city . I think that we could put those funds to better use elsewhere and combine that with the fact that' there is enough parkland along with the development and we 're not park deficient , I just think that it would be bad judgment for us to accept your ' offer . Pemrick: Yeah , I tend to agree with Larry on this . If there was a problem of too little parkland at present but since there 's enough parkland that II has been dedicated , we need money for development . I guess my vote would be to take the money and put it towards our other parks or towards I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 11 developing this . Mady: I guess I 've got the feeling we 're going to hear the same thing from all of us but we don 't need additional parkland in this area . Roughly 3 years ago when this whole PUP came in front of the City we spent a lot of time looking at it and I think we did a pretty dog gone good job . We don 't always but this one we did a pretty good job making sure we had as much parkland as we needed and we made sure we had some money to do it . $38 ,000 .00 isn 't going to buy us a whole lot but it will get us a good ' start on some of these parks in this particular development and so if the land 's going to remain vacant that 's fine . I seriously doubt if we 'd ever put a ballfield there since we already have thought of where we want to put those anyway . I don 't see us having the funds to get that created in the near 'future . The only concern I have with this , with what we 're looking at right now is to make sure that with the trail accesses into the park that gets the people into that park from the neighborhood , that the trailways in ' the park are high enough so they 're not under water . I mean under water at any time . Be it a 100 year storm or what have you . They should remain dry at all times . Otherwise , the layout of the whole development is somewhat different than we saw previously but I don 't see any problems for us from a Park and Rae and trail standpoint . I think it 's important that we keep as much money as we can get because we 're going to use every dime of it to build what we need to do in this particular development . Robinson : I really like that layout in that little piece up amongst right in the residential area . Did you say that you would provide access to the ' lower park out of the water? Somehow get around that pond? That was Lori 's concern I think . And you would just get up next to the property line and build that up or build a trail up there? ' Brian Olson : The ponds are something that you can always change . . .so it might go a lot further on one side of the park for a pond than the other . We can make it work out without a problem . ' Robinson : I really like that and whether it 's a ballfield or an open area or an area that just has a totlot in it . There 's a lot of homes very close by there so I really like that . However , I am as cheap or cheaper than most of the commission and I have to go along with them on that point . Lash : And I 'm the cheapest . Robinson: Oh I don 't know . Lash : Oh yeah . I think so . No , and I agree with Curt 's comments . I think that will be really , that would be nice for the residents living there to have just an open field for kids to fly kites or frisbee or whatever they want to do and it 's a lot easier to get to than the rest of the park so I like that too . But since I 'm cheaper or cheapest , I wouldn 't feel comfortable passing up the money for this . Are we just talking about this or can I ask a question about something else too further in? 11 Sietsema: Sure . Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 12 Lash: I have a question, let 's see it was on page 3 in here where we 're ' asking for the bituminous on Audubon . Now is this supposed to be connecting with the concrete by Redmond? Sietsema: Yes . Lash: Doesn't that seem somewhat inconsistent to be going concrete to bituminous? Sietsema: Well our trail fund didn 't pay for the concrete that 's there . II They put that in through the industrial park so as long as the trails that we do, it 's similar to what 's on Kerber Blvd . . We do , if it 's not going in front of homes than the policy is that it would be bituminous . Lash: But it 's concrete by Redmond . Sietsema: Right . It becomes for rural as you get further down the road . I Lash: Does this connect? Sietsema : Yeah . I Lash: This is going to , so we 're going to go from concrete to bituminous? Sietsema : Just like we do on Kerber . . I Resident: Where is the bituminous going? Sietsema: Eventually it will connect all the way down to the school down in Chaska and connect up to the trail systems throughout the rest of the City north of TH 5 . , Resident: There are no trail systems from Chaska currently? Sietsema : Not yet . There 's a trail plan though . That 's the big picture . , Resident: So currently they 're putting this trail on Audubon . . . Sietsema: Along the road . Resident: Where are we going on it? Robinson: It 's on the agenda two items after this one to be discussed . • Lash: Well I don 't know . I guess I just have a problem with that . I think it seems if we 're going to do it , let 's do it right and either have it be one or the other and not just stop with one and start with the other . I I think that 's going to look really strange so whatever people want to do . Can we make him pour concrete? Sietsema : No . I Lash: Well , back to the drawing board on that then . Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 13 Mady: Brian had a question . Brian Olson: Are we on another agenda item tonight? Lash: No . Do you understand what I 'm saying? ' Sietsema: I understand what you 're saying . It 's just that through the industrial park , the HRA was involved in that and they chose to put in concrete sidewalks through that area . As you move into a more rural area where they 're not fronting on the fronts of lots , our trail plan has called for bituminous . Again , similar to what 's done on Kerber where they go by the school , it 's concrete and then you get past the school and it 's bituminous . Mady : HRA deals with concrete . ' Robinson: Is this agreement still effective? ' Sietsema: Yes . Erhart : I think everybody has pretty well covered this . It boils down to what are we short of , money or park and we are definitely short on the ' funds . I understand you coming in here Brian and presenting this to us and trying to get something out of it but I go along with the other commissioners . I 'm also cheap . When I look at our budget , it tells me we need money and I would go along with that . Brian Olson: Before I hear any more I 'll say two things and then stop . One , again this park area is probably the most , I think it almost is the ' most valuable piece of , it 's really getting to be the whole center . People are going to want to come here . . . The other thing is , the $38 ,000 .00 , how they came about that is part of the original PUD was submitted with the ' developer giving up the parkland and the park fees were cut in half so that 's how it was $250 .00 . That 's the only reason that came up with that number . But whatever break I can get , it doesn 't need to be $38 ,000 .00 . ' The other thing is , if we just don 't get anything , we 're giving up some land here that we could include into the lots and theoretically the bigger the lot the more you can get for it so there . . .perhaps when you do see the final form of this it 's not going to be this big . Resident: I have a question . The parkland , the original parkland , what are your plans as far as development? What do you hope to do with it? Sietsema: There 's no concept plan for that area yet . What we would do is at the time that that , now that they 're ready to go in and start developing ' it , we 'll call the neighborhood or the people that live in that area so far , call them in and ask them what they want to see there . See if that 's feasible with the layout of the land and the topography and what not . It 's very much up to the people that live in the area . IResident: When you say the people that live in the area , does that also include the people on Sunset Trail and people on Audubon Road that will I Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 14 1 back up to this even though they aren 't in this development? 1 Sietsema: Yeah . Resident: So we will be informed of this? Sietsema: You were informed . . . Mady: That 's why we asked you to sign the sheet in the back . One of the other comments maybe if I can try to remember from 3 years ago when we Walked the site , that 18 acres on top was , well not all of it 's on top but II it 's somewhat flat . We can make some things happen up there and some of the thoughts were a large soccer field might fit up there . A neighborhood soccer field . We had a nice sliding hill in there . There 's a pond there II so maybe skating could take place in the winter . We 're not sure but some of the things were there so we thought we had enough land that we could make some stuff happen there . At least have an opportunity to do it depending on what , when the concept came . We knew going down the road , once the people started moving in we would develop a concept plan with their input and we 'd know what we 'd want . When we looked at it originally thinking okay what will fit here? What will kind of work in here and we II thought we had enough land to get a nice size soccer field so at least we were looking at a flat piece of ground . Brian Olson : Jim , I think we 're going to be site grading this whole thing II here and that includes the park property . I mentioned to Lori that we need to know what 's going to happen here so we can coordinate that . Schroers: Can I make one comment? Mady: Go ahead . I Schroers: One of the problems that we run into with this , when we go all the time for the most property that we can get , it leaves us with no money . " What happens is we end up with a chunk of land with no money to develop it so the residents come in , buy their new houses and they end up with a weed patch for a park and they end up right back here in this room saying our developer 's told us there was going to be a park there . There 's nothing but weeds and we 're sitting here saying we have no money to do anything with it . That 's our position and that 's why we 're saying that we need , we planned this all out ahead of time like Jim had explained earlier where we II got the land that we needed and also some of the funds to develop that property . We 're trying to avoid problems that have come to us in the past . Resident : I have lived in . . .and I have used some parkland and the prairie II grass and tried to maintain some nature sanctuaries . You have a lot of wildlife in that area . . . Schroers: I think everyone on this commission is very in tune with the environmental needs of these days and everyone is in favor of having green space , natural areas for wildlife and there has to be a balance of both and " that 's what we try to do . 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 15 ' Andrews: I do agree with everybody else that our needs , with my short time on the Board here the number of neighborhoods that have come to us looking for improvement of land that we already have , it 's obvious to me that we ' can 't afford to take another piece of property with no money to provide the development for the neighbors as they move into the new neighborhood . The other concern I would have would be if we were to go ahead and come up with 11 some sort of a ballfield , how would we get city maintenance in there to take care of the ballfield through a wetland area? I also try to look at it from a developer 's standpoint which would be what 's probably going to ' cost you more to prepare that land to build it than it would to just leave it vacant and you 're probably going to be able to get more for the properties that are adjacent to the open spaces anyway . I do commend you for coming to the board and looking for some help but I think we 're in a ' position where we just can 't offer it responsibly because of our needs in other areas of the City . So I do agree with the rest of the commission . ' Brian Olson : That is true . We would get more for the lots around that also . . . I 'm not a hard sell as you can tell . Robinson: I think he said they were going to site grade that whole thing ' in the next couple of months . Does that mean that we should know by then what we plan to do with that acreage? Mady: We will be looking at that? Sietsema: Should be . Lash : It should be on our agenda real quick . Mady: Well unless there 's more discussion , I think a motion 's in order . Andrews: I ' ll make a motion . I vote that we do not accept the additional parklands nor waive any dedication fees concerning this development . ' Sietsema : You don 't want to accept it even if it 's free? Lash: We want to accept it , we just don 't want to waive the fee . Andrews: I said we don 't want to waive any of the fees . Lash : Right but you said don 't accept it . Andrews: I said don 't accept the land and don't waive the fee . Lash : But we would want to accept the land wouldn 't we if he wants to donate it? ' Andrews: That 's true . I stand corrected . If you want to give it to us , we 'll take it . II Robinson : I second . Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 16 Mady: Okay , the motion 's to accept parkland if provided by the developer . II However , no change in the fee structure . Andrews moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to approve the site plan for Lake Susan Hills West with the same conditions outlined in the PUD agreement and to accept parkland if provided' by the developer but to give no additional credit toward park dedication fees_ All voted in favor and the motion carried. Brian Olson: . . .Right now I am 130 feet from using that as a connection through here and I have a connection of this part to be 100 feet wide right here . Is there something I can do here to play with this to get you a wider connection and maybe not . . .in this area or something? Do you need 100 feet right here or can this be down to 7 feet or something? Sietsema: Can you show us how we can get parking in there with less than II 100 feet . Brian Olson: Oh the parking lot would actually be? Sietsema : That would be our only vehicular access to the park is right there . Brian Olson: So all the parking would be right here then? Sietsema : Right . , Mady: We 're not talking about a lot of parking but when a few spots there . Sietsema : We need at least 6 spots for a park that size . , Lash: Could we have the parking in a little bit further and just have that' be an access? Sietsema: Do you want to take up your park space with parking? Brian Olson: It is flat right here . ' Mady: I would prefer not to . Robinson: 100 feet sounds like an awful wide area for 6 parking spaces . Sietsema: For turn around . ' Mady: You need probably 60 feet for the cars . You 've got .the parking , turning and backing area , 20 feet for each so that only leaves you 40 feet II for screening . Sietsema : Because you 've got houses on both sides of there , you want to bell able to landscape and get your turn around areas and what not and we don 't want to take up any more of the flat area , is the way staff was feeling about it , to take any more of the flat area away from the park to put I Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 17 parking in there . We wanted to keep that up close to the street . Brian Olson : Lori and I talked about on the phone I think it was today , ' was perhaps taking these lots back from the original park boundary but see this is a slope area right here where you 're dropping about 20 feet and then 100 feet . So all along , maybe we could extend these back lot lines I out here because that 's really not useable parkland . That 's where that 20% slope is . 1 Sietsema: That seems reasonable . Mady: Yeah , that seems reasonable . My recollection of this 3 years ago , we were thinking of that area would be conducive for a sliding hill in the ' winter and outside of kids running up and down it and having fun and rolling down in the summer , there wasn 't a lot of things we could do to put active . Maybe not even be cutting the area . Maybe just leaving it natural ' but it wasn 't going to be graded flat for sure . Sietsema : The most critical area as far as staff was concerned is right in this area . That that be pulled back as far as it can be so that that narrow area , it 's only 130 feet wide , we don 't want to squeeze that any tighter in that area than we have to . ' Brian Olson: Well we 'll take a look at this too . Maybe we 'll need to move it further north than the original approval to get you an even better connection here . . . Okay , well thank you . ' Schroers : You did a good job Brian . Your timing is just a little bit off . If you knew the recent history of the park , these are the issues that are coming back to haunt us . DISCUSS WINDSCREEN AND TENNIS NETS AT NORTH LOTUS PARK. ' Sietsema: This is Jim 's item . Andrews: The windscreens have been replaced and there 's just one tennis net where there 's a broken cable , like I was mentioning to Lori , that somebody 's tied a rope to keep the net up and it 's pulled all the way across so I don 't know what can be done to get it properly tighten . Somebody would take a look at that and see if it could be improved any 1 further than it already is but somehow my guess is some kids decided to see if they could stand on it or sit on it and snapped it and that 's the way it 's been since the beginning of the spring . Lash : Didn 't you ask Curt also that we discuss windscreens or something? It 's kind of an ongoing problem isn 't it? 1 Robinson : Yeah . There 's none up here , right up here at the school . Sietsema : That 's because they were ripped to shreds by the wind . IRobinson : So well I think we should decide on both of them all at once . Are we going to have windscreens or aren 't we and I 'm not sure . Maybe it 's Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 18 1 just not worth it . ' Mady: One of the thoughts I had on trying to figure out , the problem we 're having is the wind , depending on which direction it 's coming from . If it 'll coming from the direction where the fence side of the windscreen , it 's pushing the windscreen away from the fence and it 's tearing through the grommets and that 's what 's happening probably . If the maintenance department were to take even like a piece of 1 x 4 and put that on the back, side on the screen side of the windscreen against the fence and take another piece of 1 x 4 and put it on the fence side of the windscreen and bolt those two pieces together , they would have a continuous band across II that thing . You wouldn 't be having the pressure points at your individual grommets which are probably , well I don 't know what they 're spaced but I would guess they 're about 2 feet apart , maybe even more . That would distribute the tension on that screen all the way across . It would probably extend the life of the windscreen a couple of years . Now you 're talking about a lot more maintenance than getting it up and taking it down . , If 2 guys trying to put nuts and bolts together on both sides of the thing so it might cause some extra 2 hours to do each individual screen but it would probably save the windscreen for a couple years . Andrews: What do those screens cost us? Sietsema: On a court the size of the one up at the elementary school , I think it 's $1 ,500 .00 . Andrews: Plus the labor up and down? My reaction at North Lotus is , I II just think they 're a waste of money to be honest . For the amount of serviceability you 're getting out of the money invested and labor invested versus how much wind it really reduces , it 's not much at all . It 's a wide open area . It 's not fully enclosed anyway and it seems like whichever way the wind is coming , that part of the screen will blow off anyway . Mady : Maybe what we can do is move those screens over to the City Center Park which does get a lot of use and I know it 's the windiest part of the city . Andrews: You need more shelter there , naturally sheltered area I think to II withstand the wind you get , especially in the spring . Sietsema: I know Dale is looking at that . Schroers: Maybe just a planting a shelter belt and I 've seen tennis courts with wood instead of a screen . Is that not practical? Andrews: Costly . Mady: It 's not as aesthetic either . , Sietsema: It 's just more costly . Andrews: Yeah , North Lotus is just wide open . There 's a half a mile of open space . The wind just gets too strong. II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 19 Schroers: I guess that would be my idea is just to kind of think for the future and do some planting and try to screen it off that way rather . . . Sietsema: Dale is looking into planting . What kind of plantings we could do around those as far as tall bushes , shrubs , trees as well as vines on the fence . They do that in Edina . They have vine covered fences that cuts down on the wind . Lash: And they grow fast . ' Robinson: A community center up here would cut down the wind a lot . Ms.3y : Anything else we need to discuss on windscreens? Andrews: I 'll keep you posted . Robinson : I guess I 'd just like to put it to bed . What was the action that came out of this? ' Sietsema : I was going to have him tighten the tennis net . Look into tightening that . Look into putting boards or some kind of thing to cut down , distribute the wind and also look into a planting plan . If you want to take an action to do away with the tennis windscreens altogether and not purchase those anymore . Andrews: For North Lotus , I think to go the extra expense of putting the I wood up there , I think you 're just throwing good money after bad . I don't think any amount of screening there unless it 's totally enclosed is going to matter . It 's just too open to start with . I guess my opinion would be to leave them up as is and not to put them up next year . Hoffman: Windscreens are for country clubs . ' Robinson : I was over at Round Lake Park today and they have nice windscreens but they have trees around and it is kind of sheltered there . 11 Andrews: That helps . That helps cut the wind . Lash: So do you think that we should take the ones from North Lotus and put them up at school? Schroers: Well it 's certainly not a wise investment to keep buying these expensive nets and put them up and let the wind tear them up . I mean that Idoesn 't make any sense . Andrews: You 're only looking at half the cost . You 've got the materials plus the labor and I ' ll bet you we 've spent more in labor than materials anyway . Up and down and all those little clips you have to put on . It 's extremely expensive . ' Robinson: Does the City Center Park get more use than North Lotus? Andrews: Sure it does . I I/ Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21 , 1990 - Page 20 1 Robinson: Then maybe we should take the ones out of North Lotus and there 's two missing over here I believe or a couple . Some of them are missing over here and put them over here . Andrews: Another approach would be to double them up . Both sides of the II fence . Lash: What a good idea . Robinson: Jan just told me that and I said that 's dumb . Mady: Then you 'd have both sides covered then literally . Lash: Who would have guessed somebody else would come up with that idea . II Andrews: It 's a good idea . It would probably eliminate the damage . Mady: If you have any great , just blurt those things out . ' Lash: Well I hate to blurt out too many stupid things . Andrews: I hate to see you spend the money to take them back down that they 're already up from a labor standpoint . I guess I 'd feel for next spring , I don 't think we should put them back up at Lotus . I think it 's just a waste of time . Sietsema: We don 't take them down because it 's too labor intensive . Andrews : Oh you don 't? Schroers: Let the wind take them down . , Mady: We 've got a comment here . Resident: Are we finished talking about the trails? , Mady: The trails , not that will be the next item . Resident: We don 't have an agenda . It said on our agenda that it would come up at 7:30 and now it 's almost 9:00 and we 're sitting here talking about it . ' Mady: Oh , well our agenda I guess is never , nothing ever comes at the time . The meeting starts at 7:30 . How it progresses is just . . . Resident: I thought I 'd get out of here by 8:00 . Lash: Did we come up with what we 're going to do now for sure in this? Mady: We 're going to leave it . Pemrick: Well what about the vines? I like that idea . Do you know what II it takes to get . I Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 21 Sietsema : I ' ll look into it . Pemrick: Would that be just like a year shot? Sietsema : Well no , it would take a number of years for them to cover a fence and one of the things we didn 't go ahead and do that with the City ' Center is because those fences are in such disrepair and if they 're all going to be replaced , we weren't going to put the vines in and rip them all out so . . . ( There was a tape change at this point in the meeting . ) Sietsema : . . .on the Lake Susan Hills amendment . The item that we just ' previously talked about and that we would be talking about the trails in the parks during that section . So I don 't know what specifically in trails you want to talk about . ' Resident : We didn 't talk about any trails in that system . Where are the trails going to go in the Chanhassen Park thing is what it says . The trail and park issue , where do you about propose them . ' Sietsema : The PUD agreement for this development calls for trails along all the thru streets that are not cul-de-sacs . A sidewalk along all thru streets that are not cul-de-saced . That 's part of the PUD agreement . Resident : Are they going to be 8 feet wide? ' Sietserna : No . In front of the homes they ' ll be 5 foot wide concrete similar to what 's along the first additions that are on the north end of this whole development . Also , it calls for an 8 foot wide , well this ' section of the PUD does not call for anything along Audubon because it doesn 't affect Audubon . The additions north of this called for an 8 foot trail along Audubon but that doesn 't have anything to do with this portion of the PUD because that 's already an approved item . Carolyn Barensky: Just a question . How wide is the sidewalk in front of the McGlynn Bakery? Sietsema : I believe that that is a 6 foot wide concrete . 11 Carolyn Barensky: Why couldn 't that have been extended all the way down to Lyman Blvd . on that side? What are you going to do? Build an underground pass to get from one side to the other? Sietsema : The intention of the trail that goes along McGlynn 's was that the people , the employees of McGlynn 's would be able to access the trail system north . Cross the road there , get on the trail system if they wanted to go south and because the higher density of residential is going to be on the east side of Audubon Road , the rest of that trail system would be on the east side . ' Carolyn Barensky: Where does this trail go along Audubon? II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 22 Sietsema: It will go along Audubon eventually down to Lyman Blvd . . ' Carolyn Barensky: Will it be in the ditch? Sietsema: No , it would be , when they improve the road , it will be along the side of the road . Carolyn Barensky: When they improve what road? • ' Sietsema: Audubon . Carolyn Barensky: Is that going to be improved? Sietsema: Eventually . Mady: At some point in time . As the City fills up , ultimately within , I don 't know how many years it will be but there will probably be homes on both sides of Audubon Road . Carolyn Barensky: There already is . Mady: But I mean you 're talking like these downtown . You 're going to have , homes . Neighborhoods . Carolyn Barensky: Well I think what you 've got to be aware on , Audubon . . . not meant to be . . . Mady : Well , I guess I 'll disagree . 20 years from now the City 's going to II be full . I mean we 're going to have 45 ,000-50 ,000 people here and they 're going to have to be third acre lots ultimately . People are ultimately going to divide their lots up . As property becomes more and more valuable II and the sewer 's there , you 're probably going to see a number of people sell their property . Nothing 's ever forever . 10 years ago all these nice 5 acre lots have now been cut down and we see a few of them every year . Schroers: Basically what you 're going to have to do is just look at Eden Prairie . Eden Prairie used to be . Carolyn Barensky: . . . look and see if that 's what Chanhassen residents want . Schroers: Well you have a point there but development has a way of going 1 and you have to work with the system and when you see what Eden Prairie is like now , that 's a real good indication of what Chanhasse may be like . We would like to see more space saved but space is money and it 's very hard to 11 convince some people that it 's worth that kind of money just to have a green space sitting there . Mady: We don 't necessarily agree with it getting smaller . It 's just looks !' like it 's a fact of life and so we 're trying to in our planning process , do the best job we can to allow as much happening that 's to the benefit of the , people that already exist here because developers like Brian come in here all the time and they 're always , 3 years ago it was approved and this is I Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 23 all the things they were going to do for the City . Now they 're trying to get a little bit more . They 're always looking to get their extra pound of flesh out of us and you 've got to keep your guard up every time . It 's difficult . It 's a tough call . Carolyn Barensky : In other words , you have to keep your job for the rest ' of your life here because you have to know what went on 5 years ago and 10 years ahead . 1 Mady : Well that 's why we have staff . That 's why we have meeting Minutes that are kept forever so that people , because I 've only been here 5 years . Some of these people have been here a few months but as long as we have people here and have some history , you 'll have a flow and you 'll have 1 knowledge . That 's why you keep it written down so you can look back and that 's why we have a comprehensive plan that 's , well I didn 't bring mine tonight but it 's a book thicker than this that you can look at individual portions of the City and see what the ideas were when the plan was developed and what we 're going to try to be doing . It tries to give you some cohesive thought process to getting the City developed yet maintaining ' at least somewhat the rural flavor of this community . Carolyn Barensky : Who 's going to maintain these trails? Mady : The City would . Carolyn Barensky : Plow the snow? Mady: We 're not talking about plowing the snow in all situations . For the last 3 years , we want to have some of those remain open for cross country skiing or snowmobiling . Carolyn Barensky : Snowmobiling? Mady: Yes . In some areas . Lash : Right now the City 's in the process of writing the comprehensive plan for the next 10 years and there 's going to be public hearings this summer so if you have feelings in the direction that you 'd like to see these things go , the public is invited to these and you really should think seriously about providing your input into that . That 's your right as a citizen . Schroers : One thing that is happening with trails right now is that they ' are becoming very popular . People want them but they don 't want to pay for them and they want to use them for a variety of reasons so what you need to do is come up with a multi-purpose trail that can be used for a number of 1 things and figure out a way to pay for it . That 's what we 're going to be discussing and looking at doing with the revision of the comprehensive trail plan . 1 Mady: Okay , should we move on then with the implementation item? Sietsema: My recommendation on the implementation was to postpone any 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 24 discussion until after the joint meeting tomorrow night . ' Mady: Okay , was there any items that anybody wanted to bring up tonight prior to? Carolyn Barensky: What 's the joint meeting tomorrow night? Sietsema: There 's a Park and Recreation Commission and City Council joint II meeting . Kind of a meeting to touch base with each other and figure out what goals are and that everybody 's on the same track . Carolyn Barensky: Do you know what time that is? Sietsema: 7:30 . Mady: It 's in the new conference room courtyard . All meetings are open toll the public . It won 't have a formal agenda type of thing . Sietsema : It 's more of a work session . ' Mady : It 's a work session . Ideas flowing back and forth . Do you need a motion to table? ' Sietsema: No . UPDATE ON CARRICO PROPERTY. Carolyn Barensky: Before you go on could I ask just a couple questions 11 about trails? Mady: Sure . Carolyn Barensky: Who decides where trails go and when they 're built? I II mean from observing just the last few months , basically it looks like when a road is improved , let 's put a trail on . , Mady: That 's what we try to do typically because that 's the cheapest time to do it . Carolyn Barensky: Okay . How do you decide which side of the road they go on? Sietsema: A lot of it depends on the topography . Schroers: And how it 's going to connect into other parts of the trails and" where the majority of the people are coming from that are going to use it . There 's just a large number of factors that are taken into consideration . Carolyn Barensky: And what do you do about easement rights? I Mady: We always try to do it where we already have easements or we already have a roadway easement . Otherwise we have to buy them . ' Schroers: And we try to gain easements from developers? We require it . Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 25 Carolyn Barensky: Where you have to buy land , where is that money coming from? I just sat here and heard how Park and Rec doesn 't have money to develop . Mady: We don 't . Carolyn Barensky: Where are you getting money to buy this land? Mady : Every time a home gets built in the city of Chanhassen , a piece of property gets developed , there 's a park fee and a trail fee that gets charged . Well usually there is . Sometimes they get forgiven or credited 1 like we did with this guy . He only has to pay 50% and there are reasons to do that . But typically it 's $165 .00 per single family home that 's built for trails and $500 .00? Sietsema : $400 .00 an acre for industrial . Oh , for trails . ' Mady : For trails it 's $500 .00 for the park fee per home . Then there are different amounts for if it 's an industrial plant going up or apartment buildings . The fees are different but typically it 's $500 .00 for a house and $165 .00 for a house for trail and park . Carolyn Barensky: And what 's the Board 's philosophy on mature trees that . . . Mady : The trees come first . ' Carolyn Barensky : Where do you go with the path? Mady : You go around it . ' Carolyn Barensky: Do you go closer to the house or do you go towards the street? ' Mady : Whichever way has to be done . Schroers : Whatever makes the most sense and is the most feasible . 11 Sietsema : Do you live on Audubon Road? Carolyn Barensky : Yes I do . Sietsema : Okay . Typically what we do is we try to stay within the road right-of-way so if we have to meander around the trees . It may be necessary then to go , put the trail right up against the road rather than to take the trees out . I don 't know of any instance where we 've taken the trees out because the trail had to go through . I Carolyn Barensky : . . .If Audubon Road is approved , I have a lot of mature trees on my land . Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 26 Sietsema: And they wouldn 't go if the road was in without the trail? ' Carolyn Barensky: I 'm not sure . Sietsema : I think that they would . Carolyn Barensky: They 're all on my land . They 're not on the easement . Schroers: I can give you a prime example . We built the trail along the Carver Beach Road and there was one big mature cottonwood tree that all the residents came in and voiced a concern and there was concerns both for and ' against the tree . Some people felt we should take the tree out because we shouldn 't have a corner there because people are going to come down the hill , miss the corner and run into the tree . Other people it was the only mature tree in their front yard and they didn 't want to lose it . We looked at the situation . We decided to build the trail around the tree . It happens to be right across from my house and that tree didn 't matter to me other than the fact that I hate to lose a mature tree anywhere that we have to but I 've gone up and down the block . Talked to all the residents . Everybody 's totally happy with the trail . The tree is not hurt and the tree hasn 't hurt anyone and it 's come out just fine . People are real apprehensive and real concerned about new things but when they see the finished product , a lot of times they 're pretty satisfied with it . Mady : Most of the time those sidewalks and trails , they 're actually sited I on the property . On a piece of , a drawing up here it may look like it 's going to go straight through but usually the engineers go out there and they literally do it foot by foot . Whatever makes the best sense . A number of times they 'll do it with the resident of that particular property right there . Schroers: Especially right now with the environment in such focus that there 's particular attention being paid to mature trees and wetlands . Resident : In the discussions tomorrow night , will the parkland that 's on II the north side of the third phase of Lake Susan Hills West , will that be discussed tomorrow night? Sietsema: No . Mady : Probably not . I Robinson: This is a total city trail plan issue that will be discussed tomorrow night . ' Resident: It 's just the trails then? Mady: Well it 's anything that comes up at the meeting because it 's a work II session but the ideas on the agenda are to talk about how do we go about getting , building this trail . You know we 've got a huge trail plan and now it 's how can we , how do we build it over the next 20 years . It 's kind of all pie in the sky type of meeting . I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 27 Lash: If you have a concern about a specific park though why don 't you make sure and let Lori know that so when that is on our agenda you ' ll be notified . ' Mady : Or it can be put on our agenda . Sietsema: Put your phone number down and I can give you a call . Mady: I mean if you have a concern she can put it on our agenda so we ' discuss it . That 's one of the ways we have items on the discussion is somebody has to take the step forward to say there 's a problem or something needs to be looked at so we can look at it . Thanks for all your help tonight and if you haven 't signed the sheet , please do so . UPDATE ON CARRICO PROPERTY. Sietsema: We got it . Mad,- : Did we? Now has Carrico 's option run out? ' Sietsema : Yes . We have entered into an option agreement with the owner of the property who happens to be the President of the Franklin State Bank . The bank foreclosed on the property and he purchased it from the bank so he is the: legal owner of the property . We 've entered into an option agreement . Not an actual purchase agreement so that we legally have first option on the property and he can 't sell it to anybody else without giving ' us that first option . The agreed upon price is $145 ,000 .00 and we will be planning to hold public hearings in June to make sure that the people in the area want us to purchaes it and then we can enter into the purchase 1 agreement any time after that and go into closing . Mady: Could we send out a letter to the people who have been here? ' Sietsema : I have contacted a number of them and the word is out . Mady: Because I want to make sure they know already that this is I happening . I don 't want them to have to wait until June . That 's another month . I mean they 've complained enough that . . . Sietsema : They had given me a list of people that wanted to be kept updated on the project and I 've given them all calls . Mady : That 's okay . I just wanted to make sure they 're informed before it ' shows up in the paper . Lash: Are we glad we didn 't jump to Carrico 's tune or condemn it and end ' up having to pay 2 or 3 times that? Robinson: Procrastination pays . That 's a good job Lori . I 'm sure you hassled that through . IErhart : Yeah , that 's wonderful Lori . II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 28 1 Sietsema: No action is necessary . And what I thought was kind of comical II is that right after the last time we discussed this , we had talked about acquiring the land adjacent to and the guy wants $300 ,000 .00 for 3 1/2 acres . Mady: The guy 's no dummy . He saw the going rate and he . . . Can 't blame him for that . ' UPDATE ON FISH MANAGEMENT ON CHANHASSEN LAKES. Mady: Todd , it looks great . Hoffman: Again , I just an informational item . If you have any specific questions that you would like me to take back to Duane Shodeen or anybody II else at the DNR . Mady: One thing , could you send this , something like this to the papers so' they could , that way it 'd be nice if this information went out to the general public . I know a number of my neighbors would like to know it . I 'm sure that Dave Peterson and Chris Burns and whoever does the weekly news , sometimes has a need for space and there 's nothing timely about this II so it could in anytime in the next two months and still provide some information to the City . Schroers: I would like to know the location and feeding time of the . . .Walleye in the city of Chanhassen . Sietsema : That 's classified information . I Mady : What you need to do Larry is go out with the DNR when they 're netting and find out what they 've got . ' Schroers: Hey those guys , they come to our parks and they are very tight lipped . They don 't even talk to us . They just come in . They go out and II they dump their fish and they leave . Lash: Lori , I just think for the record and for our Minutes we should get these people 's names and addresses who were making these comments just so City Council knows . Mady: I think all of them signed up . ' Sietsema: It will be in the Minutes . Lash: Oh , it will be in the Minutes? , Sietsema: She lists everybody that 's on the sign up sheet . Lash: Okay . DISCUSSION OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. Sietsema: This is just in there to remind you that there has been 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 29 scheduled a joint meeting with the City Council . You should bring any items that you may have that you want to talk about with the Council to that meeting . I don 't know if you wanted to discuss some of those items here tonight or if you just wanted to come with your own . Mady: I think it 'd be best if we just waited until tomorrow night so we ' don 't necessarily take a lot of time to rehash things . The Council 's not going to be here to benefit from any discussion anyway so I think the best thing would be to wait until tomorrow night . Robinson: Well one of the things on the agenda that maybe we could get a feel on because the time is always so valuable it seems like when we 're with the City Council , and that 's the chairing procedures and techniques . ' Erhart : Now what 's going on there? Robinson: We were kind of split on that it seemed like and it 's always brought up a year ago . I Siet,ema : It 's not the rotating chair . It was I think that Mayor Chmiel ;w: n eJ to give , since we do rotate the chair and it is a new experience for some people , to give them some ideas on techniques on how to manage an audience I believe . He had requested that it be put on and I believe that 's where he was coming from . Schroers : I hope it is because otherwise when this thing keeps coming up ' all the time , it seems kind of silly . Erhart : It 's not about the rotating chair I don 't think . 1 Robinson: Oh , I thought it was again and I thought . . . Schroers : Yeah , that 's what I thought too . ' Sietsema : It 's more procedures . I don 't know if he 'll go over Robert 's Rules of Order or it 's just some helpful hints I think on how to manage a ' big crowd . Robinson: Good . ' Schroers: We could all use that . COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: Mady: I have one . Does anyone else have anything? Schroers : I just want to commend Todd , Lori and all of us who had anything ' to do with the fishing pier . I was down there on it tonight . Beautiful . People are going to really enjoy it . It 's in an ideal location . The end of the pier is just at the drop off in the lake where it should lend itself to ' be a good area to fish and we did good on that one . Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 30 • 1 Mady : Say Todd, would you ask the DNR to tie up a 5 pound Northern there I with Jan 's name on it . Lash: Yeah , I want to catch it in the fishing contest . Call me a broken I record but what 'd you find out about the playground equipment up there at Lake Ann? Sietsema: If it 's in yet? I haven't heard anything . I haven 't heard if I it 's in or anything yet . Lash: It hasn 't been delivered yet? Sietsema: To tell you the truth , I didn 't even check . Lash: Could you check on that? 1 Sietsema: Yeah , I will . I 'll make a note . ' Schroers: There was a telephone or NSP truck up there tonight . Is some work being done on that shelter right now? Sietsema : He 's checking probably a break in the line again from construction on the phone line down to the beach . Mady : The item I had . There was an article in the paper , I don 't remember " w"ich paper it was now , concerning the historical significance of the Bandimere Homestead . I just wanted to have an update . Is there an update?' Sietsema: I read the article too . Mady : I saw it . It was the first I heard of anything . Sietsema: I don 't know anything more about it than you do . I know that there is a resident that lives down there that feels that the original I buildings should be preserved . I question whether it 's worth it . The out buildings are very , I wouldn 't walk in either one of them for fear the roof would fall on my head and the fixtures have all been ripped out of there . The cupboards have been ripped out . Erhart: There 's nothing unique about it . There are old homes like that all over the place . Maybe you should put mine on a historical register . ' Schroers: The only thing that 's historical about it is where it 's sitting . Sietsema: Yours would be something to preserve . This one has been gutted . ' Erhart : It 's not unique is what I 'm saying . Lash: Is she saying preserved on the site or like moved somewhere? Pemrick : No , she wanted . I can talk about this . It 's my neighbor and shell called me on it and Jill was real concerned because she said Chanhassen has so few historic buildings . You know we 've got the one right in Town Square 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 31 or whatever and that 's about it for now and she went and did research and called the Historical Society and she was reading me all these fascinating facts , which were really interesting from the Bandimere 's past you know . When it was first homesteaded and what not and it was very interesting . I think we need to give her and interested citizens the benefit of having the Historical Society look at it and just check it . ' Sietsema: Right and I don 't think that that 's anything that couldn 't be done . ' Pemrick: But as far as uniqueness goes , I don 't think there 's anything really unique . Erhart.: Is she saying keep it there or move it? Pemrick: No , no . She wants to keep it there and maybe make some kind of ' meeting room or have classes there . Mady : We ' ll find out . ' Pemrick: But I think we need to look at it and make sure that the Historical Society does get some input into it . ' Lash : Do you think that one of her motivations is to not have the park developed? Pemrick: No . Mady : That 's the picnic area we 're talking about because it 's so wooded ' right there . Andrews: That house is in terrible condition . ' Pemrick : She 's just real concerned about an apparent lack of concern in conserving old buildings in Chanhassen . ' Schroers : I can tell you one thing that that can be something that can really come back to haunt you . From experience I know that we have some historical sites and when you have historical sites , people focus on them and they want them refurbished and put back into a condition where they 're 1 suitable for public viewing and all that stuff . The costs with redoing an historical site is astronomical . IErhart : Talk to me , I know . Mady: Well the City has right now , I think we still own the old railroad 1 depot . The Natural Green property on TH 5 . Sietsema : We own the depot , not the property . I Mady : Yeah , the depot . If anyone 's gotten close to that thing , it 's going to take a lot of work to get it to the semblence of , it looks fairly nice from TH 5 . You get up close to it and you realize how much dry rot 's in Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 32 1 the building . ' Pemrick: And I made the comment about the money involved in something like' this and the comment back to me was , well with all the money Chanhassen seems to have with what they 're doing downtown , there should be plenty to take care of . . . Mady: It depends on who 's money you 're talking about . Pemrick: I 'm just relaying what was said to me . Resident: . . .you 're right , it will cost probably $100 ,000 .00 or more thousand dollars to restore it at least and that would just be semi- restoring ' it . I think what you need to look at is the property that is privately owned in the City of Chanhassen and try to help them retain their historical status . Mad/ : Maybe what we need to do , what Eden Prairie 's done and they have a I Historical Commission . They have a separate body that just does that . Erhart : That would be good . Jill might be interested in that . Mady: Bring it up tomorrow night . Resident : . . . if I could give you my phone number , I would love to have your neighbor 's phone number because the County Historical Society has recommended to me that Chanhassen do that and he , the director at the County Historical Society has said he would provide some help if you 're interested . Pemrick: Oh I now Jill would be very interested . Mady : I guess I 'm not in favor of too many commissions and meetings always but that might be something that 's important . You can put it on your notes' for tomorrow night . Resident: How did you get the railroad depot did you say? ' Mady: Oh geez , I don 't remember how we did that but that was a couple years ago . Sietsema: Somebody bought it . Mady: It was the old Council . Resident : You mean you own the property? Mad/: No , we own the building . The building itself . Sietsema : We just own the structure and the thought was that we 'd put it somewhere down . . . Resident : In other words you have to move it? Park and Rec Commission Meeting II May 22 , 1990 - Page 33 1 Msdy : At some point in time we 'll have to move it . I Resident: Be aware , the Historical Register , that if you move a building it 's no longer on the Historical Register . ISietsema : This has already been moved once . Mady: At least twice . When we looked at that one , at that same time we I were looking at the old Merry-Go-Round structure from Excelsior when it was out in Victoria before they put in the golf course . We looked at that real seriously and we just tried to figure out we 'd make that work and we just couldn 't . It was in pretty rough shape boy . We looked good and hard at Ithat and the Council looked at it too and it just couldn 't . Sohroers : About all you could have done with that is use it as a blueprint Iand build another one . Mad:/ : If they 're brought up we look at them but boy , I think we probably I need a body that has some interest in it that knows what they 're looking at and has some direction from the staff . ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: IHoffman: I have one addition . Lori brought it up at the last meeting . There v;.a_a some question about the budget report on all the park and I recreation programs that we do and specifically what information would you lik:^ Would you like it from the past , from the 1990 calendar year from the past 6 months? Is there any further direction on that? Andrews: What I was wondering were what were the fees that are charged for the various fees for service things that we provide in the Park and Rec . ISietsema : You want to know also if we 're making money on anything . Andrews: I 'll be able to figure that out from revenues and expenses but. I I just wanted to know what we 're charging and for my own information I 'd like to take a look at if we 're swamped with demand and we 're charging a low fee , why not raise it . I Sietsema : Because it 's pretty much across the board with a few exceptions that are loser , they 're break even . Most of the programs are break even . Playground costs us money . We make a little money on softball . Andrews : There are different ways to make profit so I know that in the softball area particularly , we have a tremendous demand on our facilities I and we 'r< going to have further demands that require us to spend money to improve fields and light fields and provide various improvements that I think those improvements should be paid for by an increase in the fees . IMad/: It might be an item for tomorrow night . II Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22 , 1990 - Page 34 I Andrews: I don 't think tomorrow night would be appropriate for that . I need the information to look at before I . . . Mady: Okay , I just say everytime you raise fees you have a tendency to . . . II The tape ran out at this point in the meeting . A motion was made and the II meeting was adjourned. Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 CITYOF /A' i 4 =t _ CHANHASSEN ,, . 1 s ,,,, ,,,. __... - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1 1 ! e � MEMORANDUM 4 J ii 1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager e FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director IDATE: May 31, 1990 I SUBJ: Request for Allocation of Additional Funding to Complete the Comprehensive Plan 1 The purpose of this memo is to request an additional allocation of funds to allow for the completion of the new City Comprehensive Plan. II became involved in the Comprehensive Plan when I joined the City in September of 1989. At that time work on the plan had I sporadically proceeded, but the Land Use Plan and most of the other major plan elements had not yet been developed. Work on the plan was initiated for several reasons. The Metropolitan Council is requiring plan updates to bring plans into compliance with I Metropolitan Systems Statements. The Lake Ann Agreement stipulated a new Comprehensive Plan if the MUSA Line was to be moved in any significant way. Finally, the City was running out of serviceable 1 land within the MUSA Line. The impact of this last factor cannot be underestimated. At the time work on the plan was started, the rapidity of Chanhassen's growth was not fully understood. After I experiencing a growth rate of 400 dwellings per year for several years and adding over 3,000 new jobs, it became clear that the scope of the plan update would be greatly expanded. I Work has proceeded at a rapid pace with the program on track to deliver the plan to the Metropolitan Council in the fall of 1990, contingent upon the amount of changes required based upon public I input and City Council review. ;The pace of plan drafting and the involvement of staff in directly drafting portions of the plan has greatly increased since last fall. It is hoped that the total I r: ount of dollars required to complete the plan can be minimized by 1 - rforming as muc work as possible "in-house", utilizing outside c4nsultants only ,s required. I I Mr. Don Ashworth May 31, 1990 Page 2 There are a number of factors that led up to this request for , additional funds. These are summarized below: 1. The scope of the work effort required to complete the plan grew with the rapid pace of the City's growth. 2. Since I came on board late in the budget process, I was unable to program out the required work effort and related expenditures and get the City Council to act on it with the 1990 budget. , 3. An additional $1,000 to $2,000 is required to develop appropriate traffic forecasts from the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. We had the model re-run with growth projections contained in the plan to provide accurate data for inclusion in the plan. 4. The Metropolitan Council has increased the complexity of plan ' submittal requirements, particularly in the areas of traffic forecasting, water quality, population projections and capital improvements programming. Responding to these demands is essential but is also time consuming and expensive. 5. Although the official public hearing process has just been initiated, public input has been obtained throughout the process. It has resulted in numerous significant modifications to the draft plan, thus increasing demands on time and funding. It is difficult to accurately anticipate the magnitude of work stemming from citizen input. A total of $10,000 was budgeted for fiscal year 1990. Staff anticipates that an additional $25,000 is necessary to complete the project. The cost estimate includes approximately $8,000 in unfunded liabilities that have already been expended or committed to date to allow for the timely completion of the plan. The cost estimate is based upon completion of the plan by fall, 1990. If the work effort extends considerably beyond this date due to continuing significant revisions, additional funding will be required. I I I 11 I . CITYOF __ 1 , - CHANHASSEN ..,0 _ _ , ,,., r -“.. _.- k - , 690 COULTER DRIVE P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 wpb (612) 937-19000 FAX (612) 937-5739 1 MEMORANDUM IITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Q IDATE: May 31, 1990 I SUBJ: Request for Allocation of Additional Funding to Complete the Comprehensive Plan I The purpose of this memo is to request an additional allocation of funds to allow for the completion of the new City Comprehensive Plan. II became involved in the Comprehensive Plan when I joined the City in September of 1989. At that time work on the plan had I sporadically proceeded, but the Land Use Plan and most of the other major plan elements had not yet been developed. Work on the plan was initiated for several reasons. The Metropolitan Council is requiring plan updates to bring plans into compliance with I Metropolitan Systems Statements. The Lake Ann Agreement stipulated a new Comprehensive Plan if the MUSA Line was to be moved in any significant way. Finally, the City was running out of serviceable I land within the MUSA Line. The impact of this last factor cannot be underestimated. At the time work on the plan was started, the rapidity of Chanhassen's growth was not fully understood. After I experiencing a growth rate of 400 dwellings per year for several years and adding over 3,000 new jobs, it became clear that the scope of the plan update would be greatly expanded. I Work has proceeded at a rapid pace with the program on track to deliver the plan to the Metropolitan Council in the fall of 1990, contingent upon the amount of changes required based upon public I input and City Council review. The pace of plan drafting and the involvement of staff in directly drafting portions of the plan has greatly increased since last fall. It is hoped that the total amount of dollars required to complete the plan can be minimized by I performs- as much work as possible "in-house", utilizing outside consulta: only as required. I I II Mr. Don Ashworth May 31, 1990 Page 2 There are a number of factors that led up to this request for i additional funds. These are summarized below: 1. The scope of the work effort required to complete the plan grew with the rapid pace of the City's growth. 2. Since I came on board late in the budget process, I was unable to program out the required work effort and related expenditures and get the City Council to act on it with the 1990 budget. , 3. An additional $1,000 to $2,000 is required to develop appropriate traffic forecasts from the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. We had the model re-run with growth projections contained in the plan to provide accurate data for inclusion in the plan. 4. The Metropolitan Council has increased the complexity of plan submittal requirements, particularly in the areas of traffic forecasting, water quality, population projections and capital improvements programming. Responding to these demands is essential but is also time consuming and expensive. 5. Although the official public hearing process has just been ' initiated, public input has been obtained throughout the process. It has resulted in numerous significant modifications to the draft plan, thus increasing demands on time and funding. It is difficult to accurately anticipate the magnitude of work stemming from citizen input. A total of $10,000 was budgeted for fiscal year 1990. Staff anticipates that an additional $25,000 is necessary to complete the project. The cost estimate includes approximately $8,000 in unfunded liabilities that have already been expended or committed , to date to allow for the timely completion of the plan. The cost estimate is based upon completion of the plan by fall, 1990. If the work effort extends considerably beyond this date due to continuing significant revisions, additional funding will be required. 1 1 , CITY OF .v CHANHASSEN r - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1 DATE: May 31, 1990 1 SUBJ: Request for Allocation of Additional Funding to Complete the Comprehensive Plan The purpose of this memo is to request an additional allocation of funds to allow for the completion of the new City Comprehensive Plan. 1 I became involved in the Comprehensive Plan when I joined the City in September of 1989. At that time work on the plan had 1 sporadically proceeded, but the Land Use Plan and most of the other major plan elements had not yet been developed. Work on the plan was initiated for several reasons. The Metropolitan Council is requiring plan updates to bring plans into compliance with 1 Metropolitan Systems Statements. The Lake Ann Agreement stipulated a new Comprehensive Plan if the MUSA Line was to be moved in any significant way. Finally, the City was running out of serviceable 1 land within the MUSA Line. The impact of this last factor cannot be underestimated. At the time work on the plan was started, the rapidity of Chanhassen's growth was not fully understood. After 1 experiencing a growth rate of 400 dwellings per year for several years and adding over 3,000 new jobs, it became clear that the scope of the plan update would be greatly expanded. 1 Work has proceeded at a rapid pace with the program on track to deliver the plan to the Metropolitan Council in the fall of 1990, contingent upon the amount of changes required based upon public 1 input and City Council review. The pace of plan drafting and the involvement of staff in directly drafting portions of the plan has greatly increased since last fall. It is hoped that the total 1 -mount of dollars required to complete the plan can be minim.. zed by erforming as much work as possible "in-house", utilizing ?tsic consultants only as required. 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth May 31, 1990 Page 2 There are a number of factors that led up to this request for additional funds. These are summarized below: 1. The scope of the work effort required to complete the plan grew with the rapid pace of the City's growth. 2. Since I came on board late in the budget process, I was unable to program out the required work effort and related expenditures and get the City Council to act on it with the 1990 budget. 3. An additional $1,000 to $2,000 is required to develop appropriate traffic forecasts from the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. We had the model re-run with growth projections contained in the plan to provide accurate data for inclusion in the plan. 4. The Metropolitan Council has increased the complexity of plan ' submittal requirements, particularly in the areas of traffic forecasting, water quality, population projections and capital improvements programming. Responding to these demands is essential but is also time consuming and expensive. 5. Although the official public hearing process has just been initiated, public input has been obtained throughout the process. It has resulted in numerous significant modifications to the draft plan, thus increasing demands on time and funding. It is difficult to accurately anticipate the magnitude of work stemming from citizen input. A total of $10,000 was budgeted for fiscal year 1990. Staff anticipates that an additional $25,000 is necessary to complete the project. The cost estimate includes approximately $8,000 in unfunded liabilities that have already been expended or committed to date to allow for the timely completion of the plan. The cost estimate is based upon completion of the plan by fall, 1990. If the work effort extends considerably beyond this date due to continuing significant revisions, additional funding will be required. CITY OF .r „„ti er CHANHASSEN .p _ _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 * FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director(, ' DATE: May 31, 1990 ' SUBJ: Request for Allocation of Additional Funding to Complete the Comprehensive Plan ' The purpose of this memo is to request an additional allocation of funds to allow for the completion of the new City Comprehensive ' Plan. I became involved in the Comprehensive Plan when I joined the City in September of 1989. At that time work on the plan had sporadically proceeded, but the Land Use Plan and most of the other major plan elements had not yet been developed. Work on the plan was initiated for several reasons. The Metropolitan Council is ' requiring plan updates to bring plans into compliance with Metropolitan Systems Statements. The Lake Ann Agreement stipulated a new Comprehensive Plan if the MUSA Line was to be moved in any significant way. Finally, the City was running out of serviceable land within the MUSA Line. The impact of this last factor cannot be underestimated. At the time work on the plan was started, the rapidity of Chanhassen's growth was not fully understood. After ' experiencing a growth rate of 400 dwellings per year for several years and adding over 3,000 new jobs, it became clear that the scope of the plan update would be greatly expanded. ' Work has proceeded at a rapid pace with the program on track to deliver the plan to the Metropolitan Council in the fall of 1990, contingent upon the amount of changes required based upon public ' input and City Council review. ;The pace of plan drafting and the involvement of staff in directly drafting portions of the plan has greatly increased since last fall. It is hoped that the total ' amount of dollars required to complete the plan ca; e minimized by performing as much work as possible "in-house", a izing =: tside consultants only as required. t Mr. Don Ashworth May 31, 1990 Page 2 There are a number of factors that led up to this request for additional funds. These are summarized below: 1. The scope of the work effort required to complete the plan grew with the rapid pace of the City's growth. 2. Since I came on board late in the budget process, I was unable to program out the required work effort and related expenditures and get the City Council to act on it with the 1990 budget. 3. An additional $1,000 to $2,000 is required to develop appropriate traffic forecasts from the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. We had the model re-run with growth projections contained in the plan to provide accurate data for inclusion in the plan. 4. The Metropolitan Council has increased the complexity of plan ' submittal requirements, particularly in the areas of traffic forecasting, water quality, population projections and capital improvements programming. Responding to these demands is essential but is also time consuming and expensive. 5. Although the official public hearing process has just been initiated, public input has been obtained throughout the process. It has resulted in numerous significant modifications to the draft plan, thus increasing demands on time and funding. It is difficult to accurately anticipate the magnitude of work stemming from citizen input. A total of $10,000 was budgeted for fiscal year 1990. Staff ' anticipates that an additional $25,000 is necessary to complete the project. The cost estimate includes approximately $8,000 in unfunded liabilities that have already been expended or committed to date to allow for the timely completion of the plan. The cost estimate is based upon completion of the plan by fall, 1990. If the work effort extends considerably beyond this date due to continuing significant revisions, additional funding will be required.