1k. Minutes lk ,
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
' REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 26, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order. at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened
' with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor_ Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman ,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Jo Ann
Olsen and Jim Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions to the Council Presentations:
Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss Council ethics in working with developers
and a possible conflict of interest on his part; Councilwoman Dimler wanted to
discuss the RTD nomination and the SuperAmer_ica at TH 7 and TH 41; Councilman
Workman wanted to discuss the Lake Riley chain of lakes project and Lake Lucy
Road watermai.n project; and Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the Public Safety
Commission Minutes, Eurasian Water Milfoil and goals and objectives. All voted
in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried.
' RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew the name for the recycling program
prize and presented it to Dave Pederson.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman_ Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. South Lotus Villas:
' 1. Approval of Plans and Specifications
2. Approval of Development Contract
3. Resolution #89-77: Land Use Plan Amendment
4. Final Plat Approval
d. Consider Cooperative Agency Status with MnDot for TH 212.
' e. Approval of Temporary 2 Day Liquor License for Chanhassen Rotary.
Y
g. Wetland Alteration Permit for Construction of Lake Drive and Market
Boulevard.
h. Wetland Alteration Permit for Construction of a Duck Pond, Alan Lenhart.
j. Approve Liquor Concession Agreement Bloomberg Companies and International
Broadcasting Corporation.
1! k. Approval of Findings of Fact, Convesco, Oak View Heights.
1. Set Special Meeting Date, Joint City Council/Park and Recreation Commission
Meeting.
1 1
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
n. Accounts Payable.
o. City Council Minutes dated June 12, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 7, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 13, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD ADDITION, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT.
Councilman Johnson: I noticed when we did the last preliminary plat we had a
condition that the sediment pond be repaired before the final plat. The
sediment isn't repaired. It's still there. They've had 5 months now. 4 months
now and the sediment pond that failed this winter is still broken. I move to
table any further action on Lake Susan Hills West until that sediment pond is
repaired.
Councilman Workman: Jay, where's it located? '
Councilman Johnson: Right along the highway there. Right along CR 17.
Gary Warren: North of Lake Susan Drive. Right on CR 17 on the west side. ,
Councilman Johnson: They've ignored staff's pleas to do it. They've ignored
the Council direction to do it and now it's time for action. They're coming in
asking for more without doing what we told than to do last time so I'm moving to
table.
Mayor Chmiel: Ray, do you wish to address the Council? 1
Ray Brandt: Yes. I'm Ray Brandt with Brandt Engineering and Surveying. 2705
Woods Trail in Burnsville. That situation has been awarded, I mean Probe
Engineering took care of the design of it and Nodeland is going to install the
whatever you call it that keeps the leaves, I can't think of the ward but
there's a box that's going in there. Skimmer_ and I was just told today that '
should be done very shortly but I can't tell you what shortly is.
Gary Warren: June 8th staff received a submittal on the bafflewear structure
from Probe Engineering and it was explained to us that that would be done
shortly thereafter. Constructed, we basically said that the plan was
acceptable.
Mayor Chmiel: When was the discussions?
Gary Warren: This would have been June 8th, June 9th timeframe right after we
got it. We've been trying, in fact today even to track down representatives
from Nodeland who haven't been returning our calls now so we still are on the
hook. In fact not in concert with Councilman Johnson, I had drafted a letter
today to Argus notifying than that we were going to suspend building permits
until that was completed so I guess we have been concerned that there's been
Ellenough time.
2 1
165
' City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: It sounds like that's consistent with our motion as such.
uch.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that if the City is going to suspend building
permits, that that handles the problem and we should go ahead and make progress
on this plat.
Mayor_ Chmiel: I think I'll stick with Jay's motion Bill until it's finalized. I
realize that there may be a problen there but we've requested that several
things be done and this is about the only way we can make sure that it's going
' to be done. I'd suggest possibly that you contact the individual who has drawn
this together and have them get ahold of Gary and get that resolved. I have a
motion on the floor. Is there a second?
' Councilman Boyt: I hate to see this carried over when we've already done the
background reading. It's just going to add something to a future agenda. If
'
there's additional discussion, maybe we should hold that. I've got a couple of
conditions I'd like to see added here so if it comes back up, it can come back
on the Consent Agenda and just be passed.
' Councilman Johnson: There's been no second as of yet so we can just continue
the discussion on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we could do Bill in conjunction with that is to
approve it with the 2 conditions that you have and approve it under the
condition that once it's in, then you may start procedure with the construction.
Councilman Johnson: That's what we did last time.
Mayor Chmiel: That got put by the wayside?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Jo Ann Olsen: They haven't received final plat approval.
Gary Warren: On the 2nd plat.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, that was the final plat. They haven't received it
yet?
Gary War-r_en: This is just preliminary.
Councilman Johnson: But the last time we voted was a final plat?
IMayor Chmiel: Strictly preliminary plat.
Councilman Johnson: And they haven't asked for the final plat approval yet?
' Mayor Chmiel: Not yet.
Jo Ann Olsen: Not for the 3rd Addition.
Gary Warren: The 2nd he's talking about.
1 3
■
"Lry Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilman Johnson: The last time we told him to fix this was in conjunction
with the final plat approval. They haven't gotten their final plat approval
yet?
Jo Ann Olsen: We haven't signed off on the mylars or anything yet.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so we've still got than held up on that plat too? ,
Okay. Since they really haven't taken any action on what we said last time, as
far as they haven't gotten their final plat, which is when we told than they had
to fix that before they get their final plat, that continues. They can't start
moving dirt out there until they get their final plat so I guess they haven't
violated our specific wishes except for 4 to 6 weeks is too long for something
like this to hang fire. I'd like to withdraw my motion and add a condition that
we support Gary's no future building permits as one of the conditions to (i) and
whatever the other conditions Bill wants to add in here. Get it on in that way.
Councilman Boyt: Okay the first one, Gary mentioned Lake Drive East and that's '
a collector. I would like all deeds to include recognition that Lake Drive East
will serve as a collector. The other condition also relates to something I'd
like attached to the deeds of each piece of property. All lots must demonstrate
location of a house pad outside 75 foot wetland setback. That's in relation to
one particular lot in which there's some question if they can do that. Along
with that condition, all property holders must be notified if further expansion
of their house, deck, additional garages would require a variance. There's some
12,000 square foot lots in this particular portion of the PUD and my intent
would be to make it very clear that those would require variances and that
variances require a hardship out of the control of the property owner. I think '
we need to be sure that people are well informed when they buy their property.
Mayor Chmiel: It's a buyer. beware.
Councilman Johnson: We're helping than to become aware.
Councilman Workman: At what time would a buyer be notified of some of that? '
From a realtor?
Councilman Boyt: They'd see it on their deed. It would come as one of the
conditions.
Councilman Johnson: To tell you the truth, I've never read my deed.
Councilman Boyt: Well the development contract Isn't enough. I want the
property owner to be notified in writing of the constraints on that piece of
property. So how do we do that? '
Roger Knutson: In the development contract which is recorded against the
property. Before the final plat, simultaneously at the recording of the final
plat, the development contract is recorded so anyone who buys a piece of
property in that plat sees that contract has been recorded against his property.
Councilman Boyt: The question I would have is, what happens when the City signs I
off on a development contract? All the streets and sewers are in and we
tilrelinquish our hold on the escrow monies?
4
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
•
Roger Knutson: We relinquish our financial hold.
' Councilman Boyt: So it's still in place?
Gary Warren: We've been releasing lots though from the DC.
Roger_ Knutson: What we can do is just release our financial hold on them when
there are restrictions like that.
' Councilman Johnson: So you're saying, instead of reading their deed, they have
to read the development contract which is 100 pages thick too and they won't
even have that with their deed. There's got to be some way to inform the buying
public of these problems.
Roger Knutson: That's the best way to get it on the deed. It's not on the deed
physically but it's on their Abstract so when they buy the property they see it.
Councilman Johnson: They see that there's a development contract. They don't
see the requirements.
Roger Knutson: It's just like when you buy a home that has covenants against
it. You don't see the covenants written on the deed. The Abstract says there
are covenants recorded against the property and anyone who's concerned would
read them.
' Councilman Johnson: Okay, it won't just say there's a development contract
recorded against the property?
Roger Knutson: That's what the Abstract will say.
Councilman Johnson: The Abstract will say that? And then it's up to the buyer
to figure out what that means.
Roger_ Knutson: To read them. Anyone buying property with an Attorney or anyone
who is at all knowledgeable will read that. y
Councilman Johnson: Not everybody uses attorneys.
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilman Boyt: To move this along then I would adjust that condition
would work with our attorney in developing language that reaches a clear sintent
f
of notifying the home owner of the constraints on that piece of property. As
part of that, there should be the conditions it requires to achieve a variance
because I can picture the people with 12,000 square foot lots are going to be
' thinking that they can build decks for instance and the problem just comes back
to us.
Mayor Chmiel: It's just like the two that we have right now.
Councilman Workman: Wouldn't it be easier_ to require a builder to make room for
a standard size deck an option on that home? I don't know, a house without a
deck these days is ys getting to be fairly rare so a deck is something that
1 5
II
-L"ey Council Meeting - June 26, 1989 ,
somebody would probably want seeing their neighbors have one, so wouldn't it be
easier to make it such that one could be applied in the future? _.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that that would be a little difficult. Roger? I
Roger Knutson: You don't have an ordinance requirement that says you have to
have a deck. What you're really saying is if you have a small lot, maybe I
would prefer, I being anyone, would prefer to have a larger master bedroom and
no deck for example. Maybe I would prefer to have the deck or maybe I would
prefer to have a larger bathroom so what you're really doing by requiring a deck
is you're really taking someone's...
Councilman Workman: I guess I'm not requiring one but. ..
Councilman Johnson: I think what you're trying to say is the design of the
house should be to where the deck will be within the buildable area. In other
words, on these narrow lots you don't want the house designed as such that the
deck will go on the side yard which will infringe.
Councilman Workman: We had people before the Board tonight who want decks.
Their back yards face each other and they have sliding glass doors for an
alleged deck which is going nowhere.
Councilman Johnson: Designed into the house. '
Councilman Workman: So it sounds to me like the builder didn't know about it.
Councilman Johnson: The builder kind of created that situation. I I
Councilman Boyt: I think this is a topic that needs further discussion but at a
separate point all by itself.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I think what we have now 'is any further discussion first
of all. '
Councilman Johnson: I'll move the motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it.
Councilman Johnson: I move approval with the conditions as specified by Bill
and also the condition that no further building permits be issued within the
entire Lake Susan Hills area until the settling pond is repaired.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the
preliminary plat for. Lake Susan Hills West, 3rd Addition for Argus Development
with the conditions that no further building permits be issued until the
sediment pond is repaired, that all house pads be located outside of the 75 foot
setback from the wetlands, all deeds to include recognition that Lake Drive East
will serve as a collector, and that all property holders must be notified if
further expansion of their house, deck, additional garages, etc. would require
a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
911
6
■
i
169
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
M. APPROVE RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF APPOINTING ED KRANZ TO THE REGIONAL TRANSIT
BOARD.
' Councilman Workman: I understand this is simply a resolution recommending Mr.
Kranz. Is he going to be representing our district? Our zone?
Mayor_ Chmiel: I don't think so.
' Don Ashworth: No. He represents Eden Prairie.
' Councilman Johnson: The Southwest Metro Transit Commission I believe also
supported Mr. Kranz last week at our meeting and for our district we are
encouraging the cities of Chanhassen and Chaska to support Gail Kinkannon who is
also, she's a member of the Southwest Metro Transit Commission and she's going
to be running for the RTD.
Councilman Workman: My question i.s, why are we supposedly, I don't know Mr.
' Kranz and he doesn't represent our district per se.
Jo Ann Olsen: He represents the Southwest Metro Transit Commission, the three
cities. Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhassen and has been very supportive.
Councilman Johnson: I have no problem working with Mr. Kranz but we also need
to support Gail Kinkannon within Chanhassen's district. We are a 3 city
transportation commission here. We have 2 representatives. Mr. Kranz will be
helpful to us. The Metro Council may see this as none of our business
supporting him but it doesn't hurt him for us to support him.
' Mayor_ Chmiel: He's not part of this city basically.
' Councilman Workman: I understand that but we had a resolution prior for I think
it was the Vet's home or something down in St. Peter earlier that you didn't
know who the guy was so you couldn't support it. So therefore understand, I
don't know who he is. I didn't know that he was a part of that council so
you're asking me to approve something that I don't know anything about.
Councilman Johnson: Well there's plenty of time here. This doesn't have to be
done tonight. It's going to be quite a while. This would be a good one to
table so we can bring some information back about both Ed and Gail.
Mayor Chmiel: Sounds like a solution. Can I have a motion, or I will make a
motion to table this to the next council meeting.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second. And ask staff to bring back information on Ed
and Gail.
Councilman Workman: It's not a hostile refusal of Mr. Kranz. I'm just saying I
don't know anything about him.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table action appointing
someone to the Regional Transit Board until staff can bring back information on
Ed Kranz and Gail Kinkannon. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
7
■ --
jt 4
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: THOMAS SCALLON, INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES (NEW OWNER OF
DINNER THEATER) .
Thomas Scallon: I've been told I should explain to you who we are and what we
intend to do. Our company International Broadcasting Corporation is a
publically traded company...over the counter table recently in the news.
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me, your microphone isn't working.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it may not be on. Maybe you'd like to just sit down
there right next to Jo Ann and use that microphone. ,
Thomas Scallon: Our company International Broadcasting Corporation is a
publically traded company and a subsidiary International Theater Corporation,
which I'm the president of, is the owning entity of the Chanhassen Dinner
Theater business. We were fortunate enough to have this fine company join a
list of fine companies that we own including the Harlem Globetrotters, the Ice
Capades, three amusement parks throughout the United States located in Detroit,
Buffalo and the Lake George area, 19 skating rinks in upscale suburban malls
like the Galleria in Houston and also including Woolman Rink in New York where
we're partners with the famous Mr. Donald Trump. I've gotten an opportunity to
know Herb and his wife and we've got some pretty tall things to live up. I mean
they're very fine people and they've set a standard which our intention is to
maintain and where we can expand upon it, we will. I guess you'll know our
impact by what we don't do as opposed to what we do do. We're trying to
maintain what they have created and expand upon it. We want to be good
neighbors and responsible citizens in the community here and we feel free to
encourage you to call on us to honor that commitment and point out to us how we
can be better neighbors. We were impressed most of all in our acquisition by
the concern the employees had for Herb and his wife and their welfare and they
were to be treated in the transition and in the future. If your employees when
you walk away from a business are concerned about your welfare, I guess that
speaks to what you've done over the years. Like I said, we're very proud to be
associated with Chanhassen Dinner Theater and join your fine community here and
the Bloomberg's. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, on behalf of the city of Chanhassen, we welcome you to our
community and look forward to seeing you here and working right along with you I
as much as we possibly can. It's a pleasure.
Thomas Scallon: It's my pleasure. Thank you very much.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Any other visitor presentations?
AWARD OF BIDS: LAKE DRIVE/TH 101 REALIGNMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 88-22.
Gary Warren: Mr_. Mayor, June 15th we opened bids for the Lake Drive/TH 101 L!!
realignment project. Council I believe is well aware of the scope of the
project and our time line that we're following here to get the majority of those
til
improvements constructed this year. The low bid was received. We received some
8
■
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989 171
very competitive bids. Low bid was 24% underneath the
engineer's
II 17- they were all very well and closely pacted within 10% of each other ssom we're
nd
very satisfied with the bidding that was done. The low bid was received
from Northdale Construction Company, Rogers, Minnesota in an amount of
$2,203,218.38. We're familiar with Northdale from their work on the
' Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's Lake Virginia forcemain project.
They're a reputable firm and we're comfortable with their bid and therefore
recommend award to Northdale Construction as noted.
Resolution #89-78: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson
award the bid for the Lake Drive/TH 101 Realignment Improvement Pro�ectteNo.
88-22 to Northdale Construction Company in the amount of $2,203,218.38. This
award is conditioned upon the City receiving the permits from MnDot, the Army
Corps of Engineers and the City for the wetland alteration. All voted in favor
' and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVAL OF VACATION OF A PORTION OF FRONTIER TRAIL, KING
' PROPERTY.
Gary Warren: I can give a quick overview of the item. The vacation request was
' considered, and I've got an overhead here. With the platting of Chan Vista area
a number of council are intimately familiar with this neighborhood. The
ultimate extension of Frontier Trail, a portion of Frontier Trail which is shown
in the shaded area here no longer became a necessity to the City from a
' right-of-way standpoint. It used to be basically a proposed future alignment of
the roadway and was actually serving as a portion of the cul-de-sac. The
property owner, Mr_. King, had petitioned the City basically to have access to
' this property so that it could be cleaned up because at this point in time it
was poorly maintained and somehow clear up the ownership question of the
property. Our initial .reaction to that was fine. It made a lot of sense to us.
Let's vacate it. Unfortunately at the last minute we came upon the fact that we
did have a watermain, it's kind of a strange alignment in this area for a
watermain but it does follow the old alignment of the roadway so we were faced
with a paper circus here so to speak in that if we vacated the right-of-way,
' then we still needed to replace the property with a utility easement to cover
the watermain because obviously the watermain wasn't moving. We said, well does
that really make sense? Shouldn't we just keep the right-of-way in place to
' cover the easement for the utilities because we don't know cable television,
power, they all could be there so we thought that the best solution would be to
actually deny the petition for vacation. Instead encourage Mr. King to
' basically take over the property. As you can see it is on his, in the original
alignment of his lot and like any other right-of-way in the City, all property
owners, or most, take care of that property all the way up to our curb section
on the roadway surface without actually having ownership of the parcel. So
' staff's recommendation is actually to deny the request for vacation but we
obviously would strongly encourage Mr. King to basically adopt that as a portion
of his property.
I! Mayor Chmiel: Is Mr. King here?
Don King: Don King, 7200 Kiowa Circle. We've been here since 1974 in the City
of Chanhassen. Enjoyed our stay here and the property that's been behind us
1 9
■
-- `City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
that is now all in homes and that triangular piece of land has been a concern
ever since we had moved here as to what was going to take when it was a
cul-de-sac. At the time the housing project was completed for Chan Vista, we
were told at that particular time that it would be their responsibility because
they tore up the cul-de-sac to realign the street. That they would be
responsibility at that point in time to repair that portion of land to upgrade
it, sod it, whatever is required to put it back. Since that point in time that
has not been done and I have made several contacts with Gary and several people
on the Council asking just what is the disposition of such property and what
could be done. My main concern really of course is the beautification of our ,
community and continued growth as it's been going but it's quite an eyesore
behind me all these years as far as trash collection, beer cans and such. So I
would like, what I have basically proposed is whatever the City's decision is is
fine with me but I would request basically that the City certainly would grade
it, fill it, sod it and I will take over the total responsibility of it's
continued upkeep for as long as I'm a homeowner in this particular area. So
that's where, I have no problem whether the vacation is denied or whatever legal
terminology you want to use with it. My main concern is just to clean it up and
I'll take care of it from that point on. I was also told that there is a Lot 5
in Chan Vista that is supposed to be built on. I don't know if that's actually
going to happen but that's another continuing eyesore behind me. I hope that
can be all dealt with at the same time.
Gary Warren: I think that's a legitimate request. I would just make one '
condition or qualify it. I'll be in contact with Enterprise Properties, the
developer from Chan Vista. I don't recall, I have a suspicion that when we
approved the right-of-way alignment that we had conditioned that they eliminate
and clean up that portion of the right-of-way and if we can't get Enterprise to
do it, the City will follow through and do it.
Mayor Chmiel: That sounds acceptable to you Don?
Don King: That sounds acceptable to me. Mainly I just want it cleaned up.
Councilman Boyt: Don, do you want to do something with your bushes along with
the City or are you going to just leave them there? Do you want to coordinate
that so it all looks like one piece of property back there? ,
Don King: Well I would like to do that. I'd probably put a few trees out there
or something like that but that would be about the most I would probably do.
Other than that it would be just basically mowed. Must try to blend it in with
it.
Councilman Boyt: So maybe the City could meet with you about how to lay out the ,
piece of, how to landscape the property?
Don King: That would be fine.
Mayor Chmi.el: I think that sounds like a solution to the '
given problem. Is
there anyone else wishing to address this?
1.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public '
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
10 '
i
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilman Johnson: I think we need a time table. We can talk to Enterprise
IProperty for 2 years and we'd still have a mess back there.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't the best time, the best time to seed anyway is in the
' fall.
Don King: Either that or sodding.
Councilman Boyt: If we could work out the best time so it's most likely to
survive, that would probably be the time table we'd want to use.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, probably better in the fall now.
Councilman Boyt: July and August might not be a very good time.
' Councilman Johnson: The time table I'd be looking at is if we don't have an
agreement from Enterprise Properties by say July 15th, that the City go ahead
with it or some other date and then we plan it out and the first part of
September do it as far as the seeding and whatever goes. As a crew's available.
Do the fix up but as you say, planting this time of year is not real great.
Mayor Chmiel: It's not great but the other portion is, if Mr. King wants to
water the grass or sod, whichever we put in, that's another thing that would
have to be done so that could be accomplished now. As far as planting trees,
it's not the best time to be planting trees at this particular time although if
' he were to maintain and water and make sure they get that, then that of course
is no real problem.
' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded that the City work with
Enterprise Properties and Don King to landscape the property behind Mr_. King's
house. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE WETLAND SETBACK, DARYL AND DEBRA KIRT, LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY.
' Jo Ann Olsen: The site is at the corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Pa
It is an existing lot of record. A little over 6 acres. A majority of the site
' is a Class A wetland. The applicant intends to locate a single family residence
on the home which they have the right to do. They must receive a variance to
the wetland setback. They are maintaining the front yard setback from
' Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road and have been working with staff to try to
locate the house as far away from the wetland as possible. The proposed plan
does do that but still is located at the closest edge at 25 feet away from the
wetland. Therefore they need a 50 foot seback. The portion of the wetland that
' they are going to be close to is the poorer quality part of the wetland before
it gets to the real high quality Class A. We are recommending approval of the
variance. We feel there is hardship. Without a variance they will not have use
111 of this site and are recommending approval with two conditions on page 3.
-
Mayor Chmiel:
y Is the applicant here? Please state your name and your address.
11
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Daryl Kirt: Daryl Kirt, 7600 Chanhassen Road. We purchased the lot over- there
1:-
and we've done everything we can to try to find the most feasible place to put
the house and the garage and it would just make it a lot better site if we could
just have a little bit of fill towards the back. We have 5 children and it'd
just be nice to have a backyard for them. We've been over there for almost a
year now looking at what would be the best and what Jo Ann showed you is what we
think would be the best and the alteration we could do with it. There is a lot
of land there but some of it is wetland and we won't even go back to the lake.
The lake is 400 or 500 feet even back from where we are before you get to the
lake and it's basically, I would call it just a mudhole or a little swamp area
that we're talking about. It's not the lakeshore or something like that but I
realize wetland is important and whatever works out, we'll definitely work with
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address this?
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing earng was
Councilman Johnson: What was the action of the Board? '
Councilman Boyt: They didn't review this.
Mayor Chmiel: No, the Board did not review this.
Jo Ann Olsen: The ordinance states that a variance to the wetland alteration
permit is heard by the Council.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to suggest a couple of additions here. I think one
thing that's unique about this and the reason that I can support the variance is
because the lot becomes unbuildable without it. Generally that means the City
has two choices. We grant the variance with suitable conditions or we buy the
property. So not being ready to buy the property, I think we should grant the '
variance. I would however, anticipating future problems, I would like you to
hold onto this and to come back in with what you think might be a future deck or
if you've got some other addition to the building that you think you're going to
want to put on 5-10 years from now, I'd really like to see us approve the whole
thing now. The reason for that is because as you may see later on this evening,
once your house is, then you no longer have a hardship in my opinion and I think
you're going to have, you may have a very difficult time getting the variance to
build that deck at that point. Someone could argue that you probably don't have
a hardship for a deck right now but if it was me, I would encourage you to go
for the whole thing.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it'd be smart, right.
Councilman Boyt: The other thing I would also state and we'll see if the rest I
of the Council would go along with us but clearly it would be my intention to
tli
not support future variance requests that would involve the wetland setback but
I think this one you've got an awfully good argument for why we should pass it.
I'd like to see you put it all in one package.
12 '
■
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilman Workman: What would be the rule perhaps on a single lot as far as
how much of that lot has to be buildable? What portion of that lot has to be
buildable to the point of where we are now in that we have to pretty much allow
a person to use the property?
Jo Ann Olsen: We don't require a minimal buildable area. We do for unsewered
lots...but not for sewered lots.
' Counci.lman Workman: So if in fact this were a Class B wetland or something,
they could actually fill.
' Jo Ann Olsen: No, they still have to receive the wetland alteration permit
which is what they are pursuing in front of the Planning Commission next time.
We would only permit as much as is necessary for them to have a house. Even if
it was all Class B, I don't think that we would agree to them filling the whole
thing.
Councilman Workman: No, but they would then be allowed to fill a portion enough
to get a home built.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
' Councilman Boyt: I think that there's a difference here, if I might suggest
something. The difference is if this lot was caning in today, we wouldn't
approve it. If they couldn't demonstrate that they could build outside the 75
' foot setback, we wouldn't approve the lot but when we approve lots and then go
back and change ordinances, we then become obligated to try to make the best use
of that lot or allow the owner to make the best use of that lot so that's kind
of the difference here. A new lot wouldn't be created but an existing lot has
some rights.
' Councilman Johnson: I totally agree with Bill on the future additions. I don't
like the way the second condition is written here. It almost sounds like, come
on you can add something later but it's going to require another. variance. I
think it needs to be worded differently in the future to where it more or less
' discourages. Instead of just saying there is going, you are going to require
another variance, well you got the variance the first time. Shoot, it's not
going to be hard to get the variance the second time but somehow word that to
' where it shows that any additions will have to show a hardship which there is no
hardship. Somehow or another discourage future additions once it's built. I'd
like to ask the Kirt's if the design of the house would, I see it's a back
' walkout I think. Maybe not. It says 40, not WO. If the design of the house,
if they're considering putting a deck on in the future.
Debra Kitt: Actually. ..as you can see the garage is facing the house. When the
' surveyor made that, he made a slight error so where the garage is oversized,
that is actually a part of the back porch. So in a sense it's already taken on
that...
Councilman Johnson: What do you mean?
Jo Ann Olsen: The area that's shown is already including an addition.
13
I
y Council Meeting - June 26, 1989 '
Debra Kirt: The garage, you have 38 feet wide. ,
Mayor Cbmiel: I see what you're saying. You have a breezeway inbetween?
Debra Kirt: Yes, and that breezeway is actually part of the house and the
garage is supposed to be a little bit shorter but then where the garage extends
beyond that, beyond the house. '
Councilman Johnson: To the, is it the southwest?
Debra Kirt: Yes. So that corner is actually part of the house like a deck, '
like a porch but it would actually come over where the breezeway is so in a
sense it's not going out any farther into the wetland.
Councilman Johnson: No further than what the garage shows?
Debra Kirt: Right. '
Councilman Boyt: So you're saying you've already taken into account my concern.
Debra Kirt: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Then I think maybe we could accomplish it Jay by taking the
second condition staff has and modifying that to say that it would be this
Council's intention to not look favorably upon additional variances to the
wetland setback.
Councilman Johnson: Where's the 25 foot setback from Jo Ann? From that corner '
of the garage and that's actually not even there. That corner of the garage is
not there?
Debra Kirt: Yes, that corner is there.
Councilman Johnson: But you say the garage isn't going to be that big.
Debra Kirt: I see what you're saying.
Councilman Johnson: I want to see if I understand what you're saying here on
the overhead. From what I'm understanding, this deck, is this going to be your
deck in this area then?
Debra Kirt: We aren't really going to have a deck. We're going to have an
enclosed porch attached to the house that goes to the garage.
Councilman Johnson: But you're saying it's going to go to this point? '
Debra Kirt: Yes...extend farther west. It goes around the front.
Councilman Johnson: Is that what we're looking at? Is the garage a full 38 or
is it going to be smaller?
Debra Kirt: It will be somewhere very, very close to that. However, when I was
looking at this, there is a porch in front that this doesn't show but that still
tilis all the way around and it will connect by the garage there where it says
14
■
%.
' City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989 Q77
' breezeway. Yes...
' Councilman Johnson: Does that mean it extends in this direction?
Debra Kirt: No. We designed the house 3 times because everytime we've gone in
' to try to put a house on the piece of property, we've had such a hard time
finding a place for the house to fit within all of the wetland. I bought plans
and then we had it all staked out and ready to go and then we decided this is
' not going to work so then we did another house plan and tried to work that one
in and we decided we're not going to do anymore house plans. It gets expensive
and frustrating until we know whether we can put the house here. So basically
that's the way the house is but it's subject to.. .
' Councilman Johnson: Okay, as long as we don't extend that front porch into the
setback on King Road, I don't see any problem with the deck coming around to the
' back. It's no closer to the wetland than the garage is. The garage is the
closest point.
Debra Kirt: The way I understand it, we still have room coming out towards the
lift station. Out this way towards the lift station, we have room to play with
in that direction.
' Councilman Johnson: You can come out front as long as you don't cross those two
lines there.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of my concerns was that I don't like building
'
real close to the lake but I assume that you still have enough of the wetland
there that is an adequate filter to the lake. Is that correct?
Councilman Johnson: 500 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Willard wanted to comment.
Willard Johnson: I would go along with Bill. I would discourage some future
variance. It would save the applicant time and us time, whoever's on the board
' in the future of going through this process...
Councilwoman Dimler: Roger, would it be alright to put some stronger language
in there and say that any addition to the garage or home in the required setback
' will require an additional variances but they will not be granted?
Roger Knutson: I think you can express the sentiment of this Council but you
' can't prevent them from applying and you can't tie the hands of a future
Council. You could say something to the effect that it would not be favorably
considered by this Council.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I know what you said. I just wanted to make it a
little stronger because we're facing, these people were very upset with me out
there today because we didn't grant the variances and I'm sorry but it was
I! people that okayed the PUD and blah, blah, blah you know. They can't accept
that. They say show me where it can' t be done and that would be one way to say
that.
r
1 15
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Roger Knutson: It certainly would. You could say that by granting this
particular variance, the Council has now given then reasonable use of the
property. Therefore, this Council no further variances would be warranted and
none would be granted by this Council. It's a statement of sentiment rather
than because that's all you really can do.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we can't do anything that would be binding is what
you're saying?
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then I would prefer the language that we had before.
Mayor Chmiel: Which one?
Councilwoman Dimler: That it would not be looked upon favorably. '
Councilman Boyt: I think we have a motion then, or if we don't I would make a
motion to approve Variance Request #89-7 with two conditions. The second
condition be reworded to indicate that this Council would not favor additional
requests for variances. I would also, and maybe add a third condition, that a
correct survey be presented to the City prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Clearly this one isn't right.
Councilman Workman: Since the deck which is not going to be built yet, is going
to be as far away as the garage is, that's really not a variance situation later '
on?
Jo Ann Olsen: When they don't increase.
Councilman Johnson: The 25 feet's at the edge of the garage. At the house,
it's probably more closer to 50 feet so if we say they can build up to 25 feet
from there, they could build a 25 foot deck out from the back of the house and I
don't think that's our intent. I think we need to say within the 38 foot
envelope running from the front face of the house back which gives then room for
a 10 foot deck on the back of the house.
Councilman Boyt: That's may reason for asking for a proper survey to be
submitted so that we know what it's fixed at. That's what we're really saying.
Let's get the house print fixed on the property and assuming that it's not
encroaching on the wetland more than what we're approving tonight then I think
it's in good shape.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that would be agreeable to the applicant?
Councilman Johnson: What I'm trying to do, I'm not trying to be difficult here
but as you say, it won't encroach anymore on the wetlands. They're got 25 feet
that they go from the back of the house towards the wetland and not encroach on
the wetland. They could build a 25 foot wide deck on the back of there.
Councilman Boyt: The way I would approve it is if they have a house print and
91
that gives them a certain amount of encroachment on the wetland but that doesn't
mean they can scribe an arc and fill in everything inbetween. It's the house
print.
16 '
II
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989 .:i.d
I
Councilman Johnson: Right but the house print's not shown quite here. That's
' i why I was trying to add that 10 foot condition to the back which is what they're
saying is they're going to have basically a 10 foot wide deck on half the back
of their house.
' Debra Kirt: I'm not planning...
Councilman Johnson: Something's going to run around the back of the house 10
' foot?
Debra Kirt: It's a porch but it just extends off that 32 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: Your porch might be our deck or vica versa.
' Councilman Johnson: A slab of concrete?
Debra Kirt: No, like there's a walkout so we can't, well.
' Councilman Johnson: If you want to put a slab of concrete down, that's a
permanent structure, it's part of the house.
Councilman Boyt: Rather than designing the piece of property tonight, couldn't
we say that this is our intent and if you vary from that, then come back to us.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I have a motion. Is there a second?
ICouncilman Johnson: I'll second it. I liked the City Attorney's y wording y d ng on
item 2 by saying that by granting of this variance provides reasonable use of
the property and then add that at the beginning of condition 2. I move that as
a modification.
' Councilman Boyt: Why don't we just accept what Roger has.
Councilman Johnson: I move to modify the motion to add the sentence that
granting of this variance provides reasonable use of the property at the
beginning of condition 2.
Councilman Boyt: But that's not all. We can' t leave condition 2 the way it is.
Councilman Johnson: Well your condition 2. `
Councilman Boyt: Alright.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Variance Request
' #89-7 to permit a single family residence to be located 25 feet from the edge of
a Class A wetland as shown on the Site Plan dated "June 21, 1989" with the
following conditions:
1. Type III erosion control as shown on the site plan will be installed prior
to any alteration of the site.
I
1 17
■
--'°eiy Council Meeting - June 26, 1989 ,
2. Granting of this variance provides reasonable use of the property and it is
the intent of this Council that any future variance requests would not- be
looked upon with favor. ,
3. A correct survey be presented to the City prior to issuance of a building
permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF KENNEL PERMIT APPLICATION, 1630 LAKE LUCY ROAD, PHIL MATHIOWETZ.
Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, you may remember that this
item was tabled some time ago. I think it was last council meeting so that both
the applicant and the concerned neighbor could be present to address the issue.
You'll note on my comments that the issues remain the same. We did same
checking of the surrounding neighborhood as requested by City Council. There is
a memo from our CSO officer Bob Zydowsky indicating that he checked with certain
residences. We did receive two written responses in favor of the permit, or not
opposing it and we did receive two from concerned neighbors indicating that they
may have a problem if in fact they did live closer. Public Safety's
recommendations have not changed in light of these concerns. I believe that the
issue here is not really one of a kennel permit but one of whether or not there
is a nuisance involved. If there is we in fact can handle it through our
existing ordinances as we do hundreds of other nuisance complaints regarding
barking dogs. If I can digress a little bit from my comments in my memo to the
Council, but if in fact the kennel permit is not issued to Windwalker Kennels,
he still can keep 2 dogs on his property. These 2 dogs could bark as
Mr. Krueger has indicated they do in the past. There still could be the
clanging if metal dishes. The yelling at the dogs to keep quiet. We can handle
all of those things under our existing nuisance ordinance. Whether or not
Windwalker Kennels gets the permit does not change the fact that there may be a
problem there for Mr. Krueger_ and we in Public Safety do not turn a deaf ear to
Mr. Krueger's problems. We just need some factual information so we can handle
it through our proper nuisance ordinance. Our recommendation to the council
tonight is to approve the kennel permit to Windwalker Kennels keeping in mind
that the remedies to Mr. Krueger will remain the same. Contact us. Contact the
Sheriff's Department as other people do with problems with barking dogs. We
will issue a citation if we can verify that there is a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I just have a couple questions that I'd like to 1
ask of you Jim. Being this is within a residential area, issuing a kennel
license which means constitutes 3 dogs or more. Is that correct?
Jim Chaffee: That is correct.
Mayor Chmiel: When does this constitute a business of raising dogs and having
litters within that residential segment? Would that now rather than residential
it goes to commercial because it is a business that's being conducted per se.
Jim Chaffee: I would like to defer to Roger's opinion on that one. I guess 1
your question is when or is it a commercial kennel is what it boils down to or
when does it become a commercial kennel. Roger, could you answer that?
18 I
LOiL
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Wouldn't that become a home occupation c patzon wzthzn a residential
zone?
IIRoger Knutson: Home occupations are allowed.
' Jim Chaffee: I think under existint zoning, commercial kennel in that area, in
that zoned area is prohibited. I guess the question is, is it a commercial
kennel or not.
Roger Knutson: The ordinance defines the difference between kennel commercial
and kennel private. The difference is, in the commercial, as you would expect,
it's where they're housed, groomed, bred, boarded, trained or sold for gain.
With a profit motive involved, it is a commercial kennel as opposed to I like
dogs and I have 3 of my own that I take to shows or just like to be with them.
' Councilman Boyt: And it's not permitted in that zone?
Roger Knutson: Not as the property's zoned.
' Councilman Boyt: Isn't that property zoned residential single family?
Councilwoman Dimler: It's rural residential.
' Roger Knutson: Private kennels are allowed in the RR district. Not commercial.
It does not list commercial as allowed.
ICouncilman Boyt: Conditional use?
Roger Knutson: As a conditional use they are allowed, yes.
' Councilman Boyt: Does Mr. Mathiowetz have a conditional use permit?
Steve Gawron: My name is Steve Gawron and just for the purposes of the record,
my address is 2850 Metro Drive, Suite 429. Mr. Mathiowetz has a conforming, I
guess what it's called is a non-conforming legal permit to use the kennel. The
kennel is non-commercial in nature by your own ordinance. It's specifically
' Chapter 5 which requires for the purposes of a commercial kennel, that the dogs
or animals of others, members of the general public be bred, sold, etc., etc..
In this particular instance, it is Mr. Mathiowetz' dogs that are kept at the
kennel exclusively and thus does not specifically meet the criteria that the
Council set forth earlier in terms of it's ordinances as to what constitutes a
commercial kennel. I have contacted your city planner to find out whether or
' not it meets existing ordinances and it does in every respect. I'd like to be
heard a bit later but I don't want to intrude on someone else's time. Thank
you.
' Mayor Chmi_el: Is that in agreement with your previous opinion?
Roger Knutson: The zoning ordinance does not distinguish between who owns them.
11 The zoning ordinance only makes the distinction upon whether it's for gain or
whether it's for private enjoyment. What's being suggested is that the kennel
has been there so long it has non-conforming rights and we have recognized this
It-- as a non-conforming use. If that's the case, he would not need a conditional
use permit.
' 19
I
-"City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Steve Gawron: That is precisely the case.
Mayor Chmiel: I know that I have gone over there several different times just
to see about the barking dogs and parked. Just rolled down the windows and sat
there very quietly and I have, and I've indicated that to you Jim, that the dogs
have been barking in periods of time. I wouldn't say it's a constant kind of
thing. If somebody walks by, the dogs bark. A car goes by and the dog will
bark, or dogs. I guess I just wanted to indicate that I have been there several
different times to observe and listen and that there is a given problem as far
as the dogs barking on a continual basis. Other than that I'd like to throw it '
back to Council. If there's any further discussions.
Councilman Johnson: On that property it does seem to be the wrong place to have '
the kennel right next to the road there. I'm not sure if some back area where
there's less disturbance but of course there'd still be the squirrels and
raccoons and skunks come walking by that will make the dogs bark at night anyway
but at least you won't have the cars and people. Most kennels I've been
involved with back when we used to breed a few dogs, everybody had their kennels
off in the back of their property. It's a little late for that discussion
actually unless there is some way we could encourage them to move his kennel.
Quite an expensive proposition.
Councilwoman Dimler: Jim is it true that this is a yearly situation and he has
to come forward for a license yearly?
Jim Chaffee: Yes it is. '
Councilwoman Dimler: So we will be facing this year after year after year?
Jim Chaffee: The kennel permit, yes.
Councilman Boyt: That's true with anyone that has a complaint. Any kennel that
has a complaint. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess the comment that I have, maybe this used to be the
country but I think it's a developing area now and I guess I agree with Jay that
maybe we have to looking at it, if not this year then at least in the future we '
have to be looking at encouraging relocation because I think we'll have more
complaints.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question of Ursula if I might. You used to live next
door to a kennel. Can you give us a little insight as to how that worked?
Councilwoman Dimler: Was that a private kennel or commercial?
Councilman Boyt: If the dogs were sold for gain, I would imagine it was
probably a commercial kennel.
Councilwoman Dimler: They had their dogs in the basement so no, we never heard
them and it wasn't a problem but they were not outside. Their private dogs were
outside in a kennel but not the ones they were selling for commercial. They
kept the puppies in the basement and then they would sell them off before they
got to be big enough to keep around. So no it was not a problem.
20 '
■
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilman Workman: I don't know, we've got a lot of documentation here Jim and
' letters and everything flying back and forth. The Minutes from the meeting that
we had prior on this are not in here. I think we're going the wrong direction
when we go whether it's a commercial kennel or not a commercial kennel. I think
' the Code we need to be looking at is the nuisance code and if there were 1 dog
there and it were a nuisance, it would be a violation. I don't think anybody
involved on the Council at least feels the dogs aren't barking. The dogs are
' there. How dogs are there? many d Right now how
g y ogs are there? 5 dogs. If
there's 5 dogs there, they're barking. I've got a strong suspicion. It's going
to depend on perhaps the neighbor and his tolerance. I have a dog and that dog
barks and I'm on him when he barks. Even in the house. It bothers me that it
might be bothering other people. If I were living there, I might have the same
problem. I get very irritated. As much as I love dogs and kennels and all of
it that goes with it. The gentleman has stated he has a problem over a period
' of 3 years. We've got a problem. So after I think we look at that issue, then
maybe we look at it and say well is it commercial or isn't it and should it go
somewhere. I had a neighbor when I was a young man. He had a beautiful Golden
1 Retriever. The thing when the moon came out, the thing sat on the front steps -
and howled. One day the dog was gone. Mysteriously run over by a truck or
something and we were young kids then and we bought that but the neighbors
complained and it was one dog and it had to go. So it's asking an awful lot of
' the neighbors, whether some are here or not, somebody has said they've got a
continuous problem with it. If I'm having a very loud party and somebody tips
me off that Chaffee and company are coming over to shut it down and when you get
there we're all under the covers, that doesn't mean we weren't having a loud
party. So I have a real problem with this. The way I'm looking at it is, it's
a positive for them to have the kennel. It's a negative for them to have a
kennel for Mr. Krueger. It would be unfortunate for them to not have it but it
would be beautiful for them not to have it so I'm trying to get rid of the
negative. There's one negative here and I wish the neighbors could work that
out somehow. Dogs don't speak our language generally so when I looked at it.
The negative is there. What can we do to rectify the negative and that doesn't
seem to have been taken care of. That's where my problem i.s.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with some of that. If you look at the history here,
you see this has been a problem for a while. This year there's been 2
complaints filed. If we go back since the last permit, it looks like we've got
3 complaints in the last year. I think Jim Chaffee makes a very good point when
' he says that 2 dogs could have caused these complaints. One dog could have
caused these complaints. I think what we have with Mr. Mathiowetz and I think
it was true last year and I think it's true this year is that he's taking action
when there's been a complaint. He's complained about metal bowls. He went to
non-metal bowls. Complained about barking, I think for a while at least you
tried shock collars to try to keep the barking down. Inter_esti.ngly enough the
' couple of times I visited there, I wondered if I had the right spot because
there was no barking so maybe the dogs were gone. I don' t know but it was
silent. Barking dogs are a major irritation with me. I would like to see us
adopt a noise ordinance that gives every citizen the right to quickly stop
barking dogs but I don't think, there has not been a citation written and I
don't think that there's been a demonstration that because this is a kennel it's
more difficult than if it was a private homeowner. So for me, the conditions
F haven't changed since last year. I agree with Tom, if the kennel was gone,
everybody would be happy but I think that Mr_. Mathiowetz has been granted by the
City the right to keep the kennel in it's location. Conduct his, what appears
' 21
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
1
to be a business there of sorts and that the complaints we've '
an unusually large number. So it would be my intent to votetoaallowe not been
Mr. Mathiowetz to continue to have his kennel permit.
lir
Councilwoman Dimler: I think then we're at the point of asking is it for gain?
I think we have to address that.
Councilman Boyt: As I heard that question,
because he was granted the right to continue�the ouse'of his any Is
right Roger? property. Is that
Roger Knutson: That's what, I did not investigate it. That's based on the
representation here tonight who said they're a grandfathered use. They have
rights to continue in operation.
Councilwoman Dimler: Forever?
Roger Knutson: Yes, unless they voluntarily discontinue ntinue zt.
Mayor Chmiel: Is Mr. Mathiowetz here?
Phil Mathiowetz: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there someway that between you and Al, some kind of working
can be done to alleviate some of his given problems as you well know that the
dogs are barking and you've indicated that yourself. Is there some way that the
two of you can come up with a conclusion or a solution to alleviate that problem
of the barking dogs? I know you don't want your dogs to bark either but it is
representing a problem for him and his family as well. Is there any solution
that you can offer at this particular time?
Phil Mathiowetz: I guess quite honestly we've done every, we've made every
suggestion that anyone's ever made of us. I agree with Councilman Boyt.
Barking is a major problem for me too. I dislike it and we've taken virtually
every step anyone's requested. They said the dogs bark at night, so we put them
indoors at night. Said the metal food pans bothered them so we took metal pans
out. Metal feeders, basically just self feeders and we removed them from the
kennel. I'm not sure what all else we can do. I'm willing to work with Mr.
Krueger if Mr. Krueger is willing to work with me. I think that there comes a
time when there's a level of reasonableness that he has to show too. If it was
one dog, it might bark. We've got 3 bark collars now which are basically
electronic collars that are activated any time the dog barks. It gives them a
stimulus but they're expensive and I'm not made of money and I can only afford
them, I'm willing to buy one for every dog in the kennel but they're $150.00 a
Piece and I don't have $300.00 or $400.00 that I can go and get a bunch of them
all at one time. I've got to buy them as I can afford to put them on and I
don't have a problem with that if that will help and I think it will because
we've already demonstrated that. Well first off, we got rid of most of it.
The severe barking dogs, we just got rid of and the other dog that we do have
that does have a major barking problem, has a bark collar on virtually 24 hours
a day except maybe at night once in a while when he's inside the building. When
he's hopefully sleeping and generally then he's pretty well but if Mr_. Krueger's
got some suggestions, I'm willing to listen to them. If the city staff's got
some suggestions, I'm willing to listen to them. I'll work with anyone as long
22 ,
■
, City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
as they're willing to try to work with us and give us some reasonable
' suggestions, I'm sure can have reasonable solutions too. Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Mr_. Mathiowetz, did you have an operation done on one of
' your dogs a few years ago as part of this barking problem?
Phil Mathiowetz: The operation is basically in simple terms it's a debarking
operation where they simply take out a portion of the dog's voice box and that
' operation may or may not be successful. This particular one didn't work. It
came back. We subsequently had the dog destroyed because we couldn't get any
handle on her at all so she's not around anymore.
Al Krueger: I'm here to help get this thing along there tonight. You guys mean
business. I'm representing my wife Carolyn, my daughter Julie and my son Chris.
I think there is a need to settle this thing whether it's barking or not. Some
of us have been there and not heard barking. I'm there every night at 3:00,
okay. Those dogs bark and they're quiet. They bark and they're quiet. We've
had police there. They're not quiet there but when I call I'll assure you that
' they are barking or have been on and off for a long time where my patience runs
low, okay. He mentioned that there haven't been any citations. I had a
policeman sit, this was before last year's license, sit in the driveay and say,
' yes, I'm going back to write a summons and he was not and a summons was never
written. This year within the last time since I've talked to you, I've had a
policeman out there and I never saw him first off. I never heard any report
back. I finally called the policeman and he said well I sat out there for about
' 12 minutes and I didn't hear anything. Well, at that point he chose not to
contact me or Mr. Mathiowetz because there was no problem. Well I assure you
those dogs bark at various times. It's a nice kennel. It really is. It's well
' kept up. Nobody's questioning that thing. He keeps good care of it. The dogs,
the shock collars that are on them, it doesn't stop tripping and whining and
things like that and it doesn't stop fighting. when they're out on the side and
' he hollars back and forth between his son to stay away because they're going at
it and he could probably get hurt. Non-conforming rights, if I understand that
right it's kind of a grandfathering clause. I was here well before and it
happened to be the policy of the City to just issue it in the paper. One of the
' things I'd like the City Council to address is the future permits, if I
understand it right, all residents within 500 feet will be contacted by mail so
they have the chance to respond. That I would like to get settled not only for
me but for everybody who might be watching tonight. I know some people have had
contact with neighbors verbally that live well within 500 feet but they were
never contacted that have acknowledged things. I do have a problem. If it's a
' question of a nuisance, I'll tell you once, this is the honest to God truth.
Mr. Mathiowetz has never come over to my house and talked to me about his dogs.
Once in 3 years and I call him before I call the police. I've called him more
often when he's home, somebody hollars and the dogs shut up. That's usually
late at night. I don't know how you quiet your dogs up when they're that far
away from their residence late at night but I do do that and I'll continue to
probably do that. I've been accused of being the bad guy in this thing and
all I've got is dogs. He mentioned that he keeps his dogs in. That's not true.
It's not true. The problem of different litters coming and going and different
ones, different personalities and barking, I don't think I need to say much
more. Thanks.
' 23
-4- city Council Meeting - June 26, 1989 ,
Councilman Boyt: I would move approval of the kennel permit for the coming
year. I think it's very important that Mr. Mathiowetz get his application in in
April next year when it's due.
Phil Mathiowetz: I turned it in at the end of January.
Councilman Boyt: oh, okay. I didn't understand that. Thank you. Well my ,
motion would be for approval of a permit for Windwalker Kennel.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? ,
Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. This has been tabled several times this
year. As far as discussion goes, hopefully we are smarter today than when this
was originally approved. The thing is, once you approve and somebody builds, ,
it's real hard to go back, in fact I'm not sure if it's even possible to go back
and say, well you've put all this time, investment, money, whatever into this.
You built quite an elaborate facility. Why don't you put another 5 grand into
it and move it. I'm not sure that's within the perview of what we do. The
other thing is we need to get our two ordinances to match each other. The
animal ordinance and the zoning ordinance state two different definitions within
the same book of a commercial kennel. What the Attorney read from was our
Section 5-16, Dogs and Cats. That's something that Jo Ann ought to look at I
guess.
Councilman Workman: I'm not prepared to, I'm not excited about denying a
livelihood of somebody who's, have you been living there 3 years?
Phil Mathiowetz: Four. ,
Councilman Workman: Four years. I'm not excited about the idea of taking away
your livelihood, you obviously very much enjoy the hobby of raising these
animals but I'm not so sure, or I'm having a hard time understanding how Jay and
Bill can allow Mr. Krueger another year of noise. I know it's probably not
acceptable in a court of law to say what if it was next door to your house but
if it were next door to Jay's or Bill's home, it'd be a different can of worms
and I'd have a problem.
Councilman Johnson: I had one next door to my home. I had two next door to my ,
home here in this city. Both of which had barking problems and was handled
under the nuisance ordinance. Citations were issued.
Councilman Boyt: I don't see how you can say that.
Councilman Workman: How is this a different situation? ,
Councilman Boyt: I don't see how you've got any information at all that would
lead you to how we would respond if this was next door to us.
Councilman Workman: Well I'm going to believe a human being neighbor before I'm
going to believe a dog. I mean there's a neighbor complaining. We've got a
complaint. A track record of complaints. Unless you're suggesting he's got
L!!
some sort of peave with his neighbor or something, he's got a problem with the
dogs. I don't understand why he would be making complaints about dogs if in
fact they weren't barking.
24 '
11
r J
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Nobody's saying that. Excuse me. I'll let you finish. I
apologize but I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me in your comment.
Councilman Workman: Okay. Well, nonetheless I'm going to move or I'm not going
to support that until, if the option that the neighbors can get together and
they can work this out, that's again a win-win situation.
Councilman Johnson: Refer them to the mediation service? Southwest Metro
Mediation Service or whatever that is.
Councilman Workman: I'm not prepared to make a suggestion as to how they're
' going to work out their problems but I'll use myself again. If it were next to
my home, as much as I like dogs, I'd have a big problem with it and so would my
young daughters. So I can't support this.
' Councilwoman Dimmer: I guess I'd like to add the comment that just going ahead
and approving this again this year is fine for this year but then what do we do
next year? I'd like to see it in advance a little bit beyond just approving it
' year after year after year after year and having the complaints come back and
back. Isn't there something we can do to move towards solving the problem
ultimately rather than just temporarily from year to year to year? Any
suggestions?
Jim Chaffee: I do have some suggestions. It's like we handle many, many other
dog barking complaints. We've been to jury trials over dog barking issues.
I Mr. Krueger_ has got to notify us, which he's done and we have to verify it.
With the absence of any verifiable facts, it's hard for us to make any kind of
Y
recommendations. A neighbor can call and complain many, many, many, many times
' but we don't know from a factual basis whether the complaint rings true or not.
We have to believe that there is a case that rings true but we can' t act on it
and that's our problem.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying that you can't issue a citation unless you
hear the dog barking when you get there?
Jim Chaffee: That is correct. Now there is another issue that can be pursued
and that's...
' Councilwoman Dimler: Why don't you sit there until the dog barks?
Jim Chaffee: Typically what we do when we respond is we roll down our windows
and we listen for 5 minutes to 10 minutes. A lot of time you'll hear the dog
barking and then in this case we know where the dog barking is coming from but a
lot of cases you don't even know where the dog barking is coming from and it's
tough to track down at 3:00 in the morning where exactly a dog bark is coming
' from, but a lot of times we do and we have no problem with going up and banging
on the door once we identify the source of the noise. But in this case, the
only issue I believe that comes to the City Council regarding a kennel permit is
if there is a complaint received once it's published in the paper. If there are
no complaints received, then it's an automatic approval process that doesn't
even reach the Council.
i
' 25
--"Clty Council Meeting - June 26, 1989 '
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but I could see where this could happen over and
over and over again that he complains. You go there and listen for 5 minutes.
The dog doesn't bark. That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, like was
said earlier.
Jim Chaffee: That is true.
Councilwoman Dimler: So as long as we don't register a complaint then we in
actuality don't have one and then we can play this game forever. I just don't
think that that's acceptable. '
Jim Chaffee: No, and I think one of the remedies, and Roger you can correct me
if I'm wrong, that Mr_. Krueger has is a formal complaint. Is that correct?
Roger Knutson: Sure.
Jim Chaffee: We like to say well if we don't verify the fact that the dogs are ,
barking then there's nothing we can do and that's not entirely true. There is
something that Mr. Krueger can do and that's file a formal complaint. It has
the same substance as us filing a written citation on it goes through a more
legalistic process.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to propose maybe an amendment or an adjustment to the
motion. I'd like to see Jim work with the Sheriff's Department and establish a
system of random checks on the dogs. That the wait periods would be somewhere
in the neighborhood of 20 minutes. That they would be around at about the times
when we anticipate that the dogs are most vocal. That the City take some
proactive sort of action here. I agree with Ursula that I think the City does
have a responsibility to see what we can do in this. I happen to believe that
Mr. Mathiowetz is taking responsible action to react to the complaints but I
think the City could more. So if that would make the motion more realistic in
our approach, I'd be happy to add that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Krueger, would you agree with that? '
Al Krueger: I don't quite understand what's going on here... There are things
out there. There are deer out there. He comes home late from shows late on
Saturday night with his dogs and his horses and those dogs go. They go
continually... I return mail to his house there that were addressed to other
people at Windwalker Kennels. There are other people that are making this thing
click and I'm the guy who's suffering. Me and my family. If I have to file in
a court of law, it's going to go there and we'll pull this video tape in and the
last thing and we'll just air it and say hey, here. I'll pull the residents in
too. We've got two letters from residents and you've talked to one and yes,
you've got a problem with barking. There's a resonnator coming out of that
thing that's going to my house...
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but did you understand what was proposed? '
Al Krueger: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, the proposal was that we have random checks for 20 '
minutes. But wait now. Let me finish. For 20 minutes at the times that it is
anticipated when the dogs would be most likely to be barking.
26 '
■
J
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Al Krueger: ...when the dogs are going to bark or when something's going to
cross the road or somebody jogs along with their dog. ..
' Councilwoman Dimler: So ou're telling you're n
y g me y not satisfied with that?
' Al Krueger: I have a problem and I might have to address it from a nuisance
problem but I don't have to do it from a commercial kennel. If I've got barking
dogs, he's right there are dogs all over. One of the gals you talked to has
' more of a barking problem than I do but she lives there and she's lived there
with them for 10 years you know and...
Councilman Boyt: I don't know what else to propose.
Mayor Chmiel: Al, I know that you're having a lot of given problems as far as
the dogs are concerned and I too have talked to some of the neighbors and the
' neighbors have indicated basically saying that if they lived as close as you do,
that it would also bother them. I'd like to see a solution done between the two
neighbors is what I'd really like to see but nothing, as it appears, is being
' done. I can understand that you look at that, the kennel in itself with the
location of the 5 dogs face directly towards your house and the proximity and
distance I'm not sure but those...covered through that area. I'm not sure what
' the decibil level would be of those as they hit your house but I'm sure there
must be some kind of a requirement that if kennels are in, there must be a
requirement as to sound, just like any other business within the city. You have
to self contain your db level at your property line at so many decibils. I
think maybe this is something that we should look at. Something that we should
take into consideration as a city. It is a problem to that neighbor. I'd like
to see us move in that particular vein even before we make a motion to proceed
' with this.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, we have a noise ordinance that we attempted to pass
a year ago that Roger I think might have passed on a copy of the Mound noise
'
ordinance that he has. That may make Mr. Krueger's position stronger a year
from now if we pass the noise ordinance because it's very specific about the
noise levels and what would be tolerated. I think i.nbetween now and then, we
' need to take action on this and we need to give Mr. Mathiowetz one more year of
operation and if it makes it more reasonable on the part of the city to monitor
that, I think we should include that in our agreement.
' Al Krueger: I'll go with that for another year or until his next license is up.
Councilman Boyt: That's not what I said though. Didn't say move it out. I
said that in the meantime we can hopefully look at strengthening the noise
ordinance and we may be in a different position a year from now but I certainly
didn't want to create the impression that Mr. Mathi.owetz would have to go. I
tdon't know.
Steve Gawron: If I might just...and I'll try to keep it very, very brief. As
I! indicated earlier, I represent Mt. Mathiowetz. I think the issue's before this
Council have been clearly enunciated back and forth and perhaps it deserves some
clarification at this point. Mr_. Krueger may have very valid complaints. He
may or he may not but that's not for this Council to decide. You have on your
books a noise ordinance. You have on your books an ordinance that has to do
' 27
•
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
with nuisance and that is his avenue of relief. If he feels that the dogs have
og ve
become a nuisance, he like any other citizen of the city, has a right to make a
complaint. If he believes that the city officials are not being responsive to
his complaint, he can make the complaint himself. There is nothing to stop him
from doing that and that is his avenue of relief. Mr. Mathiowetz has complied
in his attempt to be reasonable at each juncture. When the initial problem was
that a dog was barking, he put a collar on the dog to try to keep the dog from
barking. He went so far as to have the dog debarked. When it still didn't
resolve the problem, he had the dog put away. Mr. Mathiowetz put up, and I
might add at considerable expense, a 6 foot cedar fence which is around the
compound. Mr. Mathiowetz, by Mr. Krueger's own expression of opinion, has a
very clean kennel, well operated kennel. The point is that the City has given
him permission to do this and at this juncture having done so, Mr. Mathiowetz
has come to reasonably rely on that permission and he's taking action based on
the City's permission. For the City at this point to pull the rug out from
underneath him is simply wrong. It's wrong today, tomorrow, it will be next
year but that doesn't mean that Mr. Krueger has no avenue of relief. Mr.
Krueger has exactly the same avenue of relief as any other citizen in the city
of Chanhassen. That is to say he believes there is a problem, he can make a
complaint and if he believes that the city is not responsive, he can make the
complaint individually himself. And in point of fact, he has called on public
officials. He has called upon public safety to come out and listen to the dog
problem that he indicates. On at least 7 occasions in the last 3 years. On 6
of those 7 occasions, either no report was issued, no barking was heard, no
noise was heard. On 1 occasion in 7 there was some indication that there was
barking and a warning was issued. Mr. Mathiowetz has no greater, no lesser
rights than any other citizen in the city of Chanhassen and he has done, when ,
Mr. Mayor respectfully, when you talk about the neighbors trying to work it out,
I'm not sure what Mr. Mathiowetz can do that he hasn't done already. He's tried
to meet the issue halfway. He's tried to meet it well over halfway but he's
done what we can do. Now if the City Council would permit me, I took a video
tape of the specific kennel facilities in order to acquaint those members of the
Council who may not be specifically aware of the set up to get some first hand
look at exactly what the kennel looks like. It's about a 3 to 4 minute video
tape. With the Council's permission, I would ask permission to show that at
this time.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to call the vote.
Councilman Johnson: I think everybody's seen this.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, we've seen photos. We've seen everything. I don't think
that's absolutely necessary. '
Councilman Workman: I'd like to ask Roger's opinion perhaps. We're talking
legalies again and as far as enforcing our Code. Carver County Sheriff's
Department, Public Safety. What kind of documentation do they have to keep to
say there's a problem there before there's a problem, which there may or may not
be a problem.
Roger Knutson: Anyone who has a complaint about barking dogs, in addition to
asking the Sheriff or Jim's office to come out, can come in and say I heard a
dog bark on such and such a day and I swear it was owned by this person. Here's
the location and go through the things that he says are causing the problem.
28
■
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Fill out a citizen's complaint and it can be tried.
II= Councilman Workman: Does he need to fill out a citizen's complaint and hasn't
he proven up to this point, has he filled out a citizen's complaint of any sort?
Is that a problem? Is calling the Sheriff's Department is not...
Roger Knutson: You can call a million times. That doesn't prove anything wrong
happened. If proves you think something wrong happened. The only way you can
' get a citation issued for this kind of offense is if it is heard in this case by
Jim or someone working for Jim or the Sheriff's office or a citizen's complaint
is filed. That's the only way it can be handled and if someone comes in and
fills out a citizen's complaint, then the process is that our office would
' review it and make sure there is reasonable cause to believe what would have
said, reasonable evidence to support it and if there is, it's charged out on a
regular basis.
' Councilwoman Dimler: What's the penalty?
Roger Knutson: 90 days in jail, $700.00 fine is the max.
tCouncilman Boyt: Are you saying that if Mr. Krueger comes in with a complaint,
then it's followed through at City expense?
' Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Who makes that decision?
Roger Knutson: Initially Public Safety would make that decision. I guess
there's two checks. Formal complaints cost a bit more money than a normal tag
' so normally Jim would make an initial look at it. If he thinks there's some
merit to it or has concerns about i.t, then he passes it up to us and our office
actually drafts the formal complaint based upon the citizen's...and it's got to
' be signed and all that and then we take a look at it and make sure we think it
has enough merit to go forward.
Councilman Boyt: What if we choose not to go forward with it? Then what's Mr.
Krueger's option?
Roger Knutson: Civil remedies.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so he can take it to court himself?
Roger Knutson: Sure. Not the criminal violation but as a private nuisance.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would call a question on this issue.
Mayor Chmi.el: I see where we have discussed this. Hopefully you've got all
those additional items that we've discussed at this particular time Jim. What
we're looking at is issuing that license for the year which was effective
I! January 1 which means it's 6 months still running. Is that correct?
Jim Chaffee: I believe it's April to April.
i
29
- 4-\,47) Ii
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
•
Mayor Chmiel: Does it begin in April? Okay, I'm sorry. I thought it was
January. He filed it in January. Noise portions, citizen's complaints of
course which you can still do Al and it looks like the only outcome that we have
is to put this to a vote and see what it goes as and go from there. A motion
has been made. There is also a second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the kennel permit
application for Phil Mathiowetz at 1630 Lake Lucy Road. Councilman Boyt and
Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Councilman Workman and Councilwoman Dimler
voted in opposition to the motion and Mayor Chmiel was silent. The motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
ugal Bo 1-
maget Ka soa: I'd like a roll call vote.
Councilman Johnson: Aye.
Mayor Chmiel: Being a silent vote I was voting with the positive which was the '
aye.
Councilwoman Dimler: No.
Councilman Workman: I voted no.
Councilman Boyt: Aye. '
Mayor Chmiel: 3 to 2. It's approved. Al, you have all those other recourses
to go on.
Al Krueger: Has the ordinance been changed that all residents '
will be notified?
ents w�.th�-n 500 feet
Councilman Johnson: Not at this time.
Councilman Boyt: Still needs to be done.
Mayor Chmiel: Supposedly it was done but it wasn't. That's the question he's
asking.
Roger Knutson: That's for a conditional use
permit.
Al Krueger: As I understood it last time, it was going to be addressed by all 1
residents of 500 feet would be contacted at the time of the license. If I hear
you right now, you're saying that I have a dog kennel until next filing. Right?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Al Krueger: Then at that point will the City be contacting all residents, not
only on my site but any other site that's going to be a dog kennel? '
Don Ashworth: Yes. If I may. We have modified the application process for
kennel licenses requiring the applicant to submit to the City the names of all
til
persons within 500 feet. We then send that notice out or will be sending that
30 '
11
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
out with the next round of applications. It was staff's belief
that that was
the instructions that basically Council had given us from the last time around
and that has been instituted, right Jim?
Jim Chaffee: That is correct, yes.
1 Councilman Boyt: Is that in our ordinance to do that?
' Don Ashworth: The ordinance requires an application to be prepared on form...
Councilman Johnson: Provided by the City.
' Don Ashworth: Correct. And in that area, staff has taken what we believe was
the City Council's direction to insure that citizens were notified and are
requiring that as a part of that application, that the applicant submit those
names so we can notify those people.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that on a future agenda we
place a modification to the animal licensing ordinance, the kennel licensing
' ordinance to add that to our ordinance rather than have it only as an
adminstrative procedure.
' Mayor Chmiel: There doesn't need to be a vote on that, we can just proceed with
that.
Councilman Johnson: Alright so everyone agrees with that then. I don't like
' changing ordinances without public noticing that there's going to be a change to
the ordinance and we've got 30-40 dog kennel owners, whatever. I don't know how
many we've got here but they like to know that we're going to change the
'
ordinance under which they are operating rather than just do it without any
public input so that's why I'd like to get it put on a future agenda so we can
do this. It will be published in the newspaper, etc..
' Al Krueger: Living with this year doesn't pose a real problem in the fact that
he's already mentioned to neighbors he's planning on moving and I anticipate
that happening. If that happens, will I have any problem, will he be billing
' that thing as a house that's got 5 kennels? Is there some procedure that we can ,
get on there that gets those 5 stalls removed?
' Mayor Chmiel: I think at that particular time it would probably come back to
Council for that decision whether to issue a permit or not.
Al Krueger: Will the sale of the house come too?
Councilman Boyt: It stays with the property.
' Al Krueger: See, no matter how I go here, I lose, lose, lose. Even if it goes
to a private kennel and he does move, I'm attracting dog people. Okay?
Councilman Boyt: It could be worse.
Al Krueger: I agree but see I started there. I lived there before he did and
d the procedure was, I would have aired myself from day one on having a kennel
there, okay? Maybe at that point all I would have to do is get up and say I
' 31
City Council Meetin g - June 6
2 ,
, 1989
oppose. Now I have to prove I have to have a problem and that's what you guys
are doing.
Councilman Johnson: There's been a lot of changes since '
g e that time, especially
where we publish the information and stuff. It used to be published in a
newspaper that you could only get a Kenny's. Things like that. Now we at least
publish our agendas in a newspaper that goes to every home in the city so people
are a little better informed of what's going on. But 4 years ago when this got
approved, if you went to Kenny's and if you picked up the newspaper, you would
be able to read the public notices. What I'm saying is there's been changes.
Unfortunately it did happen 4 years ago before any of us were on the Council and
probably got approved without the Council even being involved at all.
Al Krueger: So there was no wise decisions here to in with. Neither the
'
location or the problem and good old Krueger family's a r
are the ones that are
suffering. We're the ones that woken up at night, okay? We're the ones that
hear it in the morning, okay and you guys are blessing me with that, okay?
Councilman Johnson: You have your other alternatives. '
Al Krueger: I know. I know. They all cost me .money and I've got a $250.00 -
bill to have a phone conversation so far, okay? I got a problem and you guys
have given me my problem and now I'll live with it until next licensing but
okay, give me something then too. On the removal of those kennels so that house
when it is sold, because I know he's going to sell it.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think it's legal to do that. We've got to live
within a structure of law that...
Al Krueger: Then don't approve it. I've got a problem. Come camp out. You'll
be woken up when stuff goes by. Did we determine what procedure was going to be
followed? Is that what that gentleman said?
Councilman Johnson: The administrative procedure is that everybody within 500
feet and the Council has asked to where we're going to actually make a change to
the ordinance to that effect.
Al Krueger: That will be in effect for next year?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. ,
VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK, DANIEL KERLING AND ROBERT KLINGER, 310 SINNEN '
CIRCLE AND 8180 MARSH DRIVE.
Willard Johnson: We denied the variance for the rear yard setback for Daniel
Kerling and Robert Klinger because we couldn't find no hardship. Mr. Boyt made
a statement on some piece of property that, I don't know if it was before you
people here. Could you work it into that with the contractor so he don't
squeeze a house in a lot and I guess that's what happened. The City got stuck
with the same situation. Put up a wall to wall house and this gentleman feel
that the contractor puts in the sliding doors in the back and the gentleman
thinks well I can throw a deck out and we'll probably get stuck with it. I feel
for the applicant but we cannot find a hardship in this situation.
32 '
■
' City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
1
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Klinger also has other. problems. Not only being able to put
a deck but he also seems to acquire all of the water within that particular area
' and there should be a swale in there that I suggested he contact those people so
that has proper drainage. I walked out on that back yard and I sunk up to my
ankles in mud and water. There's water standing all over in that back yard.
' Willard Johnson: I have to admit I didn't get to the property, I'll be honest
becauser I didn't get the paperwork until tonight. Do you want me to talk about
all 3 of them?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Will, let's take them one at a time.
Roger Knutson: No one's appealled?
Councilman Boyt: On one's appealled, is that right? Then we don't even vote on
it if they don't appeal.
Mayor Chmiel: Then we can move onto item 9.
11
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, TOM MICHELSON, 600 FOX HILL DRIVE.
Willard Johnson: Similar situation you had here a couple weeks ago. Variance
to a front yard setback. We could not find any hardship in that situation. I
feel for the applicant again, to be honest about it but I don't believe giving a
variance to the front yard setback and the Board all agreed that we could not
I find a hardship in that situation.
Councilman Workman: Maybe if I could make a comment. We had a variance request
for something almost identical to this a couple of weeks ago. I know they
applied on the 5th. Wouldn't staff be able to say, you know it doesn't look
' good? I don't know, I guess everyone wants their day in court but I feel more
sorry for, I don't feel sorry for Willard coming in early or anything but these
folks come in and they just kind of get told something that I think I kind of
had a good idea on already. They didn't have a snowball's chance.
Don Ashworth: It would appear as though the application though was 5/5.
' Councilman Workman: It was 6/5 I think.
Don Ashworth: Is when it was paid for. The back side shows 5/5.
' Councilman Workman: I guess there's nothing we can do.
Councilman Boyt: Tom, I think there is something we can do and I think if the
' City Council is consistent in turning these down, then staff will be able to say
this is what the City Council has done in the past. People may save themselves
money. I can say that over the last couple years with the old Council, there
was, if anything, a lack of consistency so staff never knew if they were going
to be supportive or not. That didn't allow them to give a strong position to an
applicant. So I agree with you. I hope we can be consistent enough so that
staff can say that this hasn't passed in the past and probably won' t in the
future.
33
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
1
Councilman Workman: I guess I'm not so much looking for consistency I guess. I
go at variances thinking I'd like to approve them rather I don't want to approve
them so I'd rather look at them positively than negatively. I liked to help you
improve your home and add a deck and a pool and everything else so I'm still
looking at them reasonably individually so I don't know that I'm looking
necessarily for consistency. Although my actions have proven lately I guess
consistent. I guess I was asking staff to perform something that they weren't
going to be able to do.
Willard Johnson: Excuse me, could I make a comment? I think Roger robabl
could back me on that any citizen has a right to go for a variance even if he
calls one of you people on the council and says, do you think I can make it and
you say no. He still has, I guess that's his Constitutional right to come
before you if he wants to spend $75.00 or whatever the charge is to take a long
shot at it, I guess.that's his. '
Councilwoman Dimler: This Daniel Kerling and Robert Klinger, I talked to both
of them afterwards and they were detaining me and that's why I wasn't here to
start the meeting. They were rather angry so I guess we could alleviate some of
that too by giving than maybe an indication as to what their chances might be.
But the one thing they couldn't understand is what constitutes a hardship. I'm
just wondering if someone can, I guess I really couldn't explain it to than
either except that it can't be self-imposed but what constitutes one that isn't
self-imposed. I guess I'd like to have somebody look into that and write a
statement that we can explain to future applicants that are denied because they
don't understand. '
Willard Johnson: Mr. Klinger called me a number of times and I told him he had
to work through City staff. I don't feel that I have the right to say hey, no
you aren't going to get it or give him that impression. I don't want to put
myself out on a limb.
Councilwoman Dimler: No you can't but all I'm saying is there some wordage that
we could have that we could explain to them what constitutes a real hardship and
not a self-imposed one. I guess it would help me out if I could explain.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Don, will you pull something together on that?
Willard Johnson: There again it's the contractor. I guess I'm going to nail
the contractor but it's his fault that they've got wall to wall houses and we've
got a number of these projects that are planned developments that have been
giving us problems. I hope you people can work out something.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you look at the two houses with the
e 3P1 foot setback as
they had from their property line, you'd have contiguous decks from one to the
other. That presents a problem.
Willard Johnson: Because you could have that whole string, if they all decided
to put decks out, you could hop from one house to the other. I
Mayor Chmiel: Their homes I think probably are the closest in that particular
area, which is a shame but that's part of the developer. Is Mr. Michelson here?
If not, as you indicated it was denied. No hardship.
til
34 '
11
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
II1 VARIANCE TO REQUIREMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS, DAVE STOCKDALE, 8301 AUDUBON ROAD.
I I Willard Johnson: We could find no problem there as lo. as you grant the
P long Y g
variance we felt he didn't need the curb and gutter at this time. Roger helped
' us with a number of steps. I don't have them here to be honest about it. We
gave him a number of alternates and with Roger recommended we had money in
escrow in case he doesn't follow through with his project the City is covered
and we felt at this present time, that would be the best way to go and hope the
Council agrees with it.
Mayor Chmiel: I also went out to this one and looked at that as well. The
' thing I guess I had just one concern. I think you addressed that the roads that
you would be proposing on putting in would be the existing one as is shown as is
now presently. I also notice that the drainage for that would be going strictly
' to the west as it goes to the north some and in the east portion it sort of has
a drop off on both sides so the drainage goes in two different directions in
that specific location.
' Willard Johnson: And the Board felt that he didn't require a cement curbing at
this time because it'd be just a waste of energy to put it in and tear it out
when he develops.
Mayor Chmiel: What was the Board's recommendation?
' Willard Johnson: To grant the variance with the conditions listed.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can you give the conditions Roger?
Roger Knutson: I gave my notes to Jo Ann. I can't recall them. But you did
more than grant a variance. I guess that's technically what happened but they
were just going to postpone the timing of when the concrete curb and gutter
' would have to be put in. They postponed it the earliest of the following dates.
January 1, 1992. When sewer and water is available to the property. When any
building permit is issued for the property with a value of more than $10,000.00
or if the property is subdivided. The earliest of those events, the concrete
curb and gutter has to go in and they have to put up a $10,000.00 letter of cash
escrow to guarantee performance.
Councilman Johnson: At this time?
Roger Knutson: At this time.
OFFICIAL MAPPING OF TH 101 RIGHT-OF-WAY, FRED HOISINGTON.
' Councilman Boyt: This is really straight forward. Maybe we could just move
ahead.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes as I've gone through this, I didn' t see any real given
problems with it. Is there any discussion?
' Councilman Johnson: Is there any member_ of the public that's here for this
issue?
35
861
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989 ■
■
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone wishing to address it? I don't see anybody at all.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Alternate 1 of
the Official Mapping of TH 101 dated May 31, 1989 from Fred Hoisington. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
DESIGNATION OF CITY ATTORNEY. '
Don Ashworth: City Council earlier this year had asked staff to go through an
interview process to look at City Attorney position, City Auditor and our
Financial Advisor. In looking at, and we did that, I used John Dean of the
Holmes Firm to help in the preparation of a proposal format. We solicited
proposals that did run in the League magazine. City Council did receive a copy
of all of the proposals received. Again, Mr. Dean and I took a 2 day period to
meet with the top 6 firms that we considered eligible for this position. In
addition we had interviewed an attorney who currently is with Carver County and
we felt that Jean Shivley would be an excellent potential candidate. Speaking
of that latter one first, had completed a financial analysis of dollars that we
have been spending in the City Attorney area and although we have spent
considerable sums during the past 2 years in condemnation processes and
development contracts associated with Rosemount, McGlynn, etc., it was my belief
that that type of work, in all likelihood, would not continue in the future or
at least could not be guaranteed at a level that would sustain an in-house
attorney at a cost of roughly $100,000.00. Maybe $125,000.00 but by the time we
put someone in-house, it would be generally into that area. Again, I was
anticipating that Mr. Dean would be here to help in that process. I again think
that all of the firms were very, very good. The top, we again have shown the
top 6 and of those 6, really the top 3 listed were considered to be, you didn't
put them in the same order there. I better watch what I'm saying. We had
listed them in another way but anyway, what it came down to was we have a very
known quantity and this is again Mr. Dean's position, my own, with the Grannis
law firm it would be the recommendation of myself that the Grannis firm be
selected for City Attorney. I believe that the process that we've gone through
has been a very worthwhile one in that I think it has forced Grannis to look at
their cost structuring and to establish a retainer system that would assure a
reasonable return for them while yet providing a reasonable level of service to
the city. That would be at a blended rate that would be lower than our current
rate for that service. In addition, city staff had interviewed all of our staff
members to try to determine whether or not the level of service being provided
by the attorney was sufficient for city staff members. How they would suggest
for improvements, etc. so again I think that that process was a very useful one
in obtaining suggestions from all of our staff as to how we might improve again
the city attorney functions and how those functions interrelate with each of our
departments. With that Mr.. Mayor, again staff is recommending that the Grannis
law firm be selected for City Attorney. I should also note that the City
Attorney is considered as a city employee under State Statute. There is one
exception and that is that any recommendation from myself must be concurred with
L!!by the City Council for either dismissal or for employment. In terms of the
91
next two selection processes that we will be going through which is really the
auditor and the financial advisor, in both of those instances that is a
contract. It is a contract with the City Council and again you can authorize
36 '
L61
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
' staff to carry out that type of interview for you but I would anticipate that
with those two, that the City Council will be sitting in on the interviews
' themself. So at least at that point in time we'll have to schedule it either
for Monday evening or potentially a Saturday morning.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you clarify what you said just before in reference to the
attorney?
Don Ashworth: State Statute spells out the responsibilities of City Manager.
That includes the hiring and firing of all city employees with the exception
that the City Attorney. That any dismissal or employment must be concurred with
by the City Council so any recommendation from myself in terms of City Attorney,
' whether it be for dismissal or for employment must be concurred with by the City
Council.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I haven't had a chance. I got a lot of the
' paperwork from the law firms and I really haven't had a chance to look at this
issue in much detail. I've heard a lot of good things said about Roger. Not
only from city staff but from other independent sources. I've heard a lot of
good things but I would make a motion to table until perhaps, it's a difficult
thing for me to make a decision on. I'm not going to deny that but I would like
a little more time if Council feels it's appropriate.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question too of Don. Is there a possibility that
the Council itself could interview the top three?
Don Ashworth: Sure. If the Council would choose that they would like to
interview the top three, we can sure do that.
' Mayor_ Chmiel: That was one of the concerns I had too and I wanted to review who
the top three were and to get that list from you so I can go through each of
these accordingly and scrutinize it a little ,closer.
' Councilman Boyt: I recognize that this may not fall on receptive ears but in
the report, if you read it, it stated pretty clearly that the transition from
one city attorney to another is rather dramatic in the impact it has on the
City's on going legal efforts. Unless the Council has some particular
discomfort with the existing City Attorney, I think we should move on with this
piece of business and approve Knutson as, Roger Knutson. The firm of Grannis as
the City Manager has recommended so I would make a motion that we approve the
appointment...
Councilman Workman: I have a motion.
' Councilman Boyt: You don't have a motion. There's no second. I make a motion
that we approve Roger Knutson as the City Attorney for the coming year and his
' firm.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
37
•
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the appointment of
Roger Knutson of the firm of Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. as -the
City Attorney for the next year. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted
in favor. Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chmiel voted in
opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Mayor Chmiel: I too feel, as Tom has indicated, I want to review this a little
Y � ,
closer and look at the complete total cost differences that are entailing. I'm
not saying Roger's not doing a fine job. I think he is but I want to make sure
that I understand who we're hiring and what the other people have potentially to
offer and I want to see that done.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I make a motion then that the Council interview the '
top three?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, you can make that motion.
Councilman Workman: Can I move to table at this stage first of all?
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion first. She'd have to withdraw her. motion.
Councilman Workman: I just want it tabled so that I can, I haven't looked
through the stack of proposals.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Mr. Ashworth. Was there a significant
difference in the proposed fees of any of the top three firms? 1-11
Don Ashworth: The proposal by Albrecht could be considered to be significantly
lower. One of the things that I had talked about during the interview process
with Mr. Albrecht, who is here this evening, is the fact that I do not believe
that the retainer realistically represented the. amount of work that's going to
need to be completed so it would be my interpretation that really it's an
extension of the hourly rate that was being considered. For example, I think
that the example used there was approximately 20 to 30 resolutions, etc. and
we'll hit over 200 resolutions so you've got some big differences in the amount
of work to be... '
Councilman Boyt: What was the hourly rate difference Don?
Don Ashworth: I would hate to throw out a figure.
Councilman Boyt: Well I'll withdraw the question.
Councilman Johnson: I move to table.
Councilman Workman: I already moved on it.
Councilman Johnson: It's died for lack of a second by now.
Mayor Chmiel: No, there was discussion going. Bill interjected in there and I I
let the discussion go.
Councilman Workman: I will second Ursula's motion.
38 '
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: My motion was that the Council interview the top three or
anyone they choose to really, they should be able to call for it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the motion is on the floor and there's a second to
interview the top three attorney...
Councilwoman Dimler: Or any one of choice. Whichever. If one of us wants to
pull one.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded a motion that the City
' Council interview the top 3 candidates or any candidate of the Council's
choosing for the City Attorney position. All voted in favor except Councilman
Johnson and Councilman Boyt and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Workman: I'd like to move that we table the selection of our City
Attorney for 2 weeks I'd say. Should we be able to get that done Don?
Councilman Johnson: Her motion does that.
' Don Ashworth: The question becomes when it is the City Council would be able to
take and meet as a group to interview the candidates. Point of clarification.
That is that staff is aware of the top three firms and in previous discussions
' with the mayor, I think there would be an additional firm so we're probably to 4
and then by your motion there may be others added even to that. Does City
Council have a Saturday morning that may be open or are you aware of a
particular evening that you'd like to look to?
' Mayor Chmiel: It would have to go beyond the 4th of July I would think.
' Councilman Workman: July 8th?
Mayor Chmiel: July 8th? That'd be a Saturday. Saturday morning. 8:00 a.m..
Right here in the Council chamber.
' Don Ashworth: If we have the courtyard conference room complete by then, that
might be a nice setting as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Either or but here in City Hall. Is everyone able to do that?
' Councilman Boyt: I don't know.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know at this time either.
Mayor_ Chmiel: That would be fine.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Let's move on with Council presentations. Council ethics in
working with developers and conflict of interest.
39
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilman Johnson: This is my own personal soapbox I uess. It's a thing that
g g
I've tried to maintain at any time I have a contact with a developer or a
developer asks me to come and meet with him for lunch or whatever, I bring, well
actually I've never met with a developer over lunch or anything like this but I
arrange a meeting at City Hall with city staff. Generally the developer then
says he doesn't really want to meet with me and we don't have the meeting but
it's my personal preference and my personal ethics that I will not meet one on
one with a developer and this is based on previous actions I had seen taken by
previous people where they had meetings and votes changed after private meetings
and that's one of the things that got me involved into this office in the first
place is some of the things I saw happening in years past. I just wanted to
bring that out that citizens see and hear that members have one on one meetings
with developers. It doesn't look good to the citizens. Staff is always ready
to accompany anybody on these visits if that's necessary. So that's all I
wanted to say on the soapbox on my personal view of ethics and how I handle
developers who, you can't refuse them when they call you up on the phone because
you can't hang up on them. They've got you. Staff generally doesn't give out
your work phone number. However, my daughter does. My 6 year old has been real
good about that. Oh, he's at work. Here's his number. Thanks a lot Chrissy.
Fortunately I changed jobs. Now that's the second part where I want to bring a
clear understanding. On May 1st I started working with a consulting engineering
firm. I've already talked to staff and a few other people and there's really no
belief that there's much of a conflict of interest here in that the firm is
formerly known as E.A. Hicock and they're changing their name July 1st to J.M.
Montgomery. They've been purchased by J.M. Montgomery. I'm the manager of
their hazardous and solid waste section. It's a consulting engineering firm. '
They are also the engineers for the Minnehaha Creek Wastershed District. Here's
one of the other engineers in the firm I work for has written a letter and
they're a part of this city. I am not in their section. I have nothing to do
with the work they do. These people do not work for me whatsoever so I really
feel that personally, and I'd like to get some feedback, that since although
they're in the same firm, they're in a different division under a different
manager. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that I can act upon issues within
that watershed district. I personally feel there isn't a conflict of interest.
...in fact I have been recently about the effects of Riplox because they're also
the Rice Creek Watershed District and they did the Long Lake experiment and have
all the data so I've been looking at Riplox and all the data involved in that
lately. So there's some advantages. I'm not too wild about Riplox after
looking over that data either. But anyway, I just wanted to bring that forward
so there is no secrets there.
Councilwoman Dimler: If I could just make a comment. I think Jay might have
been referring to me because I do meet with developers. I just want to say for
the record that I do it for information only. I don' t promise them a vote or
anything like that. It's just to get the information so I'm more adequately
informed to get their perspective and then I also call people in the area,
citizens in the area to get their perspective and it just gives me a broader
view of what's going on. That's why I do it and I don't particularly see
anything wrong with it. My other thing was that I wanted to discuss a
L!!
nomination to the RTD. We did already hit upon that but I did call Don this
morning and ask him to give us a little bit of a presentation of what the
current status is. Who's on it and what are our responsibilities with each
nomination from our own district rather than just confirming Ed Kranz who is not
40 ,
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
' really representing us.
II Don Ashworth: Unfortunately after you had called, I went into Jo Ann's office,
relayed the questions and asked her to make sure she was in a position to
respond to each of those this evening. I think that I have correctly understand
the questions. Again, Mr_. Kranz is from Eden Pr_airie...any form of endorsement,
it's simply a generalized endorsement. He is not from our district. It would
not be our nomination. Our district would include Chaska, Chanhassen, Savage,
Lakeville, Prior Lake. It's a larger area and the City Council may make a
' nomination from your own group or someone within the community. As Jay had
stated earlier, Gail Kinkannon has shown an interest. She has been an
enthusiast for the MTC busing for 10-15 years that I'm aware of and has
' continuously represented Chanhassen well there. Whether again you wanted to
look to a citizen from Chanhassen or not is up to the Council.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Is there anyone currently on it that is from our
district?
Don Ashworth: It's really a new group.
Councilman Johnson: I'll fill you in on this in that I'm on the Southwest Metro
Transit Commission and we're all involved with RTB. RTB has been killed by the
' Governor and reinstituted by the legislature and it's coming back in new form.
The districts are being totally reorganized. We used to be represented by one
district for all three of our cities and it followed basically the Met Council
guidelines. Eden Prairie actually had two districts within there. There was
' several people have been very helpful to the Southwest Metro Transit which is
the bus company that services Chanhassen. The transit provider. Ed has been
very much helpful to us over the years in our voting. The RTB has in the past
' not really liked Southwest Metro terribly much in my opinion. There's been some
friction back and forth. They didn' t like us opting out of the system but we
had the option to make our own bus system and we've done it and we've proved it
' as a viable option now. Everything is in flux with the RTB. The appointment to
the Chair of the RTB is a very high level political thing. The appointments to
each position on the RTB. They cut the size of it in half. We don't know
what's going to happen to the staffing. I just got a packet tonight about that
' thick about what's going on with it. Tonight we're expecting to find out
whether the drivers are going to go on strike. Another issue which all of a
sudden there may not be buses on Wednesday. Really it's in a state of flux
right now.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but do we have new requirements?
' Councilman Johnson: They're realigned the districts. They no longer conform to
Met Council districts. It used to be each Met Council member also had a RTB
member that represented the exact same district and the Met Council more or less
sponsored that person. The various cities kind of fought with and the Met
Council appointed them. It's different now. There are some of a certain
percent of the group. Four of the members have to be locally elected officials.
Two of those have to be a county officials. Two members have to be general
population. Like four or something have to be appointed by the Governor of
which one has to be an elderly. One has to be a handicap. It has become one of
the craziest combination of boards you've ever seen. It's a very complex
situation now but Gail is running for one of the two allowable non-elected
' 41
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
positions and there will be people all over the Twin Cities doing that i.n-other.
districts. We don't know what the competition is going to be like yet. I don't
think we should make any kind of endorsements really until we see what all the
competition is. I've known Gail now for 2 years that I've been on the Board and
she is a transit user in addition to being a member of the board and very
comprehensive. Very good record of being there and working very hard. She's a
hard worker. She'd be an excellent member but I'd like to see who else is going
to be.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying then that people should come and apply or ,
let us know that they're interested and then how will they know to let us know
though?
Councilman Johnson: Appointments at this level are the political savy of the
people asking for this type of an appointment is such that they know to let you
know. This is not something that... ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so from all those who let us know then we make a
nomination? I
Councilman Johnson: Yes. We can support a lot ,of people. We could support the
gentleman from Hopkins who is considering also. He used to support us a lot out
here. In fact he was essential in some of his maneuvering to keep us from
having to rebid the bus service last year. He used to represent part of Eden
Prairie so he's the one who came to all our meetings. Nobody else did. Ed came
once or twice. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, that's all the questions I had there. Then I just
had one more thing and that was that some neighborhood complaints about the
SuperAmerica station at TH 7 and TH 41. The main problem being the holding pond
problems with dirt sliding into it. There's no berming and no landscaping and
generally the site looks a mess. The citizens feel that the development
contract was not upheld. Can we have somebody go out there and test the site.
Bring back the violations and then we would decide what to do. Does anybody
want to address that?
Gary Warren: There's two letters in the Adminstrative Packet. One from my '
staff. The other from the Watershed District. We've been out there harrassing
the developer if you will. We have been for quite a while to get this thing
cleared up. We've mentioned in the letter we're suspending his building permit
on the retail center, which he hasn't started anyway and we've put him on notice
that if corrective actions aren't taken, I forget the date but that if they
aren't we will be utilizing his security to see that the corrections are done at '
his expense so he's on notice as of last week.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and have you heard from him?
Gary Warren: I haven't. Dave Hemphill I had write the letter and I don't know
if they talked to Dave but I haven't heard. Dave normally would have told me if
they responded.
L!!Mayor CPmiel: We've had some discussions on that as well.
42 ,
■
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: So then I should let these o le know that action has
p s
f- been taken and they can expect to hear from you.
Gary Warren: Yes, the letters are in your administrative packet. You can show
than that.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I know that but I mean when we get personal phone calls, I
feel like I want to get back to them with a little more updated information.
Gary Warren: That's the latest and the greatest.
' Councilman Workman: Lake Riley chain of lakes continuing saga. I guess I was
disturbed a little bit by the letter in our adminstrative packet from Mr. Haik.
Raymond A. Haik, attorney to the Mayor and the City Council basically stating
' that we are not in fact going after the Lake Lucy access either fast enough or
not at all and that we're going to be possibly responsible for reimbursing the
Watershed District for their portion of the costs. This I believe is erroneous
in that at least to my knowledge as a councilmen, this project just came very
' much to light to me and in fact the grant was made by the EPA and the monies
were designated to us in June of 1986. Now 3 years later, the Watershed's
engineers have finally come through with the plan for the clean up 3 years
after. I don't think we've failed to respond. I was missing Lori Sietsana all
day to find out where exactly we are with a possible access. She seems to be on
some sort of a track for completion in May, 1990. That apparently in her mind
' is adequate and she's gotten that feedback from somebody, I don't know who. I
did meet with Mr. Haik and the rest of the crew. I think I mentioned that to
the Council. Mr. Tomasek fr_om the PCA and it appears as though Mr_. Haik is
really only concerned with the Watershed District's money. I was told by a
' person at the Chicago office of the EPA that in fact the report by the
engineering firm for the Watershed District report is actually a report to do a
report to do a lake clean-up. Not a report to do a clean-up. Perhaps this
' project, the portion of the money that was paid to this engineering firm was
very substantial for what we've received. EPA and PCA tell me that this will
not go through without public approval. I don't know where the public approval
is supposed to come up. I've mentioned getting public hearings. Discussing it.
' I don't know again how best to discuss highly technical matters but there are
some negatives to the work project, not to mention the public access. We again
need to refocus and find out, by all accounts it appears as though the million
dollars is gone and I think perhaps somebody is trying to blame somebody here
and it might look like somebody's trying to blame the City Council of
Chanhassen. Now I'm not very happy with that considering the amount of time
' it's taken up to this point to get this thing moving. With that I guess I was
hoping that Jo Ann was here because Jo Ann has been taking a lead with a lot of
this and again I'd like to direct her to let us know what's going on because
there's a lot going on out there. There's some people that think their lake is
going to get cleaned up and I think not with this money so it should be a
concern to us. We've been kind of pointed at as the foot draggers and I would
have to disagree.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment on that. Maybe others would. I agree
1 with you that I think that people are now looking around for who can take the
responsibility for what happens in the future. I was a little distressed at the
letter but I think the letter was very clear in drawing a line in the sand and
' 43
j
Cify Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
saying July 10th is the date and I think that the City can make that date but we
can't make it if we just let it come to us. I think that the City Council- has
to hold some work sessions. I think this needs to be a priority issue and we
need to have a decision on the access by the 10th. To get that we need to have
enough meetings between now and then to have those issues worked out because if
we don't have it by the 10th, we are going to look like we haven't held up our
end of the deal, though I would agree with you Tom, I don't think that's true at
all. I think that's how it's going to look and I think we need to be ready with
a proposal for an access. I happen to believe that the DNR's proposal to cut
through the marsh is misguided and that we should be looking at this mechanical
access myself. I've got quite a curiousity about how this article managed to
get in the Star and Tribune last week and how we managed to find ourselves the
topic of the political cartoon. I think the political cartoon was in very bad
taste and I think the article seemed to show an interesting perspective on a
problem. I'm just curious how it got there.
Councilman Workman: Did you read the work plan? I
Councilman Boyt: I read through it but I didn't read it with the detail that
maybe you've given it.
Councilman Workman: I think if you had, the Riplox, why they chose Riplox or
why the writer had a concern about Riplox is beyond me. Riplox sounds like a
fairly boring topic to me. Politics is probably much more exciting to me so I
can't answer that for him but Riplox is a very large portion of the project,
$310,000.00. In reading through that article I noticed that $310,000.00 showed
up not only in our project for Riplox but $310,000.00 to the Long Lake project.
!!!
It was just pulled from the Long Lake project and plugged into our project. The
politics of it, which are more fun, the politics of it is, what's going to
happen, number one what's the cost of the access to us. Cost of that lot is
getting more and more expensive. As we talked before Jay it's a project to
clean up Lake Riley. What's going to happen to Lucy and there's 4 other lakes
so none of those concerns have been alleviated. I myself personally think
pouring Riplox into Rice Marsh Lake is not a good idea. I have no technical
background to support that but I'd like to see some that does so it's a touchy
issue as we've known all along. I think the article in the newspaper was
printed after this letter was written and they want to push it along and make
sure that the Watershed gets their money and I want to make sure we get the
lakes cleaned up.
Mayor_ Chmiel: In the Administrative packet, we dial send a letter, or I sent a '
letter to Conrad Fiskness, manager of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
specifically addressing all those problems and as you mentioned, they're looking
for that, as Bill mentioned, they're looking for the access to that property on
the 10th and that was something that I had conversation with Mr. Haik as well on
the telephone and he feels that if we want to go through a study and take a year
to year and a half to come up with a solution what's the best thing for. the
lakes, he says he really doesn't care just as long as the access of that
property is done by the 10th of July or the 15th of July with the DNR having
that ability, knowing that that's going to take place and that's his only real
concern.
Councilman Johnson: I think we have a real concern by meeting that because the
wetland alteration permit has to be approved to do that. We turned down
44
11
rrl d
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Mr. Rivkin's much smaller wetland alteration.
Councilman Boyt: That passed. I was the only one that voted against it
actually.
' Mayor Chmiel: He had mentioned that at many of the meetings here that he had
had approval. I think Bill's right.
Councilman Boyt: But nevertheless the point about a wetland alteration permit
is certainly part of this.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's a requirement.
Councilman Johnson: At the time of Rivkin's permit, didn't he not need one the
year before?
' Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Johnson: Then we changed the ordinance making it required to have
one. I think that must have been the one I missed this spring. I wasn't going
to vote for that.
' Councilman Boyt: I think a key ingredient of this Lake Lucy access affects all
of Chanhassen, not just the Lake Riley chain of lakes and that's non point
source pollution. A big part of the money, as much as is going to Riplox is
going to educate us about sources of non point source pollution and all you have
to do is go look at any lake in our city and you can see that it's been hit by
that already this year. The whole city stands to gain by this project. We have
a tremendous opportunity here and I would really like to see us get it done by
the 10th of July.
Councilman Johnson: Hopefully somebody's doing something about the mechanical
' access via Lake Ann. I don't know if any action has been taken on that.
Councilman Workman: But hasn't DNR basically said that's not a go. That's not
' something that they're even going to consider.
Councilman Boyt: What they've said is, they have concerns about it but the
point is that they've just, Lori just today realized that there ways to overcome
their concerns but we need to know specifically what their concerns are.
They're saying we want a handicap access. If we're talking spending $120,000.00
to acquire property, you can do a lot with $120,000.00 to build a mechanical
' access. We're only talking about lifting the boat 6 inches.
Mayor Chmiel: I think if we're going to come up with any solutions to this, we
' better have some answers of whether or not that's a viable option or not and I
think we'd better find out from staff. Checking with DNR if, from what I've
read, it was an indication by the DNR that that was not acceptable.
Councilman Johnson: The trouble is, once you get your boat off your trailer,
how do you get it across Lake Ann. You can't paddle a great big boat across
there. If you have an electric engine and that's not equal access.
if--
' 45
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Don Ashworth: That's my understand as well and again, one of those involved has
been Dale Barber. One of the problems we've had staff wise is we'll be bringing
2 or 3 and they will check with whomever to see if that's acceptable. If you do
get agreement from the one group who happens to come in, then Fisheries or.
Waters or whatever the next group is shows concerns and you're back into a tail
spin. I don't know what to suggest.
Councilman Johnson: Early in the process I asked a question and it has never
been answered. Last year. DNR says they won't restock that lake if we don't
have public access on it. They said they would kill it without public access on
it. Do the fish kill without public but they won't restock it. I've said okay,
fine. Would the City restock it? Would that be acceptable? The DNR not put
money into Lake Lucy except for on the kill side of it which they said they
would do without public access but their policy is they will not restock any
lake that does not have public access. That I've had asked to have looked into
several times.
Mayor Chmiel: In order to get the full grant you have to have the access. If
you don't have the access, you don't get the grant. That's what it boils down
to.
Don Ashworth: And making issues more difficult now and one of the reasons for
the timing is the original work program called for the city to make the grant
application in May of this year. LAWCON has now changed this past year, changed
the timing and has stated that no application will be received from any city for
boat access prior to September of 1989 so they had moved the entire process back
I!!
by 6 months so we can't make an application for a boat access on that lake
because of their regulations and yet without an application and grant approved,
we cannot acquire the land which was one of the original conditions that we came
back with when we had initially met with those people is we need to take and
have a grant to be able to carry out the acquisition of this boat access that
you're demanding of us.
Councilman Boyt: Can we meet with the necessary people sometime either. this
week or next Wednesday and get this rolling?
Don Ashworth: Why don't I have then Lori contact each of the Council members.
Do we want to set up a tentative time? Is there a general time that would be
good for council members?
Councilman Workman: I guess I'm unclear as far as what we're oin '
9 g to talk
about.
Don Ashworth: It seems like there's a number of issues including where do we
stand with the mechanical lift. Can we get that. Can we not. The question you
just posed regarding stocking versus not stocking. Where do we stand with the
grant if they move this whole application back and how does that change our
relationship with the Watershed District. Then who's going to be conducting
these hearings? The letter we sent over to the Watershed District said Council
would like to see hearings held but we need your help and so far I haven't seen L!!
a response to that although that was very recent.
Councilman Boyt: Well if Don is right and we have time to resolve some of these
issues, it sounds like the really critical issue is how do we handle the access
46
' r
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
to Lake Lucy. I'd like to see us get that resolved by the
y 10th of July or there
abouts and we'll work these other things out when we're not under that
tremendous crunch of time.
Councilman Workman: It's my understanding from Mr. Haik's letter that the
' Watershed District has exhausted all their funds and that has directed the staff
to not incur additional expense and that we inform the City of Chanhassen of the
need to obtain the access to Lake Lucy by July 15th and I've heard this from
them basically before that we don't have any money to defend the project. We
' don't have any money to show up. The Watershed isn't even ready to pay Barr
Engineering the extras to show up at one of these things. I've been told that
and we're kind of being put under the gun for a project that was begun 3 years
' ago and my original point is not to point blame at somebody but the thing has
been going on for 3 years. We just got a work plan. We've known about the
access for a long time. I've heard about that being a political problem and now
people get to look at the work plan and look and see and it's their right to
look at the work plan in a public process and now we're kind of being told hurry
up and get the access in, you've got to do it otherwise the million bucks is
gone.
Councilman Johnson: Part of that work plan delay, as far as that goes, there's
a lot of blame back and forth. The substate agreement had to be signed before
' the work plan could be written. Before the monies could be released. The
monies were there but they couldn't be released to write the work plan until the
substate agreement was signed. The Watershed District gave that to the MPCA.
II1_ Six months later the MPCA commented on it. There's a lot of miscommunications
in the interim. People changing jobs. Things like that happen to where the
substate agreement got just more or less misplaced and the whole project sat
hanging. It's a typical bureaucratic mess up having local, regional, state,
federal all trying to do the same thing. We all have the same goal.
Councilman Boyt: Could we meet sometime and get this discussed?
Mayorr. Chmiel: Yes, that's what I was just looking at. It would have to be
again, maybe we could do it right after Saturday or we could do it before too as
far as that's concerned. I have open the 5th, the 6th or the 7th.
' Councilman Boyt: Nothing this week?
' Mayor Chmiel: You want to do it this week?
Councilman Boyt: I'm thinking we're going to need more than one of these
' meetings and if we can start it out sometime this week. I don't know that Lori
can get the people together.
Councilman Johnson: Especially EPA out of Chicago.
Mayor Chmiel: I can do it on Wednesday.
Councilman Boyt: Can we try for Wednesday and see if we can get anything
meaningful together?
Don Ashworth: What are you looking at, daytime or evening?
' 47
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Mayor_ Chmiel: Evening.
Don Ashworth: We could have a problem with some of the State people.
Mayor Chmiel: Give them a choice. Either Wednesday or Thursday. How is
Thursday for everybody? '
Councilman Workman: Thursday is bad.
Councilman Boyt: If we need to, can we meet during the day? As you've stated, '
they probably won't come out in the evening.
Councilman Johnson: This week will be tough for me during the day. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thursday I could.
Councilman Workman: I was of the understanding that Mr. Robert's of the EPA in
Chicago was going to be in the area sometime. You might want to find that out.
Soon.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you find out when he's going to be here and get back to
each of the Council and then notify the papers.
Don Ashworth: We had Jo Ann in on most of these as well and I hope that she
will return.
Councilman Johnson: If Barr Engineering says they can't come because there's no I
money to pay the engineer to come, would we as a city be willing to, on an
hourly rate, pay them to be at the meeting?
Mayor. Chmiel: To have Barr here?
Councilman Workman: I think Jay that we're trying to find out the access and
the merits of the plan and Riplox are probably not at hand right now.
Councilman Johnson: Alright. Barr's not involved in the access?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Don Ashworth: Dale Barber, Division of Fisheries and you want, the LAWCON '
group, the DNR group.
Councilman Johnson: As many as we can get. I think EPA is critical too because
I've asked what the EPA's definitions are of various things and I keep getting
the answer, the same as DNR's. I say how do you know and they say because it
is. Nobody seems to talk.
Mayor. Chmiel: Okay, maybe if we can go in that particular direction and Don you
can get back to us and let us know, we can pursue it from there. Tom, you had
the watermain yet? L!!
Councilman Workman: Yes, it's kind of an engineering thing and maybe Gary if
I can get your attention. I didn't get a chance to bring it up last time. I'll
48 '
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
_ try and be really quick. Lake Lucy Road again. When they put the watermain in
i Y p in,
they put up the environmental fences on the outside. We had a previous-
111 discussion about this so you have the fence and then you have between the fence
and the road and then you have the road and then you're backhoeing and they're
dumping it in the road. Then it rains and maybe they got it all up and maybe
they got some of it up and they did a pretty bad job of cleaning it up. So it
goes down the storm sewer into the catch basin I guess and fills them up. Not
to mention somebody noticed it was very, when I was driving my girls to the
sitter listening for dogs at the kennels and dodging dirt piles but it really
seemed odd that I don't know where would have been a better place to dump it but
it was in the road and it rained heavy that week and it was definitely running
off the piles and later on, for at least 2 weeks, there was quite a bit of heavy
dirt still on the sides.
Councilman Johnson: The storm sewer should have been protected.
tCouncilman Workman: And it seemed to me that whoever put the environmental
fences up wasted their time because it ended up where we didn't want it.
' Gary Warren: Is the question that there should have been a better way for them
to back cast the fill material or a better way to put up the erosion control
fence?
Councilman Workman: Well we did have an erosion control fence up to protect the
storm sewer. We're putting it in the road. In fact we're putting it right by
the opening.
1111
Gary Warren: The construction restrictions that we had on the project and the
challenge that the contractor had was to do this project within the confines of
' one lane of traffic if you will and without taking up the whole boulevard area
and getting into the neighboring property so he was forced to do his backcast on
the roadway surface. There wasn't a choice there. The erosion control fencing
' was put up to protect the property's on the sides of the road and also we did
already have erosion control fencing interior to the basins that are in Curry
Farms for example where when it runs off from Yosemite basically to the east
' into those catch basins and then into the detention ponds there, through Centex
we had silt fence and erosion control fencing put on the inlets there to trap
the material in those basins so maybe that wasn't as obvious but as Jay was
saying, it should have been that actually was the case. We did have those
barriers up. As far as the fine silt on the road, and we've seen this with any
of our projects, the fine silt that comes from the clay which is really the
nutrient loading material if you will, you can take a street sweeper out there
' all day long and you'll never pick it up.
Councilman Workman: This wasn't that fine silt. I don't know who was in charge
of cleaning it up. If they were or if the city was but whoever.
' Gary Warren: The contractor is responsible.
Councilman Workman: But this wasn't silt. This was an awful lot. They didn't
do a good job. It eventually's going down the storm sewer. If it didn' t end up
polluting the lake, hurray for us.
' 49
■
i
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Gary Warren: The erosion control fence we had up in Curry Farms could have
gotten the majority of it. That was the fences on the inlets to those basins
were there to retain or to knock that sediment out. Are you saying that now. ..
Councilman Workman: ...we didn't have any go into Lake Lucy?
Gary Warren: I would expect massive quantities went in, no. Are you saying
that the road right now is not satisfactory?
Councilman Workman: It appears to be better. '
Mayor Chmiel: I'd say it still isn't. There's a lot of dirt.
Councilman Workman: There's a lot of work that can be done. Those bike trails
are not useable to my standard.
Gary Warren: We aren't done with the sodding and the final grading as I relayed
to you the other week when we were talking about this and we're in the process
right now of converting the software to get the whole system up and running with
the booster station but the final restoration work has yet to be done. There's
sodding and such that needs to be done to stabilize those boulevard areas and
that should be happening soon.
Councilman Workman: It just didn't look good.
Mayor_ Chmiel: I remember when the road first went in, it was absolutely sheer
beauty you know and now it looks like it's been there for 100 years.
Gary Warren: It was a consequence that nobody tried to hide that the challenges
when you're trying to run that kind of equipment on that road, that's why we
plan to sealcoat the road here to restore that wear surface there but actually I
was, in all honesty, I was surprised that it didn't get, the shine is gone so to
speak off the road but we didn't get any significant gouging or anything. When
you have a front end loader and equipment running like we did out there, I
thought it could have taken a lot more abuse so I think it held up well
structurally. We've got a few curb sections, minor gouges and sections that
were busted but it came out of it pretty well I thought.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, these might be items for future agendas. I would like
to see Public Safety minutes published. Typed up and published. We've had
quite a bit of debate about this in the Public Safety meetings and at one point
I was firmly against it but in the last couple months I've been won over and I
think that this is an expenditure that should be either_ approved or denied by
the City Council and I would like to see it come up on the next agenda.
Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. Publishing? '
Councilman Johnson: Verbatim, is that what you're saying?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. Typed up as they are for the Park and Rec and Planning
Commission.
Councilman Johnson: But you don't mean put in the newspaper?
50 '
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I don't mean put in the newspaper, no. Sorry, didn't mean to.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Could you explain just a minute why?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. Up until the last couple of months, Public Safety
Minutes were taken as a summary statement about a given topic. A lot of items
didn't make the Minutes and it was sometimes hard to follow the discussion that
led up to whatever the summary was. I think we've found that there's a lot of
comments that get made that can help all of us look at an issue a little bit
better. Jim suggested this and has tried it out for I would think 3 meetings or
so and I think it makes sense. I initially thought it was an expenditure the
City didn't need to be making but I think at least, if we're going to do it I
think the City Council needs to approve the expenditure and if we're not going
to do it, I'm not all that uncomfortable with not doing it but I think it's a
Council decision and not a staff decision. Okay, next point is the Eurasian
Water Milfoil. I would like to again have an item put on the agenda that gives
this a targeted amount of funding. I'm uncomfortable saying here's a blank
check and I'm also uncomfortable saying that we're not going to commit any
specific funds to this. I would like to see us commit at a minimum $5,000.00
and if Don thinks there's the ability to commit more than that. If we don't
spend it, fine. Scott Harr told me today that we had 2 samples brought in and
both of those proved to not be Eurasian Water Milfoil but apparently our
' volunteers are working away at this thing and I'd like to see us have some
money. The third item, we had in the last pack, and all three of these are
really carry overs from that, the re-distribution of Jay's proposed objectives
for the City Council, the City if you will, and we also had some possible
'
objectives for various commissions and staff. I think that the City Council
should consider this as a regular agenda item in the future and that we should
be working with the commissions, the staff and ourselves to come up with a clear
' mission statement and some objectives.
Councilman Johnson: I think we're at that point of maturity of this Council
that it's a good idea.
' Mayor Chmiel: I had one other item too by the way that I picked out of the
Administrative packet and I thought we might as well look at this tonight. In
fact I'd even like to make a motion that we accept staff recommendation on
' Greenwood Shores parking.
Councilman Johnson: What?
' Mayor_ Chmiel: It's in the Administrative Packet.
Councilman Johnson: Let's put it on the agenda and bring it up. I haven' t read
' the adminstrative packet yet.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Well, some of us might have.
I! Councilman Johnson: This is usually my Tuesday reading is my administrative
packet.
--- Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we can do that. Put it on the next one.
' 51
■
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Councilman Johnson: What was the recommendation of staff?
Don Ashworth: I guess there's not a real clear direction there and that's one '
of the concern areas that staff has had. I think that there are various
individuals that feel that it is clear. Some feel that it is not. The item was
at least put in the adminstrative section to alert the City Council that barring
no action by the Council, that I would be putting it onto an upcoming agenda to
clarify the action of the Council of July of 1988 as well as I believe it was
February or March of 1989. '
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
52
✓!,
I .
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
iREGULAR MEETING
JUNE 21, 1989
If7Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
I MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner , Gary Warren, City
Engineer and Mark Koegler , Planning Consultant
IPUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE 3RD ADDITION
INTO ONE LOT, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, QUATTRO ADDITION, ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP,
IINDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED ON WEST 77TH STREET, FORTIER AND
ASSOCIATES.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
IChairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
I Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
ItConrad : Just in general , I won' t go around the Commission. Any comments?
Anything?
Emmings : I would change one word in the recommendation where it says the
I final plat should provide the typical front, side and rear easements. I
would just change typical to required . Typical , I don ' t know what that
means.
Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #89-2 to replat Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One 3rd
I Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition as shown on the preliminary
plat dated May 25, 1989 with the condition that the final plat provide the
required front , side and rear easements . All voted in favor and the motion
Icarried.
IIPUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE FILLING AND DREDGING WITHIN A CLASS A AND
CLASS B WETLAND LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE, SOUTH OF HWY 5 AND NORTH OF LAKE
SUSAN, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
■ Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
IIChairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
1 in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
I-
I
_+.s
•
Planning Commission Meeting
II
June 21, 1989 - Page 2
Headla : The purpose of this wetland is it to help Lake Susan to have
better quality of water going into Lake Susan or is it just vegetation
right in those wetlands?
Olsen: Which wetland? '
Headla : Any of those wetlands you talked about now.
Olsen: Currently they do provide areas for water retention prior to
entering Lake Susan .
Headla : Okay now, are we degrading the water quality going into Lake Susan II
the way it' s proposed?
Olsen: With the mitigation , that' s one of the purposes of that and no we
are not. We are still providing for the same amount. For the runoff to
still be contained prior to it entering Lake Susan.
Headla: I don' t understand how you' re providing the same amount. You '
aren ' t planning to include the Eckankar effort now are you?
Olsen: Well some of the mitigation also includes wildlife habitat and ,
vegetative areas that are being moved.
Headla: That doesn' t help Lake Susan. I 'm more concerned about the water
quality going into Lake Susan. I think we have to have the road and I 'm
questioning, is it appropriate to spend more money to keep the water
quality equal to what it is now going into Lake Susan rather. than . . .
Olsen: That was one of the reasons we were working closely with that
mitigation area just north of Lake Susan and we feel that we are still
providing the same amount of protection.
Headla : That ' s all I have.
Wildermuth : Is there any change that will take place as a result of item 4 II
Jo Ann that is not reflected on the map that we currently have for Wetland
#4?
Olsen: Oh for Wetland #4?
Wildermuth: And 5. I
Olsen: Wetland 4 might, that won' t be changed at all and again that' s the
one that' s already been totally altered anyway. Number 5, that' s the one
we' re trying to work at to even remove it further from being impacted so
that will result in Market Blvd. being shifted somewhat to the west and it
might also result in Rosemount' s access drive being shifted to the south.
The Lake Drive that currently shows kind of going through that Type V
wetland , that ' s not going to , we' re going to work on moving that completely
out of the wetland. Either to the south or to the north of it. That will
not stay where it' s shown now. I
r
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 3
I
IfWildermuth : Why wouldn' t we table this until you ' ve done that?
Olsen: That' s not part of this extension or what we' re approving right
I now. The Lake Drive that is going through the Ward property, that ' s not
part of this .
Wildermuth : The number 5 wetland is part of this consideration?
IOlsen: Right.
IWildermuth : So why wouldn ' t we table this until you made that final
determination?
Warren : The number 5 wetland is the one that the consultant and I went out
1 in the field with Fish and Wildlife and we looked at it, it was the one
that kind of came up at the last minute so to speak. Even in the field it
was determined that the actual boundary of that wetland is subject to a lot
I of judgment as to where the westerly boundary of it is and we' re waiting
for the Corps of Engineers to actually help us with that field
determination . If anything , the impacts will be better from what we ' re
Iproposing because we'd be moving the road west if we can at all . We've got
some tough geometrics with the alignment of TH 101, which will be
ultimately TH 101 once the trunk highway is realigned, that restrict us a
little bit in just how far we can move i.t' but we are trying to get it as
Itfar away as possible at this point. So the alterations and the mitigation
that has been looked at are looking at it under the current alignment and
4 this is what the Fish and Wildlife has given us the reading that since we
IIare on the perimeter of that , sort of that marginal area of the wetland ,
that the mitigation areas, they felt comfortable with could be done in the
mitigation area 2 or mitigation area 1.
1 Wildermuth: It looks like the extension of the old TH 101, it looks like
Wetland 4 and 5 could be, you could eliminate going through 5 all together
by just continuing Lake Drive over to where the current TH 101 is . Is that
Isomething that you ' re looking to? Is that an option?
Warren: As Jo Ann was trying to address, Lake Drive, I don' t know if you
I have an overhead Jo Ann that might show it but Lake Drive East from Market
Blvd . , which goes right through Wetland 5 , i.s not in this current proposal
and that alignment is subject to re-evaluation . When the Ward property is
interested in developing , that' s when that roadway would be built. That is
I really not a part of this project at this time . The original proposed
alignment for that roadway was to follow on a continuous alignment with the
current Lake Drive without having that off set . In fact there was quite a
Inumber of transportation studies done to evaluate if it was negative impact
to separate that intersection but actually we found that if anything it
improved the traffic in that area. But that element, that piece to the
I east is not a part of this application and is something that will
definitely be given close scrutiny to mitigate the wetland issues at that
time.
IWildermuth : So technically the number 5 wetland is not part of this at
all? That would come up when that little stretch.
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 4
Warren : Market Blvd. is nipping the westerly edge of number 5. I don' t
know what plan sheet maybe would show that for you the best but it' s in
this transition area that' s hard to define and we are recognizing and have
conceeded to the Fish and Wildlife that we are willing to take whatever
mitigative measures that they are willing to enforce upon us here .
Wildermuth: It just looks like a shame to impact the best of the wetland
areas there at all when there' s an opportunity to avoid it all together .
Warren: I think the best of the area will not be damaged. If a current
alignment of Lake Drive to the east were built as it ' s shown on this plan
sheet, that would definitely be a problem. That' s where we' re saying we' re
going to have to take a good hard look at that when that road comes in and
see if that can' t be located some other place. I 'm looking at Figure 1.
That presents the best picture.
Wildermuth : Right now Figure 1 shows it going right through the middle of
it.
Warren : But that' s not a part of this project . Maybe I can just show you
on your plan. This project right now is this roadway. This is not a part
of it. And it may end up this alignment will come back to here , completely
avoid that or go south of it. In all likelihood it might go south of it
because the Ward ' s are interested in preserving this for a developable site
for the commercial site. But to run it right through here is not a part of
this project and it probably would not be allowed .
Wildermuth: That' s all I have. r
Batzli : I think it might clarify the issue , Jim' s issue, if we some how
specify in one of the conditions that that is not part of the permit
because I don ' t think it' s clear from our ' recommendation or the conditions
here and I think part of it is probably due to the fact that it was a late
breaking item. Either exclude it or modify exactly what portions we are
approving of wetland alteration I guess. My question Jo Ann was , do we own
the mitigation #1 area right now? The City?
Warren: Number 1, yes .
Batzli : That ' s already on park property? '
Warren: Correct .
Batzli : And the mitigation area #2 is Eckankar but as I understand it
they' re negotiating to purchase or condemn that portion.
Warren : Condemnation has been authorized by the Council . We ' ve exchanged
correspondence with Eckankar . We believe that we will be able to settle it
without having to go through condemnation.
Batzli : How many acres are we talking about purchasing there? i
r
■
i;
I .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 5
I
11 Warren : For the Eckankar?
Batzli : Yes .
Warren : Approximately 23, a little over 23 acres .
Batzli : And what' s going to become of that site other than a wetland area?
IWarren : A wetland area is a big part of it . Then future extension of West
78th Street, if you will , as a frontage road on the north side of TH 5 is
I in the long range Comprehensive Plan ultimately to continue with the
frontage road concept west to the Lake Ann Park.
Batzli : But there' s no plans for a city park there or anything else?
IWarren: Well there have been several things talked about as far as
ultimate and I 'm sure you' re maybe well aware of them. Ultimate civic
I center and schools and other things in that southern part of the parcel for
Eckankar that could be added on and worked with around there but seeing as
we've got Lake Ann Park just to the west, there' s no proposal here for a
Icity park.
Batzli : That' s all I had .
IEllson : Brian brought up the question I already had with his answers so I
don' t have anything.
IEmmings : I don ' t have anything additional .
Erhart : Precisely what is the plan for mitigation site 1? We show an area
here but what exactly are we going to do?
IOlsen : There ' s one other plan that shows it. In addition to that they
would have to give all the basics . Comply with the Fish and Wildlife .
IWarren : Page 6 too of Gary Ehret ' s report specifically lays out 8 items .
IOlsen: It gets into the types of vegetation that will be provided .
Erhart : What ' s the design depth?
I Warren : It varies . Basically we ' ve taken the Fish and Wildlife ' s
criteria that' s been requested in the past .
IErhart : And is that supposed to be Class A or Class B when it ' s finished?
Olsen: It will be a Class A.
IErhart : Open water? The total size of that was about 3 1/2 acres? Okay.
In putting the street in, if a developer puts in things we require that we
have a tree removal plan on improvements . When the City puts in a street ,
iis there any equivalent process that we require or should consider?
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 21, 1989 - Page 6
Olsen : It ' s always something that we look at prior to locating the street
but no, I don' t know that we really do. Usually when. . .we have the
boulevard landscaping along with. . . individual calipers.
Headla: I can' t hear you Jo Ann. '
Olsen : I 'm saying that we usually have like a landscaping plan that goes
along with boulevard plantings for replacement and when we look at the '
alignment of the road , we also look at the existing conditions . I don ' t
know that we use a caliper per caliper for the roadway.
Erhart : I assume we don' t do any tree replacement at all when we put '
streets in?
Warren : The Lake Drive and Market Blvd. sections do call for, I don ' t
remember the exact dollar amount but I think it' s maybe $70,000. 00 worth of
streetscape improvements , trees , plantings, low level shrubs, of that
nature. Not the intensity of the downtown but there is a planting plan as
a part of those construction documents that I think could be looked at as
some form of replacement if you will .
Erhart : Okay, and that ' s going to be done prior to any of the land being
developed? That is going in as part of the street improvement?
Warren : That ' s part of the construction document package, that ' s correct.
Erhart : Okay, in the future I guess I 'd like to see that as part of the ,
when we review these kinds of things although I guess this is simple a
wetland alteration. I think it' s important to some degree that we
maintain , the City maintains similar standards as private developers . I
wonder about that. I 'm very pleased that we' re doing that. One last
thing , I guess somehow I didn' t make the connection of this plan to the
mitigation. I 'm very pleased to see that ' we' re substantially improving the
wetlands. I think that ' s something . In the Chanhassen area we' ve got a
lot of Class B wetlands that even having a smaller area by improving them II can improve the overall wetland situation that we have. Applying that same
thing to number 5, I guess I 'd prefer to see us use some mitigation and
improvement of the wetland if there ' s not, a problem with the trees as
opposed to trying to put an unusual design in Market Blvd . and tight curve.
I 'd like to see you open up some of these Class B wetlands with permanent
open water for nesting. That 's the end of my comments Ladd .
Conrad : Okay, thanks Tim. The mitigation area Jo Ann on site 1, what is
that right now? We own it. It' s part of the park property but is it a
wetland now? '
Olsen: It' s a real marginal Class B wetland .
Conrad: Okay, so we' re improving a marginal wetland . ,
Warren : It' s been farmed quite a bit in the past and this is also the area
where the Lake Ann interceptor project was part of the wetland alteration ,
for that. They came right through the middle of this area also .
■
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 7
I
,-
1i Conrad : What are we losing in the other wetlands Jo Ann in your mind?
Wetland 2, 3 , 4, are we losing anything there as we put a road close by?
Olsen : 4 is already gone . It' s part of the Rosemount . That ' s just a
holding pond now. Numbers 2, is the larger Class A wetland . It' s really
just taking a northerly portion of it. It will be cutting away some of the
I vegetation that' s surrounding the wetland but it won' t be impacting it
enough that it will be destroyed or anything like that .
Conrad: So you' re not seeing a drainage issue, if 4 is draining into 3
isn ' t it? That' s what we' re letting them do.
Warren: 4 will backflow into 3.
IOlsen : Right . And number 2, the one north of Lake Drive is not . Number 5
is the one we' re really going to try to work on and as we stated, the
' westerly portion isn ' t the better part . It ' s a hardwood wetland so the
reason they don' t want it altered is because it' s impossible to replace.
It takes 50 years to replace that so that' s where, we will not be impacting
II that center where the hardwoods exist now. It' s just the edge. But again,
we feel comfortable . . .
Conrad : And you think there' s a net gain? Again , when you tamper with the
lkwetland, I think the City, we always talk about Fish and Wildlife and all
the other regulatory agencies but our ordinance really talks about
w maintaining a zero degregation of what we' ve got. It sort of sets the
I standard as the city does something with wetlands , it sets a standard for
how we uphold what the developers do. Very similar to what Tim was talking
about and I want to make sure that you ' re very familiar with wetlands. I
just want to make sure we' re real comfortable that we' re setting a right
1 standard . We' re saying it' s beneficial to put these roads in for
transportation purposes but we' re also saying at the same time that we ' re
getting , the Chanhassen residents are maintaining a wetland quality here
Iand it' s at least equal to what it used to be.
Olsen : I 'm comfortable that it' s equal and the two real important wetlands
I out there are not really being impacted much. They have been worked
around . And the other ones that are being altered are being improved or
mitigated so I feel that it' s an improvement.
I Conrad : So what kind of precedent? When we set a 1: 1 offset ratio and
we' ve adhered to it almost, it appears 1 to 1. Is that our standard for
mitigation for future? Does this set a standard?
IOlsen: We try to get that and not all the times we do . This time we
really are . They are doing 1 : 1 and they' ve really. . .
IConrad : Who is they?
Olsen : We. The City and then working with BRW as the consultant .
IfConrad: So that' s sort of what we' re saying to future developers 1: 1?
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 21, 1989 - Page 8
Warren : I think it depends too Jo Ann on the wetland class . For example ,
Paul Burke from Fish and Wildlife in the wooded upland wetlands where
they' re more valuable than say your Class A' s, then maybe you' re looking
for 2 or 3 to 1 type of a mitigation so it depends really on what type of
environmental issue , type of wetland you' re working with. He felt
comfortable. . .compliment to the City in the fact that they were willing,
the Fish and Wildlife was willing to take the City' s verbal agreement that
as far as the wetland V issue was concerned , that we would be making this
further restitution in 18 months on some of our other projects . He said
that' s a testimony to the track record that the City of Chanhassen has here I
in enforcing our wetland ordinances . I think it really comes down to
looking at each wetland and what you' re damaging and whether it' s a 1: 1 or
2:1 or more.
Conrad : But it always seem easy Gary to make a change for habitat. We can
move this wetland over and the ducks will follow it but I 'm never confident
in terms of water quality that , it' s real debateable whether you can create
a wetland , a new one that really does a job for water quality. Sometimes
you can, sometimes you can' t but it' s easy to justify it for habitat
rationale. I just get a little bit nervous, especially because this is an
area where we ' re paying attention to and there ' s a lot of money and the
newspaper' s kind of tracking some things in terms of the quality of the
water in this whole watershed from Lake An through Lake Susan and Riley
so I get a little bit nervous when we start pushing wetlands around but it
looks . . .
Olsen : We' re really not pushing too many around .
Conrad: To a non-technical person it looks okay to me. I guess all I can
say is I just hope that we are holding the standard that we feel
comfortable measuring other developments by. My only other comment
reinforces what we said before in that I 'd hate to see a connection from
going right through and we ' re not responding to it tonight apparently but
the wetland 5. I 'd hate to see even on a plan like this that a road is
going right through the center of the wetland. That kind of bothers me so
I would hope that any, especially since it ' s a Class A wetland . I can
accept B' s being moved and altered a little bit but Class A' s I don ' t like .
Anyway, those are my only comments .
Batzli : Are you going to be done realigning Market Blvd . by the time this
gets to City Council? '
Olsen : I know we looked at some options .
Warren: This will be on the Council ' s agenda Monday night so no . ,
Olsen : We' re already in the process of looking at some alignments to see
if it will work.
Warren : Construction is scheduled to start July 10th if the Council awards
Monday night. Bids were recently opened on the project. '
•
i
I .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 9
If- Batzli : So Council won' t even have a chance to look at your final
alignment before approving it?
I Warren : Council has seen the final alignment as it shows here and any
modification that we would propose on that alignment would go back to
Council and we would expect to bring this , it' s an important issue
obviously because we have to be construction staking for the roadway for
Ithe contractor so it' s something that we are working on as we speak here.
Batzli : You also said something about down the road in 18 months you might
I improve other wetlands as part of the bargain for cutting through number 5
there. Is that accurate?
Warren : That' s written right in the conditions here, if I remember your
I condition right. What it relates to is the Eckankar pond site. To pick up
on a comment earlier about the actual water quality benefitis , with the
Eckankar pond and the City's West 78th detachment study here, we actually
I are taking runoff that used to come directly through the Burdick property
here at CR 17 and TH 5 and run under the road and straight across country
into Lake Susan and now when the improvements are done with that project
I which should be this year also, we' ll be diverting a lot of that flow to
the Eckankar pond which will be a 2 pond system. From there into the
City' s business park ponds west of CR 17 and there into the creek into Lake
Susan . So that should be a significant improvement on water quality in
liraddition to the improvements that we' re going to be doing on mitigation
area #1 so I feel very comfortable that we' ve done some good improvements
here to the hydraulics especially.
IConrad : Anything else?
Erhart : Yes . I 'm probably about as enthusiastic about wetlands and
I
wildlife as anybody and for your comfort Ladd I think one acre of Class A
wetland is worth many, many acres of Class B. More importantly from the
standpoint of staff and Planning Commission, I guess I 'd be extremely
I disappointed if in any mitigation proposal that we see in the future we ' re
destroying a Class A wetland on a 1: 1 or any ratio for another wetland to
be created , any created wetland has to be Class A because of the value of
I the Class A and the fact if you' re in doing construction anyway, the
creation of the Class A wetland is very inexpensive if you already have the
equipment in place. I guess that' s the message I 'd like to leave. That' s
probably what you' re already thinking so and that ' s what we' re doing
Iexactly here.
Conrad : Footnote is A' s are well controlled by everybody else . Our
I ordinance really has it' s hands on B' s which is outside of what other
regulatory agencies have control over . The only thing that our ordinance
really did is say Chanhassen, we can take a good look at what' s being done
I to the B wetland and if we can take a B and make it an A, that' s
outstanding. Anything else? Is there a motion?
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland
1rAlteration Permit #89-5 for the construction of Lake Drive and Market Blvd .
with the following conditions 1 through 4 set forth in the staff report and
I
•
i
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 21, 1989 - Page 10
Cincluding a sentence on the end of condition 4 which says , Lake Drive East ,
as depicted extending east of Market Blvd. on Figure 1 dated, whatever this II
is dated , is not a part of this application.
Ellson: I ' ll second it . ,
Headla : On the first area , did we negotiate to try to get that to an A?
Gary already said it's been farmed and taken away and taken away some of
that area already. What we' re looking at is greatly reduced and now we' re
reducing it more.
Emmings : They' re making it into an A. '
Warren: Mitigation area 1 would actually be an A.
Ellson : So they are trading up so to speak.
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-5 for the construction of Lake
Drive and Market Blvd. with the following conditions :
1. The mitigation areas #1 and #2 as shown on Figure 1 will provide the
criteria as recommended on Page 6 of letter from Gary Ehret dated June
14, 1989.
2. The mitigation area #2 would be initiated within the next 18 months and
a separate storm water retention basin shall be used as a two pond
system to absorb the most severe impacts from water level flucuation
and roadway contaminants entering the adjacent wetland.
3. The applicant must receive permit approval from the Corps of Engineers ,
and the Watershed District.
4 . Staff will work with the alignment of Market Boulevard and Lake Drive
to reduce the amount of impact to the #5 wetland. Lake Drive East, as
depicted extending east of Market Blvd . on Figure 1
is not a part of this application. ,
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
•
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 11
IIPUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 100 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND
IONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON TANADOONA
DRIVE, WEST OF HWY 41 AND NORTH OF HWY 5, KURT LAUGHINGHOUSE.
IPublic Present:
Name Address
IDavid Getsch 7510 Dogwood
John Getsch 7500 Dogwood
Mr. and Mrs. W.C. Getsch 7530 Dogwood
I Craig and Barbara Freeman 7431 Dogwood
Martin Jones 7321 Dogwood
Thomas Kordonowy 6100 Apple Road
ILinda Oberman 7450 Hazeltine Blvd .
Conrad : Just a point of clarification addressed to Jo Ann . We have
I reacted to this application before and so has the City Council but the
applicant has not carried it out I assume so therefore the applicant is
back. There' s no timeframe for when the applicant can come back with a new
Ipreliminary plat? Just for our information.
%... Olsen: He never went through the whole process. It got as far as the
Council and then they had that street .
IConrad : So the applicant decided it didn ' t like what the alternatives were
based on the Council ' s . . .
IOlsen : At that point it was determined by the public that they didn' t want
to have Dogwood improved .
IWarren : I think the applicant withdrew and the neighborhood also did not
want to pursue the street ownership transfer .
Mark Koegler presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order.
Kurt Laughinghouse : I 'm Kurt Laughinghouse and I am representing the
owners of, there are now 3 different owners of the property. Mark
I Koegler ' s introduction is exactly right . The development of this plat and
what is turned in as a plat and submitted to the City has grown over the
last month in fact . Initially our intention was just to come in with the
I 20 acres that comprised the three lots that you see there and then we
decided to hold the entire 100 acres . Just yesterday I learned that , and I
think I can better explain this, just yesterday I learned that we need to
I move what shows up there as Walter Zimmerman , we intend to move that 5
acres in fact to the east 100 feet. So we want to add that to the plat.
Plat that property. Clear up all these descriptions . We actually have a
third application. We don' t have that third applicant in writing who owns
Il
' 1
Planning Commission Meeting
IJune 21, 1989 - Page 12
that property so therefore I just wanted to introduce these two changes to II
you this evening. Maybe make some points. The public had already been
notified and I know that some of the neighbors are here who may have
comment and then I would ask that you continue this until July 5th. So if II
I may use this overhead. The plat that you received in the mail and were
studying, the differences here are almost indetectable to you but there are II
two. One is that this large parcel to the center of the property which is
80 acres was marked outlot. It is now marked Lot 4. Then secondly, we
have added this Lot 5 and that is yet another applicant . This property was
not included in the application which I turned in a month or so ago. So
II
those are the two changes . They' re substantial enough of course that the
staff should react on them and I wouldn' t ask you to react without having
some time for staff input . One of the major changes , one of the major I
effects is that any plan to put a road through the middle of this would not
work and that was one of the recommendations I believe of the staff .
Wanted a road through the middle of this large property so that' s going to 11 be something we' re going to have to work on.
Conrad: Why would it not work, just out of curiousity?
Kurt Laughinghouse : The owner of this property is Mr . Tom Kordonowy who is II
here this evening and he intends to put a , house in this vicinity and also a
barn and live on the entire 80 acres so it is , in effect is not going to be il
developed. It' s going to be one homestead as will be the case with the
other three lots . Of course this lot is in effect already in place . So as
Mark Koegler suggested, the biggest issue is the road. I guess I should
talk about that . Currently, there are three issues that I 'd like to I
introduce and answer questions on and then you can do what you choose. The
City currently owns a 20 foot right-of-way that runs along , that is
Tanadoona Drive and then is Dogwood Lane all the way down to this point and II
then there' s a quarter of a cul-de-sac on this 17th lot here that is owned
by the City. Now this is a plat from 30 or 40 years ago. Perhaps longer .
Nevertheless , that is the physical and legal situation. This proposal II suggests, we propose to dedicate an additional 40 feet of right-of-way and
cul-de-sac here in this area so the City would have the appropriate 60 feet
of right-of-way in this area. Now, that' s the dedication. We also have a
special situation here . You notice, it' s not clear to you perhaps but
I
there is a dotted line that runs this way: Now when this property, the
Zimmerman buildings were separated from the whole parcel several years ago
and is now a separate parcel . The City did not take a dedicated right-of-
way here . The City took an option to purchase this 40 feet and that ' s why
that' s outlined like that. So we left that remark there to remind us we've
got to deal with that always . Then secondly, we put an outlot here , we' ll
call it Outlot A and that' s the 40 feet in front of the property here at
II
this point. That ' s to remind us we' ve got to deal with road right-of-way
dedication or something at that point. We would like not to dedicate any
more right-of-way. That ' s certainly going to be the point of contention.
II
In effect we are adding 3 more dwelling units to the end of this Tanadoona
Dogwood road and that , as is suggested , as stated in the engineer ' s report ,
t is essentially a mile long cul-de-sac and people living at the end of II
cul-de-sacs have all the problems of potential weaker fire protection,
weaker police protection. They understand that. The people who have
purchased this lot, contingent of course , this lot and this lot understand
II
11
i
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21 , 1989 - Page 13
If: that situation and that ' s agreeable to them. They are not expecting a
paved road. Nevertheless, that is one of the biggest issues. Now, the
I second issue , not the same as dedication, is paving . About a year ago, let
me stop myself and say this . This line depicts a power line that comes up
from TH 5 and is the source of power for all of these properties and that
I actually goes out here to the farm buildings. Last summer Minnesota Valley
Electric Coop came in and cleared a 50 foot or greater swath along the
entire power line. Going right through the mature maples and oaks and
everything . They were reacting to the fact that there had been storm
Idamage to trees that had cut the power so they reacted strongly. You all
may visit that and see if I 'm overstating that . I 'm understating it quite
a bit. Nevertheless , shortly after they finished that work there was
I another storm and another power failure because they didn' t get all the
trees. Maybe that proves they should have taken more. Nevertheless , here
is our dilemma. We have here a 50 foot swath right through the trees with
I a power line into the house . If we pave in here, in the right-of-way, we
will have to cut another 40 or 50 or greater swath of trees out. We simply
ask your authority not to do that . If we have to pave anything, we can
perhaps put temporary easements along the power line in favor of the City
II and pave those if that ' s appropriate . If we need a cul-de-sac or an area
big enough to turn fire trucks around and oil delivery trucks and Dayton' s
furniture trucks , which I would guess have gotten down there anyway and
Lgotten out but we do need that kind of a space we can also do that here in
the vicinity of the power lines or not . We can also pave it . We ask not
to pave it. So roads in one issue number one. Paving is issue number two.
And the third issue is trail easement . We thoroughly agree with the City' s
I plan to have a trail network around the city and around lakes . The City
owns , when Crimson Bay was platted down here, a 20 foot easement was
brought up to this property line. To our south property line. The staff
Ireport calls for a 20 foot easement around the entire property to get back
here to Tanadoona. We request that we cut that easement back to a 20 foot
easement around the back of these properties to get back to Dogwood here .
I Now I don ' t know what the plans for the entire city are in terms of trails
but it seems to me ultimately you want to get from here to here and go
around the lake. I don't know that so that ' s certainly disputable but if
that ' s the goal , this is a shorter route . Further , Mr . Kordonowy and his
I family are going to put a barn up here and run horses. His question to us ,
to the City I guess , if we have to have a 20 foot easement around the
entire property, that amounts by the way to almost exactly 4 acres of
I property. Where does he put his fence for his horses? Does he put it on
this old fence because they city is not going to develop this easement for
many, many years or does he put it 20 feet inside that line? That ' s the
dilemma that' s created by putting a trail easement here that in effect is
I
not going to be used for a long time. Not going to be developed for a long
time. We think that the purposes of the City can be served by putting that
easement around the back of these lots. 10 years from now, 30 years from
I now, as was indicated in the other . . .that was up here , this is all open
farmland now. It' s got corn growing on it. 30-40 years, whenever sewer
and water arrives at this site , something else may happen to these
Iproperties. Roads are going to be different. Park trails are going to be
different. I think it' s premature and that ' s part of my argument , to plat
all those things right now. So that' s my presentation briefly and I ' d
certainly be happy to answer questions but we might also might want to see
•
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 14
what the people have to say.
Koegler : Mr . Chairman, just two other items . Kind of really reminders
from what happened a couple years ago. Mr. Laughinghouse referenced
Crimson Bay to the south and there was a review at the time of making a
street connection to the south to Crimson Bay and it was just determined
that literally topography precluded it . It was given really a good
thoughtful look and was determined totally to be infeasible. The other
thing is the difference between the plat now and then is the plat that
would have been approved back in 1987 did show dedicated public I
right-of-way 40 feet all the way around the west and north sides of that
property. So had that preceeded and had the road issue have been resolved ,
that would be right-of-way today. Now they're proposing not to include
that as right-of-way so there are just some subtle differences between the
two plans from 2 years ago and the one current.
Conrad: We have a choice. We could table the item for future ,
considerations and to take a look at what Mr . Laughinghouse has presented
or we could listen to input from anybody who has come here tonight. I
guess my preference is to listen , maybe instructive for any staff review or
our direction to staff so if that' s acceptable to everybody, I think I 'd
like to conduct the public hearing and we can continue the public hearing
also until the next time. Would there be any comments related to the
presentation tonight? Mr . Laughinghouse or anything that the staff has
talked to us about. Any public comments?
John Getsch: I 'm John Getsch , 7500 Dogwood . . . . the road easements and the II
discussions along those development plans , still presents a problem on what
is going to be the long term plan for the road and the easement for any
improvement of the road . The way it stands right now, what' s presented ,
there is no long term plan for any improvements of the road and that' s a
concern. Right now it' s a 20 foot wide, almost single lane all the way in
and that presents a problem. . . '
Conrad : Let me interrupt and see what kind of reaction I can get from Mark
or Jo Ann on that. What are the City' s responsibilities at this point in
time given that the property is , the applicants do not really want to
develop fully. They want to put a few houses there. What ' s the City' s
responsibility in this case in requiring an upgrade to a bad road? We' ve
treated it in the past as it' s the only time we can require that when
there' s something happening . So what are our options I guess . Future
options. Mark, do you want to tackle that?
Koegler : Yes , I ' ll address that and perhaps Gary will want to join in the
chorus on this one. Just very briefly, the feasibility study that was done
a year or so ago looked at a series of alternatives . This was Option A,
which I believe if I remember right was the lowest cost option. It was the II
one that was recommended at the time. I think primarily due to the cost
factor. What it resulted in is a street that does not meet current city
t standards in terms of width . The reason for that primarily being the mound
'---- treatment system that sits right there. The positioning of that relative
to the lot across the street just really make it impossible to get anything
wider than I think it' s about a 18 foot road section through that
■
I ,
' Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 15
IIparticular area so there is a constriction here that had to be dealt with
and that was the way that was done by building a road that did not meet
I current standards. The second alternative that was looked at was a
variation that brought the road in past the Zimmerman parcel and then
turned and went across and then it came back up serving kind of a hammer
I head cul-de-sac arrangement off of either side. Again, you had the
constriction here regardless . That was another alternative that was looked
at. Option C was similar . . . Once again you still have the constriction of
coming back however. Finally, Alternate D that was looked at brought the
I road on the interior alignment and this was partially due to what I guess
you'd term as kind of a ghost plat that was done by the developer at that
time for informational purposes only and it was indicated as such . Then it
I actually showed a potential for a lot arrangement that radiated off of this
reflecting that 75 acres ultimately being developed into I think it was
initially 10 acre parcels. It was again, I think it goes without saying ,
I we still had the 18 foot roadway right there . You ask a question that is
really difficult to answer because the proceedings of the Planning
Commission and Council ultimately on this item will probably be the answer
to the question that you pose in terms of where do you go with providing
I street on this . It ' s my understanding that the City' s practice over the
last 2 years since this originally surfaced was to require a minimum road
improvements for all rural subdivisions . You in your own mind can say
Iwhere is the threshold? We' re adding 1 house , 2 houses , 3 houses , 4 houses
to an existing bad situation. Where do you draw the line? I don ' t know
that any of us have a definitive answer for that but the general staff
consensus though is that , as you indicated Mr . Chairman is that now is the
I time when the subdivision is being approved that perhaps the most leverage
is evident in terms of being able to accomplish some improvement of that
area. Whether it' s a full improvement or ' whether it ' s securing the
Iright-of-way or whatever that' s defined as .
Conrad: All the alternatives were real expensive.
IKoegler : They really were not tremendously difference in cost . They were
to some of the individual parties . They ranged, as I indicated, from about
$250, 000. 00 to $300, 000. 00 and that was about a year ago so those numbers
I are still reasonably accurate but the actual assessment to some of the
various parties did vary quite a bit undet that scheme depending on where
the road alignment went. The assessments that didn' t vary tremendously
I probably were to some of the existing homes that are on Lake Minnewashta
and I think as a ballpark those ran from I ' ll say $1, 500. 00 to $4 , 000. 00
depending on lot frontage .
Warren : I might add Mr . Chairman , Mark has summarized it I think pretty
well . It ' s a difficult issue no matter how we look at it here. Some
properties are in advance of being ready to be developed because of the
I City not being able to provide adequate utilities . Adequate roadways and
some of this nature . I think that at sometime has to be addressed . That
maybe they' re a little bit ahead of their era so to speak. This is in the
IInext area for the move of the MUSA line and we all I think are very
familiar with whether that' s the 1990 ' s and it' s hard to believe that 1990
is almost here or whether it' s a 2000 line or someplace in the middle so
I really think an eye has to be kept to that because we' re not that far
1
' 1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 16
away from this area being further eligible to subdivide and it' s the
ability to further subdivide lots that would make the distribution of the
cost for a roadway of this nature more palatable. More lots able to be
subdivided. I look at it almost as there' s somewhat of a self-imposed
hardship here in that this total property I believe would sustain 10
building units and in the application we've seen prior to this one, it was
the developer ' s choice only to plat 3 units basically. If they were to
come in and take all 10 units for example, then there' s 10 units to help
defray the cost of the roadway. So there is sort of a self imposed issue
there that is, take it for what it's worth. When we have looked at these
in the past as far as rural subdivisions , it has been I think a very strong
line with the City's part to upgrade roads to full rural standards and we
do have a rural standard versus an urban standard to recognize that we
don' t need curb and gutter necessarily and that expense in some of these
roadways . In addition in this issue , we have existing access that I think
even the existing residents would chime in, as was mentioned earlier here,
that is a less than desireable access . In general I think everybody would
like to improve if we could get some reasonableness to the dollars here.
The section that was proposed for the existing roadway, to sneak by the 201
community system out there, I think did recognize that we were trying to be II
sympathetic to local conditions in a certain regard and were willing to
accept an 18 to 20 foot road section instead of the city standard rural
section. I guess I throw those comments out for some of the things that
really have gone through our minds here on what' s right for the property
and the property owners to have to put up with .
Conrad: I 'm going to throw it back to you sort of later in terms of, I
don' t think it' s our job to force a developer to develop and require them
to put in maybe $300,000. 00 or $200,000. 00 worth of road improvements
forces them to develop so it' s a difficult situation. It is a public I
hearing. I wanted to respond, you asked a question and I was trying to get
some comments back from the staff on that. Go ahead with other questions .
John Getsch: That is the issue on the road. The other thing is what Kurt
has brought up and that was where the power lines come through. That
really created, up until there was solid Woods for probably a third of the
property that went along parallel to the lake . That now has been 50 foot,
60 foot wide swath is cut right through there and cleaned out so there' s
kind of a natural area that is no longer wooded . That ' s something that
needs to be addressed. Kurt brought it up and I think it' s noticed by
everybody that has gone in that road during the last year . It has changed
significantly and that needs to be recognized as some way to preserve the
forest or whatever you want to call it and that needs to be recognized .
Conrad: It is embarrassing what the power company did there. I just can' t
believe that they could go in and take down what they did.
John Getsch: They sprayed again in the last couple weeks to kill anything
that was growing back.
`'- Conrad: Yes, that' s just amazing .
Koegler : Kind of a follow-up to that. The feasibility study that was
■
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 17
IIIpublished in June of last year was prior to the time the guy showed up with
chainsaws so that's a new piece of information that was never considered as
I a part of these alignments and that' s certainly something that should be
looked at as a part of this. The feasibility study when it laid the
alignments in there, took great care to try to minimize tree removal . That
Iwas one of the major issues of making alignment through there so it ' s kind
of embarrassing to sit here a year later and find out there ' s a corridor
through there now. That needs to be taken into account.
IBarbara Freeman: Barbara Freeman, 7431 Dogwood . Could you give us some
idea of your long range plans on the trail proposition that Chanhassen has
through that area?
IConrad: Jo Ann?
I Olsen : That was part of the Park and Rec Commission' s recommendations and
Mark might be able to address that a little bit better .
Koegler : The City' s Comprehensive Plan is shown as a series of trails
I
basically going around and connecting major points within a community and
the Minnewashta Regional Park would be one of those . It ' s not specific to
say exactly how you would get from Point A to Point B other than to
indicate that it' s a desire to make the connection. For example the trail
perhaps in some areas may run along TH 41 and then may go back into the
park or it may run through the property and go back into the park. That ' s
I not been determined yet but again, back to 2 years ago when this was
approved , the easement that Kurt Laughinghouse described was a part of the
approval at that time around the perimeter of this site to accommodate that
movement. The City has gone out with 2 referendums over the last few years
I and I 'm sure you' re aware it has not been approved and certainly that has
had a major impact on the feasibility to build those trails so
realistically, as I think Kurt eluded to again, those trails are quite a
I ways off in the future but the right-of-way generally is trying to be
secured now for those to bank that if you will for future development. So
the alternative that again was just raised is another one of those factors
I that will be looked at over the next couple of weeks prior to the time this
comes back to see if that has any validity compared to the original
improvement that occurred on the south and east sides .
IConrad : Other comments?
Linda Oberman : Linda Oberman , 7450 Hazeltine . We own the land adjacent to
I the outland area, the 80 acres. Can you show you on that map, I didn' t get
your name, Mr . Kordonowy? Is that right? What land did you purchase and
what are you planning to do with that, farming? What areas?
I Tom Kordonowy: My name is Tom Kordonowy and I 'm acquiring this property
for single family home. The 80 acres I 'm acquiring is everything other
than this 5 acre section here , the old Zimmerman homestead and these three
IVlots are being divided for Mr. Foster and I guess someone else so I ' ll be
- owning the balance of the property. Tanadoona to Dogwood , back up and
back. The house I 'm proposing to put in will be located here right where
Ithis number is in front of the tree line . The reason for the addendum or
III
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 18
change to the plat , the 100 foot segment we' ve asked , the Bergen' s home is
5 acre piece is the only logical place for my road to service my single
homestead is , this starts to get quite low. The topography is rising II through this little wet area substantially to the highest point in the area
which is here so I plan to come in with about a 9 9 in topography which is
the same as what's here. That encroaches on what is now the Bergen
homestead so we' re simply swapping a 100 foot parcel for this piece for
this piece like that. That's the purpose of it. It benefits Mr. Bergen
because the farm where he' s actually farming is very, very close to his
living room right now. It' s to his advantage to actually move that way
over . This lower area is a little west of us so these options , and I
haven' t seen these options, our household here will be pre-empting I 'm sure
any roadway going through here . We have no interest in that. I 'd be happy
to answer any questions you may have and I appreciate your direction at
this point so several weeks from now when we come forward we may resolve
this. I 'm moving my family into a condominium which I 'm not very anxious
to do for the period of time it takes to build this house so the quicker
I 'm able to put a shovel in the ground and make this my home, the happier
we' ll be so any input at all from the Commission would be most gratifying .
Conrad: Thanks for your comments .
Linda Oberman: . . . farming that?
Tom Kordonowy: It is now a farm and it is really appalling this tree swath
that goes through there.
Wildermuth : If the road were to follow that utility easement , that swath
that was cut through there, how would that impact you and your plans to
build your home?
Tom Kordonowy: It would go through what is going to be my house.
Kurt Laughinghouse: There's a two part answer . One is , along here that '
would be desirable more or less but then the power line goes straight
through here and this is approximately where the, the power line doesn' t
show up on the other may but this is approximately where the Kordonowy' s
home will be. Then the wooded area runs out around here also. You had
another question and I didn' t quite get it . Is your home one of these two
homes right here?
Linda Oberman: Right . I was just wondering if he was going to farm that
land or . . .
Tom Kordonowy: I personally will . . .
Linda Oberman: Would you be open to selling 5 to 10 acres of that? 1
Conrad : Other comments?
rDave Getsch : My name is Dave Getsch, 7510 Dogwood . Certainly the
neighbor ' s preference and I speak for the neighborhood. At the last
meeting I was voted to be a representative to speak to the Council and
■
I , ,
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 19
Planning Commission on this . Our preferences obviously are to keep
property as close as possible to what it presently is in it' s present
I state . Certainly we' re very much in favor of someday wanting to use 80
acres for basically the same purposes as it' s presently been used for and
also as much preservation of what stays there and what is a gorgeous ,
Igorgeous area. We want to work at all possible to maintain what' s there.
Certainly to try to improve the road somewhat but not lose some of the
uniqueness of what' s there. We certainly want to turn it into a thorough-
fare. That' s just our preferences .
, Conrad : Other comments? Okay, we' ll close the public hearing for tonight.
IErhart: I ' ll move to close the public hearing .
Emmings : Well continue it to the next meeting so they can react .
IErhart: Okay, I ' ll move to continue the public hearing .
Conrad : That ' s a better motion.
IEmmings: Second .
IErhart moved , Emmings seconded to continue the public hearing until the
4 next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
A,
IConrad : I think what I 'd like to do right now, let us go around the
commission briefly but kind of give some direction to staff so that when it
comes back to us , we may have a clearer idea than I currently have of what
Iwe want to do here. Again, I don' t know that we want to belabor it
tonight . I think we want to more than belaboring issues is give staff some
direction to explore alternatives for us before it comes back here. Tim,
Icomments on what we' ve seen tonight and directions .
Erhart: I guess the way to look at this is if the road didn ' t exist. One
of the ways to look at this is if the road didn' t exist at all and the
I
developer was attempting to subdivide 3 lots off on the extreme end of the
property from where his access is and in that case what are our
requirements? Private driveway or does it require a 60 foot easement to
Iget in 3 new lots?
Olsen : You could have a private drive but we would most likely be requiring
Ithe 60 foot right-of-way.
Erhart : Right , so normally we would require the easement in that case so I
guess again, without having full discussion , my immediate reaction is to go
Iback, I think which is what we previously, didn' t you state Mark that ' s
what we ended up the last time was just requiring easements to get in
there . I tend to think that was probably where we were going to end up
IF_ with this again, but not to improve it at this time.
Emmings : Building on what Tim said , can you have a private drive with this
Imany houses on it? I thought there was an upper limit on the number of
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 20
C 1
houses that can be served by a private drive.
Olsen: Three lots you can have. The other ones , no you can not have.
Resident : What was the answer?
Emmings : The answer is no . What is the maximum? Is it 5 or 4? '
Olsen: It' s 3 and then in the rural standards it states that you can have
2 so there' s some discrepancy there.
Emmings : Looking at the Code , on the subdivision code under Section 18-39
it says that in order to approve a preliminary plat and a final plat, the
City Council has to find that the proposed subdivision is not premature.
One of the things that makes it premature is if there' s a lack of adequate
roads . If I remember , I was here a couple years ago when we looked at this
thing at that time and everybody agreed that the roads in there were
inadequate . At least that' s my recollection of what happened back then. I
think there should be a 60 foot easement going all the way in. I can see
that maybe some allowance is going to have to be made for that spot where
the mound system is. I think things like that can be taken into account
for something like this but the easement we should have. How much
construction of the roadway should be done, I think is we can talk about
but I 'd probably, if this is the best opportunity we' re going to have for
cleaning up what' s a bad situation. It's a very long cul-de-sac . We don' t
like that. As a matter of policy, we don' t like the long cul-de-sacs .
Whether people agree to submit to the extra lack of fire services or the
potential for not being able to get any emergency services or not, that' s
not something that' s just in the hands of ' the landowners but it' s a concern
of the City too and I don' t think we can. . . '
Martin Jones: The fire trucks can get in there now.
Emmings : I know. '
Mrs. Getsch : An 18 wheeler was in there last week .
Resident: It' s still there.
Emmings : I 'm telling you what I think. '
W.C. Getsch: I know but we can tell you what actually happens . . .
Emmings : Reality doesn' t interest me. This is theoretical .
Martin Jones: I 've driven the fire truck down the road many times so
I know it goes down and it comes back out . '
Emmings: What is the reason that we have roads like we do and the reason
that we don ' t like long cul-de-sacs? '
Olsen: It' s public safety.
■
ri
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 21
liWarren : Secondary access .
IEmmings : That' s all I have .
Ellson : I think that we should probably do some sort of minimum standard
Iroadway improvements at this point. I also think that the reservation of
the trail easement should be left as was recommended . That' s it .
Batzli : I guess taking what I consider to maybe the easier issue first. I
Ithink the trail easement , I think Park and Rec if they didn' t consider why
they were going around the back end. If they just thought we did it this
way last time, let' s do it again , I guess I 'd like to see them reconsider
Iwhether they really need it around the entire parcel or if it would make
more sense to jog it back to Dogwood there and not knowing their reasoning
for what they proposed, I don' t have a good basis on which to judge that at
I all . I don' t believe I was here to consider this last time around but as
far as the roadway improvements but I kind agree with Ladd, or his earlier
comment anyway. Maybe he' s not really in agreement. Maybe he ' s playing
devil ' s advocate but the question as to whether we should force the
Ideveloper to develop the road at this time . I don' t know that it' s the
inadequacy of the road is going to be further exacerbated by the addition
of 3 lots when it appears that the reason that it' s inadequate is due to
itthe existing lots currently in there. But on the other hand, I do think
due to public safety concerns , there should be some sort of upgrade or at
least planning for the future and it looks like the only way we can do that
at this time is to get some sort of easement and perhaps minimally
I
blacktopping it or something else. It seems to there was some sort of
discussion about whether you go in and build a 60 foot road or just kind of
blacktop it now and upgrade it later . I don't know.
IWildermuth : I guess my thinking is , with the addition of 3, 4 lots or
parcels there. One being the 80 acre parcel . We' re not looking at that
Imuch greater load on the existing roadway and the upgrade at this point
probably ought to be up to the people who live on the road. But I think
the easements should really get some consideration this time around .
IHeadla: As far as the trail goes, I would assume that the Park and Rec
wanted to go from Point A to Point B. If I understand the proposal , the
trail will go from A to A-. It never even gets to B+ so I sure would want
Ithe Park and Rec to look at that . Look at it closely. As far as the road
improvement, if they all agree, they don' t want to improve it, they've got
the problem and a lot of people back there have been happy for many years
Iso I guess I 'm inclined to say let it be.
Conrad : My comments . I agree with getting the full easements at this
point in time. I think we really don' t know what' s going to happen but we
Ihave to get the easements so if that' s the 60 foot easement that we need ,
that we have to get that. I don' t want to force a developer to develop a
property I think right now yet I want them to be able to use it and I don ' t
Imind the way they' re dividing it right now. I think we do Mark, as you
suggested , we ' ve got to look at that power line as they' ve cleared it out
because it' s a big new piece of information and I think that plays a role,
Iat least in how do we get access to those particular 3 sites . The trail , I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 22
(I
think that should go back to the Park and Rec for their comments . I guess
my only other concern right now is, if there future potential to continue
to split off? When the MUSA line goes out there. Back up . I 'm
comfortable allowing the subdivision as we see this yet I 'm still
uncomfortable at what point we can say no , you can ' t add one more house to
this. Based on the zoning right now, can they add additional, how many
additional could they add?
Olsen : You' ve got 100 acres and you can have 10 units .
Conrad: 1 per 10 so they could literally 7 more?
Warren : They could add 5 more. He' s platting Zimmerman as a lot. '
Olsen: Right, and that' s something that we have to determine if we would
have to determine if we would consider that one of the building
eligibilities. Since they' re including another one.
Conrad : So they could put 5 more there. Okay. It gets kind of difficult
to know what to say. Those are my comments but I think that we need the
easements . It' s a difficult situation but I think if we get those
easements, at least we have our options open but I personally don' t think
we need to , the neighbors are saying don' t develop. Well , I 'm not sure
what the neighbors have said. They' re basically saying to me we don' t
want any assessments . I 'm not sure what they think of development or
improvement of the roads but my impression is they' re happy living the way
they have lived there and I don' t think 3 more units or 4 is going to
disturb the balance out there so I don' t feel that we need to force any
kind of road development in at the current time other than making sure that
we have our options open for the future and that probably means to me
covering our options and getting as much property for easement as possible.
Anyway, those are my comments .
Tom Kordonowy: If the Commission were to acquire an easement around the
entire property, if they saw that to be appropriate, wouldn' t it be,
insofar as I 'm taking this 80 acre portion for a single family house ,
wouldn' t it be appropriate . . .on the west side of Dogwood to take the entire
right-of-way or easement out of this parcel . However, this parcel is not
being developed , it wouldn' t be a fair arrangement to take half of what
would be the required right-of-way from here should this develop and take
the other half on the other side. If at a later date , I as an owner here
were going to develop this, then I would think it would be appropriate for
the City to say you' ve got to dedicate additional right-of-way. . . I 'd be
concerned that the City now has the easement or right-of-way and they say
we' re putting in a blacktop road and you' re the benefitting party, you ' re
paying this portion of it. That would be a burden.
W.C. Getsch : I don' t think Camp Tanadoona is going to hold still for that .
Tom Kordonowy: They wouldn ' t be taking the easement from them at this
time. They'd only be taking half an easement .
•
J
I ,
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 23
IIW.C. Getsch : I 'm talking about any assessment or anything else . They' re
in bad enough shape as it is .
Conrad : Right. No , we understand that . There was a lot of logic in what
he just said. Is there anything that would contradict that logic Jo Ann?
IOlsen : I ' ll let Gary answer that .
Warren : Thank you Jo Ann. The comment about Camp Tanadoona I think is a
I reality as far as if at some time in the future, if that's the way you' re
going to look at this , if you' re going to want to build that road and want
to build it to city standards, the City would have to go through
I considerable expense to probably condemn, if you will , the portion of the
right-of-way that we would be deficient. Now whether that's from the
Campfire property and actually my recollection , the topography out there
I is, you talk about trees and you talk about some tough topography. The
further to the north from that roadway, you get into some real difficult
topography.
IConrad : So the situation would be, if we only required half the dedication
of the easement on the property that' s now being looked at and platted,
basically what , if we only required half of it, then what we' re saying to
itthe current residents is we probably can' t. If nothing else happens on
that property, we' re probably not going to upgrade that road for a long
time. That' s basically what we' re saying. If we only require the half of
I the easement for rural road or whatever that we'd like to have, the options
of improving that road for the current residents are neglible until the big
parcel develops .
IWarren : They' re certainly restricted as to what you can do and quite
honestly what I prefer about Alternate D, 'putting cost aside for the
moment, is the fact that to pursue the alignment along the current roadway
Ias we' re all aware, when you get down to the northwest corner there , the
bottleneck, the sharp right angle turn, that is a very undesireable
alignment and in the alternates that we showed and the feasibility study we
showed cutting across that meadow land area which actually is a beautiful
Imeadow land area. You still have to deal with the bottleneck at the
community mound system whereas if the road is brought in through the
property, we can deal with reasonable geometrics to put in the proper
Iaccess and then you only have a compromised road section for the piece that
goes to the north, the hammer as Mark calls it, and the other three
quarters of the roadway is a full city standard roadway. That' s what I
Iguess is attractive from an engineering standpoint about if you ' re going to
take easements , if you' re going to follow the existing alignment , then
you' re locking yourself into the future probably about trying to upgrade
with that existing alignment . Whereas if you take another easement , maybe
Iif you' re going to restrict it to not using it for a while, I don' t know
what kind of restrictions we could put on but at least get the easements
where you ultimately might want to build the full city section .
I- Conrad : I liked the D alignment . In my mind that was the right way to fly
yet that may not work with the owner ' s plans. He' s got a house that' s
probably he ' s situating and that probably doesn ' t work but conceptually
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 24
you' re right.
Kurt Laughinghouse: I think what you just said argues against taking any
interest for roads as follows. If there' s one person owning this 80 acres
and it is platted as lot , the only way it can be further subdivided is to
come back to the Planning Commission and Council and then the whole game is I
open again for roads. So if this plat is approved as we propose it, and
there is dedication here so there' s a full 60 feet available on the front
of these lots , but there is no dedication around the rest of the property
in effect unless we deal with this in here. In that situation, the City
controls. If anybody wants one more lot, then the City says okay then now
we need the road here or we need a road here. We need something else.
And , and if water and sewer come this far , to this edge of the lake, Camp
Tanadoona will not be able to resist the amount of money that will be
offered for that property. . .and that will probably be developed too and a
Campfire camp will be built 30 miles further west in another more secluded
wooded place. Then this sewer system is no longer needed . If and when
there' s any redevelopment, either because of the water and sewer or because
this low owner of Lot 4 in this case decides they don' t want to have the
horse farm anymore, the City controls . If the City needs easements, they
take easements where they need them so really what we' re doing , although
we' re going through a platting process which is an urban process , we' re
really dealing with 5 and 10 acre lots . This is a rural situation forced
into an urban process. I think we ought to . . .
Conrad : Mr. Laughinghouse, you ' re right yet it takes the power away from
the City and the power away from the neighborhood right now that are
currently living there under your direction. Now' s the time in
subdivisions that the city can make improvements and what you' re suggesting
is don' t do anything right now and basically the power will be left with
the individual who owns the large parcel there, when they want to develop
and the City is locked out of improving road access to the current
neighbors. Yet I have heard the current neighbors say some things that say II
maybe they don' t mind that .
Dave Getsch : We might want the road coming down the hill before the
hammerhead, we might want that widened a little bit. We certainly want to
have easements so we can do something like that .
Conrad: But you' re comfortable the way things are today aren' t you?
Dave Getsch : Yes but we don' t necessarily, there are times when it' s less
than desireable trying to get in. For instance when the frost goes out in
the spring and you park your car on top of the hill and walk in . That ' s
less than desireable. After a good gully washer is less than desireable
but what I 'm saying is that it has a certain charm to it. . .we certainly
want the easements.
Warren : The City can always vacate easements . I 'd rather get the bird in
the hand and give it away in the future if we don' t use it. '
Conrad : I think you' ve heard a lot of comments . Is there a motion to
table this item until , what do we table it for Jo Ann? For staff review of
■
I ,
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 25
Irthe new information?
IIOlsen: That would be best.
I Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to table acition on the preliminary plat to
subdivide 100 acres into three single family lots and one outlot for Kurt
Laughinghouse until staff has reviewed the new information . All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ILAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE MUSA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE 140 ACRES
INTO THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE AREA LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF LAKE ANN, 1680
ARBORETUM BOULEVARD, MICHAEL GORRA.
IPublic Present :
Name Address
IMike Gorra Applicant
Leander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd.
1[. Bernie Schneider P.O. Box 103, Chanhassen
Mark Koegler presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
Ihearing to order .
IBernie Schneider : Mr . Chairman , I 'm Bernie Schneider . I represent the
Chanhassen Legion. I 'm not quite clear what this . . . I didn' t quite follow
you on that .
Koegler : The City is in the process of updating it ' s Comprehensive Plan at
the present time which a review of the MUSA line is a part of that effort .
That effort has been underway for some time and we feel that within 60 to
I90 days the planning aspect of that will come to a close and a lot of the
documentation that will be needed to support this application with
Metropolitan Council might be available at that time. For example we' ll
Ineed to provide them with some information on how the property ultimately
is going to develop. What the sewage flows will be so they can consider
what impact that has on the regional treatment systems . So what I guess
Iwe' re saying is it' s a very complex issue and the documentation that will
make that issue perhaps a little more clearly discernable is going to be
available in 2 to 3 months . It' s not available as we sit here tonight .
IConrad: Bernie, it ' s my guess that with the information that the staff
compiles , you' ve got a much better case than going in there right now
without it. Other comments from the public? Anything else?
iKoegler : I want to emphasize I guess on the record that the kind of
comments that I just made assume that the plan to a certain degree will
Isupport this application and we don' t actually know that tonight . I guess
i
. I
Planning Commission Meeting
I
June 21, 1989 - Page 26
that' s what will be verified within the next 2 to 3 month period . I don' t I
know if Mr. Gorra is here. I did speak to him on the phone and discuss the
possibility of this recommendation which ultimately then did occur . He was I
apprised of the potential for a recommendation on some delay. I don' t know
how he feels about the 2 to 3 month time line.
Conrad: Any other comments?
I
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
I
Headla : What information is available now that wasn' t available when the
Baptist Church tried to get the MUSA line changed? I see a lot of support II now trying to get it changed but I didn' t see any support for them and they
had about the best argument I think I 've seen to get it changed.
Olsen : They didn' t actually make application for that. That was just part I
of the site plan, their conditional use permit. They were saying that they
wanted to connect to it and we explained to them that they would have to
make application to proceed with that but in speaking with the Met Council , II
this is different . This really could be acting as an extension of the MUSA
line. They were just in the middle of, I mean you had a lot of land
inbetween them and the MUSA line . They had the interceptor going through
I
their property but the MUSA line was nowhere near them. It is a lot
different than this property and the bottom line is they didn' t actually
make the application for that.
Headla : I see the village giving a lot of support to this where I don' t 1
think they really gave the church any support and I thought they had an
excellent case .
I
Conrad : David , Jo Ann ' s point was that it' s almost like spot zoning . It
was like a parcel way away. I
Headla : I understand her point . I still think they had an excellent case .
I guess I really want to see a plan on this thing. I think we' re just
potato chipping this thing and kind of random hit so I ' ll go for your table I
or denial but I think tabling is the reasonable way to go.
Conrad : What' s potato chipping?
I
Headla: Take another piece here and another piece there.
Wildermuth : Mark, in 60 to 90 days , what would you recommendation be?
II
That we go after a much bigger parcel to include in the MUSA line rather
than coming back to the well again later?
Koegler: You've summarized the major concern. That how many times can you II
go back to the well versus taking a very big bucket the first time. I
i don ' t know that this piece, if this piece was recognized in the 1982
Comprehensive Plan as being one that should be serviced in the near future.
Presumably that is to occur . I don't know that that means this is priority
number one or maybe there' s another piece somewhere else that still should
•
/
■
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 21 , 1989 - Page 27
ibe priority number one . That' s what we need to determine but our position
is that it needs to be looked at in a larger scale then simply focusing on
Ithis one 140 acre piece.
Wildermuth : So you might want to look at a 500 acre piece?
IKoegler: Precisely.
Wildermuth : I 'm in favor of tabling .
■ Batzli : I 'm also in favor of tabling it until we can take a larger picture
and look at it.
IEllson : Same . Nothing new.
IEmmings: Same thing .
Erhart : I think the developer is agreeing to wait 5 years to development ,
waiting 90 days to get the thing run through smoothly as opposed to a fight
Imakes a lot of sense so I guess I 'd be in favor of tabling it.
Conrad: I agree with tabling it. The guideline Mark that you' re using to
IIdetermine what the needs are for the City. As you update the Comprehensive
Plan, that update is to take us through what?
t_
Koegler : Through the year 2000.
IConrad : So what you would come back with in 60 to 90 days is a MUSA line
change that would take us for our current needs up to the year 2000?
IKoegler : I hedge a little bit on that answer because as far as the Comp
Plan goes, there' s a couple of areas that go to 2010. Transportation has
Icertain projections in element that go out beyond the year 2000 and
I believe the comprehensive sewer policy plan may also , just in terms of
looking at flow projections and so forth but essentially we' re still
targeting the year 2000. Again, we won' t be looking only at the MUSA line
Ibut the City' s entire development structure of which that' s a major
component so I think that time the information that will be available will
be a little more clear in terms of how you address this issue .
Wildermuth: It' s really going to be complicated by where the 212, where
that lies right? Whether you go south with the line to bring in more
Iterritory or you go west of TH 41.
Koegler : Yes . To a certain degree Mother Nature has provided some very
discernable physical barriers in Chanhassen and to look at the
Icomprehensive sewer policy plan that ' s there now, if you take the map
behind you. Essentially everything that' s outside of the area that has
different zoning categories , the A-2 will require a Bluff Creek interceptor
IIto come up from kind of the southeast portion of the city diagonaling up to
the northwest to effectively service much of the southern area of the
community. That' s not true when you get into the northern portion because
the Lake Ann Interceptor has the ability to provide service to some of
I
• -
J
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 28
that . So essentially I don ' t anticipate that there would be any major
change in the thrust that certainly the northern part of the city is still
to see the development first with it being phased in over a longer period
of time than the south.
Conrad : So you' re going to take us through the year 2000 in the
Comprehensive Plan. I 'm trying to digest what you just said .
Ellson: Possibly a little longer .
Conrad : In terms of land use , you' re taking us through the year 2000. We
will go to Metropolitan Council , we are updating the Comprehensive Plan
right now. I don' t see any timeframe for turning our Comprehensive Plan
update in because we've been playing with it for 2 years so obviously
there ' s nothing , no hammer over our head to get it updated right? So
they' re not expecting this?
Koegler : They really still are. They, if they is the Metropolitan
Council .
Conrad : Yes , they are .
Koegler : They are because in the context of the Lake Ann sewer agreement ,
there were changes called for. The changes that were submitted were
somewhat of an interim nature until such time as the City could go through
more of a wholesale review of the plan and an upgrading improvement of the
plan so you' re correct. I can ' t even sit here tonight and tell exactly
what the final adoption schedule will be but I certainly can tell you that
I 'm comfortable that within 90 days we' ll generate all the land use data
that will allow you to make a decision to say yes, we want to approve this
and see what happens or no , we do not . I think that ' s the key ingredient
in the whole thing.
Conrad : And when we do that , we take that into Metropolitan Council and do I
they have to react to it?
Koegler : Certainly. There really are two ways that this could be '
approached. You could approve Mr. Gorra ' s application and basically let
him carry the flag into the Metropolitan Council and try to sell it or you
could upgrade the Comprehensive Plan update and take the entire document in II
of which his property potentially is a piece and say here' s what' s in the
best interest of the City as a whole and it just happens to possibly be
consistent with Mr . Gorra ' s goals.
Conrad : Okay. Jo Ann , remember 2 weeks ago , I 'm real concerned about
financial implications of growth. I 'm not real interested Mark in
dedicating land for residential if it' s going to increase tax burden
because we really haven ' t dedicated enough for commercial/industrial . And
I 'm not sure that your going out there looking at , you' re looking at needs
based on units. Maybe some trends but you' re not out there looking at
financial impacts of we need so much industrial land to grow to compensate
for the new neighbors that are coming in that are going to increase our tax
base . I 'm real interested in the 60-90 day process . One, to be educated
I .
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 29
by Don Ashworth or the City staff on this but two , to somehow merge some of
these concepts and I know it' s not going to be an exact, this is not a
I science but I 'm real fascinated by the fact that I just don ' t think we need
to be out there dedicating residential growth areas when we may not have
the commercial/industrial to compensate for some of the cost factors . Can
Iyou respond to that Mark?
Koegler : Yes . We are addressing that and have addressed that
preliminarily. Not exactly from the same slant that you just referenced .
I If I understood you correctly, the thrust of your remark was you want to
look at it from a financial context of what types of land use carry various
types of burden if you will that relieves the residential taxpayer or
I spreads it more equitably and looks at the community more in that context.
I think your underlying assumption is that means there will be more
commercial and industrial land designated than perhaps is presently here.
IConrad : I need an appropriate amount, whatever it is .
Koegler: We have been approaching that from a little difference tact in
Inot necessarily saying what' s the financial implications but do we have
enough commercial and industrial land even if the growth rates parallel
what they are today. If you recall we had a discussion that probably
Ioccurred 6 months ago that cast serious doubt on that fact that there is
enough land designated right now in the plan to accommodate both commercial
and industrial . We ' ve gone through some very brief scenarios in the
industrial park and looked at what had been absorbed over the last 10 years
Iand what might be absorbed over the next 10 years just with even a straight
line growth projection and there were deficiencies there so my answer to
your question is we are going to be supplying some of that information but
Inot necessarily with the same slant and you may want to add that slant and
hopefully we' ll end up at the same place .
IConrad: I 'm hoping we can add that slant.
Olsen : Yes , Don has been . . .
IConrad : And I hate to belabor this but the thing that concerns me Mark is
sometimes cost don' t increase linearly. they increase in steps and a major
cost becomes school . You build a school out here, I don ' t know how that
Iaffects taxes. Sometimes we might even be able to plan to make sure we
have enough industrial in place and to a degree restrict residential
development until there' s enough industrial in place or commercial to help
Iease . . . Anyway, we need a motion on this item.
Wildermuth moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
Itabling action on Land Use Amendment Request #89-2 due to the fact that at
the present time the City of Chanhassen lacks sufficient background
information to fully support approval of the request . All voted in favor
■ and the motion carried .
■
•
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 30
PUBLIC HEARING: '
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18. 93 ACRES INTO 11 HIGH DENSITY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED R-12, RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS II LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS (BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BLVD. ,
NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET) , CENVESCO (OAKVIEW HEIGHTS) .
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order .
Mary Cully: My name is Mary Cully. I 'm with Hedlund Engineering and
represent Cenvesco. As has been stated, we have been before you on this
particular parcel with the same product essentially but we were asking for
a PUD which was not designated zoning for this parcel. We are now coming
back with a similar product. We feel that we conform with the R-12 intent
of the zoning as Jo Ann mentioned. We met all the impervious and the
density. The densities are much lower than the 12. Generally they are 9
to 10 range with an average of 10 units per acre. The tree issue, this
development has the removal of 9 large oak trees . The landscape plan shows
the replacement of 120 trees of different types , varieties and granted
smaller size caliper inches that will be removed are a little over 200 and II we are replacing them with nearly 300 caliper inches. In the project prior
to this , the Durand Corporation, the DNR forester did come onto the site
with staff and it was their viewpoint that, and I ' ll read it. Staff is on
site with the DNR forester Alan Olsen and determined that there was no way
to preserve any of these trees with a proposed. . . Staff and Alan Olsen
reviewed the proposed landscape plan , this was the old landscape plan and
asked for an increase and variety of plant materials. So just for the
record I wanted to show that this site has been visited by the DNR forester
and it was his judgment that unfortunately these trees cannot be saved .
They' re trying to save whatever we can and there may be a possibility of 1
or 2 more trees being saved. We feel that they can with a lot of
precautions . It' s not a guaranteed thing but from my interpretation of the
DNR's feeling is that is what he' s saying that they just can' t guarantee . . .
Since we all know the project well , it ' s probably appropriate that I answer
questions considering the hour and time limit.
Conrad : Okay, when we get back here for our comments , I 'm sure we will
have some questions of you. It ' s a public hearing . Any comments?
Additional comments?
1
Batzli moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Emmings : My overall comment is that again I think parking is a serious
deficit in this plan as it was in the other plan. Again, the only parking
that' s being provided is the garage space and the space immediately in
front of the garage for guests and events and things and I 'm probably going
to vote against it just on that ground alone . Otherwise , I don' t mind the
plan. I think it certainly fits better than anything we've seen before.
With respect to the preliminary plat , subdivision , I think we should add a
condition that the approval would be conditioned upon compliance with all
•
/i
I '
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 31
the conditions of the site plan and the wetland alteration permit. I think
the number of curb cuts should be reduced out to Jenny Lane. Particularly
I when you consider that the sidewalk is going to be going along that south
edge too. Not only is there an awful lot of curb cuts but the sidewalk is
planned for that south side of the road .
IMary Cully: The north side.
Emmings : That ' s not what I just heard .
IOlsen: When Gary was discussing it, he was saying the south though. I can
double check that.
IEmmings : I know the difference between north and south, I just don' t know
where this thing is going. She said south.
III Mary Cully: Oh, I apologize.
Olsen: Yes , it says the south side. The Park and Rec .
IEmmings : And that' s where a lot of these curb cuts, that ' s where the over
abundance of curb cuts seems to occur although there are some on the north
IVtoo but anyway the number of curb cuts onto Jenny Lane I think ought to be
reduced. That would be an important thing to do. They' re quite a bit
under the impervious surface limit and I think probably something could be
Iworked out, at least try to. I don' t have any way to judge whether the
landscaping is adequate or inadequate and it' s something I 'm very concerned
about when I see that the site plan asks for an amended landscape plan to
address that. I assume that will then just be, the staff will determine
Iwhether or not it's adequate and I 'm willing to let staff do that. Number
one I think the staff has the right idea about requiring more and number
two , judging from what the City Council has to say about those oak trees ,
Ithey' re going to be taking a greater look at that as well . I would again
modify the conditions on the site plan to add a condition, site plan
approval is conditioned upon compliance with all the conditions of the
subdivision approval and the wetland alteration permit. Again, just to tie
I
that back and forth . Under the wetland alteration permit , I think we' ve
got the wrong number. Under the wetland alteration permit it should be
89-14 instead of 88-15. 88-15 is the site plan so that first number under
Ithe recommendation should be 89-14 and then condition 3, it says approval
of PUD concept and development plan . All that ' s gone by the board so that
shouldn' t be in there. Number 4 says approval of site plan 88-14 and I
Ithink we should just strike that out because it should be 88-15 but let ' s
just strike it out and just put in a third condition that says that
approval would be conditioned upon compliance with all the conditions of
subdivision and site plan approval . That will again, tie them all
Itogether . Other than that I don ' t have anything else right now.
Ellson: I 'm just as concerned about what I was the first time and that' s
the trees . I don' t even recall now how many total there are. They' re
removing 9. How many trees are not being removed or are trying to be
saved?
' I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 32
Olsen: Two are trying to be saved.
Ellson : And their chances are , we don' t know but basically 9 out of 11 are II
being taken out and are most of them in this double frontage lot area or a
good portion of them? If I recall it was kind of stretched up.
Olsen: Yes, they are up in this area. In the double frontage.
Batzli : I don' t mean to interrupt but if you go with the Alternative A and
turn the townhome there, are you then wrecking all of the trees?
Olsen : I haven' t seen it but I would assume you are. It' s real doubtful
that these are going to survive with any type of grading around it. This II doesn ' t actually show the tree line but , the drip line is what they call it
and it leaves about half as much would not even touch it. . . Because
they' re oaks , they' re real susceptible to disease.
Ellson: I guess I 'm still concerned about that and I don't know that we
have a whole lot of power but. Not only do I recall reading about how the
DNR said that we'd probably have to remove them but that' s what the plan as
it is or as it was then , but we' ve also stated and it' s also been discussed
by the new Council that we want to start designating protected tree groves
around the city and I think this should be the first one. I don' t like
that many being gone which is probably 100% and whether it' s 300 trees or
3, 000 that are 1 inch round or 2 inches compared to 1, 100 year old oaks , I
think we really lose out on that. I think that we come out on the short
end of the stick. I had a question on the double frontage lot. That' s
basically something that we don' t recommend or this is something we don' t
allow?
Olsen : The subdivision ordinance does not allow it unless it' s on a
collector or arterial .
Ellson: So if they took that building out there wouldn' t be a problem? '
Olsen: Well it's still a lot .
Ellson : I know but it' s like 10 units or whatever . I was thinking well
maybe some of those trees are in there. Take the building out and you' ll
save 5 of them or something . I guess I 'm not convinced that we'd have a
solution to this problem that we don' t allow them yet we' re going to allow
this one . I don' t see that we have a good reason for allowing this one but
you know she' s trying to find a solution but it still kind of designates it
as a double frontage lot and I don ' t know that we have a good reason to say
okay, this one we' ll let go. Those are some of the concerns I have.
Mary Cully: Can I just say something about the trees? Also it is the
grade of the trees to develop any kind of road, it would be hard to save
them because there' s a change in the grade of 10 feet so you have to
\_ consider grade in addition to location.
Ellson : But we had one option last time where we saved more . Not as many
as I would like but a few more. I don't know.
I ,
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 33
I
Batzli : Just getting back to Steve' s comments . The Park and Rec ' s
Iproposal did say the trail should be on the south side of Jenny Lane so
that is going over all of the curb cuts and I agree that that' s probably
not the best place to put that. One of my questions, and this is a real
Iquestion by the way, where is the appropriate place to say, or not say,
when we' re looking at potential expansion of the site. For instance,
everywhere on every page we see plastered a future apartment building which
in theory is not being considered tonight, isn' t that correct?
IOlsen : Right .
IBatzli : Should that not be one of the conditions that we are not
considering that and not approving it at this time?
IOlsen : Yes , we could say that.
Emmings : Why do we have them on there? Why do we have something that
we' re not considering on the plat that we' re looking at?
IIOlsen : It ' s always up to the option of the applicant to show that. It
seems like when they don' t show it.
1EEmmings : Then we want to know what it' s going to be. Yes , that' s right .
Olsen: So I had said, yes show it.
IEmmings : I think you' re right actually. I think I 'd probably like it on
there. I think I 've said that in the past .
IBatzli : I like to see it on there . It' s just I think I 'd like to state
and make it clear to the applicant that we' re not approving that at this
I time.
Olsen : We can have that said as a condition because we' ve had that before
where it's in the report and we know it but somebody else in the future
I
might not .
Batzli : My next question was regarding the 300 inches which replaces the
Itrees that are being removed. Is that in addition to the landscaping
requirement required under the landscaping ordinance or is that just the
trees that are required under the landscape ordinance? Is this in addition
Ito or just a part of?
Olsen: Additional landscaping we' re requesting?
1 Batzli : Yes .
Olsen : Right . In the landscape ordinance they require berming and
Iscreening between vehicular areas and units in the development and the
landscaping plan does not provide all of that. They have, I just saw today
an amended landscaping plan that they are providing those requirements so
it ' s not necessarily additional landscaping just to replace the trees that
1
ii
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 34
are being removed . There are other sections in the ordinance that are
being met.
Batzli : There was some things in the public safety questi.onaire stating '
that they needed more information. Water supply calculations. All this
kind of thing . Has that been submitted?
Olsen: I don't know. I don' t believe that has yet .
Batzli : So we really don' t know what the outcome of this middle building
is. We don't know where the improvements for park are going to be. We
don' t really have a good idea about the curb cuts . I think if it was up to
me tonight, I 'd move to table this . '
Wildermuth : I agree with Brian . I think we' ve got to table it tonight
because of the curb cuts. Because of the double frontage on Jenny Lane. I
guess I have to be very honest and confess that I wished we hadn ' t zoned
this the way it was zoned because I don' t ; like to see a project like this
this close to the City Hall .
Conrad : Well let me respond . We' re trying to put high density. I 've
never been against this project because of density and obviously you' re not
talking to me in your comments right now but you' ve never listened to me
before but the point was to put a high density close to city so you could
walk. If we were going to have high density, this was not a bad location
to do it.
Wildermuth : I understand that . I 'm just looking at the other high density
areas around the community and it isn' t a 'pleasant prospect. I hope this
one is better . In terms of construction materials. In terms of basic '
design but at this point I would agree with Brian. I would table it or be
in favor of tabling it because of the curb cuts and double frontage on
Jenny Lane. That 's basically it. 1
Headla : If we didn' t do anything with this property, you' re probably one
of the most knowledgeable on this, how long do you think those oak trees
would last?
Ellson : What' s his question?
Conrad: How long do oak trees live?
Headla : Based on this area , do you think they' d live 5 years? 10 years?
20 years?
Koegler : You' ve asked a very difficult question to answer . The answer is
if they' re in their undisturbed state as they' ve been for basically a 100
years with the exception of some farming operations in that vicinity,
presumably they could stay healthy for another 50 years or 100 years .
'-- Olsen : That ' s what the forester said too . 11
Headla: They could survive?
i!
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 35
11
Koegler : Pending natural disasters like tornadoes like that went through
in 1965, sure.
Headla: Okay, the reason I ask this is , even if they did take them down,
Iin 10 years if they've got over 100 trees planted, 100 trees would in 10
years and I think they made a pretty good choice in trees they tried , would
we be further ahead. Today we wouldn' t be but in 10 years , do you think
we 'd be ahead in the aesthetic value of trees?
I
Ellson: That' s a personal opinion.
IConrad : Mark' s mouth is quivering .
Koegler : Talk about objective questions , that' s really one . 10 years , I
Ithink the largest tree I saw on there was 2 1/2 caliper inches. In 10
years that ' s going to grow to 4 inches , maybe 6 inches if it' s an Ash if
it 's something that grows faster. You judge it with your own aesthetics.
Is a mature crown oak the same as 100 4 inch trees , 6 inch trees? To some
Ipeople it probably is equivalent, to other ' s, perhaps not. I can' t answer
the subjective aspect of your question.
I!. Headla: I guess I didn' t expect you come back that they could live another
50 years . Okay, thanks . One thing in going through here, I didn' t see the
inspector had different comments in here. I didn' t see any of the
Iinspector ' s comments put in the recommendations .
Olsen: The building inspector ' s comments?
Headla : Yes .
Olsen : They were more relating to just to let the applicant know that they
Imight have to be sprinklered and things like that. It' s really when they
come through with the building permit, they have to meet those requirements
so that's why I didn't put it in at the time. The one that should have
been put in was the Public Safety and I don ' t think I got that . I did miss
Ithat one. It should refer to his memo. The building ones, those will be
taken care of later . It ' s just to let them know.
IHeadla: That will happen when they get the permit?
Olsen : Oh yes . They' re quoting the UBC Code .
IHeadla: On that Jenny Lane, will there be no parking signs there?
Olsen : I don ' t know that that ' s been determined that they won' t.
IEmmings: With all the curb cuts there won' t be any place to park anyway.
IHeadla : Would that be, I 'm guessing but I would suspect it' s going to be a
lot of problems in the days when people come out here. People want to be
on the streets . They' ll have to park on the streets . Will that solve the
iproblem or would that create more of a problem by having no parking?
i
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 36
Street parking?
Olsen : The design of the street, I don ' t know that it' s going to allow
parking on either side. It gets into engineering again but if it' s
designed that it can handle the parking on one side or the other , then it
shouldn' t be that much of a traffic problem but if it' s not designed in
this, it will be a problem and it should be signed no parking . I think
what they usually do is leave it no parking and if it becomes a problem,
then they sign it if that ' s what they felt was appropriate in this case.
We've been through this so many times, at one point we were going to have
it no parking .
Headla : I think this is a big improvement over what they put in before.
It's like when you' re designing something and things go together good, you
feel real comfortable and I don' t think the design is quite here yet. I
really would like to see him go back and look at it again with all the curb
cuts and the way that road goes through there. It seems to create a lot of
problems. From my point of view, I guess I 'd like to see you go back and
solve that loop problem with the road and curb cuts and add more parking .
That's it. '
Conrad : Okay, thanks Dave. Quick comments I guess . Did you ever
consider , the road that loops off of Jenny Lane, did you ever consider
making two cul-de-sacs off of that? Is it important to keep that a
continuous road back there? Does that make sense?
Mary Cully: We got feedback from the Fire Department that that ' s the way
they wanted to see it.
Dean Johnson: They did not want cul-de-sacs. ,
Conrad: I 'm sure you' ll get different feedback even up here. Yes, I know.
Was that ever of interest to you to do some cul-de-sacs going back in
there? In other words, and I 'm not trying to redesign your plat right now
but would that have benefitted let' s say trees? Lessen the amount of road?
Mary Cully: It probably. . .probably be worse. '
Conrad : I 'm not a planner , not a professional planner but if you just kept
the same configuration of road there and just basically didn't connect it,
you' re going to end up with maybe 40 additional feet or something between
the two cul-de-sac spots going in. Still accessing the same buildings .
Mary Cully: The length of cul-de-sac . . . '
Conrad: Does it exceed that 500 feet? Would that do that?
Olsen : I don' t know that we saw plans of cul-de-sacs so I don' t know.
t Conrad: Would you advise them not to do that? The cul-de-sacs? 1
Ellson: They already said the fire people did .
I
I ,
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 37
Olsen : I don ' t know, no . It never was shown so I don ' t know that it' s a
preference or that it wouldn' t have been permitted.
IConrad : If there were two cul-de-sacs there we wouldn' t have double
frontage lots would we?
IOlsen : No . It would remove, well you could possibly have. I don' t know
how it would work if you had a cul-de-sac going like this.
IConrad : So what would that mean? It would still have double frontage?
What would we have? That' s another option is one cul-de-sac.
IOlsen : It ' s something we could look at.
Conrad: You' re comfortable Jo Ann then in solving the double frontage
Iissue simply by splitting that lot?
Olsen: It's the way. . .
IConrad : Meet the intent of the ordinance is what you' re saying? What are
the negatives of having, if we allow a double frontage here and we set a
precedent and a rationale for that precedent is what? Is there rationale?
The applicant wanted to do it that way? How do we allow that? Basically
we can ' t unless we divide it the way you ' re saying .
k_
Olsen: Right and even then in looking at it, you could still define that
Ias a double frontage. The ordinance. . . it' s a front yard if you ' re facing .
The front yard is where you have street frontage so that lot has street
frontage and then if you split it in half; it has two lots with 3 front
Iyards so you could still , the way it' s defined now, I guess it ' s confusing
but you could still look at it as a double frontage no matter what you do
because you' ve got streets on all sides . The way that you orient the
Ibuilding really doesn' t. . .
Conrad : One of the double frontage restrictions is what?
IOlsen: Just so that they do . . .you accommodate that. I think the reason
was so that you didn' t have a street or existing lot and then another
inbetween that. The back was facing the front yard kind of like an alley
Isituation. The way that it' s written is so if you do have double frontage
lots, that you always have the front of the homes facing . . .
IConrad : So it' s really out of respect to the neighbors?
Olsen: How it' s going to work overall. I think double frontage was mostly
used for single family. For large lots with individual units on it so
Ithat's where you get into, there' s nowhere in the subdivision ordinance
where it doesn ' t apply to this but really that' s where it was for was for
single family.
IIConrad : Does it apply to this? Yes it does .
IOlsen: Yes , it does .
•
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 38
C '
Conrad : Philosophically, do you think it applies to this?
Olsen: I think you could get by with that being with berming and
landscaping .
Conrad : So really the precedent that we set is not a negative precedent
because maybe we should, maybe double frontages is not negative in this
particular high density zoning district?
Olsen: We prefer, you always prefer not to have it. We just don't know, I
guess the best alternative is like a cul-de-sac but the way, if you want
that looped, then there' s really no way to get around it unless you just
delete that whole lot or have it an outlot that can' t be developed .
Conrad: What do you think about my thoughts for the cul-de-sac scenario?
Do you like them or don' t like that idea?
Olsen: Well I 'd like to see it. It' s hard to comment when you can' t
picture it. I
Conrad : But we haven' t advised the staff other than the fire department
advising the applicant that they didn' t like cul-de-sacs. We haven' t
really directed them to a different design?
Olsen: I don't know that they were told that they couldn' t do cul-de-sacs .
In my conversations and with the public safety it was always that this
would be designed to accommodate wide enough, this is back when it was
going to be a private drive and it was going to be narrow, that it be at
least 20 feet or 24 feet wide to accommodate the fire trucks so cul-de-sacs II
did not get discussed .
Mary Cully: On the double frontage lots , it does also say that if it can ' t II
be achieved, getting away from the double frontage, that you could add the
10 foot and require that that extra 10 foot be bermed and landscaped.
I guess that's the interpretation I took. The one road that parallels
Jenny Lane is almost like a frontage road and we use that . . . Double
frontage. . .single family is to have somebody' s backyard against a road but
with this product you really don' t have a backyard so we provided 25 feet
setback all around the perimeter of that lot where normally you'd have a 10 II
foot setback on the side but to compensate we put it at 25 around the
entire perimeter . It could be appropriate that one of those setbacks
should be 35.
Conrad : Would it upset you from a sales standpoint to have one long
cul-de-sac? Cutting off the eastern access, bringing up the road to
service the three units north and to the west , is that something you just
wouldn't want to do? Again, I 'm thinking maybe there are trees, there' s
some concern with trees and I thought our cul-de-sac length was 500. We
just looked, I 'm not sure where we are on cul-de-sacs anymore but what ' s
the negative of having one long cul-de-sac there Jo Ann? Might it save
some trees? I 'm talking about not having the eastern connection.
■
I
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 39
Mary Cully: I think the diameter of cul-de-sac would be 100 feet and the
pavement would be 80 so you' re talking pavement where the. trees are so you
have to maintain the western entrance for the eventual apartment .
Conrad: I 'm not worried about the west.
IMary Cully: I'm saying with the possibility of the cul-de-sac there , it
would mean a wider expansion of pavement.
IOlsen : I don' t know if the trees would be saved. Also , when you talk
about that high amount of people living in that area, they could possibly,
public safety might come back and still want a secondary access even out of
that cul-de-sac.
Conrad : Why?
IOlsen : It ' s just a lot of times whenever you have a cul-de-sac there, it' s
a lot of. . .
IConrad : You get 2 1/2 units exiting , half of the center deal are exiting
right on Jenny Lane right so we don' t have that many individuals that we' re
servicing up there Jo Ann.
Olsen : I picture if you' re going to have a cul-de-sac coming in there,
11-
trying to get everyone to get off of Jenny Lane. It' s hard to talk about
Iit when you really can ' t even picture it .
Conrad: Right. And obviously I don't know if we' re saving anything. A
lot of people like cul-de-sac living and it keeps it away from the
Ithoroughfare. I don't know that there' s a benefit to having two access
sites in there other than I 'm sure the fire department will say yes there
is but we've been ignoring, we've got a lot of new development going in out
Ihere and for some reason we' re pretty comfortable that long cul-de-sacs are
not real negative. We' re allowing them but again I would make that trade.
It'd be a trade-off and I think the developer would want to , it ' s obviously
in their interest, they'd be interested whether their property is more
Imarketable or whether there' s some negatives to that but that just looked
like a solution to me that maybe we have ignored. Generally I find this
better than the PUD concept and maybe it ' s sort of a shell game but there
Isure, it' s just better looking in general. Don' t know how to solve the
double frontage issue and Jo Ann , without your guidance, I think it' s tough
for us. This is a planner ' s deal and I guess without your specific saying
Ino it can ' t be done , my guess right now is I would go along with allowing
it because we'd set a precedent in this district and I don' t mind setting a
precedent in this district. I simply don' t mind it so basically ignoring
our guidelines. In terms of the preliminary plat, I think it' s better . In
Iterms of the site plan , curb cuts are too many. Flat out . There are just
plain too many. It' s not good planning. There' s a trade-off . Impervious
surface for curb cuts and I don' t know what the trade-off is right now so I
Iguess I could back on my word and say I 'd like 17 curb cuts if we have to
- put in a whole lot more parking area or road area but at this point in
time, it' s probably worth using up some of the impervious surface that we
Ihaven' t used to get your curb cuts there . It also makes sense to have
I
l
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21 , 1989 - Page 40
fewer simply because we've got a trail there unless we moved the trail to
the other side which seems logical to me but I guess as long as we've got
it on the south, we' ll keep it there . The parking , geez, we continue to I
talk about parking for guests and we don' t have any standards to enforce so
the planning staff basically, Jo Ann you haven' t given us any guidelines on
this in the report. You' re just saying it's no different than before and
therefore it' s up to our whim basically whether we like it or not. Mark,
do you have any standards for parking for visitors for a development like
this? You work other areas . The City has no guidelines .
Koegler: You're not alone. A lot of cities have a 2 1/2 car requirement
for multi-family, one of which has to be covered . That 1 1/2 is commonly
taken up in driveway area and it' s only when you have a PUD or you have
some conditional use or something that you have a little more leverage to
require guest parking or suggest strongly that it be added to the plan that
that necessarily occurs . It ' s certainly plats of this nature that , I 've
been involved in reviewing for other cities, we have tried to obtain guest
parking .
Conrad : The City has no leverage right now, right? ,
Olsen: Technically, no. We'd have to amend the ordinance.
Emmings : Why not?
Conrad: No standards .
Emmings : We don' t have standards but this is a site plan review and you' re
saying that we can' t. . .
Conrad : We don' t have an ordinance that speaks to the problem.
Emmings: Well it' s simply not addressed but if we see it as a deficiency
in the plan , what do we do , just ignore it?
Conrad: You can kind of negotiate with the developer and see if they can
solve it. 1
Headla : We don' t have a limit on curb cuts either but we' re sure pressing
that one. '
Conrad : I think there is a safety issue in curb cuts and I could feel real
comfortable talking safety. No doubt about it especially when you've got a
trail going through there . You' ve got 17 curb cuts and every 35 feet
you've got a curb cut and you've got more traffic than a single family unit
going out of there . I don' t have a problem with that one Dave. Not at all
but parking, I don' t know.
Batzli : It may be a safety issue as well .
Headla: I think you'd have a problem because not everybody would agree on
the appropriate number . So in your own mind you wouldn' t have a problem
but overall there would be.
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 41
II
Conrad : The development to the east of this , they don' t have any parking
Ido they for guests?
Olsen : I can ' t remember off hand if they do. It' s not a significant
Uamount, no. That was a big discussion when they went through too.
Conrad : They do have some but it would be where Jenny Lane goes in so
their guest parking is going to vanish.
IOlsen : And it is being used all the time too . Every time I 've gone out
there that parking in Jenny Lane right-of-way is used.
IConrad : What ' s the negative to the City in not having enough parking?
Anything? They' ll just park out on Jenny Lane and then we' ll get
Icomplaints so we' ll put up no parking signs . Then what?
Olsen: Bus service out there. ,
IConrad : We' ll shuttle them in from a parking lot . I don ' t have an answer .
Okay, but somebody who makes a motion will . My only other thought, Park
and Rec said put in a volleyball court, half basketball court and several
other things. They made their recommendation and we really don' t know
where it is on the plan . Where it might go . Well , we have to adopt that
right? If they make that recommendation, , that' s nothing that we have to
put our name to , right?
IOlsen: You can say you' re not in support of it but it still goes right
onto the City Council . The Park and Rec also, they get final determination
Iapproval of where that is located .
Conrad : Is there leverage on that? Just out of curiousity, is that an
Iexchange for park dedication fees or they' re just saying we'd kind of like
to have this?
Olsen: No , they' re saying you have to do it.
IConrad: Under what right do they have to 'put in a volleyball court unless
they donate a park?
IOlsen : They can require a certain amount of acreage in their ordinance,
the park ordinance. I think it came out to like 6 acres because of the
Idensity or the number of units , they could have required 6 acres of
parkland. Because it wasn't park deficient but it still was the
surrounding park areas are almost to their capacity that they said okay,
you don' t have to provide the 6 acres but we want like around 1 acre , 1 1/2
Iacre with volleyball , basketball so they' re kind of coming to a compromise .
Plus they still have to pay some of the park fees and trail fees so they do
have the authority. They could have flat out said give us 6 acres or else
irthey could have said just give us money.
Conrad : But we don' t see it here right now right?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 42
Olsen : No . They could have possibly changed their plan because it does
have to go back to Park and Rec. They still have control where it' s
located so they can' t put it in the wetland or in that slope . '
Conrad: Any comments? I see twitches out there.
Mary Cully: The park, that area of volleyball is not shown on this plan
because we got different information from Lori . When this plan was done
she said it was not a park deficient area and all this sort of thing and
since that time she has . . .about the volleyball area.
Dean Johnson : Well their meeting was just last week. So until you have
the meeting you don' t have any permission, know where to put it anyhow.
Since they work with you to put it in, it' s nothing that you can have on
these plans obviously before it comes to you people so I 'm sure that's why
they also put in their stipulations that it be worked out at final plat
time.
Emmings : If you cul-de-saced this one road they get a whole bunch of land .
Dean Johnson: Quite honestly I think your idea is not too bad. I would
take it a step farther myself and actually make it two shorter cul-de-sacs.
Conrad: That may be better and staff may not, by the way staff may not
agree with me. They have some technical reasons for they don ' t really like
cul-de-sacs and I find some good reasons for them and they add to the charm
and some neighborhood type of deals but there are some emergency service
type things so again, when I say c 1-de-sac, I 'm saying that' s not a bad
trade-off but they' re probably going to have some other thoughts on that
subject.
Dean Johnson : Again, when you get back into first of all the issue with
the double frontage lots, you have something to go by. We sat there and II looked at it and say well if we turn the streets and now the streets are on
the side lots which is where turning the building came from. Now do you
have double frontage lots? You know, you have a real gray area there in
which you to do a cul-de-sac, then you somewhat take that gray area out of
there and I have no problem doing that . t guess what I would like because
obviously I don't want to be tabled again, I like you people.
Conrad : We enjoy your coming here every 2 weeks to talk to you. It' s a '
good time.
Dean Johnson : So I guess what I 'd like is a recommendation to work with
that. Either cul-de-sac it. Go back to fire and see what they would want
in this thing and then come back with the best recommendation up to Council
with that too. As for the cuts on the curb, to be quite honest with you,
if I could get a little bit more impervious surface on a couple of those
lots, I would rather go with the drive in going there also. I personally
don ' t like to see all those curb cuts on it either so I 'd like more of a
recommendation to say allow me to put a little more impervious surface on
which (a) would give me some more visitor parking and (b) be able to get
all the curb cuts off so that' s the type of recommendation I prefer to see
/
I ,
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 43
if I could .
IEmmings : They' re at 28% now and the limit is 35% or isn ' t that right?
Olsen: I think you have to look at each individual lot. Some of them are
I really right up there, 35% like now but that ' s again where it came more
into play in the PUD on how you looked at that.
Dean Johnson : Can I make one more comment here? Obviously I 'd like to be
more a part of the. . .other stuff too. The impervious surface just got
tight. But the other thing that comes in , I 'd still like to make one last
pitch for the zero lot line on this site. I would rather get the. . .of the
Ihomeowner. it' s County for processing plats and also to a surveyor for
surveying the inside of the buildings. The better way out of it would be
able to give the guys and the homeowners a better unit is to , so to speak
Ilessen the soft cost which is what something like that is. I don' t know
how at this point we can allow it. I guess I 'm looking for suggestions but
I would still urge, still think the zero lot line is . . . Even if it' s
through a variance or I don' t know how. It does mean about $1, 500. 00 I am
Igoing to be able to put into the units which I had planned to put into the
units.
1kConrad : We weren ' t against the zero lot lines but to get to that ordinance
and what have you, it forced you into PUD and you are not a very good
`,, PUD the way it looks. It just doesn' t classify.
IDean Johnson: So now we' re in a catch-22. So what do you do? You have
an ordinance that really doesn' t relate to this type of a unit you know and
we went the PUD route to. . .
IConrad : If you brought in a really creative PUD and you save some trees
and you bundle some units together, I think you could probably get that
Ithrough. I think when we zoned this a while back to R-12, we really
thought it was going to be apartment buildings . That' s where we were at.
Obviously market structure and you being there , you can do anything you
want and you know what the market demand is but again we' re thinking
I
apartments. Close to downtown. Nice brick apartments . Terrific . Okay,
well now you' re bringing in something that especially when you give us a
PUD, it really didn' t, it wasn' t one and you got caught by that but I think
Iyou can come back and save a few trees. You see the other thing we' re
doing is trying to keep open space and the first thing you brought in just
looked, you can have density and still have open space. They' re not
Icontradictory but typically that moves you up.
Dean Johnson: So you' re looking at an apartment .
IConrad : Yes . You' re ending up with the problem. It ' s not ours but those
are basically some philosophies that we' ve carried forth around Chanhassen
and the residents like it. That ' s why they moved out here . They like the
Iopen space so if you had somehow been able to bundle things together , give
us some greenery around , keeping the impervious surface down, I think we
would have gone along with you but it didn' t look that way. This looks
good as a subdivision and I think we made some changes to it . You ' ve got
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 44
C
some problems here . There is somebody who doesn ' t like parking and
somebody who doesn' t like trees and maybe a majority that want to table it
so you may not be happy with where we' re going tonight but I think you got II some time. If you came back with a zero lot line deal that looked creative
in a PUD, I think we'd look at it.
Dean Johnson: We'd have to lose too much density to do that. '
Conrad : You might .
Dean Johnson: The economics of the thing right now also hedges on the HRA
so you' re sitting there saying you know, you gain one place you lose
another . It ' s something that you always struggle with in land planning and II
those types of things. I realize that but the numbers got too low in order
to do it and it kicked the project out. The project wouldn' t go at that
little of density so now I guess what I 'm trying to do is sit here and say
well this is something that the same darn building you know but let ' s give
the customer something. Let' s try to find a way to do it so I guess you
know I 'm looking for a recommendation from you guys even if it' s a
recommendation onto the Council to look at this same project only allowing
zero lot lines or something on that line because it is going to go to the
customer because just to stay within the concept of the idea we have trying
to compete with rent , it' s going to need to go onto the customer . . .
(1 Conrad: I don't know what we can tell you right now. If anybody has any
advice. You see the problem is , my comments are going to come back and
it's going to reduce your density and I don' t think you survive by reducing II
density but it saves some of the things we'd be very interested in doing .
Giving us open space. Finding a volleyball park, totlot, whatever so I
could see saving some trees but I don' t know that you can live with what my I
recommendations would be.
Dean Johnson : It becomes financially infeasible .
Conrad: Right. It probably is. Anyway, I heard some comments here for
tabling . I guess my comment would probably be, we could pass this along to
City Council with a lot of restrictions . It appears to me there are 4 or 5
things that really should be analyzed pretty good and I wouldn ' t pass it to
them and I think if they were doing their job they'd bump it back to us so
therefore my feeling would be to table this until we can see the curb cut
review, the impervious surface analysis and maybe taking a look at a long
cul-de-sac and a couple of the other things. Don' t know that we can save
trees but maybe we can bundle some parking in to this by bumping up some
impervious surface but I think I would prefer and normally I wouldn' t mind
just passing along to the Council but I think it' s to your benefit. I
think it' s to the City' s benefit to bring it back and solve a few of these
problems. Other than that I think it's a better looking proposal than
before. Those are my short comments . Anybody want to make a motion?
( Wildermuth: I move the Planning Commission recommend tabling of Site Plan
L #88-15 for 182 condominium units as shown on plans dated June 2, 1989 .
Conrad: Is there a second?
■
I ,
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 45
Emmings : Are we going to table just the site plan or the wetland
Ialteration permit and the subdivision request as well? There are three
things going on here.
IWildermuth : I think we probably ought to table them all .
Conrad: I 'd table them all , yes .
IEmmings : Is that your motion to table the whole package?
Wildermuth: Table all three.
1 Conrad : Is there a second?
IBatzli : Second.
Conrad : Discussion. You men and women have a choice to get this out of
here. Just make your recommendations to the City Council .
IEmmings : There are enough things, I was for moving it on but I guess I ' ve
kind of been persuaded by other people' s comments that there are enough
Ithings up in the air so it really wouldn' t be, it probably would be useful
to look at it again.
IWildermuth moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
tabling action on Subdivision Request #88-24, Site Plan #88-15 and Wetland
Alteration Permit #89-14 . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
I
Conrad: We' re going to see you one more time .
1 Dean Johnson : What am I going to change? I have nothing .
Conrad: The curb cuts. You' ve got to show us where the park is. You've
I
got to show us the impervious surface . Those things we need to take a look
at. It' s not here and we'd just like to see it before City Council .
IDean Johnson : The impervious surface is there . . . 35% . I can ' t change the
curb cuts because if I do I change the impervious surface so consequently I
would come back with the same thing .
IConrad: Is that right?
Olsen : I haven' t seen that to prove that the impervious surface will be.
IIf it is and they do have to go over, they' ll have to go before the Board
of Adjustments to receive a variance to that zoning requirement .
IMary Cully: But you' re requiring that. . .
Dean Johnson : You' re going beyond your own ordinances . I can' t. . .your
Iordinances because we wanted to get the thing passed so we met your
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 46
ordinances except for possibly the . . . Everything else is going to have to
come back.
Emmings : That ' s another issue that has to be looked at before it comes
back too because our ordinance says you can' t have it. From what I saw at
the City Council last time, there were a lot of folks up there who were
very liberal minded in application of our ordinances.
Conrad : Basically what you' re asking is , you'd like us to turn it down.
Do you want us to turn it down? '
Dean Johnson : What I want, I can' t change. I 'd like you to recommend
going over impervious or I 'd like you to sit there and say deal with the
double frontage and this way or that way. I can take and cul-de-sac the
thing and bring it back to you again but if that' s the only option.
Conrad : On a parcel this big, it' s really not tough to meet our standards. I
Seriously. If you had a 12 acre or 4 acre piece of property, I could see,
and crimped between some different things, yes . It might be hard to meet
our standards. This is a big parcel . I don' t know why you can' t meet the
standards that we' re trying to set . I really don' t. Everybody else does .
Impervious surface, everybody, I can't think of a case that hasn' t come
before us where they haven' t met it.
A Dean Johnson: This does meet it .
Conrad : Then you won' t have a problem.
Dean Johnson: It still meets it. It meets it now and you' ve turned it
down because it meets it. 1
Conrad : We' ve turned it down for other reasons . We haven' t turned it
down, we've tabled it.
Dean Johnson: Or you' ve tabled it for something that I can ' t bring back to
you a change. I can' t change the impervious surface.
Conrad : Yes you can .
Dean Johnson : It will be coming back the same way.
Conrad: Then we could reconsider our motion and turn this down. Therefore
you could get to City Council in two weeks if that ' s what you'd like to do .
You' re saying I have no other alternatives. One, we are interested and so
are they as to where the recreation facility is going . There' s some
things, and you do have the right to go in and say we want 17 curb cuts .
You do have that right . Planning staff is saying no . We' re saying it
doesn' t make sense. We haven't seen that too often and City Council could
along with them so I think we could sit here and say, we wanted to see it
( back because we thought there were enough things that might be changed that II
we could just send it through and therefore they would follow our lead and
it would go through at their level pretty quickly but your alternative, if
somebody made the motion to reconsider what we just did , to forget about
1i
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 21 , 1989 - Page 47
litabling it, which I 'm not sure that somebody would make the motion but they
could make the motion to turn it down because of and you could fly up there
IIand see what they say.
Wildermuth : As far as the parking is concerned , not every lot probably has
Ito have additional parking space. You've got a couple lots. You've got
some leeway to work with impervious surface to provide some additional
parking .
Dean Johnson: Not without dropping density.
Emmings: I guess if what he is saying is that he' s going to bring back the
Isame plan next time, then it' s senseless to table it. Then we' re just
wasting his time and ours. If you' re going to sit there and tell us you' re
not going to work with the staff on the concerns that we' ve raised tonight,
Iand I would like to know whether you are or not because if you don' t plan
to bring back any different plan, then I would certainly make a motion to
reconsider what we've just done. But if in the meantime you can
constructively work with the staff to try and iron out some of the things
Ithat have bothered us tonight, then I think it should be tabled and we
should look at it again . So you should tell us , if you' re just going to
bring it back the same plan, then I think we should vote on it one way or
Ithe other . See you can sit out there and say what you want us to do and
recommend this and that but we' re not going to do that. That' s not the way
_,_ we perceive our function. You' re asking us to do something that we haven' t
Idone for anybody else and it's not the way we operate and I guess what we
need to know from you is if, basically the choices that I ' ve just outlined
I think.
IIMary Cully: We have worked with staff .
Emmings : I know you have and I 'm sure it' s frustrating because the fire
Idepartment wants one thing and they want another thing and we want
something else. But there' s 7 people up here and you' ve seen nothing but
unanimous votes tonight. Usually we' re kind of, we wind up not having this
much trouble with projects as we' ve had with yours and maybe that' s a
Imessage that you' re trying to stuff too much in here . I don ' t know but
that's my personal feeling that you' re stressing things. You' re pushing
everything to the limit for density and while I understand that from a
Ifinancial point of view, that' s not my concern. I don' t care see so from a
planning point of view, if you' re over stressed on those items, maybe you
ought to consider cutting density, I don't know. But if you' re saying
Iyou' ll only come back with the same plan , we need to know that . If that' s
your intent, then I think we should reconsider what we just did .
Dean Johnson : I think we will probably be working with staff on the double
Ifrontage lot. I don' t really expect to be able to work with the impervious
surface.
IEmmings : Why is that?
Dean Johnson : Because we can' t afford to drop really the total units we
Ihave. To get more impervious surface or to get a driveway in there as
■
l
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 48
impervious surface, I have to drop units .
Emmings: Well you' re right. You' re at 35 on some lots right now.
Apparently you' re at 33, 34. You' re 9% on one lot.
Dean Johnson: That' s the apartment building. '
Emmings : Okay, but you' re real high on all of them and I don' t see how
it's going to work either but maybe there is a way to make it work or a way
to make it work on a few units . Or maybe, I think you heard some talk up
here tonight that maybe we' re willing to trade a little higher impervious
surface to get more safety. Because there' s a safety concern we' re worried
about the number of curb cuts, maybe we' re willing to go a little higher on II
impervious surface . I don' t know but that' s the kind of things that were
said up here and I 'm sure they heard all that and will try and work with
you to get a couple of lots at least down to one curb cut instead of 3 or
4.
Dean Johnson: I stated the same thing . If you people are willing to allow
a little more on a couple three lots that have big driveways on them, I
would just as soon do that. I would also just as soon add some parking
spaces but what I can' t do is drop density.
Emmings : I understand that but what we' re asking you to do is work with '
staff and see if you can't find a way to reduce the number of curb cuts
even if it might mean, first by trying not to go over 35% but if you have
to here or there, maybe we' ll trade it off for the safety we perceive that ,
we' ll be gaining .
Dean Johnson : I would just as soon work that way but there' s one other
problem that I do see and that is, when you people do say, say we add more
to the parking and we get over the impervious surface there and let' s say
we have 36% or 37% on a particular lot, that type of thing. We work out
the double frontage lot . Now I 'm over when I take this plat in front of
Council, I 'm asking for something that varies from your ordinance. I have
the possibility that I could be just thrown out because now I 'm over R-12.
That's the other problem that I face in doing it. It' s that if we do pass
here, then the Council goes and says gosh darn , we don' t want to see over
35%. We' re not doing it and then we' re all back. . .
Emmings : That ' s right .
Conrad: There aren' t any guarantees .
Emmings : We can ' t control their decisions .
Dean Johnson: I realize that so that's why I 'm saying it' s hard for me to
go over the 35% . The curb cuts are an allowable thing so that ' s why we
chose to go that way.
�- Conrad : It might be best , I 'm not sure that I 'd change my impervious
surface. I don' t know that I 'd go over my standard .
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 49
Emmings : No one has even really looked at it to see if that ' s going to
happen. What we' re doing is instead of driveways we' re putting in one long
Ithing and has anybody drawn it out and measured it to see if it ' s possible
to do it at least on a couple of lots?
1 Dean Johnson : That' s what we have done is originally all of them were
going to have the collective driveways. That went over the impervious
surface so consequently that' s why the plan changed to what you see now. It
worked in reverse.
IEmmings : If it' s impossible, it' s impossible. I don' t know but I don' t
know if it' s been tested. Have you looked at it to see, of course we can' t
Ibe designing his plan anyway.
Conrad : There' s some benefit for turning this down and sending it to City
ICouncil so they get some immediate input. Whether the City Council would
be interested in allowing some variances , I guess that' s the Board of
Adjustments isn' t it that would consider variances. Is there a benefit to
moving this through to City Council Jo Ann?
IOlsen: Just so they will get their decisions but a major point is that
park. That ' s almost an acre or so that they' re going to have to provide
I, and it would probably be interesting to see that before it went farther .
That does impact the plat .
k.
Conrad : Do you think it' s good to hear what the City Council says?
IOlsen: I think that we could, we have the ability to say to them that
that' s too many curb cuts . We definitely 'have the legal ability to say
Ithat's too much.
Conrad : Yes , I 'm comfortable with that . From the developer ' s standpoint ,
II don' t know if it' s going to save him any time. If we bounce this up with
a negative vote they can at least test the waters up there and see if
somebody' s willing to go over .
IEllson : You' re saying by that time it gets to there it will have a parking
place.
IConrad : They' ll know more and they' ll see where the park goes and maybe I
don' t care where the park goes and I don' t care if it' s 17 or 18 curb cuts.
IEmmings: It might not be all negative either . I don' t have any problem
with the wetland alteration permit and I don' t really have a problem with
the subdivision except for the double frontage lot . It ' s more the site
plan review where my objections are.
IConrad : We ' ve already gone through and made a motion to table this item.
Does anybody want to reconsider it? Okay. Motion stands as voted upon and
IFour request , you may be coming back with the same thing in 2 weeks or
whatever and Jo Ann, can we get them on in 2 weeks? I guess I would like
you to do that if we could bump something else to bring them back so we can
Ido something. Do you think we can do it?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 50
Olsen : Do you know when the Park meets?
Koegler: Next Tuesday. '
Olsen : It'd be good if it' s tabling , to get Park and Rec to review the
plan so if we can get that on.
Koegler : They' re meeting next Tuesday and presumably that could be added
to their agenda.
Conrad : I think that makes sense to do.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9. 5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON II PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT
VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VIN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION
(VINELAND FOREST) .
Public Present :
Name Address
v Scott Edwards 915 Pleasant View Road
Mr . and Mrs . Greg Elliott
Jeff Beck Carver Beach Estates Developer
Chuck Van Eeckhout Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public II
hearing to order .
Conrad : More than likely if we follow the staff report the public hearing
will be continued to another evening but I think it's worthy of getting
comments right now on what the issues are so we can consider them and staff
can in the interim. Are there comments?
Scott Edwards : I 'm Scott Edwards. I own the key section of the lot in
question where the road would come from Pleasant View. . . I guess my
concern would be having a right-of-way coming approximately about 4 feet
from my house. . . I 'm also concerned with a temporary road when there is
already a 60 foot easement on the east section of my property. What would
be the need of another temporary road?
Conrad : Jo Ann , can you sketch on one of those diagrams where?
Olsen: I 'm not sure where the temporary. . .there' s an existing one there
right now. When we originally met with the applicant, we were looking at
access through here, a cul-de-sac and then using the easement that' s there
now that serves the houses down there as an emergency access . What he is
talking about is that existing one and what the applicant I think is doing
■
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 51
was going to be working to switch easements to give him this one back and
take. . .
IEmmings : You two wound up understanding each other but it went right by
me. Can you put up that other drawing. You' re pointing at stuff, I can' t
Isee what it is .
Batzli : The plans show it , the 16 foot easement . Gravel drive they call
it. 16 foot. It' s right in the middle.
IEmmings: Okay. And is the property that you own inbetween those two
things?
IScott Edwards : Yes .
IEmmings : It' s that whole long narrow piece?
Scott Edwards: Yes. The front is 185 feet.
IOlsen : To answer your question was that the City has stated that they do
not want this as a temporary easement. It will go through as a full street
standard .
ItConrad : What did you say? The easement will . . .
I Olsen: That easement gives rights to this property right now. . .service
from Pleasant View.
Emmings: Driveway basically.
IEllson : But it turns into a road .
IConrad: And it' s right there. It' s between those?
Chuck Van Eeckhout : I 'm Chuck Van Eeckhout. I 'm the applicant here and
do want the matter considered tonight and I don' t want to . . . The only
II
real question that I think is important is the access to the north . So
this is my property, this meets all the city codes. All city ordinances .
All state statutes for subdivisions . We are asking for no variances . Our
Ilots are oversized and the reason we oversized them is I 'm a builder and I
don' t like to be sitting on an excellent lot and have to take all the trees
down so we oversized the lot. We' ll have some site flexibility with the
Ihouses to jockey around to get the best possible siting to help save trees .
I own this property. I 'm proposing an easement which is a normal legal
procedure to get this public street. This would be a public easement.
What I 'm asking is, and it isn ' t really a variance but what I 'm asking is,
Idoesn ' t it make more sense not to put in the full city street here at this
time but rather put in a very serviceable paved road on this easement until
perhaps Mr . Edwards wants to develop his land . Then we relocate the road
IIIdown the center. If Mr . Edwards never develops the land, we can upgrade
—
this very easily then to a full city standard . What I 'm saying is , I 'm
proposing not to plat this at this time. The real input I 'm looking for
Ifrom the Planning Commission is their judgment as to whether or not they
Ji
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 52
want this platted down there. I can plat this right now. If that' s the
case, I ' ll do that. I ' ll plat it now. I believe it's wisest not to plat
it. Rather operate off of this very, very serviceable easement. I own
the property. It will service the property without question. The other
negative comments were the south access . Did we discuss and I guess at
this point I simply disagree, my professional planner disagrees and there
is some argument obviously and it' s just simply a matter of a planning
question that certainly would consider. the Planning Commission' s opinions
on without question but I prefer to have the cul-de-sac subdivision here.
We feel it' s much better for the people on Pleasant View not to have this .
There ' s a tremendous amount of traffic back there and. . .feeder system and I
don't think we need to create another feeder street through there which is
what would happen whether want to call it that or not. The only way to get II
down Pleasant or to get into Excelsior is to go a good bit to the west and
then down or up and back to Chanhassen. Also , I really feel the character
of a neighborhood like this is a beautiful size. It' s 18 lots. Those
people will know one another . They' re relate to one another . There will
be a pocket of activity. They' ll do things together and they' ll have a
homeowners association. It will be a much better functioning part of the
community and if we have a thoroughfare going through there with everybody
more or less getting lost . Public safety concerns , I ' ve been involved in
public safety for 31 years and I have never known a case where a cul-de-sac
street caused somebody to have very serious problems because a fire truck
couldn' t get through. A fire truck can drive across lawns. They can go
through barricades . They can really go through a lot of places . From a
public safety point of view, on the police end, this is a safer situation.
It ' s easier to control crime in an area like this . Anybody coming in there
has to go back out again. You can' t come cruising through here. You can
come cruising in and cruising out . People are going to notice you more
that you' re up to no good. I really feel for Chanhassen and my future II residents and the Pleasant View people, and my planners feel this way, this
is the most desired proposal . I don' t know what I would change. In the
absence of strong input on the part of the Planning Commission, I would
propose we leave it like this and this is my submittal .
Emmings : Could I ask a question?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Sure.
Emmings: Since Mr . Edwards doesn ' t want to give any of his land for the
easement, I understand that the whole easement would simply be moved over
so that it ' s eastern edge then would be on the property line rather than
the center line? '
Chuck Van Eeckhout : That' s correct .
Emmings : But it' d be the same width? It 'd still be a 50 foot easement? ,
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I 'm proposing to use a narrow easement but it really
i makes no difference . My property is being tied up with this easement
anyway on an interim basis, I 'm willing to just let this property sit then
until such time as this develops or something else happens .
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 53
IrEmmings : So it'd be the full 50 feet then?
IChuck Van Eeckhout: Yes .
Emmings : How does that affect Lot 1 which is already down to 15, 080?
IChuck Van Eeckhout: We'd probably have to make some minor adjustments
there. We do have like 4, 000 feet per lot , we' re over like 20 some percent
on the overall plat. We'd probably have to adjust that on that westerly
I
connection. Make some minor dimensions . We haven' t finished all the
computer dimensioning yet so there would be just some minor sliding of lots
here and there . They would all , in effect if you divide that few square
Ifeet and even them up there amongst those lots, we' re talking about 10 feet
or something per lot .
IEmmings : You think you could accommodate that?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: The people who work on it, there' s no question about
it. There ' s no problem at all .
IConrad : Okay, it is a public hearing . We' ll continue the public hearing .
Any other comments?
Jeff Beck : My name is Jeff Beck and I 'm one of the developers of Carver
I
Beach Estates. Nez Perce now is a real narrow street. There' s only 20
Ifeet of right-of-way going down to Mr . Van Eeckhout ' s property. As he
said, it' s a very, very steep grade. I know, I was out there when they
were building there and I just can' t understand putting that through there
would be a big detriment to my project. i 've lost a lot sale already
Ibecause of that easement there and the people said to me, is that ever
going to go through? I said I doubt it because of the constraints of the
amount of. . .and because of the grade. They called the City and the City
Isaid well yes, it could go through. As a matter of fact, you could be
assessed . Well I knew that wasn ' t true because you can ' t assess them if
they don't have frontage. I like the character of cul-de-sacs. I live on
a cul-de-sac in Crystal . My kids play on a cul-de-sac . If you do decide
I
to go through Nez Perce, are you going to go back and widened it to the
south? There ' s no way you can get two fire trucks . . . There ' s not going to
be any utilities down from Nez Perce or Lake Lucy Road either so I just
really can ' t see that . I would like to see the cul-de-sac myself.
Greg Elliott: My name is Greg Elliott and my wife and I are building a
Ihouse at the end of Fox Chase right now so we were glad to see the comments
that Jeff wrote . . .not considering the road to go through. We purchased
that land at the end of Fox Chase because we like cul-de-sac living also .
I don' t know if you' ve seen that cul-de-sac but it' s a very steep grade
going down so we' re glad that it' s not going to go through.
Emmings : Is that what ' s on our map as Fox Path?
11- Greg Elliott: That' s the development that ' s Fox Chase. The other concerns
we have, maybe Mr . Van Eeckhout can help us with the value of the homes
1 that are going to be going in there? The homes at the end of Fox Chase are
•
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 54
$300, 000 . 00 to $400, 000. 00 homes . I'm wondering what' s going to be
immediatley adjacent to us. And the last concern was the design of the
last row of homes. '
Chuck Van Eeckhout : As to the value of the homes, they' ll be roughly
comparable to what's going into Fox Chase. There are $220,000. 00 homes in
Fox Chase I believe and we' re a custom builder of homes . The last five
homes I 've sold, I haven' t sold them under $275, 000. 00. . . Very nice
quality, wooded subdivision with oversized lots .
Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . '
Conrad: Jo Ann, you recommended tabling. Talk to us a little bit about
the secondary access road . Tell us again why you want to table it right
now.
Olsen : The reason why we' re tabling it right now is both the engineering
department and the public safety department felt strongly about having a
secondary access . In addition to that they feel strongly about having the
full right-of-way and the full public street standard, at least that now.
In the plans that we had gotten did not provide that at this time so with
those other options, the secondary access or a full access from the south,
whatever is chosen , that alters the rest of the plat as far as utilities ,
etc. so we really didn't have enough to go on. Tonight is more to get
Planning Commission' s input . If they agree with the applicant that what
he's proposing is what you want to see and then that' s what we could work
with him. We' ll work with this plan and review it and see that that ' s
right. '
Conrad : So you would not want us to make a recommendation that would get
this along to City Council. You really want to bring that back to us .
Olsen : We haven' t reviewed the whole site as it is proposed now because it
wasn't a complete application.
Conrad : Okay, let ' s talk about the secondary access then . Staff ,
engineering and fire department is saying secondary access. What do we
believe on that? Any comments on secondary access? '
Ellson: You said you felt real strongly about the thru way because of some
weaknesses in the way the system is kind of right now in the City?
Olsen: Again working with engineering, they were saying that was their
strongest, even more so than not having the full right-of-way and the full
street standards. What they felt more strongly about was having that full ,
the street connection from the side.
/ Conrad: To service what? To service this development? '
Olsen : I think they' re just looking at it because of the traffic problems
that we do have and to alleviate some of that congestion down in Carver
■
IPlanning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 55
IIBeach . So yes , the result would be a thoroughfare going through there.
IBatzli : They don' t like necessarily the access from the east. They want
the south in order to have a better flow path of traffic?
IWildermuth: But why? None of the neighbors, the neighbors to the south
don ' t want it. The neighbors to the north don' t want it.
Olsen: I can see if Gary's here and bring him back down.
IConrad : It is a standard to have two accesses basically.
IEmmi.ngs: We' re always looking for the second access. Somehow on this one
it doesn ' t seem like it makes a lot of sense . Where is that Forest Street
going to the north? We've got that Forest Street dead-ending, or to the
I west?
Chuck Van Eeckhout : That would be future to the property to the west that
presumably could go out to the west and be able to use that as a connection
Ito get the secondary access . Again , without creating this thoroughfare
problem, the application will not change. . .secondary access on Nez Perce.
We have decided through a lot of planning that we do not want the access to
Itthe south so we would want the Council to turn that down if that would be
your recommendation to have that. The City was not strong about that and
A, I 'm surprised they' re taking a strong stand on it. They said you shouldn' t
Ido this because the grade' s too steep. Go out to the north.
Olsen : I don' t remember them saying you shouldn' t do it. I remember one
of our meetings where we stated that the standard was 7% and that' s usually
Iwhat we stick by but there are a lot of times when the slopes do not permit
that. They have allowed a higher percentage but I don' t know that they
ever said that they didn' t want it.
IConrad: Would the grade be more than 7% in this case?
Olsen : Oh yes .
IChuck Van Eeckhout : The other comment is that Fox Chase has some 50 lots
off of one access to Pleasant View. We would be destroying the nicest part
Iof the woods and creating ugly fills. . . in the prettiest part of the woods
so those are, from a planning point of view. . .
IConrad : Okay, let' s go around . Jim? Comments on what you want to do
tonight.
Wildermuth : I like the idea that the developer is talking about putting a
Ifull width street in, even if they' re going to be temporary character but I
don' t know what . . .
IConrad : I don ' t think he said that . Did he say that?
Wlidermuth: Didn' t you say that?
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 56
Chuck Van Eeckhout : I 'd like the street surface to be designed adequately '
g
to not, if we design it to carry the loads but not necessarily the full
width at this time because we are going to be potentially taking it out in
a period of 3 to 5 years depending on Mr. Edwards' s . . .
Emmings: The full easement would be there but it would be a sub-standard
road.
Chuck Van Eeckhout : We would bond and guarantee the performance of the
road. We would do that without any problem. '
Conrad : He just wants to have part of that road taken out of the
neighbor's property when they develop but then there' s no guarantee that II that neighbor , that might never happen . It probably will but it might not.
Wildermuth: I 'm inclined to go along with the idea of having it be a
cul-de-sac but if it is a cul-de-sac , it' s got to have a full standard
access road to the north.
Batzli : I, of course , thought our neighborhood was going to be a '
cul-de-sac and I built on it and I hate to beat the dead horse here but at
the time that our , almost half of our neighborhood showed up and cried
foul, everybody decided that it was an absolute necessity and I don' t know
what' s changed here. I don' t necessarily understand why, what the
difference is between this and several other developments that we' ve
required it in so I would say that we need a second entrance. The one
thing that I 'm interested in is what would be the setback required from Mr . I
Edward ' s property if we allowed a temporary road?
Olsen: We would consider that. It would become a front yard along the
street there .
Emmings : I think he' s asking , where would the road pad go.
Batzli : Where would the road go in relation to his property? Mr . Edward' s
property. Can you put it right up to the line?
Olsen: There' s no setbacks for roads or driveways .
Emmings : This has come up before and I think it' s outrageous but that ' s
the way things are.
Batzli : For instance if he was built before the City even had a code and
he' s 8 foot of his own property line or 6 feet, whatever the sideyard
setback is , you'd still put the road right next to his house?
Olsen: I 'm not saying that' s where we would put it.
Batzli : But I think that' s another reason to table this because I have no
( idea where his house is and I 'm not willing to put a road 2 inches or 10
feet away from this guy' s house right now. Any kind of road .
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 57
IFChuck Van Eeckhout : He' s indicated there was 4 feet from his property
line.
IScott Edwards : It' s something that should be planned out .
IWildermuth: Is that acceptable to you at this point?
Scott Edwards : Of course I 'd like to see the road as far away from my
house as it can possibly go. That' s where I 'm at.
IEllson: I know that Nez Perce Road and it is a lousy one for a thru way
but I also know that in all of our comprehensive plans we don' t have a lot
Iof north/south going through our city. It ' s a weakness and everything like
that but I can' t see that being the connector. I also don' t like assuming
that in 3 years it' s going to be brought up to a road standard that we
Irequire based on hearsay or assumptions that there' s going to be more
development in 3 years and that. I think if there' s 18 people coming in
here and if this is the only road then I think it should be up to speed
with every road we require all over and not allow for who knows what period
Iof time some temporary something that's not quite what we'd require for
anybody else. Did that make any sense? Maybe that' s the way I am.
Conrad: You' ll have to read the Minutes .
i Emmings : I 'm even more washy washy than Annette . I really have a problem
with this one. I think the builder has made a lot of good points about,
Ithere does seem to be quite a grade here that' s a real problem for a road
but engineering I figure must have taken that into account. A lot of the
issues like that are technical in nature and I could see passing this along
Iand letting the engineer make his pitch to the City and letting the builder
make his pitch to the Council and just letting go of it but on the other
hand, since we have to move that road over from where it' s shown here. Oh,
II agree with the comments that , I don ' t like this notion of a temporary
road. If it goes in, it ought to go in as if it were a permanent road .
But somehow in this particular application , having this be a cul-de-sac
arrangement doesn' t bother me and I know that every other one that' s come
Iin here , I can remember always proposing a secondary access but somehow on
this one, the plan kind of makes a lot of 'sense to me the way it is and it
looks like they' re well out there , at least is the potential for future
Iconnection out to the west which maybe influences my comment but I don' t
know. I could see tabling it so we have we have a final plan in front of
us before we send it on. The other thing , is Brian, you have to realize
Ithat the reason that we destroyed your cul-de-sac and put a thru street
there was because you were living there. That was personal in nature.
Batzli : Understandable .
IConrad : I like the plan and I guess my preference right now, and I 'd like
to see staff really do a good analysis of the secondary road but I wouldn' t
Ifbe in favor of it at this point in time. I see all sorts of justification
for not connecting. All sorts. I 'm in favor of a permanent road going in
because I don ' t know how to orchestrate when we would upgrade it. If
somebody had a better idea how to orchestrate when to upgrade it, I might
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 58
C
a attention but at this
pay point in time, simply because road access is an
issue and if we' re not going to have secondary access, I guess I can
persuade myself that we need to bring the access into this area to our
standard right away and the fact that it' s servicing 18 houses I think is
important. I think Mr . Edwards, we' ve done this before, we get into
problems when we bring roads in past people' s houses. That really bothers
me. I wouldn' t want it to happen to me but I don ' t know that we have any
standards to help us here but I guess, that bothers me and I don' t know
that we' re going to solve the problem. I would like to table it because
staff hasn't really analyzed this to the extent that they normally do
because they were thinking , there were going to be some other issues that,
there are other issues to examine. I do want to table it. I think the
staff hears our comments and I think it would be important that they
analyze what we said versus what the staff requirements are and to bring
this back when we can and review it with all the information that staff
needs and taking a look at the subdivision. Any other comments? Anything
else? I ' ll accept a motion.
Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table
Subdivision #89-8 pending further analysis by staff of the access issues
through the development . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
x CONVENIENCE STORES MORATORIUM, MARK KOEGLER.
Conrad : Let ' s do this , Mark I 'd like to table our discussion on
convenience store moratorium unless there' s a good reason to go over it
tonight .
Koegler : The moratorium expires July 1. I don ' t know, obviously there' s
not a flood of applicants beating down the door . That doesn' t make any
difference .
Emmings : I could say, why don ' t we have him go ahead and , what he' s asking
for and approval to go ahead and draft an ordinance based on your analysis .
Isn' t that right? '
Koegler : Correct . That would be the next step .
Emmings: Sounds good to me.
Batzli : I second the motion.
Conrad: Are we all comfortable with that?
Wildermuth : Yes . I like the table that you made. I think it ' s quite
appropriate. The only thing that I didn' t like about the table was where
you had an x under business fringe for automotive service stations . Why
( not a service station in the business fringe?
Koegler : That was a specific question I was going to ask is the BF. I 've
taken, for purposes of discussion, a hard line approach here with the Comp
■
l
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 59
IFPlan saying that essentially the only uses that would be allowed in the BF
are the grandfathered uses that are there. I wouldn' t be promoting
I expansion of that. You really take that doctrine to heart and say we' re
not going to allow new uses to go in. We' re not going to make those
permitted .
1 Batzli : Can I jump over what you just said . Someone , one of several of
the council members I think talked about business fringe didn' t they as a
priority for us to look at? What did they want us to do with the business
Ifringe?
Olsen: We only had time to just grab the sheets.
IEllson: Didn' t get any elaboration.
IOlsen : They didn' t give any specific.
Batzli : Buy I assume they' re wanting us to limit further development in
the business fringe so this would go along with that .
IOlsen: They wanted to change the BF to the A-2 district.
LEmmings : Would we be looking at that as part of the Comprehensive Plan?
Of the A-2 I suppose so I 'd be in favor of not adding any uses to it .
Business fringe has always been kind of like a twilight zone to me.
IKoegler: You can air that in a public hearing on the ordinance aspect too.
Emmings : Okay. Let' s move it along .
IConrad: You don' t even need a motion do you?
IKoegler : Just some direction just to prepare in accordance .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes
Iof the Planning Commission meeting dated June 7, 1989 as presented . All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
ICITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
IBatzli : While we' re here , can we just mention the City Council update?
Did this, the Fortier and Associates , the condition that curb and gutter
must be provided was included?
IEmmings: Yes. I was there.
Olsen : Right . I ' ll explain it. My understanding was the way it was . . .
Iengineering really wanted it so I threw that back in saying that the staff
is wishing that we want the curb and gutter . It was on the Consent and
I had them pull it off so there could be discussion.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 60
Batzli : Well I voted against it so I 'm happy to see it again.
Olsen: That is how it turned out. They put back the curb and gutter.
They also put back the per caliper inch per caliper inch. . .
Emmings: We took it out and they put it back in. That's why I say, there I
was like a bunch of fundamentalist ' s preachers up there. It was a Council
meeting as they were using the zoning ordinance as their Bible.
Ellson : And last time I was there it was just the opposite . '
Olsen: They did say. . .Dave Stockdale to the Board of Adjustments.
Emmings: He ' s got to ask for a variance in order not to have curb and '
gutter down that road .
Batzli moved , Ernmings seconded to adjourn the meeting .
g adjourn g All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 40 p.m. .
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Assistant City Planner
k Prepared by Hann Opheim
1
IF
IIINIEDITIED
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
IREGULAR MEETING
JUNE 27, 1989
IChairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Larry Schroers , Jim Mady, Dawne
Erhart and Jan Lash
IMEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Hasek
ISTAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
IAPPOINT ACTING CHAIR. Boyt moved, Lash seconded to appoint Larry Schroers
as the Acting Chair for the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
IAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mady moved, Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 13 , 1989 with the
following amendment by Jan Lash on page 15 to change a statement regarding
Ithe acquisition fund from Erhart to Lash. All voted in favor and the
motion carried .
REVIEW RESULTS OF RESIDENT SURVEY FOR HERMAN FIELD DEVELOPMENT.
I
Public Present:
IName Address
Germaine Grant 2782 Piper Ridge Lane
IPaul Prenevost 6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive
Fay Dudycha 6451 Oriole Avenue
Robert A. Riesselman 6320 Forest Circle
Judy Hinklin 6345 Minnewashta Woods Drive
IBetty Lang 2631 Forest Avenue
Dolores Ziegler 6441 Oriole Avenue
Marcia and Bob Schiferli 325 George Street, Excelsior
IJames Senst 2820 Washta Bay Road
Mary Kilby 2930 Washta Bay Road
Laurie Johnson 2731 Piper Ridge Lane
IDonna Bechthold 2722 Piper Ridge Lane
Bill Bevan 2701 Piper Ridge Lane
Pat Hanely 2650 Orchard Lane
ISchroers: Do you have those results Lori or is there a representative
from Herman Field neighborhood?
ISietsema: Both. I don' t know, do you want to present your results.
Pan Hanely: Sure . I 'm Pat Hanely. I live at 2650 Orchard Lane . We
I
handed out 115 survey slips . 77 replies came back. We did this by
contacting one person in each block and having them distributing them. The
first question of priorities of access . The first priority was people
I would walk, bike to the park or most people would drive to the park. The
priorities for seasonal use were summer , fall , spring and winter . Question
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
1
June 27, 1989 - Page 2
3, 66% of the replies I got said that both spouses would use the park. 14% II
said only one spouse would. Question 4 is 57% of the replies I received
said they had children who would use the park area . 19% had no kids. II Question number 5 was amenities that were going to go in there. What I did
is have each person list like 5 things in priority of what they wanted to
see and then took a tally from that. You can see hiking and biking and
jogging trails were number one and cross country skiing, swings and
sandbox, picnic area, picnic shelter , tennis courts , multi-purpose open
fields, ballfields, basketball , horseshoes and the others were some people
put down swimming pools and that type of things. Of the tally, 56% you
would use an access if it was provided over the Piper Ridge Trail . Now
even some people from the eastern end of town said they would go ahead and
use an access there meaning they would go in off Forest Avenue, go through
the park system and walk back out the street in that direction. 23% said
they wouldn ' t use that. The parking issues , we asked the question would
you like to see limited parking there. 86% of the people said they'd like
some limitation on parking and 45% of those said 5 spaces was all that was
needed as far as they were concerned. 10 spaces was 25% and more was 10% .
68% said they would like to see a gate system that was monitored on the
park to close out the parking of some nature. Meaning a representative
would come and open it up in the morning and close it up again during the
top hours, I assume 9 : 00-10: 00.
Schroers : Gate across the parking lot?
Pat Hanely: Gate across the road so the parking lot could not be accessed .
55% said they would like to see a natural barrier of some type or a fence
around the parkland to designate where parkland starts and stops so
surrounding neighbors did not get their property infringed upon. I don ' t
know if you folks have been out to walk it. I know some of you have. It' s
difficult to see where the boundaries are. 30% said that was not needed .
Schroers : Would boundary signs, boundary markers be acceptable?
Pat Hanely: I think the question is and still would be debated some
whether it' s a chainlink fence, a split rail fence, how much protection is
really needed there. I didn' t ask that question but most of the people
wanted to define the boundary. You can define that with a split rail fence
also. You could define that boundary with a natural barrier . Plantings.
Any question on the survey or how it was taken? I tried to cover as many
people as we possible could . ,
Robinson : That' s a big help to us . I don ' t think any resident has taken
this upon himself in the past to do this so we really appreciate that .
Boyt : Do you have any percentages on the priorities of access? The
question number 1. Do you have any percentages for walking, bicycling and
driving?
Pat Hanely: No I don' t. I think Lori has my tally sheet though.
Sietsema: It's upstairs . I don' t have it down here.
I
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 3
I
Schroers : Do you recall the name of the cul-de-sac where that proposed
Iwalk through. . .to the park is. Remember the first place that we stopped.
Hoffman: Piper Ridge.
1 Schroers : Did you have any negative response about using that?
Pat Hanely: Question 6 was would people use Piper Ridge trail access if it
Iwere installed . 56% said they would . 23% said they would rather not see
it go in.
tSchroers : Did you have any opposition from either of the. . .
Pat Hanely: Yes. It would be worth your while to go out there and take a
I look.
Schroers : We did and that' s exactly why I 'm asking because there is enough
Ispace there and it goes right between two houses .
Pat Hanely: And it is a steep bank there also. There are some obstacles
to overcome. Did they receive a packet of all the information?
Sietsema : Yes . They received the copy of your results and then the survey
forms that had the comments on it.
IPat Hanely: Okay. Any survey that came back that had a comment written on
the back of it, I proposed in . your packet. Those people have all put
comments on. . . I think their name and address should be on there .
Schroers: Thank you very much. You did a very good job.
ISietsema : And we do have the rest of the surveys that didn ' t have comments
as well .
ISchroers : Okay, does staff have anything to add to this?
Sietsema: No. I just want to open it up for discussion as far as how you
Iwant to proceed from here. Maybe we want to discuss what we have on the
existing plan would tie into what has been requested or what the survey' s
come out with.
ISchroers : Are there any residents here that have anything more to add in
regards to Herman Field?
IBetty Lang : My name is Betty Lang . I live at 2631 Forest Avenue and
you' re talking about the access , extending Forest Avenue for the access to
the park. I just get a little nervous when you talk about developing and
we really don' t know what' s going to happen to our property in regards to
IIthe access and I guess I just want you to consider that .
I
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 4
Mady: Lori , did you talk to Gary Warren about gravel road access?
Sietsema: I talked to him just briefly and it was his recollection also
that there was discussion of just a gravel road being , as far as the
extension of Forest Avenue going into the park.
Betty Lang : I don' t know if you' re aware of it or not but there are two
private properties involved in this road that you ' re talking about.
Mady: Are you referring to assessing you mean or buying or purchasing? '
Betty Lang: Your access and assessing, both things I would like you to
consider .
Mady: I 'm trying to recall specifically because my recollection that we
kind of thought that by using a gravel access without putting curb and
gutter and the street in, we may not have to assess the homeowner . It was
just basically a driveway in.
Betty Lang : That was brought up at one time .
Boyt: Did we look at access off Forest Curve, off the cul-de-sac?
Sietsema: No because this area is wet so I don' t believe the soils in
there would support a gravel parking pad. This is the original plan and
it ' s parking area here. The revised plan put the parking area showing here
on Forest Avenue and that parking area would be right in this area. We
haven ' t actually modified the plan because we didn' t know how it was going
to come out but if you recall the feasibility that came out, the Forest
Avenue was the most feasible, economically and through the soils and the
rest of the work that needs to be done.
Schroers : They can get that driveway in or make it an access to the park.
We have to go on someone' s private property? '
Sietsema: Right . We'd have to acquire an easement between these two
property owners here.
Resident : That ' s not the property line . The property line is to the right .
Sietsema: It comes down here right? '
Resident : It' s over farther to your right .
Schroers: Where is it in relation to the path that goes in there? '
Resident : I would say this is it right here . This is Lot 30, part of 31
and this is the other part of 30. I 'm just guessing. That' s about where
it is. This is correct where this arrow road is right here. That would be
the easement between these two properties .
Sietsema : So that would come down, straight down in the middle of this
1
•
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 5
Ilittle curve here?
IResident : Right.
Bob Schiferli : Can I enlighten on this a little bit? I 'm Bob Schiferli .
My wife and I live on the other piece of property involved. It would be
Igoing through here . This is approximately where the property line is . Now
this road coming through here is now stopping right here right now.
Blacktop. The rest is all proposed . All your water running from here
Icould channel all the way through to your main road through here and make a
perfect pond for your park. All this water could run right on down through
here. The only thing stopping it from here on down now is a . . .and
Ieverything else. As far as this ground down here for building or anything
like that is concerned, it' s all black. It' s subsoil is not suitable for
building on it at all . It' s more or less wild and practically swamp. In
fact it was all swamp this spring with all the water coming from here and
II also . . .here.
Schroers: It looks like a creek. . .
Bob Schiferli : There is water coming down from here . You put a road
through here, you'd have a river right to your park. . . This is a proposed
road . It ' s all woods through here and like I say it' s all low. This whole
I
thing is low. The thing ' s all a swamp. You'd have to clear it to build a
road in there in order for that road to be stable. Thank you.
IBill Bevan: I ' ll Bill Bevan on Piper Ridge. Could you show me where it is
on this . I want to put it on that spot.
USietsema: Where' s Piper Ridge?
Bill Bevan : Yes .
ISietsema: Right here.
Bill Bevan : Is thi.s . . .now?
ISietsema: It doesn' t show the cul-de-sac . The cul-de-sac is up here on
top of the hill .
IBill Bevan : You were out there . You saw the steep embankment . I would
say down about 150 feet there' s some wetlands down there just so you' re
aware of that .
ISchroers : Right where the ravine kind of opens up into the open area?
I Bill Bevan: Yes. That' s correct. You may have seen it .
Schroers : I don ' t know if we have any input from any of the other
commission members. I 'm personally encouraged by the results of the
Isurvey. They coincide with my way of thinking a lot . I think the area
lends itself very well for walking, biking , jogging, cross country skiing
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
1
June 27 , 1989 - Page 6 '
and more nature oriented , passive use type activities rather than a very
active area with a ballfield and skating rinks and that sort of thing. I
like what the survey had to say and I would like to pursue those types of
activities for Herman Field Park.
Boyt : Passive type park. What about a pond in there? Creating like we
did at Chan Pond Park for drainage. Would it solve some of the problems '
down there?
Sietsema: It could. We could refer that in looking at the overall thing
to the engineers .
Boyt : And we could with a passive park, we could include some sort of play
equipment that' s nature oriented throughout the area. It wouldn' t be
structured . A tire swing here. I like the idea of keeping it more
natural , more passive.
Schroers : I would too . Todd and Lori and myself went out and we walked
through the entire area. It is really nice. It's too bad that it just
can ' t be totally left alone but then it ' s not being used either . '
Boyt: Our passive park gets a lot of use. There are people walking
through it .
Mady: We have access to it .
Boyt : Yes . It ' s a mowed path. It' s not even mowed this year . '
Schroers: It does have to have access so it is available to people and I
think that you can put a trail system in there and build it to accommodate
different types of uses at different times of the year without doing a lot
of damage to the environment and that would certainly be my recommendation
is that anything we do in the Herman Field Park, we take extreme care not
to damage the environment any more than we have to . '
Lash: I would agree with Larry on that point too. I think it has a
natural beauty as the residents on the survey have indicated that they
would like to see that reserved. That' s the route we should go. Realizing
we have somewhat limited funds to work with to get it started , I think a
little trail is maybe just the thing to encourage more wildlife back in
there . Salt licks for deer and I don' t know what you put in to encourage
more birds. Get some kind of bridgeways over some of the wet areas so you
could go around and hit some observation areas . Maybe ultimately end up
with some type of cleared area. Quite a few people indicated they'd like
picnic tables and maybe little play equipment . Put those in a cleared out
area and the rest of it is natural . Fencing I 'm sure would be really
expensive and if we did end up putting in some kind of barriers , I would
think a split rail fence or something that would fit in the best as opposed
to chainlink. That kind of goes against the natural feel .
Schroers: Now that you brought that up, if you' re going to put in a ,
boundary of some sort like a split rail fence or a berm or something like
•
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
' June 27 , 1989 - Page 7
Ithat , when you go in there to do that kind of construction , you do a lot of
moving the environment around. You have to cut down a lot of trees to get
Iequipment in and you use a tractor with post hole diggers on the back for
making the fence posts in and you have to open up quite an area to put in a
barrier like that .
' Lash: I would think a lot of the woods and stuff would be a natural
barrier . . .of getting in and out of that area now. It looks like it 'd be
pretty tough to get through some of the woods the way it is now if it
Istayed that way. I can' t imagine people going through there .
Schroers : Well to fence it would be very expensive. I 'd have to believe
that would use up most of our funding for the park. How much money do we
have allocated for this park?
Sietsema: $30,000. 00 to $35, 000. 00.
ISchroers : $35, 000. 00 wouldn' t build a fence around it .
ILash: What kind of things going along the vein that we' re talking here. . .
can you get for $35 ,000. 00?
Sietsema: In fencing?
ILash : No .
IBoyt: Overall .
Robinson : What about the access road? Would that come out of the
I $35, 000. 00?
Sietsema : Yes , that would have to come out of the $35, 000. 00 too so the
access road could chew up a good portion of it. With parking and picnic
Iarea and totlot equipment, it' s real hard to say in that kind of a
situation without having more specific information.
IBoyt : We could start with some of the basics like the access road and
getting a trail graded like we did at Chan Pond Park and then step by step
build bridges over the wet areas . Put in some picnic tables later .
IObservation decks. Play equipment in different steps.
Schroers : There are areas in Herman Field that are basically clear and
open. It wouldn' t be much more than mowing actually in order to put in a
Icouple of picnic tables . I think that we wouldn ' t have to get into
removing many trees. I think there' s enough open area on high ground where
you could just basically go in and mow it and put down a picnic table or
Itwo and you'd have it. I don' t see a lot of expense involved right there .
I think a turf trail for starters would be the way to go . Again , it ' s
basically just getting through with . . .and after that it ' s just periodically
keeping it mowed to a useable level .
IILash : If it ends up costing us the whole $35 , 000. 00 just to put in the
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 8 '
access road and the parking pad , I guess I 'd rather wait on the whole thing
then have an access road and parking pad which would lend itself to kids
going in there and partying and having nothing in there for anybody else to
do.
Sietsema: Yes but mowing ' s pretty cheap though if you go with the turf
trail . '
Mady: Lori , aren ' t we at the point here where what we' re trying to do is
find out what the neighborhood input and at this time develop a master
plan?
Sietsema: Right but I need your comments as well as theirs as far as what
to go back to the drawing board with. Are we going to scratch this whole
thing or do we want to keep in line with this and take out some of the more
structured things? I think it' s a pretty passive park. If you want to
take out the ballfield so you' re not taking out those trees and make that a
turf trail instead of a bituminous trail or ag-lime or anything, then as
Sue said , as we get down the road put in a boardwalk that would connect the
middle portion to the eastern portion and we could expand it down the road .
I think you ' re going to want to get some kind of access in there so people
are able to know when they' re there.
Boyt : We've had for the past couple years a mowed trail that went halfway
around and then hit a stop because there was water and that didn' t stop
anyone from going out there and walking down it and walking back. It
didn' t matter that it didn' t go anywhere.
Erhart : Are we at this point looking at the second access off of Piper
Ridge too because that' s where I 'm having problems with this whole thing .
We were out there and looked at it too and it ' s very dense and very steep
and the houses are very close around there.
Sietsema: You can do nothing with it at this point in time . Address it
later. It' s up to you what you want to do.
Erhart : I 'd be in favor of scratching that myself. My own personal
feeling after looking at it. First of all it would chew up a lot of our
funds to even clear that area out and build a sidewalk down there.
Mady: My thoughts on this are, on Piper Ridge access , the easement exists ,
correct?
Sietsema : Yes .
Mady: Let' s just leave it as it is and not develop it . We' ll find out
real fast once there' s some sort of development in the park if the
neighborhood is going to utilize it or not and if they' re not utilizing it,
there' s no reason to build it. If they are going to utilize it, then it
needs to be developed properly and at that point in time the neighbors will
tell us what they want. I don' t see any reason to develop it at this time.
Kids are going to go wherever they feel like they can go the easiest . That
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 9
will establish the natural flow and no matter what we do, it seems like
kids are going to go wherever they feel like going whichever is easiest for
them. We might even have a wrong spot for it so we might as well let
Inature take it' s course and determine where it' s going to be. The passive
nature of the park is excellent . It ' s great . That' s what the land is .
It's what it's been utilized as. I 'd like to see a park plan at least
Idesignating , in the planning process , designating whatever is the most
logical position for it as open space like a multi-purpose field for
neighborhood touch football games . Small soccer games . Pick-up baseball
Igames, whatever the neighborhood kids play. It doesn't have to be a full
baseball field but at least something big enough so if they' re going to
throw a decent pass and not run into 2 trees. I know with limited funds,
the access road is probably going to , even if it' s just a 12 foot wide
II
gravel road going in, it' s going to use up a lot of dollars just to do
that . We don ' t need to get real sophisicated in this park right now. I
think once it' s there, the access is there, I think the residents are going
Ito get a better feel for what it is and how much use it' s getting and we' ll
get even more comments. I think we've gotten a lot of great comments
already. The work done by the neighborhood is fantastic . If we got this
Ikind of input on all of our parks . . .
Robinson : Jim are you saying that on question 6, would you use Piper Ridge
Trail access and 56% said they would, is that a trail or a road?
IMady: Just a walkway.
IErhart : There ' s a sidwalk that would go up, right Lori? Or a staircase
that would have to be built .
Sietsema : Right, it ' s a trail easement. It ' s not a road type easement .
IIt goes between two homes.
Schroers : Right now it' s nothing . It ' s two people' s yards .
ISietsema: I don' t think they' re accessing the park now that way but if
there was an access built in that way, a trail to make it accessible that
Ithey would use it. That' s my interpretation.
Lash : The problem with that is though you wouldn' t be able to use a
stroller or bike or anything. With that steep bank, you 'd have to have a
I
big staircase and that would make it really. . .for anyone walking .
Boyt: Then the lower priorities , hiking , biking and jogging is number one.
IIn looking at it , I think we need to plan to make the trail maybe an
aggregate base later because you can ' t jog on a turf trail very easily
unless it' s been graded and you can' t bike so that would leave it for
Ihiking. So start out with turf trail and work into something more
permanent.
Mady: It' s nice to have a turf trail just to , you find out your useage.
IYou' re going to find over time where your wet areas are going to be
problems just with water runoff and things like that . We' ll just get a
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
g
June 27, 1989 - Page 10
better feel for what we need to do. There' s no great rush . This park' s
been in existence for quite a time.
Schroers : When you start with turf trails you have the ability to change '
them easily if you'd like to maybe meander the route more for cross country
skiing or if you can get more use out of the area that is available by
switching the trail back and forth than having it meander around, you can
do that much easier off of a turf surface.
Robinson: Would the trails then be used for cross country skiing in the
winter?
Sietsema: They could be, yes , very easily.
Boyt: We don' t have to groom them. It would be a self groomed trail .
Robinson : I suggest we go totally by question 5 with priorities when we
look developing that park. There' s the priorities right there.
Boyt : Except as far as funding goes , we can ' t afford to put in a, I don' t
think we can afford to put in an adequate biking trail .
Robinson : No , I agree .
Boyt : And they want some of the trails but it sounds like there' s a lot of
children there so we can put that in.
Mady: At this point what we need to do then is have a park plan developed '
with our comments .
Sietsema: What we have is a park plan . If you want to amend this park
plan, I need a motion to direct staff to amend the park plan to include, if
you want to just leave it open as many of the comments in the survey as
possible or anything specific that you want specifically changed because ,
right now this is the approved plan .
Schroers : Do you feel that we can work off of the existing plan and then
make the changes and amendments off of that plan without rebuilding this
totally?
Sietsema : Yes . For instance , if you wanted to take out the more '
structured type play equipment and the ballfield and that kind of thing ,
that might be the comments you want to make. I think this plan is pretty
close to what they' re asking for here. What' s shown up in the survey.
Maybe we don ' t need a bonafide ballfield with a backstop. We just need an
open grassy area that you can throw a couple jackets out there for bases or
play football or whatever . You know, that kind of thing . This plan is a
pretty natural plan.
Robinson : Could we break that up into phases also to cover $35 , 000 . 00 this
year and . . . ,
•
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
' June 27 , 1989 - Page 11
ISietsema : I think that might come later as I bring back a modified plan is
that's what you decide to do. Then when the plan is modified, I can get
iprices . What prices will be so you can phase it because I really don ' t
have prices right now.
Robinson : And there you would have a ballfield in there . We would also
Iprioritize beyond that park fee? The gentleman commented on the access
road that ' s low where it would be a river . I think that should really be
looked at.
ISietsema: I can have that addressed as well .
Mady: There's one comment or question I wanted to ask, being the neighbors
Iare here that answered . The swings and sandbox on the survey. . .natural
swings or tire swings or what have you, I want to hear from the neighbors
what their thoughts are. You've maybe seen some of our play equipment
Iaround town in different areas. We usually go for the timbered play area
structures . Do you have any thoughts on those? What types of things you
want to see on them? Is that what you want or would you rather just have a
Icouple of swings or maybe a couple of tires hanging in trees . Give us a
little more input maybe if you could.
Resident : We put up some things like you were talking about at our school
Ithat I think, and I 'm just speaking for myself but the nice structure
rather than just the swings. You can get those play areas that have swings
attached to some other climbing apparatus ' s attached to one of those nice
Ithings made out of the wood that would fit into the environment and all
that.
IMady: That ' s what we typically do use .
Resident: Okay. Could I just ask one question while I 'm up. You know you
keep allotting to the $35, 000. 00. Is there more money to be put in or is
Ithat all there is?
Boyt : There' s the opportunity in future years to spend more money on the
I park.
Resident : Okay, because we moved into our neighborhood 15 years ago and I
think it came up 12 years ago on this park was there then and we' ve been
I
waiting for the last 12 years and our kids are almost grown so I was just
wondering, that $35, 000. 00, was it in some kind of an interest thing that
they could have gained interest on it or something like that?
ISietsema: Yes it is . It' s gaining interest .
' Resident : To me it should be over a 10 year period it should have gotten
about $16, 000. 00 in interest.
Mady: Unfortunately I was led to believe that that money' s been used other
Iplaces , the interest. I 've never seen us getting a budget that shows
interest be added into it .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
9
June 27, 1989 - Page 12
Sietsema : The interest is deposited into the park fund but the interest
wasn't allotted to the Herman Field, that specific because all of our money
earns interest and it just goes back into that fund .
Mady: In other words, you' re not being giving an allotment for the
interest. It' s been utilized , probably been utilized every year . We don' t
have a big pot of money. It' s just a fact of life. We must have had half
a dozen neighborhoods in here yelling for parkland . Park development.
They don' t even have $35,000.00 allotted to them.
Resident: We' ve had ours.
Mady: No, that money' s never been utilized .
Resident : But the interest . . .
Mady: The interest has gone right back into the park development and not
set up for Herman Field. I don' t think the money' s there to be honest with
you. You' ve got $35,000. 00 there but I don' t think there' s anything else
there.
Sietsema : It' s in the fund .
Mady: It's in the fund but it' s not. . . '
Sietsema: But it' s not just allocated simply to that fund .
Resident: I guess what I 'm trying to understand here is that if you, '
you've got $35, 000. 00 to spend for one year on part of a park, and you say
in the future this will be done and this will be done. Why not start out
with it right to begin with or close to what' s right? I think by starting
out with an access road period or whatever, a trail there, I don' t know
that anybody' s really going to use it. Why not let the money go to
something else? Unless you have enough money to do it right to begin with ,
I don' t understand . Why bother with it? If you say $35 , 000. 00 this year
and then we' ll start allocating funds for more development of it each year ,
how do we know that as residents? We might wait another 5 years . '
Mady: First off, the $35, 000. 00 is available only to Herman Field. We
couldn' t utilize it any other place. In fact that was part of the deal
when the land was given to the City. ,
Boyt : And we have many parks coming on line this year and if we wanted to
do them all right the first year which we would love to do, our. budget
would be probably 5 times what it is and I don ' t think it would be approved
by the City Council . The funds aren' t here within the city to do that .
You know how the city' s growing and there are parks in every development.
Resident: Will you come back with a modified plan saying , okay 20% of this
park will be developed with this $35, 000. 00 or is it going to be like 50%
of the park will be developed? '
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 13
ISietsema : I can' t tell you that .
Resident : You know 100 of the park and spend $35, 000. 00, it' s not worth
bothering with.
Schroers : That' s one of the things we' re going to be looking at our
Iamended plan for the park. How much can we accomplish and it' s pretty much
a normal mode of government operation to do what you can do with the funds
that you have available at the time and put things in phases and develop in
' phases because it' s just like you with your personal bank account. You'd
like to do a lot of things but you' re limited to what you can do with the
resources that are actually available and we' re in the same situation here.
• We can't spend what we don' t have.
Resident : Are there any priorities as to how this gets done? With all the
other parks, obviously Chan is growing like gang busters and like you say
Ieach development wants a park but because ours has been sitting , is there a
priority as to which gets done first?
Boyt : We don ' t have a priority list .
Schroers : We did have. We worked on that although it ' s hard to say what
it is without having it right here in front of us. A lot of the funds to
Idevelop an area come from the area that is developed as part of the
neighborhood parks and stuff are concerned. When a development goes in and
people start moving in, we try to accommodate them as best we can and as
' timely and efficient as we can but I don't think there' s anything that says
Herman Field is going to be completed by 1990 and that Lake Susan Hills is
going to be done in 1992. It's not that structured .
Pat Hanely: Let me phrase the question in a different fashion. This is an
older neighborhood before Chanhassen started to really boom and become a
development that paid their assessments for park and recreation fees up
Ifront. Yes we did .
Boyt : The older neighborhoods?
IPat Hanely: Yes, we all did .
• Sietsema: Just around the 1980 ' s we started. The late 70 ' s .
Pat Hanely: Shouldn' t they have a priority on funds over these other
neighborhoods because they have paid in the money sooner? Regardless of
1 the $35, 000. 00. That was a donation.
Boyt : One of the reasons you' ll be a priority now is because you ' ve let us
Iknow that you want to be a priority. When we know that a neighborhood
wants their park built .right away, we can work on it quicker .
Sietsema : I think just want she said is very true. You' ve had a piece of
Iland that ' s been undeveloped for a long time. The time has come and people
are there wanting it, you ' re going to be pushed to the priority, the top of
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 14
the list just by default.
Mady: I don ' t know. I literally can' t make a comment on that because
every Tuesday night that we' re up here we have a new neighborhood in here
who wants to be first on the list so just in the last two months , Pheasant
Hills wants to be first on the list. Curry Farms wants to be first on the
list . Lake Susan Hills wants to be first on the list and Chan Hills wants
to be first on the list. We can't all be first on the list. I ' ll admit
I 'm not. . .first on that list . It' s just what can be done and we try to do
them all. Everytime we hear somebody, yes we want to be first.
Resident: I guess on the survey, when I was filling it out , there was no
question there are you in favor of the park or aren't you. Maybe that' s a
question that should be asked. Are all the residents really in favor or is II
it 5 or 6 or 10 homes in this area. If it' s only 5 or 10 homes that are
interested in it, then why is it a priority out of 50 homes or whatever we
have. '
Mady: We received 77 replies on the survey and a considerable number of
them will be using the park. I guess that tells me that. . .
Resident : But the way the survey was questioned to me, it' s like I hadn' t
been at the previous meeting so I wasn' t really sure is this definitely a
go ahead or not but I filled it out assuming I still had a say in whether
or not it's going in. But maybe everybody didn' t understand that .
Lash : It was an amateur survey. '
Resident : Right , I can understand that but that was just my attitude.
Lash: There were spaces for comments and that ' s where some people did
actually fill in that they didn' t want a park at all .
Resident: I 'm saying as far as prioritizing this, I don' t know. Yes , we'd
all like a park but maybe we don ' t .
Schroers : Actually, to clarify that a little bit . Herman Field is a park.
It' s just whether or not you want to develop it and how much we develop it
but it already is a park and it will remain as one.
Betty Lang: That was my impression that we had a say about it. It is a
park period . That ' s the reason I didn' t comment on it. I filled out the
survey as if I had no choice about the park at all .
Resident : About the development . '
Schroers : Yes , about the development . We' re asking input on the
development. Not whether or not it should be a park. It is designated
parkland . Are there any other comments from commission members?
Boyt: I just had one. It is a park and it' s a park for Chanhassen like
all of our parks are and it is to serve all of Chanhassen . And we see it
•
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 15
I
Ias an asset to everyone that lives in the community and if we took a vote
of everyone in the community, how many of them would say no, we don't want
Ianother park because it would inconvenience a few people? I don' t think
we'd have many people that would say that.
Resident : I was wondering out of the 115 homes that were surveyed , how
Imany homes actually bordered the park out of 115 homes?
Schroers : That' s a good question .
IResident : I think that should have been prime consideration. Of those
people, if there are only a few homes that border that park or a small
percentage of the homes that are going to be using it, I think you should
I
give prime consideration to those people because as you've seen through
walking through there , that is a very secluded piece of property. There ' s
homes and wildlife around and nature like just the swampy areas. As I
Imentioned in the last meeting, we border the park and we've had trees cut
down and there shouldn' t be anybody in there now and we want a fence to go
up. I think you have to survey those people that border that park to find
Iout what they want because I really think there' s only a handful of homes
and you' re asking 115 homes to use that park. It ' s very secluded . I don' t
know how many parks are in this area that are as secluded as that one is .
IMady: Can I ask you a question? Are you asking the City to build a fence
to protect your property or the property of the park?
IResident : Both .
Mady: The tree cutting problem is not something we would allow in the park
Iwhether it be . . .
Resident : But you see the way the park is right now you can ' t tell which
is private property and which is parkland. You can' t tell that and I don' t
Ithink people even , as people have mentioned , they weren' t even aware of
what the park was there, if it' s actually a park and it' s very hard to
control who goes back there. We' re fortunate now because it' s not used
Ithat much. Once you establish it and start putting walking paths through
there or even a road , those few homes that border that park are going to
suffer some damage. Then what' s going to happen when we come back to you a
year from now and tell you about it? Are we then going to be a priority
I
and then where are you going to get the money to put up a fence or some
kind of natural boundary? It' s a major consideration that I think we
should be concerned about .
IBoyt : That ' s something that will be in our plan that we ' ll ask Mark to
look at is some sort of natural barrier or some other way to delineate
Iprivate from park property. That ' s a concern that ' s been brought up so
we' ll ask someone to deal with that.
Resident : Is it possible to put pine trees or some kind of a hedge?
IBoyt: That' s what we' ve done in other parks .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
g
June 27, 1989 - Page 16
Resident : That would still not be a fence with upkeep and all of that. I
was going to ask one question as far as the development, is it possible to
get like a 5 year plan or is that asking too much too to just say we' ll
develop this much and we will spend $35, 000. 00 and get this section of the
park done and by such and such year get this section so at least we know or
we're not always wondering what' s going to be developed next. And one
other thing , being that there are a lot of kids, there' s a lot of kids in
that neighborhood and there isn' t anyplace to play except your backyards
and the street and I think they need something like I know you want it
natural and I know it' s very conducive to that, but some kind of a field .
Keep that kind of in there because they need someplace to go play catch and
to play ball .
Boyt : That' s high on your priority list here is a field .
Resident: I thought it was getting lost when I was listening so I just
wanted to . . .
Boyt: I think it' s right up here on this list .
Mady: • It's probably 4 on the list. If you throw your trail useage as 1
and swings as number 2, your picnic is number 3 and I wouldn' t call active
uses, tennis courts, multi-purpose field as active but that would be number
4.
Boyt : It is possible to get phasing . This phase will work out this year
and phase 2 will be done.
Schroers : That ' s what I was going to say. I think it ' s reasonable to try
to do it in phases but to say that we' re going to set up a 5 year plan and
that we are going to do this specifically in a 3 or a 5 year period . It ' s
hard to say because we don' t really know at this point what kind of funds
we' re going to have. '
Boyt: Things happen to us like things happen to your home budget . We will
probably have to spend a big chunk of money on something we didn ' t budget
for because we' re required to do it . A lake access . That wasn ' t in our
budget. The money will have to be found somewhere so once in a while
things come in and mess up our budget.
Pat Hanely: More specifically on Mary' s question, to get money can we
petition to get money budgeted for future years?
Sietsema: Sure. '
Pat Hanely: Do we have to specifically request that? It' s one thing to
say you generally we'd kind of like to do that but how do we get another
$20, 000. 00 for next year and $20, 000. 00 for the year after .
Sietsema: A petition always helps . The Park and Recreation Commission is
aware of your needs and your desires now so they' re more aware of it and
■
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 17
Iable to identify where money should be spent but a petition always helps
show the Commission and Council and the people that allocate the money
Iwhere people want it spent . So it doesn ' t hurt .
Resident: One other comment. I 'd like to see a park and of course I 'd
like to see them put in a safe park. I think you do need to take into
I
consideration people who border the park. . .pay for the whole thing and
protect the property but also our community' s going to be using that park
and I don't think that' s much negative element in our community that we' re
Igoing to throwing . . .just like that .
Boyt : My yard borders a park and once in a while people walk through the
Ipark through my yard and they' re nice people. They are and they talk to me
and I talk to them and they say, oh where am I . I didn' t know there was a
house here. I say you ' re welcome to walk through. You can go this way and
get to the street or back this way to the park.
IResident: I think the vandalism. . .a neighborhood park is for good
people . . .
IIBoyt : And once it' s developed then they know it' s a park and it' s not a
place to go and hide and do what they want to do in the dark.
ISchroers : I agree. I think he ' s right .
Resident: Is there a standard that you have when you develop a park in
IIterms of how many feet from the priviate property or is it typically right
there?
IISchroers : Our parkland generally runs right up to the abutting property.
Boyt: But we don' t put tennis courts right up close to a property line.
We don ' t put active equipment next to a private property.
IMady: We do screening. Natural barriers wherever we can. We need to.
That ' s the situation we have in Curry Farms now. We' re trying to look
Iat. . .there are two adjoining homes that were just built in the last year .
The parking plot that we had was planned in one spot and now the homeowners
are saying gee, there' s nothing there and they' re really very concerned
11 about cars parking next to the lots . The plan is to put natural barriers
with trees , bushes, shurbs so that when you ' re standing on one side you
really can ' t see through and have the impact onto the property. We look at
those things when we put lights on a tennis court let' s say. The lights
Iare not going to , you' re going to be lighting into somebody' s back yard or
things like that. We always try to avoid that whenever possible. In a
natural setting like this , unless of course you have a situation where you
Ionly have one piece of property to work with that ' s high enough and dry
enough that it would be viewed but I don' t think we ' re going to have that
situation. We have enough flexibility here where we keep it away from as
IImuch as possible. We' re not talking about making a large active play
field. We' re talking about a natural park hatbitat area where hopefully
we' ll be able to find a big enough piece of somewhat flat land so half a
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 18
dozen neighbor kids can get a small stickball game or something . We don' t
need a field that can . . .and I don't think that's what anybody up here is
thinking of . ,
Schroers : I think that you' ve done a good job in presenting your views to
us tonight. I think it' s going to be very helpful in helping us rewording
wise or amend the existing park plan to accommodate the desires of the
residents of the community. I think that at this point I 'd like to ask for
a motion to amend the existing park plan to coincide with the results of
the survey and take into consideration concerns of the residents of Herman
Field .
Mady: Alright , I ' ll make a motion to ask staff to amend the present park
plan to show the park access where it will actually, it looks like it has
to go to all the conditions . To find out what pricing is on the priority
of items that were set up in the survey and then come up with a phasing
schedule to address those .
Boyt : We need to change the trail from bituminous to turf and ask for a
planting plan that would improve natural barriers?
Mady: Yes , to review it . If it needs to be planted or what . I guess we
need a price on density to review the whole thing. We know what the
dimensions are of the park. We can get a pretty close ballpark just from
the dimensions. It' s going to obviously be more expensive because some of
the areas are going to be very difficult to get to . I
Schroers: I think in this motion all we really have to do is move to amend
the existing park plan and then we can work out the details.
Boyt: Second.
Mady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend '
to amend the park plan for Herman Field to make it a natural park
reflecting the results of the neighborhood survey and to look at the
drainage to identify wet areas within the park and how drainage affects the
access road . Also , to consider natural barriers around the park, change
the surface of the trails from bituminous to turf, show revised park access
and to direct staff to come back with prices and a phasing schedule. All
voted in favor and the motion carried .
Resident: Can I ask a question? . . . the money that ' s been set aside, the
$35,000 . 00. When will that be used? Will the park be started this year at
the rate that it' s going?
Schroers : Probably not . '
Resident : Then is it possible that if you have the $35, 000 . 00 set up in a
money market account or something that's very safe that draws interest that
we could specify would be used only for Herman Field because even
conservatively estimating, we should get $4 , 000. 00 interest on that per
■
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 19
1 year . Maybe that' s a little bit high but I don' t see why that money should
be set aside for any of the other parks when we' re trying to get something
Iorganized and I think if Mr . Herman set that money aside for Herman Field ,
then that' s what that money should be used for. Whether it be for interest
to be applied again the park for the future and not for some other park.
ISchroers: I think that sounds reasonable but I don' t know that we have the
authority to make that decision .
IMady: I think that's probably a Council decision.
Sietsema : I ' ll check into it.
IFINAL APPROVAL OF MASTER PARK PLAN, CHANHASSEN HILLS PARK.
Mark Koegler : This will also serve as an update for more information than
Iwhat was presented the first time around. Specifically pertaining to
grades , the grading information that we ' re working with at this time was
the proposed grades subsequently were changed. Essentially the grading
Iactivity that ' s occurring out there right now will create largely a level
site here. It will have about a 1% grade coming down from TH 212 and
coming down eventually over this pond area so there really are very few
constraints as to what types of facilities you want to put on there and
Ithat was one of the things we talked about before . I don' t think that
necessarily has an impact on the overall plan because we still had tried to
achieve tennis courts roughly in the middle of the park so they weren ' t
Iimpacting any one property because proportionately the ball diamond, openf
field area down in here where we had the larger areas so those are the
prime elements that still remain in that location. If you recall when we
Imet a month or so ago on this item, there were very little if any resident
comment and I think Lori wanted to publish it again tonight as another
opportunity for anybody to comment on the facilities that are there and the
changes that they would like to see.
ISchroers : Do we have any residents who wish to comment?
IDave Lundquist: My name is Dave Lundquist. I live at 8705 Mary Jane
Circle . This is the first I ' ve seen of this and we have a lot of kids in
the neighborhood now and there's a lot of interest in it but I was speaking
Ito one of our neighbors who has been to one of your meetings. He said
we' re really not informed. We didn' t know that we should speak out. Now
at this meeting I was told that' s really a priority to do that so being it
looks like I 'm the only one, but there is a lot of interest. It ' s just the
Ipeople don ' t, it ' s a new neighborhood and we' ve only been there almost a
year and what we were told from the builder is all we really know out
there. We ' re just been kind of sliding along and waiting . I have 3 kids
Iand I 'm anxious to see it go in so really the interest is there. It' s just
the people aren ' t really informed . They' re still just kind of moving in
and things like that but I 'm sure if they' re aware of people that they
should speak out and let it known that we want the park and we really do .
IIAll the people that I 've talked to. I guess the only question I have is ,
would there be like skating in the winter and stuff like that . Is that
Park and Rec Co mmission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 20
proposed at all?
Sietsema : It' s an option . It ' s definitely an option . We do typically
have ice skating in our parks, the neighborhood parks.
Dave Lundquist : Is that something the residents should put forth or how
does that come about?
Sietsema : Typically a lot of times what does happen is that the residents
get together and all sign a paper, could you please put a skating rink in
our park and we schedule it in. '
Dave Lundquist : Like me, I 'm here so we really don ' t know what to do as
far as getting things done.
Boyt : Can skating not take place on that pond? Is it big enough?
Sietsema: I don' t know. Do you know? I
Dave Lundquist : Is it a pond or is it a swamp?
Koegler: It's a wet holding area. It' s part of the storm water system for
the area . I haven' t seen any drainage calculations so I don ' t know if it' s
intended to have water full time or not. Presumably the grades would
accommodate that area to be flooded and expanded to have a free skating
area. There are no hockey rinks planned for the park. I don' t think you
should relay that to the neighbors but in terms of free skating , that ' s
very definitely a possibility there. ,
Dave Lundquist : Would that be cleaned off by the City?
Boyt: Yes . '
Dave Lundquist : No warming house?
Boyt: That' s not on the plan. That' s an expensive item.
Dave Lundquist : Right . Just someplace where the kids could come down and
skate. See we don' t have any access to this town now. All we' ve got is TH
101 and we don ' t want to send a kid on TH 101 to come into town. I
wouldn't want to go on TH 101.
Boyt : We could have some benches or picnic tables left there in the winter
so the kids can sit and change their skates .
Dave Lundquist : Being out where we are , there ' s just no access to
anything. If you have those types of things , even a small pond is
anything . It' s something . '
Schroers : It would be real helpful if you' d talk to your neighbors and
generally agreed on a few of the things that you would like to see there
and just put it in writing or even call into the city during business hours
and ask for either Todd or Lori and let them know.
■
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
' June 27, 1989 - Page 21
ISietsema : Specifically if it' s something different than this . If they
accept the plan , then it will go on to City Council for approval as the
master park plan. So if you want something different than what you see and
ice skating isn ' t any structure to do except just go in there and move the
snow around and put the water down so that' s not that big a deal but if you
want something different than what you see here, then we need to know that .
ILash: . . .have a copy of that so he can show that to the neighbors?
ISietsema: Sure and I ' ve sent letters to every one in your neighborhood
twice now. I know that' s the problem. Like you say, there' s so many
things that go on people just have other things in priority right now but
Ithere are a lot of kids out there.
Boyt : I don ' t think they realize they have an impact either .
IDave Lundquist: I don't think so. See I 'm from Bloomington. You didn' t
have any say. In Bloomington they did what they want to do and that was
it.
ISchroers : That ' s what we try to avoid here. We would much rather have
your input and work together to put something together that we' re all going
to enjoy and be able to get some use out of rather than just putting
Isomething there and having you come back in in 2 years and say why'd you do
that? We don' t like this at all .
IDave Lundquist : It looks great . The plan looks great . Really my concern
was just the skating. If there was going to be any so the plan to me is ,
the time element too . I know that that access is going to be put in now.
IIThey' re starting to grade and everything. Is there any time limit on when
we' re possibly going to pursue this?
Sietsema : There' s money tentatively scheduled to be spent in your area in
I 1990.
Dave Lundquist : 1990. Next summer .
ILash: Enough to do what Lori?
Sietsema : The grading plan is going to do all the grading for us so all we
Ihave to do is, we could do the balifield and the play equipment. Well ,
probably the play equipment in the first year .
IDave Lundquist: That'd be okay.
Mady: Then you 'd at least have an open . . .
1 Sietsema : But the open area will be there and be mowed so you can play
pick-up games of ball or whatever . Frisbee, soccer , whatever anybody wants
to do out there too.
IIBoyt : Tennis courts and basketball will come later .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 22
Dave Lundquist : TH 212 will run right adjacent to that . Is there going to I
be like a buffer or something or are you going to be contending with trucks
and stuff?
Sietsema : I don ' t know. Do you know?
Al Klingelhutz: It seems to me there is sort of a mound that you push up
there already along where TH 212 is going to go. I guess that ' s one place
where there probably should be a fence because you ' re going to have small
kids in that park and TH 212 is proposed to go through there. That' s going I
to be a freeway. Maybe the highway will even fence it themselves because
most freeways are fenced . One thing you' ve got to remember , I know there' s
an awful lot of small children in that area. Of course they grow up and
the use of it is going to be pretty heavy.
Schroers: I think normally fences . . .run along with freeways so hopefully
we won' t have to buy that. '
Al Klingelhutz : It seems to me in that whole subdivision there ' s a ridge
of maybe 8 feet high from TH 101 to Lyman Blvd . which should help buffer
the highway from the residents and the park. If you plant a few evergreens
on top of that I think it would make a great buffer .
Mady: Lori , do we have any input on the grading plan? Maybe what we ,
should do is find out from the developer . He ' s the one who ' s grading isn' t
he?
Sietsema: Yes . '
Mady: Is he just putting that dirt there and the top soil will be used
later or is he putting it as a berm? Maybe you can find that out .
Sietsema: It' s the final grading plan isn ' t it?
Koegler: I 'm not sure exactly where the edge. . . I don' t think at this time
the final grading for TH 212 has been set . Bear in mind it ' s probably a
200 foot wide right-of-way right there so there'd be a lot of room to
accommodate additional buffering that the City coordinates with MnDot . The
plans will proceed at 5 to 10 years out what it' s going to be but we ' ll
take a look at berming along there too .
Schroers: If you find that your neighbors want to make any changes , I
would suggest that we move on it quickly because it will be going to
Council when? I
Sietsema : July 10th it' s scheduled to go to Council .
Mady: If you get back to us with something different, Lori can always pull
it off of Council and send it back to us so once we say something doesn ' t
necessarily mean it ' s final .
Al Klingelhutz : I have a question . Are they going to have a neighborhood
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
iJune 27, 1989 - Page 23
picnic there this year?
Dave Lundquist : We' re working on it. You ' ll be invited , don ' t worry.
IAl Klingelhutz: I was thinking that would be a good time when the
neighbors all get together to discuss this thing a little bit.
ISietsema: I can schedule it for a later time if that' s more convenient.
Schroers : Does anyone have anything more to add?
Mady: I ' ll make a motion to accept the master park plan for Chanhassen
Hills as presented tonight .
ISietsema: Recommend approval .
Boyt : Second .
IMady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
approval of the master park plan for Chanhassen Hills Park as presented by
IIMark Koegler . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
REVIEW PARKING AREA AT CURRY FARMS.
ISietsema : If you recall at one of our previous meetings we had a resident
from Curry Farms and ask us to consider on street parking rather than the
off street parking on that park site . I ' ve asked Mark to review it and to
Ilook at all the pros and cons and he has submitted a report for us. Do you
have any other comments?
IMark Koegler : Yes , just very briefly. This is the scheme that ' s on the
plan that' s being approved which calls for 6 cars off street. In looking
at the same capacity, first of all we ' ve made the assumption that ' s
consistent with the City' s engineering staff that we like the parking off
IIstreet and maybe it' s adjacent to the street but it ' s technically out of
the traveled roadway. So the way to accomplish that as outlined in the
report is essentially you would go parallel along here . The road on here
Iwould be basically along the edge of the road. You could come in and have
parallel parking along the curb of the park. Given the dimension of the
park and the dimension of the normal parking space, to accomodate 6 spaces
Iyou ' ve essentially walled off the park with parking . You literally will go
bumper to bumper, border to border if there' s 6 users at the same time. I
didn' t think that necessarily was very advantageous to either the
neighborhood or the park as an entrance. I think we' re trying to preserve
Imore of the open space quality of the yards , the housing , the park itself
so we would not recommend that as an option. The other alternative is to
take a look at punching parking in that ' s 90 degrees to the street . That
Ican be done . The inherent disadvantage of that is you' re parking back into
the traveled roadway in order to make every. . .while exiting . It ' s not
particuarly a danger when entering the park facility as a normal turning
Imovement. It' s when exiting when it becomes a little more hazardous .
You' re speaking in a minor degree of hazard here admittedly because it ' s a
residential area but the general policy of the city in the past has been
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 24 ,
that when the option is there, to alleviate that potential danger if you
will and the option clearly is here and has been here since this
development was really originally drafted . This has always been shown as
park. This has always been shown as the pad that' s been designated for. II parking area . Bear in mind the plan that you' ve approved is a concept plan
in essence only but when the City gets to the time of building this parking
lot, there certainly is no reason why the abutting neighbors , particularly
this property, could not be consulted and worked with so the planting plan
and an active parking layout could be derived that would minimize any
impact it would have on that residence because this certainly is the one
that would be closest to the parking because of the grades itself but the
recommendation would be basically to leave the parking off street in a
separate lot with one driveway entrance for safety reasons and then to work
with the abutting property owner on coming up with the concept that would
screen that ultimately and cause minimal impact to the structure.
Lash: Mark, could that be moved into the park further?
Koegler : It can some. The problem we've got is we hit a grade line right
over here but that's not to say that the parking might not be stacked in
here and be single loaded headed this way for example which would again
minimize impact over here. We'd have a little bit more penetration. You
may loose a space but I think we' re dealing in a realm of 4 to 6 spaces for
most of these anyway and it' s kind of interesting that that was confirmed
by the residents last time around when they asked for 5. So minor changes
like that certainly can occur . That would have an obvious benefit of the
dust situation in getting headlights and things away from this parcel so we
would suggest that maybe that ' s appropriate to look at dead end loading to
one side as an alternative. That allows a little more buffer on this side
for plantings or whatever the screening .
Lash: Into the front too? Could you put some plantings in the front?
Koegler : Yes . We' re leaving intentionally some buffer areas so we can
screen from the street. Trying to create an attractive entrance because
it ' s really a nice lowland area that flows back through there . We tried to
preserve that.
Schroers : Are you requiring any action on this?
Sietsema: I think you might want to hear from some residents and then all
I 'd need is that you recommend to leave it as the plan shows or to change
it, if you want to take any action.
Schroers : Okay, is there anyone here that would care to comment in regards '
to the parking at Curry Farms?
Joe Cook: My name is Joe Cook and I live at 1291 Stratton . Our property
is right directly across from the entrance to this parking lot that you ' re
talking about . First of all I 'd like to know, you' ve got 6 parking stalls
there. Any particular reason for 6 or is there a formula for the park area
ratio that you use , parking lot ratio? 1
■
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
IJune 27, 1989 - Page 25
Sietsema: 4 to 6 was the designated number at the very beginning .
Joe Cook: Okay, what about he said 6 cars would be pushing back the curb
Ilike was mentioned earlier . Well if you had four car parking area , that
would seem to open up, leave an opening for cars to enter in that space.
What do you consider a parking space in length?
IKoegler: About 20 feet .
Joe Cook: So you' re open up 40 feet.
IKoegler : Across the front of the park?
IJoe Cook: Right .
Schroers : The problem we have with that though is parallel parking along
the street is generally kind of a safety hazard .
IJoe Cook: See if it was parallel parking , it would require any backing out
like he had mentioned which I can see a concern on that and that' s
Ilegitimate but if it' s parallel , maybe see someone pulling in and then when
they' re exiting they just continue in a forward motion out of the parking
area .
IMady: In a street situation , how do you limit it to 4 cars? They' re going
to pull up in any space they can between 2 driveways .
ISchroers : The real hazard there is kids coming out from between parked
cars into the lane of traffic. Not the cars themselves pulling in and out.
It' s the kids darting out from between parked cars . That ' s where the
Iconcern really comes from.
Joe Cook : I see . Okay, then we' re looking at can we reduce size because
this is , as you all know, you' re aware of where this is and it ' s going to
Ibe a minimal useage from outside the city residents . We' ve looked at other
parks in the area and they' re virtually. . .as far as cars parking in those
parking lots except for special occasions and whatever but this park for
Ithe most part is a neighborhood park. It' s says it' s a city park. That ' s
why you gave it parking in there but it ' s for all pr_acti cal purposes you ' re
talking, it' s really a neighborhood park and the need for 6 stalls of
Iparking is not there . It ' s simply not there . If we have to have an
interior parking lot, let' s make it the minimum size because the residents
in that neighborhood are certainly going to walk to this park rather than
drive.
ISchroers : Are you not in favor of a parking lot like that in a park?
IJoe Cook: I 'm not in favor of any parking lot again because I 'm directly
across and I have to look at this . My ideal situation, if there has to be
one would be to push the curb back. If not that , I would like to see this
Ireduced to a minimum size and buffered up as best as possible. So that ' s
kind of my priority on that. Also, Mark had indicated that this had been
on the plan ever since slated . Well , there again it has been but it has
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 26
not been known to any of the buyers of the Centex , Curry Farms project. In II
their model home they show the nice, it says a city park and it just shows
a green area . No indication of parking lots or anything . The sales
people, all they kept telling everybody was that there' s going to be at I
most a walking path into the park and that ' s all they indicated as it shows
there. Conveniently enough they've said that they deleted the parking lot
issue which happens to be, like I said, right across from my property.
Also this is another issue but Centex has, they are obligated to put a bike II
path in from Lake Lucy along Devonshire and again this bike path was not
disclosed to any buyers of property that it affects up and down the whole
street. This is another disclosure problem that buyers have had with
Centex with their sales force and their upper management and the whole
works so that goes with it but it' s related to this same issue that they
have not disclosed pertinent information to buyers. We' re just extremely II upset about it and like I talked to Lori it, there' s really not too much we
can do about it because it' s in writing and the City requires it but it' s a
disclosure thing is another aspect of it.
Mady: Can I just give you some information . What you ' re using as a
neighborhood, I think you' re probably talking about Curry Farms .
Joe Cook: Yes . The Curry Farms subdivision. '
Mady: A neighborhood park in the City of Chanhassen is an' area that' s
encompassed by a radius of a half a mile . We literally cannot put a park
within 2 blocks of everyone' s home. It ' s unfortunate that the developer in
this situation didn' t make you aware of everything that we were aware of
when he came in front of us and the City Council to get approval for this '
development . And you' re not the first development that ' s had that problem.
I don' t know what the City can do to alleviate the situation. I don' t know
if there is a solution for that but my comment on this is , to let you know
that we' re trying to make this park available to the neighborhood as the
city defines a neighborhood so the parking actually is the necessary and
safest way that I feel we should do at this point in time. That' s the
optimum and we have the opportunity to do the optimum. The impact on
particular residents, yourself and the neighbors on both sides can be
eliminated through barriers and berms and natural areas . That ' s what we
would attempt to do . ,
Joe Cook: You know, Mark had said going in both stacking and loading
whatever parking lot, so I guess I would like to see a plan drawn up where
it shows that design in loading going straight in with 4 slots of parking .
Boyt: That sounds reasonable to me. I like that design better .
Joe Cook: To make it narrow because it ' s kind of a sprawling patch there.
Katie Bratten: I 'm Katie Bratten. I live right next door to Joe so I also
would look into the parking lot . I guess my major concern , I realize that
we probably have to have parking. The minimal amount of parking but
aesthetically pleasing . I also favor more of the stacking . I don ' t want
to look out my front door and see a square of tar with yellow lines . We
bought our property because the park is across the street and was a good
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 27
Iselling point . I realize that it' s probably unavoidable that we put in a
parking lot but as aesthetically pleasing I guess is what our point is .
' Boyt : Parking also makes the park more accessible to handicap and that ' s
something that I think is important to keep in mind.
Schroers : And senior citizens . I don' t think that we would intend on
Idoing anything in any of our parks that would be less than aesthetically
pleasing . We want to make them as nice as we can and I 'm sure that the
staff and everybody is aware of that and we try to do it as nice as we can.
Joe Cook: You say now you' ll do the plantings of trees and shurbs, etc . ,
does that go in immediately following, as soon as the pavement and curbing
Iis down or is that something that gets put off for another year or two?
Sietsema: It can be done all at the same time.
IJoe Cook : Okay, and it should be. That ' s something that we would request .
It's going to be done anyway, let' s get it done now and let the stuff
mature as soon as possible.
Schroers : A lot of that has to do with money.
Joe Cook : And that' s the other thing too . When is this slated to go in?
We' re getting a totlot to put in I guess sometime in July here. Apparently
that ' s what John Speiss was saying . So is this in conjunction with that
totlot? Is it required that the parking go in as soon as the totlot goes
II in?
Sietsema : No . We don' t have funds this year to do the parking and it
Ihasn't been, they've allocated $10, 000. 00 in the preliminary budget for
your park development next year but they haven ' t determined whether_ they' re
going to spend that money on parking or the ballfield or what.
IJoe Cook : Okay, and how about , let ' s say for instance that next year they
want to put in a volleyball court or something to that effect. Can you put
the parking in last? Until you have something there to draw people to the
Ipark, there' s no reason for parking. If you put a softball field and a
volleyball court and a few other things in , then there' s going to become a
draw for people to show up there and use it but if there' s just a minimum
development of say a totlot , that' s not a big draw to bring in a lot of
traffic.
Sietsema : That makes a lot of sense and what we would typically do is when
IIwe' re building parking pads at other sites , you 'd do a bunch at the same
time. So we' ve got 4 parks coming on line next year . We may decide in 5
years to put all the parking in at the same time. It doesn' t have to go in
Ifirst especially when people want recreational facilities . It ' s likely it
would go in last.
Mady: We typically don' t even put the tar down that same year . Due to
settling situations, you don' t want to blacktop. You want it to settle for
a year and find out where your soft spots are going to be so you can deal
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 28
with them. '
Koegler : Just two follow-up comments . You brought up a lot of good points
and they were points that I think this body has considered before. The
specific reason we've gone to off street parking is to provide more buffer ,
not less buffer to you across the street. If we stack this with parallel
parking , whether it' s 4 or 6, the city loses all ability to buffer that
period. We've got parking there and we've taken a 28 foot road section and II
we' ve expanded that to a 36 or 38 foot road section for that area which has
an impact also. If the Commission is agreeable to what I think I 'm hearing
and go with 4 spaces here, if we lop this off , we've got more ability to
buffer around the periphery of this and we've minimized the amount of park
surface that you' re going to see from across the street so that ' s another
reason why it's been off street from the beginning. The bottom line is to
provide you with a more visual barrier than if we put it along the street .
Joe Cook: I guess we'd like to see as much buffer surrounding it ,
especially from the street side. '
Koegler : The abutting neighbor apparently is not here tonight but
obviously he would like as much buffer as possible for the other side of
the property. That ' s something else .
Schroers : Are there any other resident concerns regarding the parking plan
at Curry Farms? Any of the Commission have anything?
Lash : Okay we want to make a motion to amend the parking plan to 4 spots
with one handicap spot, correct with the maximum buffering that Mark wants
to put in. . .abutting property owners .
Schroers : I ' ll second that .
Lash moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend amending the park plan for Curry Farms Park to change the parking
to 4 spots with 1 handicap spot with a maximum amount of buffering . All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRELIMINARY MASTER PARK PLAN, CARVER BEACH (ALONG LOTUS TRAIL) .
Sietsema: At a previous meeting the Park and Recreation Commission talked
to the residents in the Carver Beach neighborhood and asked them for. their
input as to how they would like to see the linear strip along Lotus Trail
developed . Previous comments to that in public hearings had been that they
were displeased with the way it was being kept and would like more
facilities in that . . .
(There was a tape change during Lori Sietsema ' s staff presentation .)
Koegler : . . . Park Commission and the City Council a couple of years ago ,
the improvements I think went in actually last summer in the form of
parking is more defined. Bollards and so forth, at least from what I ' ve
observed in going out to the site a couple times , seems to be working
•
IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 29
II
IIpretty well . That' s the area that presently has more of a formalized beach
area, picnic area down in the lower section. There is, kind of graded and
kind of half improved it looks like over the years and it' s probably been
Isome Boy Scout projects, somewhat of a terraced walkway between those two
areas which could be expanded , could be improved, depending on what kind of
surfacing you wanted to use some time in the future, probably never wider
than about 6 feet just because we don' t want to go in there and require the
IItree removal to occur. In sinking a 6 foot walkway, whether it be an
aggregate or bituminous or whatever through there, certainly could be
accomplished. . . .more development potential occurs if you will and it' s
Ifairly limited is along the north side of the park along Lotus Trail .
Specifically in this area there' s a small beach at the present time and it
slopes rather steeply from the street to essentially a large, relatively
Ilarge sand blanket area. There' s a raft out there at the present time that
apparently is used by the neighborhood kids for swimming . That area does
have some potential and it is conceptually we' re showing some kind of a
wall arrangement that would exist back behind here closer to the street
Iallowing more of a gradual grade transition between the. . .level and the
edge of the lakeshore. That whole parcel is only about 40 feet deep so
there' s not a lot of room to do much in there . This retaining wall work is
Ieither timber construction, rock construction or whatever. I think there
could be a grade transition in there that could be made more useable.
Presumably the trail that comes through here and evetually will hopefully
connect on further to the north would have to bisect that area also in some
Iform that would wrap back to the very end of the site if you wanted to. I
point out then really the other opportunity to development if you will
would be possibly limited to picnic on this end and probably canoe racks if
Ithat ' s an interest . I know that ' s been talked about by this body in other
parks . . .about who uses those but I think that' s an excellent opportunity to
provide some access . We did notice and I ' ve notice for a lot of years a
Ilot of beaching of boats along here. Various size water craft. Some of
that may be able to be eliminated if you provided some storage that people
could get on some sort of a basis . . . so again, I will emphasize we' re here
to kind of take comment and listen this evening to see what thoughts that
Iyou have and some of the residents might have on the type of facilities
they want. I think you need to ask some questions of both them and
yourselves as to how formalized you make this beach area and how formalized
Iyou leave this beach area and what resposibilities you might have for the
life guards and so forth and how that fits in the programming and determine
the level of use that you see for each of those actually becoming in the
future.
Schroers : I have a question for you Mark. That area that you said would
lend itself to a wall and being regraded. Would there be room there for a
Icouple of picnic tables and just a viewing area where you could just sit
and look at the lake? Possibly a mini-picnic area thing.
IKoegler : I think there certainly is room on either side for some little
picnic spaces that would sit in amongst the trees pretty nicely. There' s
also potential there with a little grading to accommodate a very small play
apparatus of some sort and I would emphasize very small because with 40
Ifeet of depth , that' s about the normal area you put down for one of those
so there may be an option for a couple of swings or something to just keep
■
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 30 ,
the kids busy as they're adjacent to the beach or whatever . Again, some of I
that gets back to how much use you want to promote at that site versus how
much you want to promote down at the little bit bigger , maybe more
organized beach on the south end or vice versa .
Sietsema: Mike Wegler is here. He' s one of the resident who lives in the
area of Carver Beach and he's prepared the drawing that was handed out to
you showing some of his ideas and the neighborhoods. He' s gotten together
with the people in the neighborhood and he would like to present some of
their ideas as well .
Mike Wegler : My name is Mike Wegler . I live at 6630 Mohawk Drive. We had ,
talked about this at an earlier meeting, I don' t remember when the date
was . We drew this one up to try to give us a better idea . I don ' t know,
the retaining up against the road like that is going to be about 5 feet of
wood retaining wall I 'm sure. We'd rather keep it as natural as possible.
We don' t want , just very simple. Keep really looking natural and my idea
was rocks or even. . .very minimum cost . Just about virtually nothing out of
the City's pocket as far as . . .put it in. I know it' s not here. Maybe a
swing set for the smaller kids . People have asked about that down there .
We get a little, where the sandy beach is marked on here, that would be the
rock retaining wall and then just kind of naturally sand down.
Schroers: Which sandy beach?
Sietsema: Mini-beach.
Mike Wegler : Where the raft is . You see on the map where there ' s some
boulders, just enough to hold it back and get it up closer to the level of
the street . I think you could put a picnic table up there or something so
you' re not sitting on a hill . The small area there and then to the right,
there ' s some rocks on the shoreline there that I placed just recently. We
need a little fill in there to level that off a little bit and make it more
useable and mow it and put a couple picnic tables in there would be very
nice. This is all minimum construction. It wouldn' t be very much at all .
The canoe racks , over the years many people have asked about that and I
think it's about time we put something in there for them.
Schroers : We discussed a canoe rack quite a bit and I think that is ,
something that we would like to have but we haven ' t really decided how to
make it fair to everyone who wanted . How many we would put up and how do
you decide who gets to use them so that' s something that we need to work on
a little bit but we would like to see a few in.
Mike Wegler: You could maybe check around Deephaven and stuff. They have
all that and they' ve had it for years . . .but these canoe racks where they' re
marked on this, they would be hidden totally from the lake. There are
trees in this area where nobody would see them from the lake . We would
walk and wrap around a little bit, take your canoe up and carry it back
around . Each one of these spots is marked . Even in the existing beach on
the south end, there could possibly be another canoes to the left of that
would be very nice too . I didn' t mark that one on there . The dock for the
kids, lots of kids down there fishing all the time.
1
■
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
▪ June 27, 1989 - Page 31
Boyt : They have to swim out to the raft?
IMike Wegler: They do that and nobody' s been hooked too badly.
Schroers : Now is this dock approximately where the old access used to be?
IMike Wegler: Yes. There' s a drainageway right in there and it would
probably be a little bit to the right of that. There isn ' t very much
funding whatsoever as far as money so it would just make it a lot nicer .
ISchroers : I think it looks tremendous .
Sietsema: I think we have a real unique opportunity given that Mike' s
willing to do a lot of labor and we can get a lot of nice things done for
next to nothing and he does good work.
■ Boyt : That ' s a real pretty raft that' s out there.
Sietsema: He built that.
ISchroers : And we can make things easier for Mike by approving this .
Robinson: Are you proposing any changes to that walking path? We walked
I
that a year ago and I didn' t see anything wrong with that .
Mike Wegler : No. I know my kids run back and forth there. We talked
Iabout putting in a gravel walkway or something maybe in the future. It ' s a
lot of money and maybe you should just let it rest for now. I know if we
do this beach, a major concern of a lot of people is poison ivy and if we
Ido the swing set in this area, we clear this just a little bit out in here
on that left side where it says swing set . That would be able to knock it
all out of there because that's where it is. It' s just a mass of poison
ivy right in that area .
■ Schroers : We definitely have Boy Scouts looking for projects to do and
that is something that they could do would be just to clear the trail , just
Iwidened it and get some of the weeds out of there and keep it open for
walking without having to put down aggregate.
IMike Wegler : It' s getting traveled pretty regularly and it ' s very defined
now.
Mady: Mike , last time you were in here, we were talking about the city
Iproviding the dumpster and the neighborhood getting together and doing some
clean-up down there . Has that taken place?
IMike Wegler: It hasn' t. I wouldn' t recommend it until next spring .
Spring is the only time to go through there .
Boyt: Is there a reason why the swimming area isn' t buoyed?
' Sietsema : The mini-beach?
■
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
g
June 27, 1989 - Page 32
Boyt : Yes . The mini-beach . It says on our plan here to have buoys .
Koegler: That again is reflective of the problem you 've had for useage.
If you emphasize that and you improve that as a beach, you change that
designation. People know the separation.
Mike Wegler : You put a little parking area on here. I know you shrunk the II
size of the parking area on the other one last year down to about 4. It
sounded like to keep it as minimum as possible down there of course but 2
to 4 cars I think is sufficient. Satelite, we need it. That' s about all I
that I have. Like I say, a little bit of the grading. I talked to Lori . I
would like to, if you can do it, I 'd like to be able to get some sod right
away to put on and we' ll keep it watered and established .
Boyt: Do we have funding this year?
Sietsema: Yes , $3, 000. 00. '
Schroers: How much sod are we talking about Mike?
Mike Wegler : Not too much. Probably 40 x 40. '
Schroers: 100 yards of sod?
Mike Wegler : Yes . It would be very minimal . Probably in the swing area,
no not in the swing area at all . Put it over by the rocks is about the
best spot we can put some sod in because we need some fill in there and
some black dirt.
Sietsema: That would help minimize the erosion in that area too .
Mike Wegler: That' s the main thing.
Sietsema: I did get some plans for canoe racks from Burnsville . They
built canoe racks and Dale indicated that he'd be able over the winter be
able to work on building those if we wanted to go ahead and put those in .
I also called a number of cities regarding how they allocate their canoe
rack space and what they do is they go in on a lottery system where anybody
who wants to rent a canoe space, they apply for that and then as long as
they are a resident and they have their canoe, they get to keep that space .
If they move or if they sell their canoe or whatever, then that space
becomes open and that goes open to the lottery again .
Schroers: It' s not an annual thing?
Sietsema: No, because if you apply and you get it and you go out and buy
the canoe, then the next year you might not get it and you' ve got a canoe
with nowhere to put it.
Boyt: It is pretty portable.
Sietsema : More so than other boats but that seems to be the way that they
•
IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 33
II
1 have been doing it in the other cities and that ' s pretty consistent
Iactually.
Boyt : Our neighborhood does a yearly thing . Whoever gets there first .
Lash: If you have where people could sign up, let' s say 20 people signed
up and we could provide 20, there wouldn ' t be a problem but if 150 people
Isigned up, I think it would be only fair to do it yearly to give others a
shot.
ISchroers : Or maybe 2 years or something . Alright , let' s continue on.
Mike Schroeder : Mike Schroeder, 6600 Lotus Trail . I live at the north end
of the park there . I just have a couple of comments regarding the layout
IIhere that we've seen. First of all , it shows in the diagram there a tar
path and I guess my comments I would recommend that it not be tar but
rather gravel or something like rock in that area because I would like to
IIkeep the amount of bicycles going through there at 20-30 mph to a minimum
and I think there' s a lot of kids in that area that might use a long path
like that along the lake for a bike trail . Also, in the idea of canoe
IIracks , I think it' s a good idea but I think you would have to consider one
other thing about that area and that is that it' s heavily used for water
skiing so it' s not too many people , I know we have a canoe and there ' s not
too many weekends that we would dare go out too far in the' lake with a
Icanoe . So you might run into a problem with canoe racks and people
starting to use canoes and then you ' re going to create another issue of how
are we going to slow down the boats and what not .
IISchroers: I think what we might do is just start kind of slow on the canoe
racks and maybe just have one rack that would accommodate 6 to 10 canoes ,
Isomething like that and kind of look at that for a few years .
Mike Schroeder : Yes , because I think you will create a safety issue and an
issue of the size of boat motors .
IMady: I want to caution the commission also that when we talk about canoe
racks on the lake, the City putting them in, we had better make the entire
Iarea around the lake, all the neighbors aware of the fact that we ' re
addressing a public issue because there are going to be some people who
aren ' t going to be in favor . . . It' s just a caution that you put racks up
II down there, you' re going to have to allow parking. At least enough parking
for the number of canoes that are down there. It just stands to reason .
If you ' re opening the canoe rack up to the entire city, not all the people
are going to be able to walk down to the beach so there' s going to have to
IIbe parking available to them. It' s a larger issue than just putting . . .
Mike Schroeder : It ' s also possible I think and I don ' t know how well this
IImight be received but if the average useage on the weekend is the larger
boats , maybe the concept of some mooring or some docking of boats along
there might be possible since there are other public parks in other cities
that have that and that might match better with maybe what the people in
that area have in terms of boats and also what ' s going on on the lake.
Then of course it doesn ' t show there but it does on Mike' s, the fishing
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 34
dock. I think that is a very good idea . A lot of kids try fishing on
shore and you can be fairly successful but they aren' t too large. If you
get a little further out on a little dock, I think that would be very good .
Lash: Would that docking be something that Dale could put in?
Sietsema : Well we'd have to buy it and then it could go in anytime as soon
as we buy it.
Lash : They' re not very expensive?
Sietsema: They' re very expensive. Just a residential type dock, a roller
dock type thing is a couple thousand dollars and we would want something
that was more durable than what' s used in the private sector . It ' s
surprising but they are expensive.
Schroers : Is there any other resident comments in regards to Carver Beach
Park?
Darlene : I 'm Darlene. . .and I know the residents who live down there. '
We' re willing to do whatever it takes to get it cleaned up and get some
things down there for the kids . Mainly what we need is just the money to
buy the supplies to do it because everybody down there will do the work.
We' re more than willing to do the work but we just need the okay to do it.
Boyt: Well like Mike said, you can' t do a lot of that clean-up unless it ' s
spring because you can' t see to get through it . Lori and I talked about , I
think I talked to you about a spring clean-up day for all parks and getting
people involved in each park.
Darlene : I would really love to see a Satelite down there.
Mike Wegler: Just a little bit on that fishing pier . It' s probably what
we would like to see more than anything right now for the kids . That ' s the
main thing. A couple of picnic tables are down there. Maybe a garbage can
up there by the dock area , in that area if that comes about before too long
because it's nice down there.
Schroers : Thanks . Did Mark get a copy of your plan also Mike? Do you see
anything on there Mark that is a problem compared to yours?
Koegler : No. I think they are very consistent and you brought out a lot
of discussion items I think you needed to address tonight an example of
which is the surfacing of the trail . When we had taken this position for
discussion purposes, this is a major trail link on the City' s plan. It
will see quite a bit of use but again as with some other things you talked
about tonight, when you start low intensity and you find erosion and you
have to do something else, you always have that option.
Schroers: Yes , that' s just what came to my mind that because of where that
trail lies , I ' ve got to believe that you'd have washout problems with just
about anything you put there. Bituminous would probably be the most
permanent but unless we accommodate it for the drainage, we could be having
problems with that but like woodchips wouldn' t work out I don' t believe at
I
•
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
in June 27, 1989 - Page 35
Iall . So we' re almost looking at either. aggregate or bituminous or just
leaving it natural as it i.s. That way, I don' t know, most bicycles would
have a problem negotiating that if was wet .
IIBoyt: We can start with aggregate like on some of the other trails .
Schroers : Yes , because aggregate is the base for bituminous anyway.
IMike Wegler: The other thing on that trail , you show it going right up to
the north edge of the park. That does not continue beyond that. That' s
1 private property. There is a right-of-way that goes up that side straight
▪ off of the lake from there so until you have plans for what you' re going to
do with that hill going down to the lake, if you put a bituminous trail
Igoing back into . . . Either going across people' s private property because
they don' t know that it's not or . . .
Sietsema: I 'm sorry, I couldn' t hear what he said .
IMady: From the north edge from the base of Napa Avenue further north.
IISietsema: Yes but he ' s saying where it ends is where it ends. The rest we
don't know.
IMike Wegler : North of Napa .
Mady: I was always under the impression you owned that.
1 Sietsema: We own to this point here and then this is Fox Chase. The
▪ easement that we have there goes up this hill and then in between two lots
here to a cul-de-sac and then runs along the street within that
I▪ development .
Mike Wegler : So if you don' t have plans for going up that hill , we just
have fancy trail that ends there and people are going to naturally assume
Ithey can keep going around the lake there. It looks like a trail but it is
private property.
ISchroers : I think we had talked about that previously in regards to trying
to deed an easement to continue it up to the Pleasant View. Is that the
road there? Along the north end of the lake .
ISietsema: Along the lake?
Schroers : Yes . That ' s Pleasant View Road that goes down along the north
Iside of Lotus Lake and I think at one time we had talked about checking
into the possibility of getting an easement to continue the trail out to
that road to link up with to that area .
ISietsema : We could get along the lake within Fox Chase . The only thing
that we could get was along that property line up to the cul-de-sac and
that cul-de-sac runs up, it follows the street and goes up to Pleasant View
IIbut along the lake we can' t get that .
I
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 36
Schroers : But anyway this actually from that cul-de-sac we could connect
the link.
Sietsema: Right .
Mike Schroeder : The way the people are going now is from that cul-de-sac
right straight down to Mohawk and Napa and then you walk down the street .
Schroers : Are they cutting across private property?
Mike Schroeder: No. Not at this time and it' s working out just fine.
I think what Mike is talking about mainly is don' t put a bituminous trail
in where there's nice grass. Don' t tear up the grass and put in a rock,
we' ve got nice grass down there. We' ve only got 30 feet of grass . Pumping
in 6 feet of rock, people can walk on the grass just as well as rock. We
don' t want it torn up and making a nice straight line through it. Through
the woods there where it' s not seen and it' s all muddy, yes. Wherever the
dock is marked on here , that' s a nice strip of grass in here too . We don' t
want a 6 foot rock path through there. These people can sure walk on that
as well as anything else. I think that ' s the main thing on that.
Mary Farrick: My name is Mary Farrick and I live at 651 Camero Road which
is just up and over from this . As far as the trail is concerned , the one
that' s already through the woods seems to work just fine except for the
poison ivy so I guess as far as I 'm concerned , you don' t have to do
anything to the trail . I 'd like to see the beach and stuff developed the
way Mike has shown on the plan . I 've got 3 boys that love to fish and how
they' re trying to make their way out to the raft and if nobody' s swimming ,
they can fish but if there ' s anybody swimming there, they can' t and if they
had a fishing dock, it would be absolutely wonderful .
Erhart : How much can you do with $3, 000 . 00?
Mady: Can I ask a question on that? I think the City staff, on the city
time. . .how does that impact us . The neighbors are offering to do this
stuff and they' re not allowed to use city materials. Where does the
liability come in and all those things?
Sietsema: I 'm not really certain. I 'd have to check with Gary for the '
details but I think because he is a staff person , he can use the equipment
for a city project on his own time.
Schroers : I don ' t even know why it would be unreasonable to do it on city
time.
Sietsema: No , I don' t think so either except that he ' s not a park
maintenance person though. He's street maintenance.
Mady: Because Mike lives there, all of a sudden he ' s got priority over the
other 4 or 5 or 6. . .
Boyt : That ' s what we decided . I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 37
■
' Lash: It can be done now?
Sietsema: Yes .
' Schroers : If Mike knows how to do it without conflict .
Mady: I 'm just looking at, we've got a lot of parks that haven' t been
Iaddressed this year and something we' re going to talk about at Commission
presentation tonight . . .
■ Boyt : Well we have the opportunity to do this and it' s on the budget for
this year and it sounds like Mike will have the time.
Schroers : And it looks like a good plan .
IRobinson: How do we prioritize the $3, 000. 00? Let the residents determine
that?
ISchroers : Well it sounds like the dock is the top priority and I think who
would know better than the people that live there and use it .
IIBoyt : And we could talk to Mark and see if that could be one of the first
things done.
' Koegler : Yes , ultimately you need to prioritize and basically just almost
a . . .of this park. Certainly from what I 've heard the dock would be
probably number 1. It' s the biggest cost item you' re dealing with outside
Iof some of the labor and what the materials cost.
Boyt : We could do the dock. . .
IIMady: It must cost two grand at least and then we' ve got sod has to be in .
. . .swingsets .
IBoyt : The dock and the retaining wall , if Mike does the grading for the
retaining wall, would $3, 000. 00 be enough or does that cover the retaining
wall? Grass is going to cost a couple hundred dollars .
Mike Schroeder: The retaining wall won' t cost any money. I know where I
can get ties .
Mary Farrick : And we can get sod .
Lash: Okay, so we can get a dock, retaining wall , put the sod in.
IBoyt : Picnic tables . A list like that .
Lash: Make a list and see how far we can get with $3, 000. 00 .
Schroers : Do we need to make a motion?
IISietsema: Yes. If what Mike' s come up with is , that ' s the plan you want
to go with, I need you to recommend approval of the master plan for that
■
•
Park and Rec Commission Meetin 11 g
June 27, 1989 - Page 38
and then to prioritize what you want done this year with the $3 , 000. 00. '
Lash: Do we have any Boy Scouts that are just itching for a project?
Sietsema : No , I ' ve mentioned it to four of them and they've all turned up
their noses .
Mike Wegler : Most of that will be knocked out of there. ,
Lash: When you do the grading?
Schroers : Is there any conflict between Mike ' s plan and Mark' s plan? '
Boyt: The dock.
Schroers : I mean as far as entering it in a motion. Do you just want to
call it master plan with the dock?
Sietsema : Yes . I
Schroers : Alright if there isn' t any other comments , I ' ll try to put
together a motion for this .
Mike Wegler : Excuse me, if you motion that in , that master plan and
something happens later to say that retaining wall wasn' t the way it was on
the master plan , is there going to be a conflict?
Sietsema : Well they' re talking about adopting your. plan. The plan with
the dock.
Schroers moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommended approval of the master plan that includes the fishing dock,
rock retaining wall and to merge the two plans that are shown . Also , to
prioritize 1989 expenditures for a dock, the retaining wall , sod , clearing
the trail and swingsets . All voted in favor and the motion carried . '
APPROVAL OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS, CENVESCO SITE, OAK VIEW HEIGHTS . I
Sietsema: At our last meeting we had reviewed the Oak View Heights
proposal and asked the developer to come back with a revised plan that
would show how the recreation facilities that are being required could fit
onto this site. I believe Mr. Johnson has a plan that he can present to
you showing those recreational facilities . I ' ll just have you go through
it if you want to outline where they are and then talk about one and then
the other .
Dean Johnson : Let' s look at the plan first with two smaller cul-de-sacs .
A little bit of background to why we have two plans instead of one. When
we went in front of the Planning Commission , the Planning Commission and
the planning staff came up with an issue of the fact that these two
cul-de-sacs are a loop road at one time. The road went all the way around
and the East Jenny Circle and West Jenny Circle were connected . It became
•
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 39
II
Ia double frontage lot which they didn' t want to deal with. It was kind of
a technical problem because the double frontage lot is really in theory for
single family homes . Since the townhome doesn ' t really have, or this type
Iof townhome doesn' t have a front or back, it was kind of a technical
whether it did or it didn' t but they asked us to work with it . Ladd Conrad
suggested working with this and that's why you see this one plan here with
the two cul-de-sacs . This is one method of getting rid of the double
IIfrontage lots so that didn' t present an ordinance problem and the Planning
Commission wouldn' t have a problem. So what we' ve done is we ' ve taken and
split the areas through the project. We didn' t want to pack them all in
one area so that you would have balls flying from one area into the other
Il and people possibly running into each other depending upon the activity
they were doing . The first one we were putting the half court basketball
Icourt in the center island off of one circle and the volleyball court and
the recreational facilities , the swingsets and slides and what not, up in
the northeast corner . The next one was an idea that my engineer came up
with to redesign it to try to get rid of some of the double frontage lots
I again. We feel that this is a little better concept for getting rid of the
double frontage lot and it' s something we' re going to propose to the
Planning Commission when we come back. This one we were able to rearrange
Ithe units a little bit. We could get say the adult activities or say more
of the adult activities together with the volleyball and basketball court
in one spot and then we took and put the swingset, playground thing to the
northeast corner . That ' s why you see two of them here. We are going to be
II
pushing for the single cul-de-sac or our recommendation. Obviously it' s
whether they will take it or not is up to them. We are going to go over
this and we think we have a more interesting plan by doing it and we figure
1 by having two small cul-de-sacs is kind of an unnecessary type of a thing
so one would serve better and be less maintenance and be less for emergency
vehicles to have to deal with .
IRobinson: What' s adjacent to that totlot outside of your property there in
the upper right hand corner?
IDean Johnson : On the eastern border is the West Village townhouse ,
I believe is the name.
ISietsema: West Village Heights Apartments .
Dean Johnson: They' re townhouse apartments and to the north you' re going
to be hitting land that is owned by Builder ' s Development . Financed is
IIactually the people who own the land but that actually is the part along
the ravine there so what you have is this little slope going down .
ISchroers: Do we have our conservation easement back in that ravine so it
won' t be built?
ISietsema: I'm not sure if there' s a conservation easement through there or
not but there was a trail , like a natural type trail planned to go through
there.
IIDean Johnson : I believe the trail is on the north side of that ravine. At
least that' s what I was told. I ' ve not seen a map of it but I was told . . .
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 40
Schroers : But anyway, what you' re getting at is there a busy street or a
road or something right next to the totlot there?
Dean Johnson : No . Not at all . The people of Builder ' s Development
Finance contacted me because I . . . They've contacted me because they' ve
tried to sell me their land and in looking at the grades on their land ,
they have very little useable, so to speak land to build on and it' s all
along the northern border of the rental townhouses . According to the
topo' s I 've seen on it, it 's not along my land at all and the reasons that
I was not interested is because I no ability to tie . I would be right out
in the slope by the time I let my northeast corner . . . 1
Lash : Would it be possible to exchange these two locations and put the
totlot where you have the other things?
Dean Johnson : Yes .
Lash : I guess I would maybe lean towards that because the playground stuff II
would be more centrally located for kids and it would also be right off
Jenny Lane which is having a sidewalk.
Dean Johnson: Sidewalk, I guess there was some confusion. We thought the
sidewalk was going to go on the north side. It actually came through on
the south side and came up in Planning. Until that time we didn' t even
realize that the sidewalk was on the other . Something that we would like,
is we'd rather see the sidewalk on the north side of the street. It really
makes no difference for grading but we figure it ' s going to give better
access to the playground equipment. ,
Sietsema : I think that we had originally said south side because there
were fewer streets to cross but now if you take out the two cul-de-sacs ,
then that doesn ' t make a big deal .
Dean Johnson : I was also in the townhomes , I believe the townhome rental
units they were talking about. If I 'm not mistaken, I believe the sidewalk
is on the north side there . Now I realize it only comes into their
driveways and the street that' s going to go from where they turn to go into
their driveways is going to be extended through their property to the
border between us and then through my property is Jenny Lane here so I
think it can be an easy connection.
Sietsema: If it' s on the north side, on the rest of the street , we want to
continue it on the north side. That makes sense.
Dean Johnson : I guess that' s right but I believe it is on the north side.
Schroers: Lori , does staff have any concerns about the amenities that are
in here or is that something that we don' t even have a choice on? The
volleyball court and the half court basketball .
Sietsema: Those facilities are what was required of the Park and
Recreation Commission at the last meeting and so part of the recommendation
was that he was to bring back a plan showing how those facilities would fit
•
IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 41
Iwith the buildings and the parking and future development and to see that
things wer_en' t too crowded and the balls wouldn' t be bouncing on totlot
people' s heads and basketballs going through windows and that kind of
IIthing. Either plan looks like a reasonable plan to me. I don' t think that
all 3 recreational facilities have to be in the same spot and if you put
the totlot up in the corner , it' s further away from the street so kids
don ' t have the chance of running in the street as much but if you put it in
Ithe middle it' s more accessible to all of them so I think it' s a horse
apiece. I think it looks reasonable.
IMady: My preference would be to have a totlot along Jenny Lane with the
sidewalk rotating . That' s just my preference. You'd keep it away from the
traffic.
ISietsema : And as long as that doesn ' t matter to you, I don' t see that
that's a problem.
Dean Johnson : It' s something that can be worked in. There' s enough room
in both areas.
IISietsema : Given that , if either plan looks okay to the Park and Recreation
Commission, since he' s going to be presenting both to the Planning
Commission , what he would like would be a recommendation from the
Commission to accept either of the configurations, whichever is accepted by
IIthe Planning Commission .
Schroers : Okay, how do you want us to refer to the plans , as Plan A or
IPlan B?
Sietsema: He ' s got one marked Alternate A.
IDean Johnson: Yes, the Alternate A should be the twin cul-de-sacs .
Alternate B is the single cul-de-sac .
ISchroers: Okay, would anyone care to make a motion to that affect?
Sietsema: Staff ' s recommendation would be to recommend that the site plans
Ibe approved as shown on Alternate A or B with the configurations of the
recreational facilities as shown .
Schroers : Okay, I will make that recommendation. That we vote to approve
I
either Site Plan A or Site Plan B and we would also like to see the totlot
area be in the more centrally located position .
I Mady: Also the question, before we second it, we already addressed the
trail issue so that doesn ' t have to be readdressed?
Sietsema: Right. All the rest of it' s been done. We just want to approve
where the facilities go.
Mady: I ' ll second Larry' s motion.
II
■
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 42
Boyt : I will again vote against it because this number of people requires II 5 acres of land and we're not near that and are we going to get them coming
in here in 2 years saying our kids don' t have room to play out here and why
didn' t you look to our future. We' re allowing them to provide less than
what we require so I will vote no on this one.
Mady: I don't know if we' re asking for less direction or getting more
because we' re not asking for now a decrease in park dedication fees '
correct?
Sietsema: Right . '
Boyt : We know. We' ve seen developments in other parts of Chanhassen where
there. . .they' re not allowed to put in swing sets. Their kids play in the II roads. If you drive through there you know where the kids are and you know
where you have to be and now is our chance to ask for something different
than that. But you all vote the way you want to vote and the Council looks
at how we vote and they' re the people making the decision.
Sietsema: I guess what I would say then is if this motion, since there is
a second, should fail and whoever made the motion last time, reconsider
their motion, then we could readdress that if you so choose .
Boyt: We discussed it last time but it was 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 so the
majority feels that this is right .
Sietsema: But the option is still there to reconsider .
Schroers : Is there any other discussion. '
Lash: They are within the service area of the City Center Park correct?
Boyt : They' re in the service area . That park is used fully right now.
They' re used fully right now and this is not what' s in 2 years .
Schroers : Yes , I understand what you' re saying .
Lash: I understand what you ' re saying too. I really do but I have a real
hard time trying to require 5 acres from him when he' s only got 13 acres to
start with. That' s going to cut it almost in half.
Mady: I guess the question Sue' s been asking is where are you going to get
5 acres that we' re going to be needing.
Boyt : 5 years from now. Where will we have for these children to go? Our
chance is now.
Sietsema: Eckankar .
Boyt : We can ask and they can say no way. You' re asking too much . If we
don' t ask, then we've lost our chance.
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
in June 27, 1989 - Page 43
Lash : How much space is up in this area where you have the future
III apartment building?
Dean Johnson : The future apartment building site is approximately 6 acres
III including all the Class B wetland. City staff and the Planning Commission
so far want the 980 contour to be unuseable so the trees above the hill , we
save those. It' s on the side of the hill and we want the trees also. . .
■ Sietsema : What he' s saying is that portion is pretty much unbuildable
because they' re making that easement.
IIDean Johnson : You could bring the apartment building down a little farther
in but if we can get the apartment down, which is how we tried to design
the site in the first place was to keep the apartment building out of the
I
trees so we have trees for aesthetics for the project, we were able to do
it and there' s no reason not to .
ILash : How many units are going to be in this apartment building?
Boyt: 112.
ILash : In the apartment?
Dean Johnson : In the apartment building there' s going to be, depending
upon which plan here because what happens is the impervious surface
ordinance does not come into play because apartment buildings are so low in
impervious surface that you' re going to just strictly to the density which
Iis going to be somewhere around 70 to 73 units .
Schroers: Is there any way that you can see that we could get a 5 acre
I parcel
to fit into your plan in any way?
Dean Johnson: It probably comes in in the ordinance of Chanhassen that as
much as parks still or the acreage that you take still can work into the
Idensity calculations. You take 5 acres of land and you pull that out of
the project and you still have the 35% impervious surface which in a sense
what you' ve done is you' ve dropped the density of the project . And in a
Icase like this , there is well would you want to take the Class B wetlands?
That probably wouldn' t be something that you people would want to consider .
You want to buildable acreage so what you ' re effectively doing is taking
the 19 acres , taking the road easements out so you get done with that
I
acreage and it' s now 17 . 3 acres and then you take another 5 acres of that
so you' ve got 12. 3 acres and then with the impervious surface calculation,
you' re probably cutting another one-third of my density out of the project
Iwhich would blow the project right out of the water . You would not be
R-12. You would not be even R-8 at that point. You'd probably be R-6
because right now with the present ordinance I can ' t get R-12 with the
' present ordinances. I can' t get even to R-10. My density, if I remember
right at this point is 9. 8.
Schroers : I think looking at this , we are getting park dedication fees?
■
1
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 44 '
Mady: Looking at this and thinking it through now, I 'm inclined to look
for a large space. I don' t know if 5 acres is necessarily magic although
we usually like to have 5 acres for a neighborhood park. We have been a
little bit under that. I understand the density is going to suffer from it
but I believe a calculation can be done where there can a balance struck
between allowing for some open space because we are maxed out in the City
Center Park. There will be a lot of kids coming out of these units and
those units, the existing ones just to the east of you does have a number
of children currently as well as young adults so we do need to make sure
that as we. . .that we've done something for those people. The option will
always be the future . If the calculation was wrong , for whatever reason ,
. . .but once the apartments are up and townhouses are up, the chances are
nil to tear them down to put in additional parkland where it' s needed so I
don't know if 5 acres is necessarily the magic number here but I think we
need something . '
Lash : How large is this area right in the middle where you have the 14
unit? ,
Boyt : If we want to recommend that he look for more property, we'd let
them do it. We'd say we think we need more property and then that' s up to
he and his designers to work out . We don' t work on that. We just make
recommendations on what we want .
Schroers : Okay, what we have to do right now is vote on the motion. I made II
it. Jim seconded it so what we have to do is vote on it. If you have
reservations or whatever , you' ll have to vote accordingly and if it comes
back, then we' ll have to relook at it and make another motion.
Dean Johnson : Can I make one statement here? The history of this project
has been in front of you, this will be the fourth time you' ve voted on this
issue. Three times you' ve voted only to take park dedication fees . The
project density has gone down each time it' s been in front of you. To sit
there now and try to take land would be an unfair thing being the fact that
at all times and everything considered to come up with this project and
whether you want us to go ahead with this project has look at what you ' ve
done in the past and look to what you did at the time and again now the
third time. . . It seems to me that now to sit there after spent an awful
lot of money in purchasing the land and also in designing this project and
with all the consequences involved , all the times that I ' ve been in front
of staff with this thing and meetings I 've had with them as well as all the
times I 've been in front of Planning and the time I have been in front of
the Council with this thing, it seems quite unfair to now at this point
decide that you want land because what happens is if you decide you want
land and you decide for anything more than cutting out the corner say where
the totlot is so you take that portion and maybe somebody' s portion , say
the people like I say, Builder ' s Development Finance, you' re going to
throw, the project will be. . . '
Sietsema : Why don' t we call for the question and then we' ll know if we
have to deal with that or not .
11
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
IJune 27, 1989 - Page 45
ISchroers moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve either Alternate A or Alternate B with the facilities
placed as shown with the totlot equipment in the center_- . Dawne Erhart,
ICurt Robinson and Larry Schroers voted in faovr. Jan Lash, Jim Mady and
Sue Boyt voted in opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3.
ISietsema: The motion is defeated in a tie .
Robinson : Did you seciond the motion and then vote against it?
IMady: Against.
Sietsema: Can you do that?
' Mady: Larry's the one who had to vote for it .
ISchroers : Can we just discuss this a little further . I don' t think that
we can gain enough property from his development there to make an adequate
park. I think all we' re doing is creating a hardship for his development
Iand I think that we' re going to have to look to like the additions that
we' re doing to Lake Ann Park which is reasonably close and hope that . . .
Boyt: I think the developer, I think it' s up to him. If we want more
Iland , he can look for it. We don' t need to do that and we' re not creating
a hardship for him. We' re creating a hardship for the people with families
that move in here who let it pass as i.s .
ISchroers: How much acreage is in these 2 park parcels now?
•
Dean Johnson : I don ' t know.
Schroers: Is it roughly like 2 acres?
IDean Johnson : My guess is you' re going to be somewhere around an acre and
3/4 to 2 acres just judging by the size of this .
ISchroers : Lori , how does this plan compare with our statistics as far as
the number of people in an area?
Sietsema : Well it' s a lot more dense than what a typical , we don ' t see a
II
whole lot of high density developments in Chanhassen. You haven ' t
experienced reviewing these kind of site plans very often because there
simply aren ' t that many high density developments out there. This is much
Imore dense than what we typically look at .
Schroers : So I 'm wondering if we have to, do we need to come up with new
Istandards to accommodate the high density?
Sietsema: No, we have standards. 1 acre per 75 people is our standards
and that ' s a valid standard .
ISchroers : And how does this compare to that?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 46
Sietsema : There' s 500.
Boyt : 112 units at 2. 8 people per unit which might be a little high but
we'd need over 6 acres so going below that.
Sietsema: But it also is within the service area of parkland .
Schroers: But the other parkland is currently running at capacity pretty
much? I mean is it totally at capacity the adjacent City Center?
Sietsema: It is at standard times of use. The after dinner hour, it' s '
booked through the summer .
Schroers: For organized events? '
Sietsema: With organized events . The totlot equipment and that kind of
thing isn' t or the tennis courts aren' t necessarily but the open space
field area is .
Lash : And that isn' t necessarily what the kids would be using anyway.
Boyt: These kids will create the need for more . . .
Sietsema: They' ll be joining the T-ball and Little League and putting ,
additional pressure on this park facilities .
Boyt : We can just ask the developer to look at this again . '
Sietsema : What I would suggest then is if you ' re going to ask for more
land , if you don' t know an acreage, is to outline the facilities you want
to accommodate so he knows what types of land uses we' re shooting for . You
want ballfields.
Boyt : I think there needs to be an open space that would accommodate
ballfields in here.
Mady: Not necessarily a lined ballfield but an open space, wide open space
for pick-up games and what have you. Touch football , soccer .
Boyt : Isn ' t that what everyone comes in here asking for? They need an
open field for kids to play in.
Schroers : Yes , they do . Time after time we hear them.
Boyt: They need a totlot. They need new tennis courts . They need
basketball . They ask for the same things over and over again in every
development. They ask for ice skating. Not this time of year but they
will this winter .
Mady: I guess what I 'm looking at is . . .we made a recommendation on it and
it wasn' t good enough to pass . . .we want more. I don' t know that it' s up to
us to design this plan to accommodate that .
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' June 27, 1989 - Page 47
ISietsema : It' s up to you to decide how much acreage you want and how much
credit you want to give him for that acreage.
IMady: We' ve usually done that though before a developer comes, he usually
comes in with something that was at least almost close.
ISchroers : This isn ' t typical .
Sietsema: Well , yes you usually do. We usually say we' re going to need
Ithis much parkland and show us where we can accommodate. . .
Mady: We' ve done that with our standard though.
Boyt: Say 4 acres minimum of useable park space. An open area large
enough to accommodate a ballfield , a children ' s ballfield .
ISchroers: Is that a motion?
Boyt : Sure .
ISchroers : Is there a second?
IMady: Yes .
Robinson : What was the motion?
IBoyt : 4 acres minimum. It doesn ' t have to all be together but there
should be in one are a space large enough to accommodate a ballfield and
we' ve already talked about the other things. There should be tennis
I courts , volleyball , basketball , totlot.
II Lash : I guess I would rather see them all together . Have one big open
space.
IBoyt : I 'd rather leave him some room to work it in but the active space ,
have a space large enough for a ballfield.
ILash : I 'm not good at judging .
IBoyt : There ' s about 26 acres here and this is a out 6 acres . The corner
that' s not developed .
Dean Johnson : No . There' s 17. 3 acres that I have to work with .
IBoyt: Okay. I thought you told us 19. 3 last time .
IDean Johnson : 18 . 9 gross perhaps with the roadway.
Boyt: Okay, we' re interested in the gross .
IDean Johnson : But I can ' t choose the gross figure for my calculations .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 48
Boyt: I think that' s what we normally use.
Lash : Just for my own trying to picture something, can you tell me what
one of these average sized places where there' s a unit, about how big is
that? Would that be about an acre?
Dean Johnson: Yes .
Schroers : Okay, there' s been a motion and a second . Any further
discussion?
Boyt moved , Mady se conded that the Park and Recreation Comm ission require 4 '
acres minimum that will accommodate an open space large enough for a
children ' s ballfield , tennis , totlot , volleyball and basketball , (typical
neighborhood park facilities) . All voted in favor except Schroers and
Robinson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
PRESENTATION OF SOUTHERN PARKLAND STUDY, MARK KOEGLER AND AL KLINGELHUTZ.
Mark Koegler : Given the hour, I ' ll be brief . There' s a fair amount of
information in there. The site we looked at, I think is the one you' re all
familiar with and I believe we walked at least most of them if not all of
them. They' re labeled on this as Exhibit A, B, C and D. TH 212 is shown
on here . I don' t know that that ' s the exact official alignment. That' s
the last alignment basically that we had record of. You had gone through
some time ago and identified some criteria that you were going to use for
selection of park and in trying to evaluate each of these sites in line
with that criteria , I think the main thing that ' s noteable is that we did
not in any way attempt to weight those which obviously you probably will
do. As I say, you didn ' t do that but I 'm going to try and tell you that we
kind of did in the conclusion because basically what we got down to was
looking at southern Chanhassen which is what this park is supposed to serve
and how do you define southern Chanhassen. Is it below TH 5? Is it below
Lyman? Is it below TH 212? At this point in time, it ' s basically anything
below TH 5. But as Chan Hills and Lake Susan West develop and more urban
development goes down , I 'm sure in everybody' s mind it' s going to be south
of Lyman. As TH 212 goes in it becomes really a major barrier with the
only crossing points being TH 101 and then probably over at the southerly
extension of CR 17 at this point. You really have a corridor through there
that doesn ' t allow cross movement and at that point in time I think it ' s
fair to say that southern Chanhassen almost becomes south of TH 212. One
of the central objectives that you had was to have a park south of TH 212
or what was called the southern portion of Chanhassen and centrally
located . Obviously we' ve got two sites that really remain in the south of
TH 212 are B and D. B is the Bandimere piece and D is the piece that' s
owned by Bluff Creek Investment Company. First of all running through very
quickly, Site A it think is 40 acres . Site B is about 33 or 35 depending
on which number you use . Site C is shown in the cross hatched section is
80 acres. There's an additional 40 acres on this side which is part of
the TH 212 alignment . Again, at least is portrayed , and then Site D is
about 109 acres and Site D also is heavily impacted by TH 212. Another
•
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
iJune 27 , 1989 - Page 49
Iitem that we' ve interjected is the City of Chaska at the present time is
developing a 29.5 acre park in this location which they've identified as a
community park playfield . That will be approved by their City Council on
IJuly 10th. That site contains four Little League diamonds , 3 adult
diamonds, soccer , tennis , normal range of active facilities . I think some
consideration should be given to the proximity of those sites to one
another . Certainly both I 'm sure will be utilized fully but just for
Igeographical dispersal of all the people in the southern portion of Chan
going on in Chaska , and do you really want those sites almost adjacent to
one another or do you want to spread that out.
ISchroers : Is there a lot of topography on D also?
IKoegler: D, yes. Of the two sites, let me just briefly run through. B I
think you' re very familiar with . The biggest constraint is the obvious .
The William Brothers Pipeline. I can' t stand here tonight and tell you
that we can overcome that . Hopefully we can overcome that if that
Iultimately is the site that earmark for the park. We have made contact
with the William' s Pipeline people and given probably the liability
climates and everything else these days , they won' t commit to anything at
Iall . They won' t even really give us much of guide as to how much fill we
can place on top of their pipeline. We will not need, I don' t think to
excavate but we may need to fill . The only way to ascertain the answer to
that is pending your action this evening, we will get them out there in the
1 field to locate and provide some depth information on the pipe and they
will do that very quickly. Within literally a couple days time period .
What we need to do then is sketch up a grade plan as quickly as we can and
Iget it into their engineer for review and that' s the only way we' re going
to get any formal review status from them. So that ' s a constraint that we
hope can be worked about but I can ' t tell you as a matter of fact that it
can be. Parcel D, the other one that we looked at , again being south of TH
I212.
Schroers : Can I interrupt you?
IKoegler: Sure .
ISchroers : Hypothetically if that all got approved and all of a sudden they
develop a problem in the pipeline, can they come in and tear up our new
park for their pipeline?
IKoegler : Yes . They' re concerned though with putting fill on the pipe is
how quickly they can get to the pipeline. They consider it a safety
situation if they' ve got a leak there , they want to be able to get into it
Ireal fast so if they have 3 or 4 feet of cover on it which is what they
like, it doesn ' t take very long to expose the pipe . If they' ve got 30 feet
of cover , it' s a different situation and they've got to open the trench up
Iand have appropriate side slopes and so forth . So that' s their concern and
that's the evaluation criteria they used is from a public safety point .
Hoffman : That same pipeline goes right through Victoria and right through
Ithe Lion's park and right underneath the tennis court and right underneath
the ballfield .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
9
June 27, 1989 - Page 50
Koegler : It' s not uncommon to have recreational development on top of '
these pipelines. Roads cross them. They will even in some cases allow for
parking to be constructed but you do run the risk if something happens and
they need to be dug up. Site D has almost as much topography as any piece
of ground I ' ve ever seen in Chanhassen. There literally are some in excess
of 80% slopes on this site. That' s 80, not 8. They' re virtual cliffs when
you get back up into some of this area . Beautiful property. I don' t know
ultimately how much of that is really going to be useable. They' re also
along particularly along the south side in this area is land that ' s
currently tilled and that' s certainly suitable for active facilities. Now
again we' ve got TH 212 that comes through and has the potential to impact a
substantial portion of the western side of the site so we've indicated that
the eastern side of the site is a potential option. If you do not either
choose Bandimere or Bandimere becomes infeasible due to the pipeline issue.
The report also points out that yes we' re a little skeptical that Bandimere
can meet your objective of having the nature areas. There are some wooded
areas, small wooded area that' s down around the old farmstead site.
Certainly that' s an attractive feature but it' s not a significant feature
in and of itself. The Site D, depending upon final official mapping and
what ultimately happens with TH 212 may end up with some pieces due to
frontage roads and so forth that the City might be able to acquire that
would just be beautiful for nature areas. Running trails going through or
just nature observation or whatever it might be . So we would advocate that
if you select the Bandimere site, keep this one kind of in your back pocket
for possible future acquisition. Some remnant pieces either through the
owner or through MnDot, whatever, that 's a possible nature area. The
Bandimere site does have expansion potential to the north in through these
areas that probably could come close to adding another 40 acres or so
should that ever be your desire to note . Potential expansion was another
of the objectives that were outlined in the report and one thing that you
identified originally. We went through and ranked all four of the sites in
conformance with your criteria. Did not assign any weighting and ran
through two different numerical sequences if you will , attaching some kind
of point . . . to if they come within a few points of one another . One has
strength if it' s north of TH 212. One has strength if it' s south . One has
strength because the topography is a little better . They really to a
certain degree counter balance one another . I think all of the sites have
potential to serve the southern park access. It' s just the location
factors that really become more the prime determent . So the recommendation
is that you pursue Site B and get an answer as quickly as we can on the
pipeline impact and if that becomes not feasible , then we' ll take a look at
Site D.
Schroers : Did we not already look at all these sites and kind of rule out
both the D and C because of cost?
Sietsema: We looked at them as far as availability but we didn' t do a
formal study at looking at the land. The topography and potential land
uses and comparing them, all of the objectives .
Schroers : I thought that Al had given us some rough price estimates before
on these properties and we felt that we wouldn' t be able to come up with
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 51
I
I the funding for D and C. C was that 80 acre parcel .
Sietsema: Do you have prices on those?
Al Klingelhutz: I have a little more information on C. He would possibly
sell you 40 acres of that and he 's looking at around $6, 500. 00 an acre for
that plus he definitely wants an access to the back fourth. What type of
Iaccess, it' s going to have to be a permanent road or just an easement, I
think he' s more looking for a permanent type road to his back property.
Schroers: Would his homesite be back there? Is he looking for a driveway
I going in and out?
IAl Klingelhutz: Actually he' s got about 70 acres of that 80 acres lying
north of Pioneer Trail. Part of that 70 acres, or that 40 acres in front
will have some involvement with TH 212 because Pioneer Trail is going to be
changed and I don't know if you saw that part of the map Mark or not but we
Ido have it down at the County, which will take property up to the house, if
you' re familiar with the property at all , to make that new service road to
get around TH 212.
ISchroers : My question then is , now you said that was $6 , 500 . 00 an acre and
wasn' t Bandimere property about $5, 500. 00?
IAl Klingelhutz: No. The Bandimere property was $200, 000. 00 for 33 or 35
acres. The tax statement says 35 acres . They quoted it as 33 acres when
they listed it .
ISietsema: So it' s about $6 , 000. 00.
IAl Klingelhutz : That ' s a firm price on that . He originally was asking
$220,000.00. The offer was $200, 000.00.
Lash : Now Sever Peterson said he was open but he came up with the
II $6, 500. 00.
Al Klingelhutz: He was open as far as selling the 40 acres except that we
Iwanted access to the rear of the property. He didn' t want to landlock.
I sort of felt that he wanted to be on the public street back there.
ILash: I understood when talking he' s also somewhat negotiable on the
price . He wasn' t real firm but maybe he ' s changed his mind since then .
Al Klingelhutz : Well I talked to him on the phone for about an half hour .
IHe' s up on vacation . I don' t know. We' d have to talk to him if he was
more negotiable on that . I have nothing on paper from him saying , it ' s
just word of mouth. Originally he was asking $7 , 000. 00 but he did quote me
■ a figure of $6 , 500. 00 on the phone . He was on vacation up at Lake
Washington I think it was up near Litchfield.
Mady: Al , Pioneer Trail . Do you have any information for us as to what
IIthey' re going to do as far as straightening it out or moving it south at
all?
I
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
I
June 27 , 1989 - Page 52
Al Klingelhutz: Pioneer. Trail actually when TH 212 goes in , I believe will II
be moved north somewhat. If I can remember the map that we had down on the
wall at the County. It'd be quite a change. Where it curves around right
in this area here. It makes quite a turn there and it seems to me it' s
going to be a lot straighter coming up here. There'd be a bridge under TH
212 here and it kind went straight up where the four way stop sign is on
CR 17. Instead of swinging south like this .
Koegler: Jim, I know where it . . . We' re doing the park in Chaska right now
and it comes , MnDot will hit this intersection and shift it just slightly
east but they' ll hit that existing intersection and then it will proceed .
Generally it will be kind of on a slant on a diagonal through there.
Mady: Okay, I was wondering further east but it' s not going to be moved
much further east .
Al Klingelhutz: From over here on out , from TH 101, that' s going to be
straightened out. It' s supposed to be built this summer.
Mady: I was thinking towards the . . . Hills area.
Koegler: That was an earlier concept.
Mady: They' re still proposing CR 17 coming straight through?
Al Klingelhutz : Actually the proposal right now is CR 17 will be coming
along an angle something like this . The interchange where TH 212 would be
right in here. There would an entrance road coming off of TH 212 onto CR
17 in this area someplace.
Mady: Okay, I was thinking further south of CR 17 .
Al Klingelhutz: The proposal sometime in the future is deeming CR 17 on
down to Pioneer Trail . '
Mady: My thinking there was the parcel straight west of the Homeward Hills
subdivision, is a nice really flat piece. It' s got a Bluff Creek running
through it. That might be an optimum location but with future CR 17 coming
through there , I think. . .
Al Klingelhutz: Actually the proposal is pretty much on the property line
because I can remember when Pioneer Hills was developed, they did have to
get a certain amount of easement along this cartway.
Mady: I drove that this weekend just to look at the parcel further back '
in.
Al Klingelhutz : That used to be a public street . 1
Mady: But outside of one hill right basically in the middle of the major
trail on the east side of the property, it' s a fairly flat parcel . I was
trying to remember from earlier discussions with you what was the reason
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 53
I :111e7 we discounted it . I couldn' t remember . I thought it had to do with
fact that he was thinking of holding the property to sell once the MUSA
line changed .
IAl Klingelhutz : No , actually I think if I remember right , I contacted all
these people and I believe he' s in the process of subdividing in 2 1/2 acre
lots and that ' s why he didn' t want to sell it .
ISietsema: He' s got the grandfathered 2 1/2 acre .
Al Klingelhutz : It seems to me he told me was going to go ahead with the
plan now. I could talk to him again on that but.
Mady: I was trying to locate some nice pieces . Option B is fine with me.
I have no problem with it, I 'm just looking for other things .
Robinson : Mark, how many acres does the Chaska park have?
IAl Klingelhutz: 29.
ISchroers : How many ballfields are on that? Did you say 4?
Koegler: There are going to be 7. It ' s going to be packed.
IRobinson : C is awful close to that .
Schroers : What I would like to see , what I think would work out fine is
Iwhat our immediate need is for a youth active area and B would seem to lend
itself well to that if we don' t have any extra problems with the pipeline.
We' re looking for up to 100 acres of parkland in south Chanhassen but we
Inever said that it all had to be in one spot . We could come up with a nice
active facility on area B and then look to Area D strictly for a nature
area, passive area and that would seem reasonable.
IAl Klingelhutz: Looking at Area B, if it ever came in for development, I
think there is about 40 acres there so you aren' t going to be able to put a
house someday.
IBoyt : Should we just wait for that?
• Sietsema: In the subdivision process .
▪ Al Klingelhutz : That would make up part of the land back up to TH 101
where the houses are and the proposed site and the strip of land down in
Ithere where nobody' s ever going to be able to build .
Sietsema : It will be one giant conservation easement .
IAl Klingelhutz : This is kind of the way I look at it , that parcel . You ' re
going to get a lot there without buying it.
IISchroers : Now there' s no action required on the presentation here tonight .
I
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
9
June 27, 1989 - Page 54
Boyt: Whether to pursue B? '
Koegler : I guess we' re on course to pursue B unless you see any reason not
to proceed.
Schroers : I don' t. Does anyone? In that case I would represent the
Commission and say go for it.
Al Klingelhutz: Part of the purchase agreement it was stated that the
seller would . . . the property. Now they haven' t taken any action on that. I
told Lori I would give them a call and tell them to get going on that
because I think that would be helpful , very helpful for you .
Schroers : . . . for staff to continue working with Al and Mark for the
purchase of B. What did you say Sue about putting it in the Comp Plan?
Boyt : Put it in the Comp Plan that we'd like to acquire that land as a
nature area. That was in Mark's plan. '
Mady: Also maybe show in the Comp Plan the expansion of the B parcel .
Boyt: Al, thanks a lot for working with us. 1
Al Klingelhutz: I guess if, I 'm just making a suggestion, expansion of the
B parcel sometime in the future you might just want to look at something on
the other side of TH 212. Another. 30 or 40 acre parcel so you can help the
neighborhoods in each one of these areas a little bit more than having to
cross that freeway.
Mady: Mark' s park study that he did for the city' s community park study
that we have to locate another community park in Chanhassen.
Sietsema : I need a motion and if this is what you want to do, I would
recommend that given the results of the south parkland study, it is the
recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to continue the
pursuit the Bandimere property as for the south parkland.
Robinson moved, Boyt seconded that given the results of the south parkland
study, it is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to
continue the pursuit the Bandimere property for the south parkland . All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Sietsema: Now did anyone want to make a motion to include Parcel D to
amend the Land Use Plan to include that? That' s a separate motion . To
recommend that Parcel D be pursued for a nature park. Be designaged on the
Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan as potential parkland.
Robinson moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that Parcel D be designated on the Land Use Plan in the
Comprehensive Plan as potential parkland . All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
■
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 55
I
REVIEW ZIMMERMAN FARMS TRAIL PROPOSAL.
Sietsema: If you remember last time, and I don' t have the plan down here
Iwith me. Last time we reviewed the Zimmerman Farm. It was the piece of
property that' s on the west side of TH 41 just north of Crimson Bay by Lake
Minnewashta and we talked about eventually pursuing the purchase of the big
outlot for community parkland.
■ Koegler : I'm assisting Jo Ann on doing some Planning Commission reports
and by the luck of the draw this was one that I got. So what we' ve been
Italking about , if this is the Foster ' s property. Actually it ' s 3 lots in
here. Lake Minnewashta is over here. Crimson Bay cul-de-sac sits here
with lots coming off of that. You've got an easement up to this point and
you required an easement around the south and clear over around the east
I
side of this property the last time around . What they' re proposing now is
to take an easement just along the south end of Foster ' s property, the east
end of Foster ' s property, back to the north to Dogwood where it would
Iconnect and go north. When they proposed that, we took a look at the trail
plan. What the trail plan actually shows is a trail link along TH 5 coming
up the Crimson Bay cul-de-sac, hitting this point, going over to Dogwood
Iand heading north over to Tanadoona and cutting over back east and then
going north up towards the Regional Park. I guess we can' t, from our
perspective, this probably works just as well as the more circuitous route .
That 80 acre piece is represented by this land and is going to subdivide
Isome day and you' ll have another crack at a possible trail linkage within
that. Our suggestion would be to find this to be an acceptable alternative
for trail purposes .
IBoyt : The only reason we went around the edge is because it ' s real hard to
go through the middle of this ._without being . . .
IKoegler : The reason this is back before you tonight is because it was
tabled last Wednesday and we' re trying to get it back onto the agenda next
week to move the item onto the Council .
■ Sietsema: I 'd need a motion to reconsider your previous motion .
ISchroers : But now it' s been just slightly changed right?
Sietsema: And then I need a motion to change to what you want to do. You
' have to reconsider your last motion .
Mady moved, Boyt seconded to reconsider the previous motion on the
Zimmerman Farm trail . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
IMady: I ' ll make a motion to amend that trail proposal to place a trail
along the . . .
Koegler : It' s southeast and north boundaries of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and back
Ito Dogwood.
■
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
9
June 27, 1989 - Page 56
Erhart: And then continuing on Dogwood? '
Schroers: I ' ll second it.
Boyt : Is it on the road? '
Koegler : The plan called for it to be adjacent to the road . The whole
issue of road in there is unsettled right now. That' s going to be a key
issue .
Mady moved , Schroers seconded to put the trail easement along the southeast '
and north boundaries of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and back along to Dogwood for the
Zimmerman Farms. All voted in favor except Lash who opposed and the motion
carried.
Lash: I would much rather hear from the people on Dogwood before we do
something like that. That' s an established neighborhood and I think they
have the right to have their opinion heard before they put the trail
easement in.
Mady: They would . That ' s already part of the plan . What we' re doing here
is just the portion south.
Lash : With the ultimate connection to Dogwood . '
Mady: That' s already part of it .
Koegler : If I can put your mind to ease a little bit . They were well
represented at the Planning Commission and will be back again next week and
this recommendation will go to the Planning Commission so I think virtually
all the neighbors will see that . I ' ll make sure that they realize the full
connection.
CURRY FARMS. '
Sietsema: . . . I need to get your clarification on this . Back when Curry
Farms, the site plan was reviewed, sidewalks trails were required as a part
of the development contract. There' s some confusion in that the
development contract says it should go along a street called Stockbridge
Road and refers to the preliminary plan . The preliminary plan doesn' t have
a Stockbridge Road but it shows a road along Teton Avenue. What I need to
do is get clarification from you as to what your intentions are . As long
as John' s here, I 'd like to do that now and let him go home. Maybe I ' ll
just put the plan up there.
John Speiss : This is all 1987. The actual development has changed
somewhat in the way it was laid out and the way it was platted. This is
Phase 1 and Phase 2 comes up this way. This is the park and the parking
you were talking about earlier . The question is and has become just a real
issue here. You' ve waited to the end so we won' t put in a trail by
construction. The people are upset about the trail itself. They don ' t
•
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27 , 1989 - Page 57
I
I drg staanod g is thwa y hnow tan d hwee ve tme l .u p Tan wle e catlallk efd or w itth e Gatrry i l a
nd
Lori . The trail should stay on the same side of Devonshire Road basically.
ii It looks more like. . .
II Boyt : That' s not really the issue .
IJohn Speiss: That' s not the issue but it does have a bearing .
Sietsema : This street comes down and this one street and then comes off a
Icul-de-sac.
Schroers : May I ask why the residents are upset about the trail?
IBoyt: They weren' t told about it. They told us when they came in
before. . .
IJohn Speiss : It shows that it' s in the public right-of-way. They don' t
understand it' s in the public right-of-way. It' s their yard as far as
they' re concerned .
ILash: It's off street.
John Speiss : It ' s called a trail . Our development agreement calls it a
Itrail. The second issue is as it goes through Devonshire here, it ' s a
continuous street that goes through the property. This trail , this is part
of Outlot A which is city owned. That' s a trail we plan to put in. This
Igoes up to Teton Lane which is being barricaded .
Sietsema: But it is a street._
IJohn Speiss : Well this is a rural section.
Boyt: This is the issue?
■ John Speiss : This is the issue .
IBoyt: You don't want to put a trail in there?
John Speiss : The issue is, do you want to put a trail in?
IBoyt: Yes. That' s why we have it.
John Speiss : Do you want to put a trail in there that doesn ' t go through
Ithe development?
Boyt : Yes . We' re getting people to the park.
IJohn Speiss: Yes, but there ' s no, see this is Lilac Lane and Teton Lane
and all of that , if you' ve been following this project . All the residents
said we don' t want a thru street and there' s a few people up here who said
Iwell we want to be able to drive over that street . . . so there was a
barricade planned in the development and the Teton feasibility study to
■
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 58
barricade this . Now there' s no, the barricade is half up .
Sietsema: If you look at the overall trail plan, there will eventually be
a sidewalk trail , actually a trail along CR 17. That brings you, you can
get anywhere, anybody who' s in this service area down to this trail here.
Come down off street , say into the park. This is a rural section like he
said so it doesn't have curb and gutter. It' s less traveled and you can
make a circular route and also if you wanted to come in and go down, then
you've got the trail along Lake Lucy Road.
Schroers : Does staff have a recommendation?
Sietsema: It seems clear to me that the attention of Park and Recreation
Commission and the City Council was that there is to be a sidewalk trail
along . . .
John Speiss : A trail , that' s become the issue too .
Sietsema: Along this street to make all this connection.
Boyt: That ' s our intention. '
Sietsema: But because of this Stockbridge Road that is , this is Teton. . .
Mady: I guess what happened is the name got, for whatever reason . . .
Sietsema : Well I wanted to bring it to your attention and make sure that
your intention of your recommendation at the time that you made it was to
put a trail along the street. An off street trail along the street to make
that circular pattern.
John Speiss : But also for these people who are coming back and saying , '
where is it recorded?
Boyt : You know what , that ' s a developer and a real estate seller ' s '
problem.
John Speiss : It' s not a problem, it' s a benefit and that' s what it ends up
being .
Boyt: It is and people are coming in here and saying , well they never told
us that there was going to be a park here. They never told us . . .
John Speiss : Well you never had signs up 529 . Really the parking was part
of the plan all along. We never said. That' s it you know. When you go to
these people and say, well we don' t really have a plan for it and we don ' t
know what we' re going to do about it but yet we' re going to put this here,
it sounds like nobody has it together .
Schroers: The other part of that is they never came and asked us before
they bought their house either .
•
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
li June 27 , 1989 - Page 59
II
ISietsema: Yes they did and that man that was in here tonight inquiring
about it, he called me three times and asked me about the parking and how
much was going to be put in there . Before he bought his house and I told
Ihim the parking pad was going to go there and it shows on the plan 6
spaces .
Erhart: And he still bought it?
ISietsema : He still bought it and he ' s still coming in bitching to me.
IJohn Speiss: They' ll do that all the time. It' s just, if you show it on
your development that it' s actually in the boulevard and it ' s not the tar
but the plan now is to have it 3 foot behind the curb and then the 6 foot
Ipath and everybody says well who' s going to maintain the . . . And you really
want to say, well it' s recorded in the City. The City has it. You can
check it out . Whether it' s shown on the sales plat. It is recorded in the
City and you can check it out. There are a lot of people who have tried to
Ifind a reason not to . . .
Sietsema: The development contract is recorded against every lot so
Ithey've got access to it.
Boyt : We know what the extension is . It was for the trail fee there.
IJohn Speiss: We don' t really have a problem with that. We just want to
say that a lot of people have been bugging Lori and everybody else that
where is this? It' s nowhere and it is somewhere and that' s why I say, if
Isomebody comes up and says Stockbridge Road , wait a minute this is Teton.
It says Teton on this but then it says Stockbridge in here.
IBoyt : There ' s some confusion .
John Speiss: Yes, and this has changed .
ISchroers : But anyway that ' s part of our master trail plan so whatever you
want to name the road, the trails in there anyway.
IJohn Speiss : Trail is what we' ve got in our development . Just the fact
when you call it concrete, you' re calling it a walk.
ISchroers : At the Park and Rec we refer to it as a trail .
John Speiss: Because a lot of people are saying if it' s a trail , it must
be bituminous and then it' s a park trail . If they say if it ' s in the
Istreet, is it concrete? Is that a trail anymore or is that a walk? The
stats say in 5-89 says city sidewalk. It doesn ' t say bike trail and that' s
what it' s called. That' s got to be real clear to these people so they
Iunderstand .
Schroers : If we give an alignment and it connects up with our other
trails, we record them as a trail whether it' s a sidewalk or if it' s a
Ibituminous path .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 60
John Speiss : Well either or. So really at this point, in ' 87 it was trail
and then what you call a trail now is referring to, and that' s an
engineering term or whatever you want to call it. Clarification is it must
say what exactly it is so there is no more confusion all the way around II because if a developer waits 2 years to put the trails in so they don' t get
damaged, then it should be either concrete or trail or bituminous. Not
just plain trail . It' s too confusing .
Mady: Two years ago we weren' t . . .
John Speiss : No , that' s it. ,
Boyt: We didn' t call them sidewalks because they scared people.
John Speiss: Yes , but here the advantage of having your children play on
something off the street far outweights this ugly thing in the front yard
which can be a real positive point for these people. Some people don' t see
it that way either . ,
Schroers : You' re right but I think most of us are in agreement on that
issue. '
John Speiss : It' s safety. We' re all concerned about safety. They
requested that it be backed up against the back of the curb and back there
and really is in the public right-of-way. . . Thank you. '
REVIEW 4TH OF JULY EVENTS.
Hoffman : Just wanted to quickly go over the events which are taking place .
I 'm sure you all looked through it and to formally invite you as
Commissioners to participate in any of the events .
Sietsema: Formally get a commitment from each of you.
Mady: Do you formally have commission t-shirts?
Lash: What do you need?
Hoffman : Sunday, family day we need some help and community picnic can
always use some more help.
Boyt : I ' ll do the community picnic .
Hoffman : Sunday, the family day. The family games from like noon to 4 : 00 .
We have a lot of family games going on, organizing a lot of children.
Sietsema: And I need lots of help. ,
Boyt: I 'd like to do the sand sculpture.
Mady: I will be out of town this year . ,
•
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
' June 27 , 1989 - Page 61
I Hoffman: The street dance is Saturday night . Sunday is family day at Lake
III Ann. Tuesday evening is the fireworks . If you want to help with parking ,
yes . If you want to be a parking attendant .
IBoyt: I have a question. Are we going to shuttle?
Hoffman : No . Shuttle' s are more of a pain in the neck than they' re worth.
IBoyt: How are people going to get out there?
IMady: The same way they always do .
Hoffman : Walk and we' ll drive. We' ve have Carver County Deputies on duty
Iparking cars and getting them back out onto TH 5. So that' s my report on
the 4th of July. It ' s been a long road . There' s a lot of work put into it
and I think it' s going to be another good year.
IRobinson: It keeps getting better each year .
Hoffman: The next time around I ' ll have a written report on how teen night
Iout went . It was a great success and look forward to it being more kids at
the July evening. The Chanhassen Lion' s did a wonderful job on this one
this past Friday and we had about 75-80 teenagers up there and they had a
great time.
•
Sietsema : He ' s doing a great job isn' t he?
IHoffman: We also did a clean-up of Lake Ann from the boundary of Lake Ann
Park all the way around to Greenwood Shores last Tuesday morning . Four
gate attendants and myself and cleaned up years and years and years worth
Iof garbage and plastics and paper .
Schroers : Do you see a need for a garbage can or two along that route?
IHoffman: Yes. Definitely.
Schroers : I think we asked for that and I haven ' t seen it there yet .
IHoffman: And snapping turtle breeding location as well .
IMady: Why don' t we get this gate thing across the trail and this chain .
Hoffman: Yes , they' ll put that out of there. Have you seen the new gate
at the beach? It will be something of that nature .
ISchroers: Yes, let' s get rid of those other things becaues they' re just
junk.
IHoffman: Yes . That will be pulled out of there .
Lash: I 'm just waiting for somebody to come riding through there at dusk
Iand hit that chain on their bike.
I
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
g
June 27, 1989 - Page 62
Hoffman : I ' ll mention it to Dale just to pull them out of there just to
get rid of them for now.
Schroers : Got anymore 4th of July Todd?
Hoffman: Fireworks over the lake on Tuesday. We' re having a singer out
there to entertain. Jeff Brookes .
Mady: Do you need any help Tuesday night? I should be back in town by
6: 00.
Hoffman: Good . Stop out at Lake Ann about 7: 00. We' ll go to work. We' ll
stick a t-shirt on you.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
Boyt : Have you scheduled our meeting with Council yet?
Sietsema: July 10th. 6 : 00. Monday night before the City Council meeting .
Boyt: And I 'd like to work on putting together that spring clean-up for
next April .
Mady: Did they do the goose clean-up out here?
Sietsema: They' re doing them this week.
Mady: For next year , I want to ask the Commission to consider Lotus Lake.
Sietsema: They want to take the geese off Lotus Lake?
Mady: At least on our dock.
Hoffman: The north end is full of them. '
Schroers : I don ' t know that we can cater to personal wants . It ' s got to
be good for the entire city. Now does the entire city get to use your
dock?
Mady: They do get to use North Lotus Lake Park and we do do it at
Minnewashta.
Boyt : The dock at South Lotus was under water .
Robinson: Yes, it' s been that way for a long time.
Sietsema: I told Dale about it and he knew about it but I don ' t know if
he's going to do anything about it.
Mady: Are we going to extend the trail in Chan Pond Park past the . . .
•
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
IJune 27 , 1989 - Page 63
ISietsema: Yes . The only thing is when they built the bridge they were
supposed to have that one end flushed so they only had to build the ramp up
on the one side . Well it didn' t turn out that way so he has to get the
Iramp on the other side so he can' t get over there yet.
Mady: I was walking it this weekend . Got to the end . . .once you get to the
bridge. You only have the option of turning around or walking through.
ISietsema: Yes , he' s going to mow the trail all the way around but he has
to get that ramp in first.
IMady: Have we mowed the trail? I didn' t go across the smaller bridge up
to where the bituminous and the stairway. Have you mowed that? That thing
Ihas gotten overgrown. It' s maybe 2 feet wide in spots .
Sietsema: He indicated that he'd been out there and mowed it half way
around so I don' t know if he did that or not .
IMady: It was really narrow.
ISietsema : Did you notice that the barbed wire is being removed out of Chan
Pond?
Mady: I was looking for it and I didn' t see it . I saw the posts and I
Ididn't see any barbed wire so that must mean it' s gone.
Hoffman : Jay Johnson removed barbed wire out of Lake Ann Park as well .
ISietsema : Actually we have a person who has to do some community service
in the community and he' s the one who ' s taking the barbed wire out .
•t Chan Pond. He' s doing a good job.
Schroers : Any other commission presentations?
IErhart: Jan and I went to that workshop. However it is kind of late but
we have run off copies of information they passed out to us if anyone ' s
interested.
IBoyt : We can review it and talk about it next time.
Erhart: I want each and every one of you to take the test on the last
Ipage.
Lash : I also wrote mine out . I thought I 'd give it to Lori .
I
Mady moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
Ithe motion carried . The meeting was adjourned .
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
I
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
111